Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > February 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3974 February 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO JAMERO

010 Phil 137:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3974. February 14, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ISIDRO JAMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

C. Ledesma, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. STOLEN PROPERTY; POSSESSION; PRESUMPTION. — The fact that a number of stolen carabaos were found in the possession of an individual who kept them hidden away, and that a few days prior to the recovery thereof he had altered or modified the old marks on the animals, induces one to assumed that said individual was the author of the crime, and not merely an accessory, unless it be satisfactorily proven that it was another person who stole the said carabaos.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


At about midnight on the 26th of April, 1906, three caraballas (female carabaos), the property of Fulgencio Figuera and brothers, were stolen from the corral where they were kept at the place called Tuburan, in the pueblo of Savaria, Occidental Negros; every one of them was branded with the letters L and G, the brand of said pueblo, and the value of each animal was P140. Two weeks after their disappearance search was made and one of them was found in the possession of the accused, Isidro Jamero in the sitio of Mansiligan, in the capital town of Bacolod; when the return of the animal was asked for, he demanded the sum P55 as ransom. In order to find out whether the other two caraballas had also been hidden by the accused the ransom was paid, and upon taking the animal over, it was discovered that a new brand, which was still fresh, had been placed over the old one, for which reason information was at once given to the Insular Police and the justice of the peace, and the latter ordered the arrest of the accused.

As a result of the investigation made while the accused was detained at the cuartel of the Constabulary, he at last stated that the two missing caraballas were at the sitio of Cabatangan, in the pueblo of Granada, where they were actually found by the Constabulary on the bank of a river among the bushes; they also showed signs of having been recently rebranded.

Consequently a complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal charging Isidro Jamero with the crime of theft, and proceedings were instituted. The judge, on the 30th of August, 1906, sentenced the accused , as accessory to the crime, to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas and the costs, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, reserving to Figuera, the injured party, his right to action for the P55 paid to the accused, who appealed from said judgment.

The above facts fully proven in this cause, constitute the crime of theft described in articles 517, No. 1, and 518 of the Penal Code, because three caraballas owned by Fulgencio Figuera, kept in a corral with one carabao that was left there, were stolen at a late hour of night on the 26th of April, 1906, no intimidation nor violence being however, present in the commission of the crime. The disappearance of the caraballas was noticed on the following day and was affirmed by two witnesses who are neighbors of the injured party and knew the stolen animals, and became aware of the fact as residents of the place. The total value of the three caraballas was P420.

Notwithstanding the fact that the accused pleaded not guilty alleging that the said caraballas had been caught in his field, which is planted with sugar cane, and that they were delivered to him by Narciso Gayoll at between 6 and 7 p.m. on the 8th of May of said year, the day on which Figuera, the injured party, appeared to claim them, such allegation has not been substantiated; the record contains full and satisfactory evidence of the guilt of the accused as principal of the crime, and also show that it is not true that the caraballas were found grazing on the field belonging to the accused, notwithstanding the declarations made by himself and by his witnesses.

It is not possible to believe that from the night of April 26 to afternoon of May 8 — that is, during twelve days, — three caraballas had been wandering over a tract of land extending from the pueblo of Saravia to the capital of Bacolod without being caught by some resident or by an agent of the authorities, or by persons in favor of carabaos, of whom there are so many in the island, as attested by the many cases appealed to this court; if the animals reached Mansiligan, Bacolod, it was because the accused, who had stolen them from their corral, took them there from Tuburan, Saravia.

The injured party went to the house of the accused to claim his caraballas during the daytime, not at night, and he then found only one of them, already rebranded; and in order to secure the other two, which the accused had already hidden away, and for the purpose of obtaining proof thereof (because Alejo Cataluna, who had seen the three caraballas by the side of the stairway at the time when the accused himself was rebranding them, assured him that they were in the possession of the latter) he acceded to the demand of the accused and handed him P55 as ransom, not as an indemnity for the damage caused to his sugar plantation.

When the matter was reported to the Insular Police, to whom the recovered caraballa was presented as evidence, the accused, Jamero, was arrested and after investigation he finally pointed out the place where he had hidden away the two caraballas which were also recovered by the Constabulary, who testified that the new brands put on the three caraballas were of recent date and were in appearance still fresh. This evidence destroys the exculpatory allegations of the accused and proves his culpability; the fact that when the caraballas were seen by the court, in the month of August following, and new marks and the corrections could hardly be noticed on the animals does not counteract the effects of this finding for the reason that, after the lapse of three months, the wounds could have already healed.

The stolen caraballas having been found in the possession of the accused, and there being no proof as to who was the thief, it is assumed that the holder or bearer of the stolen property is the author of the theft or robbery; this presumption against the accused has been neither affected nor destroyed by any evidence to the contrary. This doctrine, which is strictly in accord with the principles of the criminal law in such crimes, has already been applied in decisions of this court in appeals from judgments of the said Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.

In the commission of the theft the concurrence of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, with nothing to mitigate it, has been considered; therefore, the penalty should be applied in the maximum degree with the obligation to refund the P55 paid by the owner of the stolen animals as ransom.

In view of the foregoing and accepting the conclusions in the judgment appealed from, which are compatible and agree with the basis of this decision, it is our opinion that the said judgment should be reversed, and that Isidro Jamero be sentenced to three years of presidio correccional, to suffer the accessory penalties of article 58 of the code, to refund the injured party, Fulgencio Figuera, the sum of P55, and to pay the costs of both instances. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Willard and Tracey, 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






February-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3720 February 3, 1908 - MARIA COSIO v. ANTONINO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-3971 February 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO BRAGANZA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-4005 February 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFO REYES

    010 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3806 February 4, 1908 - MARIANO MADAMBA v. PELAGIA MAGNO

    010 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. L-3860 February 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO TREMOYA

    010 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3906 February 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO PAGUIA

    010 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-4125 February 5, 1908 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. F. THEODORE ROGERS

    010 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-4552 February 5, 1908 - ARTHUR F. YAMBERT v. J. MCMICKING

    010 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. L-4092 February 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL CAMPO

    010 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-4165 February 8, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON GAMALINDA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-3962 February 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LING SU FAN

    010 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4251 February 10, 1908 - CLEMENTE MANOTOC v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-4193 February 11, 1908 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. MODESTO REYES

    010 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. L-4108 February 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. DOROTEO GALIT QUINTO

    010 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-4217 February 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO CAUAS

    010 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-4328 February 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    010 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 3870 February 14, 1908 - LAZARO REMO ET AL. v. PASTOR ESPINOSA

    010 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-3974 February 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO JAMERO

    010 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-3770 February 17, 1908 - CARLOS PABIA SY CHUNG-QUIONG v. FELIPA SY-TIONG TAY CUANSI

    010 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-3939 February 17, 1908 - MENDEZONA & CO. v. MARIANO MORENO

    010 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-4043 February 17, 1908 - ROMAN DE LA ROSA v. GREGORIO REVITA SANTOS

    010 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-3898 February 18, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. TOMAS CABANGIS

    010 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-4014 February 18, 1908 - GENARO HEREDIA v. RAMON SALINAS

    010 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-4139 February 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SAN LUIS

    010 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-4195 February 18, 1908 - ATLANTIC v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-3793 February 19, 1908 - CIRILO MAPA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    010 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-3875 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JANUARIO FRANCISCO

    010 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3998 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POMPOSO BURGUETA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-4319 February 19, 1908 - STRONG & TROWBRIDGE v. VAN BUSKIRK-CROOK CO.

    010 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-4335 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO LINDIO

    010 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-3967 February 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MAQUILAN

    010 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3751 February 21, 1908 - EDUARDA BENEDICTO v. JULIO JAVELLANA

    010 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-4402 February 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX YAPE, ET AL.

    010 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3937 February 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SALUD

    010 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-4138 February 25, 1908 - SY HONG ENG v. SY LIOC SUY

    010 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4489 February 25, 1908 - RAMON HONTIVEROS v. JOSE C. ABREU

    010 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-4512 February 25, 1908 - GREGORIO ABENDAN v. MARTIN LLORENTE

    010 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3960 February 27, 1908 - GIL HERMANOS v. JOHN S. HORD

    010 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4159 February 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GALLEGO

    010 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-4255 February 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO AUTIZ

    010 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-4576 February 27, 1908 - MAURO NAVARRO v. CASIANO GIMENEZ

    010 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-4189 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEYMOUR ADDISON

    010 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-4298 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO MARAVILLA

    010 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4366 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GARCIA

    010 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-3471 February 28, 1908 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    010 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-3472 February 29, 1908 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    010 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-4067 February 29, 1908 - FREDERICK E. MOREY v. LAO LAYCO

    010 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. L-4346 February 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO PESCADOR

    010 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-4469 February 29, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 261