PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALBERT CUROLLO Y RANGASA AND MICHAEL MARTINEZ Y BARRIOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
INTING, S.B., J.:
Decision[2]
dated August 2, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City,
Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. T-5074 finding Albert Curollo y Rangasa
and Michael Martinez y Barrios (accused-appellants) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code.
In an Information[3] dated March 5, 2010, accused-appellants were
charged with the crime of theft allegedly committed as
follows:
“That on February 18, 2010 between 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM at
Sitio
Capantagan, Cale, Tiwi, Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, conspiring and
mutually helping one another, take, steal and carry away power cables,
without the knowledge and consent of Aboitiz Power
Renewables, Inc. (APRI), to the damage and prejudice of
the said firm in the amount of FIVE MILLION ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P5,100,000.00), Philippine Currency.ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”
On arraignment, both accused-appellants pleaded “not guilty”
to the
charges against them. The case thereafter proceeded to trial on the
merits.
The Prosecution’s
Version of Facts
In its Brief[4], the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
presents the following version of facts:
“On 18 February 2010 at around 9:50 o’clock in the morning,
Larry
R. Clapis and his co-worker Marlon J. Mariscotes, both security guards
of Aboitiz Power Renewable, Inc. (APRI) were informed by Erullo
Barrameda that some cable wires were missing at Well-Site 6. Upon
instruction from Maribert Martin, Site Security Supervisor of APRI,
Clapis and Mariscostes went to Well-Site 6 located at Purok 6, Sitio
Kapantagan, Barangay Cale, Tiwi, Albay to verify the report. In the
area, they spotted some coverings of cable wires in a dry river bed.
Near the dry river bed was a nipa hut. From the door way, the guards saw
the two (2) men, who were later on idenfied as Albert Curollo and
Michael Martinez, and they had with them sheathed bolos, a pair of wet
knitted gloves, a hack saw blade and cable insulations. Capis
immediately reported what they saw to Maribert Martin.Meanwhile, on the same date at around 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, PO1 Ronald Lomibao, Police Inspector Gomez and two fellow
police officers went to a place between Baño and Cale, Tiwi, Albay in
response to a call for police assistance from the security officers of
APRI regarding the theft of their cable wires.In the area, they saw a nipa hut which was already
surrounded by
some security officers of APRI. The police officers found the two
appellants inside the nipa hut. The police searched the area and
recovered among others, strips of cable wire coverings etc. They
photographed the recovered items and after which, the appellants were
arrested and brought to the police station for further investigation. At
the police station, the officers prepared the seizure receipt of the
confiscated materials.Hector Rodriguez, Administrative Officer of APRI estimated
the
value of the stolen cables and submitted his findings to Chevron
warehouse unit which is the steam contractor of APRI. Also, Rico
Maligaya, a security officer of Chevron reported on the pilferage of
electric and signal cables at Well Site 5 and 6 and mentioned that the
lost cables were what was used to supply all the electric power of the
Well Sites and Tiwi Geothermal plant, the loss of which resulted in the
shutdown of the turbine of APRI.All in all, APRI estimated the cost of the stolen materials
at
One Hundred Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ten US dollars ($108,510.00) or
the equivalent of Five Million One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php5,100,000.00).”[5]
Version of the
Defense
On the other hand, accused-appellants narrate their own
version of facts as follows:
“Accused Albert Curollo
denied the charges. He
claimed that in the afternoon of February 18, 2010, they were up in the
mountain stripping abaca. The abaca plantation was owned by Aniano Cuya.
Efren Competente, Cuya’s tenant, ordered Curollo and co-accused
Martinez to get their basic necessities downhill, to which they
complied.While waiting for the goods, Curollo and Martinez slept in
the
latter’s house located in the lower portion of the mountain. While they
were asleep, security guards Martin and Maricostes awakened them and
ordered them to wear gloves. Later, they were handcuffed and brought to
the Tiwi Police Station where they were investigated and incarcerated.
They were accused of having stolen cables which they did not even see.When they went downhill, they brought along with them a
bolo which they used in harvesting abaca.Accused Michael Martinez
(Martinez) also denied
the charge. He averred that in the noontime of February 18, 2010, the
owner of the abaca plantation directed him to secure provisions
downhill. He asked co-accused Curollo to accompany him. While they were
waiting for the provisions, they slept inside his (Martinez) parents’
hut in the afternoon of the same date. Police officer Lomibao awakened
them and ordered them to go out of the hut and stay at the yard. Martin,
a security guard, ordered them to wear gloves. Martinez complied
because he got scared as the men had guns.Further, Martinez denied that he owned a pair of pliers
allegedly recovered in the hut on February 18, 2010.Efren Competente (Competente),
tenant of the
abaca plantation where the two (2) accused worked, stated that on
February 17, 2010, Albert Curollo and Michael Martinez were with him
stripping abaca. In the late afternoon of February 18, 2010, he
requested Curollo and Martinez to secure provisions. They failed to come
back, thus, Competente also went downhill. He found out that the two
accused were arrested.On February 18, 2010, at around 2:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, Jeric Cruel
(Cruel) was in the river tending his carabao when he saw three (3)
guards of APRI, Errol Barrameda, Maricostes and Wilson Cleofas, bringing
the coverings of cable (in a bundle) towards the hut of accused
Martinez. The guards placed the said coverings at the back of the hut.
Thereafter, the guards woke up the two (2) accused and told them to wear
gloves so that nothing bad will happen to them. Later, policemen
arrived. They handcuffed the accused and told them to go with them to
the police station.Later, Cruel inquired from the policemen why they
handcuffed the
accused because they did not commit any wrong. The police replied that
they were just passing by the area.Upon seeing the guards carrying cable wires coverings,
Cruel hid
himself and observed them where they are going to place the items
because the guards are known in the place for having people
“framed-up“.[6]
On August 2, 2011, after weighing the evidence of both the
prosecution and the defense, the trial court handed down a judgment of
conviction, disposing in this wise:
“WHEREFORE, from all the foregoing judgment is hereby
rendered
finding accused, ALBERT CUROLLO y Rangasa and MICHAEL MARTINEZ y
Barrios, “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of Theft.
Accordingly, accused are hereby SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment ranging from Four (4) years, Nine (9) months and
Ten (10) days of Prision Correccional as minimum to Seven (7) years,
Four (4) months and One (1) day of Prision Mayor, as maximum plus an
additional penalty of twenty (20) years imprisonment of Reclusion
Temporal in accordance with Article 309 (1) of the Revised Penal Code;
and, to indemnify Aboitiz Power Renewable, Inc. (APRI), the amount of
P5,100,000.00.SO ORDERED.”[7]
Hence, this present appeal.
The Issue
In their Brief, accused-appellants interposed a lone
assignment of error, to wit:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THEFT.[8]
The Court’s
Ruling
After a careful examination of the evidence on record, the
Court
is of the view that the circumstantial evidence proffered by the
prosecution does not show beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused-appellants perpetrated the crime for which they stand charged.
It has been held that where the evidence is purely circumstantial, there
must be an even greater need to apply the rule that the prosecution
depends not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of its
own evidence. Conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral
certainty of the guilt of the accused.[9]
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact
or
series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by
inference. In order that conviction be had, the following elements must
concur:
- There is more than one circumstance;
- The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; - The combination of the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[10]
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it
is
essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an
unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as
the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must
exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the
crime.[11]
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
herein
accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Although a person found in
possession of a stolen thing is presumed to be the taker thereof, and
the author of the theft, this presumption, however, was overturned by
the accused-appellants. In this regard, We reproduce the pertinent
portions of the defense witness’s (Jeric Cruel) testimony, thus:
x
on February 18, 2010?
around 2:00
o’clock in the afternoon I untied my carabao in order for it to take a
bath and suddenly I saw the three guards of the Napocor bringing with
them the cover of a wire.
you is very
clear. Do you remember where were you on February 18, 2010, you said
you tended to your carabao. Where was this carabao of yours at the time?
accused.
are you referring to?
Martinez.
x
place did you notice anything unusual particularly at the house of
Martinez?
guards bringing with them in a bundle the cover of a
wire.
three guards, Where do these guards work?
VILLAROSA:
There is no basis.
answer.
honor.
working inside the plant of Aboitiz.
names?
Barrameda, Mariscostes, only the surname and Wilson
Cleofas.
ago that these three guards were carrying a bundle. Where did they bring
this bundle?
of the house of Martinez.
Martinez was inside the house at the time?
VILLAROSA:
basis showing that he knows.
NASAYAO:
belongs to Martinez.
answer.
passed by their house the two of them were
sleeping.
people. One was Martinez, who was the other one?
Corullo
of the accused in this case?
sir.
after you have
seen these three guards bring the bundle of wire covers at the back of
the house of Martinez?
(sic) the two.
after that?
made the two wore (sic) gloves and made the wires
be untied.
next?
for policemen.
x
at around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. What time did the guards passed
by the house of Martinez?
arrived at 2:00 in the afternoon.
three guards come from?
river.”[12]
Notably, the foregoing testimony raises serious doubt
as to
accused-appellants’ guilt. We cannot conclude with certainty that they
are the ones responsible for the stolen cable wires at Well-Site 6. The
fact that some plastic coverings of wires were found near the nipa hut
where the accused-appellants had slept does not necessarily bring us to
the conclusion that the items recovered from them, i.e. gloves, ice
pick, hack saw, and pliers, were used in stripping off cable wires. It
is possible that someone other than accused-appellants merely dumped the
plastic coverings of cable wires found by the security guards of APRI
in the dry river bed.
Moreover, there is no evidence on record that the value of
the
stolen cable wires was really worth P5,100,000.00; only the APRI says so
and it does not back up its self-serving estimate with any independent
corroboration.
Thus, the totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution
cannot
be considered as constituting an unbroken chain leading to the fair and
reasonable conclusion that accused-appellants are guilty of theft. The
circumstances proffered by the prosecution so far only created a
suspicion that they probably perpetrated the crime charged.[13]
Nevertheless, speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for
proof required to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond
reasonable doubt.[14]
In our criminal justice, the overriding consideration is
not
whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it
entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Where there is reasonable
doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though
his innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.[15]
In conclusion, because of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of
the
accused-appellants, they must be acquitted. Every accused is presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved; that presumption is solemnly
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt, or that degree of proof that produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of the
accused to be freed; it is even the constitutional duty of the court to
acquit them.[16]
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the assailed
Decision dated August 2, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Tabaco City, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. T-5074 is
REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accused-appellants Albert Curollo y Rangasa and
Michael Martinez y Barrios are hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime charged based on
reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr., (Chairperson) and
Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp.
37-54
[2]
Ibid, pp. 56-64
[3]
Records, p. 19
[4]
Rollo, pp. 85-91
[5]
Ibid, pp. 86-87
[6]
Ibid, pp. 42-44
[7]
Ibid, pp. 63-64
[8]
Ibid, p. 37
[9]
People vs. Baulite, G.R. No. 137599, October 8,
2001
[10]
Lozano vs. People, G.R. No. 165582, July 9, 2010
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
TSN, Bongalon C.B., April 27, 2011, pp. 4-8
[13]
Abad vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119739, June 18, 1998
[14]
Supra note 9.
[15]
People vs. Baulite, G.R. No. 137599, October 8, 2001
[16]
Ibid.