The spouses Romeo and Rosita were charged with qualified theft for allegedly harvesting and stealing 2,500 pieces of coconut fruits from from the coconut trees planted on Lot 1609, which according to the complainant, Avertino Jaboli belong to his family, and covered by TCT No. T-7296, registered in the name of Avertino’s father, Francisco. In their defense, the spouses averred that they had been harvesting trees from the same land which has been handed down to them by Rosita’s father, and covered by OCT No. 1068. No one had prevented them from doing so, and even though she was aware that a civil case was filed against them by Avertino, she did not know of its status until 2002, when the criminal case had been pending.
The RTC convicted them as charged. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, holding that the belief of the accused of their ownership over the property must be honest and in good faith. It held that this requirement was lacking supposedly because at the time the coconuts were taken, the subject lot had already been adjudicated in favor of Francisco in a separate civil action for quieting of title and damages.
The Issue:
Whether or not the accused are liable for qualified theft.
The Ruling:
There is merit in the appeal.
We reverse the assailed Decision of the CA and acquit the Igdalinos of the charge of qualified theft. While the determination of guilt necessitates the appreciation of evidentiary matters – a province beyond the Court’s review function under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court – an evaluation of the factual findings of the lower courts is permitted in exceptional circumstances, as when the lower courts overlooked certain material and relevant matters.
Defining the crime of theft, Article 308 of the RPC provides:
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.
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.
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.
On the other hand, theft becomes qualified if attended by any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 310 of the RPC, thus:
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.
Be that as it may, for the crime of theft to prosper, it must be established beyond doubt that the accused had the intent to steal personal property. This animus furandi pertains to the intent to deprive another of his or her ownership or possession of personal property, apart from but concurrent with the general criminal intent which is an essential element of dolo malus.
The intent to steal is presumed from the taking of personal property without the consent of the owner or its lawful possessor. As in all presumptions, this may be rebutted by evidence showing that the accused took the personal property under a bona fide belief that he owns the property.
Gaviola v. People explains:
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:
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.”
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.
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)
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.
In the instant case, the unrebutted testimonial evidence for the defense shows that the Igdalinos had been cultivating and harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees from the plantation since the time of their predecessor, Narciso. Narciso, in turn, had been cultivating and harvesting said coconut trees from the same plantation since Rosita was still a child. The harvesting of the coconuts were made by the Igdalinos openly and notoriously, as testified to by the other barangay residents.
Contrary to the CA’s observations, the Court finds that the Igdalinos’ open and notorious harvesting of coconuts was made under their belief that they, in fact, owned the land where the plantation is situated. This belief is honest and in good faith considering that they held, in their favor, OCT No. 1068 covering the disputed land under Narciso’s name. We find that this honest belief was not tarred by the adjudication in Avertino’s favor of the civil case for quieting of title over the same land. Knowledge that the land was finally adjudicated in favor of Avertino came to the Igdalinos only when Rosita inquired from the Register of Deeds in 2002, or long after the complained harvest was made. Neither was there any showing that the civil court had already rendered a final decision in Avertino’s favor at the time the coconuts were harvested by the Igdalinos. All these tend to show that the Igdalinos’ claim of ownership over the disputed land is bona fide. In sum, the prosecution failed to establish the elements of unlawful taking and thus, reasonable doubt persists.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 23, 2017 and Resolution dated June 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR. No. 02642, convicting petitioners Romeo Igdalino and Rosita Igdalino of the crime of qualified theft are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Romeo Igdalino and Rosita Igdalino are ACQUITTED of the crime charged on reasonable doubt. If detained, they are ordered immediately RELEASED, unless confined for any other lawful cause. If bail bond has been paid, said amount is ordered immediately RETURNED.
SO ORDERED.
TIJAM, J.:
Leonardo-De Castro,* (Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo, Jardeleza, and Gesmundo,** JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 233033, July 23, 2018, ROMEO IGDALINO AND ROSITA IGDALINO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.
SEE ALSO: