People v. Rodrigo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Romualdo Rodrigo, was charged with the crime of Theft of Large Cattle for allegedly keeping in his possession a male horse belonging to Felix Muertigue. The complaint alleged that the accused knew the horse was stolen from Muertigue's ranch and deliberately failed to deliver it to the authorities or the owner. The value of the horse was stated to be no less than P150.00. Procedural History: The Justice of the Peace Court of Pio V. Corpuz dismissed the amended complaint. The Court of First Instance of Masbate affirmed this dismissal. The Petition: The Solicitor General appealed the order of dismissal, arguing that the lower court erred in ruling that the complaint was defective for failing to allege the element of 'intent to gain'.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in ruling that the complaint is defective for failing to allege the element of "intent to gain".
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint. The order appealed from was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the lower court erred in ruling that the complaint is defective for failing to allege the element of "intent to gain": The Supreme Court held that the complaint sufficiently charged the offense of theft of large cattle under Article 310 in relation to Article 308, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The complaint designated the offense as "theft of large cattle," which falls under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. The Court clarified that under Article 308, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1, the elements of the crime are the finding of lost property and the failure of the finder to deliver it to the local authorities or its owner. Crucially, the Court stated that in this specific type of theft, the "intent to gain" is inferred from the deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person, especially when the finder knows the property does not belong to him. The Court rejected the appellee's contention that "stolen property" is distinct from "lost property," explaining that the word "lost" is generic and encompasses loss by stealing. Therefore, the complaint satisfied the requirements of Rule 110, Sections 5 and 8 of the Revised Rules of Court by stating the essential elements of the offense, enabling a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended and enabling the court to pronounce proper judgment.
Main Doctrine
A complaint for theft of large cattle, under Article 310 in relation to Article 308, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, is sufficient if it alleges the elements of finding lost property and the failure to deliver it to the authorities or owner, as intent to gain is inferred from such deliberate failure. The term 'lost property' is generic and includes property lost by stealing.