People vs. De Leon

The taking of several articles belonging to different owners in the same place and on the same occasion, pursuant to a single criminal intent, constitutes only one crime of theft, not separate thefts for each owner. The conviction was affirmed, and the accused, as an habitual delinquent, was subjected to an additional penalty of half the penalty for the crime committed under Act No. 3062.

The prosecution arose under the Penal Code’s theft provisions, as amended by Act No. 3244, and the habitual-delinquency provisions of Act No. 3062. Vicente de Leon y Flora was charged with taking game roosters owned by Diego Magat and Ignacio Nicolas. The appeal required resolution of whether the number of owners of property taken in a single transaction affects the number of theft offenses.

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, and with intent to gain, he took two game roosters from the yard. One rooster had colored plumage, was valued at P8, and belonged to Diego Magat; the other had white plumage with black spots, was valued at P10, and belonged to Ignacio Nicolas.

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

He appealed to the Court of First Instance. Upon being arraigned again upon the same informations, he pleaded not guilty in both cases, and the two cases were tried jointly by agreement of the parties approved by the court. The trial court found him guilty of one crime of theft, holding that the theft of the two roosters constituted but one crime. Considering that he 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 one case, while declaring the costs in the other de oficio without obligation to indemnify because the roosters had been returned to their respective owners.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, and his counsel alleged that the trial court erred in holding that his guilt was proven by his own admission, in not giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt, and in sentencing him instead of acquitting him, with costs de oficio. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found no grounds to support the appellant’s contentions, holding that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

• Two Thefts: The Attorney-General urged that the penalty for two crimes of theft be imposed upon the accused for each of the stolen roosters, raising the question whether the taking of two roosters belonging to different owners on the same occasion and in the same place constituted two separate crimes of theft.

• Proof of Guilt: Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Reasonable Doubt: Whether the accused was entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.
• Penalty and Acquittal: Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the accused instead of acquitting him, with costs de oficio.
• Multiplicity of Theft: Whether the taking of two roosters belonging to different owners, on the same occasion and in the same place, constitutes two crimes of theft or only one.
• Habitual Delinquency Penalty: Whether the accused, as an habitual delinquent, must suffer an additional penalty under Act No. 3062.

• Proof of Guilt: Yes. The evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; no grounds supported the appellant’s contention.
• Reasonable Doubt: No. The accused was not entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt because guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Penalty and Acquittal: No. The trial court correctly convicted and sentenced the accused; the appeal against conviction was denied.
• Multiplicity of Theft: No. The taking of two roosters belonging to different owners in the same place and on the same occasion, with a single criminal intent, constitutes only one crime of theft, not two.
• Habitual Delinquency Penalty: Yes. Under Act No. 3062, an additional penalty consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed must be imposed upon an habitual delinquent.

• Proof of Guilt: The Court reviewed the evidence and found no grounds to support the appellant’s contention. It held that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 of the same Code. The penalty provided by law is presidio correccional 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 correccional. As an habitual delinquent, the accused was subject to an additional penalty under Act No. 3062 consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed, or two years and one month presidio correccional, following People vs. Aguinaldo, 47 Phil. 728, and People vs. Espiritu, R.G. No. 24753.
• Reasonable Doubt: The Court found no grounds to support the contention that the accused should have been given the benefit of reasonable doubt. The evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appeal against conviction was accordingly denied.
• Penalty and Acquittal: The trial court did not err in sentencing the accused instead of acquitting him. The conviction stood, but the penalty was modified to reflect the correct legal provisions and the additional penalty for habitual delinquency.
• Multiplicity of Theft: The Court examined article 517 of the Penal Code, which defines theft in its first paragraph as taking another’s personal property without the latter’s consent, with intent to gain, and without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Theft is an offense against personal property; what is punished is the alarm caused in the community and the damage to its members. Under sound principles, the act of taking the two roosters in response to a unity of thought in the criminal purpose on one occasion is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance that the articles unlawfully taken 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 act of taking the roosters in the same place and on the same occasion could not give rise to two crimes having independent existence because there were not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions characterizing two separate crimes. The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision cited in the text, held that the unlawful taking of two colts, two cows and two calves on one night, belonging to four owners, from various adjacent and open meadows, constituted only one crime of theft. It is not an element of theft that the culprit know the owner of the thing stolen; the crime is consummated provided the thing stolen belongs to another and is taken with intent to gain. Neither is it necessary that the owner appear specifically, because the law does not require it and it affects only restitution or indemnification of damages, which are civil in nature. The unity of intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion and in the same place therefore 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 not applicable because two separate complaints had been filed, but the trial court convicted the accused in the two cases considering the facts alleged in the complaints as constituting but one crime. American authorities collected in Corpus Juris, vol. 36, page 799, similarly state that the prevailing rule is 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.
• Habitual Delinquency Penalty: Under Act No. 3062, an additional penalty consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed must be imposed upon an habitual delinquent. The accused being an habitual delinquent, the additional penalty was two years and one month presidio correccional. Combined with the maximum penalty for the theft due to nocturnity, the judgment appealed from was modified and the accused was sentenced to six years and three months presidio mayor, with the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs.

• Single Larceny / Unity of Criminal Intent Doctrine — When several articles belonging to different owners are taken in the same place and on the same occasion by a single larcenous act, with a unity of criminal purpose, the taking constitutes only one crime of theft. The number of owners does not multiply the offense. In this case, the accused took two roosters belonging to Diego Magat and Ignacio Nicolas in the same yard and on the same occasion; the Court held that only one theft was committed.
• Elements of Theft under the Penal Code — Theft under the first paragraph of article 517 of the Penal Code is committed by taking another’s personal property without the owner’s consent, with intent to gain, and without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Knowledge of the owner’s identity is not an element, and the specific owner need not appear; the law does not require it, and the matter affects only civil restitution or indemnification. The accused’s taking of the roosters satisfied these elements.
• Habitual Delinquency Additional Penalty — Under Act No. 3062, an accused convicted of theft who is an habitual delinquent must suffer an additional penalty consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed. The Court applied this rule and imposed an additional two years and one month presidio correccional.
• Nocturnity as Aggravating Circumstance — The presence of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance required the penalty for the theft to be imposed in its maximum degree. The Court applied it to raise the base penalty to four years, two months and one day presidio correccional.
• Balaba Doctrine Distinguished — The doctrine in United States vs. Balaba, 37 Phil. 260, that an accused who fails to object to an information charging more than one offense may be convicted of each offense established by the evidence, was held inapplicable because two separate complaints had been filed and the trial court convicted the accused in the two cases while considering the facts as constituting only one crime.

• "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 ratio decidendi for the single-theft holding, rejecting the theory that separate ownership of the stolen roosters creates 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 the fact that the things taken belong to different persons does not produce a multiplicity of crimes, which must be punished separately." — This states the controlling rule that unity of intention and singleness of occasion determine one theft despite multiple owners.
• "The accused being an habitual delinquent, under Act No. 3062 an additional penalty must be imposed upon him consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed, or 2 years and 1 month presidio correccional." — This states the habitual-delinquency penalty applied to the accused.
• "But the prevailing rule is that if several articles, stored in the same place, are taken by a single larcenous act, the mere fact that some of them belonged to one person and some to another does not dissolve act into separate crimes." — This shows the American authority cited by the Court in support of the single-larceny rule.

• People vs. Aguinaldo, 47 Phil. 728 — Cited for the rule that an habitual delinquent under Act No. 3062 must suffer an additional penalty consisting of half the penalty provided for the crime committed.
• People vs. Espiritu, R.G. No. 24753 (promulgated December 31, 1925, not reported) — Cited together with Aguinaldo for the same habitual-delinquency rule.
• United States vs. Balaba, 37 Phil. 260 — Cited for the doctrine that where the accused made no objection to an information charging more than one offense, the prosecution could submit evidence of each offense and the trial court could convict for each offense established; distinguished because two separate complaints were filed and the trial court considered the facts as one crime.
• Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain (as cited in the text) — Cited for the rule that the unlawful taking of two colts, two cows and two calves on one night, belonging to four owners, from adjacent open meadows, constituted only one crime of theft.
• Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, November 22, 1898 — Cited for the rule that knowledge of the owner is not an element of theft.
• Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, October 4, 1905 — Cited for the rule that the specific owner need not appear because the law does not require it and the matter affects only restitution or indemnification.
• American cases collected in Corpus Juris, vol. 36, page 799 — Cited to show that the prevailing rule treats a single larcenous act involving articles belonging to different owners as one crime, while noting minority and intermediate rules.

• Article 517, Penal Code — Defines theft; the first paragraph covers taking another’s personal property without consent, with intent to gain, and without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. The Court used it to define the offense 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 prescribes the penalty for the theft committed.
• Article 520, paragraph 3, Penal Code — Cited in connection with article 518 as part of the penalty provision applicable to the case.
• Act No. 3062 — Governs habitual delinquency; requires an additional penalty of half the penalty provided for the crime committed. Applied to impose an additional two years and one month presidio correccional.
• Article 87, Penal Code — Mentioned in the discussion of United States vs. Balaba regarding imposition of prescribed penalties for each offense; the Court found the Balaba doctrine inapplicable here.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. Johns, J., concurs in the result.