February 18, 1948

People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Dino y Romero

Facts:

• Appeal from a judgments of the CFI of Manila finding appellant guilty as accomplice in the
crime of qualifed theft and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate pernalty of not lesst than 3
months and 11 days of arresto mayor, nor more than 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prison
correcional, with the accessory penalties imposed by law, and to pay the costs.

• On June 20, 1946, Roberto Dino was employed as a driver of the Us army at a station in
General Depot, APO 75, Quezon City. At above 11:30pm, he bought to the 670th Medium Port,
South Harbor, Manila, a truckload of articles, all unloaded from the truck by the gang employed
by the US army. Afterwards, he drove away hist truck from the port, but as he was nearting an
M.P. Checkpoint, a colored guard approached the truck and found 3 boxes loaded, where
conatining 10 caliber, 30 army rifles. The guard Dino to the checkpoint where as US army
lieutenant, upon seeing the 3 boxes, asked Dino if he had loaded them, but the latter said he did
not. The lieutenant went to the foreman and his gang employed to unload the articles of the
Medium port, but all of them denied having loaded the boxes. Later, Dino confessed that 4
persons helped him put the boxes on board and he was instructed to bring them out of the area.
• Appelants was subjected to an investigation and signed a written statement (Exhibit “A”),
declaring that he was stopeed by 4 men who loaded the boxes in the truck and told him to bring
them out of the area, while they were to meet him after he had passed the checkpoint, and
consented to brin the artilces because he had been told that the men would answer therfore and
would give him a certain share in the articles. The trial court held that the boxes could not have
been loaded in the truck without Dino's consent, and if such consent was really obtained
through fear, he could have given an account thereof to the checkpoint guard; the lower court
refused to believe appellant's explanation and found him guilty as already indicated.
• Dino contends that: (1) the trial court erred in accepting Exhibit A as a voluntary confession,
secured without violence or fraud; (2) that it erred in finding the 3 boxes of rifles were found by
the guard in the truck of the accused; (3) that it erred in not giving credit to Dino's Testimony;
(4) that the trial court erred in finding him guilty and sentencing him.
• The investigator who took the statement, testifed in court, and he declared that the statement
was taken in the presence of many people, and that it was sent after to the assstant provost
marshial (APM|) of this act. The claim that the statement, he could have immediatelty informed
the APM of this fact. The claim that the statement was made involuntarily by the appellant is
therefore, DISMISSED.
• The claim that the boxes were found on the way and were loaded in the truck by the guard with
the Dino's help is contrary to the latter's own statement. This court finds that the trial court did
not err in refusing to believe such claim for being contrary to the lieutenant's testimony and to
the facts of the case. Dino's testimony was not corroborated by any other witness or
circumstance sufficiently proved at the trial.
• The court sentence Dino for the crime QUALIFED THEFT.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the crime if theft was consummated consideing the foregoing.

Held:

• Trial Court: Diño was found guilty as an accomplice in the consummated crime of theft.
• Supreme Court: Diño was found guilty as a principal in the frustrated crime of theft. in order for
the crime of theft to be consummated the article should have passed the checkpoint, so that the
thief could have full control and could dispense of the property.