361 Phil. 772
MENDOZA, J.:
That on or about February 17, 1989, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, ARNOLD PASICOLAN, a public officer, being then an Emergency Laborer assigned as bag opener at the printed matters section of Makati Central Post Office, and taking advantage of his official position by having access to the mail matters in conspiracy with accused RONNIE S. ROMERO and LITO MARCELO, both private individuals, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with grave abuse of confidence, and with intent of gain and without the consent of the owners thereof, take, steal and carry away from the Central Post office of Makati one bag containing assorted mail matters some of them containing U.S. Dollar Bills in the aggregate amount of $500, or its peso equivalent in the amount of P11,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the different addressee (sic) or the government in the aforesaid mentioned (sic) amount.On February 10, 1989, Jacinto Merete, a letter carrier in the Makati Central Post Office, disclosed to his chief, Projecto Tumagan, the existence of a group responsible for the pilferage of mail matter in the post office.[2] Among those mentioned by Merete were Arnold Pasicolan, an emergency laborer assigned as a bag opener in the Printed Matters Section, and Redentor Aguinaldo, a mail sorter of the Makati Post Office. Merete likewise described the modus operandi of the group.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The facts established during the trial show the following:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the three accused, Arnold Pasicolan y Mabazza, Ronnie Romero y Santos, and Lito Mercado [should be Marcelo] y Cruz, guilty, as principals, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft defined in Article 310, in conjunction with Articles 308 and 309, of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public position, the Court imposes upon Arnold Pasicolan y Mabazza the penalty ranging from EIGHT (8) years, EIGHT (8) months, and ONE (1) day of Prision mayor, as minimum, to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, ONE (1) month, and ELEVEN (11) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Applying again the Indeterminate Sentence Law and there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the Court imposes upon Ronnie Romero y Santos and Lito Marcelo y Cruz, the penalty ranging from SEVEN (7) YEARS, four (4) months, and ONE (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eleven (11) years, SIX (6) months, and TWENTY-ONE (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum.Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari based on the following assignment of errors:
First. Petitioner says that since the subject of the alleged pilferage was mail matter, only a government employee may be held guilty of qualified theft unless a private individual was shown to have been in conspiracy with him. He contends that since he is not a government employee, then he cannot be charged or held guilty of the crime as there is no proof that he conspired with a postal employee. The petitioner argues that there is no evidence to prove that he was at any time in conspiracy with the members of the syndicate inside the post office. In fact, petitioner points out, Jacinto Merete, Projecto Tumagan, and his co-accused Arnold Pasicolan were one in saying that it was their first time to see him and Romero on February 17, 1989. Likewise, in the meeting allegedly conducted by the members of the syndicate, he and Romero were not around nor were their names mentioned. Petitioner says that although he and Romero knew each other, it was only on February 17, 1989 that they saw each other again in order to see a movie.
(1) Respondent Honorable Court had wrongly made the crucial finding against petitioner that he has committed the act charged in conspiracy with each other.
(2) Respondent Honorable Court erred in admitting as evidence of petitioner’s guilt the letters signed by the accused during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel, in utter disregard of his constitutional right.
Qualified theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.Thus, as long as the thing stolen is one of those enumerated in Art. 310, the crime is qualified theft. In this case, it is mail matter. Hence, it is not necessary that petitioner be shown to have been in conspiracy with a government employee in order to hold him liable for qualified theft.
The accused appear to have committed the acts charged in conspiracy with each other pursuant to a pre-conceived plan known to all of them to attain a common goal. Thus, when the postal delivery jeep stopped near Esguerra Building along Adelantado Street, Pasicolan alighted bringing with him a mail bag, passed through an alley beside Esquerra Building, and upon reaching Amorsolo Street handed over the mail bag to Romero and Marcelo who were waiting for him. Upon receiving the mail bag they quickly opened it and transferred its contents to a bag which Aguinaldo provided for the purpose. No words were exchanged between Pasicolan, on the other hand, and Romero and Marcelo, on the other, in effecting the delivery. Pasicolan did not ask if Romero and/or Marcelo were the person or persons sent to receive the mail bag. These facts indicate that the three accused already knew each other and were fully aware of what each had to do. And when Romero and Marcelo were arrested for receiving the mail bag, they said nothing to the NBI. Not even a whimper of protest was heard from them. They appear resigned to their fate after having been caught red-handed.Petitioner Marcelo claimed that he and Romero met on February 17, 1989 in order to see a movie; that when Pasicolan handed four envelopes to Romero, he was across the street buying cigarettes; and that when he joined Romero, a person identifying himself as an NBI agent arrested them. Marcelo testified:[18]
The foregoing testimony is contrary to the testimony of Ronnie Romero. Romero said that Redentor Aguinaldo, a mail sorter, had asked him to meet a person in Makati who would give him an envelope to be delivered to an unidentified person at the BF Homes Subdivision in Parañaque. Romero’s version is as follows:[19]
ATTY. CRUZ
Q So you were asked by Ronnie Romero if you will be reporting for work at that time?A Yes, sir.JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA Q What time was this when you were asked by Ronnie Romero?A 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon.ATTY. CRUZ Q What was the reason why you were asked by Ronnie Romero?A He wanted me to go with him to see a movie.Q Did he tell you at what place you will see a movie?A No, sir.Q What was your reply?A I told him “yes, I will go with you, anyway I have to go to my work at 10:00 o’clock in the evening.” . . . .Q What happened next Mr. Marcelo?A Then I rode at the back of his motorcycle and we went straight to Makati. Suddenly we stopped near a building and I asked him what we will do there and he told me he was going to wait for somebody there. . . . .ATTY. CRUZ Q What was told to you when you reached there?WITNESS A He told me he had to wait for somebody there and I told him to hurry up, “I thought you said we are going to see a movie”, and he said, “this will not take long”.Q While at Taguig, were you informed by Ronnie Romero that you will be waiting for somebody when you reached Makati?A No, sir. . . . .Q And what happened next?A While we were there I told Ronnie Romero I had to buy cigarette from across the street and after a while, about half an hour, Ronnie called me I saw somebody handing him about four pieces of envelopes.Q How would you describe that envelope?A It was like the Manila envelope that we see being used by the elementary grades.Q Was there any distinguishing mark in this envelope?A No, sir.Q Were you able to see what was the contents of these envelopes?A No, sir.Q That person who handed the envelope to Ronnie, do you know him?A I do not know him.Q While that envelope was being handed to Ronnie, you mean to say you were across the street?A Yes, sir.Q And so you crossed the street to reach Ronnie?A Yes, sir.Q When you crossed the street was the envelope still being handed or already handed to Ronnie?A It was already handed to him.Q What happened next?A After I crossed the street somebody shouted at us identifying himself as NBI, “WE are from the NBI, do not move”.
Second. The petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in admitting in evidence the letters signed by him because he was asked to sign them during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel. The following provisions of the Constitution are invoked by petitioner:
ATTY. I. CRUZ:
Q And do you know a certain person by the name of Redentor Aguinaldo? JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: Q The accusation against you is that you conspired with your co-accused Arnold Pasicolan and Lito Marcelo in stealing the articles and things stated in the Information. Why do you say that you are not part of the conspiracy, what do you mean by that statement?A Because, sir, I do not know what was the contents of the envelope. You can proceed now. ATTY. I. CRUZ: Q You mentioned of an envelope which you claim not to have known the contents of the same. Who gave you the envelope?A Arnold Pasicolan. Q Do you know Arnold Pasicolan prior to and/or before February 17, 1989? . . . . A No, sir. ATTY. I. CRUZ: Q When for the first time did you come to know Arnold Pasicolan? A On February 17, sir. Q When, where specifically did you come to know him? A At the NBI office, sir. Q Now... JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: Q February 17, 1989? A Yes, Your Honor. Proceed. . . . . ATTY. I. CRUZ: Q Do you know a certain Redentor Aguinaldo? A Yes, sir. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: Q Tell us the circumstances under which you received this envelope? A I received that envelope given to me by Arnold Pasicolan. Q If you answer in monosyllable we will not understand. Alright, you tell your story? A Redentor Aguinaldo on February 17 told me that he is going to give me a job. What I will do is get the envelope and bring it to a certain subdivision in Las Piñas and somebody will pick it up and pay me P100.00 for it.Proceed. ATTY. I. CRUZ: Q Now, do you know the person to whom you are to deliver the envelope? A No, sir. Q Now, if you do now know the person to whom you will deliver the envelope. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: You may not cross-examine, tell him to tell us facts. ATTY. I. CRUZ: Q Where specifically in the subdivision in Parañaque where you will deliver the envelope? A BF Homes. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: Q To what particular person will you supposed to deliver it? A I was just asked to go to that place and somebody will approach me. Q To make your story more believable, BF Homes in Parañaque is a very big subdivision. You enter that subdivision and there will be several persons whom you can see there. How will the person know that you are carrying an envelope for him. Where were you supposed to deliver it. If you cannot explain that, we will not believe you?A In that subdivision, there is a vacant place where there are no houses. It is where I often go. Q BF Homes subdivision in Parañaque has several vacant lots, how will you know what vacant lot to proceed to? A It was pointed to me by Aguinaldo. Q So, Aguinaldo went with you in the morning of that same day and pointed to you the place? A In the morning of that same day and he pointed to me the place.
Article III, §12(1). - Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.Petitioner’s counsel says that the signing of petitioner’s and his co-accused’s names was not a mere mechanical act but one which required the use of intelligence and therefore constitutes self-incrimination. Petitioner’s counsel presumably has in mind the ruling in Beltran v. Samson[20] to the effect that the prohibition against compelling a man to be a witness against himself extends to any attempt to compel the accused to furnish a specimen of his handwriting for the purpose of comparing it with the handwriting in a document in a prosecution for falsification. “Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hand, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act because it requires the application of intelligence and attention,”[21] so it was held.
. . . .
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
§17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.