Scribd
Upload
32 views2 pages

Rejecting Transitory-Offense Theory

The document argues against the rejection of the transitory-offense theory, emphasizing that it allows the owner of stolen property to prosecute the thief in any province where the stolen item is found. This flexibility prevents the thief from evading justice by fleeing with the stolen goods, as it enables law enforcement to pursue the case effectively. The author believes that the current stance is unfair to victims and misinterprets the original intent of the court's ruling.

Uploaded by

D G
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
32 views2 pages

Rejecting Transitory-Offense Theory

The document argues against the rejection of the transitory-offense theory, emphasizing that it allows the owner of stolen property to prosecute the thief in any province where the stolen item is found. This flexibility prevents the thief from evading justice by fleeing with the stolen goods, as it enables law enforcement to pursue the case effectively. The author believes that the current stance is unfair to victims and misinterprets the original intent of the court's ruling.

Uploaded by

D G
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

The second proposition which induced the court to reject the transitory-offense theory is this:

Practical reasons and considerations however, require that no pass be opened to the thief
through which he may easily frustrate the right of the owner of a stolen thing to recover it
from him or to go after it, or which may take it difficult, if not impossible, for him to secure the
punishment of the offender. By allowing the owner of the stolen thing to follow the thief no
matter how far from the scene of the crime the latter may have brought it, in order to have
him prosecuted which, surely, will be the effect of sustaining a contrary opinion, is to put
obstacles in his way precisely because this will result in expenses and delay. If this were
done, he thief would contrive in all cases to carry as far as possible what he may have stolen
so that he would have greater chances of getting unpunished. (63 Phil., 674.)

It is difficult to perceive how the theory we advocate could favor the culprit and frustrate prosecution.
On the contrary, if the thief may be booked i any place to which he carries his plunder, his main
accomplice — flight — becomes valueless. It may even become an additional hazard, if and when
the forces of law and order are given the privilege to prosecute him in any of the provinces through
which he has traveled with his booty - wherever the prosecution may have found convenient
evidence against him.

Moreover, the above paragraph of the Mercado decision is premised on the assumption that the
transitory-offense idea requires the owner to follow the thief and prosecute him in the province
where such thief may have chosen to carry the loot. That assumption is a fundamental mistake. the
theory permits (does not require) the owner to prosecute in any province to which the culprit may
have brought the stolen articles. The owner may choose to prosecute him in the province where the
goods had originally been feloniously seized.
An example: A car is stolen in manila and later carried by the thief into Davao. No witness in Manila
saw him in the act of grabbing or driving the vehicle. But in Davao there are persons who saw him in
possession. Under the transitory-offense theory, the owner may either prosecute him in Manila and
spend for transportation of the Davao witnesses to manila, or else prosecute him in Davao, and pay
for his own transportation from manila to Davao. Such owner may choose according to his
convenience; of course, with advise of the prosecuting officers under whose direction the case for
the People is always handled.

It being clear, in my opinion, that the rejection of the transitory-offense theory, is unfair to the victim
and is contrary to the intention of the justices who occurred in the Mercado ruling, I have no
hesitation to vote for departure from it.

You might also like