Case Summary (G.R. No. 251732)
Background of the Case
On August 25, 2017, an Information was filed against Tijam and Bacsid for theft, alleging that they conspired to steal Mugot's Samsung Galaxy A7 cellular phone valued at Php 25,000. Mugot claimed that while waiting for a bus at SM Mall of Asia in Pasay City, he was pinned against a bus door by Bacsid, leading to his phone falling from his pocket and later being handed to Bacsid by Tijam. The petitioners denied the allegations, asserting that Tijam had simply found the phone on the ground.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
The RTC found the petitioners guilty of theft, noting that the prosecution established all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied heavily on the presumption that possession of a recently stolen item indicates guilt and found the petitioners' explanations insufficient to refute this presumption. Tijam was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)
The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing Mugot's positive identification of Bacsid and Tijam's actions in relation to the phone. The CA dismissed the petitioners' defense, reinforcing the prosecution's narrative and maintaining that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported their guilt.
Issues Raised
The main issue was whether the prosecution proved the petitioners' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioners argued that the prosecution failed to prove unlawful taking and that the circumstantial evidence did not support their conviction. They contended that their denials should not be disregarded given the unsatisfactory nature of the prosecution's evidence.
Parameters of Judicial Review
Rule 45 concerning judicial review highlights that facts are generally not re-evaluated in such petitions unless the findings are based on conjecture or misapprehension of facts. The Court found that the RTC and CA's conclusions stemmed from insufficient evidence, warranting a re-examination of the circumstances involved.
Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence
While the prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including allegations of Bacsid pinning Mugot and Tijam holding the phone, the Court concluded that such evidence did not sufficiently establish theft. It noted that the elements of theft, including unlawful taking and intent to gain, were not convincingly demonstrated.
Legal Presumption and Explanation of Possession
The Court critically evaluated the application of the disputable presumption of guilt based on possession of stolen property. It emphasized the need
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 251732)
Parties and Nature of the Case
- Petitioners: Julius Enrico Tijam y Noche and Kenneth Bacsid y Ruiz.
- Respondent: People of the Philippines.
- Charge: Theft under Article 308, in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Case involves appeal following conviction of petitioners for theft of a Samsung Galaxy A7 cellular phone valued at Php25,000.00.
Factual Background
- Incident occurred on or about August 18, 2017, at SM Mall of Asia, Pasay City.
- Complainant Kim Mugot was boarding a bus when he was pinned against the bus door by Bacsid.
- Mugot's Samsung Galaxy A7 was taken from his right pocket.
- Mugot pursued the person who pinned him and saw Tijam handing over the phone to Bacsid.
- Security guard apprehended petitioners following the incident.
Petitioners' Defense
- Petitioners denied the charge.
- Tijam testified he merely found the cellular phone on the ground and showed it to Bacsid.
- Claimed Mugot grabbed the phone from Tijam and falsely accused them.
Trial Court Decision (RTC)
- RTC found petitioners guilty of Theft beyond reasonable doubt.
- Based conviction partly on disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Evidence regarding possession of recently stolen property.
- Faulted petitioners for failure to sufficiently explain possession of the cellular phone.
- Imposed indeterminate penalty ranging from 5 months arresto mayor to 2 years prision correccional.
Court of Appeals Decision
- CA affirmed the RTC conviction on November 20, 2019.
- Cited positive identification of Bacsid by Mugot and Tijam's possession and handing over of the device.
- Rejected petitioners' denial.
- Denied motion for reconsideration on January 29, 2020.
Issue on Appeal
- Whether the petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Theft.
Legal Parameters on Review of Factual Findings
- General rule: factual findings are not reexamined on appeal by certiorari.
- Exceptions arise when findings are based on speculation, conjecture, misapprehension of facts, or when there is grave abuse of discretion.
- Review warranted here due to findings grounded on conjectures and insufficient evidence.
Elements of Theft and Burden of Proof
- Theft defined as unlawful taking of another's personal property without violence or intimi