Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2857)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Moro Isnain, G.R. No. L-2857. February 28, 1950, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.
The defendant-appellant Moro Isnain was apprehended on the morning of March 7, 1947, at the coconut groves of Arturo Eustaquio in Latuan and Balagtasan, City of Zamboanga. Urbano Cruz, the encargado of the grove, was informed by guard Lazaro Viernes that three persons were stealing coconuts; Cruz, accompanied by truck driver Ernesto Fargas and some laborers, went to the plantation, saw three persons chopping coconuts, fired a shot into the air to stop them, and captured one, later identified as Isnain.
Upon investigation by the precinct commander, Lt. Bucoy, Isnain confessed his participation, asked pardon (even "to the extent of kissing his hand"), and named two alleged confederates, Addi and Akik, who remained at large. Before the justice of the peace he pleaded guilty, but in the Court of First Instance he recanted the plea, admitting only that he had been arrested and claiming he went to the place because he was thirsty; he did, however, acknowledge drinking coconut water and joining the others in taking the coconuts. The value of the fruits taken was shown to be P33.76.
At trial Isnain was convicted under the theft provisions applicable to coconut theft, and sentenced by the Court of First Instance; he appealed. His court‑appointed counsel principally argued that Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code (classifying the theft of coconuts as qualified theft) was unconstitutional for denying equal protection by treating coconut theft more severely than larceny of other agricultural produce such as rice or suga...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the classification in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code that treats the stealing of coconuts as qualified theft violate the Equal Protection Clause?
- What is the proper penalty for the offense as committed on March 7, 1947 — i.e., which statutory provisions govern the punishment and how does the Indeterminate Senten...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)