Title
Candelaria vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 209386
Decision Date
Dec 8, 2014
A truck driver, entrusted with delivering diesel fuel, failed to deliver, abandoned the truck, and was convicted of Qualified Theft based on circumstantial evidence, sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209386)

Key Dates

  • August 23, 2006: Diesel fuel order and alleged misappropriation
  • August 24, 2006: Abandoned truck found in Calamba, Laguna
  • June 21, 2011: RTC Decision convicting petitioner
  • January 31, 2013: CA Decision affirming conviction with modified indemnity
  • September 3, 2013: CA Resolution denying reconsideration
  • December 8, 2014: Supreme Court Decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution
  • Revised Penal Code (RPC) Articles 309 (Penalties for Theft) and 310 (Qualified Theft)

Facts

On August 23, 2006, Viron Transit Corporation ordered 14,000 liters of diesel fuel valued at ₱497,000.00 from Unioil. Petitioner Candelaria was assigned to deliver the fuel aboard truck PTA-945. When Viron reported non-receipt at 5 PM, Lao discovered that Candelaria and his helper Romano had left Unioil premises at 12:50 PM. Calls to Candelaria went unanswered. Romano returned alone around 6 PM, alleging that Candelaria threatened him with a balisong. Lao reported the incident to the Manila Police District and Camp Crame. A few days later, the NBI recovered the empty truck in Calamba. Lao filed Qualified Theft charges against Candelaria. Witnesses Lita Valera and Claro corroborated Lao’s version. Candelaria denied direct linkage and challenged the hearsay testimony of Romano.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court convicted Candelaria of Qualified Theft under RPC Articles 309 and 310, finding all elements proven:
a. Taking of personal property (diesel fuel)
b. Property belonged to another (Lao)
c. Intent to gain
d. Absence of owner’s consent
e. No violence or force used
f. Commission by a domestic servant with grave abuse of confidence

The RTC relied on the following circumstances: Candelaria drove the loaded truck; Viron did not receive the fuel; Lao’s report to authorities; and recovery of the empty truck in Laguna. The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of 14 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, ordered indemnification of ₱497,000.00, and costs.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence sufficed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that Candelaria abused the confidence reposed in him. Citing jurisprudence, it noted that drivers who misappropriate employer’s cargo commit Qualified Theft. The CA modified the indemnity to ₱14,000.00 for lack of documentary proof of fuel value. A motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted petitioner of Qualified Theft based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling:

  1. Elements of Qualified Theft under RPC Articles 309 and 310 were present.
  2. Circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain leading exclusively to petitioner’s guilt:
    • Assignment to deliver 14,000 liters of fuel
    • Failure to deliver and non-response to calls
    • Romano’s report of threat
    • Police reports and recovery of empty truck
    • Petitioner’s failure to return to work
  3. Hearsay issue was immaterial given the totality of circumstances.
  4. Unexplained disappearance of fuel under petitioner’s custody and his flight reinforced guilt.

Legal Analysis on Circumstantial Evidence

Under Rule 133, Section 4, conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence if:
a. Multiple circumstances are proven;
b. Each fact is established;
c. Combined circumstances yield guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Here, the proven facts were consistent only with petitioner’s misappropriation, excluding all



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.