Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - REYNALDO BAYON y RAMOS,
Appellant. |
G.R. No. 168627 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, PERALTA, BERSAMIN,* ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 2, 2010 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I
O N
PERALTA, J.:
This an
appeal from the Decision[1]
dated May 31, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28161. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
On
March 31, 2003, appellant Reynaldo Bayon was charged with theft in an Information[2]
that reads:
Criminal Case No. Q-03-116290
That on or about the 29th day of March 2003,
in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent of gain and without the knowledge and
consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away the following, to wit:
one
(1) Rado Diastar wrist watch worth ---- P12,000.00
one
(1) Seiko Diver’s watch worth -----------P 2,000.00
one
(1) bolo of undetermined value
Total -----------------P14,000.00
belonging to EDUARDO CUNANAN Y CANDELARIA to the damage
and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P14,000.00
Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
On the same day, appellant
was also charged with qualified theft in another lnformation[3] that reads:
Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291
That on or about the 29th
day of March 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, being, then a
stay-in helper of ARTURO LIMOSO Y LOOT at his residence located at No. 45 Belmonte
Street, New Manila, this City, and as such has free access to the different
rooms of the said house, with grave abuse of confidence, with intent to gain
and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following
items, to wit:
one
(1) white gold Rolex wrist watch worth ------ P300,000.00
one
(1)
five
(5) pcs. gold ring worth ------------------------ 125,000.00
two
(2) pcs. gold necklace worth P25,000.00 each 50,000.00
----------------
Total --------- P540,000.00
all in the total amount of P540,000.00 Philippine
Currency, belonging to ARTURO LIMOSO Y LOOT, to his damage and prejudice in the
amount aforementioned.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When
arraigned on May 6, 2003, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.[4] The pre-trial was terminated
without stipulations. Thereafter, joint trial
of the cases ensued.
The
prosecution presented three witnesses, namely, private complainants Atty. Arturo Limoso and Eduardo Cunanan, and Police Officer Paul Greg Esparta. It dispensed with the testimonies of Police Officers Marmando Pallasigue and Edmund Rizon, in view of the stipulation of the parties as follows: (1) the
police officer recovered a Rolex watch from a person in Bulacan; (2) the
complainant was never present in all the stages of the search for the watch;
(3) the police officer turned over the watch to the complainant; and (4) the
accused was not assisted by counsel during the search for the watch.[5] The parties also stipulated on the existence
of the Affidavit[6]
of Police Officer Marmando Pallasigue.
The
defense presented the appellant as its lone witness.
The
evidence of the prosecution established that on February 10, 2002, private
complainant Atty. Arturo Limoso, after
suffering a stroke, hired appellant as his masseur and stay-in helper in his
house located at
At
about 7:30 a.m. of March 29, 2003, private complainant Eduardo Cunanan, who was
a tenant in one of the rooms of Atty. Limoso's house, reported to Atty. Limoso
the loss of his two wristwatches: a
Seiko Diver's watch worth P2,000.00
and a Rado Diastar watch worth P12,000.00. Atty. Limoso assured
Cunanan that he would investigate the matter. Thereafter, Atty. Limoso asked
his household helpers, including appellant, regarding the missing wristwatches.
When confronted by Atty. Limoso, appellant denied any involvement in the loss
of Cunanan's wristwatches.[8]
A
few hours later, Atty. Limoso suspected that he could also be a victim of theft. So he went to his locker, and discovered that
the key to his vault was missing. He
placed the said key on the wall with his other keys. However, he was able to open his vault using
his duplicate key. He then found that his
Rolex watch worth P300,000.00,
Jordan gold watch worth P65,000.00, five gold rings worth P125,000.00 and two pieces of gold necklace worth P50,000.00
that were all kept inside the vault were
missing.[9]
Atty. Limoso became suspicious that appellant was
the one responsible for the theft after he made an inquiry from the security
guards of the compound. He was informed that
appellant used to leave his house at 10:00 p.m. and returned at around 4:00 a.m. the following
day; that appellant used to borrow money
from the household helpers of the neighboring houses; and that most of the time
appellant was nowhere to be found. Moreover,
as the one massaging him (Atty. Limoso), appellant had access to his room.[10]
Atty. Limoso again
confronted appellant and told him to just return the stolen things with no
questions asked. Appellant replied that he was not the one responsible for the
theft. Atty. Limoso then reported the
incident to the police.[11]
At about 4:00 p.m. of
March 29, 2003, the police arrived at Atty. Limoso's house. Appellant could not be found, and all his
clothes were gone. The police stayed in
the house until the evening. At about
10:00 p.m., the police were tipped off that appellant was at the guardhouse. They immediately proceeded
to the guardhouse, apprehended appellant, and brought him to the police station.[12]
At
the police station, appellant was investigated without the assistance of a
counsel. Through the investigation, the
police was able to trace Atty. Limoso’s Rolex watch to a sidewalk jeweler, who,
upon being investigated, told the police that the watch was already sold to another
person. Atty. Limoso recovered the stolen Rolex watch after paying P20,000.00
to the buyer who lived in Bulacan. Atty.
Limoso, however, did not recover his
Appellant interposed
the defense of denial. He testified that,
at about 7:00 p.m. of March 29, 2003, he
was at the house of his employer, private complainant Atty. Arturo Limoso, at
On
February 17, 2004, the trial court rendered a Decision[15] finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft in Criminal Case No.
Q-03-116291, but he was acquitted of the same crime in Criminal Case No.
Q-03-116290 on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, REYNALDO BAYON Y
RAMOS, guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. Q03-116291 of the
crime of QUALIFIED THEFT defined and penalized in Article 310, in relation to
Article 309, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences him to an indeterminate
penalty of ten years and one day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, as well as orders him to return the
Jordan gold watch worth P65,000.00, the five gold rings worth P125,000.00
and two pieces of gold necklace worth P25,000.00 [each] to Atty. Arturo
Limoso or pay the value thereof.
In Criminal Case No. Q03-116290, judgment is hereby
rendered acquitting Reynaldo Bayon y Ramos of the offense charged on ground of
reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.[16]
The trial court
stated that the prosecution did not offer any direct evidence that appellant stole
the missing items belonging to complainants Eduardo Cunanan and Atty. Limoso. It held that appellant’s statement of
admission during the custodial investigation was inadmissable against him,
because he was not assisted by counsel; hence, there is doubt as to appellant’s
guilt in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116290 for theft of the watches and bolo owned
by private complainant Eduardo Cunanan.
However, in Criminal
Case No. Q-03-116291 for theft of the valuables of Atty. Limoso, the trial
court found that appellant’s culpability was proven by the prosecution through
the following pieces of circumstantial evidence: (1) as
a stay-in helper of Atty. Limoso, appellant
had access to Atty. Limoso's room,
where his vault containing the missing pieces of jewelry were
kept, and where the key to
the vault was placed; and (2) upon discovery of the loss of the missing items, the police could
no longer find appellant’s clothes in Atty. Limoso’s house.
Appellant appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals,
contending that the trial court erred in convicting him in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291. He asserted that the circumstantial evidence
presented against him by the prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, and that there was nothing whatsoever that would link
him to the commission of the crime of theft.[17]
In its Decision[18]
dated May 31, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court with modification in the penalty imposed.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS
CASE, THUS, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION
that the accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the
accessories of the penalty imposed under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code.[19]
Hence, this appeal by appellant.
The main issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals
erred in finding appellant Reynaldo Bayon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of qualified theft in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291.
The petition is granted.
Article
308 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime of 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 the crime
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.[20]
Under Article 310[21]
of the Revised Penal Code, theft becomes qualified “if committed by a
domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen
is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle, or consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if
property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption,
or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.”
In this case, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction of appellant based on circumstantial
evidence.
For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for
conviction, the following conditions must be satisfied:
(a)
There is
more than one circumstance;
(b)
The facts
from which the circumstances are derived are proven; and
(c)
The
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.[22]
Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an
accused only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others as the guilty person; the circumstances proved must be
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is
guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that
of guilty.[23]
In this case, appellant
was convicted of the crime of qualified theft based on these pieces of circumstantial
evidence:
(1) As a stay-in helper of Atty. Arturo Limoso, the [accused-appellant]
had access to the latter's room where his vault containing the missing items
was kept and where the key to the vault was placed;
(2) Upon discovery by Atty. Limoso of the loss of the
missing items, the police could no longer find in Atty. Limoso's house the
clothes of the [accused-appellant.][24]
The Court finds that
the pieces of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the appellate court are
insufficient to convict appellant of the crime of qualified theft. In the first circumstance, the Court notes
that appellant was not the only stay-in helper of Atty. Limoso, as the latter
testified that he had two housemaids.[25] Although Atty. Limoso
testified that only appellant, as his masseur, had access to his room, this is
doubtful, considering the Filipino lifestyle, in which a household helper is
normally tasked to clean the room of his/her employer. Further, in the second circumstance, the
disappearance of appellant’s clothes from Atty. Limoso’s house after the
discovery of the loss of the aforementioned valuables cannot be construed as
flight by appellant, since appellant was talking with the guards in the
compound where Atty. Limoso’s residence was located when he was arrested by the
police.
The two pieces of
circumstantial evidence cited by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate
court do not form an unbroken chain that point to appellant as the author of
the crime; hence, their conclusion becomes merely conjectural. Notably, the
prosecution failed to establish the element of unlawful taking by appellant. Since appellant’s statement during the
custodial investigation was inadmissible in evidence as he was not assisted by
counsel,[26]
the prosecution could have presented the person to whom appellant allegedly
sold the pieces of jewelry as witness, but it did not do so. It could have been
the missing link that would have strengthened the evidence of the prosecution.
The general rule is that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are not to be disturbed by this Court. However, the Court may disregard such findings of the trial and
appellate courts (1) when they are grounded
on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when there is grave abuse
of discretion in the appreciation of facts; and (3) when the findings of fact
are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are
based or are premised on the absence of evidence.[27]
The Court finds the circumstantial
evidence relied upon by the trial and appellate courts in convicting appellant to
be insufficient in proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt absent any
substantial evidence of unlawful taking by appellant.
The burden of proving
the guilt of the accused rests on the prosecution; the accused need not even
offer evidence in his behalf.[28] The constitutional mandate of innocence
prevails, unless the prosecution succeeds in proving by satisfactory evidence
the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused.[29] It failed to do so in this case.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated May 31, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28161, convicting appellant
Reynaldo Bayon y Ramos of the crime of qualified
theft, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Reynaldo Bayon is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on reasonable
doubt. The City Warden of the Quezon City Jail, EDSA, Kamuning, is
DIRECTED to cause the release of Reynaldo
Bayon from confinement without DELAY,
unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to INFORM the Court of his release or the reasons for his continued
confinement within ten (10) days from notice of this Decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE
CATRAL
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated
as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B.
Nachura, per Raffle dated June 1, 2009.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with
Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente,
concurring; rollo, pp. 2-14.
[2] Records,
pp. 2-3.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Exhibit “D,” id. at
13.
[7] TSN, June 16, 2003, pp. 4-5.
[8]
[9] TSN, June 16, 2003,
pp. 7-8, 12-13; TSN, July 28, 2003, p. 4.
[10] TSN, June 16, 2003, p.
10.
[11]
[12]
[13] TSN, June 16, 2003, pp.
12-13; TSN, September 3, 2003, pp. 9-10; TSN, September 8, 2003, pp. 5-6.
[14] TSN, January 6, 2004,
pp. 2-4.
[15] CA
rollo, pp. 30-39.
[16]
[17] CA Decision, rollo,
p. 10.
[18] Rollo, pp. 2-14.
[19]
[20] Astudillo v. People,
G.R. Nos. 159734 & 159745, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 302, 324.
[21] Art. 310. Qualified
theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two
degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the
property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
[22] People v. Castro,
G.R. No. 170415, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 92, 100.
[23]
[24] CA Decision, rollo,
p. 11.
[25] TSN, July 28, 2003, p. 4.
[26] The Philippine Constitution, Art III. Sec. 12. (1) Any
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived, except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
x
x x x
(2)
Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him. (Emphasis supplied.)
[27] Arce v. People,
429 Phil. 328, 334 (2002).
[28]
[29]