A colt valued at P34 was stolen from Valeriano Blanca. It was subsequently found in the possession of Agapito Partolan. The latter testified that he bought the animal from Zacarias Tegrado, the accused. The accused, however, claimed that the colt was raised from a mare belonging to him and then sold to Partolan. Identification of the colt to determine if its mother was a mare belonging to the complainant Valeriano Blanca or if its mother was a mare belonging to the accused Zacarias Tegrado is, therefore, the determining factor.

The colt was identified by a number of witnesses as the property of Blanca. Other witnesses testified to having seen the colt following a mare belonging to the accused. Whom shall we believe? We could, of course, rest our conclusion on the findings of the trial court. We could, in addition, point out grave discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses for the defense, which argues against its reliability. But there was present as an interested spectator, another witness, who, without being sworn, could tell the truth and nothing but the truth. This was the colt. The colt was separated from the mare of the complaining witness and turned loose; it at once went back to this mare. The colt was then taken to the mare of the accused; but showed its dislike for the mare and tried to find the mare of the complaining witness. Another colt was placed near the mare of the complaining witness; thereupon the mare and that colt both resisted. This was a practical demonstration worthy of a Solomon by which the colt was able to testify by manifesting all the signs of the young, whether human or not, on finding a long lost mother. (U. S. vs. Caralipio and Fernando [1911], 18 Phil. Rep., 421.)

If we are to accept the evidence of the prosecution as true, then we must conclude that the defendant stole the colt. The presumption of the criminal law, which makes the unexplained possession of stolen property prima facie proof of guilt, would work against the accused. (U. S. vs. Soriano [1907], 9 Phil. Rep., 445; U. S. vs. Lopez [1914], 25 Phil. Rep., 589.) We are convinced that the defendant is guilty as charged.

The lower court found that the accused had previously been convicted of the same crime. The court thereupon in view of the value of the colt, P34, which would bring the facts within the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 518 of the Penal Code, in view of article 520 of the same Code as amended which would raise the penalty to the one next higher in degree, and in view of the fact that the accused was a recidivist which would raise the penalty to the maximum, sentenced the accused to four years two months and one day of presidio correccional, to the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs. This judgment is affirmed with the addition of an order to return the property stolen to its owner if not already done, or to reimburse the owner in the amount of P34, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the costs of this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo, and Street, JJ., concur.