SPECIAL SIXTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. CR No. 15316.  August 27, 1996.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIANO BALLONICO Y QUIRINO, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

MARTINEZ, A.M., J p:

        This is an appeal by Emiliano Ballonico y Quirino from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Northern Samar, Branch 19, finding him guilty of the crime of qualified theft.

        The Information under which accused was indicted reads as follows:

"That on . . . the 12th day of September 1992, at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning, in Sitio Diyo, Barangay Imelda, municipality of Mondragon, Province of Northern Samar, . . . the above-named accused with intent to gain, . . . steal and carry away with him 40 pieces of coconuts from the coconut plantation of Atty. Olimpio L. de Guia valued at EIGHTY (P80.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, without the consent and against the will of said owner to the damage and prejudice of said Atty. de Guia in the amount aforestated." (p. 33, Rec.)

        Upon being arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

        The evidence for the prosecution and that of the defense are correctly summarized by the trial court, thus, quoted hereunder:

"The Prosecution's Evidence

"At the time, Lourdes Garsota, a tenant of Atty. Olimpio de Guia, was at her house when she heard the thudding noise of falling coconuts. She went to the place which was inside the coconut land she and her mother was tenanting and saw the accused climbing and gathering the nuts. She counted what were gathered to be forty in all which the accused brought to his house close to the boundary between this coconut land of Atty. de Guia and that of Amalio Gayola which the accused was tenanting. She did not do anything more. The accused, her half-brother and elder, carried a bolo. She immediately reported the theft to Atty. de Guia who, in turn, instructed her to bring the matter to the attention of the barangay captain. All that De Guia wanted was to make settlement with the accused to stop future forays to the property. On the following day, on the occasion of the confrontation, the barangay captain asked the accused why he entered the land of Atty. De Guia. Instead of answering the barangay official, the accused turned upon his sister and called her a liar and other invectives and poised his hand to slap her. He was prevailed upon to desist. Nothing could be arrived at before the barangay captain as the accused kept on berating Garsota. They left the place together and while walking along the highway, the accused sneaked past Atty. de Guia and slapped Garsota who fell unconscious. A criminal charge for this incident filed by Garsota resulted in the conviction of the accused by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

xxx                    xxx                    xxx

"The Defense' Evidence

"The accused claimed that he has a broken arm sustained on August 12, 1967 when he was slashed treacherously. He cannot climb a tree and, as a tenant of Amalio Gayola, he relies on hired hands one of whom is his son-in-law to climb the trees for him. He admits making copra last on September 12, 1992, from 700 coconuts gathered inside the land of Gayola and not from De Guia's. He denied having ever gathered coconuts from inside De Guia's land. He said that his house, situated inside the land of Gayola, is around twenty meters to the boundary between De Guia's land while Lourdes Garsota's house, his half-sister who is living with their mother, is one and one-half meters to that boundary. He claimed that while he has no hatred against his half-sister and her husband, the latter begrudges him for they want to be tenants of that land of Gayola. Previous accusations for theft of coconuts against the accused proved futile. Aside from Gayola's coconutland, the accused also has been farming the riceland of one Quirino." (pp. 2-3, Decision)

After trial, the court a quo found the accused guilty as charged, and sentenced:

"(H)im to suffer an imprisonment ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as maximum, to indemnify Atty. Olimpio de Guia in the amount of P80.00 and to pay the costs." (p. 4, Decision)

        Hence, this appeal, on the sole assigned error that the trial court allegedly erred:

"(I)n relying solely on the testimony of prosecution witness Lourdes Garsota and totally disregarding appellant's testimony that he cannot climb a coconut tree because of his physical defects." (p. 1, Appellant's Brief)

        The appeal is totally without merit.

        The only issue here is that of credibility. Long settled in criminal jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the trial court's findings (People vs. Basilgo, 235 SCRA 191). The reason is that the trial court's opinion as to which of the witnesses should be believed is entitled to great respect, on the oft-repeated rationale born of judicial experience that the trial judge who heard the witnesses testify and had the occasion to observe their demeanor on the stand was in a vantage position to determine who of the witnesses deserve credence. (People vs. Alhambra, 233 SCRA 604)

        The appellant characterized the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Lourdes Garsota as "doubtful considering that the alleged stolen 40 coconuts were not presented in evidence."

        There having been introduced undisputed evidence of the theft of 40 coconuts, it was not necessary to produce physically the coconuts in court. In larceny, the corpus delicti is composed of two elements: that the property was lost by the owner; and, that it was lost by a felonious taking. (Valentine's Law Dictionary) These two elements had been more than sufficiently proved by the prosecution's evidence. Corpus Delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime, and in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged (23 C.J.S. 623-624, cited in People vs. Roluna, 231 SCRA 452). The testimony of Lourdes Garsota which is categorical, straightforward and candid, is worthy of belief since she saw the appellant gathering coconuts and transporting them to his house located in the property of Gayola which he is tenanting.

        Appellant further argues that if he "had really climb (sic) and gathered 40 coconuts from the plantation of Atty. de Guia then the latter should have reported the matter to the police and requested that the stolen 40 coconuts be confiscated and returned to him." (pp. 4-5, Appellant's Brief) This argument is totally bereft of merit. It is sufficient that Atty. De Guia directed Lourdes Garsota to report the matter to the barangay captain who set a conference wherein Atty. De Guia and Lourdes Garsota, on the one hand; and, the herein appellant, could confront each other. The purpose of Atty. De Guia in having this conference before the barangay captain was to try and settle the case amicably and to prevent further attempts by the appellant from stealing from his coconut plantation. However, during the confrontation appellant hurled invectives at Lourdes Garsota accusing her of being a liar. The conference ended on that sour note. Atty. De Guia and Garsota left and on their way home, appellant, without any warning, slapped Garsota on the face causing the latter to fall unconscious on the ground. As a result, Garsota filed a case before the MTC wherein appellant was convicted. This is proof of appellant's violent temper.

        Finally, the appellant argues that "the trial court should have given weight and credence to (his) testimony . . . that he cannot climb a coconut tree because his arm is broken." (p. 5, Appellant's Brief) He claims that his physical deformity prevents him from climbing a tree, much less gathering 40 coconuts. During the trial, he described his physical deformity, thus:

"A: I cannot even reach my fingers up to my mouth. (The accused showing a large scar in the middle portion of his right upper arm to show that he can not reach it up to the mouth and the lower portion of the arm is smaller than the ordinary left arm; the left hand with only the thumb and the small fingers are computated." (p. 26, Rollo)

        Appellant claims that with a deformed right upper arm which could hardly be stretched even to affix his signature, and with a left hand with only 2 finger (sic) left and therefore could not make a gripping act, it is hardly believable that he could embrace and climb the trunk of a Samar Coconut tree which is considerably bigger in diameter than the trunk of a Quezon Province Coconut trees. (p. 6, Appellant's Brief)

        In answer to the aforequoted argument of the appellant, we quote the trial court's finding, to wit:

"Neither is the Court impressed by the accused's assertion that he could not climb a tree because of a broken arm. The feigned incapacity is reasoned to be the state of his right upper arm which bears a large scar and the left hand with only the thumb and the small fingers left. The scar came from a wound alleged to be treacherously inflicted 26 years ago. Other than the apparent deformities, there is no other weakness manifest for, on the other hand, the squat figure about 5 feet in height appears much stronger than he professes with his stocky and wiry built. Indeed, Amalio Gayola comforted with the man as his tenant on the coconutland since 1985 and whose arrogance has found expression in the slapping of his sister. In any case, the accused admits having gathered coconuts through a hired hand." (p. 3, Decision)

        We add the following observations, to wit: that the physical deformities as alleged by the appellant would not prevent him from climbing a tree as it is possible that these defects are merely contrived in order to escape criminal liability. If he is physically unfit, Amalio Gayola would not hire him as a tenant, he being such since 1985, or more than 11 years. This would only mean that he is physically capable of tenanting the coconut plantation which would require a lot of physical exertion, stamina, such as climbing coconut trees, gathering fruits thereof, and making copra out of the fruits. Therefore, considering that he has been a tenant for the past 11 years, he is not as helpless as he pictures himself to be.

        As aforestated, the question here boils down to credibility of witnesses. The trial court has chosen to believe the prosecution's evidence. Thus, as jurisprudence tells Us, the trial court's finding is entitled to great respect and which We should not disturb.

        WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED EN TOTO. Costs against accused-appellant.

        SO ORDERED.

        Galvez and Aquino, JJ., concur.