Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83952:58795&catid=1590&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:13:50+00:00

Document:
MEL CARPIZO CANDELARIA, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated January 31, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated September 3, 2013 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. No. 34470 which affirmed the conviction of petitioner for the crime of Qualified Theft.
In convicting Candelaria, the RTC took the following circumstances into consideration: (a) on August 23, 2006, Candelaria was the driver of the truck with plate number PTA-945, loaded with 14,000 liters of diesel fuel valued at P497,000.00, for delivery to Viron in Laon Laan, Manila; (b) Viron did not receive the diesel fuel; (c) Lao reported the incident to Camp Crame and the MPD; and (d) the following day, August 24, 2006, the same truck was found abandoned and emptied of its load in Calamba, Laguna.17 On the basis of the foregoing, the RTC concluded that Candelaria was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Aggrieved, Candelaria filed a motion for reconsideration26 which was eventually denied in a Resolution27 dated September 3, 2013, hence, this petition.
The main issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA correctly found Candelaria guilty of the crime of Qualified Theft on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
In this case, there is a confluence of all the foregoing elements. Through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it was sufficiently established that the 14,000 liters of diesel fuel loaded into the lorry truck with plate number PTA-945 driven by Candelaria for delivery to Viron on August 23, 2006 was taken by him, without the authority and consent of Lao, the owner of the diesel fuel, and that Candelaria abused the confidence reposed upon him by Lao, as his employer.
Threading these circumstances together, the Court perceives a congruent picture that the crime of Qualified Theft had been committed and that Candelaria had perpetrated the same. To be sure, this determination is not sullied by the fact that Candelaria’s companion, Romano, had died before he could testify as to the truth of his allegation that the former had threatened him with a balisong on August 23, 2006. It is a gaping hole in the defense that the diesel fuel was admittedly placed under Candelaria’s custody and remains unaccounted for. Candelaria did not proffer any persuasive reason to explain the loss of said goods and merely banked on a general denial, which, as case law holds, is an inherently weak defense due to the ease by which it can be concocted.35 With these, and, moreover, the tell-tale fact that Candelaria has not returned or reported back to work at Unioil since the incident, the Court draws no other reasonable inference other than that which points to his guilt. Verily, while it is true that flight per se is not synonymous with guilt,36 unexplained flight nonetheless evinces guilt or betrays the existence of a guilty conscience,37 especially when taken together with all the other circumstantial evidence attendant in this case. Thus, all things considered, Candelaria’s conviction for the crime of Qualified Theft stands.
A final word. Courts dealing with theft, as well as estafa cases, would do well to be mindful of the significance of determining the value of the goods involved, or the amounts embezzled in said cases as they do not only entail the proper resolution of the accused’s civil liability (if the civil aspect has been so integrated) but also delimit the proper penalty to be imposed. These matters, through the trial court’s judicious direction, should be sufficiently passed upon during trial and its finding thereon be amply explained in its verdict. Although an appeal of a criminal case throws the entire case up for review,55 the ends of justice, both in its criminal and civil senses, demand nothing less but complete and thorough adjudication in the judicial system’s every level. Truth be told, the peculiar nature of these cases provides a distinctive opportunity for this ideal to be subserved.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 31, 2013 and the Resolution dated September 3, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 34470 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that petitioner Mel Carpizo Candelaria is: (a) sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and (b) ordered to indemnify private complainant Jessielyn Valera Lao the amount of ?497,000.00 representing the value of the stolen property.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson,) Carpio,* Leonardo-De Castro, Reyes,** and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1899 dated December 3, 2014.
** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1892 dated November 28, 2014.
2 Id. at 33-44. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
9 Id. at 34 and 63.
10 “Montalbo” in some parts of the records.
12 Id. at 36 and 64.
15 Id. at 63-65. Penned by Judge Amor A. Reyes.
23Cariaga v. CA, 411 Phil. 214 (2001).
26 On March 13, 2011; id. at 81-84.
28 Art. 310. Qualified theft. — The crime of qualified 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 the 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.
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.
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos.
Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.
Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provisions of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.
Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.
30Zapanta v. People, G.R. No. 170863, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 25, 33-34.
32 See Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
33People v. Anabe, G.R. No. 179033, September 6, 2010, 630 SCRA 10, 21, citing People v. Castro, 587 Phil. 537, 544-545 (2008).
35 See People vs. Watiwat, 457 Phil. 411, 425 (2003).
36 Cf. People v. Villareal, G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 549, 560.
37People v. Turtoga, 432 Phil. 703, 720 (2002); citation omitted.
39 See id. at 31-32, citing Merida v. People, 577 Phil. 243, 258-259 (2008).
42 398 Phil. 109 (2000).
43 Supra note 39, at 259 (see footnote 43 therein).
44 G.R. No. 165582, July 9, 2010, 624 SCRA 596.
46 478 Phil. 167 (2004).
47 Id. at 187, citing People v. Marcos, 368 Phil. 143, 167-168 (1999).
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
50People v. Martinez, 340 Phil. 374 (1997).
51 See Prevailing Retail Prices of Petroleum Products in Metro Manila As of August 8, 2006 (visited November 4, 2014). At the very least, therefore, the value of the 14,000 liters of diesel fuel stolen from Lao amounted to P526,400.00, pegged from the minimum price of P37.60 per liter.
52People v. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 796, 814, citing People v. Mercado, 445 Phil. 813, 828 (2003).

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 Art. 310
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.