EDUARDO CELEDONIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES [G.R. No.

209137. Jul 01 2015]

FACTS: That on or about the 22nd day of April 2007, in the Municipality of
Navotas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused,with intent to gain and by
means of force upon things, and without the consent of the owner, did
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of the
herein complainant by destroying the backdoor of said house, and once
inside, take, rob and carry away the following one gold bracelet 24K, 3
necklace 1 one 24K and 2 two 18K, 2 two digi cam Sony player, 1 one
DVD portable 1 one wrist watch Tagheur, 1 one sun glass Guess,1 one
camera Canon, 1 one Gameboy advance, 1 one calculator, 1 one discman
Sony, 2 two pcs. 100.00 US dollar bill, 22 twenty two pcs., 2 two necklace
18K worth, 2 two bracelet worth, 2 two gold ring, 1 one wedding ring worth
14K, 1 one wrist watch swiss military, 1 one cellphone NOKIA 8250, 3
three pairs of earrings, 3 three pcs. of 100.00 US dollars, 60 sixty pcs. of
Php50.00 bills, 100 one hundred pcs. of Php20.00 bills, 15 fifteen pcs. of
Php100.00 bills owned and belonging to CARMENCITA DE GUZMAN y
SERRANO, to the damage and prejudice of the herein complainant, in the
aforementioned amount of Php223,000.00.

ISSUES:
1) WHETHER OR NOT THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
TRIAL COURTS RULING THAT THE PETITIONERS GUILT WAS
PROVEN BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
2) WHETHER OR NOT THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING
THAT THE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE PETITIONER WAS
ILLEGAL, RENDERING THE ARTICLES RECOVERED INADMISSIBLE.
3) WHETHER OR NOT THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING
THAT THE PROSECUTION WITNESS ADRIANO MARQUEZ WAS ILL-
MOTIVATED IN TESTIFYING AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

HELD:

The petition lacks merit.

1) Celedonio was, in fact, caught in exclusive possession of some of the

stolen items when the police officers flagged down his motorcycle during
their follow-up operation. He failed to give a reasonable explanation as to
his possession of the said items. Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised
Rules of Court provides that a person found in possession of a thing taken
in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole
act; otherwise, that thing which a person possesses, or exercises acts of
ownership over, is owned by him.

2) no illegal search was made upon Celedonio. When the police officers
asked where the stolen items were, they merely made a general inquiry,
and not a search, as part of their follow-up operation. Records did not
show that the police officers even had the slightest hint that the stolen
items were in Celedonios motorcycle compartment. Neither was there any
showing that the police officers frisked Celedonio or rummaged over his
motorcycle. There was no showing either of any force or intimidation on
the part of the police officers when they made the inquiry. Celedonio
himself voluntarily opened his motorcycle compartment. Worse, when he
was asked if the items were the stolen ones, he actually confirmed it. The
police officers, therefore, were left without any recourse but to take him
into custody for further investigation. At that instance, the police officers
had probable cause that he could be the culprit of the robbery. He did not
have any explanation as to how he got hold of the items. Moreover, taking
into consideration that the stolen items were in a moving vehicle, the
police had to immediately act on it.

3) contrary to Celedonios argument, Marquez was a credible witness.

Jurisprudence also tells us that where there is no evidence that the
witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed
that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith
and credit