Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49788:gr-154941-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:26:12+00:00

Document:
ERNESTO PIL-EY,1, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the November 29, 2001 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 19810, which affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), First Judicial Region, Branch 36, Bontoc, Mountain Province.
That on or before April 15, 1994, in the evening thereof at [S]itio Ta-ed, Bontoc, Mountain Province, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and helping one another and with intent to gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and load on a Ford Fierra one (1) male cow, and thereafter butchered the same, against and without the consent of the owner, Rita Khayad, resulting to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00), Philippine currency.
That the use of a motor vehicle attended and facilitated the commission of the crime.
On arraignment, the three pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.4 Thereafter, the RTC proceeded to try the case.
From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the facts are as follows.
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the process, sentencing each of the above-named accused to indeterminate imprisonment of ten (10) years, and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months, and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal as maximum - the statute violated being a special law; ordering the said accused to pay jointly and severally the sum of P10,000.00 to the offended party; and to pay the costs.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment of conviction dated March 22, 1996, rendered by Branch 36 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Bontoc, Mountain Province, in Criminal Case No. 1025 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Constancio Manochon, Waclet Anamot and Ernesto Pil-ey," the same is AFFIRMED in toto.
The separate motions for reconsideration43 were denied; thus, the three accused interposed their respective but separate appeals before this Court.
Thus, only the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari 46 filed by Ernesto Pil-ey is left for resolution.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE OFFER OF COMPROMISE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER IS AN IMPLIED ADMISSION OF GUILT [IN SPITE] OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS MADE DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION WHERE THE PETITIONER'S [RIGHTS] WERE NOT OBSERVED, HENCE, THE SAME IS INADMISSIBLE.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING IN THIS CASE THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF GUILT UNDER SECTION 7 IN RELATION TO SECTION 5 OF PD NO. 533, THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not, based on the evidence on record, petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the provisions of P.D. No. 533 or the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974.
Conviction for cattle-rustling necessitates the concurrence of the following elements: (1) large cattle is taken; (2) it belongs to another; (3) the taking is done without the consent of the owner or raiser; (4) the taking is done by any means, method or scheme; (5) the taking is done with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.50 Considering that the gravamen of the crime is the taking or killing of large cattle or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner or raiser,51 conviction for the same need only be supported by the fact of taking without the cattle owner's consent.
In the instant case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Rita Khayad's white and black-spotted cow was taken from Sitio Taed where it was grazing; that its taking was without Rita's consent; and that the said cattle was later seen in the possession of the petitioner and his co-accused. Thus, the foregoing elements of the crime of cattle-rustling are present.
Indeed, petitioner's defense of mistake of fact, i.e., he and his employer Manochon were of the erroneous belief that the cow was owned or raised by Anamot, is unacceptable. This defense crumbles in the light of Anamot's testimony that his purpose in going to Manochon's house on April 12, 1994 was to exact payment of a white female cow sold for butchering in 1993, and not to sell the white and black-spotted cow subject of this case. He further stated that he did not have cows grazing at Sitio Taed.
Petitioner's admission in the course of the trial that he and his co-accused took the cow is buttressed by the testimony of prosecution witness Ronnie Faluyan that he saw Manochon and Pil-ey with the subject cow in a blue Ford Fiera. This judicial admission, which binds the declarant and which does not need any further presentation of evidence,54 reinforces petitioner's conviction.
Thus, petitioner's argument that his alleged offer of settlement during the informal confrontation at the police station is inadmissible in evidence because it was made without the presence of counsel, is no longer material. After all, the crime of cattle-rustling and the fact that petitioners and his co-accused are the perpetrators thereof had been established by ample evidence other than the alleged inadmissible extrajudicial confession. The same holds true even if we do not apply the presumption of guilt under Section 755 of P.D. No. 533.
All told, we hold that the evidence on record sufficiently prove the unanimous findings of the RTC and the CA that the petitioner and his co-accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the provisions of P.D. No. 533. There is no cogent reason to reverse the said rulings.
Hence, in the instant case, considering that neither aggravating60 nor mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as maximum. We, thus, modify the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court to be four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with the modification that petitioner Ernesto Pil-ey and his co-accused Constancio Manochon and Waclet Anamot are hereby SENTENCED to suffer a prison term of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional in its maximum period, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as maximum.
Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
1 The records reveal that petitioner's surname is alternatively spelled as "Pil-ey" or "Pel-ey."
2 Penned by Associate Justice Sergio L. PestaÃ±o (deceased), with Associate Justices Conchita Carpio Morales (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., concurring; CA rollo, pp. 195-202.
4 Id. at 52, 61.
5 TSN, August 4, 1994, pp. 18-19.
9 TSN, August 4, 1994, p. 35.
10 TSN, September 6, 1995, p. 24.
11 Id. at 7, 37-38.
14 Id. at 6-9, 11-12.
15 TSN, October 13, 1994, pp. 15, 21; TSN, August 9, 1994, pp. 4-5; TSN, August 5, 1994, p. 68; TSN, August 4, 1994, p. 9.
16 TSN, August 4, 1994, p. 10.
17 TSN, September 6, 1995, pp. 18, 31; TSN, July 13, 1995, p. 3.
18 TSN, August 5, 1994, pp. 62-63; TSN, August 4, 1994, p. 32.
19 TSN, September 6, 1995, pp. 27-28; TSN, July 13, 1995, p. 11.
21 TSN, July 13, 1995, pp. 12-13.
23 TSN, September 6, 1995, pp. 30-31.
24 TSN, July 13, 1995, pp. 13-16.
26 TSN, July 13, 1995, p. 18.
27 TSN, September 6, 1995, p. 34.
32 TSN, July 13, 1995, pp. 17, 20.
35 TSN, October 12, 1995, pp. 89-90.
38 TSN, July 13, 1995, pp. 3-4, 6-8.
41 Id. at 246, 249, 250.
42 CA rollo, p. 201.
43 Id. at 204-209, 219-230, 233-238.
44 Id. at 285-286. An entry of judgment was issued on July 15, 2003 (id. at 288-289).
45 Id. at 280-281. The Court forthwith issued the entry of judgment on February 14, 2003 (id. at 283).
49 Presidential Decree No. 533 (1974), Sec. 2, par. c in relation to par. a.
50 Canta v. People, 405 Phil. 726, 736 (2001).
51 People v. Villacastin, Jr., 420 Phil. 394, 403-404 (2001).
52 People v. Del Rosario, 411 Phil. 676, 687 (2001).
53 People v. Newman, G.R. No. L-45354, July 26, 1988, 163 SCRA 496, 508, citing RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, Sec. 3, par. (j).
54 RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, Sec. 4.
55 SEC. 7. Presumption of cattle rustling. - Every person having in his possession, control or custody of large cattle shall, upon demand by competent authorities, exhibit the documents prescribed in the preceding sections. Failure to exhibit the required documents shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his possession, control or custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling.
57 Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225.
58 195 Phil. 604 (1981).
60 Let it be noted that the aggravating circumstance of "by means of motor vehicle" alleged in the information was not sufficiently established to have facilitated the commission of the crime.
61 People v. Arondain, 418 Phil. 354, 373 (2001).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.