Pit-og v. People

The tayan in Loag, Mainit, Mountain Province was communal land owned by the tomayan group, descendants of Jakot and Pang-o. On September 24, 1976, septuagenarian Pel-ey Cullalad sold a 400-square-meter residential portion to Edward Pasiteng on the group's behalf. Pasiteng's house stood on the portion, and he declared it for taxation. In December 1983, Pasiteng's grandsons saw his niece, Erkey Pit-og, and companions cut and carry away sugarcane and bananas near his house. Pasiteng valued about 300 pieces of sugarcane at P1,000 and the bananas at P100. The police filed a theft complaint. Erkey, a tomayan member, testified that members could improve the tayan and claim the improvements, that her father had planted the sugarcane, and that she had planted the bananas, and her witnesses corroborated this. The Municipal Trial Court convicted her, stressing that she had no papers to prove her possession. The RTC affirmed, relying on Pasiteng's deed and tax declarations, and so did the Court of Appeals. She filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that she lacked criminal intent and that the case was civil in nature.

1. 1Whether ownership of the sugarcane and bananas by the complainant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. 2Whether petitioner acted with criminal intent and intent to gain, or whether the case is civil in nature.

The Court acquitted petitioner. It reviewed the facts under the exception that allows this when material facts overlooked below would create reasonable doubt. Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft requires the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain and without the owner's consent. Because she admitted taking the plants, the questions were whether they belonged to the complainant and whether she intended to gain. Pasiteng's documents did not settle ownership. The deed described 400 square meters with certain boundaries, while his tax declarations covered 512 square meters with different boundaries, and nothing in the record explained the discrepancy. The land had been communal, and the areas cultivated by the two relatives were adjacent, so confusion over who planted what was quite possible. His fence did not prove he had enclosed only the land he bought, and his survey plan did not locate the spot where the plants were taken. The prosecution's failure to identify the place precisely meant it failed to identify the person wrongfully deprived of the property, which is indispensable in theft. The Court saw "a clash between a claim of ownership founded on customs and tradition and another such claim supported by written evidence but nonetheless based on the same customs and tradition", requiring special care where an illiterate tribeswoman stands to lose her liberty. It found that she took the plants believing them to be her own and so could not have had criminal intent. Ownership of the tayan must be settled in a civil action. Erkey Pit-og was acquitted for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.