PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICHARD GAYO Y ABILADOR AND RENATO GAJO Y DE VERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Gayo

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Richard Gayo and Renato Gajo, a criminal appeal from a conviction for qualified theft. The two were charged with conspiring to catch and carry away bangus, tilapia, and bulan-bulan from a fishpond belonging to the spouses Anselmo and Alicia Juloya, without the owner's consent. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should hold on to: it is a clean illustration of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code when the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond, and it firmly corrects a trial court that treated good faith as a mitigating circumstance when the Revised Penal Code does not list it as one.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 31, tried the case and, in a decision dated 26 December 2011, found both accused guilty of qualified theft as principals, Richard Gayo by direct participation and Renato Gajo by inducement. The trial court sentenced them to an indeterminate prison term of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as the minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor as the maximum, and held them civilly liable for two thousand pesos, the value of the fishes taken. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the alleged lack of credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the trial court's own finding that they had acted in good faith.

Facts

The spouses Juloya bought a parcel of land in Santa Rita Central, Agoo, La Union, from the spouses Floro and Corazon Gajo for three million five hundred thousand pesos, paying a downpayment of six hundred twenty thousand pesos with the balance to be paid in monthly installments of twenty thousand pesos. Under their Deed of Conditional Sale of Realty dated 17 October 2009, the Juloyas could take over possession of the property and use it as new owners. A later Memorandum of Agreement accelerated full payment, but before it was fully carried out the relationship between the parties soured, and several complaints were filed against each other and their kin.

On 19 May 2011, Renato Gajo, son of the spouses Gajo, and Richard Gayo ordered two minors to catch fish from the fishpond on the land the Juloyas had bought. Richard Gayo accompanied the minors, and about twenty-five pieces of bangus, fifty pieces of tilapia, and some bulan-bulan were harvested without the Juloyas' consent, roughly twenty kilos of fish worth an estimated two thousand pesos. The minors later testified for the prosecution, and the two other persons originally charged were dropped on account of their minority.

For their defense, the accused claimed the fishpond still belonged to the spouses Gajo because the purchase price had not been fully paid. Renato Gajo added that as the eldest son of the Gajos he could not steal from his own parents' fishpond, and raised alibi, saying he was with his wife at the time. Richard Gayo likewise insisted the fishpond belonged to the spouses Gajo.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution's evidence was credible and sufficient to prove all the elements of qualified theft beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the fishes taken belonged to the spouses Juloya, and not to the spouses Gajo, at the time of the taking.
• Whether or not good faith may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.

Applicable Provisions

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft and its elements, and it is the base offense the Court applies:

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.

The Court draws from this definition the five elements it requires the prosecution to prove.

Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code qualifies the theft and raises the penalty, and it is the provision that makes this case qualified theft:

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 a mail matter or a large cattle, or is palay, corn, or other products of the soil, or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if the property stolen consists of coconuts.

Because the property stolen was fish taken from a fishpond, the penalty is increased by two degrees over that in Article 309.

Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalty for simple theft by the value of the property, and it is the starting point for computing the qualified penalty:

Article 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.

Since the fish were worth two thousand pesos, this is the bracket that applies before the two-degree increase.

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law governs the fixing of the minimum and maximum terms, and the Court quotes it:

Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

This is the rule the Court uses to correct the trial court's penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal has no merit and that all the elements of qualified theft were proven. Fishes were undeniably taken from the fishpond, a fact even the accused admitted. The clear and straightforward testimonies of the two minors established the unlawful taking, and intent to gain was shown because the minors delivered the fishes to Renato Gajo's house and he gave them a share of the catch. The accused never asked permission from the Juloyas, as shown by their own stance that the fishpond still belonged to the Gajos.

On the second issue, the Court held that the fishes belonged to the spouses Juloya. The Deed of Conditional Sale expressly gave them the right to use and possess the land as owners. They had fenced the property, placed a net around the fishpond, cleared it, broadcast fingerlings, and harvested fish several times before the incident. Renato Gajo's claim that the fish came from fingerlings deposited by typhoon Pepeng was rejected, since the typhoon occurred around October 2009 while the taking happened in May 2011, more than a year later and after possession had passed to the Juloyas. The Court also noted that Gajo knew fully well the fishpond had been sold by his parents, and that the Juloyas owned the fish inventory as the ones operating and possessing the fishpond.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in finding good faith and treating it as mitigating. Good faith is not among the mitigating circumstances enumerated under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, and nothing analogous could be credited, certainly not the absence of intent to commit so grave a wrong. Intention, being an internal state, must be judged through external acts, and taking the fishes without the owner's permission belied any claim of good faith.

On the fourth issue, the Court corrected the penalty. Since the value of the fish was more than two hundred pesos but did not exceed six thousand pesos, Article 309 prescribes prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, and Article 310 raises this by two degrees to prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods, or eight years and one day to twelve years. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum must fall within the penalty next lower, which is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or four years, two months, and one day to six years.

Doctrine

Theft under Article 308 requires five elements: the taking of personal property, that the property belongs to another, that the taking was without the owner's consent, that it was done with intent to gain, and that it was accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. When the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, the theft is qualified under Article 310 and the penalty is increased by two degrees over that prescribed in Article 309. Ownership of the fish follows lawful possession and operation of the fishpond, and a buyer under a conditional sale who has been given the right to possess and use the land is the owner of the fish for purposes of theft. Good faith is not a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, and intent to gain is judged through external acts. Finally, the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the maximum to be the penalty properly imposable under the Code and the minimum to be within the penalty next lower.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification, sentencing both accused to an indeterminate term of six years of prision correccional as the minimum to nine years, four months, and one day of prision mayor as the maximum.

Remember This

Memorize the line that fish taken from a fishpond make the theft qualified under Article 310, with the penalty raised two degrees. Examiners like to use this case to test whether good faith is a mitigating circumstance, and the answer is no, it is not in Article 13.