PEOPLE vs. DE LEON , G.R. Nos.
L-25375 and 25376 October 8, 1926
Criminal Case Digest:
Digested Cases
Facts: Early in the morning
of December 21, 1925, Vicente de Leon y Flora entered the yard of Vicente
Magat's house on Domingo Santiago Street, Manila, and without violence or
intimidation against persons nor force upon things, took, with intent to gain,
two game roosters which were in the yard, one with colored plumage valued at P8
belonging to Diego Magat, and the other with white plumage and black spots,
valued at P10, belonging to Ignacio Nicolas.
Vicente de Leon y Flora was prosecuted in the
municipal court for two crimes of theft, on the theft of Magat's rooster and
the other that of Nicolas'. Upon being arraigned, the accused pleaded guilty
and was sentenced by the municipal court in each to suffer the penalty of three
years, six months and one day presidio correcional, to return the stolen
roosters to their respective owners and to pay the costs in both cases. The
accused appealed from this judgment to the Court of First Instance, and, upon
being arraigned upon the same informations, pleaded not guilty in both cases,
which were tried jointly by agreement of the parties approved by the court.
Issue: WON
the defendant-appellant committed two crimes of theft.
Held: Under sound principles, the act of taking the two roosters, in response
to the unity of thought in the criminal purpose on one occasion, is not
susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance that the article
unlawfully belonged to two distinct persons. There is no series of acts here
for the accomplishment of different purposes, but only one of which was
consummated, and which determines the existence of only one crime. The act of
taking the roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise
to two crimes having an independent existence of their own, because there are
not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that characterize two
separate crimes.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the unity of
the intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion and in the
same place, constitutes the commission of only one crime of theft; and fact
that the things taken belong to different persons does not produce a
multiplicity of crimes, which must be punished separately.
