Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > August 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 7422 August 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. TELESFORO FRIAS

023 Phil 43:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7422. August 22, 1912. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TELESFORO FRIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Lucas Gonzalez for Appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. THEFT; FINDING OF LOST PROPERTY; CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. — Those who find something lost and, knowing who its owner is, appropriate it with the intent of profit, are guilty of theft. (Art. 517, par. 2, Penal Code.)


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The herein defendant was sentenced in the Court of First Instance for the crime of theft charged against him in complaint to the penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor, to make restitution of what was stolen or pay indemnity for its value in the amount of P120, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, if necessary, and to pay the costs of the trial. From that sentence he has appealed to this court.

On January 13, 1911, the defendant went from the pueblo of Nagcarlan to that of San Pablo, both of the Province of Laguna, to attend the fiesta held in the latter pueblo, in company with Dionisia Castillo and three other persons. Dionisia rode horseback and the rest followed on foot. During the trip between the two pueblos Dionisia dropped unawares some jewelry which she was carrying in a handkerchief, consisting of a clasp pin of tumbaga and three finger rings of the same metal, two of them set with three diamonds. The third was set by means of clasp with four diamonds, all colored and of the size of a mongo seed, and one of the stones, at one end of the clasps, had a flaw easily perceptible, apparently, to the naked eye. With the exception of this last mentioned ring, all the said jewelry was found in the road and returned to its owner, the clasp pin and one of the rings set with three diamonds by the defendant, and the other ring of three stones also by a schoolboy of the barrio of Rizal, municipality of Nagcarlang. The defendant returned the class pin and the ring during the trip to San Pablo a few moments after he found them, though it is not clearly shown in the record whether he did so voluntarily or because some of his traveling companions had learned of his find and immediately told Dionisia Castillo. Be this as it may, the above-described ring with the four-stone setting was not recovered.

The defendant well knew, as shown by his own testimony, that Dionisia Castillo lost the said ring besides those which were returned to her, and if he really found and appropriated it to himself and did not return it to her, as the prosecution claims it is evident that he committed the crime of theft described in paragraph 2 of article 517 of the Penal Code, according to which "those who finding something lost, and knowing who its owner is, appropriate it with the intent of profit," are guilty of theft.

The defendant roundly denied the charge that he had found the ring in question. He testified that he found only the clasp pin and the ring with the three diamonds, which he returned at once to Dionisia Castillo. There is indeed no direct evidence of that fact. The defendant’s traveling companions saw him pick up something from the ground, whereupon he told them that he had found some diamonds, but none of them saw at the time how many or what kind of jewels were found by him. There are, however, two witnesses who saw the ring referred to in the possession of the defendant two or three days after the date mentioned in the complaint. One of them testified that on the second day of the fiesta of San Pablo he and the defendant met in the cockpit of the said pueblo and that the latter offered to sell him, for the price of sixty pesos, a tumbaga ring with four colored diamonds of the size of a mongo seed, set therein by means of clasps, one of which stones, at one end of the clasps, had a flaw, for which reason and also because he had no money he did not wish to buy it. The other witness stated that on January 16, 1911, in the pueblo of San Pablo, the defendant tried to pawn to him for P25 a tumbaga ring which had four colored diamonds of the size of a mongo seed set in it by means of clasps, and that he did not accept it as he did not then have any money. This witness also declared that one of the stones at one end of the clasps had a flaw in it. The testimony of these two witnesses was not disproved nor contradicted in any manner by the defendant while on the stand, and we hold it to be true.

Now, the description which those witnesses give of the ring which the defendant tried to sell or pawn to them coincides exactly in all its details with that of the ring lost by Dionisia Castillo—the same kind of metal, the same number and size of diamonds, the same kind with respect to color, the same defect in one of the stones and, finally, the same form of setting as had the ring of the said Dionisia. It would be difficult to imagine more perfect and conclusive proof of the identity of these two rings. We are fully convinced that the ring seen by the witnesses mentioned in the possession of the defendant is the same one once concerned in this case. In view of the evidence it appears to us unquestionable that the defendant found it together with the other jewelry which with good or bad grace he returned to Dionisia Castillo. As he appropriated it, knowing that it belonged to her, he is clearly guilty of the crime of theft with which he is charged in the complaint.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the defendant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 7311. August 5, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NALUA and KADAYUM, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7313. August 9, 1912.] PRUDENCIO DE JESUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7443. August 12, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MACARIO DOMINGO ET AL., Defendants. CELESTINO RAMIREZ and REGINA DOMINGO, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6784. August 15, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTA LICARTE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6940. August 15, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROGACIANO R. RIMON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7337. August 16, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARDO BANDOC, Defendant-Appellant

  • [G.R. No. 7454. August 16, 1912.] PLACIDO LOZANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. IGNACIO ALVARADO TAN SUICO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 7459. August 16, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7123. August 17, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROSALINO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7194. August 17, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRISPIN PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6984. August 19, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GENOVEVA DESTRITO and GREGORIO DE OCAMPO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7015. August 19, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BENGSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7260. August 21, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILIO SANTOS REYES ET AL., Defendants. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7422. August 22, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TELESFORO FRIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7284. August 23, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BATALLONES ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6610. August 24, 1912.] ELEUTERIA VILLANUEVA ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. VALERIANO CLAUSTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6999. August 24, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CIRILO MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7226. August 24, 1912.] HE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LIO TEAM, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6968. August 27, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILIO CASTRO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7953. August 28, 1912.] CHAN-SUANGCO, Petitioner, vs. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER, Judge, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 6942. August 30, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GIL GAMAO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6992. August 30, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AGUSTIN JUEVES ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6612. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHAN GUY JUAN (alias Chino Aua), Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6866. August 31, 1912.] AMADA and CARMEN MESTRES Y YANGCO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Opponent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7225. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MANUEL ZABALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 7311 August 5, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NALUA, ET AL

    023 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 7443 August 12, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    023 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 6784 August 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTA LICARTE

    023 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 6940 August 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ROGACIANO R. RIMON

    023 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 7337 August 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LEONARDO BANDOC

    023 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 7454 August 16, 1912 - PLACIDO LOZANO v. IGNACIO ALVARADO TAN SUICO

    023 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 7459 August 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FIGUEROA

    023 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 7123 August 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ROSALINO RODRIGUEZ

    023 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 7194 August 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CRISPIN PERALTA

    023 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 6984 August 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA DESTRITO, ET AL

    023 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 7015 August 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BENGSON

    023 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 7260 August 21, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, ET AL

    023 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 7422 August 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. TELESFORO FRIAS

    023 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 7284 August 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BATALLONES, ET AL

    023 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 6610 August 24, 1912 - ELEUTERIA VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO CLAUSTRO

    023 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 6999 August 24, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO MARTIN

    023 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 7226 August 24, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LIO TEAM

    023 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 6968 August 27, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CASTRO, ET AL.

    023 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 7953 August 28, 1912 - CHAN-SUANGCO v. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER

    023 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 7313 August 9, 1912 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY, ET AL.

    023 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 6942 August 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GIL GAMAO, ET AL

    023 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 6992 August 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN JUEVES, ET AL.

    023 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 6612 August 31, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN GUY JUAN

    023 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 6866 August 31, 1912 - AMADA, v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    023 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 7225 August 31, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL ZABALA

    023 Phil 117