Realiza vs. People of the Philippines

A conviction for theft may be affirmed while the penalty is modified to community service in lieu of imprisonment when the value of the stolen property, as adjusted by R.A. No. 10951, falls within the range warranting arresto mayor, and R.A. No. 11362 authorizes the court to impose community service for that penalty in its discretion.

Petitioner Carlu Alfonso A. Realiza and complainant Elfa Boganotan were both residents of Sitio Lungkanad, Gulayon, Dipolog City, their houses situated approximately 80 to 100 meters apart. Elfa and her family served as caretakers of a portion of property belonging to petitioner's uncle, George Realiza, with whom petitioner had an ongoing dispute over a stone monument marking the boundary between their respective landholdings. The charge arose under Article 308 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, governing the crime of theft and its corresponding penalties.

On January 7, 2011, at around 1:00 p.m., in Sitio Lungkanad, Gulayon, Dipolog City, petitioner Carlu Alfonso A. Realiza was alleged to have entered the house of Elfa Boganotan and taken a pair of rubber boots, an iron pot, and a frying pan, with a total value of ₱1,600.00. The incident was witnessed by Elfa's son, Kim Boganotan, who was at the garden fronting their house with his younger brother, Pablo Boganotan, Jr., when the taking occurred. Kim testified that he saw petitioner enter their house and steal the personal items, and that they did not stop petitioner because he threatened to kill them. Kim informed their parents about the incident as soon as they arrived. When Elfa returned home with her husband from Dipolog City, Kim relayed what had happened. While passing by petitioner's house on their way home, Elfa saw petitioner playing with the items taken from their house. Elfa did not retrieve the items but instead reported the incident to the Dipolog Police Station, which led to the filing of the criminal case.

Petitioner denied the accusation, claiming that on January 7, 2011, at around 12:30 p.m., he left his house to accompany his brother on his motorcycle to Labrador, Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte, a trip that took 30 minutes. From Labrador, they proceeded to Montano Food Sardines factory in Turno, Dipolog City, to buy Spanish sardines before returning home at around 3:00 p.m. He asserted that he never saw Kim or his brother Pablo. Petitioner believed the charge was fabricated by Kim, Elfa, and his uncle George Realiza, who had accused him of transferring the stone monument separating their respective landholdings. He denied threatening Kim and maintained he could not have entered Elfa's house because he was in Labrador, Polanco at the time.

Defense witness Salvador Eba, Jr. corroborated petitioner's alibi, testifying that at around 1:00 p.m. on January 7, 2011, he saw petitioner and his brother Ricky riding a motorcycle toward Labrador, Polanco, while he was buying gasoline at Gumahad Store. Another defense witness, Rosemarie Hangcan, Kim's teacher, testified that based on her Form 1 or School Register, which recorded morning and afternoon attendance, Kim was inside the classroom at around 1:00 p.m. on that date.

The MTCC found petitioner guilty, crediting Kim's testimony. The RTC affirmed, finding no reversible error. The CA likewise affirmed, holding that Kim's positive and direct testimony was too credible to ignore and that petitioner's alibi, while establishing his presence in Labrador at 1:00 p.m., did not exculpate him because he had enough time to commit the theft before leaving, as Kim testified to seeing the theft when he arrived home at around 12:00 p.m.

• Credibility of prosecution witness: Petitioner argued that Kim was not a credible witness and that his testimony was fabricated with lies, bias, and animosity.
• Motive for fabrication: Petitioner maintained that the charge was fabricated by Kim, Elfa, and his uncle George Realiza due to a conflict over a stone monument boundary between their respective landholdings, with Elfa's family serving as caretakers of George's property.
• Alibi: Petitioner contended that he could not have committed the theft because he was on his way to Labrador, Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte at the time of the incident.

• Guilt beyond reasonable doubt: Whether petitioner's guilt for the crime of theft was established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Penalty modification: Whether the penalty imposed should be modified pursuant to R.A. No. 10951 and R.A. No. 11362.

• Guilt beyond reasonable doubt: Yes. All elements of theft under Article 308 of the RPC were established, and the positive identification by eyewitness Kim prevailed over petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi.
• Penalty modification: The penalty was modified to community service in lieu of imprisonment, pursuant to Section 81 of R.A. No. 10951 and Section 3 of R.A. No. 11362, the stolen items being valued at ₱1,600.00, which falls within the adjusted threshold for arresto mayor.

• Guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The well-established rule is that findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings; when affirmed by the appellate court, such findings are accorded full weight and credit, if not conclusive effect. The trial court gave full credence to Kim's positive and direct testimony that petitioner took the personal belongings of Elfa. All five elements of theft under Article 308 of the RPC were established: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Petitioner took the rubber boots, frying pan, and iron pot owned by Elfa without her consent, retained the items showing intent to gain, and entered Elfa's house without violence or force. Petitioner's defense of alibi was inherently weak; even though he proved he was on his way to Labrador at 1:00 p.m., he had enough time to commit the theft before leaving, as Kim testified to seeing the theft at around 12:00 p.m. when he arrived home from school. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else but also that he was so far away that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity. Denial cannot be given more weight than the positive identification by eyewitnesses.
• Penalty modification: Pursuant to Section 81 of R.A. No. 10951, which adjusted the baseline amounts and values of property to make penalties commensurate to the offenses committed, any person found guilty of theft under Article 309 of the RPC, as amended, shall be punished by arresto mayor to its full extent if the value of the thing stolen is over ₱500.00 but does not exceed ₱5,000.00. Because the stolen items were valued at ₱1,600.00, the penalty of arresto mayor from one month and one day to six months should be imposed. Under R.A. No. 11362 (Community Service Act), the court may, in its discretion and in lieu of service in jail, require that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor be served by the defendant by rendering community service in the place where the crime was committed, under terms determined by the court and supervised by a probation officer. The imposition of community service is within the discretion of the court and is a privilege, not a right; it may be availed of only once. The court shall consider the welfare of society and the reasonable probability that the person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering the service, consistent with the State's policy to promote restorative justice and decongest jails.

• Deference to trial court credibility findings — Findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and involve credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. When affirmed by the appellate court, such findings are accorded full weight and credit, if not conclusive effect. Applied: The Court upheld the MTCC's crediting of Kim's testimony, as affirmed by both the RTC and CA, finding no reason to disturb the factual determination.
• Elements of theft under Article 308, RPC — The essential elements are: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Applied: All elements were established — petitioner took personal property belonging to Elfa without her consent, with intent to gain shown by his retention of the items, and without violence or force.
• Requisites of alibi — For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Applied: Petitioner's alibi failed because even though he was on his way to Labrador at 1:00 p.m., he had enough time to commit the theft before departing, as Kim testified to seeing the theft at around 12:00 p.m.
• Community service in lieu of imprisonment — Under R.A. No. 11362, the court may, in its discretion and in lieu of jail service, require that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor be served by the defendant by rendering community service in the place where the crime was committed, under terms determined by the court, supervised by a probation officer. The privilege may be availed of only once. The court shall consider the gravity of the offense, the circumstances of the case, the welfare of society, and the reasonable probability that the person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering the service. Applied: The Court modified the penalty to community service, directing the MTCC to conduct a hearing to determine the number of hours and the period of service.

• "The determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect." — States the controlling doctrine on deference to trial court credibility findings, which formed the basis for upholding the conviction.
• "To insist on basing penalties on values identified in the 1930s is not only anachronistic and archaic; it is unjust and legally absurd to a moral fault." — Articulates the rationale for R.A. No. 10951's adjustment of penalty thresholds, explaining why the penalty had to be modified in this case.
• "It must be emphasized that the imposition of the penalty of community service is still within the discretion of the Court and should not be taken as an unbridled license to commit minor offenses. It is merely a privilege since the offended cannot choose it over imprisonment as a matter of right." — Clarifies the discretionary and privileged nature of community service under R.A. No. 11362, guarding against misreading the modification as automatic or entitlement-based.

• People vs. Presas, 659 Phil. 503, 511 (2011) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of trial courts involving witness credibility are accorded respect absent glaring errors or gross misapprehension of facts.
• People vs. Sabadlab, 679 Phil. 425, 438 (2012) — Cited for the rule that trial court credibility determinations, when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded full weight and credit, if not conclusive effect.
• People vs. Villamin, 625 Phil. 698, 712-713 (2010) — Cited in support of the rule on deference to trial court factual findings involving credibility.
• People vs. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527-528 (2013) — Cited for the requisites that must be satisfied for the defense of alibi to prosper.
• Valenzuela vs. People, 552 Phil. 381, 397 (2007) — Cited for the enumeration of the essential elements of theft under Article 308 of the RPC.
• People vs. Mejares, G.R. No. 225735, Jan. 10, 2018 — Cited for the rationale underlying R.A. No. 10951's adjustment of penalty thresholds, emphasizing the need to account for changes in property values over time.

• Article 308, Revised Penal Code — Defines theft and its essential elements. Applied to establish that all five elements were present: petitioner took personal property belonging to Elfa, with intent to gain, without her consent, and without violence or force.
• Article 309, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalties for theft based on the value of the stolen property. Originally applied by the MTCC under the old value thresholds; the penalty was subsequently modified pursuant to R.A. No. 10951.
• Section 81, R.A. No. 10951 — Adjusts the penalty for theft of property valued over ₱500.00 but not exceeding ₱5,000.00 to arresto mayor to its full extent. Applied to modify petitioner's penalty, the stolen items being valued at ₱1,600.00.
• Section 3, R.A. No. 11362 (Community Service Act) — Inserts Article 88a into the RPC, authorizing the court to impose community service in lieu of imprisonment for the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor, under terms determined by the court and supervised by a probation officer. Applied to substitute community service for imprisonment, with the privilege available only once.

Leonen (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concurred.