Iloilo City court acquits man of drill theft over unclear permission to borrow

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City dismissed the theft charge against Rodel Abad and acquitted him, rejecting the prosecution’s request for a conviction and sentence over a cordless drill he took home from a shop.

The taking was undisputed. What remained unproved was whether Abad knew the drill fell outside the permission he had received. A written exchange allowed him to take an item home overnight, but did not identify whether that item was the drill or a hand screwdriver.

No sentence or payment was ordered.

The court distinguished between the lender’s intention and Abad’s understanding. Witness 1’s statement said permission extended only to a hand screwdriver. But the statement also acknowledged that the written reply did not name that tool.

The cropped chat screenshot showed a request to borrow an item for a shelf that night and an affirmative response permitting it to be taken home and returned before opening. Its upper edge cut off preceding material, and neither visible message named a tool.

Witness 1 described a photograph immediately before the request showing both a cordless drill and a hand screwdriver on a counter. No arrow, caption or later clarification identified which tool the request concerned.

That evidence did not conclusively establish permission to take the drill. Equally, it did not establish that Abad knew the drill was excluded. The court declined to assume that the missing context favoured either side.

Applying the recorded rules requiring reliable proof of each element and cautioning against treating suspicion as proof, the court found that the prosecution had not established the required knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. The defence did not have to prove that permission covered the drill.

The prosecution relied on Witness 1’s account of seeing Abad leave with the drill after closing and of intending to lend only the screwdriver. It argued that the unnamed item in the chat could not simply be treated as authorization for the drill.

The prosecution nevertheless acknowledged that no separate evidence resolved what Abad understood. The defence argued that this gap could not become proof of guilt, while accepting that the screenshot did not conclusively establish authorization.

Abad maintained that he believed he had permission to borrow the drill and returned it the next morning. No signed receipt or independently identified witness confirmed the return, and the court expressly did not rely on that assertion in deciding the charge.

The acquittal therefore did not settle which tool the permission actually covered. It established the narrower conclusion that the available evidence did not prove the criminal elements required for a conviction.