THE Supreme Court (SC) has exonerated two persons charged with theft of a cellular telephone during a scuffle for a bus ride in Pasay City in 2017.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC reversed the rulings of both the regional trial court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) that convicted Enrico N. Tijam and Kenneth R. Bacsid of committing the crime of theft as complained by Kim Mugot.
“Due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, their presumption of innocence, enshrined in the Constitution and stringently guarded by the Court, must be upheld. Accordingly, the petitioners must be acquitted of the charge,” the SC ruling stated.
“Petitioners Julius Enrico Tijam and Kenneth Bacsid are hereby acquitted on the ground that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately,” it said.
In his complaint, Mugot claimed that while he was rushing inside a bus along with other commuters, he was pinned against the bus door by Bacsid. Mugot said he noticed his cellular phone was missing from his right pocket.
Mugot said he alighted from the bus and looked for Bacsid whom he found in the bus unloading area and receiving a cellular phone from Tijam. He shouted “magnanakaw” (thief) and a struggle ensued. The cellular phone fell to the ground and was damaged.
Tijam and Bacsid denied Mugot’s allegations. Tijam said he was on his way home when he met Bacsid. While exchanging pleasantries, Tijam said he noticed a cellphone on the ground, picked it up, and handed it to Bacsid.
The trial court convicted Tijam and Bacsid as it ruled that a person in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is presumed the taker and doer of the whole act.
Tijam and Bacsid were sentenced to a prison term ranging from five months to two years They appealed but lost the case at the CA. They elevated the case to the SC.
The SC reversed both the trial court and the CA verdicts.
“In this case, Tijam satisfactorily explained that he saw the cellular phone lying on the pavement, and thus picked it up. Such explanation is plausible in view of Mugot’s own narration that there was an onslaught of passengers rushing inside the bus, which could have caused him to drop his cellular phone,” the SC ruling read.
“Significantly, records are bereft of proof that Mugot saw Tijam inside the bus or anywhere near it when his cellular phone was lost or stolen. It is also worth noting that it was never established that Bacsid had possession of the cellular phone,” it added.
“Records show that after Tijam picked up the cellular phone, he showed it to Bacsid. At this point, Mugot stormed on them and haphazardly accused them of stealing said device.
“It bears stressing that the fact of possession alone, wholly unconnected with any other circumstances, cannot be used as a ground to convict. Clearly, the disputable presumption cannot prevail over the petitioners’ explanation. Tijam’s possession having been explained, the legal presumption is disputed and thus, cannot be the sole basis for the conviction,” the Court noted.
“To hold otherwise, will be a travesty of justice as criminal convictions necessarily require proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the equipoise rule in criminal cases ordains that when inculpatory facts are susceptible of two or more interpretations, one that is consistent with the innocence of the accused, and the other consistent with his/her guilt, then the evidence fails to hurdle the test of moral certainty required to support a conviction,” the SC said.
“Consequently, where the evidence is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused,” it added.
“Finally, the petitioners’ defense of denial cannot be brushed aside in view of the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. Although a denial partakes of the nature of negative and self-serving evidence and is seldom given weight in law, still the defense of denial assumes significance when the prosecution’s evidence fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The SC noted that petitioners denial, which gave way to a sufficient explanation behind their possession engenders a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
“All told, the Court must judge the petitioners’ guilt or innocence based on facts and not on mere conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions. The highest quantum of proof is required as the petitioners’ life and liberty are at stake.
“In this case, the facts from which the inferences were derived were not proven; the totality of the circumstances miserably failed to point to the petitioners to the exclusion of all others as the malefactors; the disputable presumption conjecturally relied upon by the RTC and the CA was sufficiently rebutted; and the evidence presented was susceptible of two interpretations,” the high court noted.