Case Digest (G.R. No. 140937)
Facts:
The case involves Exuperancio Canta as the petitioner and the People of the Philippines as the respondent. The events transpired on March 14, 1986, in Malitbog, Southern Leyte, Philippines. The petitioner was accused of violating Presidential Decree No. 533, known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. The information filed against him alleged that he unlawfully took a black female cow belonging to Narciso Gabriel, valued at Three Thousand Pesos (₱3,000.00), without the owner's consent. The prosecution's evidence established that Narciso Gabriel acquired the cow from his half-sister, Erlinda Monter, upon its birth on March 10, 1984. The cow was cared for by several individuals before it went missing while under the care of Gardenio Agapay on March 14, 1986.
On the afternoon of March 13, 1986, Agapay took the cow to graze but found it missing the next morning. Following hoof prints, he learned that Canta had taken the animal. When Narciso's representatives app...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 140937)
Facts:
Ownership and Care of the Cow:
- Narciso Gabriel acquired a black female cow from his half-sister, Erlinda Monter, upon its birth on March 10, 1984. The cow was cared for by several individuals: Generoso Cabonce (October 24, 1984, to March 17, 1985), Maria Tura (May 17, 1985, to March 2, 1986), and Gardenio Agapay (March 3, 1986, until its disappearance on March 14, 1986).
Disappearance of the Cow:
- On March 13, 1986, Gardenio Agapay took the cow to graze in Pilipogan, Barangay Candatag. The next morning, he found the cow missing and traced hoof prints to the house of Filomeno Vallejos, who informed him that petitioner Exuperancio Canta had taken the cow.
Attempts to Recover the Cow:
- Gardenio and Maria Tura went to petitioner’s wife to recover the cow but were told it had been delivered to petitioner’s father, Florentino Canta, the barangay captain of Laca, Padre Burgos. Petitioner told them Narciso should claim the cow himself. At Florentino’s house, Maria recognized the cow, but Florentino refused to release it, instructing them to return the next day. Petitioner never called them, leading Narciso to report the matter to the police.
Petitioner’s Defense:
- Petitioner claimed the cow was his, having acquired it under an agreement with Pat. Diosdado Villanueva. He alleged the cow was born on December 5, 1984, and was lost on December 2, 1985. He presented two certificates of ownership, one dated February 27, 1985, and another dated March 17, 1986, but the municipal treasurer denied issuing the February 27, 1985, certificate. Franklin Telen, a janitor, admitted to antedating the certificate at petitioner’s request.
Prosecution’s Evidence:
- Narciso presented a certificate of ownership dated March 9, 1986, describing the cow’s age, sex, and cowlicks. All four caretakers identified the cow based on its cowlicks, color, and sex. The trial court found petitioner guilty of violating P.D. No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law).
Issue:
- Whether petitioner Exuperancio Canta acted in good faith and with honest belief in taking the cow.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed cattle rustling under P.D. No. 533.
- Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding petitioner guilty of violating P.D. No. 533. However, the penalty was modified to account for the mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender. Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as maximum.
Ratio:
Elements of Cattle Rustling: The crime of cattle rustling under P.D. No. 533 requires: (1) the taking of a large cattle; (2) it belongs to another; (3) the taking is without the owner’s consent; (4) the taking is done by any means, methods, or scheme; (5) the taking is with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation. All elements were present in this case.
Petitioner’s Lack of Good Faith: Petitioner’s claim of good faith was negated by his falsification of the certificate of ownership and his surreptitious taking of the cow from its caretaker. His actions demonstrated intent to gain and deprived Narciso of his property.
Mitigating Circumstance: The Court recognized a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender, as petitioner voluntarily turned over the cow to the authorities, saving them the trouble of recovering it.
Penalty Modification: The trial court erred in imposing the penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as P.D. No. 533 is not a special law but an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was adjusted to reflect the minimum period of the prescribed penalty, considering the mitigating circumstance.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld petitioner’s conviction but modified the penalty to reflect the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Petitioner’s actions constituted cattle rustling under P.D. No. 533, and his defense of good faith was unsubstantiated.