United States vs. Deuda and Decano

A relative listed in Article 16 of the Penal Code is exempt from accessory penalties only if not covered by Article 15(1); a mother who assists her daughter in profiting from stolen property and herself profits from it is liable as an accessory after the fact.

Andrea Arao Nepomuceno kept a pair of gold earrings set with 16 diamonds, owned by Petronia Azopardo, as a pledge securing a P345 debt. Basilia Decano and her daughter Valeriana Deuda were living in Andrea’s house in Sorsogon under friendly relations. Those earrings became the subject of a theft charge against both women.

Perfecto Toribio and his wife Andrea Arao Nepomuceno had long possessed a pair of gold earrings set with 16 diamonds; the earrings had been delivered to Andrea as a pledge for a P345 debt contracted by the wife of Eusebio Mendiola, who in turn had received them as a pledge from Petronia Azopardo, wife of Meliton Austero. The earrings were valued at P600 and were owned by Petronia Azopardo, and Andrea kept them as a pledge to guarantee the P345 debt. On May 12, 1908, Basilia Decano and her daughter Valeriana Deuda were living in Andrea’s house in Sorsogon under friendly relations. A goldsmith called on Andrea to obtain a piece of gold he needed that afternoon, so she took a box containing her jewels from her wardrobe, removed the jewels, and among them were the earrings in a green case with a damaged lid; Basilia and Valeriana asked Andrea the value of the earrings. Andrea found the gold, left her jewels on the washstand, went outside to give the gold to the waiting goldsmith, then went to the kitchen and returned to her room, where she collected the jewels and placed them back in the box in her wardrobe; she did not notice the earrings were missing until Sunday, May 24, when she missed them from the case in the jewel box.

Saturnina Lambergue, who was also in the house on May 12, was milling jocoy when she observed that, while Andrea was absent from the room, Valeriana, who had remained there with her mother, picked up the green jewel case, removed its contents, and replaced the case inside the box. That same evening, Basilia and Valeriana left the house after taking leave of Andrea, who was still unaware of the loss.

It was later found that in the afternoon of May 21, Basilia and Valeriana called on the goldsmith Marcelino Rodriguez in Casiguran and asked him to repair the setting of one earring that was only tied with a string; Marcelino examined the earrings, saw the defect, and declined for fear of breaking the stones. On May 23, Basilia and Valeriana went to Eugenia Pongo, also in Casiguran, and pawned the earrings for P15; they later sold the earrings to her for P80, and because Eugenia had already paid them P15, she paid them the difference of P65. When Eugenia was summoned to testify in the investigation of the loss, she carried the earrings in a green case inside a basket; before appearing in the court of the justice of the peace, she lodged at Andrea’s house, and while dressing or changing her clothes she missed the case containing the earrings from the basket she had placed near Andrea’s wardrobe, so she appeared in court without the earrings; the following day, however, she found the case with the jewels underneath the wardrobe.

In view of these events, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint on August 7, 1908, with the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, charging Valeriana Deuda and Basilia Decano with theft. At trial, the prosecution presented Saturnina’s eyewitness account, Marcelino’s recognition of the earrings shown to him for repair, and Eugenia’s testimony on the pawn, sale, and recovery of the earrings; Valeriana denied the charge and made exculpatory allegations, but offered no explanation of how she came to possess the earrings. The evidence showed that Basilia was not present when Valeriana took the earrings, that the only eyewitness pointed to Valeriana as the person who took the green case and removed the jewel, that Basilia was then at the window some distance from the washstand, and that there was no proof Basilia induced her daughter to commit the crime or acted in accord with her. It also showed that Basilia saw the earrings in her daughter’s possession even though Valeriana had no right to them, and that instead of investigating how they came into her possession or returning them to the owner, Basilia went with her daughter to have the earrings repaired by the goldsmith and to pawn and finally sell them to Eugenia Pongo.

• Theft — Principal Liability: Whether Valeriana Deuda is guilty as sole principal of the theft of the diamond-set earrings.
• Accessory Liability: Whether Basilia Decano is liable as an accessory after the fact for assisting in and profiting from the stolen earrings.
• Exemption of Relatives: Whether Basilia’s relationship as mother of the principal accused exempts her from accessory liability under Article 16 of the Penal Code.
• Penalty — Abuse of Confidence: Whether the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence under No. 10 of Article 10 applies to Valeriana and supports the penalty imposed.

• Theft — Principal Liability: Yes. Valeriana was the sole principal of the theft. The earrings were taken from Andrea’s possession without force or violence, Saturnina saw Valeriana remove them from the green case, and Valeriana failed to explain her possession; the crime falls under Article 517(1) and Article 518(2).
• Accessory Liability: Yes. Basilia was an accessory after the fact under Article 15(1). She did not participate in the taking, but with knowledge of the theft she accompanied Valeriana to have the earrings repaired, pawned, and sold, thereby assisting Valeriana to profit and herself profiting from the crime.
• Exemption of Relatives: No. Article 16 exempts certain relatives from accessory penalties but expressly excepts accessories covered by Article 15(1). Basilia, though Valeriana’s mother, fell under that exception because she assisted Valeriana in profiting from the theft and herself profited.
• Penalty — Abuse of Confidence: Yes. Abuse of confidence under Article 10(10) applied because Valeriana took advantage of Andrea’s confidence and the abandoned jewel box. The special privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 9(2) did not prevent the maximum degree of the penalty immediately inferior to Article 518(2), under Article 85(2).

• Theft — Principal Liability: The SC applied paragraph 1 of Article 517 and paragraph 2 of Article 518 of the Penal Code, which define and punish theft. The earrings, valued at P600 and owned by Petronia Azopardo, were in Andrea’s possession as a pledge and were taken from Andrea’s house and from the green case on the washstand without force or violence. Saturnina Lambergue saw Valeriana open the green case, remove its contents, and return the case to the jewel box while Andrea was outside the room. Marcelino Rodriguez and Eugenia Pongo identified the earrings as those Valeriana and Basilia brought for repair and later pawned and sold. Valeriana denied the charge and made exculpatory allegations but gave no explanation for her possession of the earrings. The SC concluded that the evidence produced absolute conviction of her guilt as the sole principal of the theft.
• Accessory Liability: The SC applied Article 15(1) of the Penal Code, which makes an accessory after the fact one who, having knowledge of the crime and without participating as principal or accomplice, subsequently takes part by making profit or assisting the delinquents to profit from the effects of the crime. Basilia was not present when Valeriana took the earrings, the only eyewitness pointed to Valeriana, Basilia was at the window some distance from the washstand, and there was no proof that she induced Valeriana or acted in accord with her. But Basilia saw the earrings in Valeriana’s possession even though Valeriana had no right to them; instead of investigating or returning them, Basilia went with Valeriana to have them repaired by Marcelino and to pawn and sell them to Eugenia. Basilia thus assisted Valeriana in profiting from the theft and herself obtained profit from the earrings, making her an accessory after the fact.
• Exemption of Relatives: The SC applied Article 16 of the Penal Code, which exempts spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted siblings, and relatives by affinity in the same degrees from the penalties imposed upon accessories, but expressly excepts accessories included in No. 1 of Article 15. Basilia was Valeriana’s mother, but she fell under Article 15(1) because she assisted Valeriana in obtaining profit from the theft and herself obtained profit. Her relationship therefore did not exempt her from liability as an accessory. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstance as to Basilia, the SC imposed the penalty prescribed by Article 68 in the medium degree.
• Penalty — Abuse of Confidence: The SC applied No. 10 of Article 10 of the Penal Code, which treats abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance. Valeriana took advantage of the confidence Andrea reposed in her and her mother by receiving them and lodging them in her house, and of the occasion when Andrea left her room and abandoned her jewel box on the washstand. The SC also considered the special privileged mitigating circumstance under No. 2 of Article 9 because Valeriana was under 18 and above 15. It held that the aggravating circumstance was not counteracted by any generic mitigating circumstance beyond that special privileged one, so Valeriana incurred the maximum degree of the penalty immediately inferior to that imposed by paragraph 2 of Article 518, by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 85, or arresto mayor in its medium and maximum degrees, imposed for the maximum period. The SC affirmed the judgment as to Valeriana.

• Theft under Article 517(1) and Article 518(2), Penal Code — Theft is committed by taking personal property from another’s possession without force or violence. The SC applied it because the earrings were taken from Andrea’s possession and house without force or violence; Valeriana was identified as the taker and failed to explain her possession.
• Accessory after the fact under Article 15(1), Penal Code — An accessory after the fact is one who, having knowledge of the crime and without participating as principal or accomplice, subsequently takes part by making profit or assisting the delinquents to profit from the effects of the crime. Basilia fell under this provision when she helped repair, pawn, and sell the stolen earrings and profited from the sale.
• Exemption of relatives from accessory liability under Article 16, Penal Code — Spouses, ascendants, descendants, siblings, and relatives by affinity in the same degrees are exempt from accessory penalties, except accessories covered by Article 15(1). Basilia, though Valeriana’s mother, was not exempt because she fell under Article 15(1).
• Abuse of confidence as aggravating circumstance under Article 10(10), Penal Code — The aggravating circumstance applies when the offender takes advantage of confidence reposed by the offended party. The SC applied it to Valeriana because she took advantage of Andrea’s confidence in lodging her and of the opportunity when Andrea left the jewel box on the washstand.
• Special privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 9(2), Penal Code — Being under 18 and above 15 is a special privileged mitigating circumstance. The SC considered it for Valeriana but still imposed the maximum degree of the penalty immediately inferior to that under Article 518(2), by virtue of Article 85(2), because the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence was present and no generic mitigating circumstance counteracted it.

• "Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein either as principals or accomplices subsequently take part in its execution in any of the following manners: 1. By themselves making profit or by assisting the delinquents to profit by the effects of the crime." — This defines the accessory after the fact under Article 15(1), the provision the SC applied to Basilia for helping pawn and sell the earrings.
• "Those who are accesories of their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees, are exempt from the penalties imposed upon accessories, with the only exception of such accessories who may be included in No. 1 of the preceding article." — This is Article 16; the SC read its exception as the reason Basilia’s maternal relationship did not exempt her.
• "Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Basilia Decano is the mother of the principal accused, her relationship does not exempt her form liability as the accessory of her daughter, for the reason that she assisted her in obtaining profit from the theft and herself obtained profit therefrom, and since no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances is present with relation to the former, the penalty prescribed by article 68 must be imposed in the medium degree." — This is the SC’s application of Article 16 to Basilia, holding her liable as an accessory despite being the principal’s mother.
• "The case contains conclusive evidence that Valeriana Deuda, a girl under 18 and above 15 years of age, was the person who stole the said pair of earrings from the case at a time when she was in the bedroom of Andrea Arao and the latter was outside of it; despite her denial and exculpatory allegations, the due consideration of the evidence and other data offered by the prosecution produce in the mind absolute conviction of the guilt of the accused as the sole principal of the crime herein prosecuted." — This is the SC’s finding of Valeriana’s principal liability based on the eyewitness account and her unexplained possession.

• Article 517, paragraph 1, Penal Code — The SC stated that the crime was defined and punished by this provision; it applied to the theft of the diamond-set earrings from Andrea’s possession without force or violence.
• Article 518, paragraph 2, Penal Code — The SC used this provision as the penalty provision for the theft and, with Article 85(2), as the basis for the penalty on Valeriana.
• Article 10, No. 10, Penal Code — The SC considered abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance because Valeriana took advantage of Andrea’s confidence and the opportunity created when Andrea left her jewel box on the washstand.
• Article 9, No. 2, Penal Code — The SC recognized the special privileged mitigating circumstance of Valeriana being under 18 and above 15, which affected the penalty imposed.
• Article 85, paragraph 2, Penal Code — The SC applied this provision in fixing Valeriana’s penalty at arresto mayor in its medium and maximum degrees, for the maximum period.
• Article 15, paragraph 1, Penal Code — The SC applied this provision to Basilia, holding that she became an accessory after the fact by assisting Valeriana to profit from the stolen earrings and by herself profiting from them.
• Article 16, Penal Code — The SC applied the exemption for relatives of the principal but held that Basilia fell under the exception for accessories covered by Article 15(1).
• Article 68, Penal Code — The SC applied this provision to impose on Basilia the penalty for accessories in the medium degree, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance as to her.
• Article 92, Penal Code — The SC applied this provision to limit Basilia’s subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency to one month and one day.
• Section 1, Act No. 1438 — The trial court suspended execution of Valeriana’s sentence under this provision; the SC affirmed the judgment as to her.