SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-8687 October 16, 1913
UNITED STATES vs. ANGEL BAGUIO, ET AL. -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-8687 October 16, 1913

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANGEL BAGUIO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Miguel de Leon for appellants.
Attorney-General Villamor for appellee.

CARSON, J.:

The evidence of record fully sustains the finding of the trial court, and establishes the guilt of the appellants of the crime with which they were charges beyond a reasonable doubt.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The trial judge, by authority of the provisions of Act No. 2030 enacted February 3, 1911, amending the provisions of articles 503, 508, 512, and 520 of the Penal Code, imposed the penalty therein prescribed upon offenders convicted of theft where "the thing stolen was any kind of large cattle." Counsel for appellants, basing his contention upon the fact that the Spanish version of the statute amends the provisions of article 520 of the Code by adding thereto the following paragraph: "4. Si la cosa robada fuere ganado mayor de cualquier clase," insist that the amendments of the statute refer only to cases of robo (robbery) of large cattle.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

That this construction of the statute is not justified will readily be seen by examining the English version wherein the word used is "stolen," which although translated in the Spanish version by the use of the word "robada," is equivalent to the word "hurtada," and by the further consideration that the statute expressly amends not only the various provisions of the Act applicable to the robbery of large cattle (articles 508, 512, and 520) but also the article of the Code which defines and penalizes the crime of theft (hurto), and it is very clear from the language used and from its connection with the context that it was clearly intended to penalize in a special was the theft as well as the robbery of large cattle.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the appellants. The judgment of the lower court convicting and sentencing them should therefore affirmed, with the costs of this instance against them. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.