People of the Philippines Vs. Ireneo Tumlos; G.R. No. 46428; April 13, 1939

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. IRENEO TUMLOS; G.R. No. 46428; April 13, 1939

EN BANC

FACTS:

            On or about November 21, 1937, eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and five belonging to his son-in-law, Ambrosio Pecasis, then grazing together in the barrio of Libong-cogon, municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo, were taken by the herein defendant without the knowledge or consent of their respective owners. The deputy fiscal of Iloilo filed on July 11, 1938, an information against the said defendant for the offense of theft of the eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega, which resulted in his being sentenced on July 15, 1938, to an indeterminate penalty of from one year, eight months and twenty-one days to five years, five months and eleven days of prision correccional, with the accessories prescribed by law and costs. In the information filed in the present case the same defendant is charged with the theft of five cows belonging to Ambrosio Pecasis, committed on November 21, 1937, the date of the commission of the theft to the eight cows of Maximiano Sobrevega charged to the previous information.

ISSUE:

    Whether or Not the petitioner committed a continuous crime (Delito Continuado)

RULING:

                YES, Irineo Tumlos committed a continuous crime. The theft of the thirteen cows committed by the defendant took place at the same time and in the same place; consequently, he performed but one act. The fact that eight of said cows pertained to one owner and five to another does not make him criminally liable for two distinct offenses, for the reason that in such case the act must be divided into two, which act is not susceptible of division.

                 The intention was likewise one, namely, to take for the purpose of appropriating or selling the thirteen cows which he found grazing in the same place. As neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division, the offense arising from the concurrence of its two constituent elements cannot be divided, it being immaterial that the subject matter of the offense is singular or plural, because whether said subject matter be one or several animate or inanimate objects, it is but one.