G.R. No. L-256; August 21, 1946
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. FELIX MAGBANUA, acusado-apelante.

FACTS

On the night of November 18, 1945, a carabao belonging to Perpetua Lopez disappeared from where it was tied behind her house in Barrio Dalig, Calinog, Iloilo, with evident signs that someone had untied the rope (mecate) securing it. Upon being notified, her father Nemesio Lopez and her son Fernando Parreño searched for the animal. Around 11:00 PM that same night, they found the carabao in the possession of the accused, Felix Magbanua, behind the public market in the municipality of Dueñas, approximately thirteen kilometers from Barrio Dalig. Parreño immediately took hold of the rope, but Magbanua resisted, leading to a fight. A policeman, Emilio Sonza, intervened, arrested both, and took them to the municipal building. An investigation followed where Perpetua Lopez proved her ownership of the carabao, valued at P300, and Magbanua was charged with theft. During the investigation, Magbanua told Policeman Sonza that he had taken the carabao from Barrio Dalig to use as a mount on his return to his barrio. At trial, the accused changed his story, claiming he bought the carabao for P130 from a certain “Benjamin” that same night, making a partial payment of P25 and agreeing to pay the balance upon delivery of the certificate of ownership the next day. He presented no witness to corroborate this claim and alleged that Policeman Sonza and others had maltreated him and taken his watch and money, which the trial court did not credit.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of qualified theft (of large cattle) has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found the accused’s guilt established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and rejection of the accused’s defense as unsatisfactory and uncorroborated. The following facts sufficiently determined his culpability: (1) the untied rope at the site where the carabao was secured; (2) the finding of the recently stolen animal in the accused’s possession just a few hours after its disappearance, on the same night; (3) the accused’s confession to the policeman that he had taken the animal to ride it back to his barrio; and (4) his failure to give a satisfactory and innocent explanation for his possession of the recently stolen carabao. The Court cited jurisprudence (U.S. vs. Alcantara, U.S. vs. Divino, U.S. vs. Caralipio y Fernando, U.S. vs. Simbahan, U.S. vs. Catimbang) supporting conviction based on such circumstances.
Regarding the penalty, under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Article 309, the penalty for the qualified theft of large cattle is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused must be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty whose minimum is not less than 6 months and 1 day and whose maximum is not more than 6 years, 8 months and 21 days. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s sentence and condemned the appellant to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of imprisonment. The appealed judgment was affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.