G.R. No. L-18; December 6, 1945
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSENDO VIZCONDE Y SANTOS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Rosendo Vizconde y Santos, was charged with qualified theft of personal property valued at P15.20 before the Municipal Court of Manila. He was convicted on May 25, 1945, and sentenced to six months and one day of imprisonment. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Manila also convicted him but reduced the penalty to two months and one day of arresto mayor. The prosecution presented two witnesses: Alipio Orias, a U.S. Army private who arrested the accused on April 28, 1945, for carrying a bundle containing one shirt and two undershirts (allegedly government property) and wearing a pair of shoes; and Lucero Nardo, the M.P. in charge, to whom the accused was turned over. Both witnesses admitted during trial that they could no longer identify the accused. Orias stated he did not ask where the accused got the articles, as his orders were only to arrest and turn over the person. Nardo testified that when he asked the accused where he got the articles, the accused said he “had picked them up,” but Nardo conducted no further investigation. The accused testified that he found the bundle in a corner of a toilet room, intending to turn it over to the M.P., and that the shoes were given to him when he was a guerrilla. The prosecution offered no evidence to show the ownership of the articles, that they were stolen, or that they were missing from the U.S. Army.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the crime of qualified theft.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision and acquitted the appellant. The prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt. The evidence did not establish that the articles were stolen property or that the appellant had the intent to gain (animus lucrandi) or intent to steal (animus furandi). The appellant’s testimony that he found the bundle with the intention of turning it over to the M.P. was uncontradicted. Regarding the shoes, there was no evidence they belonged to anyone other than the appellant, and his testimony that they were given to him was unchallenged. The Court also noted, as an ancillary matter, that the Municipal Court violated Section 7, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court by transmitting the case papers to the Court of First Instance eleven days after the appeal was perfected, instead of within the required five days. While this delay did not substantially impair the appellant’s right to a speedy trial in this instance, the Court censured the violation as a matter of principle to prevent future injustices.