THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214477. September 4, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALFRED AVISO y DAMASO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 4, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214477 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appelleev. ALFRED AVISO y DAMASO, accused-appellant). — Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to justify a conviction if the circumstances form an unbroken chain of events that would lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, committed the offense. 1
This Court resolves an appeal from the Court of Appeals' April 30, 2014 Decision 2 in CA-G.R. CR No. 35385. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court's November 8, 2012 Judgment 3 finding Alfred Aviso y Damaso (Aviso) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
In a December 18, 2008 Information, 4 Aviso was charged with qualified theft. The Information read:
That during the period beginning December 3, 2008 up to December 17, 2008, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then employed as carpenter and painter of complainant ELIZABETH TIOSECO y PINEDA, and as such has an access to the whole house of complainant, with grave abuse of confidence and taking advantage of the trust reposed upon him, with intent to gain, without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following items:
a) one (1) pair of earring[s] with four (4) diamonds worth P275,000.00;
b) one (1) pc. of ring with solo diamond worth P500,000.00;
c) one (1) pc. of gold bracelet worth P40,000.00; and
d) cash money of P1,500.00.
all valued at P816,500.00 belonging to said ELIZABETH TIOSECO y PINEDA, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
On his arraignment, Aviso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 6
The initial witness for the prosecution, Elizabeth Tioseco y Pineda (Tioseco), testified that on December 3, 2008, she hired Aviso as a carpenter and painter for her bedroom in her house, located at 278 Boni Avenue corner Sto. Rosario Street, Barangay Plainview, Mandaluyong City. Aviso was referred to her by Ronnie Malig (Malig), her trusted friend since high school. 7
In the course of his employment, Aviso would paint from around 9:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., only pausing for a lunch break and two (2) snack breaks in the morning and in the afternoon. Tioseco would come to check on his progress every 30 minutes. 8
On December 6, 2008, Tioseco noticed that her diamond earrings worth P275,000.00 and her diamond ring worth P500,000.00 were missing. These had been inside the drawer of a cabinet with a built-in lock. 9 After inventorying her belongings, she found out that her P40,000.00 gold bracelet and P1,500.00 in cash were also missing. She asked her house helper about the missing items, even searching her personal belongings, but did not find them. She noted, however, that she did not ask Aviso about the missing items since he had been recommended by Malig, whom she trusted. 10
On December 12, 2008, Tioseco went to the barangay officials of Barangay Hulo in Mandaluyong City to file a blotter report of the incident. Upon the barangay officials' recommendation, she went to the police station on December 17, 2008 to report the incident. 11
Police officers accompanied Tioseco back to her house, where Aviso was painting. After talking to Aviso, the police brought him to the police station. In Tioseco's presence, they questioned Aviso about the missing items until he confessed that he indeed took and pawned them, and kept the receipts in his house. After he confessed, the police arrested him. 12
On December 18, 2008, Tioseco and Police Officer 2 Dennis Lubi (PO2 Lubi) went with Aviso to his house to get the pawnshop receipts. They were able to retrieve a Cebuana Lhuillier Pawnshop receipt and a certificate of insurance, both dated December 7, 2008, covering a gold bracelet and issued in the name of "Alfred Aviso." They were also able to recover a Cebuana Lhuillier Pawnshop receipt dated December 3, 2008, covering a pair of earrings and also issued in the name of "Alfred Aviso." 13
PO2 Lubi and Tioseco later brought Aviso to the pawnshop to redeem the jewelries. Tioseco was only able to redeem her gold bracelet after paying P8,800.00. She was unable to recover her diamond earrings, since they had already been sold to another customer. Sulyn Caldera (Caldera), an employee of Cebuana Lhuillier, also identified Aviso as the one who pawned the items. 14
On December 19, 2008, Aviso's mother went to the police station to return Tioseco's diamond ring. 15
For the defense, Aviso denied the allegations against him. He testified that per Malig's referral, he was hired to do some work in Tioseco's house, and that Tioseco's house helper would always keep an eye on him when he was working. He alleged that on December 17, 2008, police officers invited him to the police station, where he was ordered to sit on a bench and to bring out the stolen jewelry. He claimed that every time he denied knowledge of the stolen jewelry, the police officers would physically hurt him. He was finally forced to admit to the crime, he said, when they covered his head with a plastic bag and hit him. He also claimed that he was made to sign the pawnshop receipts, and that he was not assisted by counsel during the interrogation. 16
On November 8, 2012, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Judgment 17 finding Aviso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused, ALFRED AVISO y DAMASO alias Al, is found (sic) GUILTY for Qualified Theft hence, he is ordered to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal, medium and maximum period and to indemnify complainant, Elizabeth Tioseco y Pineda, the total amount of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND THREE [HUNDRED] PESOS (P285,300.00), which represents the value of the pair of earring[s] with four diamonds, the amounts of eight thousand eight hundred pesos (P8,800.00), the money used by complainant in redeeming the gold bracelet and the amount of one thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00) for the stolen cash money.
Finally, the period of detention of accused in the Mandaluyong City Jail is hereby fully credited in his favor.
SO ORDERED. 18
On appeal before the Court of Appeals, 19 Aviso argued that the evidence against him was merely circumstantial and, thus, insufficient to warrant his conviction. He pointed out that the names in the Cebuana Lhuillier pawnshop receipts are not signed but merely printed on the paper. He also asserted that he only signed the pawnshop receipts after the police officers had forced him to redeem the missing items. 20
Aviso further argued that his mother returning Tioseco's ring was a bare allegation that was unsubstantiated by any evidence. Neither were the actual costs of each lost item substantiated, he claims, since any valuation was merely taken by the trial court from Tioseco's testimony. 21
On April 30, 2014, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision 22 affirming Aviso's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
According to the Court of Appeals, the prosecution's evidence constituted "an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion that [Aviso] took the missing items." 23 In holding that the theft was qualified, the Court of Appeals found that Aviso took advantage of the trust and confidence Tioseco had reposed in him, considering that he could freely enter her bedroom. 24
The Court of Appeals also ruled that Aviso was unable to substantiate his allegation that he had been maltreated by police officers during interrogation. 25
The Court of Appeals, however, modified the penalty after finding that the trial court had only imposed the penalty for simple theft. 26 The dispositive portion of its Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Br. 213, in Crim. Case No. MC08-12109 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the Accused-Appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
SO ORDERED. 27
Aviso filed a Notice of Appeal 28 before this Court. His appeal having been given due course, 29 the records of this case were elevated to this Court. 30 In a November 26, 2014 Resolution, 31 this Court noted the elevation of records and directed the parties to file their supplemental briefs. Both parties manifested that they were no longer submitting supplemental briefs and moved that this Court instead consider the arguments in their Briefs submitted before the Court of Appeals. 32
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction of accused-appellant Alfred Aviso y Damaso for the crime of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
Theft, under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed when a "person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent." The theft is considered qualified if the crime was committed "with grave abuse of confidence":
ARTICLE 310. Qualified Theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
To secure a conviction for qualified theft, the prosecution must establish the following elements:
(a) the taking of personal property; (b) the said property belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) it be done without the owner's consent; (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. 33
Here, the prosecution was able to prove, through circumstantial evidence, that these elements were present in the commission of the crime. Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The lack of direct evidence may not be fatal to the prosecution's cause if the circumstantial evidence provides an unbroken chain of events that can lead to no other conclusion than that the accused committed the crime. In Candelaria v. People: 34
Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person; the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and, at the same time, inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt. Corollary thereto, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with innocence. 35
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to establish that accused-appellant committed the crime. The attendant circumstances, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, were as follows:
1. The Accused-Appellant was hired by [Tioseco] on December 3, 2008, as referred by a friend, to do carpentry and painting works in her house, particularly in her bedroom, where the subject pieces of jewelry (and cash) were safely hidden (inside a locked cabinet drawer).
2. Because of the nature of the Accused-Appellant's work and the trust reposed in him by [Tioseco], the latter confidently gave him free ingress and egress into her bedroom.
3. As carpenter and painter, the Accused-Appellant was the only person working inside [Tioseco]'s room from about 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. with limited or, most of the time, without supervision.
4. The pieces of jewelry (and cash) were discovered missing on December 6, 2008. The Accused-Appellant worked in [Tioseco]'s bedroom on that day.
5. When he was invited for questioning, the Accused-Appellant broke down and admitted to the police officers and [Tioseco] that he stole the missing items and pawned the pieces of jewelry.
6. The Accused-Appellant told the police officers that the pawnshop receipts were in his house. When they went there, the police officers were able to recover receipts covering a gold bracelet and a pair of diamond earrings, which pawned items matched the missing pieces of jewelry belonging to [Tioseco].
7. A pawnshop receipt dated December 7, 2008 and certificate of insurance were in the name of the Accused-Appellant.
8. [Tioseco], together with the Accused-Appellant, redeemed the gold bracelet from the pawnshop after paying Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (Php8,800.00). Her pair of diamond earrings was already redeemed by another person.
9. The Accused-Appellant's mother had in her possession [Tioseco]'s diamond ring, which the former returned to the latter after the Accused-Appellant was already incarcerated. 36
These circumstances lead to no other conclusion than that accused-appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft. There was a taking of Tioseco's personal property with intent to gain, as evidenced by the pawnshop receipts in accused-appellant's name. The taking was accomplished without the use of violence. Accused-appellant had complete access to Tioseco's personal property because of the trust and confidence reposed on him.
Accused-appellant's argument that his signature only appeared in the receipts when the items were redeemed could not be given any credence. The prosecution was able to present the testimony of Caldera, a vault custodian for Cebuana Lhuillier, who may be considered a disinterested witness. Caldera testified:
Q- Now, this documents says, redeemed December 20, 2008, if you know who redeemed this pawned item?
A- It was Alfred Aviso, ma'am, who redeemed this because of the signature at the back.
Q- How do you know that this is the signature of Alfred Aviso?
A- Pinapirma po namin siya, yung pirma nya dito saka yung pirma nya dito on the day na nagsangla po siya. On the day naman po na nag-redeem siya at saka nung day na nagsangla siya, we compared it, parehas naman po.
Q- And you allowed the redemption of the property because he is the same person who redeemed it?
A- Yes, ma'am.
Q- Now as a worker at the Cebuana Lhuill[i]er and pawnshop for five years, do you allow somebody else to redeem the property aside from this one who actually pawned it?
A- Yes, ma'am if the person authorized to redeem the property presented an authorization letter and valid Ids.
Q- And the person who pawned it must also have an ID?
A- Hindi na po kailangan, ma'am. Ang kailangan lang po ay may pirma po siya sa Signature of Pawner, tapos po nakasulat po dito yung pangalan kung sino po ang ino-authorize po niya tapos po yung authorized person, magdadala po siya ng valid ID.
Q- So in this case it was the pawner himself who redeemed the items, Mr. Aviso?
A- Yes, ma'am. 37
According to Caldera, the person who redeemed the pawned items was the same person named in the receipts. This is sufficient to identify accused-appellant as the person who pawned Tioseco's jewelries.
Accused-appellant, however, alleged that the police officers physically harmed him to extract a confession out of him. Ordinarily, this allegation would have been sufficient for this Court to take a second hard look into the case. Accused-appellant, likewise, stated that he was not brought to a hospital for medical examination after his confession. 38 Yet, he himself admitted that these claims had no proof. As the trial court narrated:
On his cross-examination, accused admitted that he did not have any evidence on the alleged physical harm inflicted on him and he did not file any complaint against the police officers. He also denied knowing anything about the missing jewelries nor the pawnshop tickets and that he was only asked to sign some documents.
On February 28, 2012, despite several occasions given to the accused to present additional evidence, the defense rested its case[.] 39
One who alleges has the burden of proving his or her allegation. 40 Accused-appellant failed in this regard. This Court is, thus, constrained to uphold the lower courts' findings that accused-appellant voluntarily admitted to the police and Tioseco that the pawnshop receipts were being kept in his house.
Under Article 309 41 of the Revised Penal Code, theft is punishable by prision mayor in its maximum period if the value of the item stolen exceeds P22,000.00. If the theft is qualified, then the imposable penalty shall be two (2) degrees higher; that is, reclusion perpetua. 42
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals pegged the value of the properties stolen at P285,300.00. Of this, P275,000.00 represented the value of the earrings, P8,800.00 represented the amount paid to redeem the gold bracelet, and P1,500.00 represented the amount of stolen cash.
The valuation of the jewelries, however, was merely taken from Tioseco's testimony. In Francisco v. People: 43
[A]n ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry, nor may the courts take judicial notice of the value of the same:
. . . [A]nd as we have ruled in the case of People vs. Antonio Marcos, an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which are matters of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration. The value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration and in the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution, we cannot award the reparation for the stolen jewelry. 44
In the absence of any proof of the jewelries' actual values, courts will fix the value at P5.00:
[I]f there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it, the corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant should be the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00. 45
Here, while the amount of redemption had been duly established, the value of stolen earrings was not. This Court, therefore, values the stolen items at P10,305.00. Accordingly, the penalty must be that which corresponds to P10,305.00.
Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code has since been amended by Republic Act No. 10951. 46 Where the value of the property stolen is over P5,000.00 but does not exceed P20,000.00, the imposable penalty shall be arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. 47 Article 310, however, states that the penalty shall be two (2) degrees higher if the crime is qualified. The imposable penalty, thus, is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appropriate penalty shall be eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years, four (4) months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the April 30, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35385 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Alfred Aviso y Damaso is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft under Articles 308 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. In view of the amendments in Republic Act No. 10951, accused-appellant is sentenced to the penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, four (4) months, and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He shall also pay private complainant Elizabeth Tioseco y Pineda the amount of Ten Thousand Three Hundred Five Pesos (P10,305.00); which represents the value of the diamond earrings, the money used to redeem the pawned diamond ring, and the stolen cash. Interest is imposed on the actual damages awarded at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 48
SO ORDERED." (A.B. Reyes, Jr., J., no part;Caguioa, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 27, 2019.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Candelaria v. People, 749 Phil. 517 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
2.Rollo, pp. 2-16. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now an Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios of the First Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 12-25. The Judgment, in Criminal Case No. MC08-12109, was penned by Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela of Branch 213, Regional Trial Court, Mandaluyong City.
4.Id. at 10-11.
5.Id. at 10.
6.Id. at 13.
7.Id. at 14 and rollo, p. 5.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Rollo, p. 5.
11.Id. at 5-6.
12.Id. at 6.
13.Id.
14.Id. and CA rollo, p. 16.
15.Id. at 7.
16.Id. at 7-8.
17. CA rollo, pp. 12-25.
18.Id. at 24.
19.Id. at 26.
20.Id. at 50-51.
21.Id. at 51-52.
22.Rollo, pp. 2-16.
23.Id. at 12.
24.Id. at 13.
25.Id. at 14.
26.Id. at 14-16.
27.Id. at 16.
28.Id. at 17-19.
29.Id. at 20.
30.Id. at 1.
31.Id. at 23-24.
32.Id. at 25-27, plaintiff-appellee's Manifestation, and 31-35, accused-appellant's Manifestation.
33.Zapanta v. People, 707 Phil. 23, 31 (2013) [Per J. Brion, Second Division] citing Matrido v. People, 610 Phil. 203, 211-212 (2009) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division].
34. 749 Phil. 517 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
35.Id. at 525 citing People v. Anabe, 644 Phil. 261, 275-276 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division] and People v. Castro, 587 Phil. 537, 544-545 (2008) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division].
36.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
37. CA rollo, pp. 99-100.
38.Id. at 47.
39.Id. at 18.
40. RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, Section 1.
41. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 309 provides:
ARTICLE 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
42. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 310.
43. 478 Phil. 167 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
44. Id. at 187-188 citing People v. Marcos, 368 Phil. 143 (1999) [Per Curiam, En Banc] and People v. Paraiso, 377 Phil. 445 (1999) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
45. People v. Telen, 398 Phil. 109, 123 (2000) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].
46. An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal Code, amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as "The Revised Penal Code," as Amended (2017).
47. Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), sec. 81.
48. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].