Bold Italic - Statues, Rules, Cases; Bold Underline - Topic emphasized; [Green ink – see notes for further

info]; Blue ink

- case and facts; Red ink - definitions, terms; (TOPIC) - FOCUS ON THESE

Subject: Criminal Law 1 Topic:  Theft Digest Maker: Leynard Alcoran

 
Case Name: People v. Dino
G.R No. 924-R Date: February 18, 1948 Ponente: Justice Labrador

Topic: Theft

Doctrine:

In order for the crime of theft to be consummated the article should have passed the checkpoint, so that the thief
could have full control and could dispense of the property.

Super Summary:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding the appellant guilty as accomplice in the
crime of qualified theft and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of not less than three months and eleven
days of arresto mayor nor more than one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prisión correccional, with the
accessory penalties imposed by law, and to pay the costs

RELEVANT FACTS:
● The evidence shows that the appellant herein, Roberto Diño y Romero, was, on June 20, 1946, employed as a
driver of the United States Army, with station at General Depot, APO 75, Quezon City. In the evening of that
day, at about 11:30, he brought to the 670th Medium Port, Port Area No. 3, South Harbor, Manila, a truckload
of articles, which were all unloaded from the truck by the gang employed therein by the United States Army.
● Thereafter, he drove away his truck from the Port, but as he was nearing an M.P. check point, a colored M.P.
guard approached the truck and found that there were three boxes, each containing ten caliber .80 army
rifles.
● The colored guard got up the truck and drove towards the checkpoint and upon arriving there, a lieutenant of
the United States Army, then on duty as officer of the guards, came, and upon seeing the three boxes in the
truck, asked the appellant if he had loaded them. As the appellant said that he did not, the said lieutenant
went to the foreman and his gang employed in unloading the articles at the Medium Port, but all of them
denied having placed the said boxes of rifles in the truck.
● The foreman and his gang were then allowed to speak to the appellant, and thereafter the latter confessed
that four persons had helped him put the boxes on board the truck.
● The appellant was then subjected to an investigation by the army investigator, and the appellant signed a
written statement presented in court as Exhibit A, in which he declares that he was stopped by four men who
loaded the boxes in the truck and thereafter told him to bring them out of the area, while they were to meet
him after he had passed the checkpoint, and that he consented to bring the articles, because he had been told
that the four persons would answer therefor, and that they were to give him a certain share in the articles.
● But at the trial the appellant declared that, while he was going out from the Port and after he had unloaded all
the cargo that he had carried in his truck, four men suddenly appeared in his way and motioned him to stop;
that believing that they just wanted to get a ride, he stopped his truck, but then and there a revolver was
pressed on his left side, so that he allowed them to load the cases of carbines in his truck; that they Offered to
give him his share in the loot, but that he refused, saying that he was earning enough for his expenses; that
 while they were talking, a colored guard approached, flashed his light on them, and that thereupon the four
men who had accosted him ran away; that the colored guard flashed his light around and saw the three boxes
on the way, and so he asked the appellant to help him load them on the truck, which he did; that thereafter
the colored guard took the wheel and drove the truck to the checkpoint, where immediately thereafter the
lieutenant of the guards placed the appellant under custody.
● As to his signed statement, Exhibit A, he declared that the (investigator wrote something on a piece of paper,
which was then read to the appellant, and as he refused to sign the investigator boxed him on the stomach
and told him that if he did not sign it he would rot in prison.
● Dino contends that: (1) the trial court erred in accepting Exhibit A as a voluntary confession, secured without
violence or fraud; (2) that it erred in finding the 3 boxes of rifles were found by the guard in the truck of the
accused; (3) that it erred in not giving credit to Dino's Testimony; (4) that the trial court erred in finding him
guilty and sentencing him.
● The investigator who took the statement, testified in court, and he declared that the statement was taken in
the presence of many people, and that it was sent after to the assistant provost marshal (APMI) of this act.
The claim that the statement, he could have immediately informed the APM of this fact. The claim that the
statement was made involuntarily by the appellant is therefore, DISMISSED.
● The claim that the boxes were found on the way and were loaded in the truck by the guard with the Dino's
help is contrary to the latter's own statement. This court finds that the trial court did not err in refusing to
believe such a claim for being contrary to the lieutenant's testimony and to the facts of the case. Dino's
testimony was not corroborated by any other witness or circumstance sufficiently proved at the trial.
● The court sentenced Dino for the crime QUALIFIED THEFT.

Issue #1: Whether or not the crime of theft was consummated considering the foregoing

The Court held YES. Diño was found guilty as a principal in the frustrated crime of theft. In order for the crime of
theft to be consummated the article should have passed the checkpoint, so that the thief could have full control and
could dispense of the property.

The information charges the appellant with the crime of qualified theft and the court a quo sentenced him for the said
crime. The evidence submitted, however, fails to show that the articles subject of the crime were those entrusted to
the appellant for transportation in the truck that he was driving. On the contrary, the articles that he delivered to the
depot appear to have been all unloaded, and that the three boxes of carbines were placed aboard the truck when it
had already left the depot and was on its way out to the checkpoint. There was, therefore, no elements of confidence
involved, the appellant being a mere laborer whan he took part in taking away the said loot from the depot. The crime
committed is, therefore, not qualified but simple theft.

Two other points remain to be considered, namely, the degree in which the crime was committed and the extent
of the participation therein of the appellant. The evidence shows that the boxes were loaded while the truck was on
its way out of the depot towards the checkpoint, which was then a hundred meters away. While it is true that,
according to the appellant, there was another way out of the depot, which was at the back, the evident intention of
the offenders was to let the boxes pass through the checkpoint, perhaps in the belief that as the truck had already
unloaded its cargo inside the depot, it would be allowed to pass through the checkpoint without further investiga-tion
or checking. Under these circumstances, it can not be stated that the crime of theft had been fully consummated, for
the fact determinative of consummation is the ability of the thief to dispose freely of the articles stolen, even if it were
more or less momentary.

This court is of the opinion that in the case at bar, in order to make the booty subject to the control and disposal of the
culprits, the articles stolen must first be passed through the M.P. check point, but since the offense was opportunely
discovered and the articles seized after all the acts of execution had been performed, but before the loot came under
the final control and disposal of the looters, the offense can not be said to have been fully consummated, as it was
frustrated by the timely intervention of the guard. The offense committed, therefore, is that of frustrated theft.

The trial court found the appellant herein guilty as accomplice in the consummated crime. However, as this court has
found that the offense committed was only that of frustrated theft, the passing of the truck beyond the checkpoint
away from the control of the guards being essential to the complete consummation of the crime, it is evident that the
appellant herein participated, not as an accomplice, but as a principal, having himself carried the articles in the truck,
and the act of carrying the articles through the check point being an indispensable part of the full and complete
execution of the offense.

DISPOSITION

For all the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified, and the appellant is found guilty
as principal of the crime of frustrated theft, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of not less than 3 months
and 11 days of arresto mayor, nor more than 1 year, 8 months, and 21 days of prisión coreccional, with the accessories
provided by law, and to pay the costs. So ordered.

Paredes and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified.

Opinions

Concurring:

Dissenting:

Additional Info

Additional Info 1:

Class Notes: