Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18507)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines appealed the dismissal of an amended complaint for theft of large cattle against Romualdo Rodrigo. The complaint alleged that on or about March 8, 1960, in Tubod, Pio V. Corpuz, Masbate, Rodrigo wilfully and unlawfully kept in his possession a male horse belonging to Felix Muertigue, described under a certificate of ownership, knowing it was stolen from Muertigue’s ranch, and deliberately failed to deliver it to the authorities or to the owner. The dismissal was ordered by the Justice of the Peace Court of Pio V. Corpuz, and the Court of First Instance of Masbate affirmed.The only issue on appeal was whether the complaint was defective for allegedly failing to allege the element of intent to gain.
Issues:
- Whether the amended complaint for theft of large cattle was defective because it allegedly did not allege intent to gain.
Ruling:
The Court held that the complaint was sufficient under Rule 110, Sections 5 and 8 because it designated the of Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18507)
Facts:
- Initiation and nature of the criminal complaint
- The Solicitor General appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance of Masbate.
- The Court of First Instance of Masbate affirmed an order of the Justice of the Peace Court of Pio V. Corpuz, which dismissed an amended complaint.
- The amended complaint accused Romualdo Rodrigo of the crime of theft of large cattle.
- The amended complaint alleged that, on or about March 8, 1960, and in months previous, at Tubod, Pio V. Corpuz, Masbate, and within the jurisdiction of the court, Romualdo Rodrigo:
- Kept in his possession one male horse specifically described under Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle No. 4685981.
- Had possession of the horse which allegedly legally belonged to Felix Muertigue.
- Knew that the horse was stolen from the ranch of Felix Muertigue at Casabangan, Pio V. Corpuz, Masbate.
- Deliberately failed to deliver the horse either to the authorities or to its owner.
- Caused damage and prejudice to the owner in an amount of not less...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Sufficiency of the amended complaint under Rule 110
- Whether the lower courts erred in ruling that the amended complaint was defective because the element of “intent to gain” was not alleged.
- Applicability of the “lost property” theft provision to a horse alleged to have been stolen
- Whether the complaint, which referred to a stolen horse, could properly be charged under the theft provision involving finding of lost property.
- Whether “lost property”...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)