THE SUPREME Court (SC), in a recent ruling on a cellphone snatching case, that guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be established to prove an act of unlawful taking.
In a 13-page decision dated July 10, which was made public on Nov. 13, the SC Third Division acquitted two suspected snatchers — Julius Enrico Tijam and Kenneth Bacsid — by overturning the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), citing that the charges against them were solely based on circumstantial evidence.
“An accused shall not be deprived of life and liberty on sheer conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions, but only on evidence that supports a conviction beyond reasonable doubt,” read part of the ruling penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.
The Court rejected the CA’s reliance on presumptions and emphasized that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the circumstantial evidence — such as the account of the victim Kim Mugot stating that Mr. Bacsid pinned him against a bus door and Mr. Tijam allegedly handed the cellphone to Mr. Bacsid — the High Court deemed these circumstances insufficient to establish all elements of theft under the law.
“The only overt acts remotely connecting Bacsid to the purported theft are Mugot’s allegations that Bacsid pinned [Mugot] against the bus door and thereafter, walked back to the waiting area. By no stretch of the imagination may the act of pinning someone establish the unlawful taking of property,” said the Court.
For an inference of guilt based on possession of recently stolen goods, the prosecution must prove that the crime was committed; that the crime was committed recently; that the stolen property was found in possession of the defendant; and that the defendant is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily, said the SC.
Applying these criteria, the High Tribunal found Mr. Tijam’s explanation — that he saw the phone on the pavement and picked it up — satisfactory. “Such explanation is plausible in view of Mugot’s own narration that there was an onslaught of passengers rushing inside the bus, which could have caused [Mr. Mugot] to drop his cellphone. — Jomel R. Paguian
