PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARIEL LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Lopez

The Case

This is the case of People versus Lopez, a criminal prosecution for cattle rustling under Presidential Decree Number 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Act of 1974. The People of the Philippines charged Ariel Lopez with taking a carabao belonging to another without the owner's consent. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes who counts as an "owner" of large cattle under the decree, and second, it draws the line between an uncounselled admission that the Constitution excludes and a spontaneous plea for settlement that the Rules of Court may receive as an implied admission of guilt. The decision before us resolves the accused's motion for reconsideration after the Supreme Court had already affirmed his conviction.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 11, tried Ariel Lopez and found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Act. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his appeal. He then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which in a decision promulgated in August 2013 likewise dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction. Lopez filed a motion for reconsideration, raising two grounds: doubt on the identity and existence of the alleged stolen carabao, and the inadmissibility of his uncounselled admission before a police officer. The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, and that denial is the ruling now before us.

Facts

On the early morning of 17 July 2002, Mario Perez discovered that the carabao he had tied to a coconut tree was missing. The carabao belonged to the private complainant, who held a Certificate of Transfer of Large Cattle covering the animal.

Earlier that same morning, the accused, Ariel Lopez, took a big female carabao with large horns. He asked Felix Alderete to ride the carabao to Malagos, making Alderete believe that Lopez was the true owner. Alderete later testified that there were no other carabaos tied at the place, only a big carabao and its offspring, and that the animal he brought to Malagos was the same one lost from that spot.

Lopez later appeared at the police station together with Teresita Perez and Mario Perez for a confrontation and possible settlement. There, in the presence of the police, Lopez voluntarily admitted his fault and sought forgiveness, offering to pay for the carabao. No settlement was reached, and he was sent home. The police daily record of events reflected this voluntary admission.

Issues

• Whether or not the identity and existence of the alleged stolen carabao, and the ownership of the private complainant, were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the accused's admission before the police officer, made without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible in evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, on offers of compromise, provides:

Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

This provision bears on the case because the Court treated the accused's plea for forgiveness and request for settlement as analogous to an offer of compromise, receivable as an implied admission of guilt.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the elements of cattle rustling were sufficiently established. The gravamen of the crime is the taking or killing of large cattle, or the taking of its meat or hide, without the consent of the owner. The Court stressed that the term "owner" is broad, and that the Certificate of Transfer of Large Cattle presented by the complainant brought her within that definition. The Court found that the carabao belonged to the private complainant, that the accused took it without her consent, and that he employed means, methods, or schemes to deprive her of possession by making Alderete believe he was the true owner, thereby manifesting intent to gain.

On the second issue, the Court held that the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admits having committed the crime. The records showed that the police officer did not elicit any question from which the admission was made. The accused was not under custodial investigation; he was negotiating with the complainants on how he could pay for the stolen carabao, and after the confrontation he was sent home. His plea for forgiveness and request for settlement was therefore an implied admission of guilt under Section 27, Rule 130.

Finding that no new substantial matters were raised, the Court held that its earlier decision stood, and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, in cattle rustling under the Anti-Cattle Rustling Act, the gravamen is the taking or killing of large cattle, or the taking of its meat or hide, without the consent of the owner, and the term "owner" includes the herdsman, caretaker, employee, or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in raising large cattle, or other persons in lawful possession. A certificate of transfer of large cattle is competent evidence of ownership.

Second, the constitutional safeguards on custodial investigation apply only to statements elicited through questioning by the authorities. A spontaneous, voluntary admission made in an ordinary manner, without any question from the police, is not covered by those safeguards and is admissible.

Third, an offer of compromise by the accused in a criminal case, other than a quasi-offense or one allowed by law to be compromised, may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt under Section 27, Rule 130. A plea for forgiveness and a request for settlement fall within this rule.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, and the conviction of Ariel Lopez for violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Act stood.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a spontaneous, uncounselled admission made without police questioning, and a plea for settlement, may both be received against the accused. Examiners use this case to test the boundaries of custodial investigation rights and the treatment of offers of compromise as implied admissions of guilt.