G.R. No. 76539 October 11, 1990
Erkey Pit-og, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and the Hon. Judge Nicasio A. Baguilat, respondents.

FACTS

The prosecution established that Edward Pasiteng purchased a 400-square-meter residential portion of a communal land, known as tayan, from the tomayan group in 1976. He declared the property for taxation, paid taxes, and made improvements, including planting sugarcane and bananas and erecting a fence. In December 1983, Edward’s grandchildren witnessed his niece, Erkey Pit-og, and her companions cut down and carry away approximately 300 pieces of sugarcane and a bunch of banana plants from the land. A complaint for theft was filed against Erkey.
The defense presented a conflicting claim rooted in Igorot custom. Erkey, an illiterate tribeswoman, asserted membership in the tomayan group as a descendant of the original owners. She testified that her father had originally planted the sugarcane on the tayan, and she inherited the right to cultivate the land. She claimed the harvested crops were her own, taken through a communal practice called og-ogbo. The defense argued the land was communal, and while members could not own the land itself, they owned the improvements they made on it.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Erkey Pit-og committed the crime of theft, which requires the taking of personal property with intent to gain and without the owner’s consent.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Erkey Pit-og. The legal logic centers on the element of animus lucrandi (intent to gain), which is essential for theft. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove this criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence revealed a legitimate dispute over ownership of the crops, stemming from conflicting claims based on Igorot customary law governing the communal tayan. Erkey’s belief that the sugarcane and bananas belonged to her, as inherited improvements from her father, was found to be in good faith. When a person takes property under a bona fide claim of ownership, criminal intent is negated. The Court emphasized that the case involved complex issues of ownership and possession under custom, which should be resolved in a proper civil action, not a criminal prosecution. The doubt created by the conflicting claims rooted in tradition warranted an acquittal, as the prosecution did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.