SC acquits men accused of theft

The Supreme Court has acquitted two individuals accused of stealing a cell phone, saying that an accused should not be deprived of life and liberty on sheer conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions.

In a 13-page decision promulgated in July, the SC Third Division granted the petitions filed by Julius Tijam and Kenneth Bacsid. It reversed and set aside a ruling that affirmed their conviction on theft.

“Due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, their presumption of innocence, enshrined in the Constitution and stringently guarded by the Court, must be upheld,” the SC said.

In 2017, Tijam and Bacsid were charged with theft for supposedly stealing a cellphone with a value of P25,000.

According to the complainant, he was pinned against the door of a bus while on his way home. He later noticed that his cell phone, which was placed in his right pocket, was missing.

After noticing that it was missing, he searched for the person who pinned him to the door, which he identified as Bacsid. When he approached him, he said he saw Tijam handing over his phone to Bacsid.

For their part, Tijam said he saw a cell phone on the ground, which he picked up. He was showing Bacsid the phone when the complainant saw them.

In ruling over the case, the SC gave weight to Tijam and Bacsid's argument that there was no direct or clear circumstantial evidence proving their guilt.

“The Court finds that the combination of the aforementioned circumstances, even if given full faith and credit, do not establish the elements of theft,” the SC said.

It said that the only act remotely connecting Bacsid to the alleged theft was the complainant’s allegations that the former pinned him against the door.

“By no stretch of imagination may the act of pinning someone establish the unlawful taking of property. Besides it is strange that (the complainant) claimed that Bacsisd pinned him to the bus door at his left side, while the cellular phone was taken from his right pocket,” it said.

Meanwhile, the SC said that the only deed hinting at Tijam’s alleged involvement was his handing of the phone to Bacsid. However, the SC said nothing in the records indicated that the complainant saw Tijam inside the bus.

The SC further said that Tijam’s possession of the phone was explained.

“Such explanation is plausible in view of (the complainant’s) own narration that there was an onslaught of passengers rushing inside the bus, which could have caused him to drop his phone,” it said.

According to the SC, the petitioners' denial cannot be brushed aside due to the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.

“The highest quantum of proof is required as the petitioners’ life and liberty are at stake. In this case, the facts from which the inferences were derived are not proven; the totality of the circumstances miserably failed to point to the petitioners to the exclusion of all others as the malefactors,” it said.—AOL, GMA Integrated News