Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6320)
Facts:
The United States v. Mariano Caralipio and Cipriano Fernando, G.R. No. 6320, February 21, 1911, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court. The record shows that the United States (plaintiff-appellee) prosecuted Mariano Caralipio and Cipriano Fernando (defendants-appellants) for the theft of a young carabao.On the night of May 22, 1909, a young carabao owned by Feliciano de la Pasion was tied near his house in Poponto, municipality of Bautista, Pangasinan, and was discovered missing after the rope by which it had been tied was cut and the inclosure gate forced. Several days of local searches proved fruitless. Around June 5, 1909, witnesses Irineo Daquigan and Teofilo Bautista observed the two accused driving the young carabao near San Manuel; Mariano Caralipio was riding the animal. They informed Pasion, who with them located the carabao in the possession of the municipal treasurer of San Manuel.
A dispute over ownership followed: Cipriano Fernando claimed ownership, and the municipal treasurer, after an inquiry, delivered the carabao to him. On June 25 Fernando caused the animal to be branded in Moncada and obtained a certificate of ownership. Pasion subsequently filed a complaint; a preliminary examination before Justice of the Peace Marciano de Guzman found probable cause and bound the accused over to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
At the trial before the Court of First Instance (Hon. Isidro Paredes presiding) Pasion and several witnesses identified the carabao as his. The justice of the peace who had conducted the preliminary investigation was called as a witness and described an identification test he had performed: the two alleged mothers (caraballas)—one produced by Fernando and one by Pasion—were driven into an enclosure toward the young carabao; the calf ignored the caraballa alleged to belong to Fernando and ran to Pasion’s caraballa, exhibiting behavior characteristic of a reunited mother and offspring. Similar experiments before the municipal treasurer produced the same result. The record also showed that Fernando had previously branded two young carabaos of substantially the same age in November 1908 and February 1909 and had obtained certificates for them.
The Court of First Instance ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions of Mariano Caralipio and Cipriano Fernando for theft?
- Did the identification tests, the witnesses’ observations, and the accused’s conduct adequately establish ownership and felonious takin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)