Kyle Zabala vs People

Case Digest GR 210670 Jan 26 2015

Facts:
Alas accused Zabala of theft. During the trial, Alas testified that he and Zabala were not only
neighbors, but kumpares as well, and would often invite the latter to drinking sessions inside his
house. At times, he would also call Zabala to repair his vehicle and allow Zabala to follow him to his
bedroom to get cash whenever spare parts are to be bought for the repair of his vehicle. One day
when he returned from work, he found that his P68k which he kept in an envelope inside his closet
was missing. There were only five persons living in the house that time, he together with his parents,
his 9-year old son, and his aunt.
Witness Pinon also testified that, being Zabalas girlfriend, she were with him at the store which was
near Alas house at that time. She saw Zabala climb the fence, scale and enter Alas house, and
noticed that when he returned, he had a bulge in his pocket. Day after that, they went to Greenhills,
where Zabala bought two Nokia phones worth about P8,500.
Issue 1: W/N the corpus delicti of the crime was established in this case
No. In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner,
and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
First, nobody saw Zabala entered the room of Alas where the money was hidden. Pinon merely saw
that Zabala scaled the fence of Alas house and entered it. Second, all that Pinon saw was the bulge
in Zabalas pocket; her testimony does not show that the bulge was the P68k which was supposedly
stolen. These testimonies failed to prove the fact that the P68k was lost and that Zabala unlawfully
took it. Hence, the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove the fact of the crime of theft.
Issue 2: W/N the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to prove Zabalas guilt beyond
reasonable doubt
No. The rule in circumstantial evidence cases is that the evidence must exclude the possibility that
some other person committed the crime.
In this case, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that at the time the theft was committed, there
was no other person inside the house of Alas, or that no other person could have taken the money

from the closet of Alas. They failed to prove that culpability could only belong to Zabala, and not to
some other person. Hence, Zabala must be acquitted in the absence of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. ##