G.R. No. 181355; March 30, 2011
BENJAMIN BELTRAN, JR. and VIRGILIO BELTRAN, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Benjamin Beltran, Jr. and Virgilio Beltran, along with Francisco Bravo (at large), were charged with theft for allegedly stealing a hand tractor valued at ₱29,000.00 belonging to Vicente Ollanes on January 20, 1998, in Barangay Sta. Elena, Bula, Camarines Sur. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the identity of the complainant and petitioners, and that a hand tractor was found on February 11, 1998, by Barangay Captain Leon Alcala, Jr.
The prosecution presented Vicente Ollanes, his farm helper Rafael Ramos, and barangay tanod Remberto Naldo. Vicente testified that his hand tractor, stored outside his farmhouse, was stolen. He learned of the theft from his cousin and confirmed it was missing. Rafael testified that he saw petitioners and “Paquito” (Francisco Bravo) pulling the hand tractor towards their father’s farmhouse while armed with bolos, preventing his intervention. Remberto corroborated this, stating he witnessed from a nearby house the petitioners and Francisco taking the hand tractor, removing its engine, and leaving the body outside their father’s hut.
The defense presented petitioners, their mother Lolita Morada Beltran, and Barangay Captain Alcala. Petitioners denied involvement, presenting alibis: Benjamin, Jr. claimed he was working in Angustia, Nabua, Camarines Sur, on the date in question, while Virgilio claimed he was working in Garchitorena, Camarines Sur, from November 1997 until February 1998. Their mother supported their alibis and suggested the charge was motivated by a prior land dispute between Vicente and their father. Barangay Captain Alcala testified he found the hand tractor’s body on a farm and later turned over the recovered engine to the police.
The Regional Trial Court found petitioners guilty of theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction for the crime of theft.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that the prosecution proved petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of theft are present: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain (animus lucrandi); (4) the taking was done without the owner’s consent; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. All elements were established through the positive, clear, and consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses Rafael Ramos and Remberto Naldo, who both identified petitioners as among those who took the hand tractor. Their testimonies were deemed credible and sufficient to support a conviction.
The Court rejected petitioners’ defenses of alibi and denial. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. Petitioners failed to prove such physical impossibility. The distances between their alleged workplaces (Angustia, Nabua, and Garchitorena) and the crime scene (Sta. Elena, Bula) did not make it impossible for them to have been present. Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, which petitioners failed to provide.
The Court also found no ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against petitioners. The alleged prior land dispute involved the petitioners’ father, not the witnesses themselves, and was insufficient to impugn their credibility.
The Court modified the penalty in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. Petitioners were also ordered to pay Vicente Ollanes ₱29,000.00 as actual damages, with legal interest from the date of the trial court’s decision until full payment.