Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > December 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3948 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

009 Phil 441:



[G.R. No. L-3948. December 27, 1907. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABINO SORIANO, Defendant-Appellant.

C. Hipolito, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.


1. THEFT; STOLEN PROPERTY; PRESUMPTION. — In a crime of theft or robbery the holder or bearer of the stolen property is presumed to be the principal, unless it be proven in a satisfactory manner that he is but a mere accessory thereto, and that another person, from who the articles came, is the one who stole them from the owner thereof.



Late at night on the 1st of February, 1905, Canuto Macasa, the owner of an hacienda, was awakened by the noise made by thirty carabaos that were kept in his corral near the house, and on looking out the window saw that some of them were loose; he then called his workmen to corral the animal and count them over, and upon their doing so the men found two castrated carabaos and a caraballa missing and that the fence on its northern side had been cut open with a bolo. Search was at once made and continued for some days, one of the carabaos being found in the corral of Gerardo Villalobos, at the sitio of Mataboy, which Villalobos stated he had purchased from Gabino Soriano; another was found in the possession of the latter in a coconut grove in the same place, and on being questioned as to whence the animal came, he alleged having purchased it at Guiljungan; a few days later the caraballa was found in the municipality of Guimbalaon, where it was taken by order of Cornelio Hilado, who stated that it had been recovered by his son a few nights previously, it having been abandoned by unknown parties who ran and left it upon being challenged by the night patrol of his hacienda.

It appears that one of the carabaos was originally acquired by the injured party from a Chinaman named Nicolas Ti Cuico (p. 16, record) and the other carabao and caraballa were bred on his hacienda and are branded with his brand registered in the municipality of Manapla, according to the certificate on page 17 and the statement of the owner, which is confirmed by his workmen, who recognized and duly identified the animals, which are valued at P375.

A complaint was presented by the provincial fiscal under date of the 1st of September, 1905, accusing Gabino Soriano of the crime of robbery by having stolen the two said carabaos and a caraballa, breaking open the corral where they were inclosed. Thereupon proceedings were instituted, and the judge, on the 20th of April, 1906, rendered judgment, sentencing the accused as accessory to pay a fine of 2,500 pesetas and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, which should not exceed six months, and to pay the costs, reserving to Gerardo Villalobos his right of action against the accused for the selling of one of said carabaos, setting aside the order for deposit and ordering the final return of the carabaos to their owner; from which judgment the accused appealed.

The above duly proven facts constitute the crime of theft defined and punished by articles 517 and 518, No. 2, of the Penal Code; that breaking of the fence of the corral made of bamboo only, in order to release the carabaos that were therein impounded, can not qualify the crime as robbery as charged in the complaint, said crime only deserving the name of theft according to the settled rule of the courts, in view of the very light construction of the corrals built in these Islands for the impounding of large cattle, the same being only bamboos stuck in the ground with crosspieces tied thereto with rattan or strips of fresh bamboo; as regards the ownership, preexistence and subsequent loss of the castrated carabaos and caraballa stolen from the corral of Canuto Macasa in his hacienda called San Roque, town of Manapla, Occidental Negros, the same have been duly proven by valid documents and by the testimony of the injured party and several witnesses, who recognized and identified the stolen carabaos as the lawful property of the prejudiced party.

The accused pleaded not guilty, but notwithstanding his denial and allegations the cause furnishes proofs and data sufficient to establish beyond doubt his culpability as principal of the theft of three carabaos, valued at more than 1,250 pesetas but less than 6,250, taking into account that the caraballa disappeared at the same time as the carabaos stolen from the same corral where they were impounded together.

It is an unquestionable fact and fully proven that one of the carabaos was found in his possession, and that without denying such possession he attempted to justify it by showing that he had acquired said animal at Guiljungan and that the transfer of the same had been recorded in the municipality of said town on the 17th of June, 1902. This proved to be untrue because the municipal president of the Cauayan, to which town Guiljungan was annexed, reported that at said municipality no stub of a certificate for large cattle issued at the date named by the accused existed, and, on the other hand, the latter did not produce any document to prove his ownership, as would have been the case if his statement were true.

It is likewise unquestionable that the carabao found in the possession of Gerardo Villalobos came from the accused, who sold it without proving that the same was his lawful property, inasmuch as the certificates appearing on pages 30 and 31, issued in the town of Silay on the 24th of February, 1905, were contrary to the provisions of the administrative law for the transfer of large cattle; and having been issued twenty-three days after the animal was stolen, such certificates, far from establishing the lawful origin of the carabao sold to Villalobos, confirmed the guilt of the accused, who attempted to justify by said certificates the origin and possession of the stolen carabao, in spite of the fact that said carabao, like all the others belonging to the same owner, was branded with his brand, which was duly registered in the municipality of Manapla, and that a new brand was put on the animal by the accused. The truth is that he was unable or unwilling to produce the old certificate in order to show his ability to lawfully sell and transfer it to Villalobos, the purchaser; and also to show that the legal requisites had been complied with in the execution of said certificates, that at page 31 of the record, in his name, without previous proof that the carabao mentioned therein and then presented in the municipality of Silay was his, and also the certificate at page 30, without proof that he, as owner of the carabao, had the right to sell it to Villalobos. All such irregularities are result of arrangements or illegal transactions apt to be resorted to in order to conceal the crime, and give the unlawful possession of cattle a legal appearance.

We can not accept the opinion of the court below when considering the question of the liability of the accused, inasmuch as upon proof that one of the stolen carabaos was in his possession, the theory of criminal liability makes him, in absence of evidence to the contrary, principal in the theft of the carabaos and not a mere accessory to the crime because he has not even attempted to prove their receipt from a third party; on the contrary, he had the boldness to declare or to attempt to prove to the court below that said carabaos belonged to him; and whenever stolen property is discovered in the possession of a person, unless proof be offered that another stole the same, the law assumes that the bearer or holder thereof is the principal in the crime. It is unquestionable, for the reason set forth, that Gabino Soriano deserves to be considered as principal, as otherwise the conviction of the principal in a crime of theft would be seldom occur and the real thieves would be shielded, with liability as mere accessories, which in criminal law are characterized in a very different manner.

It should be taken into account that the accused has a bad record and that he has been subjected to several proceedings for crimes similar to the one at bar, and that in the Island of Negros a certain society of criminals existed engaged in stealing carabaos, to the most serious detriment of agriculture.

In the commission of this crime aggravating circumstance 15 of article 10 of the Penal Code should be considered for the reason that it was committed in the darkness and silence of night; no extenuating circumstance to counteract its effects being present, the adequate penalty to be imposed is presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees, applying it in its maximum degree.

For the considerations above set forth the judgment appealed from should be reversed and Gabino Soriano sentenced, as we do hereby sentence him, to the penalty of three years of presidio correccional, to suffer the accessory penalties of article 58 of the Penal Code, to pay the costs of both instances, and confirming the last two clauses of the sentence appealed from. So ordered.

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

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

December-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4338 December 2, 1907 - ALFRED B. JONES v. J. E. HARDING

    009 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3738 December 3, 1907 - JOSE ACOSTA v. ANDRES DOMINGO

    009 Phil 290


    009 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-3935 December 4, 1907 - UY PIAOCO v. SERGIO OSMENA

    009 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-3378 December 5, 1907 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    009 Phil 310


    009 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-3826 December 7, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    009 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-3847 December 7, 1907 - LEOPOLDO FERRER v. RAMON NERI ABEJUELA

    009 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-3704 December 12, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. FRANCISCO MUÑOZ

    009 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-3895 December 14, 1907 - In the matter of A. K. JONES

    009 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3899 December 16, 1907 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS

    009 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. L-3933 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO SAN ANDRES

    009 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-3959 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO PARAS

    009 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-3972 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO GUANZON

    009 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3596 December 17, 1907 - LUCHSINGER & CO. v. CORNELIO MELLIZA

    009 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3688 December 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN HAZLEY

    009 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-3891 December 19, 1907 - ELENA MORENTE v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-3505 December 20, 1907 - ARCADIO MAXILOM v. GAUDENCIO TABOTABO

    009 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. L-3980 December 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO GOROSPE, ET AL.

    009 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-4061 December 20, 1907 - MANUEL TAGUINOT v. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAY

    009 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-3483 December 21, 1907 - BENITO MOJICA v. JUANA FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-3788 December 21, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS v. JULIA TUASON

    009 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3936 December 21, 1907 - JOSE VILLEGAS v. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO

    009 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3991 December 21, 1907 - SIMEON ROQUE v. RUFINO NAVARRO

    009 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-3992 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAGDALENO MENDEZ

    009 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-4086 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO BRELLO

    009 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-4201 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESPIRIDION ROTA

    009 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-3570 December 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO C. GARCIA

    009 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-3948 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3969 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO SANTILLAN

    009 Phil 445


    009 Phil 450