G.R. No. L-84; April 15, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORETO PABELLA, ET. AL., defendants. DEMOCRITO JARA, appellant.

FACTS

An information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas on July 30, 1945, accusing Loreto Pabella and Democrito Jara of the crime of theft of large cattle. It was alleged that on or about June 29, 1945, in Tayabas, they conspired to steal a female carabao and its calf valued at P1,300 belonging to Pablo Caban. The prosecution presented four witnesses: (1) Pablo Caban, the owner, who testified his carabaos disappeared, though he was unsure of the exact date (initially stating June 10), and reported the loss on July 1; (2) Leona Abarsusa, who claimed she saw Democrito Jara and an unknown companion take the carabaos from a corral on June 29 at 5 p.m., but she did not intervene out of fear as they carried bolos; (3) Dominador Rodillas, who testified he saw the accused pulling carabaos on June 29; and (4) Remigio Esquillo, the police sergeant, who recorded the complaint. The defense presented the two accused and two witnesses. Democrito Jara denied the theft, alleging the accusers consulted a clairvoyant to identify the thief, and that he was falsely implicated because the clairvoyant suggested the thief was someone who had also lost a carabao (Jara had lost one to the Japanese). Loreto Pabella denied being in Tayabas on June 29, claiming he was in Lucena since the town was bombed, and suggested a motive for his accusation: as a guerrilla, he had previously maltreated Pablo Caban. Pablo Caban, in rebuttal, admitted Pabella had maltreated him. The trial court acquitted Loreto Pabella but convicted Democrito Jara of theft.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellant Democrito Jara for the crime of theft of large cattle has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Democrito Jara. The evidence failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted several points: (1) The prosecution’s key witness, Leona Abarsusa, gave an incredible account, noting implausible details such as Jara visiting her for water before the theft, her failure to immediately raise an alarm or confront Jara afterward despite knowing him since childhood, and the theft occurring openly in daylight. (2) Pablo Caban’s own testimony indicated the carabaos were lost on June 10, not June 29 as alleged by Abarsusa. (3) Witness Dominador Rodillas was unreliable due to contradictions. (4) The defense’s unrebutted testimony about the accusers consulting a clairvoyant cast doubt on the origin of the accusation. (5) The acquitted co-accused, Loreto Pabella, had an alibi and a established motive for false accusation by the complainant. The Court condemned the pernicious influence of clairvoyancy, suggesting it could lead to fabricated evidence. Therefore, the decision of the lower court was reversed, and appellant Democrito Jara was acquitted.