August 1910 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > August 1910 Decisions >
G.R. No. 5813 August 27, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO ESPIA
016 Phil 506:
016 Phil 506:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5813. August 27, 1910. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTIAGO ESPIA, Defendant-Appellant.
G. E. Campbell, for Appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. LARCENY; POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY. — When it is proven that property has been stolen and the same is found in the possession of the defendant, who is unable to give a satisfactory explanation as to his possession of such property, a prima facie case is made against such defendant sufficient to justify his conviction of the crime of larceny of said property. Men who come honestly into the possession of property have no difficulty in explaining the method by which they came into such possession. (U.S. v. Soriano, 9 Phil. Rep., 441; U.S. v. Santillan, 9 Phil. Rep., 445; U.S. v. Soriano, 12 Phil. Rep., 512.)
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J. :
The defendant was charged with the crime of larceny of a carabao of the value of P150, the property of one Liberto Ortizo.
He was duly arrested and tried in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo, found guilty, and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six months of arresto mayor and to pay the costs. From that sentence the defendant appealed.
An examination of the evidence establishes the fact, beyond peradventure of doubt, that the animal described in the complaint was stolen from its owner, Liberto Ortizo, on or about the 24th of December, 1908; that the said carabao, in the month of August, 1909, was found in the possession of the defendant; that the defendant was unable to make any satisfactory explanation showing how he became the possessor of said carabao. It being proven that the carabao was stolen, and being found in the possession of the defendant without his being able to give a satisfactory explanation as to how he came into possession of the same, is sufficient proof to justify his conviction of the crime of larceny of the said carabao. (U.S. v. Soriano, 9 Phil. Rep., 441; U. S. v. Santillan, 9 Phil. Rep., 445; U.S. v. Soriano, 12 Phil. Rep., 512.) Men who come honestly into the possession of property have no difficulty in explaining the method by which they obtained such possession.
The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, hereby affirmed with costs.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
He was duly arrested and tried in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo, found guilty, and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six months of arresto mayor and to pay the costs. From that sentence the defendant appealed.
An examination of the evidence establishes the fact, beyond peradventure of doubt, that the animal described in the complaint was stolen from its owner, Liberto Ortizo, on or about the 24th of December, 1908; that the said carabao, in the month of August, 1909, was found in the possession of the defendant; that the defendant was unable to make any satisfactory explanation showing how he became the possessor of said carabao. It being proven that the carabao was stolen, and being found in the possession of the defendant without his being able to give a satisfactory explanation as to how he came into possession of the same, is sufficient proof to justify his conviction of the crime of larceny of the said carabao. (U.S. v. Soriano, 9 Phil. Rep., 441; U. S. v. Santillan, 9 Phil. Rep., 445; U.S. v. Soriano, 12 Phil. Rep., 512.) Men who come honestly into the possession of property have no difficulty in explaining the method by which they obtained such possession.
The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, hereby affirmed with costs.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
