G.R. No. 14887. January 31, 1961
AVELINO NATIVIDAD, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
BENGZON, J.:
electric current, in the Manila court of first instance. They were
convicted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of
the first, but acquitted Villanueva.
Hence this petition for
review, which is mainly based on the proposition that as both accused
had been prosecuted for having conspired to steal electric current, the
exoneration of one should entail the acquittal of the other.
According to the Court of Appeals, “in 1949, appellant Villanueva
established a laundry business at 159-A Padilla St., San Miguel,
Manila, under the title of Majestic Steam Laundry and Dry Cleaners. The
electric energy needed for its operation was supplied by the Manila
Electric Company which, on December 5, 1949, installed in Villanueva’s
establishment the new electric meter exhibit A. ***** Appellant
Villanueva regularly paid for his electric consumption upon
presentation of the corresponding bills, which steadily increased in
amount from P112.00 and P116.00 for the first and second months
(January 10 to February 8 and thence to March 9, 1950), until the 17th
month (May 10 to June 9, 1951) when the amount paid was P248.00 (Exhs.
H-1 and 3-Villanueva). Spurred by reports that “electric current all
over Manila were being tampered by a person named Manuel Arboleda” and
that Majestic Steam Laundry and Dry Cleaners was one of the places
visited by him, and because the value of the electric current consumed
by this laundry establishment in June and July, 1951, dropped abruptly
to P176.00 and P186.00, respectively (Exhs. H-1 and 3-Villanueva),
Manila Electric Company ordered the removal of meter exhibit A from
appellant Villanueva’s establishment and its substitution with another
meter. Exhibit A was removed on August 30, 1951. * * *. And after the
removal of the meter’s glass cover, Tanyag, Mayor and Cayco (employees
of Meralco) noticed that the mounting screws of the register show
scratches, and they readily presumed and concluded “that the register
had been detached from the meter which I (Cayco) believe turning back
the reading of the meter.”
“The electric
current consumption registered by exhibit A from August 9 to August 20,
1951 when it was removed, was 6980; and that as shown by the substitute
meter, from the latter date up to September 8, was 1660, or a total of
8,640 KWH the value of which—P478.00 * * *.”“When he was
investigated by the Manila Police, Natividad denied having tampered
with the electric meter in question; but on November 9, 1951, he
appeared before Attorney C. S. Van Hoven of complainant’s legal
department, who took Natividad’s affidavit which was signed and sworn
to before Attorney Pastor S. del Rosario of the same department on
February 26, 1952 (Exh. G) * * * wherein he admitted that for the
consideration of P150.00 which his co-appellant Villanueva promised to
pay him and his companions, he (Natividad) agreed to tamper with
exhibit A in order to reduce Villanueva’s electric bill, and that on
July 10, 1951, instead of actually reading the meter he merely recorded
130 as the reading, which is very much lower than the previous reading
of 202 * * *.”“The evidence is clear and convincing that
he has not recorded the true and correct reading of Villanueva’s meter
but instead made a false reading to reduce the amount to be paid by
Villanueva to Meralco for his current, and in addition he (Natividad)
also personally tampered with the meter.”
It will be observed that the gist of the crime was that in accordance
with a previous understanding with consumer Villanueva, this appellant
Natividad[1] meter-reader of
the Meralco—misread the electric meter so as to decrease the amount
which such consumer had to pay, and paid, to the owner of the electric
current, the Meralco.
According to the appellate court,
Natividad knowingly “under-read” the electric meter in Villanueva’s
premises and falsely reported the readings during the period from June
9 to July 10, 1951, and from July 10 to August 9, 1951, thereby
enabling Villanueva to appropriate, for nothing, about 11,830 electric
kilowatt hours valued at P594.00. Meralco was thus pro tanto
deprived of its property through the connivance of this employee. As to
such connivance and deprivation there can be no doubt, because the
petitioner himself so confessed in an affidavit.
The resulting situation does not materially differ from the case of U. S. vs.
Carlos, 21 Phil. 553, wherein the consumer of electric current having
managed to evade payment of part of his accounts by using the so-called
“jumper” to deflect the current from the house electric meter, was held
by this Court to be guilty of theft.
Contrary to
petitioner’s contention, the acquittal of Villanueva did not
necessarily mean that no electric current had been taken away gratis.
There was a factual finding of such larceny by the Court of Appeals,
which we are not at liberty to disturb. Anyway, the acquittal rested on
the lack of proof that Villanueva had tampered with the
electric meter to conceal the crime. The offense was already committed
when Villanueva paid his bills (reduced) for July and August.[2] And herein petitioner admitted such bills and payment accorded with his “under-reading.”
If
it be argued that, without such tampering, the theft could not have
been “consummated” because sooner or later, the true consumption will
be discovered and the consumer will be made to pay accordingly, the
answer is, there are other ways of concealing the swindle or of evading
payment of the unreported fluid consumption.
We must, therefore, affirm the conviction; and as there is no question raised concerning the penalty,[3] the judgment of the appellate court is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Paras, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] He was paid money for it.
[2] Cf. U.S. vs. Tambunting, 41 Phil. 364.
[3] 6 years and 1 day to 9 years and 4 months of prision mayor, plus indemnity of P594.00