G.R. No. L-66136 - Empelis vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

The case involves petitioners Elpidio Empelis, Mamerto Carbungco, Salvador Carbungco, and Emilio Carbungco, who were convicted by the Municipal Circuit Court of Dimasalang-Palanan-Uson, Masbate.
The petitioners were found guilty of qualified theft for allegedly stealing fifty coconuts valued at P50.00 from Guillermo Catarining’s coconut plantation.
The incident took place on the early morning of June 10, 1979, when the owner, Guillermo Catarining, was present at his plantation in Sitio Tambangan, Dapdap, Uson, Masbate.

Prior to the incident, it was noted that Guillermo Catarining frequently experienced thievery in his coconut plantation.
On the day of the incident, while keeping vigil over his plantation, Catarining observed four persons gathering and tying coconuts on the premises.
In response, Catarining returned home, enlisting the help of his neighbors, Anastacio Andales and Teodomero Garay, and equipped himself with a flashlight.

Upon returning to the plantation, Catarining and his companions shone the flashlight on the suspects, who included the petitioners.

Elpidio Empelis and Emilio Carbungco were seen carrying coconuts on a piece of wood over their shoulders.
Salvador Carbungco and Mamerto Carbungco were observed carrying coconuts in their bare hands.

As they became aware of being discovered, the accused dropped the coconuts and fled, leaving behind approximately 50 pieces of coconuts and two poles (one bamboo, one wood).
Catarining, accompanied by a barangay tanod, counted the abandoned coconuts and later proceeded to file a complaint at the police station after consulting with the barangay captain.

The trial court convicted the petitioners of qualified theft based on the evidence gathered at the scene.
The petitioners, upon appealing to the Intermediate Appellate Court, argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that they had gathered and stolen the coconuts, and further claimed that:

The trial court improperly weighed the evidence, giving disproportionate credibility to the prosecution's evidence while discrediting the defense's.
The crime should be classified as simple theft, not qualified theft, due to the circumstances surrounding the gathering of the coconuts.

The only real issue raised by the petitioners centered on whether the crime committed should be considered simple theft because of the circumstances, or qualified theft, which carries a heavier penalty.

The facts indicated that the accused were apprehended on the premises of the coconut plantation while in the act of gathering coconuts.
According to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, theft involving coconuts within the premises of a plantation constitutes qualified theft due to the heavier penalty prescribed for such cases.
However, because the petitioners did not succeed in carrying the coconuts away from the plantation (owing to the owner's timely intervention), the crime was considered frustrated qualified theft.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioners were actively involved in gathering and stealing the coconuts from the plantation.
The credibility of the evidence against the petitioners in light of the confrontation and subsequent events.

Whether the crime committed was qualified theft or simple theft.
The legal implications of the terms “qualified theft” versus “simple theft” as applied to the theft of coconuts, particularly under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the trial court erred in giving too much probative value to the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Whether the evidence for the defense was unjustly discredited, thereby affecting the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the petitioners, having not carried the coconuts away from the plantation, completed all acts necessary to consummate the felony.
The legal significance of the crime being classified as “frustrated” qualified theft rather than completed qualified theft.