Scribd
Upload
561 views2 pages

People V Delos Santos G.R. No. 220685

Respondent was accused of qualified theft for using the electric and water supplies of Benguet Pines Tourist Inn without permission. Respondent claimed his now-deceased father had expressly allowed him to do so. The court found that the dead man's statute did not bar this defense, as the elements of lack of consent and criminal intent were absent - respondent had acted in good faith based on his father's authority. The court ultimately ruled in favor of respondent, finding he was not liable as he did not intend to appropriate the property and believed he had permission from his father to use the supplies.

Uploaded by

Pio Guieb Aguilar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
561 views2 pages

People V Delos Santos G.R. No. 220685

Respondent was accused of qualified theft for using the electric and water supplies of Benguet Pines Tourist Inn without permission. Respondent claimed his now-deceased father had expressly allowed him to do so. The court found that the dead man's statute did not bar this defense, as the elements of lack of consent and criminal intent were absent - respondent had acted in good faith based on his father's authority. The court ultimately ruled in favor of respondent, finding he was not liable as he did not intend to appropriate the property and believed he had permission from his father to use the supplies.

Uploaded by

Pio Guieb Aguilar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People v Delos Santos G.R. No.

220685

Facts:

Respondent underook the construction of a building in Baguio City. Virgilio was the president of
Univ of Manila.

Respondents father died on Jan 21, 2008 and succeeded by Emily De Leon. De Leon filed a cim
case against respondent for qualified theft of electric and water supply of Benguet Pines of
Tourist Inn.

Respondent’s defense of being expressly allowed to do so to use electtic and water supplies of
Benguet Inn by his father is barred under the Dead Man’s Statute.

RTC: RTC found probable cause to indict respondent. Not barred by dead man’s statute

Issue: WON Respondent is liable?

Held: No.

It has been held that in cases where one, in good faith, takes another’s property under claim of
title in himself, he is exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim
may in fact be. And the same is true where the taking is on behalf of another, believed to be the
true owner.

As correctly ruled by the CA, the elements of lack of owner’s consent and intent to gain are
evidently absent in this case. To recount, UM, which owns BPTI, is an educational institution
established and owned by respondent’s amily. His father, Virgilio, owned 70.79% of the entire
shares of stock of the UM, and respondent himself claims 9.85% share thereof.

As such, respondent had no criminal intent — as he, in fact, acted on the faith of his father’s
authority, on behalf of UM — to appropriate said personal property. It has been held that in
cases where one, in good faith, “takes another’s property under claim of title in himself, he is
exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim may in fact be.

When Dead man’s statute applies

The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded
from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled
to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction.9 But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the introduction of
testimonial evidence, it is necessary that:
"1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to case or persons in whose behalf a case
in prosecuted.

2. The action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a


deceased person or a person of unsound mind;

3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against person of unsound mind;

4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact of which occurred before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind."

You might also like