CO KIAT, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal by certiorari of the decision dated April 29, 1977 of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the convictions of Co Kiat and
Godofredo Cruz of the theft or hijacking of 540 cases
of Salem cigarettes from Clark Air
Base.  Upon separate motions for
reconsideration filed by the accused, Cruz was acquitted on the ground of
reasonable doubt but Co Kiat’s conviction was
maintained.

Co Kiat’s petition for review was
denied by this Court on September 29,
1978 in a minute resolution (p. 97, Rollo),
but on motion for reconsideration the court decided to give his petition due
course (p. 157, Rollo).

The facts of the case are recited in the decision of the Court of
Appeals as follows:

“Airman First Class James A. Sconiers
is an American Negro.  He was a member of
the 6200th U.S. Security Police Squadron stationed at Clark Airbase, Angeles
City.  As such, he used to escort the shipment of
cargoes from the Central Exchange Warehouse at Clark Airbase to the Manila Port
Area (p. 129, Rec.; p. 2, tsn, July 16, 1969).

“In the afternoon of September
2, 1968, after Sconiers had just come off
from his job at the base, a certain Filipino approached him and invited him to
a place called the ‘Block.’ Upon reaching said place, he was brought to the
‘Sky High Club’ just across the street. 
While drinking San Miguel Beer in said club, they were joined by two or
three other Filipinos, one of them was in PC uniform (pp. 2-3, tsn, July 16, 1969).

“After the usual introduction, the three Filipinos started
asking Sconiers questions about his job.  Then the trio proposed to Sconiers
the idea of hijacking the shipment of blue seal cigarettes to be escorted by
the latter on September 4, 1968. 
At first, Sconiers was afraid because he was
about to get married.  But the three
convinced Sconiers by telling him not to worry as
they knew all the people in the warehouse as well as in Manila
(pp. 2-5, tsn, July 16, 1969).

“Then, September 4,
1968 came.  That same morning, 540 cases of ‘blue seal’ Salem cigarettes
were readied for shipment from the U.S. Clark Air Base, Angeles City to the
Manila Port Area.  The cigarettes
were placed inside six (6) connexes (metal shipping
container).

“After the connexes were loaded with
ninety (90) cases of ‘blue seal’ Salem
cigarettes each, they were sealed and welded. 
Then the connexes were placed in a flat bed on
a trailer pulled by a tractor (pp. 4-7, tsn, July 11, 1969).

“The tractor with the trailer driven by accused Adriano Sigua left Clark Air Base at about 9:15 to 9:30 that same morning of September 4, 1968. 
Sconiers who was assigned as escort brought
with him the shipping record (Exhibit ‘A’) evidencing the shipment for delivery
to the Liaison officer stationed at the Manila Port Area (pp. 5-10, tsn, July 16, 1969).

“Instead of going straight to Manila,
however, the trailer proceeded to the compound of the Visayan
Bicycle Manufacturing Company located at Valenzuela, Bulacan.  Inside the compound a group of men started
moving as soon as the trailer arrived. 
Among these men were the appellant Co Kiat and
two of the men who talked with Sconiers at the ‘Sky
High’ night club in the evening of September
2, 1968.  Also with the group
was the accused Felicidad Tan.  Shortly thereafter, a small truck entered the
compound; and the men started unwelding the connexes with the equipment carried by this small truck
(pp. 11-12, tsn, July 16, 1968).

“Then the appellant, Major Godofredo
Cruz, arrived with two bodyguards.  Sconiers was told to go down the trailer to meet Major
Cruz.  After the introduction, Major Cruz
assured Sconiers that he (Major Cruz) controlled all
the people and police in the area.

“After the connexes were unwelded, Co Kiat instructed the men to unload the cases of Salem
cigarettes.  Beside Co Kiat was the accused Felicidad
Tan who helped supervise the unloading. 
Then the cigarettes were replaced with hollow blocks brought by Co Kiat inside the compound three days prior to the
incident.  After filling up five of the
six connexes with hollow blocks, they were welded
back.  The sixth connex
was welded back without replacing the cigarettes inside it (pp. 13-15, tsn, July 16, 1969).

“After talking for 5 to 10 minutes, Major Cruz told Sconiers to go back to the trailer.  Thereafter, Major Cruz left with his
bodyguards; while Sconiers proceeded to Manila
to submit the shipping papers.  After the
papers were checked, Sconiers started back for Clark
Air Base (pp. 14-18, tsn, July 16, 1969).

“On their way home, a Filipino employee from the Central
Exchange motorpool got inside the tractor.  He told Sconiers
that he knew what happened, and alighted from the tractor about a quarter of a
mile away from the main gate to Clark Air Base where Sconiers
alighted.  As Sconiers
was proceeding to the jeepney stand, a Filipino took
him downtown to a club (p. 18, tsn, July 16, 1969).

“Sconiers was brought before the accused
Alfonso Torres who was then seated alone inside the club.  Torres ask Sconiers to sit down and told the latter that he was the
brain of the hijacking.  Torres then
brought Sconiers to a corner nearby.  He (Torres) went inside and came back with a
portfolio (Exhibit ‘C’) containing P14,000.00.  Torres then took Sconiers
into a jeepney and after travelling
for a distance, they both got off. 
Torres gave Sconiers the portfolio and
repeated his (Torres) warning to Sconiers not to
report what happened.  After that, Sconiers boarded a jeepney to
report for work at the base (pp. 18­-19, tsn, July 16, 1969).

“Meanwhile, after the cigarettes were piled in the basketball
court inside the compound of the Visayan Bicycle
Manufacturing Company on instruction of Co Kiat, a
big red truck arrived at about 2:00 P.M.  The cigarettes were then loaded inside the
red truck and after Co Kiat had introduced Felicidad Tan as his wife to Benjamin Balmes,
the two (Felicidad and Balmes)
brought their truckload of cigarettes to 264 Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City.  The
remaining cigarettes were loaded inside the panel truck and were also hauled to
264 Roosevelt Avenue by Co Kiat (pp. 3-4, tsn, Aug. 14, 1969).

“Between 7:00 to 11:30
in the evening, many automobiles were hauling the cigarettes from the house at 264
Roosevelt Avenue. 
Then Co Kiat and Balmes
themselves rode the panel truck fully loaded with Salem
cigarettes to deliver them to Banawe
Street, Quezon City.  Upon reaching the intersection of Roosevelt
Avenue and San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, however, they were
caught and apprehended by ASAC agents who had been watching the activities
going on inside the house at 264 Roosevelt Avenue
(pp. 4-5, tsn, Aug. 14, 1969).” (Rollo, pp. 33-36.)

On May 16, 1969,
seventeen (17) persons were charged for Qualified Theft before the Circuit
Criminal Court of Pampanga (Crim.
Case No. COC-V-049), among them the petitioner Co Kiat, James Sconiers, Major Godofredo Cruz, Felicidad Tan and
Alfonso Torres.  Sconiers was dropped from the complaint based on the terms
of the US?Phil. Bases Agreement. 
He was tried by the U.S.
military court inside Clark Air Base. 
The other accused have remained at large.  Co Kiat, Godofredo Cruz, Felicidad Tan and
Alfonso Torres pleaded not guilty, but Torres escaped during the trial of the
case.

The trial resulted in the acquittal of Felicidad
Tan.  Co Kiat
and Godofredo Cruz were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, “as principals of the crime defined and penalized in
Article 308 (Simple Theft) of the Revised Penal Code.” Absent any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, they were each sentenced by the
circuit criminal court, “to suffer an indeterminate penalty of NINE (9)
YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Mayor, as minimum imprisonment, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum
imprisonment:  to indemnify jointly and
severally the United States Government the amount of P203,212.80 (at the then
exchange rate of P4.80 to $1.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, with temporary disqualification to hold public office insofar as
accused Godofredo Cruz is concerned, and the other
accessories of the law and to pay the costs. 
(pp. 32­-33, Rollo.)

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the conviction of Co Kiat and Godofredo Cruz was
affirmed (CA-G.R. No. 13004-CR, April 29, 1977) (p. 31, Rollo).  Separate motions for reconsideration were
filed by Cruz and Co Kiat.  Cruz was acquitted upon reconsideration, but
Co Kiat’s conviction remained, hence, this petition
for review by Co Kiat alleging that:

“1.     The Court of Appeals
erred in convicting him on the same evidence which it found ‘incredible,’
‘polluted,’ and ‘inadequate’ to convict his co? accused;

“2.     The Court of Appeals
erred in convicting him of ‘conspiracy’ while it acquitted his co-conspirator;

“3.     The Court of Appeals
erred in convicting him on mere suspicion, surmises, and conjectures;

“4.     The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the jurisdiction
of the trial court although the crime was committed in Valenzuela, Bulacan; and

“5.     The Court of Appeals
erred in not upholding Co Kiat’s right to presumption
of innocence.” (pp. 8-9, Petitioner’s Brief, p. 170, Rollo.)

After deliberating on the petition, the appellants’ brief, the Solicitor
General’s comment and brief for the respondents, we are not persuaded that the
petition should be granted.

The petitioner’s first,
second, third and fifth assignments of error may be reduced to the single
question of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction
although it let Cruz go free.  The
acquittal of Cruz on reasonable doubt did not necessarily mean acquittal for Co
Kiat as well. 
Firstly, the only evidence against Cruz was provided by Juanita Barrios
Co and James Sconiers who declared that he was at the
Visayas Bicycle Manufacturing plant when the stolen
cigarettes were delivered there by Sconiers and Sigua.  But Cruz was
able to convince the Court of Appeals that the identification of him by
the prosecution witnesses was unreliable and should not prevail over his
alibi.  On the other hand, besides these
witnesses, there was other evidence connecting Co Kiat
with the theft for he not only admitted being present at the Visayan Bicycle Manufacturing Compound when the stolen goods
were delivered there, but the prosecution proved that he brought the hollow
blocks which were loaded in the connexes in place of
the cigarettes, and that he supervised the stock piling of the cigarettes on
the premises.  Furthermore, he was inside
the panel truck transporting the stolen cigarettes when apprehended by ASAC
agents at the corner of Roosevelt Avenue
and San Francisco Del Monte.  He was
literally “caught with the goods.”

Petitioner’s arguments that in view of Cruz’s
acquittal, he (Co Kiat) may not be convicted as
Cruz’s co-conspirator in the commission of the theft has no merit.  Cruz was not the only co-conspirator of Co Kiat in the commission of the theft.  Fifteen (15) other persons, including Sconiers (who was convicted by the U.S.
court martial) were charged with Co Kiat as co-­conspirators
in the commission of the crime.  The
reason why only the petitioner, Cruz, and Felicidad
Tan stood trial is that all the others escaped.

As the asportation of the cigarettes
commenced when they were taken out of Clark Air Base by Sconiers
and Sigua and continued when the goods passed through
Valenzuela, Bulacan, until they were seized by the
ASAC agents in Quezon City, the courts in any of
those places had jurisdiction over the offense (Buaya
vs. Polo, 169 SCRA 471).

It is a well-settled doctrine in this jurisdiction, that factual
findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight and authority (Macua vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 29) and that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals, is limited to reviewing and
revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of facts being
conclusive (Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA 737).

In a petition for review of decisions of the Court of Appeals,
the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to reviewing questions of law, unless the factual findings are totally
bereft of support in the records or are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute
a serious abuse of discretion (Canete, et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 13).

Except in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher, appeals to the Supreme
Court are not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion and are
allowed only on questions of law and only when there are special and important
reasons, which we do not find in this case (Balde vs.
Court of Appeals, 150 SCRA 365).

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied.  The decision of the Court of Appeals
convicting petitioner Co Kiat of the crime of theft
is affirmed in toto.  Costs against the
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Acting C.J., Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.