1 - Mabunga V People

8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mabunga vs. People
*
G.R. No. 142039. May 27, 2004.
MODESTO Moody MABUNGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Criminal Law Alibi While courts have consistently looked

upon alibi with suspicion, the basic rule is for the prosecution,
upon which lies the onus, to establish all the elements of a crime to
thereby hold him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.While courts
have consistently looked upon alibi with suspicion not only
because it is inherently weak and unreliable as a defense, but
because it can easily be fabricated, the basic rule is for the
prosecution, upon which lies the onus, to establish all the
elements of a crime to thereby hold him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. Such burden does not shift as it remains with the
prosecution. Tasked with the burden of persuasion, the
prosecution must thus rely on the strength of its evidence and not
on the weakness of the defense.
Same Presumptions Words and Phrases A presumption is
an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from
another fact or
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
511
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 511
Mabunga vs. People
group of facts found or otherwise established in the action A

presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8c96f586f9e32b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
party who would be disadvantaged by a finding of the presumed

fact.On the sole basis of the presumption laid down under
abovequoted Section 3(j) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, the appellate court affirmed the conviction of appellant.
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be
made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise
established in the action. It is an inference as to the existence of
a fact not actually known, arising from its usual connection with
another which is known, or a conjecture based on past experience
as to what course of human affairs ordinarily take. A
presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the
party who would be disadvantaged by a finding of the presumed
fact. The presumption controls decision on the presumed fact
unless there is counterproof that the presumed fact is not so.
Same Same In criminal cases, presumptions should be taken
with caution especially in light of serious concerns that they might
water down the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.In
criminal cases, however, presumptions should be taken with
caution especially in light of serious concerns that they might
water down the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As
special considerations must be given to the right of the accused to
be presumed innocent, there should be limits on the use of
presumptions against an accused. Although possession of stolen
property within a limited time from the commission of the theft or
robbery is not in itself a crime, it being possible to possess the
same and remain innocent, such possession may be sufficient for
the formation of an inference that the possessor is the thief unless
the evidence satisfactorily proves that the property was acquired
by the accused by legal means.
Same Robbery Presumption of Guilt from Possession of
Recently Stolen Goods Presumption of Possession Requisites.
Before an inference of guilt arising from possession of recently
stolen goods can be made, however, the following basic facts need
to be proven by the prosecution: (1) that the crime was committed
(2) that the crime was committed recently (3) that the stolen
property was found in the possession of the defendant and (4) that
the defendant is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily.
For purposes moreover of conclusively proving possession, the
following considerations have to be emphasized: (1) the possession
must be unexplained by any innocent origin (2) the possession
must be fairly recent and (3) the possession must be exclusive.
Same Same Same For possession to be deemed constructive,
it is necessary that the accused knowingly has the power and the
intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a
thing, either directly or through another person.Contrary to the
findings of both the trial and appellate courts, the People failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that
512
Mabunga vs. People
appellant was caught in exclusive possession of the recently stolen

good. While possession need not mean actual physical control over
the thing for it may include constructive possession, it is still
necessary that for possession to be deemed constructive the
accused knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time
to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or
through another person.
Same Same Same A presumption cannot be founded on
another presumption.To assume that in a busy place, such as
the PPA terminal, the HOPE box that was opened by the police
authorities and found to contain the missing typewriter is the
same box allegedly entrusted by appellant to the cashier is to form
an inference which is, however, doubtful, more than six hours
having elapsed from the time the box was allegedly left at around
3:00 oclock in the afternoon until it was opened by the police
authorities at around 9:00 oclock in the evening after appellant
had already boarded the ship. A presumption cannot be founded
on another presumption. It cannot thus be concluded that from
the time the box was left under the bench, appellant was still in
constructive possession thereof, the exercise of exclusive dominion
or control being absent.
Same Same Same While a presumption imposes on a party
against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with
evidence to rebut such presumption, the burden of producing
evidence of guilt does not extend to the burden of proving the
accuseds innocence of the crime as the burden of persuasion does
not shift and remains throughout the trial upon the prosecution.
The appellate court ruled that since it was sufficiently established
that appellant was in possession of the typewriter two weeks after
it was stolen, he had the burden of proving that he was not the
one responsible for the heist. While a presumption imposes on a
party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward
with evidence to rebut such presumption, the burden of producing
evidence of guilt does not extend to the burden of proving the
accuseds innocence of the crime as the burden of persuasion does
not shift and remains throughout the trial upon the prosecution.
Same Same Logic, common knowledge and human
experience teach that it is unlikely that a robber would represent
himself to be the owner of a stuff which he knows contains stolen
property and seek the help of a third person to look after it.
Finally, logic, common knowledge and human experience teach

that it is unlikely that a robber would represent himself to be the
owner of a stuff which he knows contains stolen property and seek
the help of a third person to look after it. In fine, the life, liberty
and property of a citizen may not be taken away on possibilities,
conjectures or even, generally speaking, a bare probability.
513
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 513

Mabunga vs. People
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Paciano F. Fallar, Jr. for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for the People.
CARPIOMORALES, J.:
1
The Court of Appeals having, by Decision of June 30, 1999,2
affirmed that of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon
convicting appellant Modesto Mabunga of robbery with
force upon things under Article 299 of the Revised Penal
Code, he comes to this Court on a petition for review.
In the morning of October 2, 1994, employees of the
Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) including Davy Villaruel
(Villaruel) discovered that the hasp of the door of the BFP
office in Barangay Capaclan, Romblon, Romblon was
destroyed, and that the only typewriter in their office, a
Triumph bearing Serial Number 340118640, was missing.
From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses tricycle
driver Sixto Bernardo (Bernardo), Diana Malay (Diana),
Villaruel, Sylvia Silverio Comienzo (Sylvia), and SPO2
Eleazar Madali, the prosecution presented its case as
follows:
Around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon of October 15, 1994,
as Diana was in front of her store in Capaclan, Romblon,
Romblon waiting for a tricycle, she saw appellant, a dealer
of marble slabs, who was carrying a box which bore the
marking HOPE and tied with gray straw string, board a
pedicab driven by Bernardo. Having heard from her
husband Rodolfo Malay who works with the BFP that
appellant was the prime suspect of the police for the
robbery at the BFP, Diana immediately informed her
husband of what she saw. She was 3
thereupon instructed by
her husband to follow appellant.
_______________
1 Rollo at pp. 4649.

2 Id., at pp. 1925.
3 TSN, June 19, 1995 at pp. 45.
514

Mabunga vs. People
As Diana noticed that the pedicab was heading for 4

the pier,
she proceeded on foot to the house of Villaruel whom she
informed of what she had witnessed. 5
After the lapse of about 5 minutes, Villaruel, on board
his scooter, proceeded to the pier. By that time appellant
had reached the pier, alighted from Bernardos tricycle, and
unloaded the HOPE box.
In the meantime, Diana contacted
6
Chief of Police Major
Ernesto Madrona at his house.
Appellant, not long after alighting7 from the tricycle at
the pier, reboarded the same tricycle driven by Bernardo,
without the box, and headed for his house at Capaclan.
Diana, in fact, saw him on board the tricycle on his way
home.
Diana later boarded the tricycle of Bernardo after the
latter brought home appellant, and repaired to the pier.
There, by the gate, she saw Villaruel who confirmed to her
that he had verified from Bernardo, whom he earlier saw
by the same gate, that the latter indeed conveyed appellant
to the pier, with a HOPE box.
Diana also learned from Villaruel that he really saw the
box brought by [appellant]. She thus returned on foot to
the house of Major Madrona who instructed SPO2 Eleazar
Madali and PO2 Eustaquio Rogero to surreptitiously
watch a box of Hope brand cigarettes placed under a bench
inside the PPA passengers terminal owned by [appellant]
and wait until somebody gets 8 said box and load it aboard
the vessel M/V Peafrancia 8. 9
On Villaruels entering the terminal he was told by
Sylvia, the cashier on duty at the restaurant therein, that a
man, whom she later identified to be appellant through a
photograph shown to her that same day, entrusted the box
to her,
10
he telling her that it contained a damaged electric
fan.
Villaruel thereupon kept watch over the box, as SPO2
Madali and PO2 Rogero later did discreetly, until M/V
Peafrancia de
_______________
4 Id., at p. 5.
5 TSN, August 29, 1995 at p. 23.
6 TSN, June 19, 1995 at p. 6.
7 Id., at pp. 2021.
8 Exhibit C, Records at p. 111.
9 TSN, August 29, 1995 at pp. 78.
10 TSN, August 19, 1996 at pp. 45.
515
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 515

Mabunga vs. People
parted for Batangas at 8:00 p.m., with appellant on board

the same. About an hour later, PPA officers Reynaldo
Dianco and Leo Vedito Fontellera arrived at the terminal
and the box was turned over by them to SPO2 Madali and
PO2 Rogero. The box, when opened, contained the lost BFP
typewriter.
On February 7, 1995, appellant was charged with
robbery before the Regional Trial Court of Romblon,
Romblon under an information reading:
That on or about the 1st day of October, 1994, at around 12:00

midnight, in [B]arangay Capaclan, municipality of Romblon,
province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent [to] gain, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the
Office of the Bureau of Fire Protection by forcibly breaking the
door hasp of the main door and upon having gained entry therein,
take, steal and carry away one (1) typewriter (Triumph brand)
with Serial No. 340118640, valued at P5,894.00, Philippine
currency, belonging to and owned by the government, without its
consent, and to the damage
11
and prejudice of the government in
the aforestated amount.
On arraignment on February 21, 1995, appellant,

12
with the
assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty. Thereafter,
trial ensued.
Appellant interposed alibi with respect to the date and
place of occurrence of the alleged robbery. While he
admitted bringing to the pier on October 15, 1994 a box, he
claimed, however, that it bore the marking CHAMPION,
not HOPE. At the witness stand, he gave the following
tale:
He left Romblon on September 24, 1994 and arrived in

Manila the next day. After the lapse of 12 hours, he went to
the Cubao station of the Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus
(BLTB) Company and boarded a bus bound for Matnog,
Sorsogon. He reached Matnog on the afternoon of
September 27, 1994 and stayed there overnight before
proceeding to Allen, Samar which he reached on September
28, 1994. He then boarded a jeep bound for San Jose,
Northern Samar where he stayed for one (1) hour, after
which he proceeded to Calbayog City which he reached on
September 29, 1994. He transferred to another jeep bound
for Tacloban and arrived there on September 30, 1994. For
a day he stayed in Taclo
_______________
11 Records of the Regional Trial Court at p. 1.

12 Id., at p. 13.
516

Mabunga vs. People
ban to rest, after which he proceeded to Palo, Leyte to visit

his project. He arrived in Palo on October 1, 1994. The
next day, he went to Tacloban City and purchased
materials for polishing marble. He returned to Palo and
supervised his marble project for a week. When the
project was finished, he returned to Cebu on October 6,
1994 and the next day boarded the ferry [Backwagon]
Bay 13for Romblon. He reached Romblon on October 9,
1994.
In support of his alibi, he presented bus tickets and
purchase receipts of materials, viz.:
Exhibit 1BLTB ticket No. 60850, dated September 26, 1994,

(Cubao to Matnog, Sorsogon)
Exhibit 2Bus ticket dated September 28, 1994 issued by E.
Tabinas Enterprises to Moody Mabunga (Matnog, Sorsogon, to
Allen, Samar).
Exhibit 3Invoice No. 18639 issued on October 2, 199314 by
Terrazzo Construction and Marble Supply to Moody Mabunga.
Appellant further claimed that on the afternoon of October

15, 1994, he, along with his son, boarded the pedicab of
Bernardo to which they loaded a box marked
CHAMPION containing marble novelties to be brought to
Manila via Viva Peafrancia 8 on reaching the pier, he

laid down the box at the gate of the PPA and stood beside it
as he waited for the ship to dock and when he later 15
boarded the ship, he placed the box at the back of his cot.
Finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
robbery, Branch 81 of the RTC Romblon sentenced him to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2
months of prison correccional, as minimum to 8 years and 1
day of prision mayor, as maximum, with 16
the accessory
penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
The Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the
trial court, relied on Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence which reads:
_______________
13 TSN, February 6, 1997 at pp. 311.

14 Records at pp. 146148.
15 TSN, June 11, 1997 at pp. 79.
16 Rollo at pp. 1925.
517
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 517

Mabunga vs. People
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions.The following presumptions

are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence:
xxx
(j) That a person in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a
recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act
otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts
of ownership over, are owned by him
The appellate 17 court having denied his motion for

reconsideration, appellant lodged the present appeal,
ascribing to it the following errors:
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED

WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE UNMPUGNED
ALIBI OF THE ACCUSED, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE ABSENCE OF POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.
2. THE COURT OF APEALS GRAVELY ERRED
WHEN IT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE THE
TYPEWRITER, WHICH WAS SEARCHED
WITHOUT WARRANT AND IN THE ABSENCE
OF THE ACCUSED.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED

WHEN IT PRESUMED THE ELEMENT OF
INTENT TO GAIN, WHEN THE SUPPOSED ACT
OF THE ACCUSED IN LEAVING THE BOX TO A
STRANGER AND NEVER COMING BACK TO
CLAIM IT NEGATED
18
THE NOTION OF ANIMUS
LUCRANDI. (Italics supplied)
The appeal is impressed with merit.

While courts have consistently looked upon alibi with
suspicion not only because it is inherently weak and
unreliable 19as a defense, but because it can easily be
fabricated, the basic rule is for the prosecution, upon
which lies the onus, to establish all the elements of a crime
to thereby hold him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Such
burden does not shift as it remains with the prosecution.
Tasked with the burden of persuasion, the prosecution
must thus rely on the strength
20
of its evidence and not on
the weakness of the defense.
Admittedly, the evidence for the prosecution is
circumstantial. The alleged robbery was discovered when
the employees of the
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 7980.

18 Id., at p. 13.
19 People v. Villamor, 373 SCRA 254, 264 (2003).
20 People v. Alvario, 275 SCRA 529, 535 (1997).
518

Mabunga vs. People
BFP reported for work on October 2, 1994 and noticed that

the hasp of the office door was broken and the typewriter
was missing.
On the sole basis of the presumption laid down under
abovequoted Section 3(j) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules
on Evidence, the appellate court affirmed the conviction of
appellant.
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law
requires to be made from another fact or group 21
of facts
found or otherwise established in the action. It is an
inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known,
arising from its usual connection with another which is
known, or a conjecture based on past experience

22
as to what
course of human affairs ordinarily take.
A presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of
proof to the party who would be disadvantaged by a finding
of the presumed fact. The presumption controls decision on
the presumed fact unless 23
there is counterproof that the
presumed fact is not so.
In criminal cases, however, presumptions should be
taken with caution especially in light of serious concerns
that they might water down the requirement of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. As special considerations must be
given to the right of the accused to be presumed innocent,
there should be limits on the use of presumptions against
an accused.
Although possession of stolen property within a limited
time from the commission of the theft or robbery is not in
itself a crime, it being possible to possess the same and
remain innocent, such possession may be sufficient for the
formation of an inference that the possessor is the thief
unless the evidence satisfactorily proves that the property
was acquired by the accused by legal means.
How the presumption under Section 3(j), 24
Rule 131 is to
be understood, United States v. Catimbang explains:
According to the modern view convictions in cases of this kind are

not sustained upon a presumption of law as to the guilt of the
accused. The conviction rests wholly upon an inference of fact as
to the guilt of the accused. If as a matter of probability and
reasoning based on the fact of
_______________
21 BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (6th ed. 1990) at p. 1185.

22 Martin v. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 591, 595 (1992).
23 A. BAUTISTA, BASIC EVIDENCE, (2004) at 283 citing Mueller and
Kirkpatrick, 3.4.
24 35 Phil. 367 (1916).
519
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 519

Mabunga vs. People
possession of the stolen goods, taken in connection with other

evidence, it may fairly be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused is guilty of the theft, judgment or conviction may
properly be entered. x x x
The inference of guilt is one of fact and rests upon the common
experience of men. But the experience of men has taught them
that an apparently guilty possession may be explained so as to

rebut such an inference and an accused person may therefore put
witness on the stand or go to the witness stand himself to explain
his possession, and any reasonable explanation of his possession,
inconsistent with his guilty connection with the commission of the
crime, will rebut the inference as to his guilt which the prosecution
seeks to have drawn from his guilty possession of the stolen
goods.
It is in this sense that it is sometimes said that the
unexplained possession of recently stolen 25
goods will sustain a
conviction of the crime of larceny. (Emphasis and italics
supplied)
Before an inference of guilt arising from possession of

recently stolen goods can be made, however, the following
basic facts need to be proven by the prosecution: (1) that
the crime was committed (2) that the crime was committed
recently (3) that the stolen property was found in the
possession of the defendant and (4) that the 26defendant is
unable to explain his possession satisfactorily.
For purposes moreover of conclusively proving
possession, the following considerations have to be
emphasized: (1) the possession must be unexplained by any
innocent origin (2) the possession must 27
be fairly recent
and (3) the possession must be exclusive.
Contrary to the findings of both the trial and appellate
courts, the People failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that appellant was caught in exclusive possession of the
recently stolen good.
While possession need not mean actual physical control over the
thing for it may include constructive possession, it is still
necessary that for possession to be deemed constructive the
accused knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time
to exercise dominion or28 control over a thing, either directly or
through another person.
_______________
25 U.S. v. Catimbang, supra at pp. 371372.

26 R.J. FRANCISCO, EVIDENCE, (3rd ed., 1996) at pp. 419420.
27 9 J.H. WIGMORE, A TREATISE ON THE ANGLOAMERICAN
SYSTEM OF EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW, (3rd ed., 1940)
sec. 2513 at p. 422.
28 BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY at p. 1163.
520

Mabunga vs. People
29
The case of U.S. v. Simbahan cited by the appellate court
has a different factual setting and is, therefore,
inapplicable to the present case. In Simbahan, the accused,
for a consideration of P50.00 pesos, disclosed to the owner
of the missing carabao its precise location. There, this
Court held: The word possession as used above can not be
limited to manual touch or personal custody. One who puts
or deposits the stolen property in a place of concealment
may be deemed to have such property in his possession, x x
x All the facts and circumstances [including the absence of
a satisfactory explanation of his possession] show
conclusively that he had possession
30
of said caraballa and
fully justify his conviction.
The accused in Simbahan exercised exclusive dominion
and control over the thing lost. Appellant in the present
case did not.
The HOPE box was not concealed and anyone entering
and leaving the PPA terminal had access to it, it having
been placed just below one of the benches, around three
meters from the cashier, Sylvia.
To assume that in a busy place, such as the PPA
terminal, the HOPE box that was opened by the police
authorities and found to contain the missing typewriter is
the same box allegedly entrusted by appellant to the
cashier is to form an inference which is, however, doubtful,
more than six hours having elapsed from the time the box
was allegedly left at around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon
until it was opened by the police authorities at around 9:00
oclock in the evening after appellant had already boarded
the ship.
A presumption cannot be founded on another
presumption. It cannot thus be concluded that from the
time the box was left under the bench, appellant was still
in constructive possession thereof, the exercise of exclusive
dominion or control being absent.
Adding serious doubt to the prosecutions claim is that
what was allegedly seen being carried by appellant and
entrusted to the cashier was not the stolen typewriter but
merely a HOPE box.
A review of the transcript of stenographic notes in fact
shows that there are flaws in the prosecutions theory as
well as inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses
testimonies that do not warrant appellants conviction.
_______________
29 19 Phil. 123 (1911).

30 United States v. Simbahan, 19 Phil. 123, 125 (1911).
521
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 521

Mabunga vs. People
Why appellant was considered a suspect by the police, no

explanation has been preferred. The records, however,
indicate that appellant had previously
31
been indicted before
the Municipal Trial Court for theft. On that basis alone, it
is non sequitor to point to him as a suspect.
At all events, apart from appellants supposed
possession of the HOPE box on October 15, 1994, no other
evidence was adduced by the prosecution linking 32
him to the
robbery. The teaching of Askew v. United States must thus
be heeded:
We have heretofore adverted to the possession of the instruments

or of the fruits of a crime as affording ground to presume the guilt
of the possessor but on this subject no certain rule can be laid
down of universal application the presumption being not
conclusive but disputable, and therefore to be dealt with by the
jury alone, as a mere inference of fact. Its force and value will
depend on several considerations. In the first place, if the fact of
possession stands alone, wholly unconnected with any other
circumstances, its value or persuasive power is very slight
for the real criminal may have artfully placed the article in the
possession or upon the premises of an innocent person, the better to
conceal his own guilt. It will be necessary, therefore, for the
prosecutor to add the proof of other circumstances indicative
of guilt, in order to render the 33
naked possession of the thing
available towards a conviction. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
That the fact of possession alone, wholly unconnected with

any other circumstances, cannot be relied with certitude
34
to
convict one with robbery is echoed in People v. Geron:
At any rate, the mere possession by the accused of items allegedly

stolen, without more, cannot conduce to a single conclusion that
robbery indeed took place or at least was the primary motive for
the killings. In the absence of positive and indubitable evidence
showing unlawful taking by the accused by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, the prosecution cannot rely
with certitude on the fact of possession alone. The Courts
application of the presumption that a person found in possession
of the personal effects belonging to the person robbed and killed is
considered the author of the aggression, the death of the person,

as well as the rob
_______________
31 TSN, December 6, 1995 at 25.

32 2 Okl.Cr. 155(1900).
33 Askew v. United States, 2 Okl. Cr. 155 at 159 (1900) citing Greenleaf, 31.
34 281 SCRA 36 (1997).
522

Mabunga vs. People
bery committed, has been invariably limited to cases where such

possession is either unexplained or that the proferred explanation
is rendered implausible
35
in view of independent evidence
inconsistent thereto. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
The appellate court ruled that since it was sufficiently

established that appellant was in possession of the
typewriter two weeks after it was stolen, he had the burden
of proving
36
that he was not the one responsible for the
heist. While a presumption imposes on a party against
whom it is directed the burden of going forward with
evidence to rebut such presumption, the burden of
producing evidence of guilt does not extend to the burden of
proving the accuseds innocence of the crime as the burden
of persuasion does not shift and remains throughout the
trial upon the prosecution.
Compounding doubts on the case for the prosecution is
its witnesses differing versions on how and where the box
was opened, a fact necessarily important in determining
whether its content was indeed the stolen typewriter.
On one hand, a member of the PNP, SPO2 Eleazar
Madali, testified during the direct examination by
Prosecutor Sy that the box was opened at the police station:
Q And what time did the M/V P[e]afrancia 8 le[ave]?

A About 8:00 oclock in the evening.
Q And what time was that when you entered the PPA
terminal to see the carton?
A May be 3:30 oclock, more or less, the vessel has not
arrive[d] yet.
Q And also because the vessel has left and the carton
[w]as not brought out, what did you do?
A We coordinate[d] with the PPA about the box that was

not taken and it was turned over to us and we brought it
to the police station.
Q Who was your companion in bringing the box to the
police station?
A SPO1 Rogero, our investigator Victor Miano, Fireman
Sim, Dave Villaruel then we proceeded to the guard of
the Romblon Police Station.
_______________
35 People v. Geron, 281 SCRA 36, 4748 (1997).

36 Rollo at p. 48.
523
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 523

Mabunga vs. People
Q And what was done with the box in the police station?
A When we arrived in the PNP Police Station we have the
box opened before37the guard and the content of the box
was a typewriter. (Italics supplied)
On the other hand, the cashier, Sylvia Silverio Comienzo,

testified that the police authorities opened the box inside
her small room in the terminal.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTOR SY:

Q The day in which you have identified him as Modesto
Mabunga, [did he] retrieved (sic) that carton from you
that same day or afternoon?
A No, sir.
Q Who got the carton?
A The policemen, sir.
Q And what did the policemen do when they got the
carton?
A They opened it, sir.
Q If you could remember, who were those policemen who
got and opened the carton?
A Madrona, Eustaqio and Mike Villaruel.

Q Where did they open that carton?A38Inside the terminal
because I have a small room there. (Italics supplied)
On additional direct examination, Sylvia remained

adamant in saying that the box was opened in her small
room inside the terminal.
ADDITIONAL DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY PROSECUTOR SY:
Q When the policemen as you said got this carton and
opened it, where did the policemen precisely get the
carton, from what place precisely?
A Taken from under the bench.
COURT:
Q Where this Moody placed it?
A Yes, sir.
_______________
37 TSN, December 6, 1995 at pp. 89.

38 TSN, August 19, 1996 at p. 6.
524

Mabunga vs. People
PROSECUTOR SY CONTINUING:
Q Were you personally present when the policemen got the
carton from under the bench where Moody placed it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And where did the policemen open the carton?
A In our small room.
Q Where you personally present when the policemen got
the carton and opened it on that room?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you personally present when the straw that was
used in tying the carton was cut or untied or loosened by
the policemen?
A I was there.
COURT:
Q Why were you there present?
A
Because I saw to it what was the 39

content of that box and
if it was really an electric fan. (Italics supplied)
Without doubt, the trial court is in the best position to

assess the credibility of witnesses firsthand and observe
their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling
examination. An examination of the records shows,
however, that, as indicated by the trial judges following
comments on prosecution witness Villaruels answers to the
questions posed to him during his direct examination, the
prosecution evidence leaves much to be desired.
COURT: This witness is a very typical witness. Very

familiar. You are just waiting for Atty. Sy to
finish his question for you to say what you have
been in your mind regardless of the question but
you will just continue what you have already in
your mind without thinking about the question.
But remember his question, when the question is
asked it will appear in your mind, it should be
the other way around, do you understand? You
forget what is in your mind, concentrate on the
question. You listen to the question. You are like
a tape recorder. You just switch on and40 then you
continue, so you wait for the question.
_______________
39 Id., at pp. 1718.

40 TSN, August 29, 1995 at p. 7.
525
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 525

Mabunga vs. People
Then again, during the cross examination of the same

witness, the trial court gave the following observation on
his demeanor:
COURT: The statement of the Court that you are like a

fish in outer space is more applicable to you. You
are like a fish in outer space, meaning, you are a
police science graduate, meaning, that your
career is to be a policeman and a police officer, an
officer of the law. You are now in the court of law,
you should then feel comfortable in a court of law
like a fish in the water you should be comfortable
in a court of law because that is part of your
career but the way we look at it you are like a

lawyer who just graduated, took the bar and then
become an office employee not practicing law in
the courtroom so that when the lawyer comes to
Court, he will not come to Court, he is afraid of
the courtroom although
41
he is a lawyer he is afraid
of the courtroom. (Italics supplied)
Finally, logic, common knowledge and human experience

teach that it is unlikely that a robber would represent
himself to be the owner of a stuff which he knows contains
stolen property and seek the help of a third person to look
after it.
In fine, the life, liberty and property of a citizen may not
be taken away on possibilities, conjectures
42
or even,
generally speaking, a bare probability.
At all events, appellants alibi, for which he submitted
documentary evidence, has not been discredited by the
prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the decision on review is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and appellant, Modesto
Moody Mabunga, is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of
robbery.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug (Chairman), SandovalGutierrez and Corona,

JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and set aside, appellant acquitted.
_______________
41 Id., at pp. 1920.

42 A. BAUTISTA, BASIC EVIDENCE (2004) at 297, citing New York
Life Insurance Co. v. McNeely, 52 Ariz. 181, 79 P.2d 948 (1938).
526

Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. National Power
Corporation
Notes.Proof that the accused is in possession of a

stolen property gives rise to a valid presumption that he
stole the same. (People vs. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167 [19961)
The failure to cart away the goods due to their weight
(something the culprits had not taken into account) may
not be considered as voluntary desistance from the
commission of the crime so as to remove the element of

asportation from the complex crime of attempted robbery
with homicide. (People vs. Pareja, 265 SCRA 429 [1996])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

1 - Mabunga V People

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 - Mabunga V People

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

MODESTO Moody MABUNGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE

Criminal Law Alibi While courts have consistently looked

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 511

Mabunga vs. People

group of facts found or otherwise established in the action A

party who would be disadvantaged by a finding of the presumed

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mabunga vs. People

appellant was caught in exclusive possession of the recently stolen

Finally, logic, common knowledge and human experience teach

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 513

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1 Rollo at pp. 4649.

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As Diana noticed that the pedicab was heading for 4

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 515

parted for Batangas at 8:00 p.m., with appellant on board

That on or about the 1st day of October, 1994, at around 12:00

On arraignment on February 21, 1995, appellant,

He left Romblon on September 24, 1994 and arrived in

11 Records of the Regional Trial Court at p. 1.

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ban to rest, after which he proceeded to Palo, Leyte to visit

Exhibit 1BLTB ticket No. 60850, dated September 26, 1994,

Appellant further claimed that on the afternoon of October

Manila via Viva Peafrancia 8 on reaching the pier, he

13 TSN, February 6, 1997 at pp. 311.

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 517

SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions.The following presumptions

The appellate 17 court having denied his motion for

1. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED

3. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED

The appeal is impressed with merit.

17 Id., at pp. 7980.

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

BFP reported for work on October 2, 1994 and noticed that

known, or a conjecture based on past experience

According to the modern view convictions in cases of this kind are

21 BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (6th ed. 1990) at p. 1185.

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 519

possession of the stolen goods, taken in connection with other

that an apparently guilty possession may be explained so as to

Before an inference of guilt arising from possession of

25 U.S. v. Catimbang, supra at pp. 371372.

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mabunga vs. People

29 19 Phil. 123 (1911).

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 521

Why appellant was considered a suspect by the police, no

We have heretofore adverted to the possession of the instruments

That the fact of possession alone, wholly unconnected with

At any rate, the mere possession by the accused of items allegedly

considered the author of the aggression, the death of the person,

31 TSN, December 6, 1995 at 25.

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

bery committed, has been invariably limited to cases where such

The appellate court ruled that since it was sufficiently

Q And what time did the M/V P[e]afrancia 8 le[ave]?

A We coordinate[d] with the PPA about the box that was

35 People v. Geron, 281 SCRA 36, 4748 (1997).