G.R. No. 6504 - People vs Tapan

Defendants: Dionisio Tapan (appellant) and Rufina de Leon (absent due to illness).
Charged with the larceny of three carabaos, which were the property of Matias Yusay.

The trial proceeded solely against Dionisio Tapan because Rufina de Leon was unable to appear.
After hearing the evidence, the lower court found Tapan guilty of the crime charged.
The sentence, imposed under paragraph 2 of Article 518 in relation to paragraph 1 of Article 517 of the Penal Code, included:

Imprisonment for four years of presidio correccional.
Payment of P150 to Matias Yusay for the two carabaos not recovered (with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvency was proven).
Payment of the costs of the proceedings.

Matias Yusay was the owner of three carabaos.
At the time of the theft, the carabaos were in the custody of his tenant, Eugenio Puentespino.

The theft occurred during the night in March 1907.
The carabaos were kept in an enclosure situated under the house occupied by the tenant.
The gate of the enclosure was locked from the inside, with the customary access being via a ladder or stairway connecting the enclosure to the house.
On the morning following the theft, the gate was found broken open.

Approximately two and a half years later (on November 22, 1909), one of the carabaos was found in the possession of the defendant, Dionisio Tapan.
Matias Yusay positively identified the carabao.
Tapan provided no satisfactory explanation for his possession of the carabao.
The absence of witnesses or supporting evidence as to the source of his possession contributed to the presumption of guilt under the law.

The crime was committed at night and in what was deemed an inhabited house.
The enclosure, despite being a separate structure, was considered a part of the house based on Article 510 of the Penal Code, which includes:

The concept that any lodging constituting a dwelling place is an inhabited house, even if the occupants were not present at the time of the crime.
The inclusion of adjacent dependencies (courts, corrals, shops, granaries, mews, stables, stalls, etc.) as part of the entire premises.

These circumstances were treated as aggravating factors demanding the imposition of the maximum degree of the penalty provided by law.

While the lower court imposed the maximum penalty regarding imprisonment and fines, it failed to impose the accessory penalty provided under Article 58 of the Penal Code.
The appellate decision directed that the judgment be affirmed with the addition of the accessory penalty.

Whether the receipt of the carabao by the defendant, without a satisfactory explanation, constitutes sufficient evidence to find him guilty of larceny.
Whether the nature of the premises (an enclosure under an inhabited house) qualifies under Article 510 of the Penal Code as an “inhabited house,” thereby aggravating the offense.
Whether the accessory penalty under Article 58 of the Penal Code should be imposed in addition to the primary sentence for the crime.