ZAPANTA v PEOPLE

March 20, 2013 | Brion, J. | Petition for Certiorari | Confession (corpus delicti)
PETITIONER: ENGR. ANTHONY V. ZAPANTA
RESPONDENT: People of PH
SUMMARY: Zapanta was charged with the theft of wide flange steel beams worth P2M. Zapanta argues that the prosecution failed
to establish the fact of the loss of the steel beams since the corpus delicti was never identified and offered in evidence. SC: the
testimonial and documentary evidence on record fully established the corpus delicti.
DOCTRINE: Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime.
Corpus delicti may even be established by circumstantial evidence.

FACTS:

Zapanta and Loyao (at large) were charged with

theft of wide flange steel beams, with a total value
of P2,269,731.69

Zapanta was project manager of Porta Vaga

Building Construction (a project by Anmar)

One of his duties is checking materials

delivered

reported it to the police, and asked Anmar to

retrieve the beams

By the time the truck came weeks later, the

steel beams were gone

RTC: Convicted Zapanta of qualified theft

CA: Affirmed RTC

The prosecution offered evidence in oral
testimonies, security logbook entries, delivery
receipts, photos, letters, sworn affidavits

Oct 2001: Zapanta instructed the unloading

of 10-15 pieces of steel beams along Marcos
Hwy, Baguio City.

Nov 2001: Zapanta again instructed the

unloading of 5-16 pieces of flange steel beams
along Marcos Hwy and Mabini Street, Baguio

Jan 2002: Manager reported that several

steel beams were returned to Anmar's
warehouse, as reflected in the guard's logbook

Zapanta was contacted to explain, but he

denied the return took place

An inventory of materials was conducted

and it was discovered that several steel beams
were unloaded along Marcos Hwy

A warehouseman took pictures of the beams,

Zapanta argues that the prosecution failed to

establish the fact of the loss of the steel beams
since the corpus delicti was never identified and
offered in evidence.

ISSUERATIO RELEVANT TO TOPIC:

W/N corpus delicti has been established despite
failure to present the stolen beams --YES

Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission

of the crime charged or to the body or substance of
the crime. In this case, it does not refer to the stolen
beams.

Corpus delicti may even be established by

circumstantial evidence. In theft, corpus delicti has

two elements:

Buen, stating that the petitioner directed them

to unload the steel beams along Marcos
Highway and Mabini Street on the pretext of a
new Anmar project, were crucial to the
petitioners conviction.

(1) that the property was lost by the owner, and

(2) that it was lost by felonious taking

In this case, the testimonial and documentary

evidence on record fully established the corpus
delicti.

The positive testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses, particularly Bernardo, Cano and

The security logbook entry, delivery receipts

and photographs proved the existence and the
unloading of the steel beams to a different
location other than the project site.

CA Affirmed.