Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 234 views

    People V Dino

    Uploaded by

    LaurenOrtega
    Roberto Diño was employed as an army truck driver. One night, he brought boxes containing rifles from an army depot but four unknown men loaded the boxes onto his truck without his consent. At a checkpoint, the boxes were discovered. Diño confessed under investigation that the men loaded the boxes and told him to drive through the checkpoint. The court found that while Diño participated, the crime of theft was only frustrated because the goods were discovered before passing the checkpoint, not allowing the crime to be fully consummated. The court found Diño guilty as a principal of frustrated theft rather than an accomplice to consummated theft.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Dino

    Uploaded by

    LaurenOrtega
    234 views2 pages
    Roberto Diño was employed as an army truck driver. One night, he brought boxes containing rifles from an army depot but four unknown men loaded the boxes onto his truck without his consent. At a checkpoint, the boxes were discovered. Diño confessed under investigation that the men loaded the boxes and told him to drive through the checkpoint. The court found that while Diño participated, the crime of theft was only frustrated because the goods were discovered before passing the checkpoint, not allowing the crime to be fully consummated. The court found Diño guilty as a principal of frustrated theft rather than an accomplice to consummated theft.

    Original Description:

    People v Dino

    Original Title

    People v Dino

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Roberto Diño was employed as an army truck driver. One night, he brought boxes containing rifles from an army depot but four unknown men loaded the boxes onto his truck without his consent. At a checkpoint, the boxes were discovered. Diño confessed under investigation that the men loaded the boxes and told him to drive through the checkpoint. The court found that while Diño participated, the crime of theft was only frustrated because the goods were discovered before passing the checkpoint, not allowing the crime to be fully consummated. The court found Diño guilty as a principal of frustrated theft rather than an accomplice to consummated theft.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    234 views2 pages

    People V Dino

    Uploaded by

    LaurenOrtega
    Roberto Diño was employed as an army truck driver. One night, he brought boxes containing rifles from an army depot but four unknown men loaded the boxes onto his truck without his consent. At a checkpoint, the boxes were discovered. Diño confessed under investigation that the men loaded the boxes and told him to drive through the checkpoint. The court found that while Diño participated, the crime of theft was only frustrated because the goods were discovered before passing the checkpoint, not allowing the crime to be fully consummated. The court found Diño guilty as a principal of frustrated theft rather than an accomplice to consummated theft.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Title: People v Dio

    Date:
    February
    Plaintiff-Appellee:
    People
    Defendant-Appellant: Roberto Dio y Romero
    Ponente: J. Labrador

    of

    18,

    the

    1948
    Philippines

    Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Manila finding appellant guilty as accomplice in the crime of
    qualified theft and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of not less than 3 months and 11
    days of arresto mayor, nor more than 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prision correccional, with the
    accessory penalties imposed by law, and to pay the costs.

    Facts:
    On June 20, 1946, Roberto Dio was employed as a driver of the US army at a
    station in General Depot, APO 75, Quezon City. At above 11:30 PM, he brought to the
    670th Medium Port, South Harbor, Manila, a truckload of articles, all unloaded from
    the truck by the gang employed by the US army.
    Afterwards, he drove away his truck from the Port, but as he was nearing an
    M.P. checkpoint, a colored guard approached the truck and found 3 boxes loaded,
    each containing 10 caliber .30 army rifles. The guard brought Dio to the checkpoint
    where a US army lieutenant, upon seeing the 3 boxes, asked Dio if he had loaded
    them, but the latter said he did not. The lieutenant went to the foreman and his gang
    employed to unload the articles at the Medium Port, but all of them denied having
    loaded the boxes. Later, Dio confessed that 4 persons helped him put the boxes on
    board and he was instructed to bring them out of the area.
    Appellant was subjected to an investigation and signed a written statement
    (Exhibit A), declaring that he was stopped by 4 men who loaded the boxes in the
    truck and told him to bring them out of the area, while they were to meet him after
    he had passed the checkpoint, and consented to bring the articles because he had
    been told that the men would answer therefor and would give him a certain share in
    the articles.
    The trial court held that the boxes could not have been loaded in the truck
    without Dios consent, and if such consent was really obtained through fear, he
    could have given an account thereof to the checkpoint guard; the lower court refused
    to believe appellants explanation and found him guilty as already indicated.
    Dio contends that: (1) the trial court erred in accepting Exhibit A as a
    voluntary confession, secured without violence or fraud; (2) that it erred in finding the
    3 boxes of rifles were found by the guard in the truck of the accused; (3) that it erred
    in not giving credit to Dios testimony; (4) that the trial court erred in finding him
    guilty and sentencing him.
    The investigator who took the statement, Exhibit A, testified in court, and he
    declared that the statement was taken in the presence of many people, and that it
    was sent after to the assistant provost marshal (APM) for signature under oath. It is
    difficult to believe that Dio was coerced in view of the presence of many spectators
    during investigation. If he had been forced to sign the statement, he could have
    immediately informed the APM of this fact. The claim that the statement was made
    involuntarily by the appellant is therefore, DISMISSED.
    The claim that the boxes were found on the way and were loaded in the truck
    by the guard with the Dios help is contrary to the latters own statement, Exhibit A.
    This court finds that the trial court did not err in refusing to believe such claim for
    being contrary to the lieutenant's testimony and to the facts of the case. Dios
    testimony was not corroborated by any other witness or circumstance sufficiently
    proved at the trial.
    The court sentenced Dio for the crime of qualified theft. However, the
    evidence submitted fails to show that the articles were those entrusted to Dio for
    transportation in the truck driven. In fact, the articles delivered to the depot appear

    to have been unloaded and the 3 boxes were placed aboard when it had already left
    the depot and was on its way to the checkpoint. There was no elements of
    confidence involved, Dio being a mere laborer when he took part in taking away
    the loot from the depot. The crime committed is therefore, not qualified but
    simple theft.
    Two other points remain to be considered: the degree in which the crime was
    committed
    and
    the
    extend
    of
    the
    participation
    of
    the
    appellant.
    Issues:
    Whether or not the crime of simple theft was consummated.
    Held:
    NO. This court believes that in order to make the booty subject to the control
    and disposal of the culprits, the articles stolen must first be passed through the MP
    checkpoint, but since the offense was discovered and the articles seized after all the
    acts of execution had been performed, but before the loot came under the final
    control and disposal of the looters, the offense cannot be said to have been fully
    consummated, as it was frustrated by the timely intervention of the guard.
    Trial court found appellant guilty as accomplice in the consummated crime.
    However, this court found that the offense committed was only that of frustrated
    theft, the passing of the truck beyond the checkpoint away from the control of the
    guards being essential to the complete consummation of the crime, it is evident that
    appellant participated, not as an accomplice, but as a principal, having himself
    carried the articles in the truck, and the act of carrying the articles through the
    checkpoint being an indispensable part of the complete execution of the offense.
    Conclusion:
    Petitions DENIED. The judgment appealed from is MODIFIED, and appellant is
    found guilty as principal of the crime of frustrated theft, and is hereby sentenced
    to suffer the penalty of not less than 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor, nor
    more than 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prision correccional, and to pay the costs.

    You might also like