Case Summary (G.R. No. 85204)
Procedural History
Preliminary investigation was conducted in the 11th Municipal Circuit Court at Valencia‑Dimiao, Bohol. An information was filed in the then Court of First Instance (14th Judicial District, Branch IV) at Tagbilaran City. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (Branch IV) rendered a decision (July 6, 1984) convicting Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge Taer for theft of large cattle with nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance; Mario Cago and Cirilo Saludes were acquitted. Only Taer appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction in toto (May 26, 1988). Taer then sought review by the Supreme Court, which rendered the challenged decision (June 18, 1990).
Facts Found at Trial
On the evening of December 5, 1981, Saludes slept at Taer’s house. At about 2:00 a.m. on December 6, 1981, Namocatcat and Cago arrived at Taer’s house with two male carabaos (valued at P4,000 combined) and left them there to be tended. The owners discovered the animals missing that morning and reported the theft. On December 15, 1981, the owners were informed an animal was seen at Datag; they found both carabaos tied near Taer’s house. Taer gave differing explanations: he told the owners the animals arrived tied together without people in company, and later said Namocatcat had left them with instructions to say they had strayed. The owners removed the carabaos from Taer’s possession on December 15.
Issues Raised by Petitioner
Taer advanced two principal arguments to overturn his conviction: (1) his participation did not exceed that of the acquitted co‑accused (Saludes and Cago), so he should likewise be acquitted; and (2) the only evidence of conspiracy between Taer and Namocatcat was the co‑accused Namocatcat’s extrajudicial confession, which is inadmissible against Taer as res inter alios acta (an act or declaration of others that may not prejudice a party).
Trial Court and Court of Appeals Findings on Conspiracy
The trial court convicted Taer and Namocatcat, appreciating nocturnity as aggravating. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the circumstances surrounding the delivery (2:00 a.m., 14‑kilometer travel, the unexplained delivery and the agreement to tend/share produce), Taer’s acceptance and continued possession, his failure to report the matter to the barangay captain, and his apparent effort to conceal Namocatcat’s identity established the existence of an unlawful agreement (conspiracy) beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court’s Legal Standard on Conspiracy and Application
The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ inference of conspiracy. It reiterated the legal standard that conspiracy requires proof of an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime and a decision to commit it; such a finding must be established beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rest on mere conjectures or suspicion. Mere knowledge of, acquiescence in, or approval of a criminal act — without intentional cooperation or agreement to cooperate to further the common design — is insufficient to constitute participation in a conspiracy.
Admissibility of Co‑accused’s Confession (Res Inter Alios Acta)
The Court emphasized the rule that an extrajudicial confession or declaration of one accused cannot be used to prejudice another accused (res inter alios acta), as the other accused did not have the opportunity to cross‑examine the declarant. Because the only cogent proof of conspiracy was the implication made by Namocatcat in his affidavit of confession and because that evidence was not admissible against Taer in the absence of corroboration, the uncorroborated confession could not establish Taer’s participation in a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
Classification of Taer’s Culpability: Accessory After the Fact
Given the insufficiency of proof of conspiracy and the absence of evidence that Taer participated in the taking, the Supreme Court found that the facts at most established that Taer had knowledge of the theft and subsequently used the stolen animals on his farm. This conduct fits the statutory definition of an accessory after the fact under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code — one who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime and without having participated therein as principal or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission by profiting from the effects of the crime.
Sentencing Legal Framework Applied
The substantive offense (cattle rustling) and its penalties are governed by PD No. 533 as it amended Arts. 308–310 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 8 of PD No. 533 prescribes penalties for cattle rustling (ranges of prison mayor to reclusion temporal, with higher ranges where violence or serious injury results). Article 53 of the Revised Penal Code provides that accessories are punishable by penalties lower by two degrees than those prescribed for the consummated felony. The Supreme Court applied these provisions to determine the proper range for an accessory after the fact.
Sentencing Calculation and Indeterminate Sentence Law Application
The Court determined the penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the principal offense under the first sentence of Section 8 of PD No. 533 and derived a corresponding range for an accessory. Applying the rule in Article 64 (when no aggravating or mitigating circumstances exist, the medium period is to be imposed) and then the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225), the Court concluded that the proper imposable penalty for Taer as an accessory after the fact was within a range whose medium period corresponded to prision correccional minimum (6 m
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 85204)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals in "People v. Jorge Taer," CA-G.R. CR No. 01213, dated May 26, 1988, which affirmed the conviction of Jorge Taer for cattle rustling by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol in Criminal Case No. 3104 and denied his Motion for Reconsideration.
- Information originally filed in the then Court of First Instance of Bohol, 14th Judicial District, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City, after preliminary investigation in the 11th Municipal Circuit Court at Valencia–Dimiao, Bohol.
- Trial court (RTC, Tagbilaran, Br. IV) rendered its decision on July 6, 1984, convicting Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge Taer and acquitting Mario Cago and Cirilo/Cerilo Saludes for insufficiency of evidence.
- Only Jorge Taer appealed to the Court of Appeals; Emilio Namocatcat did not appeal his conviction.
- Supreme Court decision rendered June 18, 1990 (G.R. No. 85204), modifying the conviction and sentence of Jorge Taer.
Parties and Counsel/Panel Information (as appearing in source)
- Petitioner: Jorge Taer.
- Respondents: The Hon. Court of Appeals, and The People of the Philippines.
- Accused named in the Information: Emilio Namocatcat alias Milio, Mario Cago, Jorge Taer, and Cerilo (spelled “Cirilo” elsewhere) Saludes.
- Trial Judge: Hon. Fernando S. Ruiz, presiding judge (Crim. Case No. 3104).
- Supreme Court opinion by Justice Sarmiento; Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
- Court of Appeals panel noted in footnote: Imperial, Jorge S., J., ponente; Melo, Jose A. R. and Herrera, Manuel C., JJ., concurring; Third Division.
Information / Charge (as alleged in the Information)
- Criminal charge: Theft of Large Cattle (cattle rustling) under Articles 308, 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 533.
- Alleged facts in the Information: On or about December 5, 1981, in barangay Lantang, municipality of Valencia, province of Bohol, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually assisting, with intent of gain and without consent of the owners, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took, stole and led away two (2) male carabaos valued at P4,000.00 belonging to Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca.
- Aggravating circumstance alleged: Nocturnity (nighttime) purposely sought for or taken advantage of by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime.
- Date on information: City of Tagbilaran, June 1, 1982.
Factual Findings by Trial Court (undisputed facts as found)
- On the evening of December 5, 1981, accused Cirilo/Cerilo Saludes slept in the house of his compadre accused Jorge Taer at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol.
- At about 2:00 o'clock dawn, December 6, 1981, accused Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived at Taer's house with two (2) male carabaos which Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend; the carabaos were left at Taer's place.
- Owners Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca discovered on the morning of December 6, 1981 that their respective male carabaos (3 to 4 years old) were missing from different grazing grounds where they had been tied the afternoon before; they reported the matter to the police after searching in vain.
- On December 15, 1981, Felipe Reyes informed Dalde that he had seen Dalde's lost carabao at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez.
- Dalde and Palaca went to Datag on December 15 and found their missing carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near Taer's house. Taer was not at home, being in Napo, Garcia-Hernandez, attending the fiesta.
- According to Dalde and Palaca, when queried why the carabaos were found at his place, Taer replied that the carabaos reached his place tied together without any person in company.
- According to Taer, he told Dalde and Palaca that Namocatcat had brought the carabaos and had asked him to say they had strayed into his other carabaos if anyone inquired.
- The two carabaos were taken by Dalde and Palaca from Taer's possession on December 15.
Trial Court Disposition (July 6, 1984)
- RTC found Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge Taer GUILTY beyond doubt of theft of large cattle.
- Aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was appreciated against them.
- Sentenced under Presidential Decree No. 533 to the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one day to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days, together with accessory penalties; costs imposed; preventive imprisonment credited.
- Accused Mario Cago and Cirilo/Cerilo Saludes were ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.
Appeal to Court of Appeals and Court of Appeals’ Reasoning (affirmance)
- Only Jorge Taer appealed to the Court of Appeals; the CA affirmed the trial court decision in toto.
- CA considered several circumstances as proof of conspiracy between Taer and Namocatcat:
- Taer's admission that he had not met Namocatcat since 1975 and had not tended any carabao of Namocatcat previously, which the CA found inconsistent with his ready acceptance of the two carabaos delivered at 2:00 a.m. after a 14-kilometer night travel.
- Taer's alleged unreserved acceptance of tending the carabaos with an agreement as to sharing produce.
- CA found it "unbelievable" Taer was not suspicious of the origin of the carabaos and that he did not report to the barangay captain (living 2 kilometers away) from the time of delivery until retrieval 10 days later.
- CA concluded that ordinarily one would not hold on to a thing one suspects to be stolen; Taer's conduct—retaining the carabaos and attempting to cover Namocatcat's identity—indicated an unlawful agreement.
- CA found conspiracy between Namocatcat and Taer in the theft of the carabaos established beyond doubt.
- The CA’s affirmance, however, did not affect Namocatcat (who did not appeal his conviction).
Petitioner's Arguments Presented to the Supreme Court
- Taer raised two main arguments:
- That his participation did not go beyond that of Cirilo/Cerilo Saludes and Mario Cago, who were acquitted; therefore, their acquittal should lead to his acquittal.
- That the only evidence proving alleged conspiracy between him and Emilio Namocatcat was the confession/implication made by Namocatcat; such extrajudicial confession is hearsay and inadmissible against Taer under the rule of res inter alios acta.