SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 256022. August 07, 2023 ]

PEDRO J. AMARILLE, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
DECISION

LOPEZ, J., J.:

This Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
from the Decision[2] and the Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with
modification the Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court, finding Pedro J. Amarille (Pedro)
guilty of qualified theft.

The instant case stemmed from an Information charging Pedro with qualified theft, the
accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 4th day of November 2011 and thereafter, in the Municipality of
Maribojoc, Province of Bohol, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to gain, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away Two Hundred (200)
pieces of coconut fruits from the coconut plantation of the Heirs of Macario Jabines,
without their consent, valued in the total amount of Two Thousand (PHP 2,000.00)
pesos Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice in the said amount to be
proven during the trial.

Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Art[icle] 310 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.[5]

Upon arraignment, Pedro, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Pre-trial commenced, and thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.[6]

The subject of this case is a parcel of land situated at Pustan, Cabawan, Maribojoc, Bohol
registered under the name of Macario Jabines (Macario) covered by Original Certificate of Title
No. 25102.[7]

In the early morning of November 4, 2011, Pedro requested Daniel Albaran (Daniel) of Sitio
Moto, Cabawan, Maribojoc, Bohol to climb the coconut trees planted on a property situated at
Pustan, Cabawan, Maribojoc, Bohol.[8] Initially, Daniel hesitated because he knew that the land
was the same land where he used to gather fruits for Hospicio Almonte (Hospicio), the caretaker
of Macario.[9] Hospicio, prior to his demise, used to frequently hire Daniel to climb coconut
trees on the said property. However, Daniel conceded after Pedro assured him that he would
answer any complaint that might arise from the gathering of coconut fruits. On that day, he was
able to climb 18 coconut trees and gathered 200 coconuts.[10]

On November 7, 2011, Noel M. Jabines, the son of Macario, received information that Pedro
harvested the matured coconuts on his father's land. Subsequently, he informed his brothers
about the incident and immediately reported it to the police station of Maribojoc and at the
barangay hall of Cabawan[11]

On November 9, 2011, a conference settlement was conducted at the Office of the Barangay
Captain. During the hearing, Pedro admitted that he gathered coconut and made them into
copras. However, he insisted that the land where the coconuts were planted was owned by his
grandfather, Eufemio Amarille (Eufemio). At the end of the conference, the parties signed an
agreement that Pedro would no longer harvest the coconuts and that the coconuts already turned
into copra be deposited to the barangay hall. However, Pedro failed to comply with the
agreement and instead sold the copras, the proceeds thereof were used for his personal
consumption.[12]

In its Decision,[13] the RTC found Pedro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft, the
dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, and as the court concludes that accused

PEDRO AMARILLE is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED
THEFT, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT YEARS AND
ONE DAY OF PRISION MAYOR MEDIUM as minimum to FOURTEEN
YEARS EIGHT MONTHS AND ONE DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL
MEDIUM as maximum pursuant to Art. 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of
the Revised Penal Code.

SO ORDERED.[14] (Emphasis in the original)

The RTC held that Macario was the owner of the subject land where the coconuts were gathered,
as evinced by its certificate of title. While Pedro submitted a tax declaration, it covers an entirely
different parcel of land from the land where the coconuts were gathered. Thus, the RTC
concluded that Pedro, with intent to gain, gathered coconuts that belonged to another and that
the taking was done without the consent of Macario's children.

Aggrieved, Pedro filed an appeal before the CA. The CA rendered a Decision[15] affirming the
Decision of the RTC with modification, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision [dated] [December 19,] 2016
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2 or Tagbilaran City in Criminal Case No.
15822 for Qualified Theft is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFCATION that accused-
appellant Pedro J. Amarille is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two
(2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six
(6) years and one ( l) day of prision mayor as maximum.
 SO ORDER.SD. [16] (Emphasis in the original)

In affirming the Decision of the RTC, the CA held that Pedro knew from the start that the land
where he gathered the coconuts was owned by Macario. Thus, he had the intention to take the
coconuts without the consent of Macario. In computing for the penalty, the CA applied Article
309(3) of the Revised Penal Code.[17] Considering that the value of the coconuts is PHP
2,000.00, and the theft was qualified, then the penalty imposed was prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods.

Undeterred, Pedro filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in a
Resolution. [18]

Hence, the instant Petition.

Issue

The core issue for this Court's resolution is whether Pedro J. Amarille is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of qualified theft.

This Court's Ruling

The Petition is granted.

As a general rule, this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court is limited to review of pure questions of law. Otherwise stated a Rule 45
petition does not allow review of questions of fact because this Court is not a trier of facts.[19]
Notably in the case at hand, the arguments advanced by Pedro to support his contention that his
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt are essentially questions of fact. However, these
rules do admit exceptions. These were enumerated in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.,[20] as
follows:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or

conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When
the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The
finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.[21] (Citations omitted)

The instant case falls under one of the exceptions. In the present case, the factual findings of the
CA are premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. Thus,
this Court reevaluates the findings of the CA because there is an indication that it overlooked,
misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft as follows:

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

The essential elements of theft are: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs
to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done
without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or
intimidation against person or force upon things.[22]

On the other hand, theft becomes qualified if attended by any of the circumstances enumerated
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

Art. 310. Qualified Theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next
higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article,
if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the
property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if
property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

Following the above provision, when coconuts are stolen while they are still in the tree or
deposited on the ground within the premises of the plantation, the theft is qualified.[23] In the
present case, not all elements of qualified theft are present. The prosecution failed to establish
the intent to gain on the part of Pedro.

Conceptually, crimes are divided into those criminal acts which are mala in se and mala
prohibita. The phrase mala in se means evil or wrong in itself while mala prohibita means
wrong because they are prohibited. Mala in se require criminal intent on the part of the offender
while in mala prohibita, intent is not necessary. Traditionally, mala in se refer to felonies in the
Revised Penal Code.[24] Considering that qualified theft is punishable under Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code, it is classified as malum in se. Moreover, it is expressly stated that
qualified theft is consummated if there is intent to gain on the part of the offender.

This intent to gain or animus furandi pertains to the intent to deprive another of their ownership
or possession of personal property, apart from but concurrent with the general criminal intent
which is an essential element of dolo malus.[25] This is presumed from the taking of personal
property without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor thereof.[26] It is an internal act
that can be established through the overt acts of the offender. Actual gain is irrelevant as the
important consideration is the intent to gain.

Correlatively, this Court explained in Valenzuela v. People[27] the rationale of mens rea and
actus reus, to wit:
 The long-standing Latin maxim "actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea'' supplies an
important characteristic of a crime, that "ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an
unlawful act for there to be a crime," and accordingly, there can be no crime when
the criminal mind is wanting. Accepted in this jurisdiction as material in crimes mala
in se, mens rea has been defined before as "a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful
purpose or criminal intent," and "essential for criminal liability." It follows that the
statutory definition of our mala in se crimes must be able to supply what the mens
rea of the crime is, and indeed the U.S. Supreme Court has comfortably held that "a
criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement infringes on constitutionally
protected rights. The criminal statute must also provide for the overt acts that
constitute the crime. For a crime to exist in our legal law, it is not enough that mens
rea be shown; there must also be an actus reus.

It is from the actus reus and the mens rea, as they find expression in the criminal
statute, that the felony is produced. As a postulate in the craftsmanship of
constitutionally sound laws, it is extremely preferable that the language of the law
expressly provide[s] when the felony is produced. Without such provision, disputes
would inevitably ensue on the elemental question [of] whether or not a crime was
committed, thereby presaging the undesirable and legally dubious set-up under
which the judiciary is assigned the legislative role of defining crimes. Fortunately,
our Revised Penal Code does not suffer from such infirmity. From the statutory
definition of any felony, a decisive passage or term is embedded which attests when
the felony is produced by the acts of execution. For example, the statutory definition
of murder or homicide expressly uses the phrase "shall kill another," thus making it
clear that the felony is produced by the death of the victim, and conversely, it is not
produced if the victim survives.[28] (Citations omitted)

Essentially, mens rea has been defined as a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose, or
criminal intent. The mental element in mens rea must be correlated to the specific actus reus
component to which the mental element attaches. Thus, criminal intent must unite with an
unlawful act for a crime to exist.[29]

In this case, Pedro presented Tax Declaration No. 2008-32-0008- 00050[30] registered under the
name of Eufemio. He merely relied on the metes and bounds of the land as indicated in the tax
declaration. Thus, Pedro could not be faulted for asserting his ownership over the subject land.
Indeed, he believed in good faith that the property indicated in the tax declaration was the same
property subject of the case. Although as a rule, tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of
ownership, they are proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property and serve as a
sufficient basis for inferring possession.[31]

Records also showed that Pedro had been tilling the subject land since 1986; thus, his act of
gathering coconuts on the subject land was based on his honest belief that he owned the land
where the coconut trees were planted.

In Igdalino v. People,[32] this Court acquitted the accused from the charge of qualified theft
based on reasonable doubt:
 Gaviola v. People explains:

In Black v. Stale, the State Supreme Court or Alabama ruled that the open and
notorious taking, without any attempt at concealment or denial, but an avowal
of the taking, raises a strong presumption that there is no animus furandi. But, if
the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, taking the property of another will not
protect the taker:

x x x "In all cases where one in good faith takes another's property under
claim of title in himself [or herself], he [or she] is exempt from the charge
of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim may in fact be. And
the same is true where the taking is of behalf or another, believed to be
the true owner. Still, if the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, it will
not protect the taker."

The gist of the offense is the intent to deprive another of his [or her]
property in a chattel, either for gain or out of wantonness or malice
to deprive another of his [or her] right in the thing taken. This cannot
be where the taker honestly believes the property is his [or her] own or
that of another, and that he [or she] has a right to take possession of it for
himself or for another, for the protection of the latter.

In Charles v. State, the State Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the belief of the
accused of his [or her] ownership over the property must be honest and in good faith
and not a mere sham or pretense[.]

Clearly, jurisprudence has carved out an instance when the act of taking of personal
property defeats the presumption that there is intent to steal - when the taking is open
and notorious, under an honest and in good faith belief of the accused of his [or her]
ownership over the property.

In the instant case, the unrebutted testimonial evidence for the defense shows that the
Igdalinos had been cultivating and harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees from the
plantation since the time of their predecessor, Narciso. Narciso, in turn, had been
cultivating and harvesting said coconut trees from the same plantation since Rosita
was still a child. The harvesting of the coconuts [was] made by the Igdalinos openly
and notoriously, as testified to by the other barangay residents.[33] (Citations omitted,
emphasis in the original)

In the case at bar, evidence shows that Pedro gathered the coconuts under a bona fide belief that
he owns the land where the coconuts were planted. Pedro asserted that he was the owner of the
land when he told Daniel to climb the coconut trees. Daniel testified that Pedro approached him
to climb the coconut trees because Pedro claimed that he was the owner of the land.[34] This was
based on his honest belief, as he held a tax declaration and has been tilling the land for a long
period of time. Thus, Pedro could not be said to have taken property belonging to another.

Likewise, in the case of Diong-an v. Court of Appeals,[35] this Court acquitted the petitioners
based on their knowledge that their employer owned the land:
 Petitioners Diong-an and Lapuje were mere laborers working for Anastacio Baldero.
It is clear from the records that they were only acting for Baldero and not in their
own personal capacities. They were not claiming the coconuts for themselves and the
proceeds from any sales would not accrue to them. They would he paid by Baldero
with his own money and not necessarily from the sale of the harvested nuts. It is
difficult to reconcile criminal intent to steal with the facts of the case. And it is
harder still to explain why two laborers acting under instructions from one who
claims to be the owner of the land should be convicted of qualified theft while the
instigator of the act should not even be prosecuted.

In convicting the petitioners, the trial court relied heavily on their alleged knowledge
of Bation's ownership over the coconut land.

Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact. Since the court cannot
enter the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained therein, it
should be careful in deducing knowledge from the overt acts of that person. Given
two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court should
choose the one which sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The petitioners' knowledge that their employer Baldero no longer owned the land
when they harvested the coconuts may be drawn from the facts. However, the same
facts can also support the conclusion that what the petitioners knew was a dispute
over the ownership of the land, not that their employer no longer owned it.[36]

In a similar vein, Pedro harvested the coconuts based on his knowledge that the subject land
where the coconuts were gathered was owned by his late grandfather. Furthermore, Pedro's act
of selling the copras, appropriating its proceeds for his own benefit, and giving assurance that he
would answer any complaint that might arise from the gathering of coconuts, was actually
consistent with his claim of ownership.

In People v. Luna,[37] this Court explained the right of the accused to be presumed innocent in a
criminal case:

The cornerstone of all criminal prosecutions is the right of the accused to be

presumed innocent. By this presumption, the Constitution places the onus probandi
on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused on the strength of its own
evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. Hence, the accused need not offer
evidence on his behalf and may rely on the presumption entirely, should the
prosecution fail to overcome its burden or proof.

In this respect, the presumption of innocence is overturned if and only if the

prosecution has successfully discharged its duty, that is, proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt-to prove each and every element of the crime
charged in the information as to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any
other crime necessarily included therein. To be sure, the concept of moral certainty is
subjective. What remains certain, however, is that the overriding consideration is not
whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains
reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[38] (Citations omitted)
In a similar vein, Pedro is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is "a basic constitutional
principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving
that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt."[39] "Where
there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted even though their innocence may not
have been established."[40] Verily, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the existence of
each element of a crime and unless it discharges that burden, the accused need not even offer
evidence on their behalf, and they would be entitled to an acquittal. Hence, the burden is on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused to
prove their innocence.[41] In this case, the prosecution's evidence failed to overcome the
presumption of innocence, and thus, Pedro is entitled to an acquittal.

Nonetheless, we agree with the findings of the RTC that the subject land where the coconut trees
were planted is owned by Macario. As the evidence showed that Macario was indeed the owner
of the land, it is proper that Pedro pay the amount of the proceeds from the sale of the coconuts
which were turned into copras, to the heirs of Macario based on solutio indebiti. The principle
of solutio indebiti states that no one shall enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of another.
Correlatively, the principle of unjust enrichment "contemplates payment when there is no duty
to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it."[42] Here, Pedro
unjustly benefited from the sale of the coconuts when he received proceeds from the sale of the
coconuts at the expense of the heirs of Macario. Thus, Pedro must deliver the money he had
received to the heirs of Macario.

Finally, since the obligation of Pedro arose from a quasi-contract, then it is only necessary to
impose an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of the proceeds to be refunded by
Pedro to the heirs of Macario reckoned from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully
paid.[43] The same is also in consonance with this Court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames.[44]

All told, there exists a compelling reason to reverse the ruling of the RTC that was affirmed by
the CA, finding Pedro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft. Based on the evidence
on record, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that
Pedro had the intent to gain in gathering the coconut fruits in the subject land.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 13, 2019 and
Resolution dated November 23, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 03080 are
hereby REVERSED. Petitioner Pedro J. Amarille is hereby ACQUITTED of qualified theft.
He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Macario Jabines the amount of the proceeds from the sale
of the coconuts.

The amount of the proceeds shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
finality of this Decision until fully paid.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.

Lazaro-Javier, Lopez, M., and Kho, Jr., JJ. concur.

Leonen, SAJ., (Chairperson), see concurring opinion.

[1] Rollo, pp 13-21.

[2]Id. at 82-93. The December 13, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 03080 was penned by
Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela
Ann Abella Maxino and Alfredo D. Ampuan of the Special Nineteenth Division, Court of
Appeals, Cebu City.

[3]Id. at 103-104. The November 23, 2020 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 03080 was penned
by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, and concurred in by Associate Justices
Pamela Ann Abella Maxine and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz of the Special Former Special Nineteenth
Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.

[4]Id. at 57-64. The December 19, 2016 Decision in Criminal Case No. 15822 was penned by
Presiding Judge Jennifer Chava-Marcos or Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, City of Tagbilaran,
Bohol.

[5] Id. at 40.

[6] Id. at 58.

[7] Id. at 84.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 89.

[10] Id. at 84.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 85.

[13] Id. at 57-64.

[14] Id. at 64.

[15] Id. at 82-93.

[16] Id. at 92.

[17] The penalty of prision correcional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
property stolen is more than PHP 200 but does not exceed PHP 6,000.

[18] Rollo, pp. 103-104.

[19] Ablaza v. People, 840 Phil. 627, 610 (2018) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Divisior.].

[20] 269 Phil. 225 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division).

[21] Id. at 232.

[22] Miranda v. People, 680 Phil. 126 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division).

[23]Empelis v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 217 Phil. 377, 379 (1984) [Per J. Relova, First
Division].

[24] People v. Quijada, 328 Phil. 505, 575 (1996) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].

[25] Gaviola v. People, 516 Phil. 228, 237 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].

[26] Id. at 238.

[27] 552 Phil. 381 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].

[28] Id. at 395-396.

[29]J. Lazaro-Javier, Concurring Opinion in Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, November
9, 2021 [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc.]

[30] Rollo, p. 90.

[31]Republic v. Metro Index Realty and Development Corporation, 690 Phil. 31 (2012) [Per
J. Reyes, Second Division].

[32] 836 Phil. 1178 (2008) [Per J. Tijam, First Division]

[33] Id. at 1186-1187.

[34] Rollo, pp. 89-90.

[35] 222 Phil. 357 (1985) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., first Division].

[36] Id. at 363.

[37] 828 Phil. 671 (2018)[Per. J, Caguioa, Second Division.]

[38] Id. at 696.

[39]People v. Ansano, 891 Phil. 360, 366 (2020) [Per J. Caguioa, First Division]. (Citation
omitted)

[40] People v. Maraorao, 688 Phil. 458, 467 (2012) [Per J. Villarama Jr., First Division].

[41] Id.

[42] Puyat v. Zabarte, 405 Phil. 413, 431 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

[43] Siga-an v. Villanueva, 596 Phil. 760, 776 (2009) (Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].

[44] 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

CONCURRING OPINION

LEONEN, SAJ.:

I concur. Petitioner Pedro J. Amarille should be acquitted of qualified theft of coconuts.

Furthermore, singling out theft of coconuts as qualified theft has become anachronistic and
amounts to a violation of the equal protection of the laws. It is discriminatory not only against
other food products, but also against the poor.

Generally, only questions of law may be raised in a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, as in this case. This Court is bound by the factual findings of the lower courts. However,
parties may allege, prove, and substantiate that their case falls under any of the exceptional cases
when questions of facts may be reviewed by this Court.[2]

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or

conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When
the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
 petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The
finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.[3]

In exceptional cases, this Court considers whether there are material facts and circumstances
overlooked by the lower courts, which would raise reasonable doubt and lead to an accused's
acquittal:

This Court does not re-examine the facts of a case in a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 except for unusual reasons which would justify otherwise.
One of these reasons is when certain material facts and circumstances had been
overlooked by the trial court which, if taken into account, would alter the result of
the case in that they would introduce an element of reasonable doubt which would
entitle the accused to acquittal. We hold that this case falls under said exception to
the rule on the binding effect on this Court of the lower courts' factual findings.[4]
(Citations omitted)

In Ligtas v. People,[5] this Court allowed the reexamination of the facts to arrive at a just and
equitable resolution, since the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that "all the essential elements of
the crime of theft were duly proven by the prosecution despite petitioner having been
pronounced a bona fide tenant of the land from which he allegedly stole."[6] In Igdalino v.
People,[7] this Court also allowed an evaluation of the factual findings of the lower courts after
they had overlooked certain material matters. While not a trier of facts, this Court may analyze,
review, and even reverse factual findings of lower courts if there are compelling reasons to do
so.[8] Furthermore, an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review.[9]

Here, petitioner alleges grave error on the Court of Appeals in affirming his conviction. He
claims an exception to warrant a review of the factual findings, as "the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts[.]"[10] Petitioner claims that it erred in appreciating the facts, which
could justify a different conclusion. [11]

Without doubt, petitioner raises questions of fact. Nonetheless, this Court can give due course to
his Petition because it falls under the exceptions as to when this Court may entertain questions
of fact-when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.

II

Theft and qualified theft are defined in the Revised Penal Code:

ARTICLE 308. Who are liable for Theft. -Theft is committed by any person who,
with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the
same to the local authorities or to its owner;
 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

3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass
is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its
owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or
other forest or farm products.

ARTICLE 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the
penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next
preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or
consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.

To prove the commission of theft, the following essential elements must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt: (1) there is taking of personal property; (2) the property taken belongs to
another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was done without the consent
of the owner; and (5) the taking is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person
or force upon things[12]

Intent to steal, or the intent to deprive another of their lawful ownership or possession of
personal property, is presumed from the taking of personal property. However, this presumption
may be rebutted by evidence that the property is taken in one's honest belief of owning the
property:

For one to be guilty of theft, the accused must have an intent to steal (animus
furandi) personal property, meaning the intent to deprive another of his
ownership/lawful possession of personal property which intent is apart from, but
concurrent with the general criminal intent which is an essential element of a felony
of dolo (dolos malus). The animo being a state of the mind may be proved by direct
or circumstantial evidence, inclusive of the manner and conduct of the accused
before, during and after the taking of the personal properly. General criminal intent is
presumed or inferred from the very fact that the wrongful act is done since one is
presumed to have willed the natural consequences of his own acts. Likewise, animus
furandi is presumed from the taking of personal property without the consent of the
owner or lawful possessor thereof. The same may be rebutted by the accused by
evidence that he took the personal property under a bona fide belief that he owns the
property.[13] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

In Gaviola v. People,[14] this Court held the petitioner guilty of theft. It found his claim of
having acted in honest belief of owning the land where he took the coconuts as mere pretense to
escape criminal liability. It considered that there was already a court ruling declaring the private
complainant as the owner of the land and that petitioner knew its location, identity,
characteristics, and metes and bounds.

In Diong-an v. Court of Appeals,[15] this Court acquitted the petitioners of qualified theft upon
finding that they lacked criminal intent in harvesting coconuts. It held that they only followed
the instructions of their employer, whom they believed was the owner of the coconuts:

Petitioners Diong-an and Lapuje were mere laborers working for Anastacio Baldero.
It is clear from the records that they were only acting for Baldero and not in their
own personal capacities. They were not claiming the coconuts for themselves and the
proceeds from any sales would not accrue to them. They would be paid by Baldero
with his own money and not necessarily from the sale of the harvested nuts. It is
difficult to reconcile criminal intent to steal with the facts of the case. And it is
harder still to explain why two laborers acting under instructions from one who
claims to be the owner of the land should be convicted of qualified theft while the
instigator of the act should not even be prosecuted.

In convicting the petitioners, the trial court relied heavily on their alleged knowledge
of Bation 's ownership over the coconut land.

Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact. Since the court cannot
enter the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained therein. it
should be careful in deducing knowledge from the overt acts of that person. Given
two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court should
choose the one which sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The petitioners' knowledge that their employer Baldero no longer owned the land
when they harvested the coconuts may be drawn from the facts. However, the same
facts can also support a conclusion that what the petitioners knew was a dispute over
the ownership of the land, not that their employer no longer owned it.[16] (Emphasis
supplied)

In Pit-og v. People,[17] this Court likewise acquitted the petitioner of theft for lack of criminal
intent, as she took the sugarcane and bananas believing those to be her own. It considered the
prosecution's failure to definitively identity the exact location from where the alleged stolen
plants were taken and to clearly identify the person wrongfully deprived of the thing belonging
to them:

Hence, the definitive identification of the area allegedly possessed and planted to
sugarcane and bananas by Edward Pasiteng is imperative. There is on record a
survey plan of the 512 square-meter area claimed by Edward but there are no
indications therein of the exact area involved in this case. This omission of the
prosecution to definitively delineate the exact location of the place where Erkey
allegedly harvested Edward's plants has punctured what appeared to be its neat
presentation of the case. Proof on the manner. however, is important for it means the
identification of the rightful owner of the stolen properties. It should he emphasized
that to prove the crime theft, it is necessary and indispensable to clearly identify the
person who, as a result of a criminal act, without his knowledge and consent, was
wrongfully deprived of a thing belonging to him.
 We see this case as exemplifying a clash between a claim of ownership founded on
customs and tradition and another such claim supported by written evidence but
nonetheless based on the same customs and tradition. When a court is beset with this
kind of case, it can never be too careful. More so in this case, where the accused, an
illiterate tribeswoman who cannot be expected to resort to written evidence of
ownership, stands to lose her liberty on account of an oversight in the court's
appreciation of the evidence.[18] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In Ligtas, this Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that the taking of the harvest
was done without the owner's consent. It ruled that the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board decision finding the petitioner a tenant of the land gave him the right to the
harvest:

The existence of the DARAB Decision adjudicating the issue of tenancy between
petitioner and private complainant negates the existence of the element that the
taking was done without the owner's consent. The DARAB Decision implies that
petitioner had legitimate authority to harvest the abaca. The prosecution, therefore,
failed to establish all the elements or theft.

....

In this case, petitioner harvested the abaca, believing that he was entitled to the
produce as a legitimate tenant cultivating the land owned by private complainant.
Personal property may have been taken, but it is with the consent of the owner.

No less than the Constitution provides that the accused shall he presumed innocent
of the crime until proven guilty. "[I]t is better to acquit ten guilty individuals than to
convict one innocent person." Thus, courts must consider "[e]very circumstance
against guilt and in favor of innocence[.]" Equally settled is that "[w]here the
evidence admits of two interpretations. one of which is consistent with guilt, and the
other with innocence, the accused must he given the benefit of doubt and should be
acquitted. "[19] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In Igdalino, this Court found that the petitioners' open and notorious harvesting of the coconuts
revealed their honest and good faith belief of ownership over the property. Thus, it ruled that the
prosecution failed to establish the elements of unlawful taking:

Clearly, jurisprudence has carved out an instance when the act of taking of personal
property defeats the presumption that there is intent to steal - when the taking is open
and notorious, under an honest and in good faith belief of the accused of his
ownership over the property.

In the instant case, the unrebutted testimonial evidence for the defense shows that the
Igdalinos had been cultivating and harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees from the
plantation since the time of their predecessor, Narciso. Narciso, in turn, had been
cultivating and harvesting said coconut trees from the same plantation since Rosita
was still a child. The harvesting of the coconuts were [sic] made by the Igdalinos
 openly and notoriously, as testified to by the other barangay residents.

Contrary to the CA's observations, the Court finds that the Igdalinos' open and
notorious harvesting of coconuts was made under their belief that they, in fact,
owned the land where the plantation is situated. This belief is honest and in good
faith considering that they held, in their favor, OCT No. 1068 covering the disputed
land under Narciso's name. We find that this honest belief was not tarred by the
adjudication in Avertino's favor of the civil case for quieting of title over the same
land. Knowledge that the land was finally adjudicated in favor of Avertino came to
the lgdalinos only when Rosita inquired from the Register of Deeds in 2002, or long
after the complained harvest was made. Neither was there any showing that the civil
court had already rendered a final decision in Avertino's favor at the time the
coconuts were harvested by the Igdalinos. All these tend to show that the Igdalinos'
claim of ownership over the disputed land is bona fide. In sum, the prosecution failed
to establish the elements of unlawful taking and thus, reasonable doubt persists.[20]
(Citation omitted)

Similarly, here, the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of theft. Petitioner claims to
have a right to gather the coconuts in the land, based on his honest belief that he owned the land
and its improvements through his grandfather.[21] He claims that his grandfather owned the land
and introduced the improvements including the coconuts; he also presented Tax Declaration No.
2008-32-0008-00050 registered under the name of Eufemio Amarille, his grandfather, to
corroborate his claim.[22] He alleges that upon his grandfather's death, his children-heirs
assumed ownership and possession of the land.[23] Moreover, he claims that his instruction to
climb the coconut trees given openly and notoriously in broad daylight, with assurance of
responsibility for complaints, bolsters his honest belief that he owned the property.[24]

Further, the lower court failed to give weight to the following facts in finding that petitioner
could have honestly believed that his grandfather owned the land when he instructed Daniel
Albaran (Albaran) to climb the coconut trees:

The defense has pointed out that the Deeds or Absolute Sale in favor of Macario
Jabines are null and void simply because there was no document of partition from
the legal heirs of Eufemio Amarille: and that even if it were to be admitted that said
deeds of conveyance were all valid to have conveyed the real property stated therein
to Macario Jabines, there is still a remaining portion of 1/5 of the entire area
belonging to the original owner. As such, the heirs of Eufemio Amarille, one of
whom is accused Pedro Amarille, are still owners, albeit part only, of the real
property covered by OCT No. 25102. This being the case, Pedro Amarille cannot be
convicted from [sic] taking coconuts from a coconut plantation partly owned by him.

....

Accused established that although he grew up, studied and worked in Mindanao, he
has been living in Maribojoc, Bohol since 1986. He has attempted to paint the
picture that from 1986 up to the present, he has tilled the land owned by his
grandfather Eufemia Amarille, planted thereon and harvested its coconut fruits
 because he believes that the property belongs to his grandfather. This properly he
claims is the same property where his grandfather brings him along when he was a
kid.[25]

Moreover, the prosecution failed to clearly identify the person who was wrongfully deprived of
the property belonging to them. There is doubt whether Macario Jabines (Jabines) or his heirs
owned the land. The testimony of Albaran pointed out that one Hospicio Almonte owned the
land:[26]

Q: Now, when you said that you were requested by Pedro Amarille to climb
the coconut trees, what was your response?
A: I heed to [sic] his request.

Q: So, when you acceded lo his request, what happened next?

A: I climbed the coconut trees.

....

Q: When you reached that place where the coconut trees were growing,
what did Pedro Amarille tell you?
A: He told me to climb the coconut trees because accordingly he is the
owner of the land.

Q: What was your reaction of [sic] that statement?

A: I said this is not yours.

Q: Why did you say that the coconut trees were not owned by the accused?
A: The late Hospicio Almonte was the owner of the coconut trees in Pustan.

Q: Now, will you please clarity why do you say that the owner of the coconut
trees was Hospicio Almonte?
A: When Hospicio Almonte was still living he was the one who always
requested me and hired me to climb the coconut trees.

Q:
And when you said those words to Pedro Amarille that the land and
coconut trees belonged to Hospicio Almonte, what did Pedro Amarille say
in response to you?

A: He said that he is the owner and he will be the one to copra [sic] the
coconuts.[27] (Emphasis supplied)
If the heirs of Jabines indeed owned the land, they should have immediately known that
someone had taken coconuts from their own land, and not just learned it from a certain Perto
Bulacoy-and only three days after the incident had happened at that.[28] Thus, there is doubt as
to who owns the land. The trial court did not clearly identify who owned the land or the
coconuts in it.[29] Thus, the identity of the person wrongfully deprived of the personal property
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

When there is doubt as to the guilt of the accused, this Court should sustain the constitutional
presumption of innocence:

If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to support a conviction.

The fundamental axiom underlying a criminal prosecution is that before the accused
may be convicted of any crime, his guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, if there are substantial facts which were overlooked by the trial court but
which could alter the results of the case in favor of the accused, then such facts
should be carefully taken into account by the reviewing tribunal.

Proof to sustain conviction must survive the test of reason. Suspicion of guilt, no
matter how strong, should not be permitted to sway judgment.

Only if the trial judge and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the
crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting
test should the sentence be one of conviction. Every circumstance favoring his
innocence must be duly taken into account. The proof against the accused must
survive the test of reason. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant
could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged: that not only did he
perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. Moral certainty is required.[30]
(Citations omitted)

III

This Court has a constitutional duty to declare the law on qualified theft of coconuts as
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause, despite this issue not being raised by
any party in this case. This duty arises from this Court's power to protect and enforce
constitutional rights.[31]

The right of every person to the equal protection of the laws enshrined in our Constitution
requires that all persons, under similar circumstances and conditions, shall be treated alike.[32]
This Court has said:

The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class
privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not
intended to prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the object to which it is
directed or by territory within which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute
 equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike,
under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies
only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons
within such class, and reasonable grounds exists for making a distinction between
those who fall within such class and those who do not.[33] (Citation omitted)

The equal protection of the laws does not prohibit legal classification, as long as it is reasonable
classification, that is: (1) based on substantial distinctions that make for real differences; (2)
germane to the purpose of the law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applicable
equally to each member of the same class, thus:

The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the
application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a
requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that
every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. Equality of
operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as
such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees
equality, not identity of rights. The Constitution does not require that things which
are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal
protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does
not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or
by the territory within which it is to operate.

The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification.
Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the
grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in
certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of
classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of
inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is
required as a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the
classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real
differences; that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not he
limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of
the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or
distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably
arbitrary.

In the exercise of its power to make classifications for the purpose of enacting laws
over matters within its jurisdiction, the state is recognized as enjoying a wide range
of discretion. It is not necessary that the classification be based on scientific or
marked differences of things or in their relation. Neither is it necessary that the
classification be made with mathematical nicely. Hence legislative classification may
in many cases properly rest on narrow distinctions, for the equal protection guaranty
does not preclude the legislature from recognizing degrees of evil or harm, and
legislation is addressed to evils as they may appear.[34] (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)
There are three tests of judicial scrutiny to determine whether a classification is reasonable:

Philippine jurisprudence has developed three (3) tests of judicial scrutiny to

determine the reasonableness of classifications. The strict scrutiny test applies when
a classification either (i) interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights, including
the basic liberties guaranteed under the Constitution, or (ii) burdens suspect classes.
The intermediate scrutiny test applies when a classification does not involve suspect
classes or fundamental rights, but requires heightened scrutiny, such as in
classifications based on gender and legitimacy. Lastly, the rational basis test applies
to all other subjects not covered by the first two tests.[35] (Citations omitted)

In my separate opinion in Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City,[36] I

expounded:

The rational basis test requires only that there be a legitimate government interest
and that there is a reasonable connection between it and the means employed to
achieve it.

Intermediate review requires an important government interest. Here, it would

suffice if government is able to demonstrate substantial connection between its
interest and the means it employs. In accordance with White Light, "the availability
of less restrictive measures [must have been] considered." This demands a
conscientious effort at devising the least restrictive means for attaining its avowed
interest. It is enough that the means employed is conceptually the least restrictive
mechanism that the government may apply.

Strict scrutiny applies when what is at stake are fundamental freedoms or what is
involved are suspect classifications. It requires that there be a compelling state
interest and that the means employed to effect it are narrowly-tailored, actually - not
only conceptually - being the least restrictive means for effecting the invoked
interest. Here, it does not suffice that the government contemplated on the means
available to it. Rather, it must show an active effort at demonstrating the inefficacy of
all possible alternatives. Here, it is required to not only explore all possible avenues
but to even debunk the viability of alternatives so as to ensure that its chosen course
of action is the sole effective means. To the extent practicable, this must be supported
by sound data gathering mechanisms.

The governmental interests to be protected must not only be reasonable. They must
be compelling.[37] (Citation omitted)

In People v. Jalosjos,[38] this Court, applying strict scrutiny, held that election to the position of
a Congress representative is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement:

A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest wittingly or otherwise, insidious

discrimination are made in favor of or against groups or types of individuals.

The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. The necessities imposed by public
welfare may justify exercise or government authority to regulate even if thereby
 certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded.

We, therefore, find that election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable
classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are
not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in
their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest and confinement
are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same
class.[39] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

The strict scrutiny test has also been used in regulation involving a "suspect class," or "a class
saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or
relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection
from the majoritarian political process."[40] In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[41] this Court applied strict scrutiny, ruling that the rank-and-file
employees of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas represent the politically powerless, and that the
continued implementation of the last proviso of Section 15(c) of Republic Act No. 7653
discriminated against these employees, making it unconstitutional. This Court said:

Under most circumstances, the Court will exercise judicial restraint in deciding
questions of constitutionality, recognizing the broad discretion given to Congress in
exercising its legislative power. Judicial scrutiny would be based on the "rational
basis" test, and the legislative discretion would be given deferential treatment.

But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial of a fundamental right, or
the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution with
special protection, judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict. A weak and watered
down view would call for the abdication of this Court's solemn duty to strike clown
any law repugnant to the Constitution and the rights it enshrines. This is true whether
the actor committing the unconstitutional act is a private person or the government
itself or one of its instrumentalities. Oppressive acts will be struck down regardless
of the character or nature of the actor.

....

In the case at bar, the challenged proviso operates on the basis of the salary grade or
officer-employee status. It is akin to a distinction based on economic class and
status, with the higher grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the
lower grades. Officers of the BSP now receive higher compensation packages that
are competitive with the industry, while the poorer, low-salaried employees are
limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL. The implications are quite disturbing: BSP
rank­ and-file employees are paid the strictly regimented rates of the SSL while
employees higher in rank - possessing higher and better education and opportunities
for career advancement - are given higher compensation packages to entice them to
stay. Considering that Majority, if not all, the rank-and-file employees consist of
people whose status and rank in life are less and limited. especially in terms of job
marketability, it is they - and not the officers who have the real economic and
financial need for the adjustment. This is in accord with the policy of the
Constitution "to free the people from poverty, provide adequate social services,
 extend to them a decent standard or living, and improve the quality of life for all."
Any act of Congress that runs counter to this constitutional desideratum deserves
strict scrutiny by this Court before it can pass muster.

To be sure, the BSP rank-and-file employees merit greater concern from this Court.
They represent the more impotent rank-and-file government employees who, unlike
employees in the private sector, have no specific right to organize as a collective
bargaining unit and negotiate for better terms and conditions of employment, nor the
power to hold a strike to protest unfair labor practices. Not only are they impotent as
a labor unit, but their efficacy to lobby in Congress is almost nil as R.A. No. 7653
effectively isolated them from the other GFI rank-and-file in compensation. These
BSP rank-and; file employees represent the politically powerless and they should not
he compelled to seek a political solution to their unequal and iniquitous treatment.
Indeed, they have waited for many years for the legislature to act. They cannot be
asked to wait some more for discrimination cannot be given any waiting time. Unless
the equal protection clause of the Constitution is a mere platitude, it is the Court's
duty to save them from reasonless discrimination.[42] (Emphasis in the original)

In this case, not only is one's fundamental right to liberty involved, but the penal provision itself
targets the poor. Therefore, the strict scrutiny test should be used to determine whether there is
reasonable classification in imposing heavier penalties on theft of coconuts as compared to other
fruits, cereals, or forest or farm products. A compelling State interest for the penal provision
must be shown, and the means employed to effect it must be shown to be narrowly tailored or
the least restrictive means.

Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, theft is qualified and punished by the penalties
next higher by two degrees than those specified in the next preceding article if the property
taken consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation:

Thus, the stealing of coconuts when they are still in the tree or deposited on the
ground within the premises is qualified theft. When the coconuts are stolen in any
other place, it is simple theft. Stated differently, if the coconuts were taken in front of
a house along the highway outside the coconut plantation, it would be simple theft
only.[43]

In the 1950 case of People v. lsnain,[44] the counsel for the accused assailed Article 310, saying
that in classifying the stealing of coconuts as qualified theft, it was unconstitutional for
violating the equal protection clause. That the theft of coconuts was punished more heavily than
the theft of similar produce such as rice and sugar, the counsel argued, denied the accused the
equal protection of the laws.

In upholding the constitutionality of Article 310 and finding no violation of the equal protection
clause, this Court explained why a heavier penalty is imposed for the theft of coconuts:

In the matter of theft of coconuts, the purpose of the heavier penalty is to encourage
and protect the development of the coconut industry as one of the sources of our
national economy. Unlike rice and sugar cane farms where the range of vision is
unobstructed, coconut groves can not be efficiently watched because of the nature of
 the growth of coconut trees; and without a special measure to protect this kind of
property, it will be, as it has been in the past the favorite resort of thieves. There is
therefore, some reason for the special treatment accorded the industry; and as it can
not be said that the classification is entirely without basis, the plea of
unconstitutionality must be denied.[45] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

However, Isnain is a 1950 case, and the circumstances then were a lot different from the
circumstances now, 73 years later. The compelling State interest then may no longer be present
now. In People v. Mejares,[46] this Court pointed out that an effective and progressive penal
system considers exigencies borne by the passage of time:

On August 29, 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte signed into law Republic Act
No. 10951 that sought, among others, to help indigent prisoners and individuals
accused or committing petty crimes. It also increased the fines for treason and the
publication of false news; and likewise increased the baseline amounts and values of
property and damage to make them commensurate to the penalties meted on the
offenses committed in relation to them.

Basic wisdom underlies the adjustments made by Republic Act No. 10951.
Imperative to maintaining an effective and progressive penal system is the
consideration of exigencies borne by the passage of time. This includes the basic
economic fact that property values are not constant. To insist on basing penalties on
values identified in the 1930s is not only anachronistic and archaic; it is unjust and
legally absurd to a moral fault.[47]

Notably, despite the State protection provided for its development, the coconut industry is still
struggling and "subjected to decades of neglect and abuse, characterized by low farm
productivity, ageing trees, ageing and food insecure farmers with no social protection, stiff
competition from palm oil, inefficient value chains."[48] Imposing a heavier penalty for the theft
of coconuts, therefore, is anachronistic and ineffectual:

Therefore, the original interpretation of laws must give way to a new one, which
should be attuned to the spirit of the age all over the earth. Although the wording of
the articles of the Penal Code under discussion has not been changed, their
interpretation may be changed in order that they may not become anachronistic.
Considering that social conditions often unfold faster than legislation, it is a salutary
function of the courts so to formulate their interpretation of old laws as to adjust
them to contemporary exigencies of the public weal. This is not judicial legislation at
all because the lawmakers intended that the law which they approved should govern
for many years to come, and that therefore it should be interpreted by the courts in
such a way as to meet new problems, provided the fundamental objectives of the law
are distinctly kept in view. In the instant case, theft is punished, so the principle of
crime repression is carried out; and the penalty is moderated because of extreme
poverty and need, so the idea of punishment according to the circumstances of each
case is also recognized.[49]

Moreover, with the advent of more advanced technology, there can be more ways to efficiently
watch over and protect the coconut industry from thieves. Imposing a heavier penalty for theft
of coconuts, through a lengthier restriction of the accused's liberty, may not be the least
restrictive means for effecting the invoked interest.

Finally, there is no substantial distinction as to why the coconut industry is given more
protection from thieves, while other fruits, cereals, or forest or farm products are not. The nature
of growth of coconut trees does not make for real differences, as some people still resort to
stealing coconuts, as in Gaviola. Hence, there is no reasonable classification between coconuts
and other fruits, cereals, or forest or farm products so as to justify the imposition of a higher
penalty for the theft of coconuts as compared to other food or farm products.

Senate Bill No. 1871, entitled "An Act Decriminalizing Qualified Theft of Coconuts and
Reclassifying It as Simple Theft Under Article 308, Further Amending for This Purpose Article
310 of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended," filed last February 13, 2023, recognizes that
poverty drives small­scale coconut farmers, tenants, and farm workers to steal coconuts:

Many coconut farmers, especially small-scale farmers, farm workers, and tenants
who mainly rely on coconut farming as their main source of livelihood, face
challenges, such as lack of government support, low farm productivity, lack of
capital and infrastructure, no sustained access to formal credit sources, recurring
infestations of a pest called cocolisap, inadequate fertilization, climate-related risks
and hazards, insufficient farm to market roads, corruption, among others. To make
matters even worse, coconut farmers are considered among the poorest in the
country. They accounted for about 60% of the rural poor and have an average annual
income of PHP 20,000 per hectare. Most of the 2.54 million coconut farmers in the
country earn less than PHP 10,000 per year. Those who fall in this income range are
largely farm workers and tenants. In 2019, the prevailing wage rate in the coconut
farm sector was only PHP 338.72 per day. Because of this, some farm workers and
tenants have stolen coconuts on the lands that they work under the impulse of
hunger, poverty, or the difficulty earning a livelihood to support themselves and their
family.

The high penalty for qualified then, which is two degrees higher than simple theft
under Article 308, only adds to the difficulties faced by the farmers. discouraging
them from pursuing their livelihood, which further contributes to the industry's
decline. These farmers are often subjected to high bail amounts for their temporary
liberty, which further puts them on a significant financial strain. The penalty is
deemed too harsh, especially for small-scale coconut farmers, tenants, and farm
workers who rely on the sale of coconuts as their main source of income and who
have only acted under desperation and impulse of hunger and poverty.[50] (Emphasis
supplied, citations omitted)

Senate Bill No. 1871 acknowledges the onerous and anachronistic penalties imposed on
qualified theft of coconuts under the Revised Penal Code, enacted on December 9, 1930. Senate
Bill No. 1871 is sought to be passed to decriminalize qualified theft of coconuts and reclassify it
to simple theft to "provide a relief to small-scale farmers, tenants, and farm workers, and reduce
the burden on those who may be accused of this offense."[51]

Thus, a conviction for qualified theft of coconuts amounts to a violation of the equal protection
of the laws. Singling out theft of coconuts as qualified theft discriminates not only against other
food products, but also the poor.

Pursuant to our judicial duty to administer effective justice, laws should be progressively
construed and liberally interpreted to meet changing conditions:

Laws should be progressively construed, so that they may meet new conditions, so
long as they fall within the general purpose of the legislature.

....

It is this progressive interpretation that keeps legislation from becoming ephemeral

and transitory. It is obvious that legislators want their creation to be a rule of conduct
for an indefinite time. To carry out that desire of the legislator, a statute should
always be made adaptable by the courts to the changing conditions of the social
order. A strict interpretation, such as the majority adheres to, would render a statute
obsolete shortly after it has been enacted, for human progress is always on the wing.
Consequently ,judicial statesmanship is ever mindful that time and tide wait for no
static, fossilized statute, which is the fetish of rigid, literal interpretation. Courts are
not museums for useless, anachronistic laws.[52]

All told, the crime charged violates petitioner's right to equal protection of the laws. In any case,
I concur with the ponencia that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of qualified theft
of coconuts. There is reasonable doubt of petitioner's guilt, warranting his acquittal.

ACCORDINGLY, petitioner Pedro J. Amarille should be acquitted of theft of coconuts.

[1] Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]

[2]Quirino v. National Police Commission, 845 Phil. 350, 360 (2019) [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division]; Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 184 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

[3]Pascualv. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167. 182-183 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. citing
Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 232 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Divisionl

[4] Pit-og v. People, 268 Phil. 413, 419 (1990) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].

[5] 766 Phil. 750 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

[6] Id. at 764-765.

[7] 836 Phil. 1178 (2018) [Per J. Tijam, First Division].

[8] Alpay v. People, G.R. Nos. 240402-20, June 28, 2021 [Per J. Inting, Third Division].
[9]Id. See also Candelaria v. People, 749 Phil. 517 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First
Division].

[10] Rollo. p. 24.

[11] Id.

[12]People v. Mejares, 823 Phil. 459 (2018) [Per J. Leonen. Third Division]; Gaviola v.
People, 516 Phil. 228 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].

[13] Gaviola v. People, 516 Phil. 228, 237-238 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].

[14] 516 Phil. 228 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr.. First Division].

[15] 222 Phil. 357 (1985) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., First Division].

[16] Id. at 363.

[17] 268 Phil. 413 (1990) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].

[18] Id. at 422-423.

[19] Ligtas v. People, 766 Phil. 750, 783-784 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

[20] Igdalino v. People. 836 Phil. 1178, 1187 (2018) [Per J. Tijam, First Division].

[21] Rollo, p. 27.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id. at 28-29.

[25] Id. at 61-63.

[26] Id. at 84.

[27] Id. at 89-90.

[28] Id. at 84.

[29] Id. at 61.

[30] People v. Torre, 263 Phil. 458, 461-462 (1990) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].

[31] CONST., art. VIII, sec. 5(5).

[32]Zomer Development Co., Inc. v. Special Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals,
868 Phil. 93, 113 (2020) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc], citing Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155,
1164 (1957) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc].

[33] Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155, 1164 ( 1957) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc].

[34]
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 158 Phil. 60, 87-88 (1974) [Per J. Zaldivar,
Second Division].

[35]Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City, 815 Phil. 1067, 1113-1114
(2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].

[36] 815 Phil. 1067 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe. En Banc].

[37]J. Leonen. Separate Opinion in Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon

City, 815 Phil. 1067, 1147-1148, 1159 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].

[38] 381 Phil. 690 (2000) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].

[39] Id. at 707-708.

[40]Zomer Development Co., Inc. v. Special Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals,
868 Phil. 93, 115 (2020) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

[41] 487 Phil. 531 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc] .

[42] Id. at 599-602.

[43]Empelis v. Intermediate Appelate Court, 217 Phil. 377, 379 (1984) [Per J. Relova, First
Division].

[44] 85 Phil. 648 (1950) [ Per J. Bengzon, First Division].

[45] Id at 650-651.

[46] 823 Phil. 459 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

[47] Id. at 471.

[48]Edna A. Aguilar, Ernesto P. Lozada, & Corazon T. Aragon, The Philippine Coconut Industry
Roadmap (2021-2040), 2022, 24, available at http://www.pcaf.da.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2022/06/Philippine­Coconut-industry-Roadmap-2021-2040.pdf (last accessed on
June 19, 2023).

[49]
J. Bocobo, Concurring Opinion in People v. Macbul. 74 Phil. 436. 442-443 ( 1943) [Per J.
Ozaeta, First Division].

[50] Explanatory Note on Senate Bill No. 1871, February 13, 2023, 1-2, available at
http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=19&q=SBN-1871 (last accessed on June
19, 2023).

[51] Id. at 2.

[51]
J. Bocobo, Dissenting Opinion in Diuquino v. Araneta, 74 Phil. 705, 706 (1944) [Per J.
Ozaeta, [first Division].

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: March 20, 2024

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System