zabala vs. people of the philippines

7/25/2019 Zabala vs. People of the Philippines

1/14

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 210760 January 26, 2015

KYLE ANTONY !A"ALA,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE O# TE P$L$PP$NES,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

%ELASCO, JR., J.:

The !ase

"efore this !ourt is a Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari under Rule $% of the Rules of !ourt, see&in'the reversal of the (ul) *%, +*- Decision of the !ourt of ppeals /!0 and its (anuar) 1, +*$Resolution in !23.R. !R No. -$$+1, entitled People of the Philippines v. 4)le nthon) 5abala. Theassailed ! Decision affir6ed the (ul) 7, +** (ud'6ent in !ri6. !ase No. *8782M2+1 of theRe'ional Trial !ourt /RT!0, "ranch ++, Malolos !it), findin' petitioner 'uilt) be)ond reasonable


2/14

doubt of the cri6e of theft, punishable under rticles -1 and -9 of the Revised Penal !ode. Theassailed Resolution, 6ean#hile, denied petitioner:s Motion for Reconsideration.

The ;acts

n Infor6ation #as filed a'ainst petitioner 4)le nthon) 5abala /5abala0 before the RT!, "ranch ++,Malolos !it), char'in' hi6 #ith theft, the pertinent te


3/14

!o6plainant las, 6ean#hile, #or&s at the Manila !it) Hall. It is throu'h this >ob that he #as able tosave the Si


4/14

Version of the Defense

;or his defense, 5abala testified that in the earl) 6ornin' of (une *7, +7, he #as drivin' hispassen'er >eepne), to'ether #ith his friend, #itness 3anas. The) parted #a)s at around 8= in the6ornin' of the follo#in' da). Durin' the #hole ti6e the) #ere to'ether, the) did not drop b) thehouse of the private co6plainant. Neither did he have the ti6e to 6eet Maril)n PiEon, of #ho6 here'arded onl) as an acFuaintance and not his 'irlfriend.1

Bitness 3anas corroborated the declaration of 5abala. He testified that he #as #ith petitioner,actin' as the conductor, #hile petitioner #as pl)in' the route of his driven >eepne). He had &no#npetitioner since his childhood, and #as his 'ood friend.9

Rulin' of the RT!

On (ul) 7, +**, the RT! rendered its (ud'6ent convictin' petitioner of the offense char'ed. Thedispositive portion of the RT! Decision reads=

BHR;OR, findin' 'uilt of the accused be)ond reasonable doubt, >ud'6ent is hereb) renderedin !ri6inal !ase No. *8782M2+1 !ONVI!TIN3 accused 4@G NTHON@ 5"G #ith the cri6e

of theft defined and penalied under the provisions of rticle -1 and -9 of the Revised Penal !odeand is hereb) sentencedJ to suffer i6prison6ent of, appl)in' the Indeter6inate Sentence Ga#, theMINIMAM penalt) of prision correccional #hich is 8 )ears, to a M?IMAM penalt) of prision 6a)orinits 6a


5/14

ccused 5abala is li&e#ise ordered to inde6nif) and pa) the a6ount of si


6/14

finall), the co6bination of all the circu6stances is such as to produce a conviction be)ondreasonable doubt.*+

The ! then found that the series of circu6stances present in this case supports a conviction, andconstitutes the basis for a reasonable inference of the e


7/14

Thus, the present recourse before this !ourt. Petitioner no# ar'ues that there is no sufficientevidence on record to support his conviction for the char'e of theft.

In its !o66ent, respondent People insists that the prosecution #as able to establish petitioners'uilt be)ond a reasonable doubt. It ar'ues that the ! correctl) ruled that the series ofcircu6stances presented before the trial court is sufficient to support a conviction. *8

The Issues

I.

BHTHR TH HONOR"G !OART O; PPGS RRD IN ;;IRMIN3 THPTITIONRS !ONVI!TION "@ 3IVIN3 ;AGG BI3HT ND !RDN! TO THPROS!ATION BITNSSS TSTIMONIS.

II.

BHTHR TH HONOR"G !OART O; PPGS RRD IN ;;IRMIN3 THD!ISION O; TH R3IONG TRIG !OART DSPIT TH ;!T THT TH VIDN!

ON R!ORD ;IGD TO SAPPORT !ONVI!TION.*7

In fine, petitioner alle'es that the evidence presented before the trial court is insufficient to convicthi6 of the offense char'ed.

The !ourts Rulin'
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_210760_2015.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_210760_2015.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_210760_2015.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_210760_2015.html#fnt17


8/14

Be reverse the findin's of the RT! and the !. Be a'ree #ith petitioner, and find that the evidencepresented belo# does not constitute proof be)ond a reasonable doubt, sufficientto convict petitionerof theft. Thus, he 6ust be acFuitted.

Discussion

3iven that the case for the prosecution is lar'el) based on circu6stantial evidence, a shortdiscussion on the sufficienc) of circu6stantial evidence to convict an accused is in order.

!ircu6stantial evidence asbasis for conviction

It is a settled rule that circu6stantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, and that directevidence isnot al#a)s necessar). This is but a reco'nition of the realit) that in certain instances, dueto the inherent atte6pt to conceal a cri6e, it is not al#a)s possible to obtain direct evidence. In"acolod v. People, this !ourt had the occasion to sa)=

The lac& or absence of direct evidence does not necessaril) 6ean that the 'uilt of the accusedcannot be proved b) evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole 6eans ofestablishin' 'uilt be)ond reasonable doubt, because circu6stantial evidence, if sufficient, cansupplant the absence of direct evidence. The cri6e char'ed 6a) also be proved b) circu6stantialevidence, so6eti6es referred to as indirect or presu6ptive evidence. !ircu6stantial evidence hasbeen defined as that #hich C'oes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue,#hich, if proved, 6a) tend b) inference to establish a fact in issue.C*1
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_210760_2015.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_210760_2015.html#fnt18


9/14

The Rules of !ourt itself reco'nies that circu6stantial evidence is sufficient for conviction, undercertain circu6stances=

Sec. $. !ircu6stantial evidence, #hen sufficient. L !ircu6stantial evidence is sufficient for convictionif=

/*0 There is 6ore than one circu6stanceK

/+0 The facts fro6 #hich the inferences are derived are provenK

/-0 The co6bination of all the circu6stances is such as to produce a conviction be)ond a

reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in Goano v. People, this !ourt clarified the application of the circu6stantial evidence rule=

To sustain a conviction based on circu6stantial evidence, it is essential that the circu6stantialevidence presented 6ust constitute an unbro&en chain #hich leads one to a fair and reasonableconclusion pointin' to the accused, to the e


10/14

Anfortunatel), in the case at bar, this !ourt finds that the prosecution failed to present sufficientcircu6stantial evidence to convict the petitioner of the offense char'ed. Be find that the pieces ofevidence presented before the trial court fail to provide a sufficient co6bination of circu6stances, asto produce a conviction be)ond reasonable doubt.

To recall, the evidence of the prosecution purports to establish the follo#in' narrative= first, that theco6plainin' #itness las hides P81, in cash in his closet inside their houseK second, thatpetitioner is a#are that las hides 6one) in his bedroo6 closetK third, that on the ni'ht of theincident, petitioner #as #ith his then 'irlfriend, #itness PiEonK fourth, that petitioner cli6bed throu'hthe fence of lass house, and #as able to successfull) 'ain entrance to his houseK fifth, thatpetitioner later #ent out of the house #ith a bul'e in his poc&etsK and si


11/14

delicti has t#o ele6ents, na6el)= /*0 that the propert) #as lost b) the o#ner, and /+0 that it #as lostb) felonious ta&in'.+

;irst, nobod) sa# 5abala enter the bedroo6 of las, #here the 6one) a6ountin' to P81, #asalle'edl) &ept and hidden. It is interestin' to note that #hile las testified that there #ere otherpersons livin' in that house, i.e. his fa6il) 6e6bers, the prosecution failed to put an) of the6 on the#itness stand, to testif) that the) sa# or heard so6ethin' out of the ordinar) at the ti6e the incidentalle'edl) too& place, or to e


12/14

evidence #hatsoever to prove that his poc&et in fact #as used to hide the 6one) that he alle'edl)stole. The trial and appellate courts co66itted error in acceptin' as fact that 5abala:s poc&etcontained 6one), #hen there is a dearth of evidence to support such alle'ation.

nd fourth, the rule in circu6stantial evidence cases is that the evidence 6ust e


13/14

PRES"$TERO J. %ELASCO, JR.ssociate (ustice

B !ON!AR=

&$OS&A&O M. PERALTAssociate (ustice

MART$N S. %$LLARAMA, JR.ssociate (ustice

"$EN%EN$&O L. REYESssociate (ustice

MAR%$C M.%.#. LEONEN'ssociate (ustice

T T S T T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case#as assi'ned to the #riter of the opinion of the !ourt:s Division.

PRES"$TERO J. %ELASCO, JR.ssociate (ustice!hairperson

! R T I ; I ! T I O N


14/14

Pursuant to Section *-, rticle VIII of the !onstitution and the Division !hairperson:s ttestation, Icertif) that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case#as assi'ned to the #riter of the opinion of the !ourt:s Division.

MAR$A LOUR&ES P.A. SERENO!hief (ustice

zabala vs. people of the philippines

Documents