Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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 affirin! 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 aiu$
as iniu$ to twent) "0/ )ears of reclusion temporal aiu$ as aiu$ with
the accessor) penalties correspon&in! to the latter$ an& to pa) the correspon&in! value
of the su2ect pieces of 2ewelr).
The Indictment
The petitioner was char!e& of violatin! *.D. No. 1+1" un&er the 3nforation file& on
4une "5$ 1995$ the accusator) portion of which rea&s6
with the total value of P744,00000, belon$in$ to 8ovita 6odri$ue) y ru), which he
nows, or should be nown to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft
The petitioner was arrai!ne&$ with the assistance of counsel$ an& entere& a plea of
not !uilt). Trial forthwith ensue&.
The Case f! the P!sec"tin
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 nae 4.C.
Ro&ri!ue7 Contractors.#acario in!hon was one of her wor,ers. he an& her husan&$
the forer #unicipal #a)or of Ro&ri!ue7$ Ri7al$ ac:uire& several pieces of 2ewelr)
which were place& insi&e a loc,e& cainet in a loc,e& roo in their ain house. 4ovita
hi& the ,e) to the cainet insi&e the roo. The couple an& their son resi&e& insi&e a
copoun&. The) hire& *acita in!hon$ #acarios sister$ as one of their househol&
helpers us soetie in (eruar) 19;9. *acita swept an& cleane& the roo
[<]
perio&icall). oetie in #a) 1991$ she left the eplo) of the Ro&ri!ue7 fail).
oetie in the thir& wee, of =ctoer 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 soe 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!
[>]
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 aount to #acario. ?e also !ave
#acario *500 as a tip.[9]
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;$000. The latter a!ree& an& pai& #acario the
aount. 'rnesto !ave a *"00 tip to #acario. After these transactions$ #acario saw the
petitioner in his shop for aout five to si ore ties an& receive& soe aounts. [11]
invite& the petitioner to !o with the to Cap Crae$ ut the petitioner refuse& an&
&ean&e& that the policeen 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 Criinal Case No.
[18]
"00<. A&oracion was also char!e& with violatin! *.D. No. 1+1" Anti-(encin! aw/$
&oc,ete& as Criinal 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 eecute& a 2oint affi&avit on their investi!ation.
=n epteer 1$ 199"$ 4ovita eecute& a sworn stateent in the office of the police
station of #e)caua)an$ %ulacan$ char!in! the petitioner of u)in! stolen 2ewelr)
worth *+<<$000. A criinal coplaint a!ainst the petitioner for violation of *.D. No.
[1<]
1+1" was file& in the #unicipal Trial Court of #e)caua)an$ %ulacan$ &oc,ete& as
Criinal Case No. 9"-15;81. Durin! the preliinar) 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) hoe. The court foun& proale cause a!ainst the petitioner$ an&
[1+]
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,:00,00000 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/4,00000 totoindemnify
and complainant 8ovita 6odri$ue) in the amount
pay the costs
#+ +65!6!5 %1C&
with *acita re!ar&in! 4ovitas issin! 2ewels. 3n fact$ he &i& not even ,now 4ovita an&
[19]
et her onl) &urin! the preliinar) investi!ation of the case efore the #TC of
#e)caua)an$ %ulacan. ?e$ li,ewise$ &enie& ,nowin! *acita in!hon$ an& claie& that
he first saw her when she accopanie& soe policeen in civilian clothes to his shop$
where he was thereafter invite& to Cap Crae for investi!ation. ?e saw *acita a!ain
["0]
onl) &urin! the preliinar) investi!ation of the case. The petitioner also averre& that
["1]
The petitioner further testifie& that when the policeen in civilian clothes
approache& hi in his shop$ the) as,e& who #an! 'rnin! was$ as the si!n in his shop
carrie& such nae. @hen he respon&e& to the :uestion$ the policeen i&entifie&
theselves as eers of the police force. The petitioner then !ave the his full
nae. @hen the policeen invite& hi for :uestionin!$ he refuse& at first. 'ventuall)$
["5]
he a!ree& to e interro!ate& at the unicipal hall$ where the policeen insiste& on
rin!in! hi to Cap Crae. ?e tol& the that he woul& !o with the onl) if the) ha&
a warrant of arrest. ?e &enie& ever offerin! an) rie to the policeen.
["8] ["<]
=n Noveer "9$ 199<$ the court ren&ere& 2u&!ent fin&in! the petitioner !uilt)
e)on& reasonale &out of violatin! *.D. No. 1+1". The &ecretal portion of the &ecision
rea&s6
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
one 1-
1- diamond
rin$ with rin$ 100,00000
diamond 4,00000
T+T?( D?(=! P744,00000
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
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#
=n Deceer "9$ "000$ the CA ren&ere& 2u&!ent affirin! the &ecision of the
RTC. [";]
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 petitioner asserts that the prosecution faile& to prove his !uilt for the crie
char!e& e)on& reasonale &out. ?e avers that the prosecution faile& to prove that
*acita stole the 2ewelr) su2ect 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 sae to hi$ an& to
a&&uce in evi&ence the 2ewelr) alle!e&l) sol& to hi. ?e conten&s that the testionies
of #acario an& *=1 Rol&an$ 4r.$ on his investi!ation of 4ovitas coplaint for theft$ are
hearsa) evi&ence. The appellant ar!ues that assuin! that #acario sol& the su2ect
2ewelr) to hi$ #acario ha& no personal ,nowle&!e that the sae elon!e& to
4ovita. The petitioner avers that the testion) of #acario$ the principal witness of the
prosecution$ is inconsistent on sustantial atters hence$ shoul& not e !iven cre&ence
an& proative wei!ht.
=n the other han&$ the =ffice of the olicitor General =G/ aintains that the
prosecution was ale to prove all the eleents of the crie char!e&. 3t asserts that the
first eleent was prove& throu!h *acitas conviction for theft in Criinal Case No. "00<
the secon& eleent was shown to eist with oral certaint) via the testion) of
#acario i&entif)in! the petitioner as the one who ou!ht the su2ect pieces of 2ewelr)$
corroorate& ) the testion) of *=1 Rol&an$ 4r. an&$ the thir& eleent was proven )
evi&ence showin! that the petitioner ha& een in the usiness of u)in! an& sellin!
2ewelr) for a lon! perio& of tie$ an& that he ha& the epertise 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 su2ect pieces of 2ewelr)
worth *+<<$000 were sol& to hi for onl) *<0$000. 3t conten&s that the inconsistencies
[50]
in
an&the testionies
coul& of theas
not e a&e prosecution
a asis to witnesses referre&
&isre!ar& the to ) the
trial courts petitioner
fin&in!s were
of facts$ inor$
which
are entitle& to !reat respect an& cre&it. [51]
erel) corroorative of the testionies an& other evi&ence a&&uce& ) the prosecution
to prove the crie 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 testion) of 4ovita$ that *acita stole
the su2ect 2ewelr) fro the loc,e& cainet in the ain house of her then
eplo)er. 4ovita testifie& on her ownership of the 2ewelr) an& the loss thereof$ an&
narrate& that *acita ha& access to the cainet containin! the pieces of 2ewelr).
@e$ however$ a!ree with the petitioner that the &ecision of the RTC of Ri7al$ %ranch
>+$ in Criinal 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& eleent of the crie$ the trial an& appellate courts hel& that the
prosecution prove& the sae e)on& reasonale &out ase& on the testion) of
4ovita &urin! the trial in Criinal Cases Nos. 199" an& "00< that *acita ha& confesse&
to 4ovita that she sol& soe of the 2ewelr) to the petitioner the 2oint affi&avit of *=1
Rol&an$ 4r. an& *=1 *eralta on their investi!ation of the coplaint of 4ovita the
testion) of *=1 Rol&an$ 4r. relatin! to sai& investi!ation the RTC &ecision in Criinal
Cases Nos. 199" an& "00< the testionies of *acita an& her rother #acario &urin!
the preliinar) investi!ation of Criinal 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 suppleental sworn stateent of *acita on Au!ust "5$ 199" in Cap
Crae$ Bue7on Cit)$ an&$ the testion) of #acario efore the trial court.
?owever$ we fin& an& so hol& that
(irst. 4ovitas testion) in Criinal Cases Nos. 199" an& "00<$ that *acita ha&
confesse& to her that she ha& sol& four pieces of 2ewelr) to the petitioner$ is
ina&issile 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& criinal 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 testion) in the sai& criinal 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 ale to cross-eaine
*acita. The rule is that the acts or &eclarations of a person are not a&issile in
evi&ence a!ainst a thir& part).[5<]
3n *eople v. *araiso & we cite& our rulin! in *eople v. ,arcos that an or&inar)
[85] [88]
witness cannot estalish the value of 2ewelr)$ nor a) the courts ta,e 2u&icial notice of
the value of the sae6
%?&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 tae 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 asence of &irect evi&ence that the accuse& ha&
,nowle&!e that the 2ewelr) was stolen$ the prosecution is ur&ene& to prove facts an&
circustances fro which it can e conclu&e& that the accuse& shoul& have ,nown that
the propert) sol& to hi were stolen. This re:uireent serves two asic purposes6 a/ to
prove one of the eleents of the crie of fencin! an&$ / to enale the trial court to
&eterine the iposale penalt) for the crie$ since the penalt) &epen&s on the value
of the propert) otherwise$ the court will fi the value of the propert) at *<.00$
conforal) 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 P10000 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 P400 %/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 affirin! the Decision of the Re!ional Trial
Court of #alolos$ %ulacan$ %ranch ""$ is R''R'D an& 'T A3D'. The petitioner is
ACB3TT'D of the crie of violatin! *.D. No. 1+1" for the prosecutions failure to prove
his !uilt e)on& reasonale &out.
SO ORDERED.
*uno& 'Chairman(& -uisumbing& ustria,artinez& an& Tinga& //.& concur.
[1]
*enne& ) Associate 4ustice %ennie A. A&efuin-&ela Cru7$ with Associate 4ustices aloe A. #onto)a
an& @enceslao 3. A!nir$ 4r.$ concurrin!.
["]
*enne& ) 4u&!e Can&i&o R. %elonte.
[5]
Recor&s$ p. ".