U.S. vs.

De Vera

Facts: On the 20th of February, 1920, three Igorots named Jose II,
Balatan, and Pepe were on the Escolta, of this city, trying to dispose of a bar
of gold when an Ilocano invited them to go to his house, stating that there
was a woman there who would buy the precious metal. They accompanied
the Ilocano to the house indicated by him where they met a woman, the
accused herein, who, apparently, was desirous of buying the gold and
requested them to hand it examined, stating that she would return within a
short time to report the result. The Igorot Pepe, who was the owner of the
bar of gold, thereupon handed it to her to have changed into silver coins.

The woman the left the house at about 12 o'clock on that day, asking the
Igorots to wait there. But the woman did not return. They agreed that one of
them should remain on watch while the other two went to the Meisic police
station to report the matter.

The policeman Jose Gonzalez, assigned to take charge of the case, soon
identified the woman who had taken away the bar of gold, by the description
which the Igorots had given him, an at a few minutes after 11 o'clock he
already was in a house on Calle Barcelona, examining the accused as to the
whereabouts of the bar of gold and the bank notes of the Igorots.

The two other policemen, Mr. Abbot and one Ronas, arrived, they took the
woman to house at No. 541 Calle Regidor, followed by Gonzalez and the
three Igorots. There the bar of gold divided into three pieces was found
wrapped in a handkerchief and placed inside the water tank of a water-
closet. The accused requested one Mamerta de la Rosa to let her have P150
which she in tun handed to the policemen.

According to Exhibit B, which is a certificate issued by the Bureau of Science, the bar of gold
delivered to the accused weighed 559.7 grammes and was worth P587.68 at the rate of P1.05
per gramme; whereas, the three bars found by the police weighed only 416 grammes, and were,
therefor, 143.7 grammes short. Of the P200 bank notes delivered to the accused, she returned
only P150.

Issue: WON the thing was delivered freely to the accused to effect actual delivery which would
not fall under the crime of theft.

Held: When the delivery of a chattel or cattle has not the effect of transferring the juridical
possession thereof, or title thereto, it is presumed that the possession of, and title to, the thing
so delivered remains in the owner; and the act of disposing thereof with intent of gain and
without the consent of the owner constitutes the crime of theft.