G.R. No. L-30859 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.

JUAN CARPIO 18/05/2020, 12)51 AM

ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library™ |

chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share Custom Search Search

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence >

Supreme Court Cases Criminal Law Cases Rims and Tires

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1929/nov1929/gr_l-30859_1929.php Page 1 of 4
G.R. No. L-30859 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JUAN CARPIO 18/05/2020, 12)51 AM

Barbara Carpio Carpio Apartamentos El Carpio

Apartamentos El Carpio Criminal Appeal Lawyer Property Owner Lawyer

www.chanrobles.com

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-30859 November 25, 1929

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JUAN CARPIO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Emiliano T. Tirona and Anastacio Morelos for appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

STREET, J.:

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
City of Manila, finding the appellant, Juan Carpio, guilty of larceny in stealing three
automobile tires, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for four months and one
day, arresto mayor, and requiring him to pay a third part of the costs of prosecution. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The information upon which the appellant was tried charges him and his coaccused with
the larceny of a "Star" automobile of the value of P1,750; but, under the circumstances
presently to be stated, the trial judge found the appellant guilty, not of the larceny of the
automobile, but of three tires only. At a former day of this term the case was heard upon
appeal in the second division of this court, and the judgment was modified by declaring
that the accused was guilty of stealing the automobile mentioned in the complaint and not
of the three tires only, with the result that the penalty imposed on the accused was raised
form four months and one day to two years, presidio correccional, with the accessory
penalties appropriate thereto. 1 Against the judgment of the court in division a motion for
reconsideration was interposed, wherein the appellant suggested a question of law,
appropriate for the attention of the full court, and asked that the motion be considered and
determined by the court en pleno, as is accordingly now done. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The facts of the case are briefly these: Early in the morning of March 10, 1928, one
Raymundo Silos hired automobile No. 396 from the Santa Cruz Garage located on the
corner of Azcarraga Street and Rizal Avenue, in the City of Manila. This car was of the
make known as "Star," and was driven by the chauffeur Resurreccion Ledesma. Upon
leaving the garage Ledesma observed that another Star car was following them, driven by
the appellant, Juan Carpio, with whom was riding one Serapio Feliciano. Ledesma was
directed to drive his car, No. 376, to the Luzon Cabaret, in San Pedro Makati, near the City
of Manila. At that place Silos and Carpio engaged in conversation for a few minutes, after
which Silos ordered Ledesma to direct his course to Manila, which Ledesma did. Meanwhile
the car driven by Carpio was still following them. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

At the Bostom Restaurant, in the City of Manila, Silos invited Ledesma to come in with him
to eat something; and, while they were thus engaged, Ledesma's car (No. 376 was stolen
and was not to be found when Silos and Ledesma emerged from the restaurant. The next
day the stolen car was found in Economia Street, Manila, stripped of three tires with the
rims, two of which tires were taken from the wheels of the car and the other from the tire
carrier. A few days thereafter the three tires taken from car No. 376 were found on the
"Star" car which was being driven by Juan Carpio. When thus found, the car of Carpio was
standing in front of the Legaspi Landing. When the owner of the car No. 376 asked Carpio

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1929/nov1929/gr_l-30859_1929.php Page 2 of 4
G.R. No. L-30859 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JUAN CARPIO 18/05/2020, 12)51 AM

how his three tires came to be on Carpio's car, the latter admitted that said three tires
belonged to the owner of the car No. 376; and they were in fact readily identified by their
numbers. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

There can be no possible doubt as to the fact that Star car No. 376 was stolen under the
circumstances above stated and stripped of three of its tires by the thieves, one of whom
was the appellant, Juan Carpio; and the trial court committed on error in finding this
appellant guilty of the crime of theft. We are of the opinion, however, that the act of theft
was consummated not only with respect to the tires but with respect to the automobile,
and we are of the opinion that the trial court erred on the side of leniency in sentencing
the appellant for the theft of the tires only. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The gist of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking and asportation of property,
animo lucrandi, and with intent to deprive the true owner of the possession thereof. The
act of asportation in this case was undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the
thief to profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived the true owner of the
possession of the entire automobile, the offense of larceny comprised the whole car. The
fact that the accused stripped the car of its tires and abandoned the machine in a distant
part of the city did not make the appellant any less liable for the larceny of that
automobile. The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his right of possession
were complete as to the entire car; and the fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly
to abandon the machine in no wise limits their criminal responsibility to the particular parts
of the car that were appropriated and subsequently used by the appellant upon his own
car. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

But it is insisted that owing to the particular form in which the trial court worded its
opinion, it must be considered that the lower court in effect acquitted the accused of
larceny of the whole car. In this connection emphasis is placed upon the dispositive part of
the opinion of the court below wherein it is declared that the court found the accused
guilty of the theft, not of the "Star" automobile, as alleged in the complaint, but only of the
three tires. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

This contention is not well founded. The complaint charges the theft of the car. The proof
shows that the car was taken with the result of depriving the owner of the possession
thereof, and that the taking was of a felonious character. It is the uniform practice of this
court to modify decisions on appeal not only in a sense favorable to the accused, but, if the
circumstances require, in a sense unfavorable to the accused; and this rule has not been
infrequently applied here by raising the penalty to death in cases requiring the ultimate
penalty. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The car that was stolen in this case (No. 376) appears to have been put into commission in
November, 1927, and was stolen in the month of March, 1928. It was thus practically a
new car, and we have no hesitancy in taking judicial notice of the fact that it was worth in
excess of 1,250 pesetas, or P250. This puts the offense under No. 3 of article 518 of the
Penal Code, and there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance to be taken
into account, the penalty to be applied is in the medium degree of the penalty fixed in said
provision. This penalty runs from one year, eight months and twenty-one days to two
years, eleven months and ten days, presidio correccional; and we are of the opinion that,
all circumstances considered, the appellant merits two years of such imprisonment. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The motion for reconsideration is therefore denied. So ordered: chanrobles virtual law library

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1 Promulgated October 1, 1929, not reported.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1929/nov1929/gr_l-30859_1929.php Page 3 of 4
G.R. No. L-30859 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JUAN CARPIO 18/05/2020, 12)51 AM

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FEATURED
DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1929/nov1929/gr_l-30859_1929.php Page 4 of 4