02/03/2026
Sec. 3(j) Rule 131 of the Rules of Evidence establishes a disputable presumption "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".
The presumption however does not water down the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In the crime of theft, the presumption, understandably, applies only when there is no direct and positive evidence that the possessor of the stolen item is the actual taker.
Here the prosecution relied on the following pieces of circumstantial evidence:
1.Mugot was rushing inside the bus together with other passengers.
2.Mugot was pinned against on door of the door of the bus by Bacsid on his left side, with his mobile phone placed on his right pocket.
3.Inside the bus, he noticed that his phone was already missing in his right pocket.
4.Mugot alighted from the bus and saw Bacsid walking back to the bus waiting area.
5.Mugot saw Tijam hand over to Bacsid his missing (Mugot) mobile phone.
Bacsid and Tijam denied the accusation of theft.
Tijam disclosed that he met Bacsid at the bus waiting area. They exchanged pleasantries. When about to part ways, he saw a mobile phone on the ground. He picked it up and showed it to Bacsid. It was at that moment when Mugot arrived and grabbed the phone from Tijam.
The RTC convicted both Tijam and Bacsid. The CA sustained the conviction.
In convicting, the disputable presumption was applied based on the foregoing pieces of circumstantial evidence.
The SC reversed the conviction. In reversing, it ruled that the combination of the foregoing pieces of evidence did not form an unbroken chain that lead to one fair and reasonable conclusion that point to Tijam and Mugot, to the exclusion of other persons as the guilty persons because Mugot was rushing inside the bus with other commuters. It was therefore not impossible that the thievery was committed by someone else.
______________________
The analysis of the author of this digest is added in this wise:
More importantly, the fact of thievery itself or the act that Mugot's mobile phone was taken from his pocket was not adequately proven. What was only proven was that he noticed that it was already missing while he was inside the bus. For all we know Mugot's phone may have been accidentally dropped somewhere else earlier that he noticed its loss later.
This is the exact reason why the decision said that "the facts from which the inferences are derived have not been substantially proven ###".
Though unspecified in the decision the author of this digest must specify what are those unproven facts from which the RTC and CA drew their inference that Tijam and Bacsid are the perpetrators:
1.Was there any act of taking or thievery or was there an act of stealing?
2.Did the act of thievery or loss occur while Mugot was rushing inside the bus while being pinned by Bacsid against the door of the bus?
The above facts have not been proven.
Tijam and Bacsid's constitutional presumption of innocence has prevailed over the disputable presumption.
Tijam & Bacsid vs. People, G.R. No.251732, July 10, 2023
