People v. Lozano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Luis Chito Buensoceso Lozano and his co-accused were charged with theft for allegedly stealing two magwheel tires valued at P17,000.00, a car stereo and speakers, a Ray Ban, police sunglasses, and a calculator, totaling P27,700.00, from the car of complainant Paz Gonzales. The incident occurred on July 24, 1997, when Gonzales discovered her car had been forcibly opened and items were missing. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 257, Parañaque City, convicted Lozano, Lorenzo Remeses Tubis, and Willie Reyes Callanga of theft in its May 23, 2002 Decision, sentencing them to imprisonment and ordering them to pay for the unrecovered items. Meliton Balderas was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Lozano's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification on October 8, 2004, adjusting the penalty and the amount to be paid for unrecovered items. The CA found that while the two tires were recovered from Lozano and his co-accused, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove their involvement in the theft of the other items. The Petition: Petitioner Lozano filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that the testimonies regarding the recovery of the tires were hearsay, that the evidence did not sufficiently establish him and his co-accused as the perpetrators of the crime, and that the penalty imposed was erroneous. Specifically, Lozano contended that the value of the stolen items was not adequately proven and that the CA erred in its calculation of the penalty and damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of the tires from the possession of the petitioner constitute hearsay evidence. Whether the petitioner, along with his co-accused, were the perpetrators of the crime of theft. Whether the petitioner and his co-accused were guilty of the crime charged. Whether the penalty imposed and the order to pay for unrecovered items were proper.
Ruling
The petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused Luis Chito Buensoceso Lozano, Lorenzo Rameses Tubis, and Willie Reyes Callanga are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft under Article 309 (2) of the Revised Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Six (6) Months and One (1) day of Prision Correccional, as minimum, to Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months and One (1) Day also of Prision Correccional, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of hearsay evidence regarding the recovery of the tires: The Court held that the testimony of Barangay Tanod Jose Lazaro, Jr. was not hearsay. While he initially received information from a fellow tanod, he personally witnessed Lozano and Tubis carrying the tires from Callanga's house and placing them in the Toyota Cressida. He then participated in the interception of the vehicle where the tires were recovered. Furthermore, the Court found the information conveyed to Lazaro, Jr. by his fellow tanod regarding the arrest and recovery admissible under the 'present sense impression' exception to the hearsay rule, as the reporting tanod had no substantial opportunity to fabricate the statement and Lazaro, Jr. verified its correctness. The subsequent identification of the tires by the complainant, Paz Gonzales, further corroborated the recovery. On the issue of whether the petitioner and his co-accused were the perpetrators of the crime: The Court found that the prosecution adequately established the guilt of Lozano and his co-accused for the theft of the two tires. The circumstantial evidence, including their possession of the stolen tires, led to the inescapable conclusion that they were the perpetrators of the theft of these specific items. However, the Court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt regarding the other missing items (car stereo, speakers, sunglasses, calculator) because there was no direct evidence or even a trace linking them to the loss of these items. The fact of possessing the stolen tires did not automatically extend to responsibility for all other stolen items. On the issue of guilt for the crime charged: The Court affirmed the guilt of Lozano, Tubis, and Callanga for the theft of the two tires. The elements of theft were established: (1) personal property of another was taken without consent; (2) the taking was without violence, intimidation, or force upon things; and (3) there was intent to gain. The prosecution proved these elements concerning the tires through circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the tires from the possession of the accused. The Court reiterated that possession of stolen property creates a presumption of guilt, which the accused failed to overturn. On the issue of the penalty imposed and the order to pay for unrecovered items: The Court modified the penalty. While the total value of stolen items was initially assessed at ₱27,000.00, the Court ruled that the accused's guilt was only proven for the two tires. The value of these tires was pegged at ₱17,000.00 by the RTC and CA, based solely on the complainant's testimony. However, the Supreme Court found this amount not sufficiently proven and realistically estimated the value of the magwheels at ₱12,000.00, applying Article 309 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum. The order to pay for the unrecovered items was excluded as their theft by the accused was not proven.
Main Doctrine
The possession of stolen property, while creating a presumption of guilt, is not conclusive proof of guilt for all items stolen if the prosecution fails to establish the accused's connection to the loss of other items. The presumption of innocence prevails for those items not proven to be taken by the accused. Furthermore, hearsay evidence may be admitted under the 'present sense impression' exception if properly testified to by a witness who perceived the event or immediately thereafter.