G.R. No. L-51368 November 6, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SAGLALA MACATANDA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Saglala Macatanda was charged with cattle rustling under Presidential Decree No. 533. The information alleged that on December 26, 1976, in Lanao del Norte, he was found in possession of two stolen carabaos and engaged in a gun battle with a posse attempting to recover them. Appellant pleaded guilty in the Court of First Instance. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and extreme poverty, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to impose a penalty ranging from six years and one day to eight years of prision mayor.
On appeal, Macatanda raised purely legal questions. He contended the trial court erred in not additionally appreciating the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction and his status as a member of a cultural minority (a Moslem). He also disputed the correctness of the penalty computation, arguing that with two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating ones, the penalty should be lowered by one degree under the Revised Penal Code before applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction and membership in a cultural minority should be appreciated in favor of the appellant; and (2) Whether the trial court correctly computed the indeterminate penalty under P.D. No. 533.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the penalty but rejected the appellant’s plea for additional mitigating circumstances. On the first issue, the Court held that neither lack of instruction nor mere membership in a cultural minority could be credited in this case. The appellant invoked the 1914 case of U.S. vs. Maqui, where lack of instruction was considered for an “uncivilized Igorot.” The Court distinguished Maqui, noting that the record in the present case, due to the guilty plea, contained no evidence to prove appellant’s alleged lack of instruction or semi-uncivilized state. Mitigating circumstances must be proven directly and positively. Furthermore, subsequent jurisprudence had categorically held that lack of instruction does not apply to crimes of theft and robbery, a category which includes cattle rustling. Mere membership in a cultural minority is not an enumerated mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code.
On the second issue, the Court agreed with appellant that the penalty was incorrectly computed, but not for the reasons he asserted. The Court ruled that P.D. No. 533, despite being a special law, is subject to applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code, such as Article 64 on the application of mitigating circumstances. With two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and extreme poverty) and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty under P.D. 533 (prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium) should be reduced by one degree to prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum should be taken from the penalty one degree lower. Thus, the trial court’s maximum of eight years of prision mayor was sustained as within range, but the minimum was reduced to four years of prision correccional. The appealed decision was affirmed with this modification.