GR 104687 88; (June, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 104687-88. June 19, 1995.
PONCIANO CORTEZ and ELLEN BICO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Ponciano Cortez, a delivery driver, and Ellen Bico, a station manager/cashier, were employees of complainant Felipe de los Reyes’s gasoline station. Two Informations for Qualified Theft were filed against them and another co-accused, Enrique de la Torre. The first charge alleged theft of gasoline valued at P17,058.41 on June 10, 1982, and the second for P5,775.00 on April 6, 1982. The prosecution’s case rested largely on the testimony of eyewitness Blandina Sabornido, who resided at the station. She testified that she saw Cortez and de la Torre siphon gasoline from a delivery tank into drums on multiple occasions, including the specific dates in April and June. The stolen fuel was then sold to drivers. Bico’s involvement was established through her custodianship of a dipstick used to measure inventory; the dipstick was found shortened by six inches, artificially inflating tank readings and concealing the shortages.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioners’ convictions for Qualified Theft based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the convictions. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Blandina Sabornido to be credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioners challenged her credibility by noting she had no diary, but the Court found her explanation for remembering the specific dates—such as a brother’s birthday—to be natural and convincing. The fact that the prosecution only filed two counts despite her testimony about ten incidents does not weaken the case for the two dates proven; the prosecution has discretion in charging offenses.
Regarding petitioner Bico, the Court upheld her conviction as an accomplice. Her role was integral to the scheme’s concealment. As the station manager and custodian of the dipstick, her act of signing off on delivery receipts and sales reports, despite the manipulated dipstick and persistent inventory shortages, constituted indispensable cooperation in the crime’s execution through simultaneous acts. The trial court correctly reasoned that her experience made it impossible for the theft to occur without her knowledge. Thus, the penalties imposed by the lower courts were affirmed.