G.R. No. L-36509 February 25, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO JAVIER, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Gregorio Javier, was charged with the theft of a Ford Mustang car valued at P27,000.00. The car was stolen on August 8, 1971, from the parking lot of Saint Luke’s Hospital. Following a tip, police officers located the vehicle on August 10, 1971, in Mandaluyong, Rizal, where it was being scraped for repainting by Orlando Sagun, who was hired by Manuel Navarro. Navarro informed the police that the car was delivered to his shop by the appellant, Gregorio Javier.
The prosecution’s evidence did not show that Javier was one of the individuals who actually took the car from the hospital. Instead, his conviction by the trial court was based solely on his unexplained possession of the recently stolen vehicle. Javier was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant’s conviction based on the presumption arising from his unexplained possession of the recently stolen car is valid.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is valid, but the penalty is modified. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of guilt but recalculated the proper penalty. Under Rule 131, Section 5(j) of the Rules of Court, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and doer of the whole act. This presumption is satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be overcome by other evidence.
The Court found the appellant’s explanation for his possession unsatisfactory. He claimed he received the car from a certain Lory Duran to have it repainted for election campaign use. However, he failed to present Duran to corroborate his story or to provide evidence that Duran was the lawful owner. His bare allegation did not suffice to rebut the legal presumption. Thus, the presumption that he was the principal in the theft stood.
Regarding the penalty, the Court modified the trial court’s imposition. The proper penalty for theft of a motor vehicle valued over P22,000.00 under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code is two degrees higher than prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. Appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the maximum penalty should be within the medium period of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eleven (11) years of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen (18) years, two (2) months, and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal as maximum.