G.R. No.

L-12661 August 25, 1917

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ZACARIAS

TEGRADO, Defendant-Appellant.

Antonio M. Jimenez for appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Feria for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:

A colt valued at P34 was stolen from Valeriano Blanca. It was subsequently found
in the possession of Agapito Partolan. The latter testified that he bought the
animal from Zacarias Tegrado, the accused. The accused, however, claimed that
the colt was raised from a mare belonging to him and then sold to Partolan.
Identification of the colt to determine if its mother was a mare belonging to the
complainant Valeriano Blana or if its mother was a mare belonging to the
accused Zacarias Tegrado is, therefore, the determining factor. chanroblesv irt ualawli bra ry chan robles v irt ual law l ibra ry

The colt was identified by a number of witnesses as the property of Blanca. Other
witnesses testified to having seen the colt following a mare belonging to the
accused. Whom shall we believe? We could, of course, rest our conclusion on the
findings of the trial court. We could, in addition, point out grave discripancies in
the testimony of the witnesses for the defense, which argues against its
reliability. But there was present as in interested, spectator, another witnesses,
who, without being sworn, could tell the truth and nothing but the truth. This was
the colt. The colt was separated from the mare of the complaining witness and
turned loose; it at once went back to this mare. The colt was then taken to the
mare of the accused; but showed its dislike for the mare and tried to find the
mare of the complaining witness. Another colt was placed near the mare of the
complaining witness; thereupon the mare and that colt both resisted. This was a
practical demonstration worthy of a Solomon by which the colt was able to testify
by manifesting all the signs of the young, whether human or not, on finding a
long lost mother. (U. S. vs. Caralipio and Fernando [1911], 18 Phil. Rep., 421.)
virtua l law lib rary
chanrobles

If we are to accept the evidence of the prosecution as true, then we must

conclude that the defendant stole the colt. The presumption of stolen
property prima facie proof of guilt, would work against the accused. (U. S. vs.
Soriano [1907], 9 Phil. Rep., 445; U. S. vs. Lopez [1914], 25 Phil. Rep., 589) We
are convinced that the defendant is guilty as charged. chanro blesvi rt ualawlib ra ry chanrobles vi rt ual law li bra ry

The lower court found that the accused had previously been convicted of the
same crime. The court thereupon in view of the value of the colt, P34, which
would bring the facts within the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 518 of the
Penal Code, in view of article 520 of the same Code as amended which would
raise the penalty to the one next higher in degree, and in view of the fact that the
accused was a recidivist which would raise the penalty to the maximum,
sentenced the accused to four years two months and one day of presidio
correccional, to the accessories of the law, and to pay the cost. This judgment is
affirmed with the addition of an order to return the property stolen to its owner
if not already done, or to reimburse the owner in the amount of P34, or to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the costs of this instance. So
ordered.chanroble svi rtualaw lib rary