9/4/2019 G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

NES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA : OCTOBER 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREM…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > October 2001 Decisions > G.R. No. 120548 October 26,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 120548. October 26, 2001.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO ESCARDA, JOSE VILLACASTIN

JR., HERNANI ALEGRE, and RODOLFO CAÑEDO, Accused, JOSE VILLACASTIN, JR., Accused-
Appellant.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

On appeal is the decision dated September 21, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City, Branch 60,
in Criminal Case No. 586-S, finding accused Joselito Escarda and Jose Villacastin Jr., guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law. In its decision, the trial court decreed: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court finds both accused JOSELITO ESCARDA
and JOSE VILLACASTIN, JR., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Viol. of P.D. 533" (Anti-
Cattle Rustling Law), and there being the presence of three generic aggravating circumstances of
[r]ecidivism, nighttime and unlawful entry, with no mitigating circumstances to offset the same, as such,
the accused are each sentenced to suffer, considering the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
imprisonment of EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (I) DAY as the minimum to
RECLUSION PERPETUA as the maximum, together with all the accessory penalties imposed by law and to
indemnify the offended party, Joel Barrieses, in the amount of P5,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

DebtKollect Company, Inc. The accused being detained, are hereby entitled to the full credit of their preventive imprisonment as
provided for under R.A. 6127.

Costs against both accused.

SO ORDERED. 1

In an information dated April 18, 1988, Provincial Fiscal Othello Villanueva charged accused with violation
of Presidential Decree No. 533, otherwise known as Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974, as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses JOSELITO ESCARDA, JOSE VILLACASTIN, JR., HERNANI
ALEGRE (at-large) and RODOLFO CAÑEDO (at-large) of the crime of Violation of Presidential Decree No.
533, (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974), committed as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 29th day of July, 1987, in the Municipality of Sagay, Province of Negros Occidental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the first two (2) above-named accused, in
company of their two (2) other co-accused, namely: Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo, who are both
still-at-large, conspiring, confederating and mutually help[ing] one another, with intent of gain, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away two (2) female carabaos, valued
in the total amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to JOEL
BARIESES, without the consent of the latter, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the
aforestated amount. chanrob1es virtua1 law library

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001octoberdecisions.php?id=1123 1/6
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA : OCTOBER 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREM…
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
October-2001 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA
G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-
MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN
G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS
G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G.
DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y
SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA
NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND
THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL
ROSARIO
G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M.
SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES
G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE
PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE,
ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J.
GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO
G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO
G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and
AGFHA
G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE
CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS
v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON
G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA
G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE
and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES
G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA
A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request
To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide
Criminal Case No. 3713
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001octoberdecisions.php?id=1123
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Upon arraignment, Accused Escarda and Villacastin, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The facts as presented by the prosecution and summarized by the trial court are as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
[Dionesio Himaya] testified that on July 29, 1987 at about 2:00 o’clock in the morning in [Hacienda]
Ricky, Jose Villacastin, Jr. and his group passed by his house. [He] was still awake at that time because
he was watching over his cornfield and while doing so, he saw the two accused remove the cyclone wire
which was used as the corral for the two (2) carabaos of Rosalina Plaza. He was able to see Jose
Villacastin, Jr. cut the cyclone wire because he was just four (4) arms length away from them and after
Jose Villacastin cut the wire, they swept it aside and untied the two (2) carabaos. After untying the
carabaos, they rode on it and proceeded to the canefields. [He] saw two (2) persons riding on the
carabao whom he identified as Jose Villacastin, Jr. together with Joselito Escarda. He awakened Rosalina
Plaza who thereafter went to Joel Barrieses, owner of the carabaos, to inform the latter that his carabaos
were stolen.
[Rosalina Plaza] testified that on July 29, 1987 at about 2:00 o’clock in the morning, in the residence of
Joel Barrieses, Dionesio Himaya called her and informed her that the carabaos were stolen and when
asked who stole the carabaos, Dionesio Himaya only mentioned Jose Villacastin, Jr. Before the incident of
July 29, 1987, she already knew the person of Jose Villacastin, Jr., because the latter always passed by
their house. After she was informed of the stealing of the carabaos, she went to the corral to check
whether the carabaos were there but discovered that the beasts were no longer there and the cyclone
wire was destroyed. She informed Joel Barrieses, that Jose Villacastin, Jr., stole the carabaos and she
went to the 334th PC Company and reported the incident. 3
In their defense, Escarda and Villacastin denied the charges. Escarda claimed that he was sleeping in the
house of Gilda Labrador during the incident while Villacastin declared that he too was sleeping in his
house at that time. 4 The defense version of the incident was summarized by the trial court as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library
. . . Joselito Escarda testified that he did not know his co-accused in this case, specifically, Jose
Villacastin, Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cahedo. Neither did he know of somebody by the name of
Dionesio Himaya although he knew somebody by the name of Gilda Labrador. In the early morning of
July 29, 1987, he was working as cane cutter and hauler in the hacienda of Javelosa located in Barrio
Malubon, Sagay, Negros Occidental which is fifteen (15) kilometers away from the house of his mother
where he was residing. On July 29, 1987, he started working at 8:00 o’clock in the morning and ended at
11:00. After he finished working in the field, he went to the house of his mother where he ate lunch and
rested until 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon. In the evening of July 29, 1987, he slept at the house of Gilda
Labrador starting at 7:00 o’clock in the evening and woke up at 6:00 o’clock in the morning of July 30,
1987. Sometime on August 29, 1987, he left alone for the dance hall located at Hda. Ricky to attend a
dance held there because there was a fiesta at that time. While he was at the dance hall, he was arrested
by the PC elements and brought to the 334th PC Company where he was maltreated. He was asked
whether or not he stole the carabaos at Hda. Ricky but he denied the commission of the crime and again,
he was maltreated. He suffered injuries when they maltreated him so he made a confession before them
but did not sign the same. His injuries were not treated by a physician because the PC would not let him
go out of the jail, so, his injuries healed while he was in jail. He did not know the names of the PC who
maltreated him and forced him to admit the loss of the carabaos at Hda. Ricky because the maltreatment
happened in the evening. Furthermore, he did not know the complainant in this case, i.e. Joel Barrieses.
chanrob1es
virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
x x x
[Jose Villacastin, Jr. testified] that on or before July 29, 1987, he did not know the accused Joselito
Escarda, Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo because in the early morning of July 29, 1987, at more or
less 2:00 o’clock to 3:00 o’clock, he had not gone with Joselito Escarda, Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo
Cañedo because he was sleeping in his house which is located in Sitio Candiis. He started sleeping at
8:00 o’clock in the evening of July 28, 1987 and woke up the next day, July 29, 1987 at 7:00 in the
morning. On August 29, 1987 at 10:00 o’clock in the evening, he was attending a dance at Hda. Ricky
and while watching the dance, he was arrested and brought to the 334th PC Headquarters in Tan-ao,
Sagay, Negros Occidental. When they arrived at the PC Headquarters, they were investigated about the
stealing of the carabaos and the PC elements wanted them to admit it. He denied what they were
accusing him of because he has not committed the crime. He does not know of anybody by the name of
Joel Barrieses. When he denied the commission of the crime, he was maltreated and was forced to admit
it and to make a confession. They were detained for about a month at the 334th PC Headquarters and
they were transferred to the Municipal Jail of Sagay, Negros Occidental and there was no lawyer present
during his refusal to admit the stealing of the carabaos. 5
The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible, while it disbelieved the
defense of denial and alibi of accused Escarda and Villacastin. They were found guilty as charged.
However, the charge against accused Rodolfo Cañedo was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Earlier,
the charge against co-accused Hernani Alegre was dismissed on motion by the prosecution, for lack of
evidence.
Insisting on their innocence, Escarda and Villacastin filed their notice of appeal. In their assignment of
error, they alleged that the trial court erred in convicting them of the crime charged. 6
On November 27, 1995, we required the trial court to order the commitment of Escarda and Villacastin to
the Bureau of Corrections or the nearest national penal institution. However, Executive Judge Renato
Munez requested that their commitment to the Bureau of Corrections be deferred until the termination of
the other criminal case 7 against them pending before the said trial court. Further, Captain Eduardo
Legaspi, Acting Provincial Warden of Negros Occidental, also requested to hold in abeyance the
commitment of Escarda and Villacastin in view of their pending criminal cases before the Regional Trial
Court of Cadiz City. 8 Accordingly, we granted the aforesaid request for deferment. 9 On August 12,
1998, they were eventually committed to the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City. 10
On October 12, 1998, Escarda sought the approval of this Court to withdraw his appeal. 11 We required
the Director of the New Bilibid Prison to confirm the voluntariness of said withdrawal. 12 In his
certification dated July 15, 1999, Atty. Roberto Sangalang, who personally examined Escarda, attested
that Escarda executed his urgent motion to withdraw appeal on his own free will and fully understood the
consequences of the same. On August 9, 1 999, we granted Escarda’s motion to withdraw appeal. 13
Accordingly, we are now concerned only with the appeal of the remaining appellant, Jose Villacastin, Jr.
In his brief, he assigns only one error:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
Appellant contends that the element of "taking away of carabaos by any means, method or scheme
without the consent of the owner" was not proven by the prosecution. He also alleges that his identity
2/6
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA : OCTOBER 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREM…
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY.
EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P.
EDUARTE
G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B.
SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding
Judge
G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO
TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL
QUIMSON
G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN
G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA
G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y
BINAY
G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE
G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA
G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S.
OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL
MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL
HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO
FABURADA
G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN
G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE
G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO
BAULITE
G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN
HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO
ENTERPRISES
G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R.
MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth
Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK
A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M.
ARAGON
G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01
FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02
RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and
SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ
G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF
PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST
DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO
A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE:
INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT
OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6,
1999
G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA.
CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON.
FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge
G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ
G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO
A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO
IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO
C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA
G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 -
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF
QUEZON
G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE
v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B.
VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY
G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS
G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL
JIMENA, ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001octoberdecisions.php?id=1123
was not established beyond reasonable doubt, thus, he should be acquitted. He adds that the prosecution
failed to prove ownership of the stolen carabaos by presenting the certificate of ownership, 14 as
required by the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner or
raiser of cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member of the bovine family, whether or
not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any
person or force upon things. Cattle rustling includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide
without the consent of the owner or raiser. 15
In this case, the overt act which gives rise to the crime of cattle rustling is the taking away of the
carabaos by the accused without the consent of the caretaker. Dionisio Himaya testified that he saw
appellant cut the cyclone wire used as corral for the carabaos. Afterwards, appellant untied the two
carabaos. Then, appellant rode on one carabao while co-accused Escarda rode on the other and
immediately proceeded to the canefield. 16 The taking was confirmed by Rosalina Plaza, the caretaker of
the carabaos, who declared that after she was informed by Himaya about the incident, she went right
away to the corral and discovered that indeed the two carabaos were missing.
Appellant’s assertion that his identity was not positively established deserves no serious consideration.
Prosecution witness Dionisio Himaya identified appellant and Escarda as the rustlers. In his testimony,
Himaya said he was awake at that time as he was watching over his cornfield nearby, and there was
enough illumination from the moon. 17 He was just four arm’s length away. He saw appellant and
Escarda unleash the two carabaos. He stated that appellant rode on one carabao while Escarda rode on
the other, and both immediately went away. He said he easily recognized appellant as he knew him long
before the incident. According to the witness, appellant was the nephew of his wife and used to visit
them before. During the trial, the witness positively identified appellant as the same person who stole the
carabaos. Appellant’s contention concerning lack of proper identification is, in our view, baseless and
unmeritorious. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Similarly, appellant’s assertion, that the prosecution should have first presented the certificate of
ownership of the stolen carabaos to warrant his conviction, is untenable. It is to be noted that the
gravamen in the crime of cattle-rustling is the "taking" or "killing" of large cattle or "taking" its meat or
hide without the consent of the owner. The "owner" includes the herdsman, caretaker, employee or
tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of
such large cattle. In this case Rosalina Plaza, the caretaker of the carabaos, did not consent to the taking
away of the carabaos. She immediately informed Joel Barrieses, the owner, that the carabaos were
stolen and reported the incident to the police. Note that the ownership was never put in issue during the
trial in the lower court and is now raised belatedly. It is settled that, generally, questions not raised in
the trial court will not be considered on appeal. 18
Appellant’s alibi must likewise fail. He insists that he was sleeping in his house at the time the crime
occurred. He slept at 8:00 P.M., July 28, 1987 and woke up the next day, July 29, 1987 at 7:00 A.M. As
the trial court noted, it is difficult to believe appellant’s claim that he slept for eleven hours straight just
like Escarda. Besides, the rule is settled that alibi cannot prosper unless it is proven that during the
commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him
to be at the place where the crime was committed. 19 In this case, appellant failed to demonstrate
satisfactorily that it was physically impossible for him to be in the crime scene at the time of the incident.
Admittedly, the scene of the crime was only a fifteen-minute walk from appellant’s house. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
We note that the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, unlawful entry and
recidivism, without any mitigating circumstance. The prosecution, however, failed to specify these
circumstances in the charge filed before the trial court, as now required expressly by the Code of
Criminal Procedure effective December 1, 2000 but applicable retroactively for being procedural and pro
reo. 20
Moreover, we find that the trial court also erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. In its decision, the
trial court merely mentioned that appellant was convicted for cattle rustling under Criminal Case No. 627-
S on February 8, 1993, at the time when the case at bar was being tried. It did not state that said
conviction was already final. Even the records did not show that appellant admitted his previous
conviction. As we had held before, there can be no recidivism without final judgment. 21 The best
evidence of a prior conviction is a certified copy of the original judgment of conviction, and such evidence
is always admissible and conclusive unless the accused himself denies his identity with the person
convicted at the former trial. 22
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
P.D. 533 does not supersede the crime of qualified theft of large cattle under Articles 309 23 and 310 24
under the Revised Penal Code. It merely modified the penalties provided for qualified theft of large cattle
under Article 310 by imposing stiffer penalties thereon under special circumstances. 25 Under Section 8
26 of P.D. 533, any person convicted of cattle rustling shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle
involved, be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period
if the offense is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. If the
offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.
In the instant case, the offense was committed with force upon things as the perpetrators had to cut
through the cyclone wire fence to gain entrance into the corral and take away the two carabaos
therefrom. Accordingly, the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposable on appellant is only
prision mayor in its maximum period as minimum, to reclusion temporal in its medium period as
maximum. Thus, it is proper to impose on appellant only the indefinite prison term of ten (10) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21)
days of reclusion temporal as maximum. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated September 21, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City,
Branch 60, in Criminal Case No. 586-S, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Jose Villacastin, Jr.,
is declared guilty of violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) and sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to fourteen (14)
years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal as maximum; and to indemnify
offended party Joel Barrieses the amount of P5,000, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. RTC Records, p. 214.
2. Id., at 1.
3/6
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA : OCTOBER 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREM…
G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida
Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals
G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA
REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and
REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION
G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION
G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO
G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO
G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R.
NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY
A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE:
RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH
54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE
OFFENSE
A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G.
MAGNO
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October
17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C.
OFILADA
G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL
G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO
ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO
DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET
LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE
G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO
G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON
G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO
G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ
G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M.
MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO
G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L.
QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC
(Third Division), ET AL.
G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA
G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P.
BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE
G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L.
ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L.
SANCHEZ
G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE
VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA
G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN
v. ELVIRA ONG
G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN
v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P
G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO
CONCORCIO @ JUN
G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE
OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE
G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO
GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA
FAUSTINO
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001octoberdecisions.php?id=1123
3. Id., at 206-207.
4. TSN, August 13, 1991, p. 8.
5. Id., at 208-210.
6. Id., at 59.
7. Criminal Case No. 609-S for Robbery in band; Rollo, p. 38.
8. Criminal Case No. 609-S for Robbery in band; Criminal Case No. 1505-S for Theft of
large cattle; Criminal Case Nos. 566-S and 616-S for Illegal Possession of Firearms. Rollo,
p. 41.
9. Rollo, p. 45.
10. Id., at 140.
11. Id., at 123-124.
12. Id., at 148.
13. Id., at 152-153.
14. Id. at 64-66.
15. Section 2, P.D. No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974).
16. TSN, November 8, 1990, pp. 6-17.
17. RTC Records, p. 6.
18. People v. Sison, G.R. No. 119307, 312 SCRA 792, 801 (1999).
19. People v. Arillas, G.R. No. 130593, June 19, 2000, p. 7.
20. Rule 110, Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall
state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there
is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of
the statute punishing it.
21. R. C. Aquino. The Revised Penal Code, vol. 1, 1997 ed., p. 353 citing People v. Lopido,
65 Phil 189 (1937).
22. R. C. Aquino. The Revised Penal Code, vol. 1, 1997 ed., p. 352 citing United Stares v.
Ah Tung, 26 Phil 321, 327 (1913).
23. ART. 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value
of the thing stolen exceed the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of
the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos,
but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the
purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or
reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of
the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of
the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the
value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not 200 pesos.
5. Arresto mayor to its &11 extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50
pesos.
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5
pesos.
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the
circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of
the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the
provisions of any of the five preceding subdivision shall be made applicable.
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value
of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under the
impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty or earning a livelihood for the support of
himself or his family.
24. 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 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. (As amended by CA No. 417; RA 120; and BP Blg.
71, May 1, 1980.)
25. People v. Martinada, G. R. Nos. 66401-03, 194 SCRA 36, 46-47 (1991); People v.
Macatanda, G.R. No. L-51368, 109 SCRA 35, 40 (1991).
26. SECTION 8. Penal provisions. — Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein
defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved, be punished by prision
mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is
committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. If the
offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things,
the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be
4/6
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA : OCTOBER 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREM…
G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE imposed. If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the
PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION When the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to the
M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE foregoing penalty, be disqualified from voting or being voted upon any election/referendum
INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)
and from holding any public office or employment.
A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 -
REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported immediately upon the completion of
the service of his sentence without further proceedings.
G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE &
FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO

GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO

A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-
MINDANAO QUICK SEARCH

G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL

BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and
TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ
v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S.
SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON

PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE

OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q.
CASTILLO

G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO
IGDOY

G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES

NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO

SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias
"TURING"

G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C.

REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 -

BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001octoberdecisions.php?id=1123 5/6
9/4/2019 G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA : OCTOBER 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREM…
G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION
ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY

DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN

v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM

v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C.

RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 -

BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED

COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001octoberdecisions.php?id=1123 6/6