G.R. No. 6504 , September 11, 1911
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO TAPAN and RUFINA DE LEON, defendants.

FACTS

Defendants Dionisio Tapan and Rufina de Leon were charged with the larceny of three carabaos owned by Matias Yusay. The trial proceeded only against Tapan as De Leon was ill. The carabaos were stolen at night in March 1907 from an enclosed corral under the house of Yusay’s tenant, Eugenio Puentespino. The gate to the enclosure was locked from the inside and was found broken open the morning after the theft. About two and a half years later, on November 22, 1909, one of the stolen carabaos was found in Tapan’s possession. He failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for how he came into possession of the carabao. The trial court convicted Tapan under Article 518(2) in relation to Article 517(1) of the Penal Code, sentencing him to four years of presidio correccional, ordering restitution, and imposing subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted Dionisio Tapan of larceny based on his unexplained possession of recently stolen property and properly considered the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and theft in an inhabited house.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The unexplained possession of property recently stolen gives rise to a presumption of guilt, as established in U.S. v. Soriano. Tapan’s failure to satisfactorily explain his possession of the carabao identified as stolen property supported his conviction. The Court also upheld the lower court’s finding that the theft occurred in an inhabited house, as the enclosed corral under the tenant’s house is considered a dependency of an inhabited house under Article 510 of the Penal Code, making it part of the dwelling. The circumstances of nocturnity and theft in an inhabited house were properly considered as aggravating circumstances with no extenuating circumstances present, warranting the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree. The Supreme Court modified the sentence only by adding the accessory penalties prescribed under Article 58 of the Penal Code. The decision was affirmed with costs against Tapan. (Justice Moreland dissented.)