Case Digest (G.R. No. 76539)
Facts:
Erkey Pit-og v. People of the Philippines and the Hon. Judge Nicasio A. Baguilat, G.R. No. 76539, October 11, 1990, Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Erkey Pit-og (also known as Mary Pit-og) was criminally charged with theft in the Municipal Trial Court of Bontoc for allegedly taking some 300 pieces of sugarcane and one bunch of bananas from the yard of Edward Pasiteng in December 1983. The complaint alleged that the accused “wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away” the property of Pasiteng without his knowledge and consent; petitioner pleaded not guilty.
The underlying land, called the tayan, was communal land owned by a local kin group (the tomayan), descendants of original owners. In 1976 the tomayan allegedly authorized Pel-ey Cullalad to sell a 400-square-meter residential portion of the tayan to Edward Pasiteng; a deed of sale (Exh. A) and subsequent tax declarations and receipts (Exhs. B, C, D) showed Pasiteng’s claim and tax payments. Petitioner, who traced descent from the same original owners and claimed continuous cultivation and possession (including planting sugarcane, bananas and avocados), presented oral testimony and witnesses to support her claim of ownership or possessory rights.
At trial the prosecution presented the testimony of Pasiteng and his grandchildren, who said they saw petitioner and companions cut and remove sugarcane and banana plants. The Municipal Trial Court discredited petitioner’s ownership claim for lack of documentary proof and convicted her of theft, sentencing her to arresto mayor (minimum) to prisión correccional (maximum) and ordering damages.
The Regional Trial Court of Mountain Province, Branch XXXV affirmed the municipal court, relying on the deed of conveyance and tax records as more credible evidence of Pasiteng’s possession and ownership. The Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Javellana, J., on October 16, 1986, affirmed in toto, finding Pasiteng to be a possessor in good faith in concept of owner and concluding petitioner’s defense was concocted.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, raising primarily whether there was criminal intent and intent to gain, and whether th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court re-examine the facts of this case?
- Was ownership of the sugarcane and bananas proven beyond reasonable doubt to have belonged to Edward Pasiteng?
- Did petitioner have the requisite criminal intent and intent to gain when she took the plants?
- Is the dispute essentially civil (ownership) r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)