G.R. No. 146296; October 15, 2007
EDUARDO GULMATICO y BRIGATAY, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo Gulmatico was charged with Robbery for allegedly breaking into the house of spouses Gary and Rebecca Lipayco on December 31, 1996, and taking various items. The prosecution presented two child eyewitnesses, Angelo Alera and Michael Arnaldo, both eight years old, who testified that they saw Gulmatico push open the door of the Lipaycos’ house, enter, ransack a cabinet, and take a VHS player and a wallet. Their testimonies were corroborated by Conchita Alera. The stolen items, with a total value of ₱12,800.00, were not recovered.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Gulmatico, a family friend and godfather to the Lipaycos’ child, claimed he merely passed by their slightly opened door to look for Gary, as requested by Rebecca earlier that day. He asserted he was carrying only a car stereo and a box of ham when he left the area on a tricycle, a fact corroborated by a co-worker. He celebrated New Year’s Eve elsewhere and was apprehended only on January 1, 1997, when he voluntarily went to the Lipaycos’ house after learning Rebecca was looking for him.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for the crime of Theft.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction for Theft. The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses. The testimonies of the two child witnesses were found to be categorical, consistent, and given with sufficient clarity, thereby positively identifying Gulmatico as the perpetrator. The defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over such positive identification, especially absent any evidence of ill motive on the part of the witnesses to falsely testify against the petitioner.
However, the Court agreed with the modification made by the Court of Appeals. The crime proven was Theft, not Robbery. For Robbery to exist, the taking of personal property must be accomplished with violence against or intimidation of any person, or by using force upon anything. The Information alleged force “by breaking the door,” but the evidence established that the door was merely pushed open, not broken. The prosecution witnesses consistently testified that the accused “pushed” the door, and no evidence was presented to show that the door was actually broken, forced open, or damaged. Since the element of force upon things was not proven, the taking constituted simple Theft. The penalty was adjusted accordingly, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.