Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 144 views

    Gaviola Vs People

    Uploaded by

    PAC
    Gaviola vs People of the Philippines concerned a land dispute and theft of 1500 coconuts. The court had previously identified the boundaries of the properties. Despite this, Gaviola gathered coconuts from Cleto Eusebio's land. On appeal, Gaviola claimed he believed the land was his, negating intent to steal. However, the court held that Gaviola could not claim ignorance of the property boundaries. His good faith claim was pretense to avoid liability. Gaviola was guilty of qualified theft under Article 310 of taking coconuts from a plantation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gaviola Vs People

    Uploaded by

    PAC
    144 views1 page
    Gaviola vs People of the Philippines concerned a land dispute and theft of 1500 coconuts. The court had previously identified the boundaries of the properties. Despite this, Gaviola gathered coconuts from Cleto Eusebio's land. On appeal, Gaviola claimed he believed the land was his, negating intent to steal. However, the court held that Gaviola could not claim ignorance of the property boundaries. His good faith claim was pretense to avoid liability. Gaviola was guilty of qualified theft under Article 310 of taking coconuts from a plantation.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Gaviola vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gaviola vs People of the Philippines concerned a land dispute and theft of 1500 coconuts. The court had previously identified the boundaries of the properties. Despite this, Gaviola gathered coconuts from Cleto Eusebio's land. On appeal, Gaviola claimed he believed the land was his, negating intent to steal. However, the court held that Gaviola could not claim ignorance of the property boundaries. His good faith claim was pretense to avoid liability. Gaviola was guilty of qualified theft under Article 310 of taking coconuts from a plantation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    144 views1 page

    Gaviola Vs People

    Uploaded by

    PAC
    Gaviola vs People of the Philippines concerned a land dispute and theft of 1500 coconuts. The court had previously identified the boundaries of the properties. Despite this, Gaviola gathered coconuts from Cleto Eusebio's land. On appeal, Gaviola claimed he believed the land was his, negating intent to steal. However, the court held that Gaviola could not claim ignorance of the property boundaries. His good faith claim was pretense to avoid liability. Gaviola was guilty of qualified theft under Article 310 of taking coconuts from a plantation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Gaviola vs People of the Philippines

    (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 of the Revised Penal code, theft is qualified if
    coconuts are taken from the premises of a plantation.)

    Facts:

    With the land dispute issue between the parties, the court clearly identified the demarcation of the
    properties involve therein. Having known of the said court decision, the accused still gathered 1500 of
    coconuts from the land of Cleto Eusebio and was convicted of qualified theft. On appeal, he invoked his
    honest belief that he owned the land which negates intent to steal, an essential element of the felony of
    theft.

    Issues

    Whether or not the act of taking the coconuts from another’ s plantation constitutes qualified theft.

    Held:

    Yes. In all cases where one in good faith takes another property under claim of title in himself, he 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 on behalf of another, believed to be the true owner. still, if the claim is
    dishonest, a mere pretense, it will not protect the taker. Gaviola cannot feign ignorance or even
    unfamiliarity with the location, identity and the metes and bounds of the properties involved as it is
    categorically stated clearly that the three parcels of land are distinct and separate from each other.
    Hence, Gaviola’s claim of good faith in taking the coconuts is a mere pretense to escape criminal liability
    and was guilty not only of simple theft but of qualified theft but under Article 10 of the revised penal
    Code, theft is qualified if coconuts are taken from the premises of a plantation.

    You might also like