FACTS:

Petitioner Kyle Anthony Zabala was charged with theft before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The information alleged that on June 18, 2007, Zabala unlawfully took and carried away an envelope containing cash amounting to Php 68,000 belonging to Randolph V. Alas. Zabala pleaded not guilty and the trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented the testimonies of Alas, the complainant, and Marlyn Piñon, Zabala's alleged former girlfriend. The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of Zabala and Muriel John Ganas, Zabala's alleged companion on the day of the incident.

According to Alas, he and Zabala were neighbors and he considered Zabala as his kumpare. Alas testified that on June 18, 2007, he left his house for work and when he returned at night, he discovered that his Php 68,000 cash, kept in an envelope inside his closet, was missing. Piñon, Zabala's former girlfriend, testified that she saw Zabala climb the fence and scale the tree in front of Alas' house on the morning of June 18, 2007. When Zabala returned, he had a bulge in his pocket which turned out to be a large sum of money. He then took Piñon home and later bought two Nokia mobile phones worth Php 8,500.

Zabala, on the other hand, testified that he was driving his passenger jeepney with Ganas on the morning of June 18, 2007, and they did not drop by Alas' house nor meet Piñon. Ganas corroborated Zabala's testimony.

The RTC found Zabala guilty of theft and sentenced him to imprisonment. Zabala appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but the CA affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications to the penalty. Dissatisfied, Zabala filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioner's conviction by giving full weight and credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court despite the fact that the evidence on record failed to support a conviction.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner's conviction and ruled that the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the series of circumstances presented in the case supported a conviction and constituted a reasonable inference of the facts sought to be proved. The defense of the petitioner, which was solely an alibi, was rejected by the Court as it is a weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a truthful witness. Thus, the Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification as to the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was sentenced to six years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve years, eight months, and eight days of reclusion temporal as maximum. The petitioner was also ordered to indemnify the complainant with the amount of Sixty-Eight Thousand Pesos (Php68,000.00) as reparation for the damage caused.

PRINCIPLES:

• Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict if the following requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

• Alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a truthful witness.