GR 2867; (September, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. 2867
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. JULIAN REYES, defendant-appellant.
September 11, 1906 | Arellano, J.
—
FACTS:
1. Vicente Sulit, an 80-year-old tenant, occupied parcels of land within Justo Guido’s hacienda under an agreement to give 30 cavanes of palay to Guido for every 3 cavanes of seed received.
2. Sulit entered into a partnership with Julian Reyes:
– Sulit contributed 3½ cavanes of seed, two carabaos, two harrows, two carts, and 24 pesos in cash.
– Reyes agreed to transplant, cultivate, and harvest the crop, with profits to be divided equally after deducting the 30 cavanes owed to Guido. Reyes was also to reimburse Sulit for half of the advanced expenses.
3. When the crop was ready, Reyes (due to illness) allowed Sulit to harvest and stack the rice, but Reyes later threshed it.
4. Sulit discovered Reyes selling the palay and refusing to give Sulit his share, claiming the rice “belonged to the town.”
5. The trial court convicted Reyes of theft, sentencing him to 6 months’ imprisonment (arresto mayor) and ordering restitution of 75 cavanes of palay (or 150 pesos) to Sulit.
—
ISSUE:
Whether Reyes’ act of selling the palay and denying Sulit’s share constitutes the crime of theft under the Penal Code.
—
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Reyes.
1. No “Apoderamiento” (Taking) Required for Theft:
– Reyes had lawful possession (de facto and de jure) of the palay as a partner under their agreement.
– Theft requires taking property from another’s possession, but Reyes was already in lawful control of the crop. His act of selling it was a breach of contract, not theft.
2. Nature of the Offense:
– The act may constitute estafa (swindling) or a civil breach of contract, but not theft.
– The Court declined to rule on alternative charges, leaving Sulit free to pursue civil or other criminal remedies.
3. Disposition:
– Judgment reversed. Reyes was acquitted of theft. Costs de oficio.
– The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings if warranted.
Concurring Justices: Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey.
—
Key Doctrine:
– Theft (under the Penal Code) requires unlawful taking (apoderamiento) of property from another’s possession.
– Lawful possessors who misappropriate shared property may commit estafa or breach of contract, but not theft.
Note: This case highlights the distinction between criminal theft and civil/contractual disputes over jointly owned property.