Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3008)
Facts:
Federico Soriano v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-3008. March 19, 1951, Supreme Court En Banc, Jugo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Federico Soriano was indicted on August 22, 1945 for theft of an electric motor marked “Cyclix,” a Western Electric cable, and a lantern slide projector with accessories, valued at P6,000, belonging to Eagle Cinema Co., Inc. (represented by its President-Manager Teodoro S. Benedicto).
After trial the Court of First Instance of Iloilo convicted Soriano and imposed an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months arresto mayor to two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days prision correctional, plus accessory penalties and costs. Soriano appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the sentence to a determinate range — three (3) months arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days prision correctional as maximum — retained accessory penalties and costs, and ordered return of the lantern slide projector (Exhibit C) and the “Cyclix” motor generator (Exhibit D) to Eagle Cinema Co., Inc.
Soriano then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court attacking the Court of Appeals’ legal conclusion that his acts constituted theft. The Court of Appeals’ opinion found, inter alia, that Soriano had been appointed attorney-in-fact for heirs represented by Emilia Saenz (Exhibit 16), had received keys to the leased premises after the Japanese operator ceased operations, had the projector and generator in his possession and had repeatedly denied knowledge of or responsibility for their loss. The Court of Appeals concluded that Soriano’s possession and concealment, together with the absence of lawful authority to appropriate the chattels (no foreclosure of the mortgage), supported conviction for theft under Article 308 of the Revised...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that the elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code were established as a matter of law?
- Does the power of attorney (Exhibit 16) and the mortgage securing rents negate criminal intent and preclude co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)