Napartehan sa perang napulot at nagastos, puwedeng makasuhan

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | May 12, 2023

Dear Chief Acosta,

Ang aking anak ay tinawag ng dalawa niyang kaibigan na nakatagpo ng halagang P100,000 habang naglalakad sa isang madilim na kalye sa aming barangay. Sang-ayon sa kanilang usapan, pinaghati-hatian nila ang pera at ito ay nagastos ng aking anak pambili ng ilang materyales pang-ayos ng aming bahay at ilang mga appliances.

Kinalaunan, may mga pulis na nagtungo sa aming bahay. Hinahanap nila ang aking anak na naituro diumano na isa sa mga nakatagpo ng pera. Itinuro ng aking anak ang dalawa niyang kaibigan na nakatagpo ng pera, ngunit nagastos na rin nila ang kanilang parte. Kinasuhan ang dalawang bata, kasama ang aking anak. Hindi naman nagnakaw ang aking anak at nakibahagi lamang sa hatian, tama ba na naisama siya sa kaso? –Fanny

Dear Fanny,

Ang iyong katanungan ay sinagot ng Korte Suprema sa kasong Fernando Pante y Rangasa v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 218969, January 18, 2021, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando), kung saan sinabi ang konsepto ng ‘finder in law’ kung saan ipinahayag ng Korte Suprema na hindi lamang ang taong aktwal na nakahanap ng isang bagay at hindi nagsauli nito ang may-sala, kundi pati ang mga taong nakibahagi o pinaglipatan nito. Ayon sa Korte Suprema:

“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: 1) the finding of lost property; 2) the failure of the finder to deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner.

In fine, 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 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 minor 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 was 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 of 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.”

Gaya sa kaso ng iyong anak, siya ay makokonsiderang ‘finder in law’ at may pananagutan sa ilalim ng batas dahil siya ay nakibahagi sa paghahati ng nasabing natagpuang pera, gayung alam naman niyang ito ay napulot lamang. Hindi magiging depensa na hindi naman siya ang mismong nakatagpo o nakapulot ng pera dahil ang tinitingnan ng batas ay ang ilegal o hindi makatwirang pagkuha o paggamit ng pera na alam mo namang pag-aari ng iba.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.