GR 128517; (September, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128517 September 10, 1998
Joebert Santiago, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Joebert Santiago, together with Nonilon Waquez, Roger Lozada, and John Dagohoy, was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law) for stealing a male carabao valued at P10,000.00 belonging to Rodrigo Belorio on the evening of March 17 and early morning of March 18, 1991, in Barangay Maninang, Sapian, Capiz. The prosecution presented witnesses, including police officers and the carabao owner. Their evidence established that police officers on patrol tried to flag down a passenger jeepney suspected of transporting stolen carabaos. The jeepney, driven by Roger Lozada, did not stop and was later intercepted by police in Ivisan, Capiz. The stolen carabao was found inside. Lozada, upon investigation, identified his companions as Nonilon Waquez, John Dagohoy, and Joebert Santiago. Waquez and Santiago admitted they were in the jeepney when flagged but escaped when intercepted. The carabao owner identified his animal. The defense, particularly petitioner Santiago, presented an alibi, claiming he was at his house playing domino and then sleeping from the evening of March 17 until 4:00 a.m. on March 18, after which he left for Mindanao. The trial court convicted Santiago and his co-accused, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of petitioner Joebert Santiago for cattle rustling beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted petitioner Joebert Santiago. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence against Santiago was solely the alleged extrajudicial confession of his co-accused, Roger Lozada, which is inadmissible against Santiago as it is hearsay. The prosecution did not present any witness who could positively identify Santiago as being at the scene of the crime or participating in the theft. His alleged admission to police that he was in the jeepney was not substantiated by any testimony from the apprehending officers. The defense of alibi, while generally weak, must be considered in light of the prosecution’s failure to establish his presence at the crime scene. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and its failure to discharge this burden based on the strength of its own evidence mandates acquittal.