Case Summary (G.R. No. 256022)
Key Dates
• November 4, 2011 – Pedro instructed Daniel to climb coconut trees and gather 200 coconuts.
• November 7, 2011 – Heirs of Macario reported the incident to authorities.
• November 9, 2011 – Barangay settlement; Pedro agreed to deposit copras but sold them instead.
• December 19, 2016 – RTC convicted Pedro of qualified theft.
• December 13, 2019 – CA affirmed with modified penalty.
• August 7, 2023 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – presumption of innocence; Rule 45 jurisdiction limited to pure questions of law, subject to enumerated factual exceptions.
• Revised Penal Code (RPC)
– Art. 308 (Theft): taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain and without consent.
– Art. 310 (Qualified Theft): theft of coconuts from plantation punished two degrees higher than simple theft.
Facts
- Title and Claim
– Land covered by OCT No. 25102 belongs to Macario Jabines.
– Pedro held Tax Declaration No. 2008-32-0008-00050 under his grandfather’s name, covering a different parcel.
– Pedro cultivated and believed he owned the contested land since 1986. - Harvesting
– On November 4, 2011, Pedro asked Daniel to climb 18 coconut trees and gather 200 fruits, assuring he would answer any complaint. - Reporting and Conference
– Heirs of Macario learned of the harvest; barangay conference resulted in agreement to cease harvesting and deposit existing copras.
– Pedro sold the copras instead and used proceeds for personal consumption.
Issue
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Pedro committed qualified theft by taking coconuts from the plantation with the requisite intent to gain.
Exception to Rule 45 Deference
Supreme Court may reexamine factual findings when a lower court’s conclusion is based on misapprehension of facts or overlooks material evidence (Medina exceptions). Here, the CA’s finding of intent was premised on absence of evidence and contradicted by the record.
Legal Analysis
- Elements of Qualified Theft
– All elements of simple theft under Art. 308 must be present: taking, ownership by another, intent to gain (animus furandi), lack of consent, and no violence.
– Art. 310 qualifies theft of coconuts two degrees higher if taken from a plantation. - Animus Furandi and Good-Faith Belief
– Mens rea must unite with the act. Intent to deprive is presumed from taking without consent but may be rebutted by proof of honest belief of ownership.
– Pedro relied on his grandfather’s tax declaration and decades of cultivation; his instruction to Daniel was open, direct, and based on that belief. - Jurisprudential Support
– Igdalino v. People: open and notorious taking under honest belief negates intent to steal.
– Diong-an v. Court of Appeals: harvesters following their employer’s belief of ownership lacked criminal intent.
– Ligtas v. People: tenancy decision negated lack of owner’s consent, resulting in acquittal. - Burden of Proof and Presumption of Innocence
– Under the 1987 Constitution, the People must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. Doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.
– Prosecution failed to prove intent to gain;
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 256022)
Case Reference
- G.R. No. 256022, August 07, 2023
- Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
- RTC Branch 2, Tagbilaran City, Criminal Case No. 15822
- CA Special Nineteenth Division, CA-G.R. CR No. 03080
Facts
- On November 4, 2011, petitioner Pedro J. Amarille requested laborer Daniel Albaran to climb coconut trees on a parcel of land at Pustan, Cabawan, Maribojoc, Bohol.
- Daniel initially hesitated, knowing the land belonged to the heirs of Macario Jabines, but climbed and gathered 200 coconut fruits after Pedro’s assurance he would answer any complaint.
- Pedro claimed ownership through his late grandfather, Eufemio Amarille, presenting a tax declaration for a different parcel but believing it covered the plantation in question.
- The coconuts were made into copra; Pedro later sold them and kept the proceeds for personal use.
- On November 7, 2011, Noel Jabines learned of the harvest, informed his brothers, and reported the incident to the barangay and police.
- At a barangay settlement on November 9, 2011, Pedro admitted gathering coconuts but insisted on his ownership claim and agreed (then failed) to deposit copra at the barangay hall.
Procedural History
- RTC (Dec. 19, 2016) found Pedro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft under RPC Arts. 308–310 and sentenced him to 8 years 1 day to 14 years 8 months 1 day.
- Pedro appealed; CA (Dec. 13, 2019) affirmed with modification, imposing 2 years 4 months 1 day to 6 years 1 day imprisonment.
- CA denied Pedro’s motion for reconsideration (Nov. 23, 2020).
- Pedro filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether petitioner Pedro J. Amarille was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft of coconuts.
Applicable Law
- Art