G.R. No. 251732, July 10, 2023
JULIUS ENRICO TIJAM Y NOCHE AND KENNETH BACSID Y RUIZ, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves petitioners Julius Enrico Tijam and Kenneth Bacsid who were accused of theft. The prosecution’s evidence primarily rested on the testimony of the complainant, Kim Mugot. Mugot narrated that: (1) he was pinned to the door of a bus by Bacsid while commuters rushed to board; (2) he later noticed his cellphone, which was in his right pocket, was missing; (3) he followed the person who pinned him (Bacsid) back towards the unloading area; and (4) he saw Tijam (not Bacsid) handing his phone to Bacsid. From these events, the prosecution concluded that Bacsid and Tijam conspired to steal the phone.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of petitioners Julius Enrico Tijam and Kenneth Bacsid for the crime of theft beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The prosecution failed to prove the petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia’s acquittal based on the following reasons:
1. The circumstances only inspire suspicion but are insufficient to prove theft occurred. The phone could have been lost when Mugot was jostled by the crowd, not taken.
2. A significant logical gap exists between Mugot being pinned by Bacsid and later seeing his phone in Tijam’s hand, who was handing it to Bacsid. If Bacsid took it, it should have remained in his possession. If they were conspirators, Tijam would not be handing it back to Bacsid.
3. An equally plausible explanation is that Mugot dropped his phone in the commotion and Tijam merely picked it up.
4. The constitutional presumption of innocence requires that when inculpatory facts are capable of two explanations—one consistent with guilt and another with innocence—the evidence does not meet moral certainty and is insufficient for conviction.
5. The presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Evidence (that a person found in possession of a thing taken in a recent wrongful act is the taker) was hastily applied. The presumption requires a proven recent wrongful act (the taking) as a precondition, which was not sufficiently established in this case.
Therefore, the vote is to ACQUIT the petitioners.