ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-7561   April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL. <br /><br />096 Phil 931

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-7561. April 30, 1955.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLO ISAAC alias JOSE DE JESUS, Defendant-Appellant.

    Porfirio Latorre, attorney de oficio for Appellant.

    Assistant Solicitor General Francisco Carreon and Solicitor Lauro C. Maiquez for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    CRIMINAL LAW; THEFT. — The temporary driver of a public service vehicle who disposes thereof with intent of gain and without the consent of the owner is guilty of theft.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, A., J.:


    This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, convicting the appellant of qualified theft. The case is before us because the appeal raises only a question of law.

    It appears that in the morning of January 19, 1955, in the City of Manila, Philippines, one Dr. Licerio Velasquez, owner of a jeepney with license plate No. AC-2553, whose driver was on vacation and had recommended the appellant to take his place, entrusted the vehicle to the said appellant for a "pasada", that is to say, for transporting passengers for a compensation, the vehicle being destined for that purpose as its license plate would indicate. 1 The understanding was that appellant was to bring back the vehicle in the evening of that same day and pay P10 "in hire." But appellant never returned, and after a search the vehicle was found in a machine shop in Tarlac, where it was left by appellant allegedly for the purpose of having it repainted. Arrested by the police several days later, appellant voluntarily signed a statement to the effect that, though he took the vehicle for a "pasada", his real intention was to steal it, for he already had an agreement with one Mrs. Juana Lim that he would steal a jeepney and she would wait at the Balintawak monument.

    In asking for appellant’s acquittal, counsel de oficio contends that, while appellant may have committed estafa, he cannot be held guilty of theft, on the theory that as the possession of the vehicle was obtained with the consent of its owner, there has been no illegal taking.

    To this we cannot agree. In the case of U. S. v. De Vera (43 Phil., 1000), this Court said that when the delivery of a chattel has not the effect of transferring the juridical possession thereof, or title thereto, it is presumed that the possession of, and title to, the thing so delivered remains in the owner; and the act of disposing thereof with intent of gain and without the consent of the owner constitutes the crime of theft. This, we think, is actually the case here. For as we see it, appellant had only substituted for the regular driver of a vehicle devoted to the transportation of passengers for a fare or compensation and therefore operated as a public utility; and while his arrangement with the owner was to turn in, not all the fare collected, but only a fixed sum known in the trade as "boundary", still he cannot be legally considered a hirer or lessee, since it is ordained in section 26 of the Rules of Regulations of the Public Service Commission that "no motor vehicle operator shall enter into any kind of contract with any person if by the terms thereof it allows the use and operation of all or any of his equipment under a fixed rental basis." 2 In the eye of the law then, appellant was not a lessee but only an employee or agent of the owner, so that his possession of the vehicle was only an extension of that of the latter. In other words, while he had physical or material possession of the jeepney, the juridical possession thereof remained in the owner. Under those circumstances his disposing of the jeepney with intent of gain and without the consent of its owner makes him guilty of theft.

    Quoting from Ruling Case Law, this Court has also said in the same case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A felonious taking is necessary in the crime of larceny, and generally speaking, a taking which is done with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the property is not felonious. But if the owner parts with the possession thereof for a particular purpose, and the person who receives the possession avowedly for that purpose has the fraudulent intention to make use of it as the means of converting it to his own use and does so convert it, this is larceny, for in such case, the fraud supplies the place of the trespass in the taking, or, as otherwise stated, the subsequent felonious conversion of the property by the alleged thief will relate back and make the taking and conversion larceny.

    Under this theory, appellant, who, according to his own confession, took the vehicle from its owner already with the intention of appropriating it, should also be deemed guilty of theft. (People v. Trinidad, 50 Phil., 65.)

    Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

    Pablo, Acting C. J. Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. AC being the denomination for auto-calesa service.

    2. See copy of said section in Almario on the Public Service Act (Annotated), Appendix A, p. 202.

    G.R. No. L-7561   April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL. <br /><br />096 Phil 931


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED