HERMINIGILDO LUCAS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Lucas versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is Lucas versus Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, a criminal case for theft decided by the Supreme Court in September 2002. Herminigildo Lucas, together with two others, was accused of taking household items, cash, and jewelry from the house of Luisito Tuazon in Binangonan, Rizal. Lucas was convicted by the trial court, and that conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which even increased his penalty. He came to the Supreme Court insisting that conspiracy was impossible, that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible, and that the prosecution suppressed evidence. The case matters for three reasons: it restates how conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, it restates the rule on alibi, and, most importantly for the bar, it reminds us that the value of stolen property must be proved, not merely estimated, because that value fixes the penalty.

Procedural History

Lucas was charged with theft before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69, together with Wilfredo Navarro and Enrique Lovena. Lucas and Navarro pleaded not guilty, while Lovena remained at large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Lucas and Navarro guilty as charged. It sentenced them to imprisonment ranging from four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to ten years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered them to return thirty thousand pesos representing the cash and the value of the jewelry that were not recovered. The trial court refused to base the penalty on the complainant's claim that the stolen items were worth one hundred thousand pesos, because that claim was unsupported by evidence.

Lucas and Navarro appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed their conviction, but it raised the penalty to imprisonment ranging from six years of prision correccional as minimum, to seventeen years of reclusion temporal as maximum, relying on the complainant's valuation of one hundred thousand pesos. Lucas then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review, and the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty back to that imposed by the trial court.

Facts

In the early morning of 8 June 1990, Luisito Tuazon arrived home from work in Barrio Tagpos, Binangonan, Rizal, and found the door of his house ajar. His wife was in Singapore and his children were with relatives, so no one else was home. His television set and stereo component were missing, along with an electric fan, kitchen utensils, cassette tapes, toys, cash of twenty thousand pesos, and jewelry belonging to his wife worth ten thousand pesos. He called for help, and Patrolman Edgardo Fuentes responded and investigated the house and its surroundings. Some of the stolen items were later found outside a neighbor's house, under a bougainvillaea plant.

Two prosecution witnesses placed Lucas at the scene. Shirley Blanquisco, a niece of Tuazon, was inside the balutan factory beside his house at around two o'clock in the morning, talking with her boyfriend. They heard a sound from her uncle's house, peeped through a window, and saw the three accused coming out of the front door. Lucas was carrying an electric fan, while Navarro and Lovena each carried a box. She knew them because they bought salted eggs from her, and she could see them clearly because there was a light above the front door. Reynaldo Raymundo corroborated her. He was waiting for a ride on his way home to Angono, Rizal, and while relieving himself he saw the three accused come out of a house, one carrying an electric fan and the other two carrying a box each. The street was lighted and they were only about thirty meters away. He saw them load the articles onto a passing tricycle, which then drove away.

Lucas put up the defense of alibi and denial. He claimed that at the time of the theft he was sound asleep in his house in the same barangay, which he himself admitted was only about two hundred meters from Tuazon's house. He testified that he worked as a jeepney driver in Quezon City, leaving home at around four o'clock every morning and returning at around nine o'clock in the evening. On 7 June 1990 he followed this routine, had dinner, watched television, and went to sleep at around ten o'clock in the evening. His wife Violeta testified in support of his alibi.

Issues

• Whether or not conspiracy existed among the accused, given that they allegedly did not know one another before the incident.
• Whether or not the testimony of prosecution witness Shirley Blanquisco is credible, despite her relationship to the complainant and the alleged inconsistencies in her statements.
• Whether or not the prosecution suppressed evidence by failing to present Jasmin Jamin as a witness.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly based the penalty on the complainant's estimate that the stolen items were worth one hundred thousand pesos.

Applicable Provisions

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft and provides:

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 provision supplies the elements of the crime, all of which the Court found established by the testimonies of Blanquisco and Raymundo.

Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 1, fixes the penalty for theft according to the value of the property stolen, and provides:

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 is the reason the value of the stolen property is decisive: the penalty rises with the value, so that value must be proved and not merely estimated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement. It may be deduced from the concerted acts of the accused, indubitably demonstrating their unity of purpose, intent, and sentiment in committing the crime. It is not required that the accused were acquainted with one another, or that there was an agreement for an appreciable period before the occurrence. It is enough that they acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, with the same purpose or common design, and were united in its execution. Here, Lucas, Navarro, and Lovena demonstrated their agreement by their unified acts of taking Tuazon's belongings from his home and boarding a tricycle together to leave the scene. The Court also rejected the argument that the witnesses' accounts were contradictory, clarifying that Blanquisco never testified that she saw the accused load the items onto a tricycle; only Raymundo testified to that, and the two accounts are consistent.

On the second issue, the Court applied the settled rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the trial court's findings on credibility, since the trial court heard the witnesses and observed their deportment. The exceptions, such as patent inconsistencies ignored by the trial court, were not present. Blanquisco was categorical and straightforward in her identification. The inconsistencies cited related only to trivial matters: she explained that she misunderstood defense counsel's question about who lived in the house, and the time she told her uncle hardly mattered. The Court also held that affidavits carry less weight than testimonies given in open court, because affidavits are often hurriedly done and sometimes prepared by persons other than the affiant, while testimonies are tested by cross-examination. Finally, no ill motive could be seen on her part; as the complainant's niece, she had more reason to ensure that the real perpetrator would be punished.

On the third issue, the Court held that the non-presentation of Jasmin Jamin was of no consequence. Deciding whom to present as a prosecution witness is the exclusive prerogative of the prosecutor. More importantly, the testimonies of Blanquisco and Raymundo were sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt, so that Jamin's testimony, if presented, would only be corroborative. There was therefore no suppression of evidence.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easily fabricated. For alibi to prosper, one must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene at the time. Lucas admitted that his house was only about two hundred meters from Tuazon's house, and his alibi was supported only by his wife. He failed to prove physical impossibility, and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish the value of the stolen property. Only the complainant testified to the value, and he merely gave an estimate unsupported by any document, appearing even uncertain about the value of some items. The estimate did not consider the depreciation of the television set, stereo component, and electric fan. The Court refused to arbitrarily hold that the loss amounted to one hundred thousand pesos, and applying the principle of resolving any doubt in favor of the accused, sustained the penalty imposed by the trial court.

Doctrine

First, conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused showing unity of purpose and common design; prior acquaintance or a prior agreement is not required. Second, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally binding on appeal, and affidavits carry less weight than testimonies in open court. Third, the prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to choose its witnesses, and the non-presentation of a witness does not amount to suppression where the evidence on record is already sufficient to convict. Fourth, alibi requires proof not only that the accused was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene, and it cannot prevail over positive identification. Fifth, under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, the value of the stolen property determines the penalty and must be proved by evidence, not merely estimated; any doubt in the proof of value is resolved in favor of the accused.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Herminigildo Lucas for theft, but modified the penalty by reducing it to imprisonment ranging from four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to ten years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to return thirty thousand pesos to Luisito Tuazon, with no costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the value of the stolen property must be proved, not merely estimated, because that value fixes the penalty under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. Examiners like to use this case on the proof of value in theft, on conspiracy inferred from concerted acts, and on the strict requirements of alibi.