G.R. No. L-9306; March 18, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BASILIO VILLACORTA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On or about January 15, 1913, in the municipality of Rizal, Nueva Ecija, Basilio Villacorta took 60 cavanes of paddy (worth P150) belonging to Domingo Corpus. The paddy had been planted and harvested by Corpus on a parcel of land. Prior to this incident, Villacorta had filed a civil action against Corpus to recover possession of the same land. The justice of the peace initially ruled in Villacorta’s favor, but on appeal, the Court of First Instance (Judge Isidro Paredes) decided on January 9, 1913, that Villacorta had no right to the land and dismissed his complaint. Shortly after this decision, Villacorta caused the arrest and detention of Corpus and another person. While Corpus was jailed, Villacorta entered the land and carried away the harvested paddy. Witnesses testified to seeing Villacorta take the paddy, and he was charged with larceny. The trial court (Judge Julio Llorente) convicted Villacorta and sentenced him to four months and one day of arresto mayor, with an order to return the paddy or indemnify Corpus P120, plus subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Villacorta appealed, arguing he could not be guilty of larceny because he claimed ownership of the land. After the trial and notice of appeal, he also filed a motion for new trial based on new affidavits, which the lower court refused to hear due to lost jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, Basilio Villacorta, is guilty of the crime of larceny despite his claim of ownership over the land from which the paddy was taken.

RULING:
Yes, the defendant is guilty of larceny. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that Villacorta’s claim of ownership over the land did not justify taking the paddy. The Court of First Instance had already adjudged that Villacorta had no right to the land, and it was conclusively shown that the paddy was planted and harvested by Corpus. Thus, Villacorta knew or should have known that the paddy belonged to Corpus. The taking was therefore done with intent to gain and without consent, constituting larceny. The motion for a new trial was denied, as the affidavits presented could have been discovered with reasonable diligence during trial and would not have altered the outcome. The conviction and penalty were affirmed, with costs against the appellant.