Napulot na pera o ari-arian, dapat ibalik sa may-ari

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | June 14, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Pagkauwi ng anak ko ay nag-abot siya ng sobre na napulot diumano niya sa daan habang siya ay naglalakad pauwi. Binuksan ko ito at nakita ko na may lamang maraming pera. Wala naman sa amin ang nakakaalam kung sino ang may-ari nito, at wala rin naman kaming narinig na may nawawalan ng pera. May kaso ba kapag hindi ko naibalik sa may-ari ang pera na napulot ng anak ko? — Evelyn

---

Dear Evelyn, 

Alinsunod sa ating  Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, ang kasong Theft ay maaaring isampa sa sinumang nakahanap ng nawawalang ari-arian at hindi ito ibinigay sa lokal na awtoridad o sa may-ari nito. Ang patakarang ito ay nakasaad sa Artikulo 308 ng nasabing batas na nagsasaad na:

“Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;

2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and

3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm products.”

Ang probisyon ng batas na ito ay hindi limitado sa aktuwal na nakahanap ng nawawalang ari-arian. Ang konseptong ito ay ipinaliwanag ng ating Korte Suprema sa kasong Fernando Pante Y Rangasa vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 218969, 18 January 2021), sa panulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, viz.: 

“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. ‘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 case, whether or not the person taking the money is guilty of [theft] must be determined on the same principles which govern in the case of the actual finder.’”

Ayon sa nasabing kaso, ang sinuman, kahit hindi ang aktuwal na nakatagpo ng ari-arian ng iba, na maglalagay sa kanyang sarili sa sitwasyon na parang siya na rin ang aktuwal na nakahanap ay maituturing na finder in law at maaaring managot sa kasong Theft sapagkat layunin ng batas na protektahan ang may-ari ng nawawalang bagay sa sitwasyon kung saan nailipat-lipat na sa iba’t ibang tao ang kanyang nawawalang ari-arian. Ito ay upang hindi makatakas sa parusa ang isang finder in law na walang intensyon na magnakaw, ngunit sadyang tumanggap ng nawawalang ari-arian mula sa nakahanap at may masasamang layunin na kunin ito para sa kanyang sariling kapakinabangan.  

Kung kaya’t sa iyong sitwasyon, maaari ka pa ring makasuhan ng Theft kahit na hindi naman ikaw ang nakapulot ng sobre na naglalaman ng pera. Simula noong ibinigay sa iyo ng iyong anak ang sobreng may pera, nagkaroon ka ng oportunidad at obligasyon na ibalik ang nasabing pera sa may-ari nito o sa mga lokal na awtoridad. Iyong tandaan sa ating batas na hindi kinakailangan sa kasong Theft na kilala ang nagmamay-ari ng nawawalang ari-arian. Kung kaya’t kahit hindi mo kilala ang may-ari ng nasabing pera, maaari ka pa ring managot sa kasong Theft kung hindi mo ito ibibigay sa lokal na awtoridad. 

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.