Case Summary (G.R. No. 228150)
Petitioner and Respondent
• Petitioners: Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro
• Respondent: People of the Philippines
Key Dates
• March 20, 1995 – Petitioners facilitate Atibula’s attendance at Atienza’s birthday party and engage Dario’s assistance in retrieving CA decisions
• April 21, 1995 – Atienza offers bribe to Atibula for Volume 260
• May 9, 1995 – Missing Volume 266 is discovered
• May 18, 1995 – Volume 266 is returned, purportedly at Castro’s instruction
• June 8, 2006 – Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicts petitioners of robbery and falsification
• November 28, 2008 – Court of Appeals (CA) affirms RTC decision
• February 12, 2014 – Supreme Court issues final decision
Applicable Law and Constitution
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered post-1990)
• Revised Penal Code, Article 299(a)(1) – Robbery in an inhabited house or public building
• Revised Penal Code, Articles 171(6) and 172(1) – Falsification of Public Document
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 32(2) – Jurisdiction of Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts
Facts of the Case
Atienza and Castro, CA employees, enlisted Dario to locate and remove CA Original Decisions—specifically affecting Volume 266—by exploiting an opening created for air-conditioning maintenance. Following an unsuccessful bribery attempt to obtain Volume 260, Atibula reported that Volume 266 was missing. Two inserted documents—purportedly recalling and amending an earlier CA decision—were later discovered, and laboratory examination by the NBI confirmed that the signatures on those documents were forged.
RTC Decision
The RTC convicted petitioners of:
- Robbery under Article 299(a)(1) RPC, finding unauthorized entry and removal of Volume 266 through an opening not intended for egress;
- Falsification of Public Document under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(6) RPC, based on intercalation of forged resolution and decision;
It inferred conspiracy from the coordinated acts of petitioners and imposed indeterminate terms of imprisonment and fines.
CA Decision
The CA upheld the convictions by applying circumstantial-evidence principles, concluding that the aggregate testimony of Atibula and NBI agents, coupled with the circumstances of removal and return of Volume 266, established petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also inferred conspiracy from petitioners’ coordinated efforts and Castro’s possession of the falsified volume.
Supreme Court Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence
- Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the accused.
- Castro’s alleged role rested solely on a hearsay affidavit by Nelson de Castro, inadmissible without the affiant’s in-court testimony. No direct or corroborated evidence linked Castro to the crimes.
- Atienza’s only proved act was an attempted bribe regarding a different volume, which at most demonstrated motive but did not establish participation in the actual theft or falsification of Volume 266.
- No concrete proof of prior agreement or concerted design between peti
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228150)
Procedural History
- Petitioners Atienza and Castro, employees of the Court of Appeals (CA) Budget Division, were criminally charged in RTC–Manila, Branch 21 (Criminal Case Nos. 01-197425 and 01-197426), for Robbery (Art. 299(a)(1), RPC) and Falsification of Public Document (Arts. 172(1) & 171(6), RPC).
- On June 8, 2006, the RTC found both petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt and meted out indeterminate penalties of prision correccional for Robbery and prision correccional plus fine for Falsification.
- Petitioners appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CR. No. 30650), which, in a November 28, 2008 Decision, affirmed the RTC in toto. A July 7, 2009 motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The Supreme Court docketed the petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 188694) to determine whether the circumstantial evidence sufficed to sustain conviction.
Facts
- Atienza (Budget Officer I) and Castro (Utility Worker I) worked in the CA Budget Division; Juanito Atibula was Records Officer I and custodian of CA Original Decisions in the Reporteras Division.
- March 20, 1995: Castro invited Atibula to Atienza’s birthday party; Atienza tasked Atibula to fetch the CA decision in Mateo Fernando v. Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc. (CA-G.R. No. 36808-R).
- Atibula and an associate called “Dario” retrieved Volume 260 from the shelved Original Decisions; Dario also examined Volumes 265 and 267, marking pages.
- March 24, 1995: Outside office hours, Dario requested Atibula to insert a decision into the bound volumes; Atibula refused.
- April 21, 1995: Atienza offered P50,000 for Volume 260 and insulted Atibula when he declined; Atibula reported the incident to Asst. Chief Macapagal, who hid Volumes 260, 265, 267.
- May 9, 1995: Atibula discovered Volume 266 (Jan. 28–Feb. 12, 1969) missing and reported it; May 11, 1995: Atienza cursed Atibula.
- May 18, 1995: Nelson de Castro delivered a gift-wrapped package containing Volume 266, allegedly at Alfredo Castro’s instruction.
NBI Investigation and Findings
- The CA Presiding Justice tasked the NBI to examine Volume 266’s authenticity.
- Questioned Documents Report No. 937-1295: Volume 266 was altered; signatures on a Feb. 11, 1969 Resolution and an April 16, 1970 Decision were forged.
- Ocular inspection revealed no signs of forced entry; perpetrators accessed the Reporteras Division through a hole left by a removed air-conditioning unit.
- The NBI concluded a concerted plan between Atienza and