G.R. No. L-6781, November 6, 1911
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. F. WICKERSHAM, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, F. Wickersham, was the chief clerk in the U.S. Army Quartermaster’s office in Iloilo. He was entrusted with the combination and key to the office safe but had no authority to open it or withdraw its contents except upon the direction of his superior officer, the Quartermaster, who had exclusive control over the safe’s contents. In July 1910, while intoxicated and during his superior’s absence, Wickersham opened the safe and abstracted cash amounting to P178.08 and several government checks totaling P2,863.48 (with a combined value of P3,041.56). He sold some of the checks. Before trial, all cash and most checks were recovered, except three checks which were cashed by the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands; their face value was later refunded to the government. Wickersham was charged with and convicted of hurto (theft). On appeal, he argued that the information was defective for not properly alleging the value of the checks and that his actions did not constitute theft because he had control over the safe’s contents, implying the property was in his possession.

ISSUE

1. Whether the information was fatally defective for failing to adequately allege the value of the stolen checks.
2. Whether the defendant’s act of taking money and checks from the safe constituted hurto (theft) under the Penal Code, given his role as custodian of the safe.

RULING

1. On the sufficiency of the information: The Court held the information was sufficient. The use of the sign “P” to denote pesos is universally accepted in the Philippines by virtue of Executive Order No. 44 (1904). The tabulated list of checks with their amounts, coupled with the allegation that they totaled a specific sum in Philippine currency, provided clear and definite notice of the value of the stolen property. The Bill of Rights does not require pleadings to be immune from all possible misinterpretation.

2. On the nature of the offense: The Court affirmed that the defendant’s actions constituted hurto (theft). The essential element of theft is the taking of personal property from the possession of another without consent. Here, Wickersham did not have legal possession or control over the safe’s contents; his role was merely that of a custodian or guard. The Quartermaster retained constructive possession. Thus, by taking the property, he deprived the true owner (the U.S. government) of its possession. The Court distinguished this from estafa or misappropriation, which would apply if the defendant had lawful possession or control. Additionally, the Court ruled that the checks constituted personal property with value equal to their face amount, regardless of whether they were endorsed, as they represented a claim to funds and were valuable to the lawful owner.

The judgment of conviction was affirmed.