Cari, the overseer of a 1-hectare unregistered parcel of land in Quezon and co-owned by Andro, saw Eddie, Eras, Apol and Boni, along with seven others, cutting down the coconut trees on the said property.
Later, the men turned the felled trees into coco lumber. Fearing for his life, Cari did not attempt to stop the men from cutting down the trees because he was outnumbered. Instead, Cari left the site and immediately reported the matter to Andro.
Andro and Cari wasted no time in reporting the incident to the police. Thereafter, the two, accompanied by SPO1 Alo, went to the coconut plantation only to discover that 33 coconut trees had been cut down. The coco lumber were no longer in the area. They took photographs of the stumps left by the men.
Subsequently, a criminal information for theft was filed against Eddie, Eras, Apol and Boni. All the accused vehemently denied the charges against them. By way of defense, the accused called Tasio to the witness stand. Tasio testified that he authorized his brothers-in-law, accused Eddie and Eras, to cut down the coconut trees within the boundary of his property, which was adjacent to the land co-owned by Andro.
Tasio admitted that he had never set foot on his property for about 20 years already and that he was not present when the cutting incident happened.
The accused also called barangay captain Argie to testify. The barangay captain testified that the accused went to his office seeking permission to cut down the coconut trees planted on the land of Tasio. The accused further claimed that only the coconut trees which stood within the land owned by Tasio, who is a relative of Andro, were cut.
Accused Boni added that he was a coco lumber trader and that Tasio offered to sell the coconut trees planted on his lot. Eddie claimed that he took no part in the felling of the coconut trees but merely supervised the same. He claimed that he did not receive any remuneration for the service he rendered or a share from the proceeds of the coco lumbers sale. Apol likewise denied participation in the cutting down of the coconut trees but confirmed the presence of Eddie and Eras at the site to supervise the accomplishment of the work being done thereat.
Q: What is the crime of theft of damaged property under paragraph (2) of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code?
A: Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.-: xxxx
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. xxxxx;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and xxx.
Q: What must the prosecution prove to warrant a conviction under the afore-cited provision for theft of damaged property?
A: The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable that the accused maliciously damaged the property belonging to another and, thereafter, removed or used the fruits or object thereof, with intent to gain.
Evidently, theft of damaged property is an intentional felony for which criminal liability attaches only when it is shown that the malefactor acted with criminal intent or malice. Criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed.
Q: Was criminal intent substantiated to justify the conviction of Eddie and his co-accused?
A: It does not so appear in this case. Consider:
There is no dispute that the land co-owned by Andro is adjacent to the land owned by Tasio. The prosecution claimed that the 33 cut coconut trees were planted within the land co-owned by Andro. The defense, on the other hand, averred that only the coconut trees found within the land of Tasio were felled by Eddie and his co-accused. Andro testified that there were muniments that delimit the boundaries between the adjacent lots while Tasio claimed that there were none and that “x” marks were just etched on the trunk of the trees to delineate the boundary of his land. Apart from the bare allegations of these witnesses, no concrete and competent evidence was adduced to substantiate their respective submissions.
In view of such conflicting claims and considering the meager evidence on hand, the court will not be able to determine with certainty the owner of the 33 felled coconut trees. The uncertainty of the exact location of the coconut trees negates the presence of the criminal intent to gain.
Q: Assuming that that the said coconut trees were within Andro’s land, can malice or criminal intent could be rightfully attributed to Eddie and his co-accused?
A: No, because Eddie and his co-accused went to the property to cut down the coconut trees belonging to Tasio’s upon the latter’s instruction.
Moreover, if, indeed, in the course of executing Tasio’s instructions, Eddie and his co-accused encroached on the land co-owned by Andro, because they missed the undetectable boundary between the two lots, and cut down some of Andro’s trees, such act merely constituted mistake or judgmental error.
Thus, if what is proven is mere judgmental error on the part of the person committing the act, no malice or criminal intent can be rightfully imputed to him. Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for a crime to exist. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting.
As a general rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from felonious responsibility. The exception of course is neglect in the discharge of duty or indifference to consequences, which is equivalent to criminal intent, for in this instance, the element of malicious intent is supplied by the element of negligence and imprudence.
The criminal mind is indeed wanting in the situation where the accused even sought prior permission from the barangay captain to cut down the coconut trees which was done openly and during broad daylight effectively negated malice and criminal intent on their part.
It defies reason that the accused would still approach the barangay captain if their real intention was to steal the coconut trees. Besides, criminals would usually execute their criminal activities clandestinely or through stealth or strategy to avoid detection of the commission of a crime or a wrongdoing.
Q: Is the testimony of Tasio unreliable and biased given that he is a relative of accused Eddie and Eras?
A: No. Family relationship, however, does not by itself render a witness’ testimony inadmissible or devoid of evidentiary weight. To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.
Thus, the relationship of Tasio to the accused, per se, does not impair his credibility.
It also bears stressing that while Eddie and Eras are Tasio’s brothers-in-law, Andro is his cousin. Considering that both the accused and the accuser are Tasio’s relatives, and purportedly both have bearing with regard to his decision, why would then Tasio support one over the other? The logical explanation could only be that Tasio had indeed ordered Eddie and Eras to cut the trees on his land.
(Source: Magsumbol vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 207175, November 26, 2014)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is Dean, Lyceum of the Philippines; University Director At Large, Philippine Association of Law Schools; Mawis Law Office