Edukasyon Online Your Online Education Portal

D E C I S I O N

GAERLAN, J.:

A determination of guilt hinges on how a court appreciates evidentiary matters in relation to the requisites of an offense, and is thus, fundamentally a factual issue. As a general rule, factual matters are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari, as it is not the Court's function to analyze or weigh the evidence which has been considered in the proceedings below. Nonetheless, a review of the factual findings is justified under any of the following circumstances:

(i) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;

(ii) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(iii) when there is grave abuse of discretion;

(iv) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(v) when the findings of fact are conflicting;

(vi) when in making its findings[,] the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

(vii) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court;

(viii) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(ix) when the facts set forth in the petition[,] as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs[,] are not disputed by the respondent;

(x) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; [or]

(xi) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.

As will be shown, the findings of the RTC and the CA are based on speculations, surmises or conjectures, thereby warranting a review of the facts.

The prosecution failed to prove the petitioners' guilt for simple theft beyond reasonable doubt.

Article 308 of the RPC defines Theft as the physical taking of another's property without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. To sustain a conviction for theft, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt, namely: (i) the taking of personal property; (ii) the property belongs to another; (iii) the taking was done with intent to gain; (iv) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; and (v) the taking is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things.

The burden to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused lies with the prosecution. In this regard, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and should not draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

In the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction if: (i) there is more than one circumstance; (ii) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (iii) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The inferences cannot be based on other inferences.

Likewise, the circumstances must constitute an unbroken chain that leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person. Moreover, the circumstances proven must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt.

In this case, the prosecution relied on the following circumstances to prove the petitioners' liability for theft:

The Court finds that the combination of the aforementioned circumstances, even if given full faith and credit, do not establish the elements of Theft.

It cannot be gainsaid that the only overt acts remotely connecting Bacsid to the purported Theft are Mugot's allegations that Bacsid pinned him against the bus door and thereafter, walked back to the waiting area. By no stretch of the imagination may the act of pinning someone establish the unlawful taking of property. Besides, it is strange that Mugot claimed that Bacsid pinned him to the bus door at his (Mugot's) left side, while the cellular phone was taken from his right pocket.

On the other hand, the only conspicuous deed hinting at Tijam's participation is the fact that he held Mugot's cellular phone and allegedly handed the same to Bacsid at the passenger waiting area. However, there is nothing in the records to indicate that Mugot saw Tijam inside the bus or show that the latter was there when his cellular phone was purportedly stolen.

Mugot further related that he was rushing inside the bus with other commuters. It was therefore not impossible for the purported Theft (if it indeed occurred), to have been committed by someone else. To stress, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, must exclude the possibility that some other person committed the crime, which does not obtain here.

At best, the circumstantial evidence presented merely arouses suspicion or gives room for conjecture, which is not sufficient to convict. Overall, the circumstances do not constitute an unbroken chain that points to the petitioners, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty persons. Worse, the facts from which the inferences are derived have not been substantially proven and fail to engender a moral certainty of guilt. Thus, the petitioners' constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail.

Tijam's possession of the cellular phone was satisfactorily explained.

Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Evidence lays the disputable presumption "that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act." Latching on to said presumption, the RTC and the CA surmised that Tijam's possession of the cellular phone proves that he and Bacsid conspired with each other to steal it from Mugot.

Jurisprudence exhorts that courts should be mindful before applying said presumption and first undertake a thorough examination of the facts of the case. Failure to do so may result to unjust convictions that will lead to the forfeiture of one's life, liberty, and property.

Significantly, in Mabunga v. People, the Court stringently warned against the indiscriminate application of presumptions in criminal cases:

In criminal cases, however, presumptions should be taken with caution especially in light of serious concerns that they might water down the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As special considerations must be given to the right of the accused to be presumed innocent, there should be limits on the use of presumptions against an accused.

Although possession of stolen property within a limited time from the commission of the theft or robbery is not in itself a crime, it being possible to possess the same and remain innocent, such possession may be sufficient for the formation of an inference that the possessor is the thief unless the evidence satisfactorily proves that the property was acquired by the accused by legal means.

x x x x

Before an inference of guilt arising from possession of recently stolen goods can be made, however, the following basic facts need to be proven by the prosecution: (1) that the crime was committed; (2) that the crime was committed recently; (3) that the stolen property was found in the possession of the defendant; and (4) that the defendant is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily.

For purposes moreover of conclusively proving possession, the following considerations have to be emphasized: (1) the possession must be unexplained by any innocent origin; (2) the possession must be fairly recent; and (3) the possession must be exclusive.

In this case, Tijam satisfactorily explained that he saw the cellular phone lying on the pavement, and thus picked it up. Such explanation is plausible in view of Mugot's own narration that there was an onslaught of passengers rushing inside the bus, which could have caused him to drop his cellular phone. Significantly, records are bereft of proof that Mugot saw Tijam inside the bus or anywhere near it when his cellular phone was lost or stolen.

It is also worth noting that it was never established that Bacsid had possession of the cellular phone. Records show that after Tijam picked up the cellular phone, he showed it to Bacsid. At this point, Mugot stormed on them and haphazardly accused them of stealing said device.

It bears stressing that the fact of possession alone, wholly unconnected with any other circumstances, cannot be used as a ground to convict. Clearly, the disputable presumption cannot prevail over the petitioners' explanation. Tijam's possession having been explained, the legal presumption is disputed and thus, cannot be the sole basis for the conviction. To hold otherwise, will be a travesty of justice as criminal convictions necessarily require proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the equipoise rule in criminal cases ordains that when inculpatory facts are susceptible of two or more interpretations, one that is consistent with the innocence of the accused, and the other consistent with his/her guilt, then the evidence fails to hurdle the test of moral certainty required to support a conviction. Consequently, where the evidence is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.

Finally, the petitioners' defense of denial cannot be brushed aside in view of the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. Although a denial partakes of the nature of negative and self-serving evidence and is seldom given weight in law, still the defense of denial assumes significance when the prosecution's evidence fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the petitioners' denial, which gave way to a sufficient explanation behind their possession engenders a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

All told, the Court must judge the petitioners' guilt or innocence based on facts and not on mere conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions. The highest quantum of proof is required as the petitioners' life and liberty are at stake. In this case, the facts from which the inferences were derived were not proven; the totality of the circumstances miserably failed to point to the petitioners to the exclusion of all others as the malefactors; the disputable presumption conjecturally relied upon by the RTC and the CA was sufficiently rebutted; and the evidence presented was susceptible of two interpretations. Due to the prosecution's failure to prove the petitioners' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, their presumption of innocence, enshrined in the Constitution and stringently guarded by the Court, must be upheld. Accordingly, the petitioners must be acquitted of the charge.