Doctrine
Under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the RPC, theft is also committed by one’s failure to deliver lost property to its owner or local authorities. A “finder” under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the RPC is not only limited to the actual finder of the lost property, since the gist of the offense is the furtive taking and the misappropriation of the property found.
Facts
Dawson Word placed a bundle of money on his lap between his legs and drove to his apartment. He parked his car in front of his residence and forgot the money that he had placed on his lap. Upon alighting from the car, the bundled money fell on the road near his vehicle. The following morning, a bakery worker noticed a bundle of money lying on the ground near Word’s car. Meanwhile, a minor, one of Pante’s co-accused, who was riding his bike outside, also noticed the bundle of money, picked it up, and headed home. It was found that the minor co-accused shared the money among his other co-accused, a minor cousin, Pante, and himself. The parents of the minor who found the cash returned US$1,300.00, evidenced by a receipt. The other minor co-accused admitted to receiving US$500.00 but could not return it because he had already spent it. The police proceeded to the house of Pante, who also admitted that to receiving US$1,700.00. He was able to return US$300.00, P4,660.00, one unit of JVC component, and a gas stove with a tank.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pante is guilty of Theft, even if he was not the finder of the lost money
Ruling
Yes. Pante is guilty of Theft even if he was not the finder of the lost money. Under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the RPC, Theft is also committed by one’s failure to deliver lost property to its owner or local authorities. In this kind of Theft, it is essential to prove:
- The finding of lost property; and
- The failure of the finder to deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner.
In the case at bar, both the trial court and the appellate court found that the prosecution witnesses were able to prove that Word lost his bundled money after alighting from his car in front of his residence and forgetting that he had placed them between his legs. Such a fact was corroborated by the prosecution witness who testified that he positively saw the accused minor pick up the bundle of money under Word’s car.
In fine, a “finder” under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the RPC is not limited only to the actual finder of the lost property since the gist of the offense is the furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found. Though not the actual finder, there is no dispute that Pante knew for a fact that his two co-accused minors did not own the subject money. He knew for a fact that his co-accused minor merely found the money along the road while the latter was delivering bread. Instead of returning the money, Pante convinced his co-accused minors not to return the money and to divide it among themselves. At that moment, Pante placed himself precisely in the situation as if he were the actual finder. Otherwise stated, petitioner was a “finder in law,” if not in fact, and his act in appropriating the money was of precisely the same character as if it had been originally found by him. His criminal intent to commandeer the money found was altogether clear at that point.
The rationale for the “finder in law” concept is not difficult to fathom. It is precisely to protect the owner of the lost property in the event the lost property is transferred from one individual to another, and to prevent the “finder in law” from escaping liability by claiming that he was not the actual finder thereof but was merely entrusted custody thereof by someone who had no intention to appropriate the same. Otherwise, a person knowingly receiving lost property from the finder, who had no intent to steal, with the felonious intent to appropriate it to his [or her] own use, escapes punishment.
In such a case, whether or not the person taking the money is guilty of [theft] must be determined on the same principles that govern in the case of the actual finder. Having obtained possession of Word’s lost money, Pante had the opportunity and the obligation to return the lost property to its rightful owner or to the local authorities, but he unjustifiably refrained from doing so. Assuming for the sake of argument that he did not know that the money belonged to Word, Pante would still be held liable for theft for failing to return the amount. This is because the RPC does not require that the thief know the owner of the lost property. This is precisely why the subject penal provision gave the finder the option to return the lost property not only to the owner thereof but also to the local authorities