048. U.S.

v Adiao
G.R. No. L-13785 / October 8, 1918/ En Banc/ Appeal from the decision of CFI of Manila
United States plaintiff-appellee
Tomas Adiao defendant-appellant
Decision by J. Malcolm, Digest by Arnel

Short Version: Its about the theft of a leather belt. The defendant, Tomas Adiao, a customs inspector,
abstracted a leather belt valued at P0.80, from the baggage of a Japanese named T. Murakami, and hid
the belt in his desk in the Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees. He was charged
with theft but convicted of a lesser offense of frustrated theft. He now appeals.

Facts:

Customs Inspector Tomas Adiao, apparently took a fancy at a leather belt of a Japanese national and hid
it at his desk. Before he could take it out of the customs office, the said belt was later found by other
customs employees.

Adiao was charged in the Municipal Court of the city of Manila with the crime of theft. He was found
guilty of the lesser crime of frustrated theft.

He appealed to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila and again he was found guilty of the crime
of frustrated theft, and was sentenced to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs. Not satisfied, he still appeals to the SC.

Issue:

WON Adiao is guilty of the crime of frustrated theft? NO, he is guilty of theft, not just frustrated theft.

Ratio:

The SC is of the opinion that the crime can not properly be classified as frustrated, as this word is defined
in article 3 of the Penal Code, but that since the offender performed all of the acts of execution
necessary for the accomplishment crime of theft.

From the facts of the case in the lower court:

Not decisive - The fact that the defendant was under observation during the entire transaction and that
he was unable to get the merchandise out of the Custom House
Decisive - all the elements of the completed crime of theft are present.

The court cited several cases where the crime of theft was considered as consummated, even if the object
was found near the place it was stolen from. The accused . . . having materially taken possession of the
money from the moment he took it from the place where it had been, and having taken it with his hands
with intent to appropriate the same, he executed all the acts necessary to constitute the crime which was
thereby produced; only the act of making use of the thing having been frustrated, which, however, does
not go to make the elements of the consummated crime. (Decision of the SC of Spain, June 13, 1882.)

The SC also considered that Adiao took advantage of his public position, an aggravating circumstance
(with no mitigating circumstance), and thus imposed the maximum degree of penalty. (Nalintikan na.)

Dispositive: Judgment is reversed and the defendant and appellant is sentenced to three months and
one day of arresto mayor, with the costs of all instances against Adiao. And yes, the leather belt shall be
returned to the lawful owner, T. Murakami.