By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
PEDRO J. AMARILLE VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 256022, AUGUST 7, 2023: BOHOLANO ACQUITTED OF QUALIFIED THEFT FOR STEALING 200 COCONUTS FROM A PARCEL OF LAND HE BELIEVES TO BE THAT OF HIS GRANDFATHER CITING ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT
The subject of the case is a parcel of land situated in Pustan, Brgy. Cabawan, Maribojoc, Bohol registered under the name of Macario Jabines (“Macario”) covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 25102. On November 4, 2011, petitioner Pedro Amarille (“Pedro”) commissioned Daniel Albaran (“Albaran”) to climb and harvest coconuts at the subject parcel of land. At first, Albaran hesitated because he used to gather fruits for Hospicio Almonte, the caretaker of Jabines. Finally relenting, Albaran harvested 200 coconuts from 18 trees. On November 7, 2011, the son of Macario, Noel M. Jabines, receive information that Pedro harvested matured coconuts from his father’s land, hence, he informed his brother, and they reported the same to the police station of Maribojoc and to the barangay hall of Cabawan. During the conference settlement on November 9, 2011, petitioner Pedro insisted that the coconut trees were owned by his grandfather Eufemio Amarille (“Eufemio’). At the end of the conference, the parties signed an agreement that Pedro would no longer harvest the coconuts and that the coconuts turned into copra be deposited to the barangay hall. Pedro, however, failed to comply and sold the copras and used the proceeds for his personal consumption.
The trial court convicted Pedro of Qualified Theft and sentenced him to an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. The Court of Appeals affirmed Pedro’s conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate penalty of two years, four months and one day of prision correcional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. On a Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the conviction and acquitted Pedro.
The Supreme Court restated the elements of theft, to wit: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things. The Court also restated that the theft becomes qualified if it is attended by any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 310 of the Revised Code which states, “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 coconut taken from the premises of a plantation, 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.”
The Supreme Court held that not all elements of theft were proven because of the absence of intent to gain. The Court held that mens rea or a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose, or criminal intent is absent. The Court further held that the mental element of mens rea must be correlated to the specific actus reus component to which the mental element attaches. Ergo, the criminal intent must unite with an unlawful act for a crime to exist.
In the instant case, Pedro presented Tax Declaration registered under the name of Eufemio. He merely relied on the metes and bounds of the land as indicated in the tax declaration. Thus, Pedro could not be faulted for asserting his ownership over the subject land. The Court found Pedro to have believed in good faith that the property indicated in the tax declaration was the same property subject of the case. The Court also held that while as a rule, tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property and serve as a sufficient basis for interfering possession. The Court also held that records also showed that Pedro had been tilling the subject land since 1986; thus, his act of gathering coconuts on the subject land was based on his honest belief that he owned the land where the coconut trees were planted.
The Court held, “In the case at bar, evidence shows that Pedro gathered the coconut under a bona fide belief that he owns the land where the coconuts were planted. Pedro asserted that he was the owner of the land when he told Daniel to climb the coconut trees. Daniel testified that Pedro approached him to climb the coconut trees. Daniel testified that Pedro approached him to climb the coconut trees because Pedro claimed that he was the owner of the land. This was based on his honest belief, as he held a tax declaration and has been tilling the land for a period of time. Thus, Pedro could not be said to have taken property belonging to another. x x x In a similar vein, Pedro harvested the coconuts based on his knowledge that the subject land where the coconuts were gathered was owned by his late grandfather. Furthermore, Pedro’s act of selling the copras, appropriating its proceeds for his own benefit, and giving assurance that he would answer any complaint that might arise from the gathering of coconuts, was actually consistent with his claim of ownership.”