Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

ERNESTO FRANCISCO y SPENOCILLA, petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court
[1]

of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 19110 affirin! the Decision of the Re!ional Trial Court
["]

of #alolos$ %ulacan$ %ranch ""$ fin&in! petitioner 'rnesto (rancisco !uilt) of violatin!
*resi&ential Decree No. 1+1"$ otherwise ,nown as the Anti-(encin! aw$ sentencin!
hi to suffer the penalt) of ten 10/ )ears an& one 1/ &a) of prision mayor aiu$
as iniu$ to twent) "0/ )ears of reclusion temporal aiu$ as aiu$ with
the accessor) penalties correspon&in! to the latter$ an& to pa) the correspon&in! value
of the su2ect pieces of 2ewelr).

The Indictment

The petitioner was char!e& of violatin! *.D. No. 1+1" un&er the 3nforation file& on
4une "5$ 1995$ the accusator) portion of which rea&s6

That in or about the month of November 1991, in the municipality of Meycauayan,


Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable ourt,
the said accused !rnesto "rancisco y #penocilla, with intent to $ain for himself, did
then and there wil%l&fully, unlawfully and feloniously buy, receive, possess and
ac'uire from one Pacita (in$hon y (i)a, not the owner, several pieces of jewelry, to
wit*

+ne 1- pair of earrin$s Heart #hape- ... P /00,00000


+ne 1- 2hite 3old Bracelet .... 140,00000
+ne 1- 5iamond 6in$ .... 100,00000
+ne 1- 6in$ with 5iamond .... 4,00000

with the total value of P744,00000, belon$in$ to 8ovita 6odri$ue) y ru), which he
nows, or should be nown to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft

ontrary to law %:&

The petitioner was arrai!ne&$ with the assistance of counsel$ an& entere& a plea of
not !uilt). Trial forthwith ensue&.
The Case f! the P!sec"tin

4ovita Ro&ri!ue7 was a resi&ent of %aran!a) #an!!ahan$ Ro&ri!ue7$ Ri7al. he [8]

was en!a!e& in usiness as a !eneral contractor un&er the usiness nae 4.C.
Ro&ri!ue7 Contractors.#acario in!hon was one of her wor,ers. he an& her husan&$
the forer #unicipal #a)or of Ro&ri!ue7$ Ri7al$ ac:uire& several pieces of 2ewelr)
which were place& insi&e a loc,e& cainet in a loc,e& roo in their ain house. 4ovita
hi& the ,e) to the cainet insi&e the roo. The couple an& their son resi&e& insi&e a
copoun&. The) hire& *acita in!hon$ #acarios sister$ as one of their househol&
helpers us soetie in (eruar) 19;9. *acita swept an& cleane& the roo
[<]

perio&icall). oetie in #a) 1991$ she left the eplo) of the Ro&ri!ue7 fail).
oetie in the thir& wee, of =ctoer 1991$ *acita contacte& her rother #acario$
who resi&e& in itio %aloon!an$ %aran!a) *alto,$ #e)caua)an$ %ulacan$ an& as,e&[+]

hi to sell soe pieces of 2ewelr). he tol& #acario that a frien& of hers owne& the
2ewelr). #acario a!ree&. ?e then went to the shop of petitioner 'rnesto 'rnin!
[>]

(rancisco locate& at *acheco treet$ Calvario$ #e)caua)an$ %ulacan$ which ha& a


[;]

poster outsi&e that sai&$ @e u) !ol&. #acario entere& the shop$ while *acita sta)e&
outsi&e. #acario offere& to sell to 'rnesto two rin!s an& one racelet.'rnesto a!ree& to
u) the 2ewelr) for *"<$000$ an& pai& the aount to #acario. ?e also !ave
#acario *500 as a tip.[9]

oetie in Noveer 1991$ *acita as,e& #acario anew to sell a pair of


[10]

earrin!s. ?e a!ree&. ?e an& a frien& of his went to the shop of 'rnesto an& offere& to
sell to 'rnesto the pair of earrin!s for *1;$000. The latter a!ree& an& pai& #acario the
aount. 'rnesto !ave a *"00 tip to #acario. After these transactions$ #acario saw the
petitioner in his shop for aout five to si ore ties an& receive& soe aounts. [11]

oetie in Noveer 1991$ 4ovita was as,e& to e a principal sponsor at a


we&&in!. he was shoc,e& when she opene& the loc,e& cainet containin! her 2ewelr)$
an& foun& that the o was ept). he notice& that the loc, to the cainet was not
ro,en. Aon! the pieces of 2ewelr) issin! were one pair of &iaon& heart-shape&
earrin!s worth *800$000 one heart-shape& &iaon& rin! worth *100$000 one white
!ol& racelet with &iaon& stones worth *1<0$000 an& one rin! with a sall &iaon&
stone worth *<$000. he suspecte& that it was *acita who stole her 2ewelr). he was$
however$ occupie& with her usiness ventures that she ha& little tie to !ather evi&ence
an& char!e *acita.
=n Au!ust 19$ 199"$ 4ovita file& a coplaint for theft a!ainst *acita an& her other
A&oracion in!hon with the Counter-3ntelli!ence Group of the *hilippine National *olice
in Cap Crae$ Bue7on Cit). he state& that she owne& several 2ewels$ viz6 one 1/
heart-shape& pair of earrin!s with &iaon& worth * 800$000 one 1/ heart-shape& rin!
with &iaon& worth *100$000 one 1/ white !ol& racelet with &iaon& stones
worth *1<0$000 an&$ one 1/ rin! with a sall &iaon& stone worth *<$000. he also
averre& that *acita ha& stolen the pieces of 2ewelr)$ an& that she an& her other
A&oracion &ispose& of the sae.
A tea of police investi!ators$ inclu&in! *=1 antia!o Rol&an$ 4r. of the Counter-
3ntelli!ence Group$ invite& *acita an& A&oracion to Cap Crae$ Bue7on Cit)$ for
investi!ation in connection with 4ovitas coplaint. *acita arrive& in Cap Crae
without counsel an& !ave a sworn stateent pointin! to the petitioner as the person to
who she sol& 4ovitas 2ewelr). =n Au!ust "5$ 199"$ *acita !ave a sworn stateent to
*=1 Rol&an$ 4r.$ a&ittin! that she sol& one pair of heart-shape& earrin!s with
&iaon&$ one white !ol& racelet$ one heart-shape& &iaon& rin!$ an& one rin! with i!
an& sall stones to #an! 'rnin! of #e)caua)an$ %ulacan$ for the total price of *<0$000
to
of cover the cost
the person of her the
to who fathers operation
2ewelr) an& *acita
was sol&$ for foo&. @henthat
replie& as,e&
sheaout
,newthe
hifull nae
onl) as
#an! 'rnin!.
*acita accopanie& a !roup of five police officers$ which inclu&e& *=1 Dreio
*eralta an& *=1 Rol&an$ 4r. to the shop in #e)caua)an$ %ulacan. *acita pointe& to the
petitioner as the #an! 'rnin! who ha& purchase& the 2ewelr) fro her. The policeen
ali!hte& fro their vehicle an& invite& the petitioner for :uestionin! in Cap
Crae. pon his insistence$ the petitioner was rou!ht to the police station of
#e)caua)an$ %ulacan. @hen the) were at the police station$ the petitioner$ in the
presence of *=8 al&e7$ offere& an aount of *<$000 to the policeen as a rie$ for
the not to iplicate hi in the case. *=1 Rol&an$ 4r. re2ecte& the offer. The) a!ain
[1"]

invite& the petitioner to !o with the to Cap Crae$ ut the petitioner refuse& an&
&ean&e& that the policeen first secure a warrant for his arrest shoul& the) insist on
ta,in! hi with the. [15]

Nevertheless$ *acita was char!e& with :ualifie& theft in the Re!ional Trial Court of
an #ateo$ Ri7al$ %ranch >+. The case was &oc,ete& as Criinal Case No.
[18]

"00<. A&oracion was also char!e& with violatin! *.D. No. 1+1" Anti-(encin! aw/$
&oc,ete& as Criinal Case No. 199". The cases were consoli&ate& an& 2ointl) trie&.
#eanwhile$ 4ovita succee&e& in convincin! #acario to testif) a!ainst the petitioner$
assurin! hi that he woul& not e prosecute& for violation of *.D. No. 1+1". #acario
a!ree& to testif) a!ainst the petitioner.
*=1 Rol&an$ 4r. an& *=1 *eralta eecute& a 2oint affi&avit on their investi!ation.
=n epteer 1$ 199"$ 4ovita eecute& a sworn stateent in the office of the police
station of #e)caua)an$ %ulacan$ char!in! the petitioner of u)in! stolen 2ewelr)
worth *+<<$000. A criinal coplaint a!ainst the petitioner for violation of *.D. No.
[1<]

1+1" was file& in the #unicipal Trial Court of #e)caua)an$ %ulacan$ &oc,ete& as
Criinal Case No. 9"-15;81. Durin! the preliinar) investi!ation$ *acita an& #acario
testifie& that the) sol& a set of earrin!s$ racelet an& two rin!s to the petitioner
for *<0$000 at his shop in #e)caua)an$ %ulacan. Accor&in! to *acita$ she foun& the
2ewelr) elon!in! to 4ovita while she was cleanin! the roo in the house$ an& that she
rou!ht the 2ewelr) hoe. The court foun& proale cause a!ainst the petitioner$ an&
[1+]

issue& a warrant for his arrest.


=n 4une "5$ 1995$ an 3nforation was file& ) the *rovincial *rosecutor with the
RTC char!in! the petitioner with violatin! *.D. No. 1+1".
3n the eantie$ on Au!ust "0$ 1995$ 2u&!ent was ren&ere& ) the RTC of an
#ateo$ Ri7al$ %ranch >+$ in Criinal Cases Nos. 199" an& "00<$ fin&in! *acita !uilt) of
theft an& A&oracion !uilt) of fencin! un&er *.D. No. 1+1"$ e)on& reasonale &out.
The &ecretal portion of the &ecision rea&s6

2H!6!"+6!, premises considered, jud$ment is hereby rendered in these cases, as


follows*

1 ;n rim ase No <004, findin$ accused Pacita (in$hon y (i)a 3=;(T> beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of theft, as defined and penali)ed under ?rt :0@ in
relation to ?rt :09 of the 6evised Penal ode, and sentencin$ her to suffer the
indeterminate sentence of Nine 9- years and "our /- months of prision mayor as
minimum to !i$hteen 1@- years, Two <- months and Twenty <0- days of reclusion
temporal as maAimum, to return to complainant 8ovita 6odri$ue) the unrecovered
stolen pieces of jewelry subject of this case and if restitution is not possible, to
indemnify the said complainant in the amount of P1,:00,00000 and to pay the costs

< ;n rim ase No 199<, findin$ accused ?doracion (in$hon y (i)a 3=;(T>
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of P5 171<, otherwise nown as
the ?nti."encin$ (aw, and sentencin$ her to suffer imprisonment of Twelve 1<- years

of prision
of mayor
P/4,00000  totoindemnify
and complainant 8ovita 6odri$ue) in the amount
pay the costs

#+ +65!6!5 %1C&

The Case f! the Petitine!

The petitioner testifie& that he was a resi&ent of Calvario$ #e)caua)an$ %ulacan. ?e


ha& a shop locate& at *acheco treet$ Calvario$ #e)caua)an$ %ulacan$ where he
ou!ht an& sol& 2ewelr). ?e ha& een in this usiness since 19;0. ?e &i& not transact
[1;]

with *acita re!ar&in! 4ovitas issin! 2ewels. 3n fact$ he &i& not even ,now 4ovita an&
[19]

et her onl) &urin! the preliinar) investi!ation of the case efore the #TC of
#e)caua)an$ %ulacan. ?e$ li,ewise$ &enie& ,nowin! *acita in!hon$ an& claie& that
he first saw her when she accopanie& soe policeen in civilian clothes to his shop$
where he was thereafter invite& to Cap Crae for investi!ation. ?e saw *acita a!ain
["0]

onl) &urin! the preliinar) investi!ation of the case. The petitioner also averre& that
["1]

he ha& no transaction with #acario of whatever nature. [""]

The petitioner further testifie& that when the policeen in civilian clothes
approache& hi in his shop$ the) as,e& who #an! 'rnin! was$ as the si!n in his shop
carrie& such nae. @hen he respon&e& to the :uestion$ the policeen i&entifie&
theselves as eers of the police force. The petitioner then !ave the his full
nae. @hen the policeen invite& hi for :uestionin!$ he refuse& at first. 'ventuall)$
["5]
he a!ree& to e interro!ate& at the unicipal hall$ where the policeen insiste& on
rin!in! hi to Cap Crae. ?e tol& the that he woul& !o with the onl) if the) ha&
a warrant of arrest. ?e &enie& ever offerin! an) rie to the policeen.
["8] ["<]

=n Noveer "9$ 199<$ the court ren&ere& 2u&!ent fin&in! the petitioner !uilt)
e)on& reasonale &out of violatin! *.D. No. 1+1". The &ecretal portion of the &ecision
rea&s6

2H!6!"+6!, in view of the fore$oin$, jud$ment is hereby rendered as follows*

1 "indin$ the accused 3=;(T> beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Pres
5ecree No 171< ?nti."encin$ (aw- and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maAimum, as minimum, to <0 years of reclusion
temporal maAimum, as maAimum, with the accessory penalties correspondin$ to the
latter

< +rderin$ the accused to pay to private complainant 8ovita 6odri$ue) the
correspondin$ value of the subject items of jewelries sic-*

one 1- pair of earrin$s, heart shaped P /00,00000


one 1- white $old bracelet 140,00000

one
one 1-
1- diamond
rin$ with rin$ 100,00000
diamond 4,00000
T+T?( D?(=! P744,00000

with 7E interest on all amounts due from the filin$ of the information on 8une <:,
199: until said amounts have been fully paid

#+ +65!6!5 %<7&

The petitioner appeale& the &ecision to the Court of Appeals conten&in! that6
I

TH! (+2!6 +=6T !66!5 ;N N+T ";N5;N3 TH?T TH! T!#T;M+N> +"
P6+#!=T;+N 2;TN!##!# ?6! ?(( H!?6#?> !D;5!N!
II

TH! (+2!6 +=6T !66!5 ;N N+T ";N5;N3 TH?T TH! P6+#!=T;+N


!D;5!N! 2?# N+T #="";;!NT T+ +ND;T TH! ?=#!5.
?PP!((?NT B!>+N5 6!?#+N?B(! 5+=BT

III
TH! (+2!6 +=6T !66!5 ;N B!(;!D;N3 +N TH! +NT6?5;T;N3
T!#T;M+N> sic- +" P6+#!=T;+N 2;TN!##!#

I#

TH! (+2!6 +=6T !66!5 ;N B!(;!D;N3 TH! T!#T;M+N> +" ?


P6+#!=T;+N 2;TN!## ?# T+ TH! ?((!3!5 ?=#!5.?PP!((?NT#
+""!6 +" B6;B! 2;TH+=T #H+2 +" M+N!>

TH! (+2!6 +=6T !66!5 ;N N+T ?F=;TT;N3 TH! ?=#!5.


?PP!((?NT %<C&

=n Deceer "9$ "000$ the CA ren&ere& 2u&!ent affirin! the &ecision of the
RTC. [";]

The P!esent Petitin

3n the present recourse$ petitioner 'rnesto (rancisco asserts that6

The ourt of ?ppeals erred in sustainin$ the trial courts decision findin$ petitioner
$uilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of the sic- Presidential 5ecree No 171<,
otherwise nown as the ?nti."encin$ (aw

The ourt of ?ppeals erred in relyin$ on the conflictin$ testimonies of prosecution


witnesses, all of which consisted of hearsay evidence %<9&

The petitioner asserts that the prosecution faile& to prove his !uilt for the crie
char!e& e)on& reasonale &out. ?e avers that the prosecution faile& to prove that
*acita stole the 2ewelr) su2ect of the char!e$ an& that #acario sol& the sai& pieces of
2ewelr) to hi. ?e$ li,ewise$ posits that the prosecution faile& to present *acita as its
witness to prove that she stole the pieces of 2ewelr) an& sol& the sae to hi$ an& to
a&&uce in evi&ence the 2ewelr) alle!e&l) sol& to hi. ?e conten&s that the testionies
of #acario an& *=1 Rol&an$ 4r.$ on his investi!ation of 4ovitas coplaint for theft$ are
hearsa) evi&ence. The appellant ar!ues that assuin! that #acario sol& the su2ect
2ewelr) to hi$ #acario ha& no personal ,nowle&!e that the sae elon!e& to
4ovita. The petitioner avers that the testion) of #acario$ the principal witness of the
prosecution$ is inconsistent on sustantial atters hence$ shoul& not e !iven cre&ence
an& proative wei!ht.
=n the other han&$ the =ffice of the olicitor General =G/ aintains that the
prosecution was ale to prove all the eleents of the crie char!e&. 3t asserts that the
first eleent was prove& throu!h *acitas conviction for theft in Criinal Case No. "00<
the secon& eleent was shown to eist with oral certaint) via the testion) of
#acario i&entif)in! the petitioner as the one who ou!ht the su2ect pieces of 2ewelr)$
corroorate& ) the testion) of *=1 Rol&an$ 4r. an&$ the thir& eleent was proven )
evi&ence showin! that the petitioner ha& een in the usiness of u)in! an& sellin!
2ewelr) for a lon! perio& of tie$ an& that he ha& the epertise to ,now the correct
ar,et price of the 2ewelr) he purchase& fro #acario an& *acita. The =G asserts
that the petitioner ust have een put on his !uar& when the su2ect pieces of 2ewelr)
worth *+<<$000 were sol& to hi for onl) *<0$000. 3t conten&s that the inconsistencies
[50]

in
an&the testionies
coul& of theas
not e a&e prosecution
a asis to witnesses referre&
&isre!ar& the to ) the
trial courts petitioner
fin&in!s were
of facts$ inor$
which
are entitle& to !reat respect an& cre&it. [51]

The R"$in% f the C"!t

The petition is eritorious.


The essential eleents of the crie of fencin! are as follows6 1/ a crie of roer)
or theft has een coitte& "/ the accuse&$ who is not a principal or accoplice in the
coission of the crie of roer) or theft$ u)s$ receives$ possesses$ ,eeps$
ac:uires$ conceals$ sells or &isposes$ or u)s an& sells$ or in an) anner &eals in an)
article$ ite$ o2ect or an)thin! of value$ which has een &erive& fro the procee&s of
the crie of roer) or theft 5/ the accuse& ,new or shoul& have shown that the sai&
article$ ite$ o2ect or an)thin! of value has een &erive& fro the procee&s of the
crie of roer) or theft an&$ 8/ there is$ on the part of the accuse&$ intent to !ain for
hiself or for another. (encin! is malum prohibitum$ an& *.D. No. 1+1" creates
[5"]

a prima facie presuption of fencin! fro evi&ence of possession ) the accuse& of


an) !oo&$ article$ ite$ o2ect or an)thin! of value which has een the su2ect of
roer) or theft$ an& prescries a hi!her penalt) ase& on the value of the propert).
The stolen propert) su2ect of the char!e is not in&ispensale to prove fencin!. 3t is
[55]

erel) corroorative of the testionies an& other evi&ence a&&uce& ) the prosecution
to prove the crie of fencin!.
@e a!ree with the trial an& appellate courts that the prosecution ustere& the
re:uisite :uantu of evi&ence$ on the asis of the testion) of 4ovita$ that *acita stole
the su2ect 2ewelr) fro the loc,e& cainet in the ain house of her then
eplo)er. 4ovita testifie& on her ownership of the 2ewelr) an& the loss thereof$ an&
narrate& that *acita ha& access to the cainet containin! the pieces of 2ewelr).
@e$ however$ a!ree with the petitioner that the &ecision of the RTC of Ri7al$ %ranch
>+$ in Criinal Case No. "00< convictin! *acita of theft &oes not constitute proof
a!ainst hi in this case$ that *acita ha&$ in&ee&$ stolen the 2ewelr).There is no showing
that the said decision in Criminal Case No. 2005 was already final and executory when
the trial court rendered its decision in the instant case .
=n the secon& eleent of the crie$ the trial an& appellate courts hel& that the
prosecution prove& the sae e)on& reasonale &out ase& on the testion) of
4ovita &urin! the trial in Criinal Cases Nos. 199" an& "00< that *acita ha& confesse&
to 4ovita that she sol& soe of the 2ewelr) to the petitioner the 2oint affi&avit of *=1
Rol&an$ 4r. an& *=1 *eralta on their investi!ation of the coplaint of 4ovita the
testion) of *=1 Rol&an$ 4r. relatin! to sai& investi!ation the RTC &ecision in Criinal
Cases Nos. 199" an& "00< the testionies of *acita an& her rother #acario &urin!
the preliinar) investi!ation of Criinal Case No. 9"-15;81 efore the #TC of
#e)caua)an as shown ) the transcripts of the steno!raphic notes ta,en &urin! the
procee&in!s the suppleental sworn stateent of *acita on Au!ust "5$ 199" in Cap
Crae$ Bue7on Cit)$ an&$ the testion) of #acario efore the trial court.
?owever$ we fin& an& so hol& that
(irst. 4ovitas testion) in Criinal Cases Nos. 199" an& "00<$ that *acita ha&
confesse& to her that she ha& sol& four pieces of 2ewelr) to the petitioner$ is
ina&issile in evi&ence a!ainst the latter to prove the truth of the sai& a&ission. 3t
ears stressin! that the petitioner was not a part) in the sai& criinal cases. The well
entrenched rule is that only parties to a case are bound by a !udgment of the trial
court. "trangers to a case are not bound by the !udgment of said case . 4ovita &i& not
[58]

reiterate her testion) in the sai& criinal cases &urin! the trial in the court a #uo . The
prosecution &i& not present *acita as witness therein to testif) on the a&ission she
purporte&l) a&e to 4ovita hence$ the petitioner was not ale to cross-eaine
*acita. The rule is that the acts or &eclarations of a person are not a&issile in
evi&ence a!ainst a thir& part).[5<]

econ&. The testion) of *acita &urin! the preliinar) investi!ation in Criinal


Case No. 9"-15;81$ as well as her suppleental affi&avit$ is$ li,ewise$ ina&issile
a!ainst the petitioner since *acita &i& not testif) in the court a #uo . The petitioner was$
thus$ &eprive& of his constitutional ri!ht to confront an& cross-eaine a witness a!ainst
hi.
Thir&. The testion) of *=1 Rol&an$ 4r.$ that on Au!ust "5$ 199"$ *acita pointe& to
the petitioner$ while the latter was havin! a &rin,in! spree$ as the person who ou!ht
the su2ect 2ewelr) fro her$ is in&ee& a&issile in evi&ence a!ainst the petitioner. 3t is$
li,ewise$ corroorative of the testion) of #acario. ?owever$ such testion) is
a&issile onl) to prove such fact - that *acita pointe& to the petitioner as the person to
who she sol& the su2ect 2ewelr) it is ina&issile to prove the truth of *acitas
&eclaration to the policeen$ that the petitioner was the one who purchase& the 2ewelr)
fro her. 3t ust e stresse& that the policeen ha& no personal ,nowle&!e of the sai&
sale$ an&$ ore iportantl)$ *acita &i& not testif) in the court a #uo . 3n&ee&$ the
petitioner was &eprive& of his ri!ht to cross-eaine *acita on the truth of what she tol&
the policeen.
(ourth. =n the other han&$ the testion) of #acario &urin! the preliinar)
investi!ation of Criinal Case No. 9"-15;81 is a&issile in evi&ence a!ainst the
petitioner since he testifie& for the prosecution an& was cross-eaine& on his
testion) &urin! the preliinar) investi!ation.
3n fine$ the onl) evi&ence of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner purchase&
the 2ewelr) fro #acario an& *acita are the followin!6 the testion) an& affi&avit of
*=1 Rol&an$ 4r. an&$ the testion) of #acario &urin! the preliinar) investi!ation an&
trial in the court a #uo.
Althou!h the well-entrenche& rule is that the testion) of a sin!le witness is
sufficient on which to anchor a 2u&!ent of conviction$ it is re:uire& that such testion)
ust e cre&ile an& reliale. 3n this case$ we fin& the testion) of #acario to e
[5+]

&uious hence$ arren of proative wei!ht.


#acario a&itte& when he testifie& in the court a #uo that his testion) &urin! the
preliinar) investi!ation in Criinal Case No. 9"-15;81 an& his testion) in the court a
#uo were inconsistent.?e even a&itte& that soe portions of his testion) on &irect
eaination in the court a #uo were inconsistent with his testion) on cross-
eaination an& on re-&irect eaination. These a&issions are uttresse& ) the
recor&s of the case$ which show that such inconsistencies pertaine& to aterial points
an& not erel) to inor atters. Thus$ &urin! the preliinar) investi!ation in Criinal
Case No. 9"-15;81$ #acario a&itte& that on =ctoer 10$ 1991$ he an& his sister
*acita sol& two rin!s an& one racelet to the petitioner for *"<$000$ while in Noveer
1991$ he an& *acita sol& a pair of earrin!s to the petitioner for *"<$000. =n &irect
eaination in the court a #uo $ #acario testifie& that he an& *acita sol& the earrin!s to
the petitioner in #a) 199"$ not in Noveer 1991$ an& onl) for *1;$000. =n cross-
eaination$ #acario testifie& that he an& his sister *acita went to the petitioners shop
in #e)caua)an$ %ulacan an& sol& the su2ect 2ewelr) on oth occasions. =n further
cross-eaination$ #acario chan!e& his testion) anew$ an& &eclare& that he sol& the
2ewelr) to the petitioner for *1;$000 an& not *"<$000 onl) to chan!e his testion)
a!ain$ an& &eclare that he sol& the 2ewelr) for *"<$000. ?owever$ #acario testifie&
&urin! the preliinar) investi!ation in Criinal Case No. 9"-15;81 that when he
transacte& with the petitioner for the secon& tie$ he was with a frien&$ an& not with his
sister *acita. =n re&irect eaination$ #acario &eclare& that in =ctoer 1991$ he an&
*acita sol& four 8/ pieces of 2ewelr)$ nael)$ two rin!s$ one racelet an& a pair of
earrin!s$ contrar) to his testion) on &irect eaination. ?e also testifie& that he an&
his sister sol& the earrin!s in Noveer 1991. %ecause of the contra&ictin! accounts
a&e ) #acario$ the court a&e the followin! oservations6
Court
: Accor&in! to )ou$ )ou were nalilito ut )ou !ave the correct answer$ )ou are
not nalilito here ut )ou !ave the wron! answer. $a%it ganoon& sabi mo nalilito %a
roon 'sic( pero ang sagot mo pala tama. )ito hindi %a naman nalilito& ba%it
mali. $a%it %a nalilito eh tama iyong *25&000.00. +indi %a nalilito& mali ang sabi
mo.
a %ecause 3 a scare[&] here thats wh) 3 !ave the wron! answer.
: Eou etter thin, aout it.
a 3 was confuse&$ ir.[5>]
The testionies of #acario are even contrar) to the averents of the 3nforation$
that the petitioner receive& the sai& 2ewelr) fro *acita.
Assuin!$ for the nonce$ that the petitioner purchase& the sai& 2ewelr) fro
#acario$ there is no evi&ence on recor& that the petitioner ,new that the) were
stolen. i!nificantl)$ even #acario &i& not ,now that the 2ewelr) was stolen. ?e testifie&
that his sister *acita tol& hi efore he sol& the 2ewelr) to the petitioner that the)
elon!e& to a frien& of hers.
Att). erio
B At that tie )ou an& )our sister sol& those 2ewels to #an! 'rnin! &i& &o )ou ,now
alrea&) [that] it was #rs. Ro&ri!ue7 who is the owner of those 2ewelsF
A No$ ir$ 3 &o not ,now.
B An& who &o )ou ,now was the owner of that 2ewels an& that tie )ou an& )our sister
sol& those 2ewels to #an! 'rnin!F
A Accor&in! to ) sister$ it is sic/ owne& ) a frien& of hers.
Court
B ?ow &i& )ou coe to ,now of this #an! 'rnin!F
A =nl) at that tie when we rou!ht the 2ewels.
B %ut previous to that$ &o )ou ,now hiF
A No.[5;]
#acario learne&$ after the case a!ainst *acita ha& alrea&) een file& in the trial
court$ that the 2ewelr) was$ after all$ owne& ) 4ovita. ?owever$ he faile& to infor the
petitioner that the sai& 2ewelr) was stolen. (ollowin! is the testion) of #acario6
Att). erio
B @hen )ou learne& that those 2ewels were owne& ) #rs. Ro&ri!ue7$ &i& )ou$ if at all$
infore& sic/ #an! 'rnin! aout itF
Court
B No asis$ when &i& )ou coe to ,now that the 2ewels elon! to #rs. Ro&ri!ue7F
A 3n 199"$ when ) sister alrea&) ha& a case.
B @hat &i& )ou &o when )ou coe sic/ to ,now aout thatF
A 3 was not ale to &o an)thin! ut 2ust to help ) sister with her case an& also to help
the case of #rs. Ro&ri!ue7.
Att). erio
B After that$ after ,nowin! that these 2ewels are sic/ owne& ) #rs. Ro&ri!ue7$ was
there an) occasion where )ou sic/ ale to infor #an! 'rnin! that those 2ewels
were owne& ) #rs. Ro&ri!ue7F
A No ore$ 3 have no ore tie.[59]
The prosecution cannot even vali&l) ar!ue that the petitioner shoul& have ,nown
which pieces of 2ewelr) were stolen$ consi&erin! that #acario was sellin! the sae
for *<0$000 when the sai& pieces stolen fro 4ovita were alle!e& to e worth *+<<$000.
This is so ecause the prosecution faile& to a&&uce sufficient copetent evi&ence to
prove the value of the sai& stolen articles. The prosecution relie& solel) on the are an&
uncorroorate& testion) of 4ovita$ that the) were worth *+<<$0006
Att). erio
B Now$ will )ou tell this Court soe of those 2ewels which )ou ownF
A 3 own several 2ewels an& the one sic/ in :uestion are6 1-pair of earrin!s$ &iaon&
heart-shape& *800$000.00 1-rin!$ heart-shape& &iaon& worth *100$000.00 1-
racelet$ white !ol& full of stones$ &iaon& worth *1<0$000.00 1-&iaon& rin!
with sall stones[80] worth *<$000.00. o$ all in all$ the 2ewelr) is sic/
worth *++<$000.00.
@hen as,e& ) the trial court to &eclare the present ar,et value of the stolen
2ewelr)$ 4ovita erel) &eclare&6
Att). erio
B Now a!ain$ when &i& )ou ac:uire those 2ewels if )ou can still reeerF
A 3 reeer several )ears a!o when ) husan& is sic/ alive.
Court
B *lease tell the court$ [is] the ar,et value of the 2ewels the sae to&a)F
A No$ that is sic/ the ar,et value several )ears a!o.
B o$ can )ou eplain [if] the ar,et value$ ore or less$ [is] the sae to&a)F
A No. The price$ if we will appraise now$ is uch i!!er.[81]
@hen re:uire& ) the petitioner$ throu!h counsel$ to rin! to the court an) receipts
reflectin! the price of the pieces of 2ewelr) to show that she purchase& the sae$ 4ovita
answere& that she ha& no such receipts. Thus6
Court
B Eou ou!ht it fro [a] private personF
A Ees$ Eour ?onor.
Att). %ernal
B @hat then is )our proof that )ou ou!ht these 2ewelries sic/ fro a private personF
Att). erio
That was alrea&) answere&$ Eour ?onor. he sai&$ no receipt.
[8"]

3n *eople v. *araiso & we cite& our rulin! in *eople v. ,arcos that an or&inar)
[85] [88]

witness cannot estalish the value of 2ewelr)$ nor a) the courts ta,e 2u&icial notice of
the value of the sae6

%?&nd as we have ruled in the case of People vs. Antonio Marcos, an ordinary witness
cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only tae judicial notice of
the value of $oods which are matters of public nowled$e or are capable of
un'uestionable demonstration The value of jewelry is not a matter of public
nowled$e nor is it capable of un'uestionable demonstration and in the absence of
receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self.servin$ valuation made by
the prosecution, we cannot award the reparation for the stolen jewelry %/4&

3t ears stressin! that$ in the asence of &irect evi&ence that the accuse& ha&
,nowle&!e that the 2ewelr) was stolen$ the prosecution is ur&ene& to prove facts an&
circustances fro which it can e conclu&e& that the accuse& shoul& have ,nown that
the propert) sol& to hi were stolen. This re:uireent serves two asic purposes6 a/ to
prove one of the eleents of the crie of fencin! an&$ / to enale the trial court to
&eterine the iposale penalt) for the crie$ since the penalt) &epen&s on the value
of the propert) otherwise$ the court will fi the value of the propert) at *<.00$
conforal) to our rulin! in*eople v. )ator6 [8+]

;n the absence of a conclusive or definite proof relative to their value, this ourt fiAed
the value of the ba$ and its contents at P10000 based on the attendant circumstances
of the case More pertinently, in the case of People vs. Reyes, this ourt held that if
there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the
prosecution failed to prove it, the correspondin$ penalty to be imposed on the
accused.appellant should be the minimum penalty correspondin$ to theft involvin$
the value of P400 %/C&

IN #IE& OF ALL THE FORE'OIN' $ the petition is GRANT'D. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 19110 affirin! the Decision of the Re!ional Trial
Court of #alolos$ %ulacan$ %ranch ""$ is R''R'D an& 'T A3D'. The petitioner is
ACB3TT'D of the crie of violatin! *.D. No. 1+1" for the prosecutions failure to prove
his !uilt e)on& reasonale &out.
SO ORDERED.
*uno& 'Chairman(& -uisumbing& ustria,artinez& an& Tinga& //.& concur.

[1]
*enne& ) Associate 4ustice %ennie A. A&efuin-&ela Cru7$ with Associate 4ustices aloe A. #onto)a
an& @enceslao 3. A!nir$ 4r.$ concurrin!.
["]
*enne& ) 4u&!e Can&i&o R. %elonte.
[5]
Recor&s$ p. ".

Вам также может понравиться