G.R. No. 182648 June 17, 2015
HERMAN MEDINA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Herman Medina, a mechanic, was engaged by Henry Lim to repair Lim’s Sangyong Korando Jeep, which was delivered to Medina’s shop in running condition on April 27, 2002. After a reasonable time with no repairs made, Lim’s sister, Purita Lim, instructed Danilo Beltran to retrieve the jeep on September 4, 2002. Beltran discovered the jeep’s alternator, starter, battery, and two tires with rims were missing. Upon inquiry, Medina told Beltran he had taken and installed these parts on another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up, also allegedly owned by Lim and being repaired at the shop. Beltran retrieved the jeep without the missing parts later that day. A criminal complaint for simple theft was filed. The Regional Trial Court convicted Medina of simple theft, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Medina filed this petition, arguing the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, the conviction was based on the weakness of the defense, there was no unlawful taking as it was allegedly with the owner’s acquiescence, and that a receipt (Exhibit “2”/”C”) should have been considered despite not being formally offered.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Medina’s conviction for simple theft.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of theft were present: (1) Medina took personal property (the auto parts); (2) the property belonged to Henry Lim; (3) the taking was with intent to gain, presumed from the unlawful taking; (4) the taking was without Lim’s consent; and (5) it was accomplished without violence or force. Medina admitted taking the parts but claimed he installed them on Lim’s other pick-up. The Court found he failed to substantiate this defense, as he did not prove Lim owned the pick-up, that the parts were the same ones transferred, that Lim consented to the transfer, or provide corroborative testimony. The positive testimonies of Lim and Beltran were credited over Medina’s self-serving claims. The Court ruled that the case of Abundo v. Sandiganbayan was inapplicable as there was no evidence of owner’s consent here. The Court also held that the unoffered receipt could not be considered, as evidence not formally offered has no probative value, and the exception in Mato v. CA did not apply as the receipt was not incorporated in the records. The defense of denial could not prevail over positive identification. The penalty imposed by the lower courts was affirmed.