G.R. No. 102786 August 14, 1998
ALEJANDRO B. DE LA TORRE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alejandro B. de la Torre, a leadman of a MERALCO service crew, was charged with Qualified Theft. On April 18, 1989, MERALCO engineer Alexander Manalo discovered six electric meters missing from the premises of Cathay Pacific Steel and Smelting Corporation (CAPASSCO). Patrolman Edgar Enopia investigated and was told by Danilo Garcia that on April 11, 1989, at about 10:00 p.m., he saw four crewmembers in a MERALCO service truck (number 522) removing the meters. Enopia ascertained from MERALCO that petitioner was part of the crew assigned to truck number 522. On July 4, 1989, the crewmembers were placed in a police line-up, and Garcia identified petitioner as the leader of the group that removed the meters. An information was filed against petitioner. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, relying heavily on Garcia’s testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging violations of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation, erroneous admission of testimonies not formally offered, consideration of hearsay evidence, and insufficiency of Garcia’s uncorroborated testimony.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimonies of prosecution witnesses without a formal offer.
3. Whether the trial court improperly considered hearsay evidence.
4. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of Danilo Garcia is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. No violation of constitutional rights. The police line-up where Garcia identified petitioner was not part of a custodial investigation. Custodial interrogation begins when the investigating officer starts asking questions to elicit admissions or confessions. At the line-up, no questions were directed at petitioner; the questions were for the witnesses. Therefore, the rights to remain silent and to counsel were not yet applicable.
2. No error in admission of testimonies. Petitioner raised the issue of lack of formal offer of testimonies only on appeal, not during trial. Under Rule 132, Section 36, an objection to evidence must be made as soon as grounds become apparent. By failing to object at trial, petitioner waived his objection. Thus, the trial court committed no error.
3. Hearsay evidence was improperly considered but lacked probative value. The trial court considered documents (Exhibit M and others) without presenting the declarants, violating the hearsay rule. While such evidence may be admitted due to lack of objection, it has no probative value. The Supreme Court noted this error but found it did not, by itself, warrant acquittal.
4. Garcia’s testimony is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found Garcia’s testimony improbable and his credibility doubtful. His claim of remembering the truck number because it was a winning “jueteng” number was unconvincing. His ability to recall petitioner’s appearance almost three months after a brief, unremarkable encounter was phenomenal and suspect. Furthermore, a barangay council member testified that no one in the area knew Danilo Garcia, casting doubt on his claimed residence and credibility. Evidence must come from a credible witness and be credible itself; Garcia’s testimony failed this test.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision appealed from is REVERSED and petitioner Alejandro B. de la Torre is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.