Title
Pit-og vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 76539
Decision Date
Oct 11, 1990
A dispute over communal land ownership led to a theft charge against Erkey Pit-og, who claimed inherited rights. The Supreme Court acquitted her, citing lack of criminal intent and unresolved property boundaries, emphasizing civil resolution over criminal prosecution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 76539)

Factual Background

The case arises from an incident occurring in December 1983, when Erkey Pit-og allegedly cut and removed sugarcane and banana plants belonging to Edward Pasiteng, the complainant, who had been in possession of the land for over 25 years. The land in question was communal before its sale to Pasiteng, who claimed ownership through a deed of sale. Witnesses, including two minors, Leonard Marcos and Jessie Comicho, testified that they observed Erkey and her companions harvesting the crops without permission.

Charges and Initial Proceedings

A complaint for theft was filed against Erkey Pit-og, alleging that she took 300 pieces of sugarcane and a bunch of bananas valued at P2,000 without the consent of the owner. The Municipal Trial Court found her guilty of theft based on its assessment of evidence, declaring that the elements of theft were met, and consequently sentencing her to arresto mayor and payment of damages.

Defense and Appeal

Erkey denied the charges, asserting that she was part of the tomayan, and claimed ownership of the land based on customary practices that allowed members to cultivate crops. The Municipal Trial Court discredited her claims due to the lack of documentation proving her occupation of the land, and the Regional Trial Court upheld this decision on appeal, emphasizing the credibility of Pasiteng's documentation over Erkey's oral assertions.

Court of Appeals Findings

Appealing to the Court of Appeals, Erkey contended that no criminal intent existed, and that the case was civil rather than criminal in nature. The appellate court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, highlighting that Pasiteng was a possessor in good faith, and that the elements of theft were satisfied, barring Erkey’s defense which lacked substantiation.

Supreme Court Review and Decision

Upon reaching the Supreme Court, Erkey raised issues regarding the presence of criminal intent, the qualification of theft, and the classification of the case. The Court noted that the essential elements of theft must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, including the identifi

...continue reading

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