G.R. No. L-71305 November 24, 1986
MANUEL SOLIMAN, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, 3RD DIVISION; and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel Soliman, a clerk at the Malacañang garage, was charged with qualified theft for allegedly conspiring with co-workers to steal 1,000 liters of premium gasoline on July 20, 1981. The prosecution alleged that a requisition for 9,000 liters was made, but upon delivery, 1,000 liters were retained in the delivery truck to be sold privately. The plan was foiled by a surveillance team. All of Soliman’s co-accused were acquitted at trial, except for the truck driver, Bernardo Cube, who had escaped and was never tried. The Sandiganbayan convicted Soliman alone, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to pay civil indemnity.
The conviction was primarily based on the extrajudicial confession of the absent co-accused, Cube, which implicated Soliman. The prosecution also relied on Soliman’s own alleged confession. The defense presented evidence that Soliman’s confession was obtained after he was manhandled by investigators, for which he sought medical treatment. The Sandiganbayan also inferred guilt from circumstantial facts, such as Soliman’s presence at the Pandacan depot to follow up the requisition and his decision to ride back to Malacañang in the delivery truck with Cube.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in convicting petitioner Manuel Soliman of qualified theft based on insufficient and inadmissible evidence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted Soliman. The conviction was fundamentally flawed for relying on evidence not formally offered in violation of Rule 132, Section 35 of the Rules of Court. The extrajudicial confession of the fugitive Cube was never formally offered by the prosecution for the purpose of proving Soliman’s guilt. Even if offered, it would be inadmissible as hearsay against Soliman, violating his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witness. Furthermore, Cube’s statement was obtained in violation of constitutional rights on custodial investigation as established in Morales v. Enrile.
Soliman’s own alleged confession was invalidated by unrebutted evidence that it was extracted through coercion and physical maltreatment, rendering it inadmissible. Absent these inadmissible confessions, the remaining circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan’s inferences from Soliman’s presence at the depot and his riding in the truck were speculative and failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The Court emphasized the duty of prosecutors and courts to ensure convictions are based on solid evidence, not conjecture, to avoid staining an innocent person’s name. The Solicitor General’s commendable manifestation for acquittal, acknowledging the lack of evidence, was noted.