G.R. No. 218969 , January 18, 2021
FERNANDO PANTE Y RANGASA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging petitioner Fernando Pante and two minor co-accused with Theft under Article 308, par. 2, subparagraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on December 11, 2004, in Pili, Camarines Sur, the accused, conspiring with each other, found and appropriated for their own use the amount of US$4,550.00 and P27,000.00 belonging to Dawson Word, without delivering the same to its owner or authorities. Word lost the money after it fell from his lap near his car. One of the minor co-accused found the bundled money, and the three accused later divided it among themselves, with Pante receiving US$1,700.00. Upon investigation, Pante returned US$300.00, P4,660.00, and some items purchased with the money. The defense versions differed, with Pante claiming he received only US$1,000.00 as “balato” after learning his co-accused found dollar bills. The Regional Trial Court found all accused guilty of Theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s ruling with modification on the penalty. Pante filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to establish conspiracy.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Fernando Pante’s conviction for Theft despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to establish conspiracy with his co-accused.

RULING

The Petition is unmeritorious. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution sufficiently established Pante’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Theft under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes the failure to deliver lost property to its owner or local authorities. The essential elements were proven: 1) the finding of lost property (the money found by the co-accused), and 2) the failure of the finder to deliver the same. Pante, despite knowing the money was lost property, not only received a portion but also encouraged the minors to keep it. His act of returning some cash and items only upon the arrival of police authorities negated any claim of voluntary return. The Court also ruled that Pante is considered a “finder in law” and can be held liable for Theft even if he was not the original finder, as he appropriated the lost property knowing it belonged to another. The defense of good faith was rejected. The penalty was adjusted in accordance with Republic Act No. 10951 , considering the value of the property stolen.