Case Digest (G.R. No. 206863)
Facts:
In Ariel Lopez v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 212186, June 29, 2016), petitioner Ariel Lopez was charged under Presidential Decree No. 533 for allegedly stealing a female carabao valued at ₱5,000 belonging to Teresita D. Perez on July 17, 2002 in Davao City. The Information alleged that Lopez, with grave abuse of confidence and without the owner’s consent, took the carabao. At trial, Mario Perez testified that he purchased and tied the animal to a coconut tree on Constancio Genosas’s property, only to find it missing at dawn. Prosecution witness Felix Alderete recounted that he, as Lopez’s errand boy, accompanied the accused at 3:45 a.m. to untie the carabao and deliver it to a certain “Boy Platan” in Malagos. A barangay police confrontation followed, during which Lopez purportedly admitted guilt and offered to indemnify the owners. The Regional Trial Court found Lopez guilty, relying on Alderete’s testimony and the accused’s admission. The Court of Appeals affirmed idenCase Digest (G.R. No. 206863)
Facts:
- Charge and Arraignment
- On July 17, 2002, in Davao City, Ariel Lopez was charged under Presidential Decree No. 533 with cattle-rustling for allegedly taking one female carabao worth ₱5,000.00 belonging to Teresita D. Perez without consent.
- Lopez pleaded not guilty at his arraignment.
- Prosecution Evidence
- Mario Perez testified he purchased the carabao via a Certificate of Transfer, tied it in Genosas’s property, and discovered it missing at 5:00 a.m. on July 17, 2002, after which he searched for over a month.
- Errand boy Felix Alderete testified he and Lopez untied the carabao around 3:45 a.m. July 18, 2002, and delivered it to “Boy Platan” in Malagos on Lopez’s orders.
- Teresita Perez and Barangay Police Officer III Leo Lozarito testified that Lopez was summoned by a “request for appearance,” confronted with the owners at the barangay police station, admitted taking the carabao, and offered to pay indemnification.
- Defense Evidence
- Lopez denied knowledge of or involvement in any theft, claimed an alibi at home in Wines, and denied knowing Alderete.
- Witness Marvin Bongato stated he saw “Edoy” riding a carabao on July 17, 2002, and did not see Alderete on a carabao that day.
- Lower Court Decisions
- The Regional Trial Court convicted Lopez, credited Alderete’s testimony, noted Lopez’s admission and offer to indemnify, and sentenced him to prision mayor to reclusion temporal, plus ₱5,000 indemnity.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed guilt, held the transfer certificate and testimony proved ownership, ruled the “request for appearance” did not violate custodial rights, but modified the penalty under Article 64 RPC to prision correccional to reclusion temporal.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- Lopez filed a Rule 45 petition on certiorari, reiterating arguments on identity of the carabao, inconsistencies in testimony, and inadmissibility of uncounselled admission.
- The Solicitor General commented; Lopez did not file a reply. The case was submitted for decision.
Issues:
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for raising questions of fact under Rule 45.
- Whether the prosecution proved all elements of cattle-rustling, specifically the identity of the stolen carabao.
- Whether Lopez’s uncounselled admission during the barangay police confrontation is admissible in evidence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)