G.R. No. 18974 ; November 20, 1922
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiffs-appellee, vs. ANTONIO GODIA, ET AL., defendants. FRANCISCO ATIENZA and JOSE TANTOCO, appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Francisco Atienza (a customs checker) and Jose Tantoco (a customs broker’s employee), were convicted of theft for the unlawful withdrawal of two cases of cotton textiles from Pier 5 in Manila. The goods were consigned to W.F. Stevenson & Co., Ltd. The procedure required a delivery permit from the Collector of Customs, verification by a checker, and a gate pass. On May 6, 1921, Tantoco presented a permit for 75 cases of lanterns. Checker Atienza delivered 72 cases but recorded only 70 on the permit, which Tantoco initialed. The remaining three cases were lawfully delivered later. A false entry for two cases of lanterns was made by Atienza on May 7, though no such cases existed. Separately, for eight cases of textiles, a permit was presented. Atienza recorded the delivery of six specific cases, but the gate pass (signed by Tantoco) and truck records showed eight cases were actually withdrawn. Two of these cases (not listed on the permit) were stolen. The truck driver delivered only the six lawful cases to the broker’s bodega; the two stolen cases were diverted.

ISSUE

Whether the appellants are guilty of the crime of theft for the unlawful taking of the two cases of textiles.

RULING

Yes, both appellants are guilty of theft. The Supreme Court found that the false entry for two non-existent lantern cases on May 7 and the contemporaneous withdrawal of eight textile cases (when only six were authorized) revealed a scheme to steal the two unrecorded textile cases. Atienza, by making false entries, abused his official confidence. Tantoco, by signing the gate pass for eight textile cases and initialing the incomplete delivery record, participated in the unlawful withdrawal. Theft was consummated when the goods passed the customs gate. The crime is simple theft, as the information did not charge the complex crime of theft through falsification. The penalty for Atienza was modified to be equal to that of Tantoco (five years, five months, and eleven days of presidio correccional), as both were guilty. The judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellants.