GR 142039; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142039; May 27, 2004
MODESTO “Moody” MABUNGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Modesto Mabunga was charged with robbery after a typewriter was stolen from the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) office in Romblon on or about October 1, 1994. The prosecution’s case hinged on circumstantial evidence. On October 15, 1994, witness Diana Malay saw Mabunga, then a suspect, carrying a “HOPE” box onto a pedicab. She alerted authorities. Mabunga was seen taking the box to the pier, leaving it with a restaurant cashier, Sylvia Comienzo, claiming it contained a damaged electric fan, and then departing on a vessel. Police later retrieved the box, which contained the missing BFP typewriter.
Mabunga interposed alibi, claiming he was in Leyte from September 24 to October 9, 1994, supervising a marble project, and thus could not have committed the robbery in Romblon on October 1. He presented bus tickets and receipts to support his travel. He admitted bringing a box to the pier on October 15 but claimed it was marked “CHAMPION” and contained marble novelties. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of robbery, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove Mabunga’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Mabunga. The Court held that the evidence failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s circumstantial evidence did not constitute an unbroken chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that Mabunga was the author of the robbery. The evidence merely showed that Mabunga was in possession of the stolen typewriter on October 15, 1994, which was two weeks after the robbery occurred. Possession of stolen property, unless unexplained, is merely corroborative evidence and not conclusive of theft or robbery, especially when the possession is remote from the time of the commission of the crime.
The Court found the testimony of cashier Sylvia Comienzo, who identified Mabunga as the person who entrusted the box, to be unreliable. Her identification was based on a photograph shown to her on the same day, which was suggestive and not conducted in a proper police lineup. Furthermore, the Court noted it was illogical for a robber to entrust a box containing stolen property to a third person while identifying himself. Mabunga’s alibi, supported by documentary evidence, was not successfully discredited by the prosecution. Conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not on mere possibilities or conjectures.