GR 209373; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209373 & 209414, July 30, 2014
JOEL YONGCO and JULIETO LAÑOJAN, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. / ANECITO TANGIAN, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Joel Yongco, Julieto Lañojan, and Anecito Tangian, Jr. were employees of the City Government of Iligan. Tangian was a garbage truck driver, while Yongco and Lañojan were security guards assigned to the City Engineer’s Office (CEO). They were charged with Qualified Theft for allegedly conspiring to steal car parts (one transmission, boom, differential, and I-beam) valued at ₱40,000 from the CEO premises on April 16, 2005. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that Tangian, accompanied by helper Pablo Salosod, loaded the items onto his truck with Yongco’s assistance, and later unloaded them in front of Delfin Junk Store, where Lañojan gave a “thumbs-up” sign and later covered the items with a sack. The defense claimed the items were scrap materials authorized for disposal to clear the area for new trucks, with Lañojan asserting he was off-duty and had given gate passes to Yongco, and Tangian claiming he merely followed Lañojan’s instructions. The Regional Trial Court convicted all three petitioners of Qualified Theft, finding conspiracy among them. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining petitioners’ conviction for Qualified Theft, specifically, whether conspiracy existed among the petitioners in committing the offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court ruled that conspiracy was sufficiently established. The petitioners, by their coordinated actions, demonstrated a common criminal design. Tangian, the driver, took the items without the required gate pass, facilitated by security guard Yongco who allowed the exit without the pass. Lañojan, though off-duty, initiated the plan by instructing Tangian to deliver the items to the junk shop and was present at the delivery point, giving a confirming “thumbs-up” sign and later concealing the items. These acts, taken together, showed a unity of purpose and concerted action to commit theft. The Court emphasized that in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of their degree of participation. Thus, the petitioners were correctly found guilty of Qualified Theft.