You are on page 1of 7

SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 140937 February 28, 2001 EXUPERANCIO CANTA, petitioner, vs. PEOP E OF T!E P!

I IPPINE", respondent. #EN$O%A, J.& This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated August 3 , !!!, and reso"ution, dated Nove#$er %%, !!!, of the Court of Appea"s, which affir#ed the decision of the &egiona" Tria" Court, 'ranch %(, )aasin, Southern *e+te, % finding petitioner E,uperancio Canta gui"t+ of vio"ation of -.D. No. (33, otherwise .nown as the Anti/Catt"e &ust"ing *aw of !01, and sentencing hi# to ten 2 34 +ears and one 2 4 da+ of prision mayor, as #ini#u#, to twe"ve 2 %4 +ears, five 2(4 #onths, and e"even 2 4 da+s of reclusion temporal #ediu#, as #a,i#u#, and to pa+ the costs. The infor#ation against petitioner a""eged5 That on or a$out )arch 1, !67, in the #unicipa"it+ of )a"it$og, province of Southern *e+te, -hi"ippines, and within the 8urisdiction of this 9onora$"e Court, the a$ove/na#ed accused with intent to gain, did then and there, wi""fu""+, un"awfu""+ and fe"onious"+, ta.e, stea" and carr+ awa+ one 2 4 $"ac. fe#a"e cow $e"onging to Narciso :a$rie" va"ued at Three Thousand -esos 2-3,333.334 without the .now"edge and consent of the aforesaid owner, to his da#age and pre8udice in the a#ount aforestated.1wphi1.nt CONT&A&; TO *A<.3 The prosecution esta$"ished the fo""owing facts5 Narciso :a$rie" ac=uired fro# his ha"f/sister Er"inda )onter a cow, su$8ect of the case, upon its $irth on )arch 3, !61. The cow re#ained under the care of Er"inda )onter for so#eti#e. Su$se=uent"+, Narciso gave the care and custod+ of the ani#a", first, to :eneroso Ca$once, fro# Octo$er %1, !61 to )arch 0, !6(> then to )aria Tura, fro# )a+ 0, !6( to )arch %, !67> and "ast"+, to :ardenio Agapa+, fro# )arch 3, !67 unti" )arch 1, !67 when it was "ost. 1 It appears that at ( o?c"oc. in the afternoon of )arch 3, !67, Agapa+ too. the cow to gra@e in the #ountain of -i"ipogan in 'aranga+ Candatag, a$out 13 #eters fro# his hut. 9owever, when he ca#e $ac. for it at past ! o?c"oc. in the #orning of )arch 1, !67, Agapa+ found the cow gone. 9e found hoof prints which "ed to the house of Ai"o#eno Va""e8os. 9e was to"d that petitioner E,uperancio Canta had ta.en the ani#a".( Bpon instructions of the owner, :ardenio and )aria Tura went to recover the ani#a" fro# petitioner?s wife, $ut the+ were infor#ed that petitioner had de"ivered the cow to his father, A"orentino Canta, who was at that ti#e $aranga+ captain of *aca, -adre 'urgos, Southern *e+te. According"+, the two went to A"orentino?s house. On their wa+, the+ #et petitioner who to"d the# that if Narciso was the owner, he shou"d c"ai# the cow hi#se"f.

Neverthe"ess, petitioner acco#panied the two to his father?s house, where )aria recogni@ed the cow. As petitioner?s father was not in the house, petitioner to"d :ardenio and )aria he wou"d ca"" the# the ne,t da+ so that the+ cou"d ta". the #atter over with his father. 9owever, petitioner never ca""ed the#. 9ence, Narciso :a$rie" reported the #atter to the po"ice of )a"it$og, Southern *e+te. 7 As a resu"t, Narciso and petitioner E,uperancio were ca""ed to an investigation. -etitioner ad#itted ta.ing the cow $ut c"ai#ed that it was his and that it was "ost on Dece#$er 3, !6(. 9e presented two certificates of ownership, one dated )arch 0, !67 and another dated Ae$ruar+ %0, !6(, to support his c"ai# 2E,h. '4.0 Narciso presented a certificate of ownership issued on )arch !, !67, signed $+ the #unicipa" treasurer, in which the cow was descri$ed as two +ears o"d and fe#a"e. On the reverse side of the certificate is the drawing of a cow with cow"ic.s in the #idd"e of the forehead, $etween the ears, on the right and "eft $ac., and at the $ase of the fore"egs and hind"egs 2E,hs. C, C/ to 14. 6 A"" four careta.ers of the cow identified the cow as the sa#e one the+ had ta.en care of, $ased on the "ocation of its cow"ic.s, its se,, and its co"or. :ardenio descri$ed the cow as $"ac. in co"or, with a s#a"" portion of its a$do#en containing a $rownish cow"ic., a cow"ic. in the #idd"e of the forehead, another at the $ac. portion $etween the two ears, and four cow"ic.s "ocated near the $ase of its fore"egs and the hind"egs.! On the other hand, petitioner c"ai#ed he ac=uired the ani#a" under an agree#ent which he had with -at. Diosdado Vi""anueva, that petitioner ta.e care of a fe#a"e cow of -at. Vi""anueva in consideration for which petitioner wou"d get a ca"f if the cow produced two offsprings. -etitioner c"ai#ed that the cow in =uestion was his share and that it was $orn on Dece#$er (, !61. This cow, however, was "ost on Dece#$er %, !6(. -etitioner said he reported the "oss to the po"ice of )acrohon, -adre 'urgos, and )a"it$og, on Dece#$er 3, !6( 2E,h. A and E,h. 4. 3 -etitioner said that on )arch 1, !67, his unc"e )eno to"d hi# that he had seen the cow at -i"ipogan, under the care of :ardenio Agapa+. 9e, therefore, went to -i"ipogan with the #other cow on )arch 1, !67 to see whether the cow wou"d suc."e the #other cow. As the cow did, petitioner too. it with hi# and $rought it, together with the #other cow, to his father A"orentino Canta. )aria Tura tried to get the cow, $ut A"orentino refused to give it to her and instead to"d her to ca"" Narciso so that the+ cou"d deter#ine the ownership of the cow. % As Narciso did not co#e the fo""owing da+, a"though )aria did, A"orentino said he to"d his son to ta.e the cow to the )unicipa" 9a"" of -adre 'urgos. -etitioner did as he was to"d. Three da+s "ater, A"orentino and E,uperancio were ca""ed to the po"ice station for investigation. 3 -etitioner presented a Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e dated Ae$ruar+ %0, !6( 1 and a state#ent e,ecuted $+ Aran."in Te"en, 8anitor at the treasurer?s office of the #unicipa"it+ of -adre 'urgos, to the effect that he issued a Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e in the na#e of petitioner E,uperancio Canta on Ae$ruar+ %0, !6( 2E,h.

(4. ( The state#ent was e,ecuted at the pre"i#inar+ investigation of the co#p"aint fi"ed $+ petitioner against Narciso. 7 -etitioner?s Certificate of Ownership was, however, denied $+ the #unicipa" treasurer, who stated that petitioner E,uperancio Canta had no Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e in the #unicipa"it+ of -adre 'urgos 2E,hs. E, E/ and %4. 0 On the other hand, Te"en testified that he issued the Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e to petitioner on )arch %1, !67 $ut, at the instance of petitioner, he 2Te"en4 antedated it to Ae$ruar+ %0, !6(. 6 On Canuar+ %1, !!0, the tria" court rendered its decision finding petitioner gui"t+ of the offense charged. In giving credence to the evidence for the prosecution, the tria" court stated5 Aro# the affidavits and testi#onies of the co#p"ainant and his witnesses, it is indu$ita$"e that it was accused E,uperancio Canta who actua""+ too. the cow awa+ without the .now"edge and consent of either the ownerDraiserDcareta.er :ardenio Agapa+. That the ta.ing of the cow $+ the accused was done with strateg+ and stea"th considering that it was #ade at the ti#e when :ardenio Agapa+ was at his she"ter/hut fort+ 2134 #eters awa+ tethered to a coconut tree $ut separated $+ a hi"". The accused in his defense tried to 8ustif+ his ta.ing awa+ of the cow $+ c"ai#ing ownership. 9e, however, fai"ed to prove such ownership. Accused a""eged that on Ae$ruar+ %0, !6( he was issued a Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e 2E,h. %/A4 for his cow $+ Aran."in Te"en, a 8anitor at the Office of the )unicipa" Treasurer of -adre 'urgos, a neigh$oring town. On re$utta" Aran."in Te"en denied in Court the testi#on+ of the accused and even categorica""+ dec"ared that it was on"+ on )arch %1, !67 that the accused $rought the cow to the )unicipa" 9a"" of -adre 'urgos, when he issued a Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e for the cow, and not on Ae$ruar+ %0, !6(. Aran."in Te"en testified thus5 EF. According to the defense, this Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e was issued $+ +ou on Ae$ruar+ %0, !6(. Is that correctG A. 'ased on the re=uest of E,uperancio, I antedated this. 2TSN, Cune 3, !!%, p. 04E The testi#on+ of Aran."in Te"en was confir#ed in open court $+ no "ess than the )unicipa" Treasurer of -adre 'urgos, )r. Ae"iciano Sa"va. 2TSN, Septe#$er %!, !!%, pp. (/64.

If accused E,uperancio Canta were the owner of the cow in =uestion, wh+ wou"d he "ie on its registrationG And wh+ wou"d he have to as. )r. Aran."in Te"en to antedate its registr+G It is c"ear that accused secured a Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e 2E,h. %/A4 $+ feigning and #anipu"ation 2E,hs. A H '4 on"+ after the act co#p"ained of in the instant case was co##itted on )arch 1, !67. 9is c"ai# of ownership upon which he 8ustifies his ta.ing awa+ of the cow has no "eg to stand on. Bpon the other hand, the co#p"ainant has shown a"" the regu"ar and necessar+ proofs of ownership of the cow in =uestion. ! The Court of Appea"s affir#ed the tria" court?s decision and denied petitioner?s #otion for reconsideration. 9ence, this petition. It is contended that the prosecution fai"ed to prove $e+ond reasona$"e dou$t his cri#ina" intent in ta.ing the disputed cow. First. -etitioner c"ai#s good faith and honest $e"ief in ta.ing the cow. 9e cites the fo""owing circu#stances to prove his c"ai#5 . 9e $rought the #other cow to -i"ipogan to see if the cow in =uestion wou"d suc."e to the #other cow, thus proving his ownership of it> %. 9e co#pared the cow"ic.s of the su$8ect cow to that indicated in the Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e issued on Ae$ruar+ %0, !6( in his na#e, and found that the+ ta""+> 3. 9e i##ediate"+ turned over the cow to the $aranga+ captain, after ta.ing it, and "ater to the po"ice authorities, after a dispute arose as to its ownership> and 1. 9e fi"ed a cri#ina" co#p"aint against Narciso :a$rie" for vio"ation of -. D. No. (33. These contentions are without #erit. -.D. No. (33, I%2c4 defines catt"e/rust"ing as . . . the ta.ing awa+ $+ an+ #eans, #ethods or sche#e, without the consent of the ownerDraiser, of an+ of the a$ove#entioned ani#a"s whether or not for profit or gain, or whether co##itted with or without vio"ence against or inti#idation of an+ person or force upon things. The cri#e is co##itted if the fo""owing e"e#ents concur5 2 4 a "arge catt"e is ta.en> 2%4 it $e"ongs to another> 234 the ta.ing is done without the consent of the owner> 214 the ta.ing is done $+ an+ #eans, #ethods or sche#e> 2(4 the ta.ing is with or without intent to gain> and 274 the ta.ing is acco#p"ished with or without vio"ence or inti#idation against person or force upon things.%3 These re=uisites are present in this case. Airst, there is no =uestion that the cow $e"ongs to Narciso :a$rie". -etitioner?s on"+ defense is that in ta.ing the ani#a" he

acted in good faith and in the honest $e"ief that it was the cow which he had "ost. Second, petitioner, without the consent of the owner, too. the cow fro# the custod+ of the careta.er, :ardenio Agapa+, despite the fact that he .new a"" a"ong that the "atter was ho"ding the ani#a" for the owner, Narciso. Third, petitioner fa"sified his Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e $+ as.ing Te"en to antedate it prior to the ta.ing to #a.e it appear that he owned the cow in =uestion. Aourth, petitioner adopted E#eans, #ethods, or sche#esE to deprive Narciso of his possession of his cow, thus #anifesting his intent to gain. Aifth, no vio"ence or inti#idation against persons or force upon things attended the co##ission of the cri#e. Indeed, the evidence shows that the Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e which petitioner presented to prove his ownership was fa"sified. Aran."in Te"en, the 8anitor in the #unicipa" treasurer?s office, ad#itted that he issued the certificate to petitioner 3 da+s after Narciso?s cow had $een sto"en. A"though Te"en has previous"+ e,ecuted a sworn state#ent c"ai#ing that he issued the certificate on Ae$ruar+ %0, !6(, he "ater ad#itted that he antedated it at the instance of petitioner E,uperancio Canta, his friend, who assured hi# that the cow was his.% Te"en?s testi#on+ was corro$orated $+ the certification of the #unicipa" treasurer of -adre 'urgos that no registration in the na#e of petitioner was recorded in the #unicipa" records. Thus, petitioner?s c"ai# that the cow"ic.s found on the cow ta""+ with that indicated on the Certificate of Ownership of *arge Catt"e has no va"ue, as this sa#e certificate was issued after the cow had $een ta.en $+ petitioner fro# :ardenio Agapa+. O$vious"+, he had ever+ opportunit+ to #a.e sure that the drawings on the certificate wou"d ta""+ with that e,isting on the cow in =uestion. The fact that petitioner too. the cow to the $aranga+ captain and "ater to the po"ice authorities does not prove his good faith. 9e had a"read+ co##itted the cri#e, and the $aranga+ captain to who# he de"ivered the cow after ta.ing it fro# its owner is his own father. <hi"e the records show that he fi"ed on Apri" 33, !67 a cri#ina" co#p"aint against Narciso :a$rie", the co#p"aint was dis#issed after it was shown that it was fi"ed as a countercharge to a co#p"aint ear"ier fi"ed on Apri" 7, !67 against hi# $+ Narciso :a$rie". -etitioner sa+s that he $rought a #other cow to see if the cow in =uestion wou"d suc."e to the #other cow. 'ut cows fre=uent"+ atte#pt to suc."e to a"ien cows. %% 9ence, the fact that the cow suc."ed to the #other cow $rought $+ petitioner is not conc"usive proof that it was the offspring of the #other cow. Second. -etitioner contends that even assu#ing that his Certificate of Ownership is Enot in order,E it does not necessari"+ fo""ow that he did not $e"ieve in good faith that the cow was his. If it turned out "ater that he was #ista.en, he argues that he co##itted on"+ a #ista.e of fact $ut he is not cri#ina""+ "ia$"e. -etitioner?s Certificate of Ownership is not on"+ Enot in order.E It is fraudu"ent, having $een antedated to #a.e it appear it had $een issued to hi# $efore he a""eged"+ too. the

cow in =uestion. That he o$tained such fraudu"ent certificate and #ade use of it negates his c"ai# of good faith and honest #ista.e. That he too. the cow despite the fact that he .new it was in the custod+ of its careta.er cannot save hi# fro# the conse=uences of his act.%3 As the So"icitor :enera" states in his Co##ent5 If petitioner had $een responsi$"e and carefu" he wou"d have first verified the identit+ andDor ownership of the cow fro# either Narciso :a$rie" or :ardenio Agapa+, who is petitioner?s cousin 2TSN, !D %D! , p. %74. -etitioner, however, did not do so despite the opportunit+ and instead rushed to ta.e the cow. Thus, even if petitioner had co##itted a #ista.e of fact he is not e,e#pted fro# cri#ina" "ia$i"it+ due to his neg"igence.%1 In an+ event, petitioner was not 8ustified in ta.ing the cow without the .now"edge and per#ission of its owner. If he thought it was the cow he had a""eged"+ "ost, he shou"d have resorted to the court for the sett"e#ent of his c"ai#. Art. 133 of the Civi" Code provides that EThe true owner #ust resort to 8udicia" process for the recover+ of the propert+.E <hat petitioner did in this case was to ta.e the "aw in his own hands. %( 9e surreptitious"+ too. the cow fro# the custod+ of the careta.er, :ardenio Agapa+, which act $e"ies his c"ai# of good faith. Aor the foregoing reasons, we ho"d that the evidence fu""+ supports the finding of $oth the tria" court and the Court of Appea"s that accused/appe""ant is gui"t+ as charged. There is therefore no reason to distur$ their findings. 9owever, the decision of the Court of Appea"s shou"d $e #odified in two respects. Airst, accused/appe""ant shou"d $e given the $enefit of the #itigating circu#stance ana"ogous to vo"untar+ surrender. The circu#stance of vo"untar+ surrender has the fo""owing e"e#ents5 2 4 the offender has not actua""+ $een arrested> 2%4 the offender surrenders to a person in authorit+ or to the "atter?s agent> and 234 the surrender is vo"untar+.%7 In the present case, petitioner E,uperancio Canta had not actua""+ $een arrested. In fact, no co#p"aint had +et $een fi"ed against hi# when he surrendered the cow to the authorities. It has $een repeated"+ he"d that for surrender to $e vo"untar+, there #ust $e an intent to su$#it onese"f unconditiona""+ to the authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the trou$"e and e,pense that his search and capture wou"d re=uire.%0 In petitioner?s case, he vo"untari"+ too. the cow to the #unicipa" ha"" of -adre 'urgos to p"ace it unconditiona""+ in the custod+ of the authorities and thus saved the# the trou$"e of having to recover the cow fro# hi#. This circu#stance can $e considered ana"ogous to vo"untar+ surrender and shou"d $e considered in favor of petitioner. Second, the tria" court correct"+ found petitioner gui"t+ of vio"ation of I%2c4 of -. D. No. (33, otherwise .nown as the Anti/Catt"e &ust"ing *aw of !01. 9owever, it erred in i#posing the pena"t+ of 3 +ears and da+ of prision mayor, as #ini#u#, to % +ears, ( #onths and da+s of reclusion temporal #ediu#, as #a,i#u#. The tria" court apparent"+ considered -. D. No. (33 as a specia" "aw and app"ied I of the

Indeter#inate Sentence *aw, which provides that Eif the offense is punished $+ an+ other "aw, the court sha"" sentence the accused to an indeter#inate sentence, the #a,i#u# ter# of which sha"" not e,ceed the #a,i#u# fi,ed $+ said "aw and the #ini#u# sha"" not $e "ess than the #ini#u# ter# prescri$ed $+ the sa#e.E 9owever, as he"d in People v. Macatanda,%6 -. D. No. (33 is not a specia" "aw. The pena"t+ for its vio"ation is in ter#s of the c"assification and duration of pena"ties prescri$ed in the &evised -ena" Code, thus indicating that the intent of the "aw#a.er was to a#end the &evised -ena" Code with respect to the offense of theft of "arge catt"e. In fact, I 3 of the "aw provides5 The provisions of Artic"es 33! and 3 3 of Act No. 36 (, otherwise .nown as the &evised -ena" Code, as a#ended, pertinent provisions of the &evised Ad#inistrative Code, as a#ended, a"" "aws, decrees, orders, instructions, ru"es and regu"ations which are inconsistent with this Decree are here$+ repea"ed or #odified according"+. There $eing one #itigating circu#stance and no aggravating circu#stance in the co##ission of the cri#e, the pena"t+ to $e i#posed in this case shou"d $e fi,ed in its #ini#u# period. App"+ing the Indeter#inate Sentence *aw, in re"ation to Art. 71 of the &evised -ena" Code, petitioner shou"d $e sentenced to an indeter#inate pena"t+, the #ini#u# of which is within the range of the pena"t+ ne,t "ower in degree, i. e., prision correccional #a,i#u# to prision mayor #ediu#, and the #a,i#u# of which is prision mayor in its #a,i#u# period. '!EREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appea"s is AAAI&)ED, with the #odification that petitioner E,uperancio Canta is here$+ SENTENCED to suffer a prison ter# of four 214 +ears and two 2%4 #onths of prision correccional #a,i#u#, as #ini#u#, to ten 2 34 +ears and one 2 4 da+ of prision mayor #a,i#u#, as #a,i#u#. SO O&DE&ED.1wphi1.nt

You might also like