G.R. No. L-11634; August 1, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BARAMBANGAN, MAMINTANG, and SANGKUPAN MAMBANG, defendants. SANGKUPAN MAMBANG, appellant.

FACTS:
The Moro Barambangan stole a caraballa belonging to Amay Kurut. Thereafter, Barambangan, together with the other two defendants, Mamintang and Sangkupan Mambang, sold the stolen animal to Amay Tudtud for P100. The caraballa was later recovered and returned to its owner, Amay Kurut. The three defendants were tried and convicted for the crime of larceny. Barambangan was convicted as principal, while Mamintang and Mambang were convicted as accessories. They were sentenced to four years and two months of presidio correccional and one year and one day of presidio correccional, respectively. Additionally, they were ordered to indemnify Amay Tudtud, the purchaser, in the sum of P100 and to pay the costs. Only defendant Sangkupan Mambang appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant, as an accessory, is correct.
2. Whether the appellant can be held liable to indemnify the purchaser of the stolen property (Amay Tudtud) in a conviction for the crime of larceny.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the lower court.

1. On the Penalty: The crime committed by the principal (Barambangan) is larceny, defined and penalized under Article 518, paragraph 3, and Article 520 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2030, with the penalty of presidio correccional in its medium degree to presidio mayor in its minimum degree. As an accessory, the penalty for appellant Mambang should be two degrees lower than that prescribed for the principal. The proper penalty for an accessory in this case is a fine of not less than 325 pesetas and not more than 6,250 pesetas. The Court modified the sentence and imposed upon the appellant a fine of 1,000 pesetas, with corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

2. On the Indemnity: The Court ruled that the act of stealing the animal and the subsequent act of selling it to a third party constitute two separate and distinct crimes: larceny (against the owner) and estafa (against the purchaser). The offended parties are different. Since the appellant was convicted specifically for the crime of larceny, he cannot be ordered to indemnify Amay Tudtud for damages arising from the separate crime of estafa. Therefore, the portion of the judgment ordering indemnity to the purchaser was deleted.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment is reversed. Appellant Sangkupan Mambang is sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of this appeal and one-third of the costs in the court below.