SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-14887 January 31, 1961

AVELINO NATIVIDAD, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.

Eustacio C. Cuevas and Nicetas A. Suanes for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

BENGZON, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

Avelino Natividad and Fermin Villanueva were charged with theft of electric current, in the Manila Court of First Instance. They were convicted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the first, but acquitted Villanueva.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Hence this petition for review, which is mainly based on the proposition that as both accused had been prosecuted for having conspired to steal electric current, the exoneration of one should entail the acquittal of the other.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

According to the Court of Appeals, "in 1949, appellant Villanueva established a laundry business at 159-A Padilla St., San Miguel, Manila, under the title of Majestic Steam Laundry and Dry Cleaners. The electric energy needed for its operation was supplied by the Manila Electric Company which, on December 5, 1949, installed in Villanueva's establishment the new electric meter Exhibit A. . . . Appellant Villanueva regularly paid for his electric current consumption upon presentation of the corresponding bills, which steadily increased in amount from P112.00 and P116.00 for the first and second months (January 10 to February 8 and thence to March 9, 1950), until the 17th month (May 10 to June 9, 1951) when the amount paid was P248.00 (Exhs. H-1 and 3-Villanueva). Spurred by reports that "electric current all over Manila were being tampered by a person named Manuel Arboleda" and that Majestic Steam Laundry and Dry Cleaners was one of the places visited by him, and because the value of the electric current consumed by this laundry establishment in June and July, 1951, dropped abruptly to P176.00 and P186.00, respectively (Exhs. H-1 and 3-Villanueva), Manila Electric Company ordered the removal of meter Exhibit A from appellant Villanueva's establishment and its substitution with another meter. Exhibit A was removed on August 3,0, 1951. x x x. And after the removal of the meter's glass cover, Tanyag, Mayor and Cayco (employees of Meralco) noticed that the amounting screws of the register showed scratches, and they readily presumed and concluded "that the register had been detached from the meter which I (Cayco) believe turning back the reading of the meter." chanrobles virtual law library

"The electric current consumption registered by Exhibit A from August 9 to August 30, 1951 when it was removed, was 6980; and that as shown by the substitute meter, from the latter date up to September 8, was 1660, or a total of 8,640 KWH the value of which-P478.00 x x x." chanrobles virtual law library

"When he was investigated by the Manila Police, Natividad denied having tampered with the electric meter in question; but on November 9, 1951, he appeared before Attorney C. S. Van Hoven of complainant's legal department, who took Natividad's affidavit which was signed and sworn to before Attorney Pastor S. del Rosario of the same department on February 26, 1952 (Exh. G) . . . wherein he admitted that for the consideration of P150.00 which his co-appellant Villanueva promised to pay him and his companions, he (Natividad) agreed to tamper with Exhibit A in order to reduce Villanueva's electric bill, and that on July 10, 1951, instead of actually reading the meter he merely recorded 130 as the reading, which is very much lower than the previous reading of 202 . . ." chanrobles virtual law library

"The evidence is clear and convincing that he has not recorded the true and correct reading of Villanueva's meter but instead made a false reading to reduce the amount to be paid by Villanueva to Meralco for his current, and in addition he (Natividad) also personally tampered with the meter." .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It will be observed that the gist of the crime was that in accordance with a previous understanding with consumer Villanueva, this appellant Natividad¹ meter-reader of the Meralco -misread the electric meter so as to decrease the amount which such consumer had to pay, and paid, to the owner of the electric current, the Meralco.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

According to the appellate court, Natividad knowingly "under-read" the electric meter in Villanueva's premises and falsely reported the readings during the period from June 9 to July 10, 1951, and from July 10 to August 9, 1951, thereby enabling Villanueva to appropriate, for nothing, about 11,880 electric kilowatt hours valued at P594.00. Meralco was thus pro tanto deprived of its property through the connivance of this employee. As to such connivance and deprivation there can be no doubt, because the petitioner himself so confessed in an affidavit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The resulting situation does not materially differ from the case of U.S. v. Carlos, 21 Phil. 553 wherein the consumer of electric current having managed to evade payment of part of his accounts by using the so-called "jumper" to deflect the current from the house electric meter, was held by this Court to be guilty of theft.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the acquittal of Villanueva did not necessarily mean that no electric current had been taken away gratis. There was a factual finding of such larceny by the Court of Appeals, which we are not at liberty to disturb. Anyway, the acquittal rested on the lack of proof that Villanueva had tampered with the electric meter to conceal the crime. The offense was already committed when Villanueva paid his bills (reduced) for July and August.² And herein petitioner admitted such bills and payment accorded with his "under-reading."chanrobles virtual law library

If it be argued that, without such tampering, the the could not have been "consummated" because sooner or lat the true consumption will be discovered and the consume will be made to pay accordingly, the answer is, there are other ways of concealing the swindle or of evading payment of the unreported fluid consumption.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We must, therefore, affirm the conviction; and as there is no question raised concerning the penalty,³ the judgment of the appellate court is hereby affirmed, with cost.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Paredes, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.

Endnotes:

¹ He was paid money for it.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

² Cf. U.S. v. Tambunting 41 Phil. 364.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

³ 6 years and 1 day to 9 years and 4 months of prision mayor, plus indemity of P594.00.