1

[ G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020 ]

BENITO ESTRELLA Y GILI, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

Petitioner Benito Estrella was accused of violating Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1612,
otherwise known as the "Anti-Fencing Law." by selling three (3) pails of Skydrol LD 4 hydraulic
fluid with a knowledge that said objects were derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft.

Elvis Yao (Yao), Vice President for Fuel Management of Philippine Airlines (PAL)
disclosed that PAL is an importer of the fast fluid system, and accordingly, Skydrol is not
available in the local market. PAL noticed that its acquisition and use of Skydrol remained
unusually high notwithstanding the downsizing of its operations.

Upon investigation, Yao found that Aerojam Supply and Trading (Aerojam), a sole
proprietorship owned by petitioner and his wife, Melinda, was selling five gallons of Skydrol to
Air Philippines at a low price. He requested the police to conduct surveillance operation on
Aerojam.

PNP-CIDG received an information that Skydrol was to be delivered in the premises of

the Air Philippines on board a jeep.  The team spotted an owner type jeep at Villamor Airbase
and its driver, who turned out to be petitioner.

Petitioner, on the other hand, testified that he is a salesman who sells aircraft spare
parts, lubricants, accessories, and chemicals related to aviation. He alleged that he only learned
about the complaint by the time PNP accosted him.

The RTC found petitioner guilty t of the crime of Fencing under PD 1612. CA affirmed the
decision.

Issue:

Whether the elements of the crime of Fencing were established.

Held:

Yes, the elements of the crime of Fencing were established.

The essential elements of the offense are:

 1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes,
or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;

3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item , object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;
and

4. There is on the part of the accused intent to gain for himself or for another.

In this case, Yao categorically testified that despite the downsizing of PAL's operation in
1998 or reduction of Aircraft, there was still unusual upward movement of PAL's Skydrol
consumption. Thus, it was concluded that someone was stealing Skydrol from PAL which
prompted its management to conduct an investigation and seek the assistance of the PNP-
CIDG.

The petitioner was also caught in possession and in the process of disposing pails of
Skydrol to Air Philippines. Petitioner failed to produce the legal documents supporting the
ownership of the confiscated pails of Skydrol which clearly suggest that the pails of fluid
proceed from the crime of theft.
2. [G.R. No. 140937. February 28, 2001.]

EXUPERANCIO CANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

Narciso Gabriel acquired a cow from his half-sister Erlinda Monte, upon its birth on
March 10, 1984.

Subsequently, the cow was passed from Narciso to other persons until it was lost on
March 14, 1986.

It appears that on March 13, 1986, Agapay took the cow to graze in the mountain of
Pilipogan in Barangay Candatag.

However, when he came back for it in the morning of March 14, 1986, Agapay found the
cow gone. He found hoof prints which led to the house of Filomeno Vallejos. He was told that
petitioner Exuperancio Canta had taken the animal. 

 Gardenio and Maria Tura went to recover the animal from petitioner’s house, but since
petitioner’s father was not in the house, petitioner told Gardenio and Maria he would call them
the next day so that they could talk the matter over with his father.

Petitioner never called them. Hence, Narciso Gabriel reported the matter to the police.

Narciso and petitioner Exuperancio were called to an investigation. Petitioner admitted

taking the cow but claimed that it was his by presenting two certificates of ownership.

Narciso presented a certificate of ownership signed by the municipal treasurer, in which

the cow was described as two years old and female.

On the other hand, petitioner claimed he acquired the animal under an agreement
which he had with Pat. Diosdado Villanueva. Petitioner presented a Certificate of Ownership of
Large Cattle and a statement executed by Franklin Telen, janitor at the treasurer’s office.

Petitioner’s Certificate of Ownership was, however, denied by the municipal treasurer,

who stated that petitioner Exuperancio Canta had no Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle in
the municipality of Padre Burgos.

The trial court rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of P.D. No. 533, otherwise
known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
decision.
Issue:

Is the petitioner guilty of P.D. No. 533?

Held:

Yes, the petitioner is guilty of P.D. No. 533.

The elements are the following: (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.

In this case, these requisites are present in this case. First, there is no question that the
cow belongs to Narciso Gabriel. Second, Petitioner, without the consent of the owner, took the
cow from the custody of the caretaker, Gardenio Agapay, despite the fact that he knew all
along that the latter was holding the animal for the owner, Narciso. Third, petitioner falsified his
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle by asking Telen to antedate it prior to the taking to
make it appear that he owned the cow in question. Fourth, petitioner adopted "means,
methods, or schemes" to deprive Narciso of his possession of his cow, thus manifesting his
intent to gain. Fifth, no violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things attended
the commission of the crime.
3. [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.

Facts:

Dionesio Himaya testified that Jose Villacastin, Jr. and his group passed by his house at
2:00 o’clock in the morning. He saw the two accused remove the cyclone wire which was used
as the corral for the two carabaos of Rosalina Plaza. He was able to see Jose cut the cyclone
wire because he was just four arms length away from them. After which, they untied the
carabaos, rode on it and proceeded to the cane fields. Dionesio Himaya awakened Rosalina
Plaza who thereafter went to Joel Barrieses, owner of the carabaos, to inform him that his
carabaos were stolen.

Rosalina Plaza testified that 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 , she already knew the Jose Villacastin, Jr., because the latter always passed
by their house. After she was informed of the stealing of the carabaos, she went 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.

The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible. The accused
were found guilty as charged.

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. However, Escarda sought the approval of this Court to withdraw his appeal.

Remaining appellant, Jose Villacastin Jr. 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 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, as required by the Anti-Cattle
Rustling Law.

Issue:
 Whether or not ownership needs to be proven in order that a person may be held liable
under PD 533?

Held:

No. Proof of ownership is not required because the overt act which gives rise to the
crime of cattle rustling under PD 533 is the taking away of cattle without consent of the owner.

The owner includes the herdsman, caretaker, employee or tenant of any firm or entity
in engaged in the raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of such large
cattle. In this case, Rosalina, the caretaker, did not consent to the taking away of the carabaos.
She immediately informed the owner, Joel, that the carabaos were stolen and reported.

Sec 8, PD 533 The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974

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 imposed. If a person is
seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of cattle
rustling, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.

In this case, the offense was committed with force upon things because the perpetrators
had to cut through the cyclone wire fence to gain entrance to the corral and take away the two
carabaos. Accordingly, the penalty imposed shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua.
4. G.R. No. 139603. July 14, 2000

CONCHITA QUINAO, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, rep. by

the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, and FRANCISCO DEL
MONTE, Respondents.

Facts:

On February 2, 1993 at around 9 o'clock in the morning while Bienvenido Delmonte was
busy working in the agricultural land which he owns in common with complainant Francisco
Delmonte, accused Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao, together with their other close
relatives suddenly appeared and while there, with the use of force, violence and intimidation,
usurped and took possession of their landholding, claiming that the same is their inheritance
from their ascendants and while there, accused immediately gathered coconuts and made
them into copra. Complainant was forcibly driven out by the accused from their landholding
and was threatened that if he will try to return to the land in question, something will happen
to him. Complainant was thus forced to seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine National
Police.

Both the accused and private complainant are claiming ownership over the land in
question. Private complainant Francisco Delmonte submitted and offered in evidence Tax
Declaration which shows that the land is the same land litigated and awarded to the
predecessor-in-interest of the complainant in Civil Case No. 3561. The accused-appellant, on
the other hand, claims that the land was their inheritance from their ascendants.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of usurpation of real property.

Held:
Yes, petitioner is guilty of the crime of usurpation of real property.

Art. 312 of RPC provides

“Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. - Any
person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take
possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property
belonging to another..”

The elements of the offense are (1) occupation of anothers real property or
usurpation of a real right belonging to another person; (2) violence or intimidation
should be employed in possessing the real property or in usurping the real right, and
(3) the accused should be animated by the intent to gain.

In this case, in order to absolve herself of any liability for the crime, she maintains that
she owns the property involved herein. The matter on the ownership of the lot in question,
however, had long been settled when, in Civil Case No. 3561 involving the predecessors-in-
interest of private complainant and that of accused Cases, the Court of First Instance of Samar,
Branch III, Thirteenth Judicial Region, adjudicated said lot to private complainant's
predecessors-in-interest. Furthermore, on the issue of the employment of violence in acquiring
possession over the real property or in usurping the real right and accused was animated by
intent to gain, the Supreme Court agrees with the trial court and the CA’s affirmative ruling
based testimony of prosecution witness Bienvenido Delmonte.