GR 218969 Delos Santos (Digest)
G.R. No. 218969, January 18, 2021
FERNANDO PANTE Y RANGASA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Fernando Pante y Rangasa (Pante) was charged with theft under Article 308, paragraph 2(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The case involved lost U.S. dollar bills found by a minor co-accused. The minor, unsure of what to do, went to his cousin and Pante. Pante, the only adult, took possession of 17 pieces of US$100 bills from the found money, instructed the minors not to return the money, kept the bills for days, exchanged them for Philippine currency, and used the proceeds to purchase various items.
ISSUE
Whether Pante is guilty of the crime of theft under Article 308, paragraph 2(1) of the Revised Penal Code for failure to deliver found lost property, considering he was not the actual finder.
RULING
Yes. The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs with the ponencia that Pante is guilty of theft. The crime under Article 308, paragraph 2(1) does not require the finder to know the owner of the lost property; the obligation is to deliver it to the owner or to local authorities. A deliberate failure to deliver, from which intent to gain is inferred, constitutes theft. Pante’s actions—taking a portion of the money, keeping it, exchanging it, using it for personal gain, and instructing the minors not to return it—demonstrate a deliberate intention not to return the property and an intent to appropriate it for his own gain.
Furthermore, the finder under the law is not limited to the “finder in fact” but extends to a “finder in law.” Citing People v. Avila, one who receives lost property from the actual finder assumes the finder’s legal obligation if the actual finder had no intention to appropriate it. In this case, when the minor finder initially possessed the money, he had no deliberate intent not to return it. When Pante received a portion of it, he became a “finder in law” with the obligation to return it. His subsequent appropriation made him liable as a principal for theft, not merely as a fence. The petition is denied and the Court of Appeals’ decision is affirmed with modification as to penalty.