CASE DIGEST : JULIUS ENRICO TIJAM Y NOCHE v. PEOPLE GR No. 251732, Jul 10, 2023 GAERLAN

FACTS : Petitioners were charged with Simple Theft for allegedly stealing the Samsung Galaxy A7 cellular phone of Kim Mugot valued at ₱25,000.00. On August 18, 2017, while boarding a bus at SM Mall of Asia, Mugot noticed that his phone, which was in his pocket, had disappeared after he was pinned against the bus door. He immediately searched for the person beside him and later saw petitioner Tijam handing his cellphone to petitioner Bacsid. Mugot shouted "magnanakaw," confronted Bacsid, and during the ensuing struggle, the phone fell to the ground and was damaged before Mugot recovered it. Security personnel apprehended the petitioners, who denied the accusation and claimed that Tijam merely found the cellphone lying on the ground and was showing it to Bacsid when Mugot suddenly grabbed it and accused them of theft. The RTC convicted petitioners of Simple Theft, finding that the prosecution established all the elements of the offense and applying the presumption that a person found in possession of recently stolen property is presumed to be the taker absent a satisfactory explanation. The CA affirmed the conviction, holding that Mugot positively identified petitioners and that their denial could not overcome the prosecution's evidence. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that unlawful taking was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that their conviction rested solely on the presumption arising from possession of the cellphone.

ISSUE: WON the accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt

HELD : The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that although Rule 45 generally limits review to questions of law, it may examine factual issues where the lower courts' findings are based on speculation or misapprehension of facts. Upon review, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the petitioners' guilt for simple theft beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to prove unlawful taking. While Mugot testified that Bacsid pinned him against the bus door and that Tijam was later seen holding and handing over the cellphone to Bacsid, these circumstances did not conclusively establish that either petitioner actually stole the phone. The Court emphasized that the crowded boarding situation made it reasonably possible for another person to have taken—or for Mugot to have accidentally dropped—the cellphone, thereby creating reasonable doubt.

The Court likewise rejected the lower courts' reliance on the disputable presumption that possession of recently stolen property makes the possessor the thief. It held that Tijam satisfactorily explained that he merely found the cellphone on the ground, an explanation consistent with Mugot's own account of the chaotic rush of passengers. Since this explanation was plausible and no evidence placed Tijam inside the bus when the phone disappeared, the presumption was effectively rebutted.

Applying the constitutional presumption of innocence and the equipoise rule, the Court held that the evidence was equally consistent with innocence as with guilt. As the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of theft beyond reasonable doubt, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' Decision and acquitted Julius Enrico Tijam and Kenneth Bacsid of the charge of simple theft.