ARTICLE 308. Who are Liable for Theft. — x x x.

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 enclosed 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 fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products. (Art. 308, Revised Penal Code)


What are other forms of theft?


1. Failure to return lost property 

● Theft is likewise committed by any person who finds lost property but fails to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner (Art. 308, RPC). 

● 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 (Pante v. People, G.R. No. 218969, January 18, 2021).

● The purpose of the law is to protect the owner of the lost thing from appropriation by the person into whose hands it may come, with knowledge of its ownership (People v. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, March 31, 1923).

●The gist of this offense is the furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found, with knowledge of its true ownership (Pante v. People, G.R. No. 218969, January 18, 2021).

● In this kind of theft intent of gain is inferred from the deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person, the finder knowing that the property does not belong to him. (People v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. L-18507, March 31, 1966).


Finder in Law

●The question of whether criminal appropriation of found property can be committed by a person other than the one by whom the property is first found has been lengthily discussed and answered in an older case which in sum states: "One who receives property from the finder thereof assumes, in legal contemplation, by voluntary substitution, as to the property and the owner, the relation occupied by the finder, placing himself in the finder's stead. In such a case, whether the person taking the property is guilty must be determined on the same principles that govern in the case of the actual finder." (Pante v. People, G.R. No. 218969, January 18, 2021).

● 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 (Pante v. People, G.R. No. 218969, January 18, 2021).

Facts: The driver of the carretela picked up the purse left by one of his passengers. When a policeman got in the carretela, the driver handed the purse to the former, and asked him, as a policeman, to deliver it to the owner. The purse never reached the owner.

Held: The policeman is liable for theft. The policeman acquired the position of actual finder from the time he took the purse into his hands. He placed himself precisely in the situation as if he was the actual finder. The policeman is a finder in law, if not in fact; and his act in appropriating the property is of precisely the same character as if it had been originally found by him. (People v. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, March 31, 1923)


Stolen Property 

Facts: A was charged with theft of large cattle committed by deliberately keeping in his possession one male horse belonging to B, knowing that the same was stolen from the ranch of B, and deliberately failing to deliver the same to the authorities or to its owner. A contends that "stolen property" is not the same as "lost property."

Held: The argument is without merit. The word "lost" is generic in nature, and embraces loss by stealing or by any act of a person other than the owner, as well as by the act of the owner himself or through some casual occurrence. If anything, the finder who fails deliberately to return the thing lost may be considered more blameworthy if the loss was by stealing than through some other means. (People v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. L-18507, March 31, 1966)


Bar Question

● Q: Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring along Roxas Blvd. Knowing that it was not his, he went to a nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. At the precint PO1 Melvin attended to him. In the investigation Eman proposed to PO1 Melvin, "in case you don't find the owner let's just pawn straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000.00. Eman never saw PO1 Melvin again. What is the criminal liability of Eman, if any? Explain. What is the criminal liability of PO1 Melvin, if any? Explain. (Bar Question 2008)

A: Eman is not liable for theft since he delivered the lost ring to the authorities. His proposal to misappropriate the ring is not punishable since there is no overt act on his part. A mere criminal thought  or intention, no matter how immoral or improper it may be, will never constitute a felony. 

PO1 Melvin is not liable for theft since there is no showing that he did not deliver the lost ring to its owner or has misappropriated it. The fact that Eman never saw him again does not necessarily mean that he already stole the property.


2. Maliciously damaging another's property and then making use of the fruits or objects of the damage

● Theft is likewise committed by any person who maliciously damages the property of another and then removes or makes use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him (Art. 308, RPC).

Theft - if the accused maliciously damage the property of another and then removes or makes use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him

Malicious mischief - if the accused did not remove or make use of the of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him.


3. Entering an enclosed estate or a field and then hunting or fishing upon the same

● Theft is likewise committed by any person who enters an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belong to another and without the consent of the owner and then hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products (Art. 308, RPC).

Theft - if the offender enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden and then hunts or fishes or gathers fruits.

Other form of trespass - if the offender entered but did not hunt, fish, or gather fruits.