August 1916 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1916 > August 1916 Decisions >
G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN
034 Phil 645:
034 Phil 645:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 11634. August 1, 1916. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BARAMBANGAN, MAMINTANG, and SANGKUPAN MAMBANG, Defendants. SANGKUPAN MAMBANG, Appellant.
A.S. Crossfield for Appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; PRINCIPALS AND ACCESSORIES; PENALTIES. — The penalties prescribed for accessories are two degrees lower than those prescribed for accessories are two degrees lower than those prescribed for principals. When the penalty prescribed for the principal is that of presidio correccional in its medium degree to presidio mayor in its minimum degree, that for an accessory would be a fine of not less that 325 pesetas and not more than 6,250 pesetas.
2. ID.; MERGER OF OFFENSES; THEFT AND SALE OF CARABAO. — The stealing of an animal and the selling of it to a third party constitute two different and distinct crimes, larceny and estafa. Where a person is convicted of a certain specified crime, he cannot be condemned to indemnify another injured party for damages resulting from the commission of a separate and distinct crime.
2. ID.; MERGER OF OFFENSES; THEFT AND SALE OF CARABAO. — The stealing of an animal and the selling of it to a third party constitute two different and distinct crimes, larceny and estafa. Where a person is convicted of a certain specified crime, he cannot be condemned to indemnify another injured party for damages resulting from the commission of a separate and distinct crime.
D E C I S I O N
TRENT, J. :
After the Moro Barambangan had stolen a caraballa belonging to Amay Kurut, he and the other two defendants sold it to Amay Tudtud for P100. The animal was later returned to the owner. The three defendants were tries and convicted for the owner. The three defendants were tried and convicted for the crime of larceny — Barambangan, as principal, and Mamintang and Mambang as accessories — and sentenced to four years and two months of presidio correccional and to one year and one day of presidio correccional, respectively. They were further condemned to indemnify Tudtud in the sum of P100 and to the payment of the costs of the cause. Mambang alone appealed.
That Mambang knew that the animal had been stolen when he aided in selling it to Tudtud, receiving a part of the purchase price, there can be no doubt. The only questions for determination are those relation to the penalty imposed and whether the appellant should have been condemned to indemnify the purchaser of the animal. The crime committed by the principal is that defined and penalized by article 518, paragraph 3, and article 520 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2030, the penalty being presidio correccional in its medium degree to presidio mayor in its minimum degree. As the appellant was only an accessory, the penalty corresponding to his crime is two degrees lower than that of the principal, which is a fine of not less than 325 pesetas and not more than 6,250 pesetas.
The stealing of the animal and the selling of it to a third party are two separate and distinct crimes. The first is larceny and the second is estafa. The offended parties are different persons, the owner and the purchaser. When an accused person is convicted for the commission of a certain crime (as in this case, larceny), he cannot be condemned to indemnify an injured party for damages resulting from a separate and distinct crime.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs incident to this appeal, together with one-third of the costs in the court below. So ordered.
Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Araullo, JJ., concur.
That Mambang knew that the animal had been stolen when he aided in selling it to Tudtud, receiving a part of the purchase price, there can be no doubt. The only questions for determination are those relation to the penalty imposed and whether the appellant should have been condemned to indemnify the purchaser of the animal. The crime committed by the principal is that defined and penalized by article 518, paragraph 3, and article 520 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2030, the penalty being presidio correccional in its medium degree to presidio mayor in its minimum degree. As the appellant was only an accessory, the penalty corresponding to his crime is two degrees lower than that of the principal, which is a fine of not less than 325 pesetas and not more than 6,250 pesetas.
The stealing of the animal and the selling of it to a third party are two separate and distinct crimes. The first is larceny and the second is estafa. The offended parties are different persons, the owner and the purchaser. When an accused person is convicted for the commission of a certain crime (as in this case, larceny), he cannot be condemned to indemnify an injured party for damages resulting from a separate and distinct crime.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs incident to this appeal, together with one-third of the costs in the court below. So ordered.
Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Araullo, JJ., concur.
