Dear PAO,

My cousin found a bundle of money and showed it to me. We cannot ascertain the real owner of the money, so I convinced my cousin that we keep it and divide it equally between us. Two days have elapsed, and we already spent the money when we received information that our neighbor was the owner of the money found by my cousin. Eventually, rumors spread out that we had found the money; hence, a corresponding criminal case for theft was filed against us. Someone told me that my cousin may be held liable for theft but not me since I did not actually find the lost money. Will I be criminally liable for theft if I will establish that I am not the finder of said money?

Mark

Dear Mark,

Finding lost money and failing to return it to its owner or deliver it to the local authorities may be considered theft. This is in consonance with Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act (RA) 10951, which provides that:

“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;

“xxx.”

It appears from the facts that you have provided in your letter that you are a finder. To be precise, you are called a “finder in law.”

The principle of Finder in Law was explained in the case of Pante vs. People of the Philippines, GR 218969, Jan. 18, 2021, where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, stated that:

“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.'”

Applying the afore-cited decision in your situation, the finder’s criminal liability for Theft is not limited to the actual finder of lost property. Rather, it extends to those who knew of the nature of the money or property and still appropriated it because the essence of the offense is the furtive taking and misappropriation of lost property. As such, you became a “finder in law” when you convinced your cousin not to return the money to its owner and misappropriated the same. It placed you in the same position as if you were the one who originally found the money, and thus, you may be held criminally liable for Theft.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]