Scribd
Upload
706 views2 pages

Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol vs. People of The Philippines GR 259511 PDF

Nhorkayam was found guilty of robbery by the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals. He argued on appeal that he should only be found guilty of theft, not robbery, and that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that he committed the crime. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Nhorkayam was correctly found guilty of robbery. It noted that Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court establishes a disputable presumption that a person in possession of recently stolen goods is the thief. As the stolen items were found in Nhorkayam's home and he failed to provide a reasonable explanation, he was presumed to be the robber. The evidence also sufficiently proved all elements of robbery.

Uploaded by

zac
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
706 views2 pages

Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol vs. People of The Philippines GR 259511 PDF

Nhorkayam was found guilty of robbery by the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals. He argued on appeal that he should only be found guilty of theft, not robbery, and that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that he committed the crime. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Nhorkayam was correctly found guilty of robbery. It noted that Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court establishes a disputable presumption that a person in possession of recently stolen goods is the thief. As the stolen items were found in Nhorkayam's home and he failed to provide a reasonable explanation, he was presumed to be the robber. The evidence also sufficiently proved all elements of robbery.

Uploaded by

zac
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol Vs.

People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 259511, October 11, 2023
Dimaampao, J:
Doctrine:
Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court51 provides for the 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."
Facts:
Private complainant Dr. Mariam Espinoza hired petitioner Nhorkayam as a stay-out errand boy.
When she returned to her house in Pagadian City, Espinoza found that her house was robbed and
discovered that two big cabinets were broken into and found that the items enumerated in the
Information were missing. The following day, the missing items were discovered in possession
of Nhorkayam as these were found at his rented room in a boarding house.
Subsequently, an Information for the crime of robbery was filed against Nhorkayam before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City.
The RTC found Nhorkayam guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. its decision
was based on circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption laid down in Section 3(j),
Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Evidence. The trial court found that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses sufficiently established all the elements of the offense and the identity of
the perpetrator. This decision was sustained by the Court of Appeals.
Nhoryakam Contention:
Insists that not every possibility of innocence had been excluded as no one saw who actually
committed the robbery. At best, the prosecution's circumstantial evidence merely pointed to the
destruction of private complainant's wooden wall and the taking of her personal property, but it
did not prove who did the crime. Moreover, assuming arguendo that petitioner was indeed guilty,
he is only liable for theft and not robbery as there was no evidence shown of him using force
upon things or that he broke the wooden wall of private complainant's kitchen to commit the
deed.

Argues that the CA erred in concluding that he was the author of the crime based solely on the
fact that the stolen items were recovered in his rented residence at that time as it did not account
for the possibility that someone else placed these items therein.
Issue: WON Nhorkayam was guilty of the crime charged
Ruling:
Yes, Nhorkayam was guilty of the crime charged
Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court51 provides for the 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 foregoing presumption is satisfactory if uncontradicted by other
evidence, and applies to theft, robbeiy, or camapping alike. Indisputably, Nhorkayam failed to
present any reasonable explanation for the presence of the stolen items found in his home.

To be convicted of1 this form of robbery, it is necessary that the following elements are proved:
(1) unlawful taking; (2) of personal property belonging to another; (3) with intent to gain; and
( 4) with force upon things,39 i.e., by breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or
window to enter the building where the robbery is committed. Additionally, the penalty to be
imposed is dependent on the value of the things taken and whether or not the offender carry
arms.
As uniformly observed by the RTC and the CA, the documentary and testimonial evidence
proved beyond reasonable doubt that robbery was committed.
First. Assorted personal properties were unlawfully taken.
Second. These items belonged to private complainant.
Third. Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing stolen.
Here, the intent to gain was established by the fact that the stolen goods were found in
petitioner's house.
Fourth. The robbery was effected through the breaking of the side wall of the kitchen door and
the removal of the window pane near the kitchen counter.46

You might also like