GR 39758; (May, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39758 May 7, 1976
ALFREDO DURAN, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfredo Duran, an employee of the Letter Carrier Section of the Manila Post Office, was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly stealing an airmail letter containing a US$50.00 check. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimonies of Postal Inspector Jesus Bello and a civilian witness, Asterio Ramirez. They alleged that on March 13, 1968, they saw Duran take and crumple an envelope near the Post Office. When accosted, Duran fled and was chased. A pursuing policeman claimed to have seen Duran chew and swallow a piece of paper, presumed to be the check. The envelope was later recovered. Duran defended himself by stating he was accosted by two men he believed to be holduppers, one of whom identified himself as a Postal Inspector only after a chase. He denied possessing or destroying any mail matter.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of qualified theft beyond a reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Alfredo Duran. The Court held that the evidence failed to establish the essential elements of theft—the taking of personal property with intent to gain—with the required moral certainty. The prosecution’s narrative was fraught with inconsistencies and improbabilities. The claim that Duran swallowed the check in front of witnesses while running and talking was deemed inherently incredible. The Court found the evidence did not rule out the reasonable possibility that Duran’s possession of the mail matter, if any, was authorized by his duties as a letter carrier verifying wrong addresses. When the evidence admits two explanations—one consistent with innocence and another with guilt—the principle of reasonable doubt dictates acquittal. The findings of fact by the Court of Appeals were reviewed and overturned because they were based on speculation and a misapprehension of the evidence, which failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.