PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIO G. ROA III, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Roa

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Bonifacio Roa the Third, a criminal appeal from a conviction for theft. The accused was charged, together with a co-accused, with entering the house of the complainant in Parañaque City in the early hours of December 19, 2010, and carrying away personal property. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of three things every examinee must command: the deference appellate courts give to the trial court's factual findings and credibility assessments, the weightlessness of denial against positive identification, and the rule that the amount of the theft, and hence the civil liability, must be limited to what the prosecution actually proved.

Procedural History

The accused and his co-accused were charged by Information with theft. On arraignment both pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 196, rendered its Decision on October 21, 2013, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theft under Article 308 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court sentenced each to four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered them to indemnify the complainant, jointly and severally, in the amount of 47,000 pesos as civil indemnity ex delicto, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising a single assignment of error: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

At about one o'clock in the morning of December 19, 2010, the complainant, Deonito Rosaldes, was asleep in his second-floor bedroom when noises from the ground floor awakened him. He turned on the light near the staircase and crawled down. From the stairs, about three meters away, he saw two men near the dining table. The area was lit by light coming from a neighbor's garage. He saw the co-accused carrying a duty free bag into which he placed four bottles of champagne, and he saw the accused carrying the school bag of the complainant's son.

Afraid, the complainant stayed hidden until the intruders left. He followed them out and saw them load the stolen items into a vehicle and speed away. After checking on his son, he sought help from a neighbor and made an inventory of the missing items. He discovered that the intruders had entered through the main gate by removing its padlock with a bolt cutter. He reported the incident to the barangay, where he was shown photographs of men suspected of recent robberies in the locality, and from those photographs he identified the accused and his co-accused. The complainant knew the accused's father, who was his drinking companion.

The co-accused denied liability and claimed he was at a wake from eight o'clock in the evening until four o'clock the following morning. The accused claimed he was sleeping at home. The trial court gave greater weight to the prosecution's eyewitness, found that the accused's proximity to the scene did not help his defense, and convicted both. On the items taken, the trial court found that only three items were identified through receipts or instruction manuals, namely the DVD player, the television set and the liquor bottles, amounting to 47,000 pesos, and limited the civil liability to that amount.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused of theft despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the accused's defense of denial can prevail over the positive testimony and identification of the complainant.
• Whether or not the accused may be held liable for all the items listed in the Information when only some were proven.

Applicable Provisions

The Information charged the crime as committed by means of force upon things, and the trial court convicted under the theft provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Article 308 defines theft:

Article 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

This definition fixes the elements the prosecution had to establish, and it is the provision under which the conviction was rendered.

Article 309 fixes the penalties for theft according to the value of the property taken:

Article 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than twelve thousand pesos but does not exceed twenty-two thousand 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.

This provision explains why the value actually proven, here 47,000 pesos, controls both the penalty and the civil indemnity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the factual findings of the trial court are entitled to full faith and credit absent a showing of misinterpretation of material facts or grave abuse of discretion. Finding not even a slight indication that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion or overlooked a material fact, and noting that no such allegation was ever made by the defense, the Court saw no reason to disturb the findings and the credibility assessment. It stressed that the trial court's assessment of a witness's credibility is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality.

On the second issue, the Court held that denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. It described denial, like alibi, as self-serving negative evidence that cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declarations of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. The Court noted that the accused lived within the vicinity of the complainant's house, so there was no physical impossibility for him to be at the scene; the mere fact that he was at home, sleeping, did not preclude his presence at the complainant's house when the crime happened. He was positively identified by the complainant, who was familiar with the accused's father.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court did not make the accused liable for all the items listed, but only for the three personal properties identified through receipts or instruction manuals, namely the DVD player, the television set and the liquor bottles, amounting to 47,000 pesos. The Court found no reversible error in the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 196.

Doctrine

• The factual findings of the trial court, especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to full faith and credit and will not be disturbed absent a showing of misinterpretation of material facts or grave abuse of discretion.
• Denial, like alibi, is self-serving negative evidence and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a credible eyewitness who testified on affirmative matters.
• Denial is unavailing where the accused was positively identified and no physical impossibility prevented his presence at the scene of the crime.
• The civil liability ex delicto in theft is measured by the value of the property actually proven, not by the total amount alleged in the Information; hence the indemnity was fixed at 47,000 pesos.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the conviction of the accused for theft, with the penalty imposed and the civil indemnity of 47,000 pesos, was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: denial is self-serving negative evidence that cannot prevail over positive identification, and the trial court's credibility findings stand absent grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of evidence between denial and eyewitness testimony, and the rule that civil liability in theft is limited to the value actually proven.