THIRD DIVISION

 

EDUARDO GULMATICO y BRIGATAY,

Petitioner,

 

 

 

 

          - versus -

 

 

 

 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.

 

G.R. No. 146296

 

Present:

 

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,

   Chairperson,

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CHICO-NAZARIO,

NACHURA, and

REYES, JJ.

 

Promulgated:

 

   October 15, 2007

 

 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

 

 

DECISION

 

NACHURA, J.:

                            

 

 

 

 

          Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[2] dated July 31, 2000 which affirmed the Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, dated April 16, 1999, convicting petitioner Eduardo Gulmatico (petitioner) of the crime of Robbery, with the modified conclusion that the felony proven was Theft instead.

 

The Facts

 

          Petitioner was charged with the crime of Robbery in an Information dated January 2, 1997 which reads:

 

            That on or about the 31st day of December, 1996, in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent of gain and by means of force, that is, by breaking the door, and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away one (1) AIWA VHS worth P8,000.00, one (1) BL Rayban, worth P3,000.00, one (1) gold necklace worth P1,200.00, one (1) camera Fuji worth P1,400.00 and one (1) leather wallet with cash money of P100.00 belonging to one REBECCA HUERVA-LIPAYCO, to the damage and prejudice of the owner in the total amount of P12,800.00.

 

            CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]

 

 

          Upon arraignment on January 15, 1997, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.[5] Thus, trial on the merits ensued. In the course of the trial, two varying versions arose.

 

Version of the Prosecution

 

          Spouses Gary Lipayco (Gary) and Rebecca Huerva-Lipayco (Rebecca) -- the Lipaycos -- are employees of CDO-Foodsphere, Inc. and reside at 2-D Bonifacio St. Canumay, Valenzuela City. On December 31, 1996, the spouses went to work. When Rebecca returned home between 11:00 in the morning and 12:00 noon of the same day, she found their door broken open, their place in shambles and some of their things missing.  She went to report the incident first to the barangay but finding no official in the barangay hall, she went to the nearest police outpost and had the incident blottered.  An investigation was immediately conducted and the statements of witnesses were taken. Angelo “Cookie” Alera (Angelo) and Michael Arnaldo (Michael), then both eight (8) years old, testified that at about noon of December 31, 1996, while they were playing nearby together with other children,[6] they saw petitioner push the door of the house of the Lipaycos, enter the same, ransack the cabinet and take a VHS player[7] and a wallet containing P100.00.[8] Conchita Alera (Conchita) corroborated the statements of Angelo and Michael since she also saw the petitioner inside the house of the Lipaycos.[9]  The items missing and unrecovered were one (1) AIWA VHS player worth P8,000.00; one (1) Bausch & Lombe (BL) Rayban worth P3,000.00; one (1) gold necklace worth P1,200.00; one (1) Fuji camera worth P1,400.00; and one (1) leather wallet containing P100.00, or a total of P12,800.00.[10]

 

Version of the Defense

 

          Petitioner is a family friend of the Lipaycos and a godfather of the latter's child.  He is also employed at CDO-Foodsphere, Inc. as a company driver. Due to the nature of his work, petitioner was often away and entertained himself with a car stereo which he would always bring with him. Petitioner claimed that he would place the said car stereo on top of the delivery vehicle's dashboard. After work, he would bring the car stereo with him.[11]  Petitioner denied the accusations made against him. He testified that on December 30, 1996, he made deliveries in Malolos, Bulacan, where he stayed overnight.  The next day, December 31, 1996, he returned to their office and left work at already about 11:30 in the morning.  He waited for a while so that he could get the second half of his 13th month pay. Then, he went to another company compound to get a suitable box for his holiday ham which he entrusted to Conchita for safekeeping. After securing a box, he went to Conchita's house to get the ham. While Conchita was getting petitioner's ham,  he passed by the house of the Lipaycos to see if Gary was there, by calling out for him at the door[12] since Rebecca asked petitioner at their office if he saw Gary. Petitioner attested that the door was slightly opened and he slightly pushed it to look for Gary. However, Gary was out.[13]  Thereafter, Conchita gave the ham to petitioner and he placed it inside the box. Carrying the same in a big plastic bag and his car stereo, petitioner on board a tricycle, went to his sleeping quarters. Ricky Acostosa, also an employee of CDO-Foodsphere, Inc. testified that he and the petitioner boarded the same tricycle on the said date on the way to their sleeping quarters. He observed that petitioner was carrying a car stereo and a box of ham at the time and that he did not notice that petitioner was carrying any VHS player.[14] Thereafter, petitioner left for Villamor Airbase in Pasay City where he celebrated the New Year’s Eve with his relatives. He returned to his quarters on January 1, 1997 and in the afternoon of the same date, upon knowledge that Rebecca was looking for him, petitioner went to the Lipaycos' house where he was apprehended by the police and was subsequently detained.[15] Upon posting the corresponding bail bond for his provisional liberty in the amount of P24,000.00, the RTC ordered the petitioner's release.[16]

 

The RTC's Ruling

 

          On April 16, 1999, the RTC held that petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime by Michael and Angelo, who testified with sufficient coherence and clarity. Thus, the RTC disposed of this case in this wise: 

 

            WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused EDUARDO GULMATICO y BRIGATAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as principal of the crime of robbery and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to a penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum. The accused is further sentenced to pay complaining witness Rebecca Huerva-Lipayco the amount of P12,800.00 representing the total value of the goods stolen without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Finally, the accused is sentenced to pay the costs of suit.

 

            SO ORDERED.[17]

 

 

          Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.[18]

 

The CA's Ruling

 

          On July 31, 2000, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the petitioner by the eyewitnesses which were categorical, consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the latter's part. However, the CA opined that while asportation was proven, the element that petitioner entered the Lipaycos' house by breaking its door was not established since Michael and Angelo testified that petitioner merely pushed the door open in order to gain entry. Moreover, based on the photographs of the said door, the CA found that the same was intact and unbroken. Thus:  

 

            Properly, then, the felony proven against Gulmatico is Theft defined in Art. 308 and penalized under Art. 309 of the Revised Penal Code, although the end penalties imposable are just the same as those imposed by the trial court.

 

            WHEREFORE, except for the felony which is instead Theft as defined and punished in Arts. 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED.

 

            SO ORDERED.[19]

 

 

          On August 25, 2000, petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration[20] of the assailed Decision which the CA denied in its Resolution[21] dated December 8, 2000.

 

          Hence, this Petition raising the sole issue of whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals decided correctly in finding herein petitioner still guilty of Theft notwithstanding the fact that the evidence of the prosecution was preponderantly flawed and unmeritorious, short of the required proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

          Correlatively, the instant Petition is based on the following grounds:

 

I.

 

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT STILL GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF THEFT WHEN IT PREMISED ITS FINDING OF THE AFFIRMATION ON THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS:

 

            a) That there were two eyewitnesses (two 8-year-olds) who were familiar with the accused and had good opportunity to observe the felony and the felon;

 

            b) That the veracity of the testimonies of these two eyewitnesses should not be doubted because the Trial Court has shown its appreciation of the testimonies of witnesses 'who were able to relay to the (Trial) court with sufficient coherence and clarity what they saw;

 

            c) That there was another witness who corroborated the testimonies of the two boys;

 

            d) That the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses were aboveboard as 'none of the witnesses were discredited by the defense as having ill will towards or motive against the accused,' concluding therefore that there was nothing which could have tainted the truthfulness of said testimonies;

 

            e) That the defense put up by the accused using DENIAL, was no match to the prosecution where the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were positive, clear and unbiased;

 

            f) That the defense of ALIBI cannot also save the day for the accused. 

 

II.

 

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, WHICH FOUND ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF A CRIME BASED ON THE WEAKNESS OF DEFENSE

 

III.

 

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED, JUST LIKE THE TRIAL COURT, IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE.[22]

 

 

          Moreover, petitioner argues that the testimonies of Michael and Angelo are deficient as the two boys merely testified that petitioner took the VHS player and the wallet; that the witnesses' testimonies are incoherent due to their numerous loopholes as regards the alleged taking; that it was physically impossible for the witnesses to view the commission of the crime, considering the interior of the Lipaycos' residence; that the prosecution failed to rebut petitioner's testimony that he was in the premises for the purpose of getting his ham from Conchita; that Michael and Angelo were pre-coached in giving their testimonies by their respective mothers; that Michael and Angelo mistakenly identified petitioner's car stereo as the VHS player; that petitioner's non-flight speaks of his innocence; that Rebecca's testimony before the police and the photographs of the broken door are pieces of evidence which are contrary to the witnesses' testimony that the petitioner merely pushed the door in order to gain entry, hence, the finding of the crime of Theft; and that since the witnesses merely saw that petitioner take only the VHS player and the wallet, the value of the items lost amounts only to P8,100.00, hence, the petitioner, without conceding the offense charged, is entitled to the imposition of a lesser penalty. Lastly, petitioner attests that he is innocent of the offense charged and prays for his acquittal.[23]

 

          On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) posits that the direct, positive and categorical testimonies of Michael and Angelo pointing to the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime of Theft are entitled to full faith and credit; that petitioner failed to prove any improper motive on the part of the mothers of Michael and Angelo in allegedly coaching the minors to testify against him; that petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi are unavailing; that factual findings of the RTC particularly in its assessment of credibility of witnesses are entitled to respect; and that non-flight is not proof of innocence.[24]

 

          The Petition lacks merit.

 

          While it is true that the RTC and the CA had separate and different findings as to the crime committed, this Court holds that asportation was indeed established. Thus, we agree with the ruling of the CA that the crime of Theft was committed based on the evidence presented.

 

          Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft as follows:

 

            Art. 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.

 

 

          The elements of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.[25] Therefore, in theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.[26]

 

          At this juncture, petitioner offers the defense of denial, postulating that when Michael and Angelo saw the petitioner, he was carrying at the time his car stereo which they have mistaken to be the VHS player of the Lipaycos. Moreover, petitioner contends that he is not invoking the defense of alibi because he admittedly passed by the house of the Lipaycos on December 31, 1996.[27] However, a perusal of the petitioner's pleadings before this Court shows that the proffered defense is still alibi, since petitioner alleged that he cannot be at two places at the same time.[28]

 

          We reject petitioner’s arguments.

 

          First. It could not be said that Michael and Angelo, young as they were, could have mistakenly identified petitioner's car stereo for the VHS player. On cross-examination, both Michael and Angelo manifested that they know what a VHS player is and even described the size and color thereof before the RTC.[29] Moreover, Angelo also testified that the petitioner, aside from taking the VHS player, ransacked the cabinet of the Lipaycos and took the wallet.[30] In sum, the car stereo cannot fully and adequately fill in for the felonious taking of  the other lost and unrecovered items of the Lipaycos.

 

          Second. Other than petitioner's own admission that he passed by the house of the Lipaycos on December 31, 1996,[31] Michael and Angelo, as corroborated by Conchita, testified that petitioner was there before Rebecca arrived, who eventually found that their things were scattered all over the place and that certain items were missing. More importantly, Michael and Angelo, throughout their respective testimonies before the RTC, positively and categorically identified the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime.[32]

 

          Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Furthermore, they cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of the accused by the  principal witnesses. Absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, a categorical, consistent and positive identification of the accused prevails over denial and alibi. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, denial and alibi are negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[33]

 

          We cannot discern any improper motive on the part of, and no such motive was ever imputed to, the prosecution's witnesses, namely, Michael, Angelo, Conchita and even Rebecca that they would falsely implicate the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime. The absence of evidence as to improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly sustains the conclusion that none existed, and consequently, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[34]

 

          Stripped of the defenses of denial and alibi, the instant Petition now hinges on the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses presented.

 

          The CA, citing the RTC Decision, aptly and judiciously held, to wit:

 

          The principal eyewitnesses were Michael and Angelo then both 8 years old who were familiar with the accused and had good opportunity to observe the felony and the felon. The testimonies of these eyewitnesses were appreciated by the trial court as follows:

 

            Michael and Angelo, both 8 years of age, and who were able to relay to the court with sufficient coherence and clarity what they saw on the date and at the time in question positively identified the accused as the one who entered the house of Rebecca and as the one who took away from that house the betamax. (Decision, p. 104, record)

 

            Their testimonies were corroborated in part by Conchita Alera who also saw Gulmatico inside the house. None of these witnesses were discredited as having ill will towards or motive against Gulmatico.

 

 

          Petitioner claims that Michael and Angelo were pre-coached when they gave their respective testimonies before the police and before the RTC as their respective mothers and Rebecca were there at the time.

 

          We disagree.

 

          This Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the assessment made by the  RTC, duly affirmed by the CA anent the credibility of the said prosecution witnesses who testified during the trial of this case. Michael and Angelo clearly pointed out their exact location and the surrounding circumstances when they observed the petitioner and the felonious taking. Upon the directive of the trial court judge, Angelo even described his location and the respective distances of the houses in the neighborhood by walking around the courtroom.[35] It bears stressing that  full weight and respect to the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is usually accorded by the appellate courts, since the trial court judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.[36] This Court is not a trier of facts and, as a rule, we do not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[37] Thus, in the case of Siccuan v. People,[38] we clearly held:

 

            We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not be ordinarily disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts of circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe 'the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths. It had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.

 

          Furthermore, Michael and Angelo are child witnesses. A child witness could not be expected to give a precise response to every question posed to him. His failure to give an answer to the point of being free of any minor inconsistencies is understandable and does not make him a witness less worthy of belief.[39] Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declarations or the veracity or the weight of their testimonies. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the accused.[40] To this Court, Michael and Angelo's testimonies are sufficiently and consistently credible as to establish that: (1) the crime of Theft was committed against the Lipaycos and (2) petitioner committed the said crime.

 

          Lastly, we are not persuaded by petitioner's contention that the fact that he came back to the Lipaycos' house on January 1, 1997 shows that he is innocent of the offense charged.  It is established in this jurisdiction that while flight indicates guilt, non-flight does not mean innocence.[41] Much like the defenses of alibi and denial, non-flight cannot prevail against the weight of positive identification of the accused.[42] Therefore, the Court finds no reason to overturn the judgment of conviction against the petitioner for the crime of Theft as the prosecution sufficiently proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

          WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 23230, finding petitioner Eduardo Brigatay  Gulmatico guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Theft, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 

                                      ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

                                      Associate Justice

 

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

 

 

 

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

Associate Justice

 

 

 

RUBEN T. REYES

Associate Justice

 

 

A T T E S T A T I O N

 

          I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

 

                                      CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

                                      Associate Justice

                                      Chairperson, Third Division

 

 

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

 

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

 

                                      REYNATO S. PUNO

                                      Chief Justice


[1]               Entitled People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo Gulmatico y Brigatay, Accused-Appellant and dated January 30, 2001; rollo, pp. 9-38.

[2]               Particularly docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 23230, penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (now deceased), with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola (now deceased) and Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr., concurring; id. at 45-51.

[3]              Particularly docketed as Crim. Case No. 5969-V-97; id. at 39-43.

 

[4]               Records, p. 1.

[5]               RTC Order dated January 15, 1997, id. at 26.

[6]               The children were a certain Nene and Paw-paw, TSN, August 27, 1997, p. 9.

[7]               Also referred to as VHS, Betamax or “Beta” in other pleadings and statements of the witnesses.

[8]               TSN, April 16, 1997, pp. 8-13 and TSN, August 27, 1997, pp. 11-14.

[9]               TSN, August 13, 1997, pp. 5-8.

[10]             TSN, February 14, 1997, pp. 5-8.

[11]             TSN, October 22, 1997, pp.  24-27.

[12]             TSN, November 10, 1997, p. 8.

[13]             TSN, December 15, 1997, p. 19.

[14]             TSN, April 15, 1998, pp. 6-8.

[15]             TSN, November 10, 1997, pp. 9-13.

[16]             Order of Release dated January 6, 1997, records, p. 24.

[17]             Records, p. 106.

[18]             Notice of Appeal dated April 28, 1999, id. at 108.

 

[19]             CA rollo, p. 100.

[20]             Id. at 101-120.

[21]             Rollo, p. 53.

[22]             Petitioner's Memorandum dated December 17, 2001, id. at 125-126.

[23]             Id.

[24]             OSG's Memorandum dated November 26, 2001, rollo, pp. 100-116.

[25]             Gaviola v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 436, 444.

[26]             Tan v. People of the Philippines, 372 Phil. 93, 105 (1999).

[27]             Supra note 20, at 134-135.

[28]             Id. at 143.

 

[29]             TSN, April 16, 1997, p. 20 and TSN, August 27, 1997, p. 30.

[30]             TSN, August 27, 1997, p. 12.

[31]             Supra note 11, at 19-20.

[32]             TSN, April 16, 1997, p. 9 and TSN, August 27, 1997, p. 11.

[33]             People of the Philippines v. Hamton, 443 Phil. 198, 236-237 (2003).

[34]             Jose v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 148371, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 294, 306.

[35]             Supra note 26, at 20-25.

[36]             People v. Roma, G.R. No. 147996, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 413, 426-427.

[37]             Chua v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 150926 and 30, March 6, 2006, 484 SCRA 161, 167.

[38]             G.R. No. 133709, April 28, 2005, 457 SCRA 458, 464, citing Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 374 SCRA 86 (2002).

[39]             People of the Philippines v. De Leon, 387 Phil. 779, 789 (2000).

[40]             Id. at 788.

[41]             People of the Philippines v. Diaz,  443 Phil. 67, 89 (2003); People of the Philippines v. Temanel, 395 Phil. 414, 421 (2000); People of the Philippines v. Almacin, 363 Phil. 18, 31 (1999); People of the Philippines v. Toledo,  333 Phil. 261, 273 (1996); and  People of the Philippines v. Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262,  January 4, 1994, 229 SCRA 35, 47.

[42]             People of the Philippines v. Bangcado, 399 Phil. 768, 780 (2000).