GR 268; (August, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 268 : August 5, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellant, vs. FRUTO ANDRADE, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
On January 16, 1896, Juan San Luis, Lorenzo Trinidad, Hermogenes Ignacio, and Fabian Francisco, by order of Fruto Andrade, cut bamboo canes from a parcel of land in Carapdapan, Marilao, Bulacan, and took them to Andrade’s house. The private prosecutors, Gregorio Francisco and Antonia Rojas, claimed ownership of the land through a recorded possessory information and a will, and alleged that their caretaker, Maximo de los Santos, was threatened by Melecio Rojas (a justice of the peace) when he tried to oppose the taking. The estimated value of the canes was 18 pesos. The defendants admitted cutting and taking the canes but asserted that the land belonged to Fruto Andrade, who inherited it from his father. They denied the alleged threats and claimed Maximo de los Santos was not present. An ocular inspection revealed that the boundaries of the land from which the canes were taken differed from those described in the private prosecutors’ possessory information. Furthermore, a civil action for the annulment of that possessory information, filed by Andrade against Antonia Rojas, was pending.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants are guilty of the crimes of theft and threats.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment acquitting the defendants. The evidence was insufficient to prove the crimes charged. Regarding the threats, the record did not conclusively establish that Maximo de los Santos was present at the scene or that Melecio Rojas made any threats. Regarding theft, the element of taking property belonging to another was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The conflicting evidence on land ownership, the variance in land boundaries found during the ocular inspection, and the pending civil case over the annulment of the possessory information created reasonable doubt as to whether the canes belonged to the private prosecutors. Consequently, the act of cutting and taking the canes, done under a claim of ownership by Andrade, did not constitute theft. The question of ownership is a civil matter to be resolved in the proper action.