The  defendant,  Eustaquio Simbahan, having been  convicted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Batangas of the crime of larceny, Honorable Mariano Cui presiding, and sentenced  to one  year and  six months presidio  correccional, to the corresponding accessory penalties, to return to Prudencia Carandang the  sum of P50,  with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to the payment of the costs, he appealed.

On the 18th of May, 1910, Pedro Carandang had in his possession a certain female carabao, the property of Maria Magpantay.   Carandang quit work on that day some two or three hours after dark, took the animal to his home, tied it at the back  of his house, entered and  proceeded to dine.  A few minutes after finishing his dinner he went out to look after the caraballa but found that it had disappeared.  Being unable to find the animal on that night he, on the  following day, notified its owner, and also his uncle, Prudencia Carandang,  of the loss of the said animal.  The search was continued  until the 22d of that month,  when Pedro Carandang,  Prudencia  Carandang, and Ciriaco  Carandang met the defendant in  the  barrio of Aya,  municipality of San Juan.  After conversing with the defendant at that time they informed him of the loss of the animal and asked his assistance in locating it,  offering at  the  same time to pay him for his services.  At first the defendant pretended that he knew nothing about the whereabouts of this animal, but after  he and  Prudencia had  had a secret  conversation, he agreed  to tell them where the animal was on  condition that they give him P50.  These parties did not have this amount of money with them at that time, but agreed to return that  same day with the money and turn  it over to the defendant.  So a specific time and place  was agreed upon for this second meeting, and in pursuance of this agreement they all returned to the designated  place about midnight with the  ^50.  They found the  defendant at that place, which was not near any houses,  and on delivering the P50 to him he said: "There it is, at the west of the little forest." He then disappeared and Carandang, with his companions, not being able  to see the animal from where they were then standing, went to the place  indicated, which was about  four brazas distant, and there found the caraballa.

The local authorities were notified  of these  facts on  that same night and the arrest of the  defendant followed.

Counsel for  the defendant insists that as no one saw his client steal this  animal,  the  above facts  do not constitute such a possession as would warrant a conviction on the presumption that the defendant, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, was the author of the crime.  This court has constantly held that, where stolen property  is found within a short time in  the possession of the defendant, he is, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, presumed to be the author of the crime  and must be condemned as  such. (U. S. vs. Divino, 18 Phil. Rep., 425; and U. S. vs. Caralipio and Fernando, 18 Phil. Rep., 421, and cases cited therein.)

The word "possession" as used above can not be limited to manual touch or personal custody.  One  who  puts or deposits the stolen  property in a  place of concealment may be deemed to have such  property in his possession.

The animal in the case at bar was concealed in a  little forest.  The defendant  about 12 o'clock  at night pointed out the place where the caraballa was tied and received P50 for so doing.   All the facts and circumstances in this case show conclusively that he had possession  of said caraballa and fully justify his conviction.

The judgment  appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J.,  Mapa, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.