G.R. No. 140937 February 28, 2001
EXUPERANCIO CANTA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Exuperancio Canta was charged with violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. No. 533) for taking a black female cow owned by Narciso Gabriel on March 14, 1986. The prosecution established that the cow, born on March 10, 1984, was under the care of Gardenio Agapay when it went missing from a grazing area. Agapay traced hoof prints to a house and was informed that Canta had taken the animal. When confronted, Canta admitted taking the cow but claimed it was his, alleging it was born from a cow under his care on December 5, 1984, and was lost in December 1985. He presented a Certificate of Ownership antedated to February 27, 1985.
The cow was later found at the house of Canta’s father, Florentino. Narciso Gabriel’s witnesses, including successive caretakers, positively identified the cow based on distinctive cowlicks, color, and sex. The municipal treasurer denied issuing Canta’s certificate, and a janitor testified he antedated it at Canta’s instance. The Regional Trial Court convicted Canta, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of P.D. No. 533.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The core legal issue was the credibility of evidence establishing the taking (apoderamiento) of the cattle belonging to another, a key element under P.D. No. 533. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence overwhelming. Multiple witnesses consistently identified the cow based on unique physical markings, establishing Narciso Gabriel’s ownership. In contrast, petitioner’s claim of ownership was undermined by the antedated and discredited certificate of ownership. His act of taking the cow from the grazing area without the caretaker’s consent constituted unlawful taking.
The penalty was recomputed. P.D. No. 533 prescribes reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. With one mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender) and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty was reduced to the minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum was taken from the penalty next lower in degree (prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium). Petitioner was thus sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, to ten years and one day of prision mayor maximum, as maximum.