CIELITO R. GAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS: Cielito Gan was employed as an Internal Auditor of Wesleyan University Philippines in Cabanatuan City. When he was appointed, he specifically instructed the tellers of the school that all monies paid for by students and employees that they received should be turned over to him together with the duplicate, triplicate copy of the OR and Cash Turn Over Slips bearing tellers signature and his signature evidencing that he physically receive them for auditing purposes. In turn, he will give it to the school treasurer to deposit in the bank. Prior to his appointment, the procedure was only to directly give all the monies received by the tellers to the school treasurer. After the external auditor conducted its yearly audit, it found suspicious missing funds unaccounted for with total worth of P 1.7 million for the period of 3 years. Upon learning that Gan was being pointed as the culprit, he disappeared from the school. Only after 2 years, when he was apprehended by the commissioned team formed by the school in Paranaque. He interposes the following defenses: First, he denied the allegation that he had nothing to do with the change of policy, that the money turned over by the tellers together w/ cash turn over slips were always given back to them after physical count. That he cannot remember any occasion when he personally handed over to the treasurer money handed over to him by tellers. That he left the school because of presure and intrigues and that he was the 1 blamed for the loss. That the only reason why he was being accused is because of jealousy being in the position when he merely started as student assisstant. That he never returned the place because he was travelling a lot to earn a living and because of being threatened badly. That he was like a dummy in his office as it was the treasurer and accountant being more trusted. But RTC as affirmed by the CA found accused Gan guilty of 10 counts of simple theft. His MR was denied. Hence this petition by accused. ISSUE: whether or not CA erred in basing judgment of conviction on mere presumption of guilt. RULING: SC affirmed the decision for the following reasons;

1. The flight of the accused, when he left the school after investigation was indicative of his guilt and awareness that he has no tenable defense 2. SC found the assesment of credibility of RTC deserves greater weight as it had opportunity to observe its deportment. Thus, when he took the witness stand, he did not give any explanation as to the missing funds, rather made merely denials which cannot stand since there are direct and specific accusations. 3. For failure of accused to deny the same also by specific and direct circumstances, the same can be regarded as quasi confession 4. Bare denial in the open court cannot be given evidentiary weight if the prosecution affirmatively testified to the culpability of the accused 5. Denial is like alibi which is inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnessess 6. Denial is a self serving negative evidence which cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witness 7. SC held also that while prosecution failed to adduce direct evidence becoz no 1 saw him in flagrant delicto or in the very act of commiting the crime, circumstancial evidence or indirect evidence has proved his guilt, being consistent w/ each other, consistent w/ hypothesis, established an unbroken chain which leads to 1 fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty to the exclusion of others.