G.R. No. 148859, September 24, 2002
Herminigildo Lucas, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Herminigildo Lucas, along with Wilfredo Navarro and Enrique Lovena (at large), was charged with theft before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal. The Information alleged that on or about June 8, 1990, they conspired to steal various items (stereo component, colored TV, electric fan, cassette tapes, car toys, Pyrex bowls, cash, and jewelry) valued at P100,000 from the house of Luisito Tuazon. Lucas and Navarro pleaded not guilty. Private complainant Luisito Tuazon testified that upon arriving home on June 8, 1990, he found his house burglarized and items missing. Patrolman Edgardo Fuentes responded and later recovered some stolen items (TV, stereo, fan, toys, tapes) outside a neighbor’s house. Prosecution witnesses Shirley Blanquisco (complainant’s niece) and Reynaldo Raymundo testified they saw the three accused coming out of Tuazon’s house carrying items (Lucas with a fan, Navarro and Lovena with boxes) and loading them onto a tricycle. Lucas and Navarro presented the defense of alibi and denial, with Lucas claiming he was asleep at home at the time. The trial court found them guilty, sentencing them to imprisonment (4 years, 2 months, 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum) and ordering them to return P30,000 (for unrecovered cash and jewelry), as it found the total valuation of P100,000 inconclusive. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but increased the penalty (6 years of prision correccional as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum) based on the alleged P100,000 value. Petitioner Lucas appealed, questioning the finding of conspiracy, the credibility of witness Blanquisco, and the penalty imposed.

ISSUE

1. Whether conspiracy among the accused was sufficiently proven.
2. Whether the credibility of prosecution witness Shirley Blanquisco was impaired by inconsistencies and her relationship to the complainant.
3. Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was correct based on the valuation of the stolen items.

RULING

1. Yes, conspiracy was sufficiently proven. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement. It may be deduced from the concerted acts of the accused demonstrating unity of purpose, intent, and sentiment in committing the crime. Here, the unified acts of Lucas, Navarro, and Lovena—coming out of the house together carrying stolen items and boarding a tricycle to leave—sufficiently established conspiracy. The argument that the testimonies negated conspiracy (as some items were recovered under a plant) was without merit, as the witnesses’ accounts (Blanquisco seeing them exit, Raymundo seeing them load a tricycle) and the recovery of items were not necessarily contradictory.
2. No, the credibility of witness Shirley Blanquisco was not impaired. The trial court’s findings on credibility are generally respected, as it is in a better position to observe witness deportment. The inconsistencies cited by petitioner (e.g., who was in the house, when she reported the incident) related to trivial matters and did not negate her straightforward identification of the accused. Her relationship to the complainant does not automatically discredit her testimony. The prosecution’s failure to present another witness (Jasmin Jamin) did not constitute suppression of evidence, as the prosecution has discretion in presenting witnesses, and the defense could have called her.
3. No, the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was incorrect. The Supreme Court modified the penalty, reinstating the trial court’s lower penalty. The Court held that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the total value of the stolen items as P100,000. Complainant Tuazon’s testimony on valuation was self-serving, uncorroborated, and did not account for depreciation. In light of insufficient evidence and the principle of resolving doubts in favor of the accused, the penalty must be based only on the P30,000 value for the unrecovered cash and jewelry, as the trial court did. Thus, the penalty is reduced to imprisonment ranging from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Decision of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner Herminigildo Lucas guilty of theft is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The penalty is reduced to imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. Petitioner is ordered to return to Luisito Tuazon the amount of P30,000 representing the stolen cash and jewelry.