Title
Supreme Court
Huang Chua vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 128095
Decision Date
Jan 19, 2001
Employees accused of attempted theft of company goods; Supreme Court acquitted due to insufficient evidence, hearsay, and constitutional violations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167400)

Facts of the Case

Manuel and Nestor, along with Paquito Lu Andaliza, were employees of Clothman, where they were engaged in various roles related to the handling of materials. On October 16, 1989, during a routine inspection by Nixon Uy Lee, the Division Manager, it was discovered that a truck owned by Nestor was leaving the compound loaded with unauthorized finished materials, specifically fabric and yarn valued at ₱105,000.00, rather than the intended scrap materials it was supposed to contain. Nestor indicated that both Manuel and Paquito had convinced him to take the goods, intending to share the profits after their sale.

Charges Filed

Following the incident, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Miguel C. Reyes filed an information for attempted qualified theft against the three individuals. They were accused of conspiring to steal by removing items from Clothman without consent. All three accused pleaded not guilty.

Regional Trial Court Decision

On July 17, 1991, the Regional Trial Court found Manuel and Paquito guilty of attempted qualified theft, sentencing them to an indeterminate imprisonment term of 10 to 20 years. Nestor was convicted of attempted theft and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 6 years as minimum to 15 years and 4 months as maximum. The court based its verdict on Mr. Lee’s statements, the inventory of truck content, and the testimonies of various witnesses, including a patrolman.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Petitioners Manuel and Nestor appealed their convictions. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s findings against them but acquitted Paquito due to a lack of evidence linking him to the criminal acts. The Court emphasized the positive identification of Nestor by witnesses and deemed the gate pass issued to Manuel as indicative of his complicity.

Petition for Review

After their motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioners elevated the matter for review. They challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented, questioning the credibility of the prosecution’s case against them.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, acquitting them based on insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted several factor

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.