Title
People vs. De Leon y Flora
Case
G.R. No. 25375
Decision Date
Oct 8, 1926
Accused stole two roosters from different owners in one act; Supreme Court ruled it as one theft, adjusted penalty due to nocturnity and habitual delinquency.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 25375)

Facts of the Case

On December 21, 1925, Vicente de Leon y Flora entered the yard of Vicente Magat and took two game roosters belonging to separate owners: one valued at P8 owned by Diego Magat, and another valued at P10 owned by Ignacio Nicolas. De Leon was initially prosecuted for two separate counts of theft in a municipal court where he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years, six months, and one day of presidio correctional. Following this, he appealed the judgment to the Court of First Instance and changed his plea to not guilty.

Judicial Findings

During the trial in the Court of First Instance, the court found De Leon guilty of a single crime of theft rather than two separate offenses. The trial court reasoned that although he took two roosters belonging to different owners, the act constituted only one crime because it occurred at the same time and place, which was underscored by the presence of an aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.

Legal Issues Presented

De Leon raised several points of error on appeal:

  1. He argued that his admission of guilt was improperly deemed adequate proof of guilt.
  2. He claimed he should have been given the benefit of reasonable doubt.
  3. Furthermore, he insisted that an acquittal should have followed, with costs borne by the state.

Legal Analysis of Theft

The court's analysis cited Article 517 of the Penal Code, defining theft in general and other specific acts that fall under its scope. The deliberation focused on whether taking two items belonging to different owners in one singular act constitutes one or two crimes of theft. The ruling reinforced that the act of taking, in this context, is designed to protect personal property and the community from alarms caused by theft, not to differentiate between multiple owners.

Conclusion on Count of Theft

The court referenced established precedents and legal doctrines affirming that if items are stolen from different owners but in a singular act, it constitutes one crime, consistent with the principle of unity in crimi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.