Gaviola v. People20210513-12-H685gb
Gaviola v. People20210513-12-H685gb
Gaviola v. People20210513-12-H685gb
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J : p
Before the Court is a petition for review of the Decision 1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 24413 affirming the ruling 2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nava, Biliran, Branch 16, in Criminal Case No.
N-1901, where petitioner Alfonso Gaviola was convicted of qualified theft.
The antecedents are as follows:
On May 25, 1954, Elias Gaviola filed a complaint against Eusebio
Mejarito in the then Court of First Instance of Carigara, Leyte, for quieting of
title with a plea for injunctive relief. The suit involved a 40,500-square-meter
parcel of coconut land located in Barrio Calbani, Maripipi, Leyte, identified as
Cadastral Lot 1301 and covered by Tax Declaration (TD) No. 743. 3 The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. 111. Eusebio, for his part, claimed ownership
over the property.
On July 29, 1955, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the complaint
and declared Eusebio the lawful owner of the property. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing, the Court renders judgment
dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and declaring the defendants the
absolute owners and entitled to the possession of the disputed land.
The preliminary injunction which was granted by this Court through
Judge Lorenzo Carlitos is ordered dissolved, with costs against the
plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED. 4
In the meantime, Eusebio died intestate and was survived by his son,
Cleto. Elias Gaviola also died intestate and was survived by his son, Alfonso.
cSEaDA
Plaintiff prays for such relief and other remedies as may be just
and equitable in the premises. 7
Alfonso admitted that the coconuts were taken upon his instructions,
but insisted that the trees from which they were taken were planted on Lot
1311, the property he had inherited from his father, Elias Gaviola; the
property of private complainant Cleto Mejarito, Lot 1301, was adjacent to his
lot. Alfonso testified that the property was placed in his possession by the
sheriff since August 5, 1993, and that since then he had been gathering
coconuts every three months without being confronted or prosecuted by
anybody. 17 He insisted that his claim was based on the decision of the RTC
in Civil Case No. B-0600, which was affirmed by the CA. 18
On April 13, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment convicting Alfonso of
qualified theft. The fallo of the decision reads:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Alfonso Gaviola y
Dimakiling guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified
theft; hereby imposing upon him the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Ten (10) days of
prision correccional, maximum period, as the minimum, to Eight (8)
Years and One (1) day of prision mayor, minimum, as the maximum.
The trial court ruled that the accused took the coconuts from the
coconut trees planted on Cadastral Lot 1301 which was owned by Cleto
Mejarito, and not on his own property, Lot 1311, as he claimed.
Alfonso Gaviola appealed the decision to the CA which rendered
judgment, on October 1, 2003, affirming the decision of the RTC. He then
filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which the appellate court
denied.
Alfonso, now the petitioner, raises the following issues in the instant
petition: (1) whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that
he had intent to gain when the coconuts were taken upon his instruction;
and (2) whether he is liable for exemplary and liquidated damages.
On the first issue, petitioner avers that the prosecution failed to prove
animus lucrandi (intent to gain) on his part. He asserts that he had been
taking coconuts from the property in broad daylight three times a year since
August 5, 1993 on his honest belief that he was the owner of the land where
the coconut trees were planted. He points out that it was only after he took
coconuts on September 6, 1997 that he was charged of qualified theft.
Moreover, his honest belief that he owned the land negates intent to steal,
an essential element of the felony of theft. He argues that the RTC in Civil
Case No. B-0600 declared him to be the owner of the property where the
coconut trees were planted; the property was placed in his possession by the
sheriff and, since then, he had planted bananas and gathered coconuts from
the coconut trees.
In its comment on the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General avers
that the decision of the RTC, which was affirmed by the CA, is in accord with
the evidence on record. The OSG maintains that under the decision of the
then CFI in Civil Case No. 111, the RTC in Civil Case No. B-0600 and that of
the CA affirming on appeal the RTC ruling, the owner of Lot 1301, the
property from which the coconuts were taken, was Eusebio Mejarito, the
private complainant's father. HCacTI
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
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 property. 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. 23
In Black v. State, 24 the State Supreme Court of 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:
. . . "In all cases where one in good faith takes another's 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."
The gist of the offense is the intent to deprive another of his
property in a chattel, either for gain or out of wantonness or malice to
deprive another of his right in the thing taken. This cannot be where
the taker honestly believes the property is his own or that of another,
and that he has a right to take possession of it for himself or for
another, for the protection of the latter. 25
In Charles v. State, 26 the State Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the
belief of the accused of his ownership over the property must be honest and
in good faith and not a mere sham or pretense. EHSITc
In the present case, the trial court found the petitioner's claim of
having acted in the honest belief that he owned Lot 1301 when he ordered
the harvesting of the coconuts barren of probative weight. The trial court
ruled that the petitioner even admitted in Civil Case No. B-0600 that the
private complainant's property was separate from his:
The accused have put up a defense of ownership although from
the records of Civil Case No. B-0600, Alfonso Gaviola, et al., thru their
counsel admitted that from the evidence of Cleto Mejarito especially
Exh. "E," Writ of Execution, it appears that the decision was already
executed on December 22, 1958.
Further admitted that:
"The southern boundary of the land of Elias Gaviola
(Alfonso) is stated as Melecio Gaviola. Actually the land of
Melecio Gaviola is now owned by plaintiff (Cleto Mejarito), the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
land having been adjudicated to his predecessor-in-interest
Eusebio Mejarito by virtue of Civil Case No. 111 (Exh. "A") (See
also Exh. "6," Tax Declaration No. 3437, reverse side).
Alfonso Gaviola could not have made a mistake to extricate
themselves from the ejectment, Cleto Mejarito wanted to pursue in
Civil Case No. B-0600.
The findings of the RTC were affirmed by the appellate court. The well-
entrenched rule is that the findings of facts of the trial court, affirmed by the
appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, absent any evidence that the
trial court and the appellate court ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted
cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would
warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case. We have
reviewed the records and find no justification to modify, much less reverse,
the findings of the trial and appellate courts.
The petitioner cannot feign ignorance or even unfamiliarity with the
location, identity and the metes and bounds of the private complainant's
property, Lot 1301, vis-à-vis that of his own, Lot 1311. Indeed, in his
Memorandum in Civil Case No. B-0600, petitioner as one of the defendants
below, categorically stated:
From the above enumeration or statement of boundaries, it is
clear that these three parcels of land are distinct and separate from
each other, as the following observations can be made:
1. land of plaintiff and Elias (Alfonso) Gaviola:
a. Both have the same northern boundary: Isabela
Mejarito. But the same can be explained by the fact that
sometime in 1934 Isabela Mejarito, through Pastor Armoela, sold
the land now owned by Elias (Alfonso) Gaviola to him. See Ex.
"15." In fact, the first time that the land bought by Elias Gaviola
was declared in his name was in 1935 in Tax Dec. No. 2839 (Exh.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
"14") which cancelled in part Tax Dec. No. 1942 (Exh. "16") in the
name of Isabela Mejarito. IEDaAc
In fine, we find and so hold that the petitioner's claim of good faith in
taking the coconuts from the private complainant's land is a mere pretense
to escape criminal liability.
We rule that there is factual and legal bases for the award of
P20,000.00 by way of exemplary damages. Under Article 2230 31 of the New
Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In this case, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
petitioner is guilty not only of simple theft but of qualified theft.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. Costs against the petitioner. EHSITc
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez and Chico-Nazario,
JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with Associate Justices Delilah
Vidallon-Magtolis (retired) and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; rollo, pp.
20-26.
2. Penned by Judge Enrique C. Asis; id . at 35-43.
3. Records, pp. 167-171.
4. Id. at 11.
5. Id. at 55.
6. Id. at 145.
7. Id. at 123.
8. Id. at 164-166.
9. Id. at 133.
10. Id. at 92-96.
11. Id. at 77-88.
12. Id. at 89.
13. Id. at 152.
14. TSN, 8 April 1999, pp. 3-4.
15. Records, p. 1.
16. Id. at 224.
17. TSN, 18 August 1999, pp. 14-15.
18. Exhibits "4" and "5," id . at 258 and 273.