Haystack: US v. Carlos (GR 6295, 1 September 1911)

US v. Carlos
[G.R. No. 6295. September 1, 1911.]
En Banc, per curiam: 4 concur.

Facts: Ignacio Carlos has been a consumer of electricity furnished by the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company for a building containing the residence of the accused and 3 other residences. On 15 March 1909, representatives of the company, believing that more light is consumed than what is shown in the meter, installed an additional meter on a pole outside Carlos’ house to compare actual consumption (2,500 kilowatts against 233 kilowatts). Marks on the insulation of the meter points to the use of “jumper.” Further, the consumption registered in the inside meter is not the reasonable amount for the number of lights installed in Carlos’ building. On the strength of a search warrant duly served by a police officer, a “jumper” was found in a drawer of a small cabinet in the room of the defendant’s house were the meter was installed. In the absence of any explanation for Carlos’ possession of said device, the presumption raised was that Carlos was the owner of the device whose only use was to deflect the current from the meter.

Thus, it was deduced that from 13 February, 1909 and until 3 March 1910, Carlos was found to have taken 2,273 kilowatts of electric current, worth P909.20, the electricity being the property of the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, a corporation doing business in the Philippine Islands, without the consent of the owner thereof. Thus, he was charged with the crime of theft. A warrant for the arrest of Carlos was issued by Judge Jenkins on 4 March and placed in the hands of the sheriff. The sheriff's return shows that the defendant gave bond for his appearance. On 14 March, the counsel for the defendant demurred to the complaint claiming the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, and that the facts do not constitute a public offense. The demurrer was overruled, and as defendant refused to plead, a plea of not guilty was entered for him. After due trial, Carlos was found guilty and was sentenced to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days in prison, and was ordered to indemnify Manila Electric Railroad and Light company in the sum of P865.26 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. From this judgment, defendant appealed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from; with costs against the appellant.

1. US v. Grant and Kennedy; overrule of demurrer on issue involving alleged lack of preliminary investigation
The question whether "the court erred in overruling the objection of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court, because he was not given a preliminary investigation as required by law, and in overruling his demurrer” is the same as was raised in US v. Grant and Kennedy (18 Phil 122), where after a thorough examination and due consideration, decided adversely to appellant's contention. No sufficient reason is presented why the Court should not follow the doctrine enunciated in that case.

2. Right of ownership of electric current secured by article 517-518 of the Penal Code
The right of ownership of electric current is secured by articles 517 and 518 of the Penal Code; the application of these articles in cases of substraction of gas, a fluid used for lighting, and in some respects resembling electricity, is confirmed by the rule laid down in the decisions of the supreme court of Spain January 20, 1887, and April 1, 1897, construing and enforcing the provisions of articles 530 and 531 of the penal code of that country, articles identical with articles 517 and 518 of the code in force” in the Philippines (US v. Genato).

3. Test of proper subject of larceny
The true test of what is a proper subject of larceny seems to be not whether the subject is corporeal or incorporeal, but whether it is capable of appropriation by another than the owner. It is true that electricity is no longer, as formerly, regarded by electricians as a fluid, but its manifestations and effects, like those of gas, may be seen and felt. There is nothing in the nature of gas used for illuminating purposes which renders it incapable of being feloniously taken and carried away. It is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold like other personal property, susceptible of being severed from a mass or larger quantity, and of being transported from place to place (Commonwealth v. Shaw). Electricity, the same as gas, is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold like other personal property and is capable of appropriation by another.

4. Illuminating gas subject of larceny even in the absence of statute
Further, it is well-settled that illuminating gas may be the subject of larceny, even in the absence of a statute so providing. (Decisions of supreme court of Spain, January 20, 1887. and April 1, 1897, supra; also (England) Queen vs. Firth, L. R. 1 C. C., 172, 11 Cox C. C., 234; Queen vs. White, 3 C. & K., 363, 6 Cox C. C., 213; Woods vs. People, 222 Ill., 293, 7 L. R. A., 520; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Allen (Mass.), 308; State vs. Wellman, 34 Minn., 221, N. W. Rep., 385, and 25 Cyc., p. 12, note 10.)

5. No consent by company for defendant to misappropriate electricity
The company had a contract with the defendant to furnish him with current for lighting purposes. It could not stop the misappropriation without cutting off the current entirely. It could not reduce the current so as to just furnish sufficient for the lighting of two, three, or five lights, as claimed by the defendant that he used during the most of this times but the current must always be sufficiently strong to furnish current for the thirty lights, at any time the defendant desired to use them. There is no indication that the company wished the electricity to be taken, and no knowledge by the defendant that the company wished him to take the current, and no mutual understanding between the company and the defendant, and no measures of inducement of any kind were employed by the company for the purpose of leading the defendant into temptation, and no preconcert whatever between him and the company: The original design to misappropriate this current was formed by the defendant absolutely independent of any acts on the part of the company or its agents.

6. Consolidation of complaint covering a period beneficial, rather than prejudicial to the defendant
None of the essential rights of the defendant were shown to have been prejudiced by reason of the fact that the complaint covered the entire period. If twelve distinct and separate complaints had been filed against the defendant, one for each month, the sum total of the penalties imposed might have been very much greater than that imposed by the court in this case. The covering of the entire period by one charge has been beneficial, if anything, and not prejudicial to the rights of the defendant. The electricity was stolen from the same person, in the same manner, and in the same place. It was substantially one continuous act, although the "jumper" might have been removed and replaced daily or monthly.

7. Continuous act; Analogy of a person stealing gas by means of a pipe
A person stole gas for the use of a manufactory by means of a pipe, which drew off the gas from the main without allowing it to pass through the meter. The gas from this pipe was burnt everyday, and turned off at night. The pipe was never closed at its junction with the main, and consequently always remained full of gas. It was held, that if the pipe always remained full, there was, in fact, a continuous taking of the gas and not a series of separate takings. It was held also that even if the pipe had not been kept full, the taking would have been continuous, as it was substantially all one transaction." (Regina vs. Firth, L. R., 1 C. C., 172; 11 Cox C. C., 234. Cited on p. 758 of Wharton's Criminal-Law, vol. 1, 10th ed.)

	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.