Case Digest (G. R. NO. 9804)
Facts:
United States v. Feliza Montanez, G.R. No. 9804, September 9, 1914, the Supreme Court, Johnson, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the United States; the defendant-appellant was Feliza Montanez charged with larceny.The complaint alleged that on January 7, 1913, in San Pablo, Laguna, Montanez “intencional, maliciosa y criminalmente, con ánimo de lucro, con abuso de confianza, aprovechándose de la obscuridad de la noche y haciendo uso de llaves falsas,” stole from an aparador belonging to Saturnino Javier various jewelry valued at P4,000 and P302 in cash, with aggravating circumstances Nos. 10, 15 and 20 of the Penal Code. At trial before Hon. Vicente Jocson, Judge, the prosecution proved that Montanez had slept at the Javiers’ entresuelo for five consecutive nights up to the night of January 6, 1913, and that on the morning of January 7 the two drawers (cajones) of the aparador were missing along with the jewelry and P300 cash. One of Montanez’s keys was shown to fit the aparador’s lock. Witnesses testified to her presence in the house the morning of the 7th and to her distressed appearance; she had also disputed with Perfecta Bautista (Mrs. Javier) shortly before the theft over the settled amount for jewelry Montanez had pawned with the Javiers to cover a P1,005 debt.
The trial court found Montanez guilty and sentenced her to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of presidio correccional with accessory penalties, ordered restitution to the Javiers and their relatives in specified amounts, and provided for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. On appeal to the Supreme Court (defendant as appellant), the Solicitor-General filed a brief recommending modification of the lower court’s sentence: because the value of the property stolen did not exceed 6,250 pesetas and considering the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence and nocturnity, a penalty of four years, nine months and eleven days with restitution and subsidiary imprisonment should be imposed. The Supreme Court reviewed the record, sustai...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence, principally circumstantial, sufficient to sustain Montanez’s conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?
- If guilty, was the sentence imposed by the trial court appropriate, or should it be modified in light of the value of the property and the aggrava...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)