Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JESUS CASTRO 566 SCRA 92 (2008)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JESUS CASTRO 566 SCRA 92 (2008)

Roman Cruz owns a trucking business known as Romy’s Freight Services. Cruz hired appellant Jesus Castro as a tinsmith-mechanic. Cruz then promoted Castro to the position of shop supervisor whose duties included purchasing spare parts during emergencies, receiving deliveries of spare parts, and supervising the mechanics. As shop supervisor, Castro had access to the storeroom. In March, July and August of 1993, Cruz purchased truck spare parts. In December 1993, he conducted an inventory of the spare parts in the storeroom and discovered missing spare parts all of which were valued at P64, 000. Subsequently, Cruz discovered that Castro had authorized the hauling of two truckloads of cement without Castro remitting the overhauling fee. Remembering the spare parts lost in 1993, Cruz spoke with Torres again and asked about the spare parts Castro had supplied to him. This time, Torres divulged that Castro supplied him in 1993 the said spare parts that were lost in Cruz‘s shop which Torres‘ business associate Romeo Inso delivered to Rosita Crispin, an operator and part-owner of a ―Greenland‖ bus. For his part, Castro, admitting having sold spare parts to Rosita through Inso and Torres but claiming that the same did not come from Cruz’s storeroom. Castro claimed that said items came from the shop of Angel Boleyley, a licensed contractor of the Department of Public Works and Highways. Cruz filed a complaint-affidavit charging Castro for qualified theft. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Castro guilty of qualified theft. Castro appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed Castro’s conviction but increased the penalty of imposed upon Castro.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Castro is guilty of qualified theft

HELD:

The Court at once notes that the trial court found that the spare parts delivered by appellant to Inso did ―correspond to the alleged missing spare parts. ―Correspond does not mean ―the same. It means to ―match or ―compare closely. Cruz himself admitted this when on cross examination he stated that the missing spare parts ―matched what appellant had sold to Torres and Inso as described by them. Cruz in fact additionally admitted also during cross-examination that the missing spare parts were not unique and were readily available in the market. Given the length of time that had elapsed between the date of purchase (March, July and August 1993) of the spare parts, and the discovery of their loss (December 1993), the lack of claim that those spare parts were not used on broken down trucks that were repaired in March, July and August 1993, the lack of concrete proof that the missing spare parts and those eventually sold to Rosita were the same, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to satisfy the conditions for circumstantial evidence to suffice to prove its case against Castro. In fine, the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of prima facie proving Castro’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of evidence did not thus even shift to the defense. Such notwithstanding, Castro by his evidence, proved that, contrary to the trial court’s observation, he sourced the spare parts which were delivered to Torres and Inso from Boleyley who corroborated Castro’s claim that he purchased spare parts from him on or about the time that Castro claimed. And Castro proved too, and this was corroborated by Viloria, that it was “only when there was a defective spare part that has to be replaced” that a new one would be bought by Castro, who would give the newly bought ones to the mechanics which they would “immediately” install in the motor or engine of Cruz’s trucks to replace the destroyed spare parts; and that there were no spare parts stored in the bodega of Cruz. That Cruz executed a complaint-affidavit charging Castro which resulted in the filing of the Information in a criminal case because Castro had priorly filed a case for illegal dismissal against him, as theorized by the defense, is thus not far-fetched. Cruz himself admitted that a complaint for illegal dismissal had been priorly filed. In fine, contrary to the trial court’s decision, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Castro is guilty of the crime charged. The appellate court’s affirmance of the trial court’s decision must thus fail.