Wayne Jain v IAC GR NO.

63129

This is a petition to review a decision finding the petitioner accused of theft of sugar canes.

Facts:

On or about and during the period from January 12, 1973 to May 28, 1973 at Honob Loading
Station, Katingal-an, City of San Carlos, Negros Occidental. Wayne Jain and Andres
Resfuentes conspired together and helping one another with intent to gain but without
intimidation of person or force did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take steal
and carry away 19 cane cars loaded with sugarcane valued at 8351.55 Philippine currency,
representing the total planters share of said sugarcane milled, owned by and belonging to one
Tomasa Bermejo and without the consent of the letter, to her damage and prejudice in the
aforestated sum of 8351.55 pesos.

Andres, the water man, was convicted as an accessory in the crime of simple theft and was
sentenced accordingly and did not appeal. On the other hand, Jain raised questions of fact in
the court of appeals, whether under the facts of the case, he could be convicted of theft. He
insisted that he did not commit theft and that if at all the crime, which he committed was estafa;
and he cannot be convicted of estafa either because it is not a crime which is charged on the
two information.

In support of his claim petitioner says that he did not actually and or physically take, steal and
carry away cane loaded with sugar cane belonging to the complainant, which are the subject
matter of the offense charged.

After the loading of the said things they were pulled by the locomotive of the central to the Mill
site, the accused Wayne in conspiracy with Bermejo’s sugarcane guard withdrew the trainman’s
receipt from the box and substitute it with other trainman’s receipt in this name Wayne thereby
making it appear that the said cane sugars belonged to him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Wayne Jain should be accused of theft.
Whether or not the Supreme Court erred in accusing Jain of theft.

RULING

The petition was granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was set said aside and the
Provincial Fiscal of Negros occidental is directed to find appropriate information against a
Petitioner for a Stair for our falsification of private documents.

In the case of the bar, the sugar canes belonging to Bermejo loaded in cane cars were the
subject matter of the fence charged though charged, it was not proved that Jain had a hand in
said canes, he did not even touch, much less take or steal and carry away they said canes. The
canes reached the mill without his intervention. All the petitioner did was to substitute the train
receipts to claim from the Central the proceeds of said canes not the canes themselves.

From the comparison of definitions given it is obvious that the most fundamental notion in the
crime of theft is the taking of the thing to be appropriated into the physical power of the thief,
which idea is qualified by other conditions such as that the taking must be affected animo
lucrandi and without the consent of the owner and it will be here noted that the definition does
not require that the taking should be affected against the will of the owner but merely, that it
should be without his consent a distinction of no slight importance.

Evidence from the foregoing is the condition sine qua non that for theft, there should be a
physical handling of personal property. Such a condition is not present in the case at the bar for
at no time did the petitioner laid his hands on the sugarcane which belonged to others. The
petitioner is right, he did not commit theft but he committed estafa.