PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

SIMEON YUSAY

FACTS:

Leonor Gil de Lazaro was the owner of two sets of earrings valued at P600 which

she cause to be place in pawn with C. N. Hodges for a loan of money in the amount of

P50 and P30 on the two sets. While the earrings were thus held in custody by Hodges as

pledgee, the appellant presented himself at the pawnshop and falsely representing

himself to be the owner and pledger procured the jewels to be surrendered to him upon

payment of the amount due upon the pledges. Having gotten the jewels into his hands,

the appellant appropriated the same to his own use. It further appears that the appellant,

prior to presenting himself at the pawnshop, had stolen the pawn tickets pertaining to

these pledges from Leonor Gil de Lazaro who is the true owner and by this means was

able to give the serial numbers of the pawn tickets giving it to be understood that the pawn

tickets had been accidentally torn and destroyed. This circumstances explains how he

was able to impose on the pawnshop, but does not affect the fundamental fact that he

effected the redemption of the jewels by falsely claiming to be the true owner and pledger.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the suspect was liable of theft.

RULING:

The authorities are uniform to the effect that one with intent to appropriate gets his hands

on property by misrepresenting himself as owner or agent of the owner is guilty of the

crime of theft. This doctrine has been extended to the broader proposition, now of

universal recognition, that in any case where the original taking is without the consent of

the owner, or where the consent of the owner is obtained by false pretenses, the

appropriation of the property by the taker constitutes theft. Under the title Larceny in

Ruling Case Law we find it stated generally that if a person with preconceived design to

appropriate property to his own use obtains possession of it by means of fraud or trickery,

the taking amounts to larceny and this proposition is supported by citations too numerous

to be here repeated. A further consideration which shows that theft was committed as

against the owner of these jewels, when the appellant took them from the pawnshop as
is the crime of theft is above all else an offense against juridical possession. The thief

never acquires property of the thing stolen as against the owner. He acquired only a

manual possession, and the owner could without doubt have recovered the jewels from

the appellant if they could have been reached by legal process. This court gave complete

recognition to the principal that one who obtains possession of property from another by

false pretenses, with present intent to convert the property to his own use, is guilty of

larceny. It is entirely true that the appellant is this case committed the offense of theft in

taking the pawntickets as an offense which is not charged in the complaint and it is also

true that he committed estafa against the owner of the pawnshop when he effected the

redemption of the jewels by means of the misrepresentation of ownership. But the fact

that the acts done made the appellant amenable to prosecution for these other crimessupplies no
reason for refusing to convict him of the offense is charge in the complaint.

The conviction of the appellant for the crime of theft should be affirmed.