G.R. No.: C.A. No. 349
Date: May 25, 1946

Case Title: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERONIMO MACALINDONG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The Provincial Government of Batangas owned about 500 steel wheelbarrows stored at the old provincial government building. Eustaquio Casenas, a clerk, discovered around June or July 1942 that about 100 wheels and wheelbarrows had disappeared. The prosecution’s witnesses, Laureano Ilagan and Eduardo Bombeta, testified that on the morning of June 12, 1942, the appellant, Geronimo Macalindong, requested their help to remove ten wheelbarrow wheels from the building. Appellant claimed he had purchased them at a public auction. They entered the building through a hole in the rear wall, placed the wheels in a carromata driven by appellant, and took them to Sebio’s Hotel. There, appellant gave Ilagan and Bombeta two wheels each as compensation and took the remaining six to his house. Ilagan sold his two wheels for P2, indicating the total value was about P10. One of the wheels was later found in appellant’s possession. The defense presented a different version, claiming that on June 12, 1942, Ilagan and Bombeta met appellant at a store and offered to sell him wheelbarrow wheels they had at their houses. Appellant testified he purchased four wheels from them for P4.15, which wheels were presented as prosecution evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence for the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant for the crime of theft beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the guilt of the appellant fully established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution’s evidence. The Court rejected the defense’s attack on the credibility of prosecution witnesses Ilagan and Bombeta, noting the absence of evidence showing any improper motive for them to testify falsely. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on witness credibility, applying the doctrine that greater weight is given to positive prosecution testimony than to the defendant’s denials. The Court addressed the discrepancy between Ilagan and Bombeta’s testimony (theft on June 12, 1942) and prosecution witness Marciano Ebreo’s statement (discovery of disappearance since January 1942) by ruling these facts were not incompatible, as different items could have been stolen at different times. The information alleged the stolen wheels were worth P135, but the evidence established their value as P10. Applying Article 309(5) of the Revised Penal Code, and with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium degree. The Court modified the trial court’s sentence to two months and one day of arresto mayor, with accessory penalties, an indemnity of P6 to the Provincial Government of Batangas, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs.
DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Perfecto):
Justice Perfecto dissented, believing the appellant’s guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The dissent was based on: (1) the prosecution’s case resting on the testimony of Ilagan and Bombeta, who were found in possession of part of the stolen goods and had a motive to shift blame; (2) the inconsistency between Ilagan and Bombeta’s testimony (theft on June 12, 1942) and the disinterested witness Ebreo’s testimony (discovery of loss since January 1942), which was not adequately explained; and (3) the inherent incredibility of the theft being committed in broad daylight from a government building in a populous town and the stolen goods being transported publicly without intervention from officials or bystanders. The dissent opined the decision should be reversed and the appellant acquitted.