GR 86220; (April, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86220; April 20, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO CIOBAL Y PABRUA, EUSEBIO EBREO Y RINGOR, ESTER PAJIMOLA Y EBREO, RICARDO LIM, RICARDO MIRANDA and EDDIE PAJIMOLA, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
An Information charged eight employees of Ben’s Petron Service Center in San Fernando, La Union, with Qualified Theft. The prosecution alleged that from December 1980, the accused conspired to pilfer gasoline worth P118,855.21 by tampering with the station’s pump meters, committing the act with grave abuse of confidence. Only six appellants were arraigned and pleaded not guilty, as two remained at large. The prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of the owner, Benjamin Galvez. After the prosecution rested, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied. The court then deemed the case submitted for decision without allowing the defense to present its evidence, convicting all six appellants and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether the conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness was valid, and whether the trial court erred in denying the defense the right to present evidence after the demurrer was denied.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted all appellants. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of evidence and procedural errors. For a conviction of Qualified Theft, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti—the fact of loss and its criminal cause—beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the evidence grievously lacking. The testimony of Benjamin Galvez, the offended party, was not only uncorroborated but also riddled with inconsistencies and speculative conclusions. He admitted he never witnessed any tampering and based his allegations solely on a perceived inventory shortage, for which he provided no competent, independent evidence like an auditor’s report. His claim of conspiracy was premised merely on the fact that all accused were employees, which is insufficient to establish a common criminal design.
Procedurally, the trial court erred in denying the appellants their right to adduce evidence after the demurrer was denied. The Court applied the amended Rule 119, Section 15 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure retroactively, as it was favorable to the accused. The rule states that if a demurrer to evidence is filed with prior leave of court and is denied, the accused may present evidence. The record showed the defense sought and was granted time to file the demurrer, constituting substantial compliance. By precluding the defense from presenting its case, the trial court violated the appellants’ fundamental right to due process. Given the prosecution’s failure to discharge its burden of proof and the procedural infirmity, the acquittal was mandated.