G.R. No. L-2857. February 28, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MORO ISNAIN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
BENGZON, J.:
coconut grove of Arturo Eustaquio in Latuan and Balagtasan, city of Zamboanga,
was informed by Lazaro Viernes, one of the guards, that there were three persons
stealing coconuts in the said plantation. Cruz called Ernesto Fargas, the truck
driver of Eustaquio, and accompanied by some laborers, both proceeded to the
plantation. There the group saw three persons, chopping coconuts. When they
approached, the trespassers started to run away, but Cruz fired a shot into the
air, and one stopped and was apprehended. He turned out to be the herein
appellant, Moro Isnain, who, upon investigation by the precinct commander of the
corresponding police station (Lt. Bucoy) acknowledged his culpability, asked for
pardon and identified his confederates as Moros Addi and Akik (who are still at
large). Before the justice of the peace he pleaded guilty to the charge.
However, in the court of first instance he changed his mind. He admitted he
had been arrested during the raid, but submitted the flimsy excuse that he had
merely gone to the place because he was thirsty. Anyway, he confessed that he
joined the other two thieves in order to drink—and did drink—coconut water. This
naturally constitutes theft of the coconuts. He also owned to having asked
pardon from Lt. Bucoy “even to the extent of kissing his hand”. Therefore there
is no question in our minds that the appellant, with the other two runaways
unlawfully picked coconuts from the plantation of Arturo Eustaquio, fruits
which, according to the evidence, were valued at more than thirty-three pesos
(P33.76).
The only question raised with much earnestness by his attorney de
oficio is that Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code classifying as
qualified theft, the stealing of coconuts is unconstitutional, because it
punishes the larceny of such products more heavily than the taking away of
similar produce, such as rice and sugar, and thereby denies him the equal
protection of the laws. It is unquestionable that the constitutional guaranty
requires the treatment alike, in the same place and under like circumstances and
conditions, of all persons subjected to state legislation. But a state, “as a
part of its police power, may exercise a large measure of discretion, without
violating the equal protection guaranty, in creating and defining criminal
offenses, and may make classifications as to persons amenable to punishment, so
long as the classifications are reasonable and the legislation bears equally on
all in the same class, and, where a reasonable classification is made as between
persons or corporations, the persons or corporations in each class nay be dealt
with in a manner different from that employed with regard to the persons or
corporations in other classes.”[1]
Thus it means no violation of the constitutional provision to make it a
felony fraudulently to sell a part of a stock of trade whereas the fraudulent
sale of other property is made a misdemeanor only, and to make it grand theft to
steal bovine animals, and petty theft to steal other kinds of animals.[2]
In the matter of theft of coconuts, the purpose of the heavier penalty is to
encourage and protect the development of the coconut industry as one of the
sources of our national economy.[3]
Unlike rice and sugar cane farms where the range of vision is unobstructed,
coconut groves can not be efficiently watched because of the nature of the
growth of coconut trees; and without a special measure to protect this kind of
property, it will be, as it has been in the past the favorite resort of
thieves.[4] There is therefore, some
reason for the special treatment accorded the industry; and as it can not be
said that the classification is entirely without basis, the plea of
unconstitutionality must be denied.
The crime is punished by Article 309, paragraph 5, in connection with Article
310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 417. (Republic
Act No. 120, enacted after the offense, is not applicable). The penalty is
prision correccional to its full extent. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the appellant should be sentenced to imprisonment for not less
than 4 months of arresto mayor nor more than 4 years and 2 months of
prision correccional. Thus modified, the appealed decision will be
affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Padilla,
Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.
[1] 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, pp.
1131-1132.
[2] People vs. Waller, 222,
Pac., 171; 64 Cal. App., 390; People vs. Andrich, 26 Pac. (2d), 902;
135 Cal., App., 274.
[3] People vs. Esmillio, 40
Off. Gaz., (11th S.), No. 15, p. 111 (Padilla, Criminal Law, 1949 Ed., p.
811).
[4] Cf. Guevara, Commentaries on the
Revised Penal Code 4th Ed., p. 630.