THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL PACE CARLOS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The accused was convicted of theft in the justice of the peace court
of Jaen, Nueva Ecija. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, he was
again found guilty of the crime and sentenced to two months and one day
of arresto mayor. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, but
the case has been endorsed to us on the ground that it involved a
question of jurisdiction.

The property stolen consisted of a table and two chairs, worth about
P17, belonging to the municipal government of Jaen and forming part of
the equipment of the Jaen Elementary School. The principal witness for
the prosecution, the policeman Elias Magtalas, testified that some time
in late December, 1941, or early January of the following year the said
table and chairs were taken by him from the school building to the house
of the accused by order of the latter, who was then chief of police.
Magtalas was accompanied by a police sergeant now dead. It would appear
that in those days looting was rampant in the poblacion of
Jaen because the townspeople had fled to the hills for fear of the
Japanese forces. After liberation, the mayor of the town, Bartolome
Garcia, circularized the townspeople enjoining them to return any
government property that had come to their possession. Some complied
with the circular. But the accused, who had by then ceased to be chief
of police, refused, to return the table and chairs in question,
claiming that they were his. They had to be seized by authority of a
search warrant issued by the justice of the peace.

There can be no question that the said table and chairs were part
of the equipment of the Jaen elementary school. Being of the standard
type prescribed by the Bureau of Education, they were readily
identified by the town treasurer. They also bad their distinguishing
marks. The policeman Magtalas said that, while the table was being
hauled into defendant’s house, one of its drawers collided with the
door and was damaged, while the chairs were without the armrest, for
defendant had these removed.

The accused denied having ordered any school property taken to his alleged residence in the poblacion, and in that connection he would have the court believe that the only house he had was in the barrio
of Langla and that he was most of the time in Manila where he was
engaged in the “buy and sell” business. In corroboration he presented
the testimony of Iluminada Fainilosa, who declared that the house in
the poblacion where the table and chairs in question were
seized by the police was hers and that the table had been acquired by
her from a furniture dealer from Manila while the chairs were given to
her by one Dalmacio Baguisa. This witness, however, could not present
any written evidence of ownership and the persons from whom she claimed
to have acquired the furniture were not put on the stand to corroborate
her. On the other hand, her neighbors testified that the house belonged
to defendant and that he actually lived there. According to the witness
Encarnacion Esquivel, the said house formerly belonged to her brother
but it was sold by him to defendant, who thereafter moved into it. It
may well be true as claimed that defendant had his house in the barrio, where his legitimate family was. But it appears no less certain that he had bought himself another house in the poblacion, where, according to the policeman Elias Magtalas, he stayed and kept his mistress.

The defense impugns the veracity of the policeman on the ground
that his testimony conflicts with the affidavit he had previously
signed, for while he declared in court that he was the one who took the
table and chairs from the school house to defendant’s residence, that
fact was not mentioned in the affidavit and what he there stated is
that he knew there was some government equipment in defendant’s house
because he had seen it there. The two declarations are not necessarily
contradictory. One is more explicit than the other. But the policeman
explained that he did not bother to go into details in his affidavit,
thinking that after all the whole truth could, be related in court at
the trial. The important fact is that the table and chairs, indubitably
identified at the trial as government property, were actually found in
defendant’s house and defendant had refused to surrender them on
demand, claiming that they were his. This is clearly established by the
testimony of Mayor Garcia and the policeman Magtalas and made entirely
believable by the fact that a warrant had to be issued to have the
property seized. Against the rather vague claim that defendant was not
in the house when the police went there with a search warrant, there is
the vivid account of Magtalas that on that occasion he found defendant
eating together with Iluminada Familosa so that when he handed the
search warrant for defendant to read, the latter had to wipe the rice
off his hands by rubbing them against the wall.

Not much importance can be given to the contention that this case
was filed because there was bad blood between him and the mayor due to
political rivalry. Even supposing that the mayor really had reasons to
wish him ill, that fact alone would not be sufficient to discredit the
prosecution, since the commission of the crime has been clearly proved.

Neither is there merit in the claim that the prosecution has failed
to prove that the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the
court. It is clearly inferrable from the testimony of the witnesses
that the school building from which the properties were taken was no
other than the town school in Jaen. And this fact is also made clear by
the testimony of the municipal treasurer when he said that the school
equipment of which the stolen properties formed part had been purchased
by him and sent to the principal of the Jaen Elementary School.

The judgment appealed from being in accordance with law and the
evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, and Jugo, JJ., concur.