Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DECISION
CRIM. CASE NO. 99-176434
Page Two (2)
I. Antecedents
The evidence for the prosecution disclosed that Skyfreight
Forwarders, Inc., a local forwarding company, was commissioned by
Dae Ryung Ind., Inc., Phil. (now Radix Communication, Inc.), a company
engaged in the manufacture of cordless telephones, to haul cartons
containing Sanyo DIGITALK Model DECT-1000 with receiver, operating
manuals and brochures from the latters address at Philippine
Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), Lot 1-13, Block 20, Phase 4, Main
Avenue, Rosario, Cavite to South Harbor, Port Area, Manila on May 3,
1999 and May 17, 1999. From the consignors premises, the items
were loaded in container vans and, upon arrival at the port, were
received by the port checker in good order. Covered by two separate
bills of lading, the container vans were then saddled on a vessel for
exportation to the consignees address in Hamburg, Germany and
Felixtowe, United Kingdom. However, upon opening the containers of
export shipments by the consignees at the port of destination on May 3
and May 17, 1999, respectively, they were found to have suffered
losses to the extent of 77% and 80%, respectively. The value of the
losses were estimated to be around P16,000,000.00.
On June 23, 1999 Eduardo G. de Guzman (de Guzman), VicePresident and Chief Operating Officer of Skyfreight Forwarders, Inc.,
received a letter-complaint dated June 22, 1999 from Dae Ryung Ind.
Inc. Phil., through its Asst. Trading Manager, Esther Cuasay (Cuasay),
and its General Manager, C. H. Chan, alleging that Skyfreight
Forwarders, Inc.s driver and helper, namely, Wilfredo Nablo (Nablo)
and Dennis Labastida (Labastida), respectively, who handled both
shipments, could be involved in some manner. They failed to report for
work since May 17, 1999. By reason of such complaint, on July 6, 1999,
Skyfreight Forwarders, Inc., through de Guzman, wrote a letter to
Director M. Panfilo Lacson, Jr. Chief of the Presidential Anti-Organized
Crime Task Force to request his office to investigate the pilferage which
it suspected to have been perpetrated by a crime syndicate. A similar
request was also earlier filed by Skyfreight Forwarders, Inc., through
Noel Tariman y Fetalvero (Tariman), its Brokerage Manager, with the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) on June 25, 1999
and with Lt. Reynaldo Jular of the Western Police District, Precinct No. 6
on an unspecified date.
On July 8, 1999, Atty. Lucas M. Managuelod (Atty. Managuelod),
Police Chief Superintendent and Director of CIDG, sent a written
communication to de Guzman, informing him that he has directed
P/Supt. Ruben A. Zacarias and P/C Insp. Wenceslao A. Sombero, Jr. (P/C
Insp. Sombero) of the CIDG Criminal Investigation and Detective Office
and CIDG Special Operations Office, respectively, to investigate the
case. Furthermore, the concerned CIDG units have reproduced the
pictures and bio-data of Nablo and Labastida and have distributed the
same to different special operations team for case build-up. The
concerned officers, as per Atty. Managuelods assurance, were zeroingin on a syndicate known as Bawas Gang which is reportedly engaged
in the theft of cargoes through skillful opening of container vans.
SP01 Florentino A. Roxas (SP01 Roxas) and P01 John G. Frial (P01
Frial), both undercover police operatives assigned at the CIDG Special
Operations Office, were tasked by P/C Insp. Sombero to conduct an
investigation relative to Skyfreight Forwarders, Inc.s complaint and to
exert
efforts to recover the stolen goods. On September 1, 1999, at
DECISION
about
an unidentified informant called their office and
CRIM. 3:00
CASEp.m.,
NO. 99-176434
tipped
them of
Page Three
(3)the impending delivery to a store in Comercio St. near
Divisoria Mall in Binondo, Manila of ninety (90) pieces of Sanyo
DIGITALK Model DECT-1000 which were looted from the container vans
of Skyfreight Forwarders, Inc. Said informant, however, did not specify
who would be fencing these effects either by a real name or alias or by
any other distinguishing characteristic by which the fence may be
identified. The informant also relayed that units of the contraband were
seen by him or her being sold inside Divisoria Mall. On the strength of
this information, SP01 Reynaldo Ramos (SP01 Ramos), SP01 Roxas, P01
Frial and other CIDG operatives were dispatched to verify the truth
thereof. Upon reaching said Divisoria Mall located at Comercio St.,
Binondo, Manila at around 3:30 p.m. of the same date, they saw the
accused unloading one box (which was 15 inches long and 10 inches
wide, more or less) from a maroon Tamaraw FX with plate number UAM
189. The CIDG operatives, who were positioned about 1 meter away
from the accused, approached the Tamaraw FX and saw on top of the
boxes, which were 20 in number, more or less, conspicuous markings
SANYO DIGITALK DECT-1000 but sans any inscription of the source
where they emanated. The CIDG operatives then asked the accused
what the contents of the boxes were. The accused replied that the
boxes contained SANYO DIGITALK DECT-1000 as was obviously
printed thereon; accused, nonetheless, reasoned out that his services
as porter were merely hired by a certain Kathy to unload the boxes.
Strangely, however, accuseds contention that he was a mere porter
seems to run afoul with the motion for the release of the above
adverted Tamaraw FX filed on September 13, 1999 by one Eusebio Sy
(who claims ownership thereof) through Atty. Gonzales (who is
accuseds cousel). The motion reads in part:
COMES NOW, Claimant-owner EUSEBIO SY through
undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court,
respectfully alleges:
1. That he is the lawful owner and claimant of one
(1) unit Maroon Tamaraw FX with Plate No. UAM189;
2. That on September 1, 1999 the said vehicle was
rented by Robert Cabal Eran;
xxxx
Without opening the boxes to ascertain their contents, the CIDG
operatives confiscated them and the Tamarax FX through which they
were conveyed, arrested the accused on the street, and brought him to
the CIDG office. Upon reaching the office, accused was booked and was
made to undergo medical examination. The serial numbers of the
confiscated items (consisting of 90 pieces of SANYO DIGITALK DECT1000) were recorded by CIDG operatives and a computer-print out
Description
Purpose
letter
of
Cuasay to prove that the subject
dated June 22, 1999 incident involving the missing
items resulting to shortages
in expected deliveries was
reported
to
de
Guzman
Skyfreight Forwarders, Inc.
letter dated June 25, to prove that Skyfreight
1999 of de Guzman Forwarders, Inc. sought the
addressed to Atty. assistance
of
Atty.
Managuelod
C
affidavit
of
de
Guzman dated July
6, 1999
DECISION
CRIM. CASE NO. 99-176434
Page Five (5)
D
E,
E-1
F,
F-1,
F-2
G,
G-1,
G-2
Managuelod
for
deeper
investigation of the subject
incident
to prove that de Guzman
initiated the filing of the
instant complaint in his
capacity as Chief Operating
Officer
of
Skyfreight
Forwarders, Inc., which was in
charge of the delivery of the
missing items subject of this
case
to prove that de Guzman has
indeed
sought
police
assistance
through
Atty.
Managuelod relative to the
incident in issue
reply
of
Atty.
Managuelod dated
July
8,
1999
addressed
to
de
Guzman
informing
him of the action
taken in his request
for police assistance
and
deeper
investigation of the
subject incident
DOJ
Resolution to prove that DOJ, after
dated September 3, investigation and hearing,
1999
found probable cause to
indict
the
accused
for
violation of P.D. No. 1612
Joint
Affidavit
of to prove the fact of arrest and
Apprehension
its surrounding circumstances
consisting of two
pages signed by
SP01 Roxas and P01
Frial
Sworn
Statement to
prove
that
Tariman
dated September 2, reported the incident to the
1999
of
Tariman police for investigation and
which consists of identified
the
missing
two
pages,
and telephone units confiscated
signed by him
from the accused
9People vs. Sia Teb Ban, G.R. No. 4963, September 15, 1909; 1 Reyes,
supra at P. 46; Sec. 3(b), Rule 131, Rules of Court
10US v. Go Chico, G.R. No. L-8646, March 31, 1915; 1 Reyes, supra at p.
58
11US v. Siy Cong Bieng, G.R. No. L-31695, November 26, 1929; 1 Reyes,
supra, at p. 59; 1 Aquino, supra, at p. 52
12Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, supra., citing Diong-an v. CA 138 SCRA
39 (1985)
13Dela Torre v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996, citing DizonPamintuan v. People, supra.
DECISION
CRIM. CASE NO. 99-176434
Page Ten (10)
xxxx
Unfortunately, however, the prosecution utterly failed to
substantiate its summation of the properties involved by invoices,
receipts, mercantile documents, or any other competent evidence. This
is fatal, and the prosecution only has itself to blame. While photocopies
of commercial invoices20 were attached to the record of the instant
case which reflects, among others, the price for each unit of Sanyo
DIGITALK Model DECT-1000, the Court cannot consider them without
committing judicial tyranny as they were not among the documentary
exhibits which were formally introduced in evidence by the
prosecution. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court cannot be any
clearer:
Section 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered
must be specified.
As held by the Supreme Court in Westmont Investment Corp. v.
Francia, Jr.:21
A formal offer is necessary because judges are
mandated to rest their findings of facts and their
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by
the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial
judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the
proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other
hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the
evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it
facilitates review as the appellate court will not be
required to review documents not previously scrutinized
by the trial court. Evidence not formally offered during
the trial can not be used for or against a party litigant.
Neither may it be taken into account on appeal.
The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial
matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a
considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to
submit it. Consequently, any evidence that has not been
offered shall be excluded and rejected.
Following the ruling of the Supreme Court in Francisco v.
People,22 a case likewise involving violation of P.D. No. 1612, in the
absence of evidence to prove the value of the stolen property, the
corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused should be the
minimum penalty prescribed in Section 3 (f) of P.D. No. 1612, that is,
arresto mayor in its minimum period, which is equivalent to
20 Rollo, pp. 21-24
21 G.R. No. 194128, December 7, 2011
22 G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004
VIRGILIO
ALAMEDA
Judge
/raffy
M.