PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL TABADA, JR. Y MELES A.K.A. “PAENG”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BRUSELAS, JR. J.:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused RAFAEL TABADA, JR. y MELES a.k.a. “Paeng” GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft defined and penalized under Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code.
There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance proven, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period (Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code).
For the theft of an MSI laptop valued at P 22,000.00, accused RAFAEL TABADA, JR. y MELES is hereby imposed an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, NINE (9) MONTHS and TEN (10) DAYS of prision correctional [sic] in its medium period as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum.
Concerning the civil liability aspect of the crime, Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the accused is obliged to return to the private offended party the stolen item, whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration or diminution of value (People v. Daniela, et al., G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003). Since restitution is no longer possible as the MSI laptop in this case was never recovered from the scene of the crime, accused RAFAEL TABADA, JR. y MELES is directed to PAY owner Aldrin Yamzon y Abal the amount of TWENTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P 22,000.00).
With costs de oficio against the accused.
SO ORDERED.”[2]
Appellant Tabada stood charged under the crime of theft, the accusory portion of which read:
“That on or about August 23, 2011, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away a LAPTOP (MSI) valued at P 22,000.00, belonging to ALDRIN YAMZON Y ABAL, to the damage and prejudice of the aforesaid owner in the said amount of P 22,000.00, Philippine Currency.
Contrary to law.”[3]
During the arraignment, Tabada pleaded “not guilty” to the felony with which he was charged.[4]
During pre-trial, the following stipulations were made: (1) that the offense was committed in the City of Manila; and (2) the identity of the accused as the same person charged in the information.[5]
During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Marilyn Yamzon y Abal (“Marilyn”), the private complainant’s sister and eyewitness to the offense; (2) PO2 Christian Brual (“PO2 Brual”), one of the arresting officers; (3) Private complainant Aldrin Yamzon (“Aldrin”); (4) Barangay Chairman Corazon S. Viñas (“Viñas”) of Barangay 110, Zone 9, District 1 of Manila; and (5) PO2 Bernardo Libunao (“PO2 Libunao”), whose proposed direct testimony was stipulated upon. The defense, on the other hand, presented accused-appellant Tabada as its sole witness.
According to the prosecution’s version of the facts, it appears that on August 23, 2011, at around 3:00 mid morning, prosecution witness Marilyn was doing laundry at the bathroom of their bungalow house when she heard an unusual noise coming from the window. Her instinct made her look into the direction of the noise and she immediately saw a man carrying her brother’s laptop. Realizing that her brother’s laptop was placed near the window, she sprung from her position and strained to find out who the man was, who now sprinted out the window. As soon as she peeped from the window, it was the face of her long-time neighbor, Tabada, whom she saw illumined by the lamp post.
Marilyn readily shook her brother, Aldrin, from his sleep to tell him about his stolen laptop. Aldrin attempted to run after the accused but it proved too late as the accused already dashed away. Marilyn told her brother to instead report the incident to the barangay authorities as soon as morning came.
At around eleven o’clock in the morning of the same day, Marilyn and Aldrin proceeded to the barangay hall of Barangay 110, Zone 9, District 1 of Manila, to report the incident. It was from the barangay authorities that they learned that Tabada had been arrested earlier and detained at the Raxabago Police Precinct No. 1. At the police precinct where Tabada was detained, Marilyn identified appellant as the one who stole her brother’s laptop.
Aldrin claimed that he bought his laptop on a cash basis from SM Cubao in the amount of Twenty Two Thousand Pesos (P 22,000.00).
In lieu of the intended testimony of PO2 Libunao, the following stipulations were instead entered into: (1) the existence and due execution of the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension; (2) the existence of the letter-referral of Supt. Marvin Wynn Marcos to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila; and (3) the existence of the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report made on Tabada.[6]
The defense, on the other hand, presented a different version of the facts as Tabada denied the charge against him. He claimed that at around seven o’clock in the morning of 23 August 2011, he may have been arrested by their barangay chairman for theft because he stole the LPG Gasul tank belonging to another neighbor, but that he was not responsible for stealing the laptop owned by Aldrin Yamzon. After his arrest, Tabada was taken to Precinct No. 1 and was charged with the felony, but the case was eventually dismissed because the LPG Gasul tank was returned to the owners.
Tabada alleged that he only learned of the stolen laptop when Aldrin filed a complaint against him and pointed to him as the one who took his laptop while already at Precinct No. 1, although the said laptop was not recovered from him.
Tabada maintained that he knew Aldrin because they grew up together and he used to live in the latter’s house as a houseboy. At the time of the arrest, however, he was no longer a houseboy of the Yamzons. Tabada also claimed that Aldrin had a grudge against him because they had a fistfight two (2) months after the alleged theft incident. He claimed that at one time an altercation ensued between him and Aldrin when the latter pointed a gun at his buddies while they were having a drinking spree in front of the house of Aldrin.
After the trial, the court a quo rendered the assailed decision finding Tabada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple theft.
Hence, this appeal.
Tabada seeks his acquittal by raising the following assignment of errors:
“I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S VERSION AND DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND RELYING ON THE IMPROBABLE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS MARILYN YAMZON;
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;
IV.
EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE UNLAWFUL TAKING OF ALDRIN YAMZON’S LAPTOP, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ALLEGED VALUE OF THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE, AND IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF FOUR (4) YEARS, NINE (9) MONTHS and TEN (10) DAYS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL AND ITS MEDIUM PERIOD AS MINIMUM TO EIGHT (8) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS OF PRISION MAYOR IN ITS MEDIUM PERIOD AS MAXIMUM.”
Tabada maintains that his conviction was brought about by the improbable testimony of prosecution witness Marilyn, to which the court a quo has ascribed, effectively disregarding the accused-appellant’s version and his defense of denial.
Appellant Tabada claims that the prosecution failed to positively identity him as the one who took the purported missing laptop because there was nothing in the testimony of prosecution witness, Marilyn, that would show that she actually saw him take away the supposed missing laptop of her brother Aldrin. He points to the testimony of Marilyn during cross examination, wherein she admitted that from the place where she was washing clothes, she could not see the laptop of her brother; thus, Tabada insists that it was impossible for Marilyn to see who actually took the supposed missing laptop of her brother.
A careful perusal of the pertinent portion of the said cross-examination, however, reveals that while Marilyn was doing laundry in an area where she could not see the laptop near the window, she immediately went to the window to check out the noises that she heard. It was then when she peeped through a window that she saw a person holding the laptop of his brother and that she was able to identify the person as appellant Tabada because he was standing in front of their house near a lighted Meralco post. A portion of the cross examination of Marilyn conducted by the defense counsel, Atty. Cuevas is hereunder quoted to show in better light the identification made of the accused by the eyewitness:
|
“ATTY. CUEVAS, JR.
|
|
|
Q
|
Did you see the laptop before you did your chores as washing of your clothes?
|
|
A
|
Yes, sir. That’s where I sleep, sir.
|
|
Q
|
From the place where you were washing your clothes, can you see where the laptop was located?
|
|
A
|
No, sir.
|
|
Q
|
So you would not be able to see it?
|
|
A
|
Yes, sir.
|
|
Q
|
You stated also that you reported the incident to the barangay?
|
|
A
|
Yes, sir.
|
|
Q
|
And when did you report such incident?
|
|
A
|
In the morning, sir.
|
|
Q
|
In the morning at around what time?
|
| A |
Around 11:00, sir.
|
| Q |
At around 11:00, in the morning. How about filing the complaint against the accused?
|
| A |
After he was arrested, sir.
|
| Q |
When was the accused arrested?
|
| A |
August 25, sir.
|
| Q |
No. Relative to the date when you allegedly saw.
|
| A |
Also on that same day, sir.
|
| Q |
So you stated that you heard noises coming from the window?
|
| A |
Yes, sir.
|
| Q |
And what did you do when you heard these noises?
|
| A |
I immediately went to the window to check it out, sir.
|
| Q |
And what did you do when you went to the window?
|
| A |
I peeped in and I saw the person holding the laptop of my brother, sir. I knew the person, sir. |
| Q |
Where was that male person at that time you looked at the window?
|
| A |
He was already here near the Meralco Post. I was just in front of our house, sir.
|
| Q |
How far, for example that is the window where you were looking through, how far is the male person at that time?
|
| A |
Maybe he was about five (5) meters away from her, sir. (the witness is pointing to a lady inside the courtroom)”[7] (emphasis ours)
|
Marilyn’s direct examination likewise pointed to the appellant Tabada as the perpetrator of the crime,
| “Q |
Now, do you recall, madam witness, if any unusual incident happened on that day August 23, 2011 at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning?
|
| A |
Yes, sir. I heard some noise.
|
| Q |
What did you hear?
|
| A |
There was some noise coming from our window and I immediately went there to check it out, sir.
|
| Q |
So what did you do upon hearing that noise coming from your window?
|
| A |
I peeped in the [sic] saw a person carrying a laptop, sir.
|
| Q |
Where was that person located, inside your house or outside the window?
|
| A |
He was located outside of the house, sir, at the window and he was about to go out of the house.
|
| Q |
You said that person was carrying a laptop, did you recognize that laptop?
|
| A |
Yes, sir. It belong to my brother. It [sic] a new one.
|
| THE COURT: | |
| Q |
Pero yung tao, nakilala mo ba?
|
| A |
Yes, your Honor. He is my neighbor.
|
| Q |
You said, the man you saw is your neighbor. If you see the man again will you be able to recognize him?
|
| A |
Yes, sir.
|
| Q |
Look around the Court, is he present?
|
| A |
Yes, sir. |
| Q |
Can you point to him? |
| A | (pointing to the accused) |
| THE COURT INTERPRETER: | |
|
Please make it of record that the witness pointed to a [sic] one of the three detention prisoners, the one at the middle, who when asked of his identity answered the name…
|
|
|
THE ACCUSED:
|
|
| Rafael Tabada po.”[8] (emphasis ours) | |
Time and again, we have held that the testimony of a sole witness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court.[9] Indeed, when it comes to the credibility of witnesses, the Court accords the highest respect, even finality, to the evaluation made by the lower court of the testimonies of the witnesses presented before it.
From the testimony of the prosecution witness, Marilyn, it would appear that she had the opportunity to view who the thief was, especially so that she was familiar with the appearance of Tabada because the latter was their former houseboy. Marilyn had categorically, positively identified Tabada as the perpetrator of the crime.
While Tabada interposed the defense of denial as he claimed that he was involved in another crime of theft of an LPG Gasul tank of his neighbor, Rajo la Cruz, on the same day of the unlawful taking of the laptop, it cannot be denied that it was not physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the taking of the laptop. We note from the available records of the case that both Aldrin and Rajo resided in the same barangay. The former resided in Blue Street, Don Bosco, Tondo, while the latter resided in Purple Street, Don Bosco Tondo, where Tabada was arrested.
Tabada, in fact testified, that he stole the LPG Gasul tank at seven o’clock in the evening, but he cannot recall the exact date. It was, however, established that he was arrested for stealing an LPG Gasul tank on August 23, 2011, the same date that he was accused for stealing the subject laptop of Aldrin at three o’clock in the morning. That he admitted only to the stealing of the LPG Gasul tank does not mean that he did not also steal the laptop of Aldrin. He was, in fact, seen by the eyewitness Marilyn asporting the laptop in the early morning of August 23, 2011.
Tabada’s mere denial has not been substantiated by clear and convincing evidence to show the physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene at three o’clock in the morning, dawn of August 23, 2011.
We must remember that denial, just like alibi, is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused by the witness.[10] Absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, a categorical, consistent and positive identification of the accused prevails over denial and alibi.[11]
The grudge that Aldrin allegedly held against Tabada, to be the former’s ill motive in falsely charging the latter, cannot be given weight in the absence of any corroborative evidence.
We must be reminded of the elements constituting the crime of theft: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.[12]
In the case under review, we hold that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were sufficiently conclusive to convict Tabada beyond reasonable doubt for simple theft. Based on the accounts of the prosecution witnesses, the totality of the evidence presented, all the elements of the offense and the identity of the perpetrator were duly established.
Anent the court a quo‘s imposition of Tabada’s penalty, which was based on the value of the stolen property, Tabada argues that the court a quo erred when it accepted hook, line and sinker the bare claim of Aldrin and Marilyn that the value of his stolen laptop was Twenty Two Thousand Pesos (P 22,000.00), despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the same with the production of an official receipt. We find, however, that the testimonies of Marilyn and Aldrin given in open court, with respect to the value of the stolen laptop, to be admissible and sufficient to establish the value of the stolen item. The testimonies of the owner, Aldrin, as well as that of Marilyn, that the value of the thing stolen was P 22,000.00 cannot be said to be self-serving. Self-serving statements are those made by a party out of court advocating his own interest; they do not include a party’s testimony as a witness in court. This cannot be said of a party’s testimony in court made under oath, with full opportunity for cross-examination on the part of the opposing party.[13]
Neither can it be said that the testimony of the owner of the thing stolen is a mere allegation. It is evidence of the value of the thing given by the very owner himself. The value stated by the owner, P 22,000.00, is not totally bereft of credence. It is in fact a reasonable sum of the current price of laptops.
In Lozano v. People,[14] the Supreme Court cited its earlier ruling in People v. Martinez,[15]
“Again, even under the rule on opinions of ordinary witnesses, the value of the stolen items was established. It is a standing doctrine that the opinion of a witness is admissible in evidence on ordinary matters known to all men of common perception, such as the value of ordinary household articles.
xxx xxx xxxAlso not to be overlooked is the fact that the trial court has the power to take judicial notice, in this case of the value of the stolen goods, because these are matters of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration. The lower court may, as it obviously did, take such judicial notice motu proprio. Judicial cognizance, which is based on considerations of expediency and convenience, displaces evidence since, being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object which the evidence is intended to achieve. Surely, matters like the value of the appliances, canned goods and perfume x x x are ordinarily within public knowledge and easily capable of unquestionable demonstration.” (Emphasis supplied)
Since the value of the item stolen is P 22,000.00, the proper penalty to be meted out against Tabada should be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, as provided under Article 309 (1)16 of the Revised Penal Code. Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be in the medium period, which has a range of seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to eight (8) years and eight (8) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree to the prescribed penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, which has a range of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. The indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision correcional in its medium period, as minimum to eight (8) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum, imposed by the trial court, being within the range of possible penalty that may be imposed, need not be disturbed.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Salazar-Fernando, Chair and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
[1] Written by Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta, Branch 7 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila City in Criminal Case No. 11-285937 dated 14 September 2012, Records, pp. 189-195.
[2] Rollo, p. 195.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Ibid, p. 29.
[5] Records, p. 32.
[6] Records, p. 99.
[7] TSN dated December 7, 2011, pp. 11-12.
[8] TSN dated December 7, 2011, pp. 4-5.
[9] Lumanog v. People, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010, 630 SCRA 42.
[10] Gulmatico v. People, G.R. No. 146296, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 82.
[11] Ibid.
[12] People v. Briones, G.R. No. 156009, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 362.
[13] Lozano v. People, G.R. No. 165582, July 9. 2010, 624 SCRA 596.
[14] Lozano v. People, supra at footnote 13.
[15] G.R. No. 116918, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 259.
[16] Art. 309. Penalties. – Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
(1) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12, 000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000.00 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. xxx”