G.R. No. 46807 January 31, 1989
MAURO OMANA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Mauro Omana was charged with theft before the Municipal Court of San Vicente, Camarines Norte, for allegedly gathering and stealing approximately three kilos of abaca fiber from the plantation of Milagros Ubana on August 23, 1976. The prosecution presented evidence that Ubana and her husband had possessed and declared the land for taxation since 1967 and 1974, respectively. A barrio policeman testified to catching Omana in the act of stripping the abaca. Omana was convicted and sentenced to one month and fifteen days of imprisonment, a decision affirmed by the Court of First Instance on appeal.
Omana’s defense claimed the abaca were wild plants gathered from public land owned by a certain Luis Hidalgo, not from Ubana’s property. He asserted he was acting under his father’s orders, who had purportedly bought the right to harvest the abaca from Hidalgo’s tenant, Gimeno Sacriz. However, the defense failed to present Sacriz, Hidalgo, or any documentary evidence to substantiate this alleged sale or to contest the Ubana spouses’ claim of ownership over the land from which the abaca were taken.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the crime of theft was committed given the claim the abaca were gathered from unowned wild plants, whether there was intent to gain, and whether Omana could be convicted under the Revised Penal Code for theft instead of under forestry laws.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction, with a modification to the penalty. The Court held that all elements of theft were present. The prosecution successfully established the Ubana spouses’ ownership and possession of the land through tax declarations and prior occupation. Omana’s own admission that he had been previously warned by another individual, Ernesto Serrano, not to harvest abaca from that land because it belonged to Pedro Ubana, conclusively demonstrated his prior knowledge of the Ubanas’ claim, negating any good faith belief the plants were ownerless.
The defense of lack of intent to gain was rejected. Intent to gain (animus lucrandi) is presumed from the unauthorized taking of useful property belonging to another, and no special circumstances negating such intent were shown. The Court found no merit in the argument regarding the applicability of forestry laws (P.D. No. 705), as Omana was properly charged and tried for theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code based on the taking of private property. The penalty was modified to three months of arresto mayor, within the medium period for theft where the value stolen is over five but does not exceed fifty pesos, as the stolen abaca was valued at P7.80.