February 1910 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions >
G.R. No. 5252 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MALIGALIG
015 Phil 222:
015 Phil 222:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5252. February 16, 1910. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO MALIGALIG, Defendant-Appellant.
Ramon Fernandez, for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Harvey, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. THEFT; PRINCIPALS IN CRIME; ACCESSARIES. — It is the settled rule of the courts on the question of criminal liability, that the finding of the corpus delicti in the possession of a person establishes the presumption that he is the principal in the crime, unless it be proven who was the real principal and that the possessor is merely an accessary. (U. S. v. Soriano, 9 Phil. Rep., 445.)
D E C I S I O N
MAPA, J. :
The defendant herein is prosecuted for the theft of two horses, of which crime he was declared guilty by the Court of First Instance and sentenced as principal at herein to the penalty of two years eleven months and one day of presidio correccional to pay an indemnity of P100 to the injured party for the unrecovered horse, or in case of insolvency to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one day of every 12� posetas that he failed to pay, and to pay the costs.
The guilt of the accused is so clearly proven in the case that, in this instance, the defense has raised no question whatever in connection therewith. The only question presented is that of the degree of liability which should be charged to him. There is no direct evidence that it was the accused who stole the horses, but they were found in his possession, and he gave no satisfactory explanation as to whence they came; for this reason the court below found him guilty and convicted him as principal in the crime of theft. The defense claims that a person thus charged should only be held liable as accessary after the fact, not as principal.
This point has been repeatedly decided by this court contrary to the claim of the defense. Among others the case of the United States v. Gabino Soriano (9 Phil. Rep., 445) may be cited, wherein it is said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It is the settled rule of the courts, on the question of criminal liability, that the finding of the corpus delicti in the possession of a person establishes the presumption that he is the author of the crime, unless it be proven who was he is the bearer of holder of the stolen property is the mere accessary of the criminal . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The judgment appealed form is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.
The guilt of the accused is so clearly proven in the case that, in this instance, the defense has raised no question whatever in connection therewith. The only question presented is that of the degree of liability which should be charged to him. There is no direct evidence that it was the accused who stole the horses, but they were found in his possession, and he gave no satisfactory explanation as to whence they came; for this reason the court below found him guilty and convicted him as principal in the crime of theft. The defense claims that a person thus charged should only be held liable as accessary after the fact, not as principal.
This point has been repeatedly decided by this court contrary to the claim of the defense. Among others the case of the United States v. Gabino Soriano (9 Phil. Rep., 445) may be cited, wherein it is said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It is the settled rule of the courts, on the question of criminal liability, that the finding of the corpus delicti in the possession of a person establishes the presumption that he is the author of the crime, unless it be proven who was he is the bearer of holder of the stolen property is the mere accessary of the criminal . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The judgment appealed form is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.
