Separate Concurring Opinion 4 G.R. No. 224469 Further, this Court decreed that the prosecution's failure to definitively delineate the exact location where the petitioner harvested the plants equated to its failure to identify the real owner of the stolen items, thus: Hence, the definitive identification of the area allegedly possessed and planted to sugarcane and bananas by Edward Pasiteng is imperative. There is on record a survey plan of the 512 square-meter area claimed by Edward but there are no indications therein orthe exact area involved in this case. This omission of the prosecution to definitively delineate the exact location of the place where Erkey allegedly harvested Edward's plants has punctured what appeared to be its neat presentation of the case. Proof on the matter, however, is important for it means the identification of the rightful owner of the stolen properties. It should be emphasized that to prove the crime of theft, it is necessary and indispensable to clearly identify the person who, as a result of a criminal act, without his knowledge and consent; was wrongfully deprived of a thing belonging to him. 15 (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied) As in Pit-og, a perusal of the records in this case reveals that circumstances had been overlooked by the lower courts, which if considered, casts reasonable doubt on petitioners' guilt. In rendering a judgment of conviction, the Regional Trial Court primarily relied on the testimony of the prosecution's lone witness, Police Officer 3 Villamor Rance (P03 Rance). Accorcling to him, he and his team were directed to conduct a surveillance operation against illegal loggers. While patrolling the mountainous area of Barangay Calangatan, they heard a chainsaw and saw a tree slowly falling down. 16 Upon hearing this, "they immediately crossed the river and climbed the hilly portion where the cutting was being done[.]" 17 He admitted that he did not witness petitioners cut the tree, and that he only saw them holding a chainsaw, thus: Q Mr. Witness, if you remember during the previous hearing, you stated that at the time that you arrived at the (discontinued). Mr. Witness during the previous hearing, you stated that at that time that you arrived at the alleged scene of the crime, you already saw the cut tree, is that correct? A YesMa'am. Q As such the tree was already cut at the time that you arrived, is that correct Mr. Witness? A Yesma'am. Q How could you then say that one of the accused was the one operating the chainsaw when at the time that you arrived, the tree has already been fell? A Before I arrived at the alleged crime scene some of my companions already arrived ahead of me, ma' am. 15 16 17 Id. at 422--423. Ponencia, p. 3. Rollo, p. 18, Petition citing TSN dated May 4, 2020. •