G.R. No. 3223
EN BANC January 19, 1907

PARTIES United States (complainant‑appellee) vs. Milton Comis (defendant‑appellant)

—

FACTS
1. Milton Comis presented a post‑office money order for $15 gold to the Manila Post Office cashier, signed “Milton Comis,” but the order incorrectly named Milton Cumins as payee.
2. The cashier instructed Comis to sign the order with the name “Cumins” to correct the mistake.
3. While Comis was signing, a Chinese customer (the “Chinaman”) submitted two money orders for $100 gold each.
4. The cashier, after placing the P400 (forty ten‑peso notes) on the cash window for the Chinaman, handed the money to the customer.
5. Comis, seeing the cash, picked up the P400 and left the window. The cashier then realized the money had not been received by the Chinaman.
6. Upon inquiry, Comis admitted he had taken the money, claiming a cashier error, and refused initially to return it. He later returned the P400 at the cashier’s request, but subsequently re‑appropriated the same money for his own use, fully aware it was not his.
7. All circumstances were admitted by the accused.

ISSUE
Whether Milton Comis is criminally liable for theft under Article 517 of the Philippine Penal Code, and whether the lower court’s sentence of one year, eight months, and twenty‑one days of imprisonment plus costs is proper.

RULING
– The acts constitute theft: Comis took property belonging to another (the Chinaman) with intent to gain, without any right, and with knowledge that the money was not his.
– Under Article 517 (definition of theft) and Article 518, paragraph 2 (penalty for theft of money exceeding ₱30), the conviction is sustained.
– The sentence imposed complies with the statutory penalty range; therefore, the conviction and sentence are affirmed with costs.
– Judgment to be entered after ten days; the case will be remanded to the trial court for execution.

Concurrence: Arellano C.J., Torres, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ.