People v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Federico Soriano was charged with theft of an electric motor, Western Electric Company cable, and a lantern slide projector, valued at P6,000, belonging to Eagle Cinema Co., Inc. The properties were mortgaged to Emilia Saenz to secure payment of rents owed by the company. Soriano was the representative and substitute administrator of the premises leased by the company. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Iloilo convicted Soriano and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment, sentencing him to three months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordered the return of the projector and motor generator to the owner. Soriano appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Soriano filed a petition for certiorari, raising the sole legal issue of whether his acts constituted theft.
Issue(s)
Whether the acts of the accused constitute theft. Whether all the elements of theft are present. Whether there was criminal intent on the part of the appellant. Whether the action of the appellant is susceptible of two interpretations, both consistent with his innocence or guilt. Whether the guilt of the appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the acts of the accused constitute theft: The Court affirmed the conviction for theft. It reiterated the elements of theft: (a) taking or abstraction of personal property, (b) intent of gain, (c) property owned by another, and (d) absence of violence, intimidation, or force upon things. The Court found that Soriano took the projector and generator, which belonged to Eagle Cinema Co., Inc., despite having received the keys to the building where they were stored. His repeated denial of possession and insinuation that the Japanese took the items contradicted his claim of acting for his principals. Furthermore, even his principals could not have appropriated the properties without proper judicial action, as a mortgage creditor cannot foreclose without judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that the power of attorney did not authorize him to take and conceal the properties, especially since they were not due or owing to his principal, Emilia Saenz. On the element of 'taking' or 'abstraction': The Court held that Soriano's act of taking the projector and generator constituted 'taking' in the legal sense, even though he had been entrusted with the keys to the building where they were kept. Citing Viada and various Supreme Court decisions, the Court stated that when the delivery of a chattel does not transfer juridical possession or title, the possession and title remain with the owner, and the act of disposing of it with intent of gain and without the owner's consent constitutes theft. The Court clarified that while Soriano had physical possession of the machinery upon receiving the keys, this did not grant him the power to exercise dominion over the chattels. On the element of 'intent of gain': The Court found that Soriano acted with intent of gain. It reasoned that whenever valuable personal property is abstracted without the owner's consent, and no other reason is shown, intent of gain is presumed and logically inferred. Soriano's act of carrying away and concealing the articles from the owner and the police authorities, coupled with his denial of possession, unmistakably pointed to this intent. The Court rejected the argument that his actions were merely to protect his principals' interests, as he concealed the items and denied having them, which would not be the action of someone merely protecting property. On the contention that he acted as attorney-in-fact: The Court found that Soriano did not act in behalf of his principals when he took the projector and generator. His repeated denials of having taken the properties and his insinuation that the Japanese took them demonstrated that he was not acting within the scope of his authority as attorney-in-fact. The power of attorney granted him authority to collect debts and "other things of value," but this did not extend to taking and concealing mortgaged property without proper legal recourse. The Court noted that even his principals could not have taken the properties without judicial foreclosure. On the argument that all elements of theft were not present and that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that all elements of theft were present. The taking was established, the properties belonged to another (Eagle Cinema Co., Inc.), and there was intent of gain, as evidenced by the concealment and denial of possession. The Court concluded that the evidence proved Soriano's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and his defenses were not tenable.
Main Doctrine
The taking of personal property of another, even if under a power of attorney or mortgage, without the owner's consent and with intent of gain, constitutes theft, especially when the accused denies possession and the mortgage has not been foreclosed.