G.R. No.

207175 November 26, 2014

EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the December 14, 2012
Decision1 and the May 6, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34431
filed by Eduardo Magsumbol (Magsumbol), questioning his conviction for Theft.

The Facts

Petitioner Magsumbol, together with Erasmo Magsino (Mogsino). Apolonio Inanoria (Jnanoria),
and Bonifacio Ramirez (Ramirez). vvas charged with the crime of Theft in the Information, dated
August 30, 2002, filed before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 55 (RTC) and
docketed as Criminal Case No. 2002-1017. The Information indicting Magsumbol and his co-
accused reads:

That on or about the 1st day of February 2002, at Barangay Kinatihan I, in the Munipality of
Candelaria, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with seven (7) John Does
whose true names and real identities are still unknown and whose physical descriptions were not
made known by available witnesses, and who are all still at large, and mutually helping one
another, with intent togain and without the consent of the owner, Menandro Avanzado, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cut, take, steal and carry away with them thirty
three (33) coconut trees from the coconut plantation of the said owner, valued at FORTY FOUR
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P44,400.00), Philippine currency, belonging to said
Menandro Avanzado, to his damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount.3

Culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Ernesto Caringal (Caringal), private
complainant Engr. Menandro Avanzado (Menandro), and SPO1 Florentino Manalo (SPO1 Manalo),
it appears that at around 11:00 oclock in the morning of February 1, 2002, Caringal, the
overseer of a one-hectare unregistered parcel of land located in Candelaria, Quezon, and co-
owned by Menandro, saw the four accused, along with seven others, cutting down the coconut
trees on the said property. Later, the men turned the felled trees into coco lumber. Caringal did
not attempt to stop the men from cutting down the coconut trees because he was outnumbered.
Instead, Caringal left the site and proceeded toSan Pablo City to inform Menandro about the
incident.

On February 3, 2002, Menandro and Caringal reported the incident to the police. Thereafter, the
two, accompanied by SPO1 Manalo, went to the coconut plantation only to discover that about
thirty three (33) coconut trees (subject trees) had been cut down. The coco lumber were no
longer in the area. They took photographs of the stumps left by the men.

The defense, on the other hand, presented Atanacio Avanzado (Atanacio),accused Ramirez,
petitioner Magsumbol, Barangay Captain Pedro Arguelles (Brgy. Captain Arguelles)and accused
Inanoria, to substantiate its claim of innocence for all the accused.
Atanacio testified that he authorized his brothers-in-law, Magsino and Magsumbol, to cut down
the coconut trees within the boundary of his property, which was adjacent to the land co-owned
by Menandro. Atanacio admitted that he had never set foot on his property for about 20 years
already and that he was not present whenthe cutting incident happened.

Defense witness Brgy. Captain Arguelles testified that on January 28, 2002, Magsumbol, Magsino,
Ramirez, and Inanoria came to his office seeking permission to cut down the coconut trees
planted on the land of Atanacio.

All the accused vehemently denied the charges against them. Ramirez and Magsumbol claimed
that only the coconut trees which stood within the land owned by Atanacio, a relative of the
private complainant, were cut down on that morning of February 1, 2002. Ramirez added that he
was a coco lumber trader and that Atanacio offered to sell the coconut trees planted on his lot.
Magsumbol claimed that he took no part in the felling of the coconut trees but merely supervised
the same. He claimed that he did not receive any remuneration for the service he rendered or a
share from the proceeds of the coco lumbers sale. Inanoria likewise denied participation in the
cutting down of the coconut treesbut confirmed the presence of Magsumbol and Magsino at the
site to supervise the accomplishment of the work being done thereat. Inanoria corroborated the
narration of Magsumbol and Ramirez that all the felled trees were planted inside the lot owned
by Atanacio. Inanoria intimated that Menandro included him in the complaint for theft due to his
refusal to accede to latters request for him to testify against his co-accused in relation to the
present criminal charge.4

Ruling of the RTC

On March 15, 2011, the RTC rendered its decision5 stating that the prosecution was able to
establish with certitude the guilt of all the accused for the crime of simple theft. The RTC rejected
the defense of denial invoked by the accused in the face of positive identification by Caringal
pointing to them as the perpetrators of the crime. It did not believe the testimony of Atanacio
and even branded him as biased witness on account of his relationship with accused Magsino
and Magsumbol. The trial court adjudged:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding all the accused Erasmo Magsino, Apolonio
Inanoria, Eduardo Magsumbol and Bonifacio Ramirez guilty as charged and applying the
Indeterminate sentence law, the court hereby sentences them to suffer an imprisonment of 2
years, 4 months and 1 day of Prision Correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of Prision
Mayor as maximum.

The accused are likewise directed to pay jointly and severally Engr. Menandro Avanzado and the
other heirs of Norberto Avanzado the sum of P13,200.00 representing the value of the 33
coconut trees they have cut and sold to accused Ramirez.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, the accused appealed from the March 15, 2011 judgment of the RTC before the CA
insisting that the prosecution evidence did not meet the quantum of proof necessary towarrant
their conviction of the crime charged. They posited that the RTC erred in failing to appreciate the
lack of criminal intent on their part to commit the crime of simple theft. They claimed that not a
scintilla of evidence was presented to prove the element of intent to gain.6

Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision, dated December 14, 2012, the CA sustained the findings of facts and
conclusions of law by the RTC and upheld the judgment of conviction rendered against the
accused. The CA was of the view, however, that the crime committed in this case would not fall
under the general definition of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but
rather under paragraph (2) of the same provision which penalizes theft of damaged property. The
CA ruled that the RTC was correct in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of Caringal
who was not shown to have been motivated by any ill will to testify falsely against the accused. It
agreed with the RTC that Atanacios testimony should not be given any evidentiary weight in
view of his relationship with Magsino and Magsumbol, which provided sufficient reason for him to
suppress or pervert the truth. Anent the element of intent to gain, the CA stated that the mere
fact that the accused cut the coconut trees on Menandros land and made them into coco
lumber, gave rise to the presumption that it was done with intent to gain. The falloreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated March 15,
2011, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that
the accused-appellants Erasmo Magsino, Apolonio Inanoria, Eduardo Magsumbol and Bonifacio
Ramirez are sentenced to suffer imprisonment of tw0 (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
as minimum, to seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, as maximum; and to pay
jointly and severally private complainant Menandro Avanzado the amount of Thirteen Thousand
Two Hundred Pesos (P13,200.00).

SO ORDERED.7

The accused moved for reconsideration of the December 14, 2012 Decision but their motion was
denied by the CA on May 6, 2013.

Issues:

Bewailing his conviction, Magsumbolfiled the present petition before this Court and imputes to
the CA the following

ERRORS:

THE HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW WHEN IT FOUND THE
ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF THEFT UNDER ARTICLE 308 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, IN
THAT:

NO COMPETENT EVIDENCEWAS ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THAT THE COCONUT

II

MALICE AND INTENT TO GAIN, AS ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF THEFT, ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE
CASE AT HAND.8

The Courts Ruling

The petition is impressed with merit.

It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of
witnesses deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the
prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the declarants in the
course of their testimonies. Though it is true that the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal,
this rule, however, is not a hard and fast one. The exception is observed if there is a showing that
the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some factor circumstance of weight and
substance that would have cast doubt on the guilt of the accused.9 The said exception
apparently exists in the case at bench.

It is the statutory definition that generally furnishes the elements of each crime under the RPC,
while the elements in turn unravel the particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying
criminal intent. In the case at bench, petitioner Magsumbol and his co-accused were convicted
by the CA of the crime of theft of damaged property under paragraph (2) of Article 308 of the
RPC which provides:

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.: xxxx

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. xxxxx;

2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or
make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and xxx.

[Emphasis Supplied]

To warrant a conviction under the aforecited provision for theft of damaged property, the
prosecution must prove beyond reasonable that the accused maliciously damaged the property
belonging to another and, thereafter, removed or used the fruits or object thereof, with intent to
gain. Evidently, theft of damaged property is an intentional felony for which criminal liability
attaches only when it is shown that the malefactor acted with criminal intent or malice. Criminal
intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is
committed.10 Was criminal intent substantiated to justify the conviction of Magsumbol and his
co-accused?

It does not so appear in this case.

There is no dispute that the land co-owned by Menandro is adjacent to the land owned by
Atanacio. The prosecution claimed that the thirty three (33) cut coconut trees were planted
within the land co-owned by Menandro. The defense, on the other hand, averred that only the
coconut trees found within the land of Atanacio were felled by Magsumbol and his co-accused.
Menandro testified that there were muniments that delimit the boundaries between the adjacent
lots11 while Atanacio claimed that there were none and that "x" marks were just etched on the
trunk of the trees to delineate the boundary of his land.12 Apart from the bare allegations of
these witnesses, no concrete and competent evidence was adduced to substantiate their
respective submissions. In view of such conflicting claims and considering the meager evidence
on hand, the Court cannot determine with certainty the owner of the 33 felled coconut trees. The
uncertainty of the exact location of the coconut trees negates the presenceof the criminal intent
to gain.

At any rate, granting arguendo that the said coconut trees were within Menandros land, no
malice or criminal intent could be rightfully attributed to Magsumbol and his co-accused. The RTC
and the CA overlooked one important point in the present case, to wit: Magsumbol and his co-
accused went to Barangay KinatihanI, Candelaria, Quezon, to cut down the coconut trees
belonging to Atanacio upon the latters instruction.

Such fact was confirmed by Atanacio who narrated that due to financial reversals, he sold all the
coconut trees in his land to Ramirez, a coco lumber trader; that since he could not go to the site
due to health reasons, he authorized Magsumbol and Magsino to cut down his trees and to
oversee the gathering of the felled trees; that he informed Menandro about this and even offered
to pay for the damages that he might have sustained as some of his (Menandros) trees could
have been mistakenly cut down in the process; that Menandro refused his offer of compensation
and replied that a case had already been filed against the four accused; and that he tried to seek
an audience again from Menandro, but the latter refused to talk to him anymore.13

Both the RTC and the CA chose to brush aside the foregoing unrebutted testimony of Atanacio for
being unreliable and considered him a biased witness simply because he is related by affinity to
Magsumbol and Magsino. Family relationship, however, does not by itself render a witness
testimony inadmissible or devoid of evidentiary weight.14 To warrant rejection of the testimony
of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the
testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved
the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.15

The relationship of Atanacio to the accused, per se, does not impair his credibilty.1wphi1 It
bears stressing that while Magsumbol and Magsino are Atanacios brothers-in-law, Menandro
ishis cousin. Considering that both the accused and the accuser are Atanacios relatives, and
purportedly both have bearing with regard to his decision, why would then Atanacio support one
over the other? The logical explanation could only be that Atanacio had indeed ordered
Magsumbol and Magsino to cut the trees on his land. The Court is convinced that Atanacio was
telling the truth.

If, indeed, in the course of executing Atanacios instructions, Magsumbol and his co-accused
encroached on the land co-owned by Menandro, because they missed the undetectable
boundary between the two lots, and cut down some of Menandros trees, such act merely
constituted mistake or judgmental error. The following pronouncement in the case of Lecaroz vs.
Sandiganbayan16 may serve as a guidepost, to wit:

If what is proven is mere judgmental error on the part of the person committing the act, no
malice or criminal intent can be rightfully imputed to him. x x x. Ordinarily, evil intent must unite
with an unlawful act for a crime to exist. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no
crime when the criminal mind is wanting. As a general rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular
facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from felonious responsibility. The exception of course
is neglect in the discharge of duty or indifference to consequences, which is equivalent to
criminal intent, for in this instance, the element of malicious intent is supplied by the element
ofnegligence and imprudence.17

[Emphasis supplied]

The criminal mind is indeed wanting in the situation where Magsumbol and his co-accused even
sought prior permission from Brgy. Captain Arguelles to cut down the coconut trees which was
done openly and during broad daylight effectively negated malice and criminal intent on their
part. It defies reason that the accused would still approach the barangay captain if their real
intention was tosteal the coconut trees of Menandro. Besides, criminals would usually execute
their criminal activities clandestinely or through stealth or strategy to avoid detection of the
commission of a crime or a wrongdoing.

The findings of this Court in this case should not create the mistaken impression that the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses should always be looked at with askance. The point is
that courts should carefully scrutinize the prosecution evidence to make sure that no innocent
person is condemned. An allegation, or even a testimony, that an act was done should never be
hastily accepted as proof that it was really done. Evidence adduced must be closely examined
under the lens of a judicial microscope to ensure that conviction only flows from moral certainty
that guilt has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Here, that quantum of proof has not been satisfied.1wphi1 The prosecution miserably failed to
establish proof beyond reasonable doubt that Magsumbol, together with his co-accused,
damaged the property or Menandro with malice and deliberate intent and then removed the
felled coconut trees from the premises.

Hence, we must reckon with a dictum of the law, in dubilis reus est absolvendus. All doubts must
be resolved in favor of the accused.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed December 14, 2012 Decision and the May 6,
2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34431 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner Eduardo Magsumbol is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.