G.R. No. 1986. March 13, 1905

The proofs in the case show conclusively that the defendant, on an
evening in the month of September, 1903, with the intention of
profiting thereby, substracted two carabaos valued at 280 pesos
belonging to Prudencio Soriano from the corral where they were kept,
and against the will of said Soriano.

These facts constitute the crime of theft as provided for and
punished in subsection 2 of article 518 of the Penal Code. The value of
the effects stolen exceeds 1,250 pesetas and is less than 6,250
pesetas. The judge of the court below acted in accordance with the law
when he found the defendant guilty of the crime with which he was
charged, and, taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity, imposed upon him the penalty of two years eleven months and
eleven days of presidio correccional.

The defense in this instance alleges (1) that the complaint does not
state facts sufficient to constitute the crime of theft, since there is
nothing in it regarding the fact that the taking of the carabaos was
without the consent of the owner thereof, which circumstance is a
requisite necessary to constitute the crime in question; (2) that in
fact there was nothing proven at the trial, nor even attempted to be
proven, that the substraction of the carabaos was made against the will
of the owner.

The first allegation of the defense lacks foundation because the complaint states that the defendant substracted
the carabaos. This word “substract” means that the defendant took
possession of the carabaos against the will of the owner, because, as
the public prosecutor shows in his brief, ‘to substract” means to take
something clandestinely away without the knowledge and, therefore,
without the consent of its owner.

Section 6 of General Orders, No. 58, expressly declares that it is
not necessary to use in the complaint the same words as in the law when
the complaint states acts or omissions which constitute a crime; it is
sufficient if it states the crime in such a way that a person of
ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is meant and the court
can decide the matter according to the law. As regards the second
allegation of the defense, it is not true that there is no proof that
the carabaos were substracted against the will of the owner. The latter
says in his statement that the carabaos were stolen and that the defendant was the one who stole the same. In another part of his statement he says that the carabaos were in a corral when the defendant stole them and that the theft
was perpetrated in the nighttime. He could not, indeed, express in a
more emphatic manner the want of his consent to the substraction of the
said carabaos when he says they have been stolen by the defendant. Theft implies, necessarily, the lack of consent on the part of the owner.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs in this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.