GR 251732; (July, 2023) (Digest)
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
Petitioners Julius Enrico Tijam and Kenneth Bacsid were charged with Theft for allegedly stealing a Samsung Galaxy A7 cellular phone from Kim Mugot on August 18, 2017, at the SM Mall of Asia bus waiting area in Pasay City. Mugot testified that while boarding a bus, he was pinned against the door by Bacsid. Upon entering the bus, he discovered his phone missing from his right pocket. He alighted, saw Bacsid walking back to the waiting area, and then witnessed Tijam hand his phone to Bacsid. A struggle ensued, damaging the phone. Petitioners denied the accusation, claiming Tijam found the phone on the ground, picked it up, and showed it to Bacsid before Mugot accosted them. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of Theft, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The lower courts relied on the presumption that possession of a recently stolen item indicates the possessor is the taker, and found the petitioners’ explanation unconvincing.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioners for the crime of Simple Theft beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
NO. The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts and ACQUITTED the petitioners. The prosecution failed to prove all the elements of Theft beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented did not establish the element of unlawful taking (apoderamiento). The circumstances cited by the prosecution—(1) Bacsid pinning Mugot, (2) Mugot discovering his phone missing, (3) Bacsid walking to the waiting area, and (4) Tijam handing the phone to Bacsid—do not constitute an unbroken chain leading to the inescapable conclusion that petitioners stole the phone. The act of pinning does not equate to taking, especially since the phone was allegedly taken from the opposite side pocket. The finding of possession was based on speculation, as the act of handing over an item is susceptible to multiple interpretations (e.g., handing over a found item). The presumption of possession arising from a recent wrongful act cannot apply where the very fact of unlawful taking (the wrongful act) was not proven. The evidence for the prosecution was weak and did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The petitioners’ acquittal is ordered.