G.R. No. L-11389; August 2, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN SELLANO and MAXIMO ARBOLANTE, defendants. MAXIMO ARBOLANTE, appellant.

FACTS:
On January 12, 1915, a complaint for larceny was filed in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan against Juan Sellano and Maximo Arbolante. It alleged that on or about March 20, 1914, in Ballesteros, Cagayan, they willfully and feloniously took a one-year-old female carabao worth ₱35, belonging to Quintin Remolleta. Before trial, the complaint against Juan Sellano was dismissed. Maximo Arbolante pleaded not guilty and was tried.

The evidence established that Juan Sellano owned two carabaos and a calf, which were in the care of the defendant Maximo Arbolante. Quintin Remolleta also owned a carabao and a calf, marked by a slit in its right ear. Around March 20, 1914, Remolleta’s calf was taken. On April 20, 1914, this calf was found in Arbolante’s possession, but it had been marked with Juan Sellano’s brand. Meanwhile, Sellano’s own calf had disappeared and was never found. When Remolleta reclaimed his calf, Sellano initially filed a criminal complaint against him but withdrew it upon realizing the calf was not his. The defendant claimed the calf in his possession was Sellano’s, but Sellano and other witnesses identified it as Remolleta’s property.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant Maximo Arbolante is guilty of the crime of larceny for taking Quintin Remolleta’s carabao calf.

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The unexplained possession of recently stolen property (Remolleta’s calf) gives rise to the presumption that the possessor is the principal in the crime of theft. The defendant’s claim that he marked the calf with Sellano’s brand to show lack of intent to gain was rejected. The Court reasoned that stealing property from one person to replace or conceal the misappropriation of another’s property does not negate criminal intent for the second act; the intent to gain is inherent in the unlawful taking. The theory of the prosecution, which the Court found credible, was that Arbolante stole Remolleta’s calf to conceal his own appropriation or illegal disposal of Sellano’s missing calf.

The trial court’s finding of the aggravating circumstance of craft was sustained. Applying the pertinent provisions of the Penal Code, as amended, the Supreme Court modified the sentence and imposed a penalty of four years, two months, and one day of presidio correccional, with accessory penalties, and payment of costs.

Separate Opinions:
Justice Moreland concurred in the conviction and sentence. Justice Trent dissented, believing the appellant should be acquitted.