G.R. No. 181355; March 30, 2011
BENJAMIN BELTRAN, JR. and VIRGILIO BELTRAN, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Benjamin Beltran, Jr. and Virgilio Beltran, along with Francisco Bravo (at large), were charged with theft of a hand tractor valued at ₱29,000.00 belonging to Vicente Ollanes on January 20, 1998, in Barangay Sta. Elena, Bula, Camarines Sur. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the identity of the complainant and petitioners, and that a hand tractor was found on February 11, 1998, by Barangay Captain Leon Alcala, Jr.
The prosecution presented Vicente Ollanes, his farm helper Rafael Ramos, and barangay tanod Remberto Naldo. Vicente testified that his hand tractor, stored outside his farmhouse, was stolen. He learned of the theft from his cousin and confirmed it was missing. Rafael testified that he saw petitioners and “Paquito” (Francisco Bravo) pulling the hand tractor to their father’s farm hut, about 50 meters away, while armed with bolos. Remberto corroborated this, stating he saw from about 30 meters away the petitioners and Francisco take the hand tractor, remove its engine, and leave the body outside their father’s hut.
The defense presented petitioners, their mother Lolita Morada Beltran, and Barangay Captain Alcala. Petitioners denied involvement, presenting alibis: Benjamin, Jr. claimed he was working in Angustia, Nabua, Camarines Sur, on that day, and Virgilio claimed he was working in Garchitorena, Camarines Sur, from November 1997 until February 1998. Their mother supported their alibis and suggested the charge was motivated by a prior land dispute between Vicente and the Beltran family. Barangay Captain Alcala testified he found the hand tractor’s body on a farm lot on February 11, 1998.
The Regional Trial Court found petitioners guilty of theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction for theft based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the prosecution proved the elements of theft beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain (animus lucrandi); and (4) the taking was done without the owner’s consent.
The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible, consistent, and straightforward. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Rafael and Remberto, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the petitioners’ denial and alibi. For an alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. Petitioners failed to prove this physical impossibility. The suggested motive of a land dispute did not undermine the positive identification.
The Court also ruled that the finding of the hand tractor’s body by the Barangay Captain did not exculpate the petitioners, as the crime of theft was already consummated upon the unlawful taking. The penalty was correctly imposed in accordance with the Revised Penal Code, considering the value of the stolen property.