GR L 1339; (November, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1339, November 28, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. PEDRO MAGSINO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Pedro Magsino, was an agent of the railway company at the station in Angeles, Pampanga. On August 28, 1902, Mariano Dy-Seng shipped 70 pilones of sugar to Manila. The car was sealed with a nailed strip of cloth, and Magsino issued a certificate for the shipment. Upon arrival in Manila, the car was found to contain only 36 pilones; 34 were missing, and the seal had been unnailed and renailed. Investigation revealed that 34 pilones of sugar had been shipped from Angeles to Malolos on the same date under an invoice sent by Magsino to Espiridion Basilio. Evidence, including testimony from Basilio and Hilaria de la Cruz, indicated that Magsino orchestrated this shipment and received proceeds from its sale, utilizing his position to abstract the sugar from Dy-Seng’s car.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the prosecution was improperly instituted.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Magsino’s participation in the crime.
3. Whether the act constituted the crime of robbery under Article 512 of the Penal Code or estafa.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. On the Prosecution: The information was signed and prosecuted by the Provincial Fiscal, which was proper. The intervention of the station master, Geronimo Manalo, did not prejudice the defendant as no judgment was rendered in his favor.
2. On the Sufficiency of Evidence: The evidence was sufficient. The circumstancesMagsino’s position, the simultaneous shipment of the exact missing quantity to Malolos under his invoice, his denial of ownership, and the testimony regarding the sale proceedsconvincingly established his guilt as the principal.
3. On the Nature of the Crime: The act constituted Robbery under Article 512 of the Penal Code. The freight car is considered a “building” for storing property under the article. The unnailing and renailing of the cloth seal constituted “breaking by force” (force upon things). The court correctly applied the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence due to Magsino’s position.
The penalty imposed by the lower court was affirmed.