Title
Supreme Court
De la Torre vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 102786
Decision Date
Aug 14, 1998
Petitioner acquitted of qualified theft due to insufficient evidence, hearsay, and lack of credibility in sole witness testimony.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 22442)

Key Dates

  • April 11, 1989: Alleged removal of six electric meters at CAPASSCO premises
  • April 18–20, 1989: Discovery and reporting of missing meters by MERALCO
  • July 4, 1989: Police lineup identifying petitioner
  • July 13, 1989: Filing of information for qualified theft (Revised Penal Code Arts. 309–310)
  • December 28, 1989–February 1, 1990: RTC trial
  • March 16, 1990: RTC conviction and indemnity order (P41,786)
  • June 18, 1991: CA affirmation
  • August 14, 1998: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 12 (rights during custodial investigation)
  • Revised Penal Code, Articles 309 and 310 (qualified theft)
  • Revised Rules of Court, Rule 132 (testimony offer, hearsay, and proof)
  • Exclusionary rule on confessions and admissions
  • Precedents: Gamboa v. Cruz; People v. Java; People v. Valero; People v. Ibal

Facts

In April 1989, MERALCO engineers discovered six electric meters missing from the Cathay Pacific Steel and Smelting Corporation (CAPASSCO) premises in Novaliches, Quezon City. Investigation by Patrolman Enopia led to eyewitness Danilo Garcia, who on July 4, 1989, identified petitioner—among eight men in a police lineup—as the leader of a MERALCO service crew that removed the meters on April 11, 1989.

Procedural History

An information for qualified theft was filed on July 13, 1989. The RTC of Quezon City convicted de la Torre on March 16, 1990, sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of 6 years, 1 month, and 11 days to 8 years and 1 day, and ordered P41,786 indemnity to MERALCO. The Court of Appeals affirmed on June 18, 1991, and denied reconsideration. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether petitioner’s constitutional rights under Art. III, Sec. 12 (rights to silence and counsel) were violated during the police lineup.
  2. Whether the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were admissible despite lack of formal offer under Rule 132.
  3. Whether hearsay certifications were improperly given probative value.
  4. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of Danilo Garcia proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Court’s Analysis

  1. Custodial Rights and Lineup: The Court distinguished a police lineup from custodial interrogation. Since no questioning was directed at petitioner during the lineup, his Article III, Section 12 rights were not triggered, and the exclusionary rule did not apply.

  2. Formal Offer of Testimony: Under the post-July 1, 1989 amendments to Rule 132, testimonial evidence must be offered at the time a witness testifies. Petitioner failed to object at trial or invoke the rule, thereby waiving any defect in formal offer.

  3. Hearsay Evidence: Certifications (Exhibits M, N, P) stating MERALCO did not authorize meter removal or receive related complaints were hearsay. Because their declarants were not presented for cross-examination, those documents carried no probati

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.