Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 4764 September 18, 1908
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiffs-appellee,
vs.
TOMAS MOLINA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Fernando de la Cantera, for appellants.
Attorney-General Villamor, for appellee.
CARSON, J.:
On or about the 6th day of May, 1907, several carabaos disappeared from the fields where they were at pastures, in the municipality of Solana, in the Province of Cagayan, two of which have never been found by their owner. Some days thereafter Calixto Balubal, the owner of the lost carabaos, discovered the head of one of the animals in the lot of the defendant, Tomas Molina, and swore out a search warrant, in the court of the justice of the peace, by virtue of which search was made in Molinas house, and a considerable portion of the carcass of one or more carabaos, divided into the quarters, was discovered in and near his house. One of the witnesses testified that while the owner of the carabao was procuring the search warrant, he was left to keep watch on the head, meat, and bones, which were found in the yard of Tomas Molina, and he saw the defendants, Tomas Molina, Sixto Beran, and one Cipriano de Asis, carrying a quantity of carabao meat from under the house into the yard where they left.
The defendants did not go upon the witness stand nor offer any explanation as to why as to why the head of the carabao belonging to complaining witness was found in the carabao meat was found in the yard of Tomas Molina or why so large a quantity of carabao meat was found in and about his house.
We think the foregoing facts which were conclusively established by the testimony of record constitute prima facie proof of the fact that the lost carabaos of the complaining witness, valued at P300, were stolen by Tomas Molina, the owner of the house, in whose possession the meat was found, and no evidence having been offered in rebuttal of this presumption of guilt, the court properly convicted the said Tomas of the crime of theft with he was charged. (U.S. vs. Gimeno, 3 Phil. Rep., 233; U.S. vs. Paguio, 6 Phil. Rep., 436; U.S. vs. Soriano, 9 Phil. Rep., 441.)
We do not think, however, that the guilt of the defendant, Sixto Beran, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only evidence against him was the testimony of the witness whom stated that he had seen this defendant and Tomas Molina carrying some of the carabao meat was which was found upon Molina's lot, from under the house. This defendant is a nephew of Tomas Molina, and while the fact that he was assisting Molina in carrying the meat out of the house was a very suspicious circumstance, and tends strongly to raise a suspicion of guilt to his uncle's object in removing it from the house, we do not think that it can be said that he is guilty of the theft of the meat beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of guilt of the crime of theft, which arises from the unexplained possession of stolen goods soon after the time when the theft was committed, cannot be legitimately extended beyond the person in whose possession and under whose control such property may have assisted him, at his request, imply that such stolen property, does not necessarily imply that such persons rendered such assistance knowing the property to be stolen, or that they themselves were parties to the theft.
The judgement or conviction and the sentence of the trial court, in so far as they affect the defendant Sixto Beran, should be and are hereby reversed, and this one half share of the cost of both instances de oficio and he will be set at liberty forthwith.
The judgement of conviction and the sentence of the trial court, in so far as they affect the defendant, Tomas Molina, should be and are hereby affirmed, with one-half the costs of this instance against this defendant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
