GR L 3008; (March, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3008; March 19, 1951
FEDERICO SORIANO, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Federico Soriano was charged with the theft of one “Cyclix” electric motor and one lantern slide projector, with accessories, valued at P6,000, belonging to the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc. He was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and the conviction was modified but upheld by the Court of Appeals. Soriano filed a petition for certiorari. The Eagle Cinema Co., Inc. leased a building from Emilia Saenz and was indebted for rents. The cinema’s equipment was mortgaged to Saenz to secure the rent payment. Soriano held a power of attorney from Emilia Saenz authorizing him to collect debts and recover things of value due to her. After the Japanese occupant ceased operating the cinema and delivered the building keys to Soriano, he took the projector and generator, kept them in his house, and initially denied any knowledge of them or suggested they were taken by the Japanese.
ISSUE
Whether the acts of the accused, as found by the Court of Appeals, constitute the crime of theft.
RULING
Yes, the acts constitute theft. The Supreme Court, affirming the Court of Appeals, denied the petition for certiorari. The essential elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are present: (1) taking of personal property; (2) intent of gain; (3) the property belongs to another; and (4) absence of violence, intimidation, or force. The Court held that the “taking” element was satisfied because, although Soriano had physical possession of the building keys, he did not have juridical possession or the right to exercise dominion over the specific chattels belonging to the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc. His power of attorney only authorized him to collect sums or things due to his principal, not to seize and conceal mortgaged property without foreclosure. His subsequent concealment and denial of possession demonstrated that he did not act as a lawful representative. The “intent of gain” was presumed and inferred from his acts of unlawfully abstracting and concealing the property without the owner’s consent and without any other justifying reason. The property belonged to another (the cinema company), and no violence or force was employed.