Case # 19 TOPIC:

Sec. 2. Discretionary Judicial Notice

CASE TITLE: Candelaria v. People

G.R. NO: 209386 DATE: December 8, 2014

PONENTE Perlas-Bernabe, J.

DOCTRINE: The trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which are
matters of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration. In this case,
at the time of the commission of the crime, the value of diesel fuel in this case may be
readily gathered from price lists published by the Department of Energy. It may then be
considered as a matter of public knowledge.

FACTS: In the morning of August 23, 2006, Viron Transit Corp. (Viron) ordered 14,000
liters of diesel fuel allegedly worth ₱497,000 from United Oil Petroleum Phils. (Unioil), a
company owned by private complainant Lao. Petitioner Candelaria is a truck driver,
employed by Lao, who was dispatched to deliver the fuel. At 12:50 in the afternoon of the
same day, Candelaria left the premises of Unioil to deliver the fuel, accompanied by his
helper Romano, also an employee of Unioil. Around 5PM, Viron called Lao to say that it
had not yet received its order. Lao called Candelaria on his mobile phone but did not
receive any response. Around 6PM, Romano returned alone to Unioil’s office and reported
that Candelaria poked a balisong at him, prompting Lao to report the incident to the
authorities. After a few days, the NBI found the truck in Calamba, Laguna, emptied of fuel.
Lao filed a complaint for Qualified Theft against Candelaria.

Lao’s allegations were corroborated on material points by Valera (Lao’s mother) and Claro
(dispatcher and driver of Unioil). The RTC convicted Candelaria, taking the following
circumstances into consideration: (a) on August 23, 2006, Candelaria was the driver of the
truck with plate number PTA-945, loaded with 14,000 liters of diesel fuel valued at
₱497,000.00, for delivery to Viron in Laon Laan, Manila; (b) Viron did not receive the
diesel fuel; (c) Lao reported the incident to Camp Crame and the MPD; and (d) the
following day, August 24, 2006, the same truck was found abandoned and emptied of its
load in Calamba, Laguna. However, Lao’s testimony as to the value of the stolen diesel
fuel being P497,000, was uncorroborated.

Still, the RTC sentenced Candelaria to suffer the indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14)
years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and
four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered him to indemnify Lao the
amount of ₱497,000.00 as the value of the stolen diesel fuel, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs. CA affirmed the conviction as well as
the prison sentence, but modified the amount to which Candelaria was to indemnify Lao,
fixing the same at ₱14,000 in the absence of any supporting documents to prove that the
diesel fuel was indeed ₱497,000.
ISSUE: Whether the CA was correct in modifying the amount to be indemnified.

RULING: NO. The imposable penalty for the crime of Qualified Theft depends upon the
value of the thing stolen. To prove the value of the stolen property for purposes of fixing
the imposable penalty under the RPC, the prosecution must present more than a mere
uncorroborated "estimate." In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of
such estimate, the courts may either: (1) apply the minimum penalty under Article 309; or
(2) fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.

In Merida v. People, the Court deemed it improper to take judicial notice of the selling price
of narra at the time of the commission of its theft, as such evidence would be "unreliable
and inconclusive considering the lack of independent and competent source of such
information."

In Lozano v. People, the Court fixed the value of the stolen mag wheels at ₱12,000.00 as
the "reasonable allowable limit under the circumstances," because of the uncorroborated
testimony of the private complainant therein. Lozano cited the case of Francisco v. People:
"the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which are matters of
public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration," further explaining that
the value of jewelry, the stolen items in the said case, is neither a matter of public
knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration.

In this case, at the time of the commission of the crime, the value of diesel fuel in this case
may be readily gathered from price lists published by the Department of Energy (DOE). In
this regard, the value of diesel fuel involved herein may then be considered as a matter of
public knowledge which falls within the purview of the rules on discretionary judicial
notice. Judicial notice, which is based on considerations of expediency and convenience,
displaces evidence since, being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object which the evidence
is intended to achieve."

Although the prosecution only presented the uncorroborated testimony of Lao, the Court
takes judicial notice of the fact that the pump price of diesel fuel in August 2006 (i.e., the
time of the commission of the crime) is within the range of ₱37.60 to 37.86 per liter. As the
value of the goods may independently and competently be ascertained from the DOE’s
price publication, adding too that the defense had not presented any evidence to
contradict said finding nor cross examined Lao, the Court makes this determination
following the second option set by case law – and that is, to fix the value of the property
taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.

DISPOSITIVE RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

January 31, 2013 and the Resolution dated September 3, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR. No. 34470 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that petitioner
Mel Carpizo Candelaria is: (a) sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole; and (b) ordered to indemnify private complainant Jessielyn
Valera Lao the amount of ₱497,000.00 representing the value of the stolen property.