THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SANG KUPANG MAMBANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The court in this case found the defendant guilty upon the evidence
of the theft of [large] cattle and sentenced him to 4 years and 10
months of presidio correctional, and to pay an indemnity of P80, the value of the carabao stolen.

The appellant presents only a question of fact. A careful examination
of the evidence leads to the irresistible conclusion that it is
sufficient to sustain the conviction. There seems to be no reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the appellant if the witnesses for the
prosecution are worthy of credit; and that is a matter which rests very
largely with the trial court to determine. We find nothing which would
indicate that the trial court was misled or was mistaken in his
estimate of the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it
and we are therefore unable to interfere with its finding in that
regard.

The question raised in the case and most strongly argued is one
presented and argued by the Attorney-General himself in favor of the
accused to the effect that the trial court improperly charged the
appellant with the payment of the value of the carabao stolen, the
reason given being that the carabao died after it had been taken from
the possession of the appellant and while it was being held by the
Constabulary pending the trial of the appellant, and that no act of the
appellant contributed to the death.

We do not agree with this contention. It is undoubted that the
carabao died a natural death; but it is to be remembered that it died
while out of the possession of its owner as a result of criminal act of
the appellant. We believe it to be the general rule in this
jurisdiction that a person is responsible for the results which flow
from his criminal act; and where, by reason of such an act, a person is
deprived of the possession of his property, the malefactor is
responsible to the owner either for the return of the property or for
the payment of its value if it cannot be returned—and this whether the
property is lost or destroyed by the act of the malefactor, or that of any other person, or is the result of whatever other cause.

The Penal Code provides in article 17 that “every person criminally
liable for a felony or misdemeanor is also civilly liable;” and article
119 declares that “the civil liability established in chapter II, title
II, of this book comprises: 1. Restitution; 2. Reparation of the damage
caused; 3. Indemnification for consequential damages.” These terms are
sufficiently broad to cover a loss sustained in the manner presented by
this case and support the general rule which we have just stated.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, except that one day should
be added to the penalty, making it 4 years, 10 months and one day of
presidio correctional. As so modified, it is affirmed, with costs
against the appellant. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur