GR 165582; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165582; July 9, 2010
LUIS CHITO BUENSOCESO LOZANO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Luis Chito Lozano, along with co-accused, was charged with theft for stealing two tires, a car stereo, speakers, sunglasses, and a calculator from the car of Paz Gonzales on July 24, 1997, in Parañaque City. The prosecution presented Gonzales, who discovered the theft, and Barangay Tanod Jose Lazaro, Jr. Lazaro testified that based on a tip, he surveilled the house of co-accused Willie Callanga. He witnessed Lozano and Lorenzo Tubis enter the house, emerge carrying two tires, and place them in a Toyota Cressida. Lazaro and fellow tanods intercepted the vehicle, recovered the tires, and arrested Lozano and Callanga. Gonzales later identified the recovered tires as her stolen property.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Lozano and his co-accused of theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Lozano appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the value of the stolen property was not sufficiently established.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Lozano’s guilt for the crime of theft beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but further modified the penalty. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of theft: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belonged to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was without the owner’s consent; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation. The credible testimony of Barangay Tanod Lazaro, who personally witnessed Lozano in possession of and transporting the recently stolen tires, constituted direct evidence of the crime. This recent, unexplained possession of stolen goods gave rise to a presumption of guilt.
Regarding the penalty, the Court agreed with the petitioner that the value of the stolen property was not proven with moral certainty. The prosecution only presented a list of alleged values without supporting receipts or other competent evidence. Applying the principle that in the absence of proof, the lowest value for the items shall be used, the Court pegged the total value at ₱12,000.00. Consequently, applying Article 309(2) of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as maximum.