Case Digest (G.R. No. 170863)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 170863)
Facts:
Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170863, March 20, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta (petitioner) sought review of the Court of Appeals' June 27, 2005 decision and November 24, 2005 resolution in CA‑G.R. CR No. 28369 affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 3's January 12, 2004 conviction of petitioner for qualified theft.On April 26, 2002 an Information charged petitioner and Concordio O. Loyao, Jr. with qualified theft allegedly committed “sometime in the month of October, 2001,” accusing petitioner — then project manager for the Porta Vaga building steel works — of directing the removal of wide flange steel beams valued at P2,269,731.69 from the project site without the owner’s consent. Petitioner pleaded not guilty at his November 12, 2002 arraignment; Loyao remained at large.
At trial the prosecution presented witnesses (including Danilo Bernardo, Edgardo Cano, Roberto Buen, Efren Marcelo, Engr. Lorna Marigondon and Apolinaria de Jesus) and documentary exhibits (security logbook entries, delivery receipts, photographs, letters and affidavits). The evidence showed that Anmar (subcontractor) ordered steel beams from Linton Commercial, hired Junio Trucking to deliver them to Baguio, and that petitioner — entrusted with receiving and checking materials — allegedly instructed truck drivers and welders to unload multiple beams twice in October 2001 and once in November 2001 at locations along Marcos Highway and Mabini Street. Subsequent inventory checks and photographs by Anmar’s warehouseman Marcelo, and security logbook entries, corroborated the removal; attempts to recover the beams failed and the loss was valued at P2,269,731.69.
The RTC, finding the prosecution witnesses credible and rejecting petitioner’s denial, convicted petitioner of qualified theft on January 12, 2004 and sentenced him to imprisonment of 10 years and 3 months to 20 years, ordered indemnity of P2,269,731.69 with interest and awarded P100,000 moral damages to Engr. Marigondon. On appeal petitioner contested witnesses’ inconsistencies and his employment status (he claimed employment by AMCGS, not Anmar). The Court of Appeals, in a June 27, 2005 decision, affirmed the conviction, credited the prosecution’s evidence, noted petitioner received salary from Anmar, and deleted the award of moral damages; its denial of reconsideration was docketed November 24, 2005. Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was the allegation “sometime in the month of October, 2001” in the Information sufficient notice to petitioner when evidence showed some acts occurred in November 2001?
- Was the corpus delicti established and were the elements of qualified theft proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was the penalty imposed by the RTC properly named and computed?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)