Manuel Chua and Nelson Go vs. P.P.

G.R. No. 128095, January 19, 2001

Facts
The petitioners appealed via certiorari the CA decision convicting them of qualifed
and attempted qualifed theft, respectively. Chua was an employee of Clothman
Knitting Corporation while Go was a buyer of scrap materials from Clothman. n
!"#", the company$s security guard, a certain %acaraeg &olicarpio, reported that a
truc' owned by Go was about to leave the compound. t was supposed to contain
only scrap materials but was instead loaded with fnished materials which were not
authori(ed to be brought out. An inventory of the items was prepared and when Go
was as'ed by the owner, he answered that Chua and his co)wor'er, &aquito
Andala(a, convinced him to steal the item and share the profts after the sale. The
two denied their involvement. *owever, the three admitted to the responding &atrol
to their involvement in the crime, albeit without being apprised of their
constitutional rights. All of these happened about half a day prior the reporting of
the matter to the police, with the delay e+plained by the prosecution as due to the
owner and Go both having had previous engagements to attend to. n the CA ruling,
&aquito was acquitted as the prosecution failed to connect him to the crime.
!ssue
,hether or not the CA erred in ruling that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses positively identifying Go on board the truc' with the unauthori(ed cargo,
and Chua as a signatory in the gate pass authori(ing the e+it of the said truc', were
enough to uphold their conviction for qualifed and attempted qualifed theft
Rul"n#
The petition is granted. The Court fnds that the statement of the owner regarding
the report of the security guard was merely hearsay, and that the non)presentation
of the said guard is a wea'ness of the prosecution$s case. Also, the e+tra)-udicial
confession cannot be admitted as it was given without the assistance of counsel.
The presence of the truc' was also not established and only allegations as to its
e+istence were presented. .nly pictures of the items supposedly ta'en were
available. Also, the Court fnds it absurd that the delay in the report could have
been because Go was allowed to attend to his previous engagement as if nothing
happened. Conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution$s case, not on
the wea'ness of the defense. And while alibi is a wea' defense, it assumes
commensurate signifcance and strength when evidence for the prosecution is frail
and e/ete.