GR 207175; (November, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 207175 November 26, 2014
EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Eduardo Magsumbol, along with Erasmo Magsino, Apolonio Inanoria, and Bonifacio Ramirez, was charged with Theft in an Information dated August 30, 2002. The prosecution alleged that on February 1, 2002, in Candelaria, Quezon, the accused conspired to cut, take, steal, and carry away 33 coconut trees valued at ₱44,400.00 from a plantation co-owned by Menandro Avanzado. Prosecution witness Ernesto Caringal, the overseer, testified he saw the accused and seven others cutting the trees and turning them into coco lumber. He reported the incident to Avanzado, and upon inspection with the police on February 3, 2002, they found the trees cut and the lumber removed. The defense, however, claimed that the trees cut were from the adjacent lot owned by Atanacio Avanzado, a relative of the complainant. Atanacio testified he authorized his brothers-in-law (Magsino and Magsumbol) to cut trees on his property. Barangay Captain Pedro Arguelles testified the accused sought permission to cut trees on Atanacio’s land. The accused denied the charges, asserting they only cut trees within Atanacio’s property and lacked intent to gain. The Regional Trial Court convicted all accused of simple theft, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals, which classified the crime as theft of damaged property under Article 308(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE
1. Whether the prosecution presented competent evidence to prove that the coconut trees cut were beyond the property owned by Atanacio Avanzado.
2. Whether the elements of malice and intent to gain, necessary for the crime of theft, were present.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and ACQUITTED petitioner Eduardo Magsumbol on reasonable doubt.
1. The prosecution failed to provide concrete and competent evidence to establish that the 33 coconut trees were cut from Menandro Avanzado’s land and not from the adjacent lot of Atanacio Avanzado. Apart from the bare allegations of the prosecution witnesses, no evidence, such as a survey plan or reliable landmarks, was presented to definitively delineate the boundary between the two properties. The Court found the evidence on this crucial point insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.
2. The prosecution also failed to prove the elements of malice and intent to gain beyond reasonable doubt. For theft of damaged property under Article 308(2), it must be shown that the accused maliciously damaged another’s property and then removed or used the fruits thereof with intent to gain. The Court found no proof of criminal intent or malice. The accused acted under a claim of right, believing they had authority from Atanacio to cut trees on his property. The defense evidence, including testimony from the Barangay Captain about seeking permission, supported the absence of criminal intent. The Court emphasized that criminal intent must be clearly established, and in its absence, no crime is committed. All doubts were resolved in favor of the accused.