People of the Philippine Islands vs. Vicente de Leon y Flora

The conviction was affirmed in substance, but the penalty was modified. The taking, on one occasion and in the same place, of several articles of personal property belonging to different owners, with a single larcenous intent, constitutes only one crime of theft; the fact that the stolen articles belong to different persons does not produce a multiplicity of crimes.

Vicente de Leon y Flora was charged by the People of the Philippine Islands with theft under the Penal Code. The governing statutory framework included article 517, which defines theft; article 518, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3244, which fixes the penalty; article 520; and Act No. 3062, which imposes an additional penalty on habitual delinquents.

Early in the morning of December 21, 1925, Vicente de Leon y Flora entered the yard of Vicente Magat's house on Domingo Santiago Street, Manila. Without violence or intimidation against persons and without force upon things, he took, with intent to gain, two game roosters that were in the yard: one with colored plumage valued at P8 belonging to Diego Magat, and the other with white plumage and black spots valued at P10 belonging to Ignacio Nicolas.

For this act, de Leon was prosecuted in the municipal court for two crimes of theft, one for Magat's rooster and the other for Nicolas's. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty, and the municipal court sentenced him in each case to three years, six months and one day presidio correcional, to return the stolen roosters to their respective owners, and to pay the costs in both cases.

De Leon appealed to the Court of First Instance. Upon arraignment upon the same informations, he pleaded not guilty in both cases, and the cases were tried jointly by agreement of the parties approved by the court.

In view of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty of one crime of theft, holding that the theft of the two roosters constituted but one crime. Taking into consideration that the accused was an habitual delinquent, the trial court sentenced him in the two cases to three years, six months and one day presidio correccional and to pay the costs in case R.G. No. 25375; it declared the costs in case No. 25376 de oficio, without obligation to indemnify, because the roosters had been returned to their respective owners.

• Guilt by Admission: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in holding that his guilt was proven by his own admission.
• Reasonable Doubt: Appellant maintained that he should have been given the benefit of reasonable doubt.
• Acquittal and Costs: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in sentencing him instead of acquitting him, with costs de oficio.

• Separate Penalties for Each Rooster: Respondent, through the Attorney-General, urged that the penalty for two crimes of theft be imposed upon the accused for each of the stolen roosters, contending that the taking of roosters belonging to different owners constituted separate thefts.

• Guilt and Reasonable Doubt: Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt, rather than by his own admission, and whether he was entitled to acquittal.
• Penalty and Habitual Delinquency: Whether the trial court correctly sentenced the accused, considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and his status as an habitual delinquent.
• Single or Multiple Theft: Whether the accused, with intent to gain, on the same occasion and in the same place, taking two roosters belonging to different owners, constitutes two crimes of theft or only one.

• Guilt and Reasonable Doubt: No. The evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the Supreme Court found no grounds to support the appellant's contentions.
• Penalty and Habitual Delinquency: Modified. The case falls under paragraph 5 of article 518 of the Penal Code, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3244, in connection with paragraph 3 of article 520; nocturnity required the maximum penalty, and habitual delinquency under Act No. 3062 required an additional penalty.
• Single or Multiple Theft: Only one crime. The taking of two roosters on one occasion and in the same place, with a single larcenous intent, constitutes one theft; different ownership of the stolen articles does not produce a multiplicity of crimes.

• Guilt and Reasonable Doubt: The evidence was reviewed and found to support the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; no grounds supported his contentions.
• Penalty and Habitual Delinquency: The case falls under paragraph 5 of article 518 of the Penal Code, amended by section 1 of Act No. 3244, in connection with paragraph 3 of article 520. The penalty provided by law is presidio correcional in its full extent. Because the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was present, the penalty had to be imposed in its maximum degree, or four years, two months and one day presidio correcional. As the accused was an habitual delinquent, Act No. 3062 required an additional penalty consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed, or two years and one month presidio correcional. People vs. Aguinaldo, 47 Phil. 728, and People vs. Espiritu, R.G. No. 24753, were cited. The judgment was accordingly modified to six years and three months presidio mayor, with the accessories of the law and costs.
• Single or Multiple Theft: Article 517 of the Penal Code defines theft. The crime is an offense against personal property; what is punished is the alarm caused in the community and the damage the act may occasion. The act of taking the two roosters, in response to the unity of thought in the criminal purpose on one occasion, is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance that the articles unlawfully belonged to two distinct persons. There was no series of acts for the accomplishment of different purposes, but only one act, which was consummated and which determined the existence of only one crime. The taking in the same place and on the same occasion could not give rise to two crimes with independent existence because there were no two distinct appropriations nor two intentions characterizing two separate crimes. The Spanish Supreme Court's decision of July 13, 1894, was cited, holding that taking two colts, two cows and two calves on one night, belonging to four owners in adjacent open meadows, constituted only one theft. It was also noted that knowledge of the owner is not an element of theft, and that the identity of the owner affects only restitution or indemnification, which is civil in nature. Thus, the unity of intention to take another's property on one occasion and in the same place constitutes only one crime of theft, and the fact that the things taken belong to different persons does not produce a multiplicity of crimes. United States vs. Balaba, 37 Phil. 260, was distinguished: it held that where the accused made no objection to an information charging more than one offense, the prosecution could submit evidence as to each offense and the trial court could impose the prescribed penalties for each, but that doctrine was not applicable because two separate complaints had been filed, yet the trial court convicted the accused in the two cases, considering the facts alleged in the complaints as constituting but one crime. American authorities, as summarized in Corpus Juris, vol. 36, page 799, followed the prevailing rule that if several articles stored in the same place are taken by a single larcenous act, the fact that some belonged to one person and some to another does not dissolve the act into separate crimes.

• Single Larceny Doctrine — When several articles of personal property belonging to different owners are taken on one occasion and in the same place by a single larcenous act, the taking constitutes only one crime of theft. This doctrine was applied to the two roosters taken from the same yard, holding that the fact that they belonged to different owners did not produce a multiplicity of crimes.
• Theft under Article 517 of the Penal Code — Theft is committed by taking another's personal property without violence or intimidation against persons, without force upon things, with intent to gain, and without the owner's consent. Knowledge of the owner's identity is not an element; the identity of the owner affects only restitution or indemnification, which is civil in nature. This definition was applied to affirm the conviction.
• Habitual Delinquency under Act No. 3062 — An accused found to be an habitual delinquent must suffer an additional penalty consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed. This was applied to impose an additional two years and one month presidio correcional.
• Nocturnity as Aggravating Circumstance — The presence of nocturnity required the penalty to be imposed in its maximum degree. This was applied to fix the penalty at four years, two months and one day presidio correcional before the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.

• "The act of taking the roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an independent existence of their own, because there are not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that characterize two separate crimes." — This is the core ratio for the single-larceny holding, explaining why the taking of property belonging to different owners in one act is not multiplied into separate crimes.
• "Therefore, we are of the opinion that the unity of the intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion and in the same place, constitutes the commission of only one crime of theft; and fact that the things taken belong to different persons does not produce a multiplicity of crimes, which must be punished separately." — This states the Court's canonical formulation of the single-larceny rule and its conclusion on the Attorney-General's question.
• "It is not an element of the crime of theft that the culprit know the owner of the thing stolen, the crime being consummated provided that being stolen belongs to another and the same is taken with intent to gain." — This defines the elements of theft and clarifies that knowledge of the owner's identity is unnecessary for criminal liability.
• "The crime of theft is an offense against personal property and what is punished is the alarm caused in the community by the perpetration of the act which is violative of the individual rights guaranteed by the law, as well as the damage that said act may occasion to the members of the community." — This explains the rationale behind punishing theft and supports the Court's analysis of the nature of the offense.

• People vs. Aguinaldo, 47 Phil. 728 — Cited by the Court in imposing the additional penalty for habitual delinquency under Act No. 3062.
• People vs. Espiritu, R.G. No. 24753 — Cited together with People vs. Aguinaldo as authority for the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
• United States vs. Balaba, 37 Phil. 260 — Distinguished. It held that where the accused made no objection to an information charging more than one offense, the prosecution could submit evidence as to each offense and the trial court could impose the prescribed penalties for each. The Court found it inapplicable because two separate complaints had been filed, but the trial court convicted the accused in the two cases, treating the facts as constituting only one crime.
• Spanish Supreme Court, decision of July 13, 1894 — Cited as authority that taking several animals belonging to different owners on one night in adjacent open meadows constitutes only one crime of theft.
• Spanish Supreme Court, decision of November 22, 1898 — Cited for the rule that knowledge of the owner is not an element of theft.
• Spanish Supreme Court, decision of October 4, 1905 — Cited for the rule that the specific owner need not appear for the crime of theft to exist; ownership affects only restitution or indemnification.

• Article 517, Penal Code — Defines theft. The first paragraph provides that any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things, takes anything which is the personal property of another without the latter's consent is guilty of theft. The Court used this provision to determine the elements of theft and to hold that knowledge of the owner is not required.
• Article 518, paragraph 5, Penal Code, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3244 — The Court held that the case falls under this provision, which provides the penalty of presidio correcional in its full extent.
• Article 520, paragraph 3, Penal Code — Applied in connection with article 518 in fixing the penalty.
• Act No. 3062 — Provides for an additional penalty on habitual delinquents consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed. The Court applied it to impose an additional two years and one month presidio correcional.
• Article 87, Penal Code — Mentioned in the discussion of United States vs. Balaba as the basis for imposing the prescribed penalties for each and all offenses; the Court found the Balaba doctrine inapplicable to this case.

Avanceña, C.J.; Johnson; Street; Ostrand; Romualdez; Villa-Real; and Johns, J. (concurred in the result).