FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 233033, July 23, 2018
ROMEO IGDALINO AND ROSITA IGDALINO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
TIJAM, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision2 dated February 23, 2017 and Resolution3 dated June 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR. No. 02642 entitled "People of the Philippines, v. Romeo Igdalino and Rosita Igdalino" which affirmed the Decision4 dated December 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28 of Catbalogan City, finding herein petitioners spouses Romeo Igdalino (Romeo) and Rosita Igdalino (Rosita) (collectively, Igdalinos) both guilty of the crime of qualified theft for having harvested 2,500 pieces of nuts of coconut fruits valued at Php4,000.00 from the coconut plantation of Avertino Jaboli (Avertino).
That on or about the 29th day of June 2000, at about 8:00 o'clock, more or less, in the morning, at Barangay Camarubo-an, Municipality of Jiabong, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, with deliberate intent to gain, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously pick, harvest, gather and carry away with them Two Thousand Five Hundred (2,500) pieces of nuts of the coconut fruits valued at Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00), from the coconut plantation of Avertino Jaboli without the knowledge and consent of the latter to the damage and prejudice of the above-named owner, in the aforementioned sum of P4,000.00, Philippine Currency.When arraigned, petitioners pleaded not guilty. The case against the son Romeo, Jr. was dismissed considering that he was below fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the alleged commission of the crime.6
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Rowel Igdalino is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of qualified theft for failure of the prosecutor to prove that he acted with discernment at the time he committed the crime charged. Romeo Igdalino and Rosita Igdalino are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of qualified theft. Thus, by applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court hereby sentences each of them to suffer an imprisonment of FOUR (4) years, TWO (2) months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to TEN (10) years of prision mayor as maximum term. Likewise, the accused Romeo Igdalino and Rosita Igdalino are directed to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of complainant Avertino Jaboli actual damages of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) and moral damages of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). With costs de oficio.The Igdalinos appealed to the CA and maintained that they merely exercised their rights as owners of the land and the cultivators of the coconut trees.
SO ORDERED.16
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December 2, 2014, of the regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. 5094, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that:
(1) Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, [the Igdalinos] are sentenced to suffer than [sic] imprisonment of Four (4) years, Two (2) months and One (1) day [sic] prision correccional as minimum to Ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum;
(2) [The Igdalinos] are ordered to pay the amount of P4,000.00 as actual damages which must earn 6% per annum computed from finality of the Court's Decision until satisfied.
(3) The award of moral damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.17
ART. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.Oft-cited, the elements of the crime of theft are: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things.19
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm products.
ART. 310. Qualified Theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (Emphasis ours)Foilowing the above provision, when coconuts are stolen while they are still in the tree or on the ground within the premises of the plantation, the theft is qualified. Heavier penalty is imposed for theft of coconuts for purposes of encouraging and protecting the development of the coconut industry considering that coconut groves are rendered more difficult to watch over due to the nature of the growth of coconut trees, making it more prone to theft.20
In Black v. State, the State Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the open and notorious taking, without any attempt at concealment or denial, but an avowal of the taking, raises a strong presumption that there is no animus furandi. But, if the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, taking the property of another will not protect the taker:Clearly, jurisprudence has carved out an instance when the act of taking of personal property defeats the presumption that there is intent to steal - when the taking is open and notorious, under an honest and in good faith belief of the accused of his ownership over the property.xxx"In all cases where one in good faith takes another's property under claim of title in himself, he is exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim may in fact be. And the same is true where the taking is on behalf of another, believed to be the true owner. Still, if the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, it will not protect the taker."In Charles v. State, the State Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the belief of the accused of his ownership over the property must be honest and in good faith and not a mere sham or pretense. (Citations omitted, emphasis ours)
The gist of the offense is the intent to deprive another of his property in a chattel, either for gain or out of wantonness or malice to deprive another of his right in the thing taken. This cannot be where the taker honestly believes the property is his own or that of another, and that he has a right to take possession of it for himself or for another, for the protection of the latter.
Endnotes:
* Designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559, dated May 11, 2018.
** Designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560, dated May 11, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 9-26.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Gabriel T. Robeniol. Id. at 88-102.
3 Id. at 110-111.
4 Id. at 43-66.
5 Id. at 10-11, 43 and 72.
6 Id. at 73.
7 Id. at 125.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 11.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 12.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 13.
14 Id. at 13-14.
15 Id. at 14.
16 Id. at 65-66.
17 Id. at 102.
18People v. Esteban, 735 Phil. 663, 671 (2014).
19Cruz v. People, 586 Phil. 89, 99 (2008).
20Empelis, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 217 Phil. 377 (1984) citing People v. Isnain, 85 Phil. 648 (1950).
21Gaviola v. People, 516 Phil. 228, 237 (2006).
22 Supra at 238.
23 Id.
24Rollo, p. 52.