G.R. No. 91721 - Ordonio vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91721)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Indictment filed: Information dated July 12, 1982, for acts alleged to have occurred January 5–6, 1982. Trial court conviction: judgment dated January 26, 1988. New-trial order/denial: order of August 11, 1988 (denying disturbance of conviction after new-trial evidence). Court of Appeals affirmation: decision dated August 9, 1989; motion for reconsideration denied November 13, 1989. Supreme Court final disposition: July 31, 1991. Applicable law for substantive offense: P.D. No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law), Section 2(c). Applicable procedural authorities and doctrines referenced: Rule 45, Rules of Court (limit of review in petitions for certiorari), the Indeterminate Sentence Law (applied by trial court). As the decision was rendered in 1991, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the constitutional framework applicable to the case.

Factual Background as Found by Prosecution and the Lower Courts

Anastacio Pajunar discovered his eleven-month-old calf missing on January 6, 1982 after pasturing it near his home. He inquired of his neighbor Constancio Ordonio whether Ordonio had seen the calf. Ordonio allegedly denied knowledge. Pajunar later heard a calf mooing, followed the sound and located his calf tied near Ordonio’s house. Ordonio insisted the calf was his brother’s, entrusted to him. Pajunar tied the calf near Ordonio’s house, left to fetch assistance, obtained a note from the Barangay Captain and was accompanied by two PC soldiers and barrio officials back to Ordonio’s place. The calf ran to the milking cow brought by Pajunar and attempted to suckle, behavior the courts regarded as corroborative of Pajunar’s ownership. The PC soldiers and barangay officials removed the calf from Ordonio’s custody and placed it in barangay care. At meetings on January 7, Ordonio continued to claim the calf belonged to his brother; Ordonio’s wife later suggested they give the calf back and pay damages.

Defense Version of Events

Ordonio testified that on January 6, 1982, at about 6:00 A.M., a neighbor (Santiago Oyhoc) reported a cow in Ordonio’s farm. He claimed he merely caught and tied the animal to prevent it from returning to his crops and instructed his wife to return it if the owner appeared. He said he left for Calanian to sell corn and returned only in the evening to learn Pajunar had accused them of stealing the calf; the PC soldiers had taken the calf to the custody of Enumerabellon. Ordonio asserted the calf was caught to prevent crop damage and that he intended to return it.

Trial Court Findings and Conviction

The trial court (Court of First Instance, later RTC) found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ordonio committed cattle rustling under P.D. No. 533 and sentenced him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to prision correccional, minimum 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to maximum 6 years. The court emphasized the accused’s denials when first asked about the calf, his insistence that it belonged to his brother when the calf was located, and the need for barangay and PC intervention to recover the animal.

New-Trial Motion and Additional Evidence

Upon Ordonio’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the trial court allowed a hearing and heard testimony of Pastor Banquerigo, an 81-year-old barrio resident who corroborated the defense account that Ordonio had taken possession of and tied the calf near his house where it was plainly visible. The trial court nonetheless maintained its original judgment on August 11, 1988, concluding that the new testimony did not sufficiently disturb earlier findings.

Court of Appeals Review and Affirmation

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in toto, rejecting the accused’s assignments of error that insisted on misapprehension of facts and insufficiency of proof. The appellate court adopted the trial court’s view that the conviction rested not on mere possession of the calf but on the accused’s conduct after possession—specifically, initial denials of knowledge, repeated denials, persistent claim that the calf belonged to his brother, and his efforts to prevent the complainant from taking the calf home—circumstances which, when taken together, formed an unbroken chain supporting intent to appropriate.

Legal Standard for Cattle Rustling under P.D. No. 533

Section 2(c) of P.D. No. 533 defines cattle rustling as “taking away by any means, methods or schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser,” whether or not for gain. The decision highlights that the phrase “taking away by any means, methods or schemes” supports an inference of intent to gain from a deliberate failure to deliver lost property to its owner when the finder knows the property is not his.

Evidence and Inferences Supporting Intent to Appropriate

The courts focused on the accused’s acts and statements rather than on physical proof of a forcible carrying away. Key evidentiary points relied upon were: (1) Ordonio’s initial denials when first questioned about the missing calf; (2) his repeated denial on subsequent inquiry; (3) his claim the calf belonged to his brother when discovered; (4) the need for barangay and PC intervention to recover the calf; and (5) the calf’s behavior in running to the milking cow, reinforcing complainant’s ownership. The courts found that these circumstances, taken together, reasonably supported the inference that the accused intended to appropriate the calf.

Treatment of Defense Evidence and Credibility Findings

The trial court and appellate court discounted the lat

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 91721)

Citation and Court

Reported at 276 Phil. 969, Second Division.
G.R. No. 91721.
Decision date: July 31, 1991.
Opinion authored by Justice Sarmiento, J.
Concurrence by Justices Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Constancio Ordonio (accused below).
Private complainant / injured party: Mr. Anastacio Pajunar (owner of the calf).
Respondents below: The Honorable Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines.
Trial judge: Judge Jesus L. Tabilon, RTC Branch 42, Dumaguete City.
Court of Appeals panel that affirmed: Opinion penned by Justice Felipe B. Kalalo with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and Luis L. Victor, Eleventh Division.

Charged Offense and Statutory Provision

Offense charged: Violation of Presidential Decree No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974).
Allegation in information (filed July 12, 1982, before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental):
- That sometime in the evening of January 5, 1982, at Barangay Omanod, Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental, Constancio Ordonio, with intent to gain, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took, stole, and carried away one (1) male cow, color red and white (cabang) highbreed, approximately eleven months old, without the knowledge and consent of owner Anastacio Pajunar.
- Resulting damage alleged: Seven Hundred Pesos (P700.00) as estimated cost and value of the stolen cow.
- Charge includes “with damages” and concluded “Contrary to law.”
Relevant statutory text quoted: Section 2(c) of P.D. 533 defining cattle-rustling as “taking away by any means, methods or schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of the above mentioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.”

Factual Background — Prosecution Version (chronology and salient facts)

January 5, 1982: Pajunar pastured his eleven-month-old cow about 100 meters from his house.
January 6, 1982: Pajunar discovered the calf was missing, searched, and inquired with neighbor Constancio Ordonio whether he had seen it.
Ordonio allegedly denied knowledge when first asked.
When Pajunar heard a cow mooing and questioned whose it was, Ordonio allegedly said it was the cow he was tending.
Pajunar followed the sound and discovered the calf; Ordonio then insisted it was his brother Agustin’s cow entrusted to him.
Pajunar tied the calf near Ordonio’s house and left to report the matter to authorities.
Pajunar sought Barangay Captain Leopoldo Enumerabellon, who gave him a note for the PC (Philippine Constabulary).
Two PC soldiers accompanied Pajunar and, together with Barrio Councilman Leonardo Pajaron, proceeded to Ordonio’s place; Pajunar also brought his milking cow.
Upon arrival at Ordonio’s, the calf ran to its mother (the milking cow), a fact the courts considered significant evidence of ownership.
The PC soldiers told Ordonio’s wife that because Ordonio was not around, the calf must be entrusted to the barrio official; the wife consented.
January 7, 1982: Meeting with sub-barangay captain Enumerabellon; when questioned, Ordonio allegedly again claimed the calf belonged to his brother.
Ordonio’s wife reportedly said to him, “Ne, lets just give the cow to the real owner and we will pay the damages.”

Factual Background — Defense Version (chronology and salient facts)

Ordonio testified that on January 6, 1982 at about 6:00 A.M., Santiago Oyhoc reported seeing a cow in Ordonio’s mongo and corn farm.
Ordonio stated he intended only to drive the cow out but, following Oyhoc’s suggestion, caught and tied the cow near his house with a rope to prevent its return.
Ordonio asserted he recognized the cow as Pajunar’s and instructed his wife to return it if Pajunar came for it.
He claimed that he left to sell corn in Calanian (about nine kilometers away) and returned in the evening to learn he was accused of stealing the calf and that PC soldiers had taken the calf to be placed in the custody of Enumerabellon.
Ordonio received a letter from Enumerabellon instructing him to come; on January 7 he and his wife attended; at the investigation present were Enumerabellon, Pajunar, Pajaron (barrio councilman), and Pajunar’s son.
Ordonio and his wife said the calf belonged to Pajunar during the investigation, and the calf was returned to Pajunar.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

Trial court rendered judgment of conviction on January 26, 1988.
Trial court held that the prosecution proved the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D. No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law).
No mitigating nor aggravating circumstances were found.
Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law produced a penalty “next lower by one (1) degree than that provided for the crime committed,” resulting in imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day as minimum to six (6) years as maximum of prision correccional.
Decision authored by Judge Jesus L. Tabilon, RTC Branch 42, Dumaguete City.

Motion for New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence and Trial Court Reaction

Accused moved for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
Defense presented Pastor Banquerigo, an 81-year-old barrio entertainer, who testified he saw Constancio take possession of a cow and tie it near his house on January 6, 1982 — testimony that substantially corroborated Ordonio’s account.
Trial court, by Order dated Augu