Case Digest (G.R. No. 26013)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 26013)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Perpetua Trinidad, G.R. No. 26013. March 05, 1927, the Supreme Court, Ostrand, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is The People of the Philippine Islands; the defendant-appellant is Perpetua Trinidad.The information charged that on or about November 19, 1925, in Lapog, Ilocos Sur, appellant unlawfully took and carried away a gold ring with diamonds, the property of Victorino Dominguez, valued at P90. At trial before the Court of First Instance, the prosecution proved that Elizabeth Spencer, with the consent of the owner Dominguez, handed the ring to appellant to be pledged as security for a P5 loan which appellant agreed to obtain. Instead of pledging it, appellant immediately took the ring to a neighbor, Julia Guzman, and sold it for P30, keeping the proceeds. Elizabeth later found appellant and learned of the sale; Guzman refused to return the ring unless reimbursed the P30.
Appellant denied that the ring was delivered to her for pledging, asserting she was authorized to sell it and that she gave the P30 to Elizabeth. The Court of First Instance disbelieved appellant’s testimony, found her guilty of theft as charged, and sentenced her to two months and one day of arresto mayor plus costs. From that conviction appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, applying the principle in United States v. De Vera (43 Phil. 1000) that delivery for a particular purpose does not transfer juridical possession when the recipient intends conversion; Justices Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, and Villa-Real concurred. Justice Street, joined by Justice Romualdez, dissented.
Issues:
- Did the trial court correctly classify appellant’s act as the crime of theft rather than estafa (i.e., did juridical possession remain with the owner when the ring was delivered for a specific purpose)?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that the intent to misappropriate existed at the time appellant received the ring?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)