G.R. No. 76539 - Pit-og vs. People

Erkey Pit-og, also known as Mary Pit-og, is the petitioner who was previously convicted of theft by the Municipal Trial Court of Bontoc, which was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court of Mountain Province, Branch XXXV, and the Court of Appeals.
Respondents include the People of the Philippines and the Hon. Judge Nicasio A. Baguilat in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Mt. Province, Branch XXXV.

The property in dispute is a communal land called the tayan located in Loag, Mainit, Mountain Province.
The land was historically owned by the members of the tomayan group, who are descendants of the original owners, Jakot and Pang-o.
Septuagenarian Pel-ey Cullalad, a descendant, acted on behalf of the group in the sale of a 400‑square‑meter residential portion of the tayan to Edward Pasiteng on September 24, 1976.
The sale was executed in consideration of a value equivalent to one big cow (P1,500), and the deed of sale was notarized by the mayor of Bontoc.
Despite the sale, the property retained communal characteristics, and members of the tomayan could cultivate and make improvements on the land; however, only a member could claim full ownership.

Sometime before Christmas in 1983, children—12‑year‑old Leonard Marcos and 9‑year‑old Jessie Comicho—observed Erkey Pit-og and companions cutting down sugarcane and banana plants in the tayan.
According to the children’s testimonies, the accused and her companions proceeded with the cutting without obtaining permission or notifying the property possessor, Edward Pasiteng.
The defendants also destroyed a fence and removed about 300 pieces of sugarcane (valued at P1,000) as well as a bunch of banana plants (valued at P100), while the destroyed fence was valued at P900.
Edward Pasiteng, who had been cultivating and paying taxes on the property, discovered the incident upon returning from hunting and subsequently reported the case to the police.

Prosecution relied heavily on documentary evidence such as a deed of sale, tax declarations, and tax payment receipts to establish Edward Pasiteng’s claim of possession.
Witness testimonies from Edward’s side corroborated the existence and cultivation of the sugarcane and banana plants within his declared property boundaries.
The defense argued that Erkey had a customary right and long‑standing possession over the land, being a member of the tomayan, and maintained that no one outside the group could legitimately claim ownership.
Erkey’s supporting witnesses, including Galingan Wanawan and Benedict Fangki, testified regarding her active participation in maintaining and cultivating portions of the land, thus reinforcing her claim of customary possession.

Lower courts found that all elements of the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code were present, convicting Erkey Pit-og.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court’s decision was based on the credibility of the documentary evidence showing Edward Pasiteng’s possession, as well as the absence of any formal declaration by Erkey regarding ownership.
Erkey raised issues through a petition for review on certiorari, contending that there was no criminal intent on her part and that the case was primarily civil in nature concerning the disputed ownership of the communal land.

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the essential elements of theft—taking personal property with intent of gain, without the owner’s consent—were established beyond reasonable doubt.
A crucial aspect was the identification of the rightful owner given the conflicting evidence between Edward Pasiteng’s documented possession (deed, tax declarations, tax payments) and Erkey’s claim of traditional and customary possession.
The justices took into account the peculiar nature of communal land ownership in tribal communities and the possibility of confusion due to overlapping areas of cultivation.
Emphasis was placed on the fact that Erkey took the crops believing them to belong to her, thereby negating the element of criminal intent required for theft under the law.

Was there sufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Erkey Pit-og had the criminal intent (dolo) required for the offense of theft?
Does the taking of the sugarcane and banana plants satisfy all the essential elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, particularly regarding the property belonging to another and the intent to gain?
How should the conflicting evidence between Edward Pasiteng’s documentary proof of possession and Erkey’s customary claim of possession be evaluated in terms of rightful ownership?
Is the dispute between the parties essentially criminal, or does it in fact present civil issues regarding customary land rights and traditional methods of possession?