This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-12-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Threading these circumstances together, the Court perceives a congruent picture that the crime of Qualified Theft had been committed and that Candelaria had perpetrated the same. To be sure, this determination is not sullied by the fact that Candelaria's companion, Romano, had died before he could testify as to the truth of his allegation that the former had threatened him with a balisong on August 23, 2006. It is a gaping hole in the defense that the diesel fuel was admittedly placed under Candelaria's custody and remains unaccounted for. Candelaria did not proffer any persuasive reason to explain the loss of said goods and merely banked on a general denial, which, as case law holds, is an inherently weak defense due to the ease by which it can be concocted.[35] With these, and, moreover, the tell-tale fact that Candelaria has not returned or reported back to work at Unioil since the incident, the Court draws no other reasonable inference other than that which points to his guilt. Verily, while it is true that flight per se is not synonymous with guilt,[36] unexplained flight nonetheless evinces guilt or betrays the existence of a guilty conscience,[37] especially when taken together with all the other circumstantial evidence attendant in this case. Thus, all things considered, Candelaria's conviction for the crime of Qualified Theft stands. | |||||