G.R. No. L-48700. July 2, 1990.
CO KIAT, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Co Kiat was convicted of qualified theft for the hijacking of 540 cases of Salem cigarettes from Clark Air Base. The prosecution established that on September 4, 1968, Airman James Sconiers, the assigned escort, diverted the shipment to the compound of the Visayan Bicycle Manufacturing Company in Valenzuela, Bulacan. There, the sealed metal containers (connexes) were opened, the cigarettes were unloaded and replaced with hollow blocks, and the connexes were rewelded to be sent onward to Manila to conceal the theft. Sconiers proceeded to deliver the falsified shipment and later received a payoff.
Co Kiat was positively identified by prosecution witnesses as being present and actively supervising the unloading and stockpiling of the stolen cigarettes inside the compound. The evidence further showed he supplied the hollow blocks used as replacements. Later that same day, he was apprehended inside a panel truck that was fully loaded with the stolen cigarettes at a Quezon City intersection by ASAC agents who had been conducting surveillance.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Co Kiat’s conviction despite his defense of alibi and his argument that the acquittal of his co-accused, Godofredo Cruz, on grounds of reasonable doubt should also exonerate him.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the conclusive nature of factual findings and the distinct concept of conspiracy. The Court emphasized that in petitions for review, its jurisdiction is generally limited to questions of law. The factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding unless shown to be utterly unsupported by evidence. Here, the evidence against Co Kiat was overwhelming and direct: he was identified at the crime scene supervising operations, he provided the hollow blocks, and he was literally caught in possession of the stolen goods during transport. His alibi could not overcome this concrete evidence.
Regarding the acquittal of co-accused Cruz, the Court ruled it does not invalidate Co Kiat’s conviction. Conspiracy does not require the conviction of all alleged conspirators. The acquittal of one, based on the specific evidence (or lack thereof) against him, does not absolve another against whom the evidence of participation is strong and conclusive. The crime involved multiple conspirators, and Co Kiat’s guilt was established by his own individual acts and not solely through his linkage to Cruz. Therefore, his conviction stands independently.