Title
People vs. Macatanda
Case
G.R. No. L-51368
Decision Date
Nov 6, 1981
Appellant convicted of cattle rustling; Supreme Court rejected cultural minority and lack of instruction as mitigating factors, adjusted penalty under Revised Penal Code.

Case Summary (B.M. No. 3288)

Key Dates

The judgment under appeal was rendered on November 6, 1981.

Applicable Law

The decision is governed by Presidential Decree No. 533, also known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974, along with relevant provisions from the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, particularly the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Procedural Background

Macatanda was convicted for the crime of cattle rustling and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as the minimum, up to eight years of prision mayor as the maximum. He appealed the conviction primarily on legal grounds, including the assertion of mitigating circumstances related to his education and cultural background.

Factual Background

The case arose from an incident on December 25, 1976, when the complainant's two carabaos were discovered missing. They were later found in the possession of Macatanda and his companions, who engaged in a gun battle with law enforcement, resulting in Macatanda's apprehension and subsequent guilty plea.

Arguments on Mitigating Circumstances

Macatanda argued for the recognition of two mitigating circumstances: lack of instruction and cultural minority status as a Muslim. He referenced the case of U.S. vs. Maqui to support his argument for leniency. However, the court distinguished his case from Maqui, noting that no evidence of lack of instruction was presented, as all circumstances must be substantiated by evidence.

Dispute on Legal Precedent

The court disallowed the application of the Maqui precedent because the prior ruling involved an "uncivilized" status that warranted consideration of lack of instruction. The court stated that mere cultural minority status does not inherently imply a lack of education or responsibility.

Calculation of Penalty

Macatanda contended that the penalty computation should follow Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. The Solicitor General maintained that this article was not applicable since P.D. 533 constituted a special law. However, the court found that P.D. 533 should be considered as s

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.