Title
Zabala vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 210760
Decision Date
Jan 26, 2015
Kyle Zabala acquitted of theft as Supreme Court found insufficient evidence; circumstantial proof failed to exclude others' involvement, upholding presumption of innocence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147839)

Key Dates

  • Decision by Regional Trial Court: July 7, 2011
  • Decision by Court of Appeals: July 15, 2013
  • Resolution by Court of Appeals: January 8, 2014
  • Supreme Court Decision: January 26, 2015

Applicable Law

The applicable law in this case is the Revised Penal Code, particularly Articles 308 and 309 concerning theft.

Facts of the Case

An Information was filed against Kyle Anthony Zabala, alleging theft of ₱68,000 belonging to Randolph Alas. The incident took place on June 18, 2007. The prosecution presented testimonies mainly from Alas and Piñon, while the defense relied on testimonies from Zabala and Ganas.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution established that Zabala, a jeepney driver, had a close relationship with Alas, who often invited him to his home. On the day of the theft, Alas left his house for work, only to return later that evening to find his money missing. Piñon testified that she witnessed Zabala climb the fence to enter Alas’s house and saw him come out with a bulge in his pocket, which she believed contained cash. Later, the couple went to purchase cellphones.

Version of the Defense

Zabala testified that he was occupied driving his jeepney and did not visit Alas’s home on the day in question. Ganas corroborated this, emphasizing that they spent the day together without dropping by Alas's house.

Ruling of the RTC

On July 7, 2011, the RTC convicted Zabala of theft based on the prosecution's evidence, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to indemnify Alas for the stolen amount.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA upheld the RTC's decision on July 15, 2013, affirming that the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt primarily through circumstantial evidence. The CA modified the penalty but maintained the conviction.

Issues Raised

  1. Whether the CA erred by giving full credence to the prosecution's testimonies.
  2. Whether the evidence on record supported a conviction.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the evidence against Zabala was insufficient for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasized that while circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction, it must form an unbroken chain leading dire

...continue reading

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