83 PEOPLE V DINO
It is then difficult to believe that Diño was coerced in view of the
45 OG 3446 | 18 FENB 1948| LABRADOR | DELFIN
TOPIC: ARTICLE 5
DOCTRINE:
In the Dino case, it was held that the crime committed is that of frustrated
theft, because the fact determinative of consummation of the crime of
theft is the ability of the offender to dispose freely of the articles stolen,
even if it were more or less momentarily.
ER:
A truck loaded with stolen boxes of rifles was on the way out of the check
point in South Harbor surrounded by a tall fence when an MP guard
discovered the boxes on the truck. It was held that the crime committed
was frustrated theft because of the timely discovery of the boxes on the
truck before it could pass out of the checkpoint.
FACTS:
1. Roberto Diño was employed as a driver of the US army at a station in
General Depot, APO 75, Quezon City. At about11:30 PM, he brought to
the 670th Medium Port, South Harbor, Manila, a truckload of articles,
all unloaded from the truck by the gang employed by the US army.
2. Afterwards, he drove away from the Port, but as he was nearing an
M.P. checkpoint, a colored guard approached the truck and found 3
boxes loaded, each containing 10 caliber .30 army rifles.
3. The guard brought Diño to the checkpoint where a US army lieutenant,
upon seeing the 3 boxes, asked Diño if he had loaded them, but said
he did not.
4. Later, Diño confessed that 4 persons helped him put the boxes on
board and he was instructed to bring them out of the area.
5. Dino was subjected to an investigation where he signed a written
statement declaring that he was stopped by 4 men who loaded the
boxes in the truck and told him to bring them out of the area, while
they were to meet him after he had passed the checkpoint.
6. He avers that he consented to bring the articles because he had been
told that the men would answer therefor and would give him a certain
share in the articles.
7. The trial court held that the boxes could not have been loaded in the
truck without Diño’s consent, and if such consent was really obtained
through fear, he could have given an account thereof to the checkpoint
guard.
8. Diño contends that:
a. the trial court erred in accepting the alleged voluntary confession,
which was secured without violence or fraud;
b. that it erred in finding the 3 boxes of rifles were found by the guard
in the truck of the accused;
9. The investigator who took the statement testified in court, and he
declared that the statement was taken in the presence of many
people, and that it was sent after to the assistant provost marshal
(APM) for signature under oath.
10.
presence of many spectators during investigation. If he had been
forced to sign the statement, he could have immediately informed the
APM of this fact. The claim that the statement was made involuntarily
by the appellant is was dismissed by the court.
11. The claim that the boxes were found on the way and were loaded in
the truck by the guard with the Diño’s help is contrary to the latter’s
own statement.
12. Diño’s testimony was not corroborated by any other witness or
circumstance sufficiently proved at the trial.
13. The court sentenced Diño for the crime of qualified theft. However, the
evidence submitted fails to show that the articles were those entrusted
to Diño for transportation in the truck driven. In fact, the articles
delivered to the depot appear to have been unloaded and the 3 boxes
were placed aboard when it had already left the depot and was on its
way to the checkpoint.
14. There was no elements of confidence involved, Diño being a mere
laborer when he took part in taking away the loot from the depot. The
crime committed is therefore, not qualified but simple theft.
15. Two other points remain to be considered: the degree in which
the crime was committed and the extend of the participation of
the appellant.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the crime of simple theft was consummated? – NO. The
crime is frustrated theft.
HELD/RULING:
 This court believes that in order to make the articles subject to the
control and disposal of the culprits, the articles stolen must first be
passed through the MP checkpoint, but since the offense was
discovered and the articles seized after all the acts of execution had
been performed, but before the loot came under the final control and
disposal of the looters, the offense cannot be said to have been fully
consummated, as it was frustrated by the timely intervention of the
guard.
 Trial court found appellant guilty as accomplice in the consummated
crime. However, this court found that the offense committed was only
that of frustrated theft, the passing of the truck beyond the checkpoint
away from the control of the guards being essential to the complete
consummation of the crime, it is evident that appellant participated,
not as an accomplice, but as a principal, having himself carried the
articles in the truck, and the act of carrying the articles through the
checkpoint being an indispensable part of the complete execution of
the offense.
NOTE:
I found this digest from scribd, I counterchecked it with Reyes, make sense
nman yung facts and ruling. However, pls read/recite at your own risk. Di
ko tlga mahanap full text sorry. To be safe, you may choose to just recite
the ER and doctrine. Both of which were directly lifted from the Reyes
book.