GR 1443; (January, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1443 : January 16, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. ALFONSO ABISON ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
On December 21, 1902, Constabulary soldiers Susano Acasio, Benito Albao, and Florentino Apostol, while on patrol in the forest, encountered six unknown men who fled upon being fired upon, abandoning four carabaos and a horse. The soldiers took possession of three of the carabaos and brought them to the municipality of Lemery. There, they approached the municipal president (Alfonso Abison), treasurer (Anselmo Juares), and secretary (Jacobo Celestial) to obtain certificates of ownership for the carabaos in the names of their mistresses and to have the municipal brand applied. The defendants initially refused due to lack of proof of ownership but eventually issued the certificates and applied the brand after Acasio, as the commanding officer, insisted and impliedly threatened them, assuring responsibility for the animals. The defendants claimed the soldiers represented that the carabaos were purchased in Capiz. About twenty days later, upon hearing rumors that the carabaos might have been taken from thieves, the municipal council reported the matter to the provincial governor. The defendants were charged as accessories after the fact to the crime of theft.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants may be validly convicted as accessories after the fact to the crime of theft.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the defendants. The Court held that for one to be liable as an accessory after the fact, it must first be proven that a principal crime was committed. In this case, there was no sufficient evidence to establish that the carabaos were stolen property. The mere possession of the animals by the six unknown men did not conclusively prove theft, as it was not shown that the elements of thefttaking of personal property belonging to another with intent to gain, without consent, and without violence or intimidationwere present. The origin and ownership of the carabaos remained undetermined. Furthermore, the defendants acted under the belief that the carabaos were legitimately acquired, as represented by the soldiers, and were influenced by the soldiers’ insistence and threats. Their subsequent report to the provincial governor indicated lack of criminal intent. Absent proof of the principal crime of theft, the charge of being accessories could not stand.