G.R. No. L-2732

FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, F.W. Webster, was the forage master in charge of government forage in Manila and Pandacan. His authority was limited; he could only issue forage upon written orders from the quartermaster, who was solely responsible to the government. Without any such orders or authority, Webster himself created dray slips and caused the delivery of 186 bales of hay and 138 sacks of oats (valued at 2,015 pesos) to various livery stables and individuals, for which the government received no payment. Prior to this case, Webster had already been convicted and sentenced for the theft of a different quantity of forage (65 bales of hay and 28 sacks of oats) based on his plea of guilt. In the present trial, he raised the defense of former conviction, arguing it was for the same offense, but failed to sufficiently prove the identity of the property involved in the two cases.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused can be validly convicted of the crime of theft for the unauthorized taking of government forage, notwithstanding his prior conviction for a similar offense, and whether his defense of former jeopardy was properly rejected.

RULING:
Yes, the conviction for theft is valid. The Supreme Court held that Webster’s qualified charge of the forage, being subject to the orders of a superior who alone was responsible to the government, did not constitute such possession as to make the crime malversation. His unauthorized abstraction of the property constituted the crime of theft. Regarding the defense of former jeopardy, the Court ruled that the burden of proving the identity of the offenses rested upon the accused. He failed to meet this burden as he did not establish that the forage in the prior conviction was the same as that involved in the present case. The trial court did not commit reversible error in excluding certain oral evidence on this point, as the accused’s counsel did not adequately inform the judge of the contents of the prior conviction record (which contained no evidence or specifications due to the guilty plea) to allow for proper reconsideration. The judgment of conviction was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of the penalty to four years, nine months, and ten days of presidio correccional, plus indemnity.