Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1bdd?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[PEOPLE OP PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. KOC SONG](https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1bdd?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c1bdd}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show as cited by other cases (1 times)
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 45043, Aug 28, 1936 ]

PEOPLE OP PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. KOC SONG +

DECISION

63 Phil. 369

[ G. R. No. 45043, August 28, 1936 ]

THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. KOC SONG (ALIAS COK SONG) , DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

AVANCEƃ'A, C.J.:

This case was prosecuted upon the following information:
"That on or  about the 2d day of January,  1936,  in the City  of Manila,  Philippine  Islands,  the  said  accused  did then  and there willfully, unlawfully  and feloniously, with intent of gain, with grave abuse of confidence, and without the consent of the owners thereof, who were then his  housemates,  take, steal and carry away the following personal property belonging to Lue Hok, to wit:
One (1) undershirt colored dark green valued at.
1.35
 
The following personal property belonging to Kong Min, to wit:
 

One (1) pair of black leather shoes, valued at and the following personal property belonging to Ng Hook, to wit:

3.00
One (1) leather belt, valued at.
2.40
One (1) woolen pants strip black, valued at.
1.75
One (1) pair of golden cuff-links, valued at
.80
One (1) comb, valued at.
10
One (1) leather wallet, valued at.containing:
1.20
P7.47 in bills and coins of different denominations
7.47
One (1) promissory note payable to Ng Hook with the amount of P900 Hongkong money.
500.00
Two (2) pictures of Ng Hook and his son (no value) One (1) cedula (1935) of Ng Hook (no value) Eight (8) Chinese coins, all valued
.04
 
________
Total
518.11
to the damage and prejudice of the  said owners in the total  sum of P518.11,  Philippine currency.
"That the said accused  is a habitual delinquent having been  convicted  once of the  crime  of qualified  theft, on January 31, 1935,  and. once of theft on November 8, 1935, by virtue of final judgments rendered by competent courts, his last date of release being December 31, 1935."
Having pleaded guilty to the charges in the former information, the appellant was sentenced, as author of the crime of qualified theft, to four years, two months and one day of prision  correctional to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P511.86  (not recovered),  with  the  corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and, being  a habitual delinquent, also to the additional penalty of two years,  four months and one day  of prision correceional.

The defense contends in  this instance that  the crime charged  is simple theft.  This  court finds that this contention is  well taken.   The  allegation in  the information that the crime was committed with the qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confidence, is a mere conclusion of law.  The  only fact alleged as constituting said circumstance is that the  accused and  the  offended party  were housemates when the  crime was committed.  While  this fact constitutes  a  certain  abuse  of  confidence,  because living together under the same roof, although accidentally, engenders  some  confidence,  it  is  not  necessarily grave, there being no allegation  in the information  of another relation, by reason  of dependence,  guardianship  or vigilance,  between the  accused and the offended party, that might create a higher  degree of confidence between them, which the accused could abuse.   (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of January 19, 1882, and April  13, 1893.)

This court finds no merit in the allegation of the defense that the sum  of P500,  representing  the amount of the promissory note stolen, should  not be taken  into consideration in determining the liability of the  accused, on the ground that the promissory note is of no value.  Said promissory note may not be of value to the appellant but it undoubtedly is of value to  the offended party  (U.  S. vs. Wickershan, 20 Phil.,  440; and U. S. vs. Raboy, 25 Phil., 1), and this is sufficient to make the taking thereof constitute the crime of theft.

The lower  court  sentenced the appellant  to  indemnify the offended party in the sum  of P511.86, which includes the sum of P500, amount of the promissory note.  How- ever, it does not appear in the information that the offended party has been deprived of this amount, inasmuch, as after recovering the promissory note he could have  obtained payment thereof,  and even without the promissory note,  it could have been  paid him.  Consequently there was  no justification in sentencing the appellant to pay the sum of ?500 to the offended  party, with no allegation  in the information  that the offended party was really deprived of said amount.

The crime charged being simple theft, it being understood that the principal penalty imposed upon  the appellant  is two years,  eleven months and  eleven days, and eliminating the order to pay the  sum of P500 to the offended party from the decision, with  reservation of the civil action in connection   with said amount,  the appealed sentence  is affirmed  in all other respect,  with costs.   So ordered.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Recto, JJ., concur.

tags