View full case

EXUPERANCIO CANTA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioner, Exuperancio Canta, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Maasin, Southern Leyte, for violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. The information against petitioner alleged that he unlawfully took and stole a black female cow belonging to Narciso Gabriel without the owner's knowledge and consent. The prosecution presented evidence showing that the cow had been under the care of different individuals before it went missing. Gardenio Agapay, the last caretaker, reported that the cow went missing on March 14, 1986, and he found hoof prints leading to Filomeno Vallejos' house. It was revealed that petitioner had taken the cow and delivered it to his father, Florentino Canta. Attempts were made by the owner and caretakers to recover the cow, but petitioner refused to return it. Petitioner claimed ownership of the cow and presented certificates of ownership to support his claim. However, the municipal treasurer denied the validity of petitioner's certificates. The trial court found petitioner guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, stating that petitioner failed to prove his ownership of the cow and that he had obtained a certificate through feigning and manipulation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the petitioner's criminal intent in taking the disputed cow.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner acted in good faith and honest belief in taking the cow.

  3. Whether the petitioner acted in good faith and committed only a mistake of fact.

  4. Whether the petitioner's surrender can be considered as an analogous mitigating circumstance.

  5. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner is correct.

RULING:

  1. The prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt the petitioner's criminal intent in taking the disputed cow. The elements of cattle-rustling under P.D. No. 533 are present in this case, namely: (1) a large cattle is taken; (2) it belongs to another; (3) the taking is done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking is done by any means, methods or scheme; (5) the taking is with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things. The ownership of the cow is established, and the petitioner took the cow without the owner's consent, falsified his Certificate of Ownership, and employed means and schemes to deprive the owner of possession.

  2. The petitioner's claim of good faith and honest belief in taking the cow is not meritorious. The evidence shows that the petitioner falsified his Certificate of Ownership by antedating it after the cow had already been taken. The fact that he brought a mother cow to see if the cow in question would suckle to it is not conclusive proof of ownership, as cows frequently attempt to suckle to other cows. Additionally, his act of turning over the cow to the barangay captain, who happens to be his father, and filing a criminal complaint against the owner were done after the commission of the crime, and do not prove his good faith.

  3. The evidence shows that the petitioner's Certificate of Ownership is fraudulent and antedated. His possession and use of the fraudulent certificate negates his claim of good faith and honest mistake. Even if he made a mistake of fact, he is not exempted from criminal liability due to his negligence in not verifying the identity and ownership of the cow.

  4. The petitioner's surrender of the cow to the authorities before any complaint had been filed against him can be considered as an analogous mitigating circumstance since it showed his intent to submit himself unconditionally and save the authorities the trouble of capturing the cow.

  5. The penalty imposed on the petitioner is incorrect. The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 is not a special law and its penalty is based on the classification and duration of penalties prescribed in the Revised Penal Code. Since there is one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the petitioner should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, with the minimum within the range of the penalty next lower in degree and the maximum at the maximum period of prision mayor.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In cases of cattle-rustling, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime, including the lack of consent from the owner, taking by any means or scheme, and intent to gain.

  • Falsifying documents, such as a Certificate of Ownership, to establish ownership of a stolen cow is an act of manipulation and deceit.

  • Good faith and honest belief in ownership cannot be used as a defense if the accused has committed the act of theft and falsification of documents. The accused must prove true ownership with valid documentation.

  • The possession and use of a fraudulent document negates a claim of good faith and honest mistake.

  • Negligence in verifying the identity and ownership of property cannot save a person from the consequences of his act.

  • Surrender to the authorities before any arrest or complaint can be considered as an analogous mitigating circumstance.

  • The penalty for the violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 is based on the classification and duration of penalties prescribed in the Revised Penal Code. The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to determine the penalty.