G.R. No. 268 - People vs Andrade

On January 27, 1896, the solicitor representing Gregorio Francisco and Antonia Rojas, husband and wife, filed a written complaint alleging that, on the morning of January 16, 1896, Juan San Luis, Lorenzo Trinidad, Hermogenes Ignacio, and Fabian Francisco cut some canes growing on a piece of land at Carapdapan, of the town of Marilao, Province of Bulacan.
The complaint alleged that the land was of the exclusive ownership of the complainants.
The complaint further alleged that the four persons conveyed the canes, including other canes already cut and lying on the ground, to a lot next to the house of Fruto Andrade, who was present at the time, together with Melecio Rojas.
The complaint alleged that the cutting and conveyance were done by order of Andrade and that Andrade later used the canes taken.
The complaint alleged that Maximo de los Santos, the person left in charge of the land and plantation by the owners, opposed the proceeding.
The complaint alleged that Melecio Rojas threatened Maximo de los Santos, stating that, being a justice of the peace, he could have Maximo tied up and sent to the capital city.
The complaint alleged that, in view of the threats, Maximo left to report what happened to the owners.

The complainant’s caretaker, Maximo de los Santos, and seven other witnesses testified to corroborate the facts stated in the complaint.
For ownership of the land, the witnesses exhibited a certificate of the registrar of property.
The certificate showed that a possessory information prepared at the instance of Antonia Rojas had been presented for record and that, in that possessory information, the land on which the canes were cut was described.
The complainants also presented a will executed by Esteban Rojas; in clause 18, the land referred to appeared as part of the share of Dofta Antonia.
The value of the canes cut was estimated by experts to be eighteen pesos (18 pesos).

The defendants Lorenzo Trinidad, Juan San Luis, Hermogenes Ignacio, Fabian Francisco, and Fruto Andrade confessed that the first four defendants had cut canes on the day mentioned in the complaint and took them, together with others previously cut, to Andrade’s house by order of Andrade.
The record showed some conflict regarding the name of the place where the cane was cut.
Andrade testified that the place was called Donganpare or Carapdapan.
All denied that they or Melecio Rojas, who had allegedly gone there to get two pieces of bamboo, made threats against Maximo de los Santos, who, they said, was not present.
Melecio Rojas denied the alleged threats by addressing the absence of Maximo de los Santos at the place.

The testimony of Rojas cited four witnesses who testified that they had not seen Maximo de los Santos at the place referred to.
Andrade testified that he owned the land where the cane was cut.
Andrade denied that the land belonged to Antonia Rojas.
Andrade asserted that he inherited the land from his late father, Saturnino Andrade, who had been in uninterrupted possession for thirty years (thirty years).
Andrade called five persons as witnesses, all described as owners of adjacent lands.
The first three witnesses corroborated Andrade’s statement.
The fourth witness affirmed that her deceased husband had informed her that the land belonged to Andrade.
The last witness testified to the contrary.

Whether there was conclusive evidence of the existence of the crime of theft involving the bamboo canes.
Whether there was conclusive evidence of the existence of the crime of threats allegedly made by Melecio Rojas.

Whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the bamboo or the land where the bamboo was growing belonged to Antonia Rojas.
Whether the cutting and taking of bamboo from the land in question ordered by Fruto Andrade constituted theft under the circumstances described.

(Subscriber-Only)