G.R. No. 31695 , November 26, 1929
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. SIA TEB BAN (alias JUAN TONINO, et al.)

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Sia Teb Ban (also known by several aliases), was charged with qualified theft and habitual delinquency. He was initially convicted by the municipal court of Manila and, upon appeal, by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The courts sentenced him to a principal penalty of two years, four months, and one day of presidio correccional, plus an additional penalty of twenty-one years’ imprisonment for habitual delinquency. The prosecution proved that the appellant stole a watch without the owner’s consent and was apprehended shortly afterward by a friend of the victim, who found the stolen watch in his possession.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant is guilty of qualified theft, specifically whether the element of animus lucrandi (intent to gain) was sufficiently established.

RULING

Yes, the appellant is guilty of qualified theft. The Supreme Court held that animus lucrandi was sufficiently established. The Court emphasized that criminal intent is presumed from the voluntary commission of an act penalized by law, pursuant to Article 1 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, under Section 334, No. 2 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure at the time), a conclusive presumption of criminal and injurious intent arises from the appellant’s deliberate felonious acts, absent evidence to the contrary. The Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the conviction. However, the judgment was modified to include the accessory penalties prescribed under Article 58 of the Penal Code, which were initially omitted. The appealed judgment was affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.