GR 191185; (February, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191185 , February 1, 2016
Guilbemer Franco, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent
FACTS
Petitioner Guilbemer Franco was charged with theft for allegedly stealing a Nokia 3660 cellular phone worth Php 18,500.00 belonging to Benjamin Joseph Nakamoto on November 3, 2004, at a gym in Manila. The prosecution’s evidence established that Nakamoto placed his phone on a gym altar, went to change clothes, and found it missing upon his return. Witness Arnie Rosario testified he saw Franco take a cap and a cell phone from the altar. The gym’s caretaker, Virgilio Ramos, testified that Franco was not working out, was only on his second gym visit, and was the only person who left the gym after the phone was declared missing, as noted in the logbook. Nakamoto and others searched for Franco, and a vendor reported seeing a person with a ringing phone trying to shut it off. Franco denied the charge, claiming the items he took were his own and that he left the gym much later. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Franco of theft, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, relying on Rosario’s positive testimony and circumstantial evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved Franco’s guilt for the crime of theft beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ACQUITTED petitioner Guilbemer Franco. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish the corpus delicti of theft—that the property was lost by the owner and that it was lost by felonious taking. The testimony of witness Arnie Rosario was found to be unreliable as he did not categorically identify the cell phone taken by Franco as the one belonging to Nakamoto; he only stated he saw Franco take “a cell phone.” The circumstances presented—Franco’s presence, his taking of an unspecified cell phone, and his early departure—did not form an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion of Franco’s guilt to the exclusion of all others, as required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevails when the prosecution’s evidence does not meet the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The weakness of the defense does not strengthen the prosecution’s case, which must rely on its own merit.