Primary Holding

A person who receives lost property from the original finder and subsequently misappropriates it, knowing it is not rightfully theirs, is considered a "finder in law" and can be held liable for theft under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the Revised Penal Code for failing to return the property to the owner or authorities.

Background

Dawson Word lost a bundle of money (US dollars and Philippine pesos). A minor, one of Pante's co-accused, found the money and shared it with Pante and another minor. Pante, the only adult, took a significant portion of the money and used it for personal expenses. He only returned a portion after police intervention.

Facts

• 1. Dawson Word lost US$4,550 and P27,000 in cash on December 10, 2004, after going shopping.
• 2. The next morning, December 11, 2004, while riding his bike, one of Pante's minor co-accused found a bundle of US$100 bills near Word's car.
• 3. The minor shared the found money with his cousin co-accused and Pante.
• 4. Pante received US$1,700 from the found money.
• 5. Pante used the money to purchase a JVC component, a gas stove with a tank, and construction materials.
• 6. Word realized his money was missing and sought police assistance on December 21, 2004.
• 7. Police investigation led to the minors and Pante.
• 8. Pante admitted to receiving US$1,700 and returned US$300, P4,660, a JVC component, and a gas stove after police intervention.
• 9. The minors also returned portions of the money.
• 10. Pante claimed he only received "balato" (a share) and thought the money was legitimately acquired by the minor.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The prosecution failed to prove ownership of the lost money by Dawson Word.
• 2. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence from the co-accused’s statements, which is insufficient for conviction.
• 3. There was no unlawful taking by Pante as he was not the original finder of the money.
• 4. Pante lacked intent to gain from property belonging to another because he did not know where the money came from and believed it belonged to his co-accused.
• 5. The prosecution failed to prove conspiracy between Pante and his co-accused.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Pante's guilt for theft was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• 2. Pante admitted to receiving and spending a portion of the lost money.
• 3. Testimony of the co-accused minors and Pante's actions of returning items bought with the money corroborated the prosecution's claim.
• 4. Pante is considered a "finder in law" and is liable for theft because he failed to return the lost property to the owner or authorities despite knowing it was lost.
• 5. Intent to gain is inferred from Pante’s act of appropriating and not returning the money.

Issues

• 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioner for theft despite the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• 2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner for theft despite the prosecution's failure to establish that he conspired with his co-accused in the commission of the crime of theft.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the conviction with modification of the penalty.
• 2. The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently established Pante's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of theft.
• 3. The "finder in law" doctrine applies; Pante, by receiving a portion of the lost money and appropriating it for his own use, placed himself in the legal position of the finder.
• 4. The essential elements of theft under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the RPC were proven: the finding of lost property and the failure to deliver it to the owner or local authorities.
• 5. Intent to gain was inferred from Pante's actions of keeping and using the money.
• 6. The issue of conspiracy was not raised in the lower courts and was therefore barred by estoppel.
• 7. The penalty was modified to comply with Republic Act No. 10951, adjusting the penalty to imprisonment ranging from four (4) months and twenty (20) days of arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and ten (10) days of prision correccional as maximum.

Doctrines

• 1. Finder in Law: A person who receives lost property from the actual finder becomes legally obligated to treat the property as if they were the original finder, especially regarding the duty to return it to the owner or authorities.
• 2. Estoppel: An issue not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as it is barred by estoppel.
• 3. Indeterminate Sentence Law: A system of sentencing where a range of imprisonment is prescribed, with minimum and maximum terms, applied to determine the penalty for the crime.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "One who receives property from the finder thereof assumes, in legal contemplation, by voluntary substitution, as to the property and the owner, the relation occupied by the finder, placing himself in the finder's stead."
• 2. "The gist of this offense is the furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found, with knowledge of its true ownership."

Precedents Cited

• 1. People v. Avila: Used to establish the doctrine of "finder in law," explaining that liability for theft extends to those who receive and misappropriate lost property from the original finder.
• 2. People v. Rodrigo: Used to define the elements of theft by a finder of lost property, emphasizing the failure to deliver the property to authorities or the owner.
• 3. Rebadulla v. Republic: Cited to support the principle of estoppel, preventing issues from being raised for the first time on appeal.
• 4. Fantastico v. Malisce, Sr.: Cited to support the principle of giving greater weight to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness.
• 5. People v. Dumadag and People v. Mores: Cited to underscore the trial court's unique advantage in observing witness demeanor and assessing credibility.
• 6. Punongbayan-Visitacion v. People of the Philippines: Cited to reinforce the principles of fairness and due process in appellate review.
• 7. Allen vs. State (American Case): Cited as persuasive authority to further explain the "finder in law" concept.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 308, paragraph 2(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC): Defines theft by failing to deliver found lost property.
• 2. Republic Act No. 10951, Sections 81, 100, and 102: Amended the penalties under the Revised Penal Code based on the value of property, applied to modify the penalty in this case.
• 3. Article 517 of the 1870 Codigo Penal: Referenced to show the historical context and evolution of the law on theft of found property.
• 4. Article 719 of the New Civil Code: Discussed to highlight the obligations of a finder of lost property.