View full case

ALFONSO D. GAVIOLA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

This case is about a land dispute involving a parcel of land in Maripipi, Leyte. In 1954, Elias Gaviola filed a complaint against Eusebio Mejarito to quiet title over the land. However, in 1955, the trial court dismissed the complaint and declared Eusebio as the rightful owner of the property. After Eusebio's death, his son Cleto continued to claim ownership of the land. In 1985, Cleto filed a complaint against Alfonso Gaviola and others for recovery of possession of the land, alleging that they were occupying the land previously adjudicated to Eusebio. The court appointed a commissioner to resurvey the property and determined that Alfonso's house was located on a different lot (Lot 1311) from the one adjudicated to Eusebio (Lot 1301). In 1990, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing Cleto's complaint. Cleto appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but his appeal was denied. The CA affirmed the trial court's ruling and declared that Alfonso's house was located in Lot 1311. Cleto's petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court was also denied. In September 1997, Jovencio Mejarito witnessed individuals climbing the coconut trees in Lot 1301. Alfonso Gaviola, admitting to instructing others to gather coconuts from the coconut trees, was charged with qualified theft along with his wife Leticia Gaviola and the individuals who gathered the coconuts. Alfonso claimed that the trees were planted on his property, Lot 1311, and not on Lot 1301 owned by Cleto Mejarito. He relied on a decision from a previous case that declared him as the owner of the property where the trees were planted. The trial court convicted Alfonso of qualified theft, and the CA affirmed the decision. Alfonso appeals to the Supreme Court, raising issues of intent to gain and liability for damages.

This case involves the interpretation of Article 308 (subsequently renumbered to Article 535) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which penalizes theft. The accused, Mariano Alameda, was charged with theft for taking the personal belongings of Antonia Dlomaxi without her consent. Alameda argued that he should not be held liable for theft because the provision only covers cases where theft involves violence, intimidation, or force. The trial court convicted Alameda of theft, but he appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue raised is whether Article 308 of the RPC requires the use of violence, intimidation, or force as an element of theft. The Supreme Court ruled that the provision only requires the taking of personal belongings without the owner's consent and with the intent to gain profit from it, regardless of the absence of violence, intimidation, or force.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioner can feign ignorance or unfamiliarity with the location, identity, and boundaries of the private complainant's property and whether or not the petitioner can be held criminally liable for theft.

  2. Whether the petitioner can be held criminally liable for theft despite his claim of good faith and ownership of the land.

  3. Whether the award of exemplary damages is proper in this case.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the trial and appellate courts. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance or unfamiliarity with the location, identity, and boundaries of the private complainant's property. Moreover, the petitioner failed to present evidence to corroborate his claim that he had gathered coconuts from the private complainant's property prior to the incident. Therefore, the petitioner is held criminally liable for theft.

  2. The petitioner can be held criminally liable for theft. The court ruled that the petitioner's claim of good faith in taking the coconuts from the private complainant's land is a mere pretense to escape criminal liability. The court cited a previous case wherein the defendant was held liable for theft even though he honestly believed that he owned the land where the stolen produce grew. The court emphasized that the defendant in this case made no objection to the court's ruling declaring the private complainant as the owner of the land and that it was proven that the defendant did not plant the produce in question. Therefore, the petitioner must have known that the coconuts did not belong to him and his claim of ownership is not valid. Hence, he is guilty of theft.

  3. The award of exemplary damages is proper in this case. The court ruled that there is factual and legal basis for the award of exemplary damages. Under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In this case, the petitioner is guilty not only of simple theft but of qualified theft. Therefore, the award of P20,000.00 by way of exemplary damages is justified.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Theft is committed when there is a taking of personal property belonging to another without the owner's consent and with the intent to gain, without violence or intimidation. (Article 308, Revised Penal Code)

  • The animus furandi, or intent to steal, may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, including the manner and conduct of the accused before, during, and after the taking of the personal property.

  • General criminal intent is presumed or inferred from the wrongful act itself, as one is presumed to have willed the natural consequences of his own acts.

  • 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.

  • A judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof, except when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake or when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made.

  • The findings of facts of the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on the Supreme Court unless there is evidence that the lower courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.

  • The legal principle that an owner cannot be convicted of theft for taking his own property does not apply when the owner took the property of another person without any lawful authority or right.

  • A claim of good faith and ownership of the land cannot exempt a person from criminal liability for theft if it is proven that the person knew that the item or produce in question did not belong to him/her.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded when a crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.