EDUARDO CELEDONIO v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 209137. Jul 01 2015

FACTS: That on or about the 22nd day of April 2007, in the Municipality of Navotas,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with intent to gain and by means of force upon things, and without the
consent of the owner, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the
house of the herein complainant by destroying the backdoor of said house, and once
inside, take, rob and carry away the following one gold bracelet 24K, 3 necklace 1 one
24K and 2 two 18K, 2 two digital cam Sony player, 1 one DVD portable 1 one wrist
watch Tagheur, 1 one sun glass Guess,1 one camera Canon, 1 one Gameboy advance, 1
one calculator, 1 one discman Sony, 2 two pcs. 100.00 US dollar bill, 22 twenty two pcs.,
2 two necklace 18K worth, 2 two bracelet worth, 2 two gold ring, 1 one wedding ring
worth 14K, 1 one wrist watch swiss military, 1 one cellphone NOKIA 8250, 3 three pairs
of earrings, 3 three pcs. of 100.00 US dollars, 60 sixty pcs. of Php50.00 bills, 100 one
hundred pcs. of Php20.00 bills, 15 fifteen pcs. of Php100.00 bills owned and belonging to
CARMENCITA DE GUZMAN y SERRANO, to the damage and prejudice of the herein
complainant, in the aforementioned amount of Php223,000.00.

ISSUES:

WHETHER OR NOT THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL

COURTS RULING THAT THE PETITIONERS GUILT WAS PROVEN BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE

SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE PETITIONER WAS ILLEGAL, RENDERING THE
ARTICLES RECOVERED INADMISSIBLE.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE

PROSECUTION WITNESS ADRIANO MARQUEZ WAS ILL-MOTIVATED IN
TESTIFYING AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

HELD: The petition lacks merit.

1. Celedonio was, in fact, caught in exclusive possession of some of the stolen items
when the police officers flagged down his motorcycle during their follow-up operation.
He failed to give a reasonable explanation as to his possession of the said items. Section
3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court provides 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; otherwise, that thing which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership
over, is owned by him.

2. No illegal search was made upon Celedonio. When the police officers asked where the
stolen items were, they merely made a general inquiry, and not a search, as part of their
follow-up operation. Records did not show that the police officers even had the slightest
hint that the stolen items were in Celedonios motorcycle compartment. Neither was there
any showing that the police officers frisked Celedonio or rummaged over his motorcycle.
There was no showing either of any force or intimidation on the part of the police officers
when they made the inquiry. Celedonio himself voluntarily opened his motorcycle
compartment. Worse, when he was asked if the items were the stolen ones, he actually
confirmed it. The police officers, therefore, were left without any recourse but to take
him into custody for further investigation. At that instance, the police officers had
probable cause that he could be the culprit of the robbery. He did not have any
explanation as to how he got hold of the items. Moreover, taking into consideration that
the stolen items were in a moving vehicle, the police had to immediately act on it.

3. Contrary to Celedonios argument, Marquez was a credible witness. Jurisprudence also

tells us that where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the prosecution were
actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their testimony is
entitled to full faith and credit