Pante y Rangasa v. People G.R. No. 218969, January 18, 2021, THIRD DIVISION, (Hernando, J.)

 

Pante y Rangasa v. People
G.R. No. 218969, January 18, 2021, THIRD DIVISION, (Hernando, J.)

Doctrine:

Time and again, this Court has held that greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness than the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime. Mere denials are only self-serving evidence whose evidentiary weight cannot outweigh the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.

Facts:

An Information was filed before the RTC of Pili, Camarines Sur against petitioner Pante and his two minor co-accused, charging them with the crime of Theft under Article 308, par. 2, subparagraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Upon arraignment, Pante and his two co-accused entered separate pleas of "not guilty."

In its Judgment, the RTC found all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft. The evidence submitted by the prosecution proved that Word lost his money, and that the accused-minor was the finder thereof, and who shared the cash he found with his co-accused cousin and Pante, the latter both knowing where the money came from. While the trial Court was convinced that Word lost dollar bills in the amount of US$4,450, the prosecution failed to prove that he also lost money in Philippine currency. It found that Pante got US$1,700.00, while the two accused-minor netted US$500.00 and US$2,350.00 each. The trial court noted that Pante even instructed the two minors not to return the money. Instead of encouraging them to return the cash, Pante got a portion for himself and headed home. Thus, the trial court did not give credence to Pante's position that he did not have any interest in keeping the money. Neither can his act of returning the money be considered voluntary since he already knew that Word was looking for his lost money and he only returned it upon the arrival of police authorities in his house.

Aggrieved, Pante appealed the judgment of conviction before the CA, arguing that the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The CA, in its assailed Decision, affirmed the RTC's ruling.

Issue:

(a) Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioner for the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  

Ruling: No. The Petition is unmeritorious.

The CA correctly found that the prosecution sufficiently established Pante's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft. Under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the RPC, Theft is also committed by one's failure to deliver lost property to its owner or local authorities. In this kind of Theft, it is essential to prove: 1) the finding of lost property; 2) the failure of the finder to deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner.

In the case at bar, both the trial court and the appellate court found that the prosecution witnesses were able to prove that Word lost his bundled money after alighting from his car in front of his residence and forgetting that he had placed them in between his legs. Such fact was corroborated by the prosecution witness who testified that he positively saw the accused-minor pick up the bundle of money under Word's car. In the same vein, all three accused admitted that it was the accused-minor who found the bundle of money in front of the bakery, which they later divided among themselves in the following manner: US$1,700.00 for Pante; and US$500.00 and US$2,350.00 for each of the two accused-minor. Despite knowing that the money did not rightfully belong to them, Pante encouraged the two minor accused to keep the money for themselves.

In fine, a "finder" under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the RPC is not only limited to the actual finder of the lost property since the gist of the offense is the furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found Though not the actual finder, but there is also no dispute that Pante knew for a fact that his two co-accused minor did not own the subject money. He knew for a fact that his co-accused minor merely found the money along the road while the latter was delivering bread. Instead of returning the money, Pante convinced his co-accused minors not to return the money and to divide it among themselves. At that moment, Pante placed himself precisely in the situation as if he was the actual finder. Otherwise stated, petitioner was a "finder in law," if not in fact; and his act in appropriating the money was of precisely of the same character as if it had been originally found by him.