SUBJECT:

TOPIC:
Date Made:
Digest Maker:
Crim 2
Art 315
April 10, 2016
eamtrinidad
CASE NAME: US vs De Vera
PONENTE: Villamor, J.
Case Date: September 19, 1921
Case Summary:
Three Igorots were trying to sell a bar of gold. An Ilocano invited them to
his house, saying there was a woman (THE ACCUSED) who would by the
gold. Woman asked the owner of the gold to hand the bar over so she
could have it examined at the silversmith. The owner agreed, and also
handed her P200 in bank notes to be changed into silver coins. The woman
said she would be back soon, but after twelve hours, she still wasnt back.
The Igorots reported to the police and the police located the woman, the
gold, and the money. CFI Manila found her guilty of theft. In this appeal, the
counsel for defendants said they were guilty of estafa, not theft. SC said
this isnt estafa, this is theft because all elements of theft are present: First,
the taking of personal property, second, that the property belongs to
another; third, that the taking away be done with intent of gain; fourth,
that the taking away be done without consent of the owner; and fifth, that
the taking away be accomplished without violence or intimidation against
persons or force upon things. Judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Rule of Law:
Art 135
Detailed Facts:
Appeal from CFI Manila decision finding De Vera and a John Doe
guilty of theft of a gold bar weighing 559.7 grams and worth P587.68,
and P200 in bank notes of different denominations, to the damage
and prejudice of Pepe (Igorot), owner of the bar and money
aforementioned, in the total sum of P787.68, Philippine currency,
equivalent to 3,938.4 pesetas.
Feb 20, 1920 - Three Igorots (Jose II, Balatan, Pepe) were trying
to dispose of a bar of gold. An Ilocano approached them and invited
them to his house where there was a woman who would buy the
metal
The woman (herein accused) requested them to hand over the
gold so she could take it to a silversmith and have it examined,
stating that she would return within a short time to report the result
Pepe then handed it to her, along with P200 in bank notes so
that she could change it to silver coins (bec it was more acceptable
in the Mountain Province)
The Igorots waited for 3hrs but she didnt return
Policeman Jose Gonzales was assigned to the case and he
easily found the woman
They found the gold in a house on Calle Regidor, divided into

three pieces was found wrapped in a handkerchief and placed inside

the water tank of a water-closet.
The accused requested one Mamerta de la Rosa to let her have
P150 which she in turn handed to the policeman.
The bar of gold delivered to the accused weighed 559.7
grammes and was worth P587.68 at the rate of P1.05 per gramme;
whereas, the three bars found by the police weighed only 416
grammes, and were therefore, 143.7 grammes short. Of the P200
bank notes delivered to the accused, she returned only P150. GUILTY
OF THEFT, said the CFI
Counsel for defendants say not guilty of theft, but of estafa
Issue:
W/N the accused are guilty of estafa or theft? - THEFT
Holding:
Elements of theft
First, the taking of personal property
second, that the property belongs to another;
third, that the taking away be done with intent of
gain;
fourth, that the taking away be done without
consent of the owner;
and fifth, that the taking away be accomplished
without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon
things
ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THEFT ARE PRESENT
The theory of the defense is untenable, according to which,
when the things is received and then appropriated or converted to
one's own use without the consent of the owner, the crime
committed is not that of theft.
LARCENY - crime similar to theft
Where the parties are engaged in a cash sale the whole
transaction is incomplete until the payment is completed; and the
possession of the goods remains in the seller and that of the money
in the buyer, until they are simultaneously exchanged. If, in such
case, the buyer gets control of the goods and makes off with them
without paying for them, he is guilty of larceny.
Ruling:
And the appealed judgment being in accordance with law, it
must be, as is hereby, affirmed with costs against the appellant. So
ordered.