EXUPERANCIO CANTA, petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.
G.R. No. 140937 | February 28, 2001 | Mendoza, J.
Issa Waga Law 109 – Criminal Law Group B4

FACTS:
• Narciso Gabriel acquired a cow from his half-sister, Erlinda Monter. Gabriel assigned Gardenio
Agapay to care for and have custody of the cow from March 3 to 14 (the time when the cow got
lost).
• March 13, 5pm, Agapay took the cow to graze 40m from his hut.
• March 14, 9am, cow was gone. Hoof prints led to Filomeno Vallejos’ house. Filomeno said that
Exuperancio Canta took the cow.
• Gabriel instructed Agapay and Maria Tura to recover the animal from Canta’s wife, but they were
informed that E. Canta already delivered the cow to his father, Florentino Canta. They proceeded
to Florentino’s house but while on their way, they met E. Canta who told them that Narciso
should be the one to claim the cow himself. E. Canta still accompanied Agapay and Maria to his
father’s house where Maria recognized the cow. Florentino was not home, E. Canta told Agapay
and Maria he would call them the next day so they could talk matters with his father.
• E. Canta never called. Gabriel reported this to authorities and investigation was called.
• E. Canta admitted taking the cow but claimed that it really is his and he lost his cow on Dec. 3,
1985. He presented two certificates of ownership (one dated March 17, 1986 and Feb 27, 1985). E
Canta claimed that he got the cow through an agreement with Diosdado Villanueva where if he
would take care of the female cow of Villanueva, he would receive the calf if it bore more than 1
(extra cow is cow allegedly given to him).
• Gabriel has certificate of ownership issued March 9, 1986, signed by municipal treasurer, which the
cow was described as 2 yrs old and female. Reverse side of certificate reveals drawing of a cow
with cowlicks in the middle of forehead, bet. Ears (right and left back), base of forelegs and
hindlegs. All (E. Canta, Florentino Canta, Agapay, Maria) identified the cow as the same one they
took care of based on cowlicks, color, and sex.
• March 14, 1986, E. Canta’s uncle told him that he had seen the cow at Pipilogan, under Agapay’s
care. E. Canta went to Pipilogan with mother cow to see if the cow would suckle on the mother
cow. The cow did, and E. Canta took cow and mother cow to Florentino’s house.
• E. Canta claims Maria tried to get cow from him, in which he refused and told Maria to have
Gabriel call him. Gabriel did not call, so petitioner claims he acted in good faith by turning the cow
over to Brgy. Captain (E. Canta’s father Florentino -__-)
• Trial Court found E. Canta guilty of violating P.D. No. 533 – Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974.
Sentenced to 10 years and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum and 12 years, 5 months, 11 days of
reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay costs.
• CA affirmed TC’s decision.

ISSUE/HELD:
1. WoN prosecution failed to prove Exuperancio Canta’s criminal intent in taking the cow. NO.
2. WoN lower courts applied correct sentence. NO.

RATIO:
Cattle-rustling as defined in P.D. No. 533:
 • “…taking away by any means, methods or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of
any of the abovementioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with
or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things.”

Elements to determined if crime is committed:

1. Large cattle is taken
2. Cattle 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
6. The taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against person or force
upon things

All requisites are present in the case. The cow belongs to Narciso Gabriel. E. Canta took the cow
from Agapay without consent and knows that the cow belongs to a respective owner. E. Canta
possessed falsified Certificate of Ownership of Large cattle. This falsified documents is a
manifestation of his intent to gain. There was no violence in commission of the crime.

The prosecution proved E. Canta’s criminal intent in taking the cow, HOWEVER, made a mistake
in applying the correct sentence. The presidential decree is not a special law. Penalties for this
violation should be according to the prescription of the Revised Penal Code. The court erred by
exceeding the maximum fixed sentence said by law in the RPC.

Mitigating circumstance was present: analogous voluntary surrender