G.R. No. 6295, September 1, 1911
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IGNACIO CARLOS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Ignacio Carlos was charged with the crime of theft for unlawfully taking 2,273 kilowatts of electric current, valued at P909.20, belonging to the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, between February 13, 1909, and March 3, 1910, in Manila. The prosecution’s evidence showed that an outside meter recorded a consumption of 2,500 kilowatt hours, while the inside meter in Carlos’s building registered only 223 kilowatt hours during the same period. A “jumper” device (Exhibit C) was found on the premises, which could deflect current from the inside meter. Carlos demurred to the complaint, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to an alleged improper preliminary investigation and that the facts did not constitute a public offense. The demurrer was overruled. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to presidio correccional for one year, eight months, and twenty-one days, plus indemnity and costs.

ISSUE

1. Whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the offense despite the claim of a defective preliminary investigation.
2. Whether electrical energy can be the subject of theft.
3. Whether the evidence sufficiently established the accused’s guilt.
4. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of more than one offense.
5. Whether the indemnity awarded was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.

1. On Jurisdiction and Preliminary Investigation: The Court held that the objection regarding the preliminary investigation was without merit, following its prior ruling in U.S. vs. Grant and Kennedy (18 Phil. Rep., 122). The procedure followed was in accordance with law.

2. On Electrical Energy as Subject of Theft: The Court ruled that electrical energy is personal property capable of appropriation and, therefore, can be the subject of theft. The taking of such current without the owner’s consent, with intent to gain, constitutes the crime of theft under the Penal Code.

3. On Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found the evidence conclusive. The vast discrepancy between the readings of the two meters (over 900% difference), the discovery of a “jumper” device on the premises, and the unreasonable low consumption registered for the number of lights installed, all pointed to the accused’s felonious abstraction of electric current.

4. On Conviction for More Than One Offense: The Court agreed with the appellant that the information charged one continuous offense, not a series of distinct thefts. The taking was a single, continuing act from February 1909 to March 1910. Therefore, the accused should be convicted of only one crime of theft.

5. On Penalty and Indemnity: The Court modified the penalty. Applying Article 518 of the Penal Code and considering the value of the current stolen (P909.20), the penalty should be arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months). There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium degree: one year and one day of prision correccional. The indemnity was correctly based on the value of the current not paid for, as established by the evidence.

DISPOSITION: The judgment of the trial court was modified. Appellant Ignacio Carlos was sentenced to one year and one day of prision correccional, to indemnify the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company in the sum of P865.26, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.