The prosecution has failed to establish the loss and its correct amount which is an essential element

of the offense of qualified theft.

No doubt the prosecution was remiss in its duty to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt. It attempted to present appellant Bonifacio Ciobal as a state witness but it
changed its mind. 13 The prosecution backed out from a signal opportunity to fortify its case. As it is,
the testimony of the offended party Benjamin Galvez standing alone cannot stand scrutiny. A
conviction for such a serious offense on such slender evidence should be out of the question.

However, the prosecution had not satisfactorily established the nature and value of the property
allegedly stolen. In the criminal complaint which was filed by the Commander of the San Fernando
Police Station, the amount of the loss alleged was only P7,246.00 while in the information the figure
is P118,855.21. Galvez testified that his investment in the business was P60,000 in 1973; and he
added another P20,000 three years later, thus, an investment in the total amount of P80,000.00; and
that the losses he suffered covered from 1973 to 1981. 9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_86220_1990.html

The two pieces of circumstantial evidence cited by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court do not form
an unbroken chain that point to appellant as the author of the crime; hence, their conclusion becomes merely
conjectural. Notably, the prosecution failed to establish the element of unlawful taking by appellant. Since
appellants statement during the custodial investigation was inadmissible in evidence as he was not assisted by
[26]
counsel, the prosecution could have presented the person to whom appellant allegedly sold the pieces of
jewelry as witness, but it did not do so. It could have been the missing link that would have strengthened the
evidence of the prosecution.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168627.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/186001.htm - prosecustion failed to present evidence

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/155483.htm

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/jan2016/gr_174673_2016.html - demurrer

https://jlp-law.com/gr-no-165996-october-17-2005-rodolfo-g-valencia-vs-the-sandiganbayan/
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/194128.htm - wla na formally offered

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/dec2014/gr_209386_2014.html

RES INTER ALIOS ACT

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/aug1998/gr_102786_1998.html - qualified theft res inter alios

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CzMlHEPwM3oJ:lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cf461+&cd=8
&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph s

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_86220_1990.html

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/152160.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168627.htm THEFT

html

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_159450_2011.html

CONFESSION MADE BY CO ACCUSED

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_159450_2011.html

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187536.htm - NO OTHER EVI TO PROVE

CONSPIRACY

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/remedial-law-digests-2.html

NO DIRECT EVIDENCE

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/165582.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/177761.htm