1. Roberto Diño was employed as a driver who was transporting goods from a US army depot. As he was passing a checkpoint, boxes containing rifles were discovered loaded on his truck.
2. Diño initially denied knowledge of the boxes but later confessed that others had instructed him to transport the boxes out of the area.
3. The court ruled that a crime of frustrated theft had been committed since the boxes were discovered before Diño could pass the checkpoint and freely dispose of the stolen goods, rather than the consummated crime of theft he was charged with.
1. Roberto Diño was employed as a driver who was transporting goods from a US army depot. As he was passing a checkpoint, boxes containing rifles were discovered loaded on his truck.
2. Diño initially denied knowledge of the boxes but later confessed that others had instructed him to transport the boxes out of the area.
3. The court ruled that a crime of frustrated theft had been committed since the boxes were discovered before Diño could pass the checkpoint and freely dispose of the stolen goods, rather than the consummated crime of theft he was charged with.
1. Roberto Diño was employed as a driver who was transporting goods from a US army depot. As he was passing a checkpoint, boxes containing rifles were discovered loaded on his truck.
2. Diño initially denied knowledge of the boxes but later confessed that others had instructed him to transport the boxes out of the area.
3. The court ruled that a crime of frustrated theft had been committed since the boxes were discovered before Diño could pass the checkpoint and freely dispose of the stolen goods, rather than the consummated crime of theft he was charged with.
1. Roberto Diño was employed as a driver who was transporting goods from a US army depot. As he was passing a checkpoint, boxes containing rifles were discovered loaded on his truck.
2. Diño initially denied knowledge of the boxes but later confessed that others had instructed him to transport the boxes out of the area.
3. The court ruled that a crime of frustrated theft had been committed since the boxes were discovered before Diño could pass the checkpoint and freely dispose of the stolen goods, rather than the consummated crime of theft he was charged with.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
83 PEOPLE V DINO 10.
It is then difficult to believe that Diño was coerced in view of the
45 OG 3446 | 18 FENB 1948| LABRADOR | DELFIN presence of many spectators during investigation. If he had been TOPIC: ARTICLE 5 forced to sign the statement, he could have immediately informed the APM of this fact. The claim that the statement was made involuntarily DOCTRINE: by the appellant is was dismissed by the court. In the Dino case, it was held that the crime committed is that of frustrated 11. The claim that the boxes were found on the way and were loaded in theft, because the fact determinative of consummation of the crime of the truck by the guard with the Diño’s help is contrary to the latter’s theft is the ability of the offender to dispose freely of the articles stolen, own statement. even if it were more or less momentarily. 12. Diño’s testimony was not corroborated by any other witness or circumstance sufficiently proved at the trial. ER: 13. The court sentenced Diño for the crime of qualified theft. However, the A truck loaded with stolen boxes of rifles was on the way out of the check evidence submitted fails to show that the articles were those entrusted point in South Harbor surrounded by a tall fence when an MP guard to Diño for transportation in the truck driven. In fact, the articles discovered the boxes on the truck. It was held that the crime committed delivered to the depot appear to have been unloaded and the 3 boxes was frustrated theft because of the timely discovery of the boxes on the were placed aboard when it had already left the depot and was on its truck before it could pass out of the checkpoint. way to the checkpoint. 14. There was no elements of confidence involved, Diño being a mere laborer when he took part in taking away the loot from the depot. The FACTS: crime committed is therefore, not qualified but simple theft. 1. Roberto Diño was employed as a driver of the US army at a station in 15. Two other points remain to be considered: the degree in which General Depot, APO 75, Quezon City. At about11:30 PM, he brought to the crime was committed and the extend of the participation of the 670th Medium Port, South Harbor, Manila, a truckload of articles, the appellant. all unloaded from the truck by the gang employed by the US army. 2. Afterwards, he drove away from the Port, but as he was nearing an ISSUE/S: M.P. checkpoint, a colored guard approached the truck and found 3 Whether or not the crime of simple theft was consummated? – NO. The boxes loaded, each containing 10 caliber .30 army rifles. crime is frustrated theft. 3. The guard brought Diño to the checkpoint where a US army lieutenant, upon seeing the 3 boxes, asked Diño if he had loaded them, but said HELD/RULING: he did not. This court believes that in order to make the articles subject to the 4. Later, Diño confessed that 4 persons helped him put the boxes on control and disposal of the culprits, the articles stolen must first be board and he was instructed to bring them out of the area. passed through the MP checkpoint, but since the offense was 5. Dino was subjected to an investigation where he signed a written discovered and the articles seized after all the acts of execution had statement declaring that he was stopped by 4 men who loaded the been performed, but before the loot came under the final control and boxes in the truck and told him to bring them out of the area, while disposal of the looters, the offense cannot be said to have been fully they were to meet him after he had passed the checkpoint. consummated, as it was frustrated by the timely intervention of the 6. He avers that he consented to bring the articles because he had been guard. told that the men would answer therefor and would give him a certain Trial court found appellant guilty as accomplice in the consummated share in the articles. crime. However, this court found that the offense committed was only 7. The trial court held that the boxes could not have been loaded in the that of frustrated theft, the passing of the truck beyond the checkpoint truck without Diño’s consent, and if such consent was really obtained away from the control of the guards being essential to the complete through fear, he could have given an account thereof to the checkpoint consummation of the crime, it is evident that appellant participated, guard. not as an accomplice, but as a principal, having himself carried the 8. Diño contends that: articles in the truck, and the act of carrying the articles through the a. the trial court erred in accepting the alleged voluntary confession, checkpoint being an indispensable part of the complete execution of which was secured without violence or fraud; the offense. b. that it erred in finding the 3 boxes of rifles were found by the guard in the truck of the accused; NOTE: 9. The investigator who took the statement testified in court, and he I found this digest from scribd, I counterchecked it with Reyes, make sense declared that the statement was taken in the presence of many nman yung facts and ruling. However, pls read/recite at your own risk. Di people, and that it was sent after to the assistant provost marshal ko tlga mahanap full text sorry. To be safe, you may choose to just recite (APM) for signature under oath. the ER and doctrine. Both of which were directly lifted from the Reyes book.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.