PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL MAGDAONG Y VASQUEZ AND REYNALDO S. RABOCARSAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
ABDULWAHID, J.:
On June 2, 2010, accused-appellants and Eugene Toriano (Toriano) were charged with the crime of qualified theft. The accusatory portion of the Information reads, as follows:[2]
That on or about 30 September 2009, in the City of Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Eugene Toriano y Bolgado, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with co-accused Arnel Magdaong y Vasquez and Reynaldo Rabocarsal, who are employed at Crown Apparel as represented by complainant JOHNSON IAN ANG Y WONG, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the said employer, with grave abuse of confidence, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and cart away several items, namely: seventy five (75) dozens of back and front parts of Power Play T-shirts of assorted design, all amounting to Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P58,500.00) owned and belonging to the said Crown Apparel as represented by JOHNSON IAN ANG Y WONG to the latter’s damage and prejudice in the aforementioned sum.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment on July 22, 2010, accused-appellants and Toriano pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.[3] Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The evidence for the prosecution show that accused-appellants Arnel Magdaong and Reynaldo Rabocarsal were employed as master cutter and cutter, respectively, by Crown Apparel Corporation which was owned and managed by the Ang family. As master cutter and cutter, Magdaong and Rabocarsal were tasked to cut fabric based on patterns, with the excess fabric or retasos collected and eventually sold to customers. Toriano, on the other hand, was engaged in the business of making rugs from retasos which he bought from different garment factories, including Crown Apparel.
At about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of September 29, 2009, Alex Guanzon (Guanzon) a helper for Crown Apparel, was cleaning the cutting area when he saw accused-appellants talking with Toriano. A few minutes later, Jefferson Ang (Adjong), one of the owners of Crown Apparel, walked inside the cutting area and asked Toriano what he was doing there. Adjong told Toriano that only employees were allowed inside the factory and asked him to leave the premises at once.[4]
A few hours later, at around 6:00 to 6:30 in the evening, Guanzon was directed to deliver some bags of retaso to Toriano as well as some t-shirt parts to Crown Apparel’s subcontractor. Guanzon and the driver loaded the bags of retaso and t-shirt parts into the truck and first dropped off the bags of retaso at Toriano’s house and then delivered the t-shirt parts to the subcontractor.[5]
The following day, the subcontractor called Crown Apparel to say that the delivery was missing one sack of t-shirt parts. Guanzon went back to Toriano’s house to ask if the missing sack of t-shirt parts was mistakenly dropped off together with the bags of retasos, but Toriano denied receiving the sack of t-shirt parts. Guanzon went back to Crown Apparel to report what happened, but Eric Ang (Eric) and Johnson Ian Ang (Johnson) did not believe Toriano and decided to seek police assistance before going to Toriano’s house.[6]
The Ang brothers, together with their driver, Guanzon and two policemen went to Toriano’s house and upon arriving there, Eric asked if they could look for the forty-five (45) dozen t-shirt parts that may have been mistakenly dropped off the night before. A heated argument soon ensued between Toriano and Eric, with Toriano’s father adding to the tension by pointed a sharp object at Eric and asking if they were being accused of theft.[7]
While Toriano and Eric were arguing, Guanzon and the driver discovered some Power Play t-shirt parts inserted inside the bag of retaso delivered the night before. The policemen inspected the bag of retaso and discovered several pieces of Power Play t-shirt parts inside it. Toriano was thereafter arrested and brought to the police station.[8]
At the police station, an inventory yielded thirty-one (31) pieces of t-shirt parts in assorted designs, with Toriano admitting that he has already sold forty-five (45) dozen other t-shirt parts to his buyer from Nueva Ecija. Toriano however promised to return what he had sold in order to prevent the filing of a case against him.[9]
An investigation conducted by Crown Apparel revealed that accused-appellants were the ones who inserted the t-shirt parts with the retasos delivered to Toriano, as they were the only ones authorized to gather and pack retasos into bags and sacks to be sold to clients.[10] This was confirmed on January 4, 2010, the first working day after the Christmas break, when Johnson confronted Magdaong with the t-shirt parts similar to those recovered from Toriano which were found under Magdaong’s table. Magdaong admitted conspiring with Rabocarsal to insert the t-shirt parts with the retasos and then selling the same to Toriano. Later that day, Magdaong went out for his lunch break and never reported back to work. Rabocarsal also did not report back for duty after the Christmas break.[11]
For the defense’s evidence, Toriano denied knowing accused-appellants Magdaong and Rabocarsal, saying that he has only bought retaso from Crown Apparel twice, and both times, he coordinated with Jefferson (Adjong) Ang not with accused-appellants.[12] The first time he purchased retaso from Crown Apparel, he was accompanied by a fellow retaso buyer and he transacted with Adjong himself.[13] The second time was on September 29, 2011, when Adjong called and offered to sell him three hundred (300) kilos of retaso for Php7,500. Toriano agreed and the sacks of retaso were delivered to his house that same evening by Crown Apparel’s driver and helper.[14]
The following day, or on September 30, 2011, Eric arrived with some policemen and they went through the sacks of retaso delivered the night before. Eric’s group found eleven (11) pieces of t-shirt front parts among the sacks of retaso and Toriano was brought to the police station where Toriano agreed to return the t-shirt parts to Crown Apparel. That same evening, Toriano turned over one (1) big bag or twelve (12) dozen t-shirt parts to Alex Guanzon, Crown Apparel’s helper.[15]
On January 28, 2010, Eric called Toriano and asked him to testify against two Crown Apparel employees. Toriano refused because he did not know who these employees were, his refusal caused Eric to threaten Toriano with a lawsuit. The following day, Johnson called Toriano and also asked him to testify against the Crown Apparel employees who had instituted a complaint against the company with the Department of Labor and Employment. Again, Toriano refused to do so, reiterating that he did not know these Crown Apparel employees.[16]
Accused-appellant Magdaong testified that Adjong, one of the co-owners of Crown Apparel, was the one in charge of packing and selling of the collected retaso.[17] On September 29, 2011, Haynie, a Crown Apparel secretary instructed Magdaong to segregate the retaso from the textile and Magdaong asked some other workers to help him do so, since he did not want to be the only one to process the retaso for selling. After packing the retaso into four (4) sacks, Magdaong and the other workers brought the sacks to the elevator and then went home.[18]
Magdaong likewise proceeded to illustrate where the different closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras where located throughout the factory, stating that the CCTVs were always turned on, including on the day when the supposed theft of t-shirt parts occurred.[19]
Accused-appellant Rabocarsal, for his part, claimed that he was not part of the group of Adjong, Magdaong, Allan Sibayan and Danny Depra that packed the retaso into sacks on September 29, 2011, as he was directed by the secretary to go to the factory in Valenzuela first thing that morning.[20]
Rabocarsal likewise denied that he and Magdaong were the ones in charge of collecting and selling the retaso, as Adjong personally oversaw the sale of retaso. Rabocarsal also denied knowing Toriano, saying that he and Magdaong worked in the basement so they never met any of the retaso buyers.[21]
On March 25, 2013, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision, acquitting Toriano of the charges against him but convicting accused-appellants of the lesser charge of simple theft. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads, as follows:[22]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Accused Eugene Toriano y Bolgado is acquitted of the crime charged for failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Accused Arnel Magdaong y Vasquez and Accused Reynaldo Rabocarsal are both found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple theft only. The penalty imposable is the maximum period of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be imposed upon each Accused is two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
On May 2, 2013, accused-appellants filed a notice of appeal[23] which the RTC gave due course to in its Order[24] dated May 17, 2013.
The issues raised by accused-appellants for the consideration of this Court are as follows:[25]
I.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 170 MALABON ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED ARNEL MAGDAONG AND REYNALDO RABOCARSAL DESPITE THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED EUGENE TURIANO (sic) BY VIRTUE OF THE ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY;
II.
THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ARNEL MAGDAONG AND REYNALDO RABOCARSAL FOR SIMPLE THEFT EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINAL CHARGE WAS FOR QUALIFIED THEFT; [and]
III.
THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ARNEL MAGDAONG AND REYNALDO RABOCARSAL FOR SIMPLE THEFT ON THE GROUND OF THE ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.
The appeal is meritorious.
While an accused stands before the court burdened by a previous preliminary investigation finding that there is probable cause to believe that he committed the crime charged, the judicial determination of his guilt or innocence necessarily starts with the recognition of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent of the charge he faces. This principle, a right of the accused, is enshrined no less in our Constitution. It embodies as well a duty on the part of the court to ascertain that no person is made to answer for a crime unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Its primary consequence in our criminal justice system is the basic rule that the prosecution carries the burden of overcoming the presumption through proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, a criminal case rises or falls on the strength of the prosecution’s case, not on the weakness of the defense.[26]
In order to prove the elements of theft punished under Article 308[27] of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution presented Eric Ang who testified to the effect that only the accused-appellants were authorized to collect and prepare the retaso to be sold to customers, to wit:[28]
Nonetheless, Eric Ang repeatedly admitted[29] that he was not a part of Crown Apparel, which was managed by his two brothers Johnson Ang and Jefferson “Adjong” Ang, hence, this Court cannot give full credence to his testimony that accused-appellants were the only ones tasked with the collection and preparation of the retasos for sale. On the other hand, the affidavits executed by Johnson[30] and Jefferson[31] before the Assistant City Prosecutor clearly stated that accused-appellants were the ones exclusively entrusted with the segregation and preparation of the retasos to be sold to customers. This was confirmed by Liza Manuel, a Crown Apparel secretary, who stated the following in her affidavit:[32]
xxx xxx xxx
2. Pinapatunayan ko na tanging sina ARNEL MAGDAONG at REYNALDO RABOCARSAL lamang ang tanging naghanda ng mga retasong ibinenta kay Eugene Toriano noong hapon ng September 29, 2009, dahil si Arnel Magdaong ay Master Cutter at Reynaldo Rabocarsal naman ang Assistant Cutter sa Cutting Department kung saan po ay sa kanila po nagmumula ang mga nasabing mga retaso. Naging kaugalian na sa Crown Apparel Corporation noong July 2009 hanggang December 2009 na, kapag wala sina Arnel Magdaong at Reynaldo Rabocarsal, walang magaganap na bentahan ng retaso dahil tanging sila lang ang pinagkakatiwalaan noon ng mga may-ari at tagapangasiwa ng kumpanya kung ano ang dapat ibenta na retaso at sila lamang na rin ang tanging mismong nag-iipon, naghahanda, at nag-iimpake ng retaso. At dahil na rin sa pagtitiwalang ipinagkaloob ng mga may-ari at tagapangasiwa ng kumpanya kina Arnel Magdaong at Reynaldo Rabocarsal, hindi na ini-inspeksyon ng mga may-ari at taga-tapangasiwa ang kanilang iniipon, inihahanda at iniimpake na retaso para ibenta. Tanging ang pagtimbang o pagkilo na lamang ang sinusuri namin mga sekretarya. (Emphasis supplied)
However, this Court notes that despite their personal knowledge of accused-appellants’ additional obligations in the company outside of their positions as master cutter and cutter, the prosecution failed to present Johnson, Jefferson or even Liza Manuel as witnesses during the trial.
In his affidavit, Jefferson likewise denied having anything to do with the preparation of the retaso including its sale to buyers, to wit:[33]
xxx xxx xxx
3. There is no truth to the allegation of Arnel Rolito Magdaong on paragraph 6 of his SINUMPAANG KONTRA SALAYSAY that: “Si Jefferson Adjong Ang ang madalas nakakausap ng mga buyer ng Retaso…” Being one of the stockholders, it is not my job to talk to the “retaso” buyers. It was our company secretaries;
4. Under pain of perjury, I hereby vehemently deny the allegation of Arnel Rolito Magdaong on paragraph 7 of his SINUMPAANG KONTRA SALAYSAY that: “Pag may bumili ng Retaso baba sa basement si Adjong at siya ang naghihila ng plastic galing sa ilalim ng cutting table …” Being one of the stockholders of the Crown Apparel Corporation, I never did said activity;
5. Under pain of perjury, I hereby categorically state that I did not prepare and I never participated in the preparation of the “retaso” that were sold including those retaso sold to Eugene Toriano;
xxx xxx xxx
Yet his statement was contradicted by the joint affidavit of Arlene Aguinaldo and Analyn Limpuasan, where the affiants categorically declared buying retaso straight from Adjong himself, thus:[34]
xxx xxx xxx1. Kami ay bumibili ng retaso kay JEFFERSON “ADJONG” ANG;
2. Ang secretary na si Ate HAYNIE o di kaya ay ang anak na lalaki na ang pangalan ay si JEFFERSON “ADJONG” ANG na kapatid ni JOHNSON IAN ANG ang siyang nagbibigay sa amin ng retaso na aming binibili;
3. Ang pinagbibigyan namin ng pera para bayad sa retaso ay si ADJONG kalakip nito ang pagpapatunay na si ADJONG ang tumatanggap ng bayad at nakapirma sa sinasabing pagtanggap ng bayad na halagang ISANG LIBO WALUMPU’T SIYAM NA (P1,089.00) PISO, minarkahan bilang Sipi “A”;
xxx xxx xxx
Again, these are issues that could have been taken up before the lower court in order to substantiate the prosecution’s claims with moral certainty.
What the prosecution was able to prove with certainty though was that some t-shirt components were combined with sacks of retaso which were then delivered to Toriano’s address. The following day, after Eric and Johnson arrived at his house with the police in tow, Toriano returned several dozen t-shirt components, which the RTC held was not enough to support the claim of conspiracy since Eric himself admitted that the sack of t-shirts might just have been misdelivered to Toriano. But as to whether or not accused-appellants deliberately inserted the t-shirt components with the retaso sold to Toriano was something the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. As it turned out, more questions were raised in this Court’s mind brought about by the prosecution’s poor choice of witnesses and the many gaps in logic that it failed to account for.
Guanzon testified seeing Toriano inside the factory conversing with accused-appellants, yet in his affidavit, aside from witnessing the conversation between accused-appellants and Toriano, he also claims to have witnessed the latter give money to Magdaong, to wit:[35]
xxx xxx xxx1. Noong hapon ng September 29, 2009, habang ako ay naglilinis sa loob ng CUTTING DEPARTMENT ng Crown Apparel Corporation ay nakita ko ang “buyer” ng retaso na si Eugene Toriano habang kausap niya sin Arnel Magdaong at Reynaldo Rabocarsal na Master Cutter at Assistant Cutter ng nasabing kumpanya. Narinig ko na ang pinag-uusapan nila ay ukol sa retaso at batay na rin sa paraan at tono ng kanilang mga salita, para sa akin ay matagal na silang magkaka-kilala. Nakita ko rin na may inabot na pera si Eugene Toriano kay Arnel Magdaong habang si Reynaldo Rabocarsal po ay nasa tabi po nila; (Emphasis supplied)
Nonetheless, a careful review of the TSN[36] shows that Guanzon failed to mention the pay-off in his testimony. Considering the significance of the exchange of money in proving the allegation of qualified theft, it bewilders this Court why the same was not brought up during Guanzon’s testimony.
Furthermore, Magdaong testified that he was joined by Allan Sibayan and Danny Depra in preparing and packing the retaso which were eventually sold to Toriano. The most obvious move would have been to put Allan Sibayan and/or Danny Depra on the witness stand in order to rebut Magdaong’s testimony. Yet the prosecution did no such thing, preferring to rely on inferences and circumstantial evidence to buttress its charge against accused-appellants.
It is well-settled that for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to sustain a conviction, the following requirements must be present: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences have been derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such that it produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt[37].
The prosecution relied heavily on accused-appellants supposedly being the only two workers in the entire company who were authorized to collect, prepare and sell the retaso. Hence, when fabric which were clearly not excess cloth were mixed with the retaso, the only suspects could be accused-appellants themselves. However, as earlier discussed above, the prosecution failed to back up its basic premise, thus the second requirement or “the facts from which the inferences have been derived are proven” is lacking.
The presumption of innocence stands as a fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law. Thus, the prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing guilt. Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed. The defense of the accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict. Within this framework, the prosecution must prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense need not even speak at all. The presumption of innocence is more than sufficient.[38]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 25, 2013 of the RTC, Branch 170, City of Malabon in Criminal Case No. 10-1200-MN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Arnel Magdaong and Reynaldo Rabocarsal are ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
Barza, and Cruz, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 636-648.
[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Id. at 190.
[4] TSN, March 10, 2011, pp. 3-6.
[5] Id. at 7-8.
[6] Id. at 8-10.
[7] TSN, December 2, 2010, pp. 8-10.
[8] Id. at 10-13.
[9] Id. at 12-13.
[10] Id. at 13-14.
[11] Id. at 16-17; Records, pp. 28-30.
[12] TSN, November 17, 2011, pp. 10-11.
[13] TSN, December 15, 2011, pp. 10-11.
[14] TSN, March 8, 2012, pp. 5, 9-11.
[15] TSN, November 17, 2011, pp. 4-9.
[16] Id. at 10-11.
[17] TSN, November 8, 2012, pp. 4-5.
[18] Id. at 9-11.
[19] Id. at 6-9.
[20] TSN, November 22, 2012, pp. 2, 5-6
[21] Records, pp. 54-55.
[22] See Note 1 at 647-648.
[23] Records, p. 652.
[24] Id. at 653.
[25] Rollo, p. 15.
[26] People vs. Rodrigo, 564 SCRA 584, 596 (2008), citing Section 14, Art. III, Philippine Constitution; Aguirre vs. People, 155 SCRA 337, 342 (1987).
[27] 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 conset.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a filed where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products.
[28] TSN, December 2, 2010, pp. 6-7.
[29] Id. at 5-6; TSN, January 20, 2011, pp. 2-3.
[30] Records, pp. 70-71.
[31] Id. at 37-1-39.
[32] Id. at 40.
[33] Id. at 37-1.
[34] Id. at 47.
[35] Records, p. 31.
[36] TSN March 10, 2011 and TSN March 24, 2011
[37] See People vs. Mercado, 397 SCRA 746, 753 (2003), citing People vs. Samus, 389 SCRA 93.
[38] People v. Castillo, 425 SCRA 136, 164-165 (2004), citing Section 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution; Section 1 (a), Rule 115, Rules of Court; People vs. Joven, 64 SCRA 126 and other related cases.