Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Canta vs. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    avocado books
    The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender for the crime of cattle rustling. Voluntary surrender has three elements: 1) the offender has not been arrested, 2) surrenders to an authority, and 3) surrender is voluntary. While the accused was found guilty of violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law, the court erred in imposing the penalty without considering mitigating circumstances. Given there was one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be fixed at its minimum.

    Copyright:

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

    Canta vs. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    avocado books
    2K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender for the crime of cattle rustling. Voluntary surrender has three elements: 1) the offender has not been arrested, 2) surrenders to an authority, and 3) surrender is voluntary. While the accused was found guilty of violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law, the court erred in imposing the penalty without considering mitigating circumstances. Given there was one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be fixed at its minimum.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender for the crime of cattle rustling. Voluntary surrender has three elements: 1) the offender has not been arrested, 2) surrenders to an authority, and 3) surrender is voluntary. While the accused was found guilty of violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law, the court erred in imposing the penalty without considering mitigating circumstances. Given there was one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be fixed at its minimum.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Canta vs. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    avocado books
    The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender for the crime of cattle rustling. Voluntary surrender has three elements: 1) the offender has not been arrested, 2) surrenders to an authority, and 3) surrender is voluntary. While the accused was found guilty of violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law, the court erred in imposing the penalty without considering mitigating circumstances. Given there was one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be fixed at its minimum.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Canta vs People

    G.R. No. 140937. February 28, 2001


    Topic: Mitigating Circumstance (Analogous to Voluntary Surrender)

    Facts:

    Narciso Gabriel acquired from his half-sister Erlinda Monter a cow, subject of the case,
    upon its birth on March 10, 1984. The cow remained under the care of Erlinda Monter for
    sometime. Subsequently, Narciso gave the care and custody of the animal, first, to Generoso
    Cabonce, from October 24, 1984 to March 17, 1985; then to Maria Tura, from May 17, 1985 to
    March 2, 1986; and lastly, to Gardenio Agapay, from March 3, 1986 until March 14, 1986 when
    it was lost. It appears that at 5 o'clock in the afternoon of March 13, 1986, Agapay took the cow
    to graze in the mountain of Pilipogan in Barangay Candatag, about 40 meters from his hut.
    However, when he came back for it at past 9 o'clock in the morning of March 14, 1986, Agapay
    found the cow gone. He found hoof prints which led to the house of Filomeno Vallejos. He was
    told that petitioner Exuperancio Canta had taken the animal.
    Petitioner admitted taking the cow but claimed that it was his and that it was lost on
    December 3, 1985. He presented two certificates of ownership, one dated March 17, 1986 and
    another dated February 27, 1985, to support his claim.
    According to the information alleged against the petitioner, on or about March 14, 1986,
    in the municipality of Malitbog, province of Southern Leyte, 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 one (1) black female cow
    belonging to Narciso Gabriel valued at Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) without the
    knowledge and consent of the aforesaid owner, to his damage and prejudice in the amount
    aforestated.
    On January 24, 1997, the trial court rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of the
    offense charged. The Court of Appeals alarmed the trial court's decision and denied petitioner's
    motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. It is contended that the prosecution failed to
    prove beyond reasonable doubt his criminal intent in taking the disputed cow.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the accused should be given the full penalty for the violation of P.D. No. 533,
    §2(c) defines cattle-rustling.
    Ruling:
    NO. The accused-appellant should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance analogous
    to voluntary surrender. The circumstance of voluntary surrender has the following elements: (1)
    the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrenders to a person in authority or
    to the latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary.
    Moreover, the trial court correctly found petitioner guilty of violation of §2(c) of P. D. No. 533,
    otherwise known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. However, it erred in imposing the
    penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years, 5 months and 11 days
    of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The trial court apparently considered P. D. No. 533
    as a special law and applied §1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides that "if the
    offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
    sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
    minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same." However, as held in
    People v. Macatanda, P. D. No. 533 is not a special law. The penalty for its violation is in terms
    of the classification and duration of penalties prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, thus
    indicating that the intent of the lawmaker was to amend the Revised Penal Code with respect to
    the offense of theft of large cattle.
    There being one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance in the commission of
    the crime, the penalty to be imposed in this case should be fixed in its minimum period.

    You might also like