People v. Aw Yong Chiow Soo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd. received two bills of exchange for 33,300 yen each, drawn upon the accused, Aw Yong Chiow Soo, for the value of merchandise. These bills were accepted by the accused and made payable on June 7, 1921. Upon maturity, the drafts were sent to the accused, along with duplicate bills of lading, enabling him to withdraw the merchandise from the customhouse without paying the drafts. Procedural History: The lower court convicted the appellant of theft and sentenced him under paragraphs 1 of article 518 and paragraph 2 of article 520 of the Penal Code. The Petition: The accused appealed his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of theft for withdrawing merchandise from the customhouse using duplicate bills of lading without paying the corresponding drafts. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the accused fraudulently retained the duplicate bills of lading.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, acquitting the accused of the crime of theft. The Court held that the accused is not guilty of theft, without prejudice to any civil action the bank may have against him for the value of the two drafts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the accused is guilty of theft: The Court held that the crime of theft requires an invasion of possession, and there can be no theft when the owner has voluntarily parted with the possession of the thing. In this case, the bank gave the accused the duplicate bills of lading, entrusting him with the possession of the documents. The Court found that no deceit was practiced by the accused to obtain possession of the property. While the accused might have been guilty of dishonesty or abused the confidence reposed in him by the bank, this does not constitute theft. The Court distinguished this case from situations where property is obtained by deceit with the intent to appropriate it, noting that in such instances, the accused acquires only manual custody, not true legal possession. On the issue of whether the prosecution sufficiently proved fraudulent retention of the duplicate bills of lading: The Court found that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish that the duplicate bills of lading were sent to the accused along with other documents. The testimony of the bank's acting manager was based on information from an employee, and the messenger who delivered the package could not identify its contents. While an employee of the accused testified that only the duplicate bills of lading were received, the Court noted that even disregarding this testimony, the fact that other documents were in the bank's possession before trial indicated they were not sent to the accused unless their return was proven. The evidence presented to prove the return of the other documents was insufficient, and the bank's manager contradicted witnesses who claimed the accused returned the documents. Therefore, the Court concluded that the basis for the prosecution was not sufficiently established, and the accused received only the duplicate bills of lading without any memorandum.
Main Doctrine
The crime of theft requires an invasion of possession. If the owner voluntarily parts with the possession of the thing, there can be no theft. The accused may be civilly liable for conversion if he abuses the confidence reposed in him, but not criminally liable for theft if no deceit was practiced to obtain possession.