Manuel Chua and Nelson Go vs. P.P.

G.R. No. 128095, January 19, 2001

Facts:

The petitioners appealed via certiorari the CA decision convicting them of qualified and attempted qualified theft, respectively. Chua was an employee of Clothman Knitting Corporation while Go was a buyer of scrap materials from Clothman. In 1989, the company's security guard, a certain Macaraeg Policarpio, reported that a truck owned by Go was about to leave the compound. It was supposed to contain only scrap materials but was instead loaded with finished materials which were not authorized to be brought out. An inventory of the items was prepared and when Go was asked by the owner, he answered that Chua and his co-worker, Paquito Andalaza, convinced him to steal the item and share the profits after the sale. The two denied their involvement. However, the three admitted to the responding Patrol to their involvement in the crime, albeit without being apprised of their constitutional rights. All of these happened about half a day prior the reporting of the matter to the police, with the delay explained by the prosecution as due to the owner and Go both having had previous engagements to attend to. In the CA ruling, Paquito was acquitted as the prosecution failed to connect him to the crime.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses positively identifying Go on board the truck with the unauthorized cargo, and Chua as a signatory in the gate pass authorizing the exit of the said truck, were enough to uphold their conviction for qualified and attempted qualified theft

Ruling:

The petition is granted. The Court finds that the statement of the owner regarding the report of the security guard was merely hearsay, and that the non-presentation of the said guard is a weakness of the prosecution's case. Also, the extra-judicial confession cannot be admitted as it was given without the assistance of counsel. The presence of the truck was also not established and only allegations as to its existence were presented. Only pictures of the items supposedly taken were available. Also, the Court finds it absurd that the delay in the report could have been because Go was allowed to attend to his previous engagement as if nothing happened. Conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's case, not on the weakness of the defense. And while alibi is a weak defense, it assumes commensurate significance and strength when evidence for the prosecution is frail and effete.