Ordonio vs. Court of Appeals

The deliberate failure to deliver a found animal to its owner, coupled with a false claim of ownership, constitutes the "taking away by any means, methods or schemes" with intent to gain under Presidential Decree No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law.

Anastacio Pajunar discovered the loss of his eleven-month-old calf, which had been pastured near his house. Upon inquiry, his neighbor, Constancio Ordonio, denied having seen it. Pajunar later found the calf tied near Ordonio's house. Ordonio refused to surrender it, insisting it belonged to his brother. Pajunar sought assistance from barangay officials and Philippine Constabulary soldiers to recover the animal. Ordonio was subsequently charged with and convicted of cattle rustling.

• Discovery of Loss: On January 6, 1982, Anastacio Pajunar discovered his eleven-month-old calf missing from where it had been pastured near his house.
• Initial Inquiry and Denial: Pajunar asked his neighbor, Constancio Ordonio, if he had seen the calf. Ordonio denied having seen it. When Pajunar heard a cow mooing, Ordonio claimed it was a cow he was tending.
• Recovery of the Calf: Pajunar followed the sound and found his calf tied near Ordonio's house. Ordonio insisted the calf belonged to his brother, Agustin, and was entrusted to him.
• Official Intervention: Pajunar reported the matter to the Barangay Captain and, accompanied by two PC soldiers and a barrio councilman, returned to Ordonio's house. He brought his milking cow, and upon release, the calf immediately ran to suckle from it.
• Surrender of the Calf: The PC soldiers entrusted the calf to the Barangay Captain with the consent of Ordonio's wife, as Ordonio was not present.
• Subsequent Meeting: The following day, at a meeting with the Barangay Captain, Ordonio again claimed the calf was his brother's. His wife then suggested they return the cow to the real owner and pay damages.
• Accused's Version: Ordonio claimed he caught the calf on the morning of January 6 because it was destroying his mongo and corn plants, tied it near his house, and intended to return it to the owner. He stated he was away in Calanian when Pajunar came looking for it.
• New Trial Evidence: After a new trial, the defense presented Pastor Banquerigo, who testified he saw Ordonio catch and tie the calf where it could be seen. The trial court found this testimony insufficient to overturn the conviction.

• Misapprehension of Facts: Petitioner argued the lower courts misapprehended the facts, as the prosecution did not prove the actual taking of the calf. Finding the calf tied on his property does not constitute cattle rustling.
• Lack of Intent to Gain: Petitioner maintained he caught the stray calf only to prevent further damage to his crops and intended to return it. Tying it openly near his house negated any intent to steal.
• Alibi and Credibility: Petitioner contended he was not present when the complainant came to his house, as he was in Calanian, nine kilometers away. He also suggested the complaint was motivated by a pending land dispute between the parties.

• Circumstantial Evidence of Guilt: Respondent countered that the accused's conduct—denying knowledge of the calf, falsely claiming ownership, and requiring official intervention to recover it—constituted an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving intent to gain.
• Definition of "Taking Away": Respondent argued that under P.D. No. 533, "taking away by any means, methods or schemes" includes the deliberate failure to deliver found property to its owner, knowing it does not belong to oneself.
• Credibility of Defense: Respondent asserted the defense's version was a last-minute attempt to exculpate the accused, noting the failure to present the accused's wife as a witness to corroborate his alibi.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed cattle rustling by "taking away" the calf with intent to gain.
• Interpretation of the Law: Whether the accused's actions—finding a lost animal, denying knowledge, and falsely claiming ownership—fall within the definition of "cattle rustling" under P.D. No. 533.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The conviction was proper. The sequence of the accused's actions—denying knowledge, falsely claiming ownership, and resisting surrender of the calf—formed an unbroken chain that pointed to one fair and reasonable conclusion: the accused took the calf with intent to appropriate it.
• Interpretation of the Law: The phrase "taking away by any means, methods or schemes" in Section 2(c) of P.D. No. 533 encompasses the deliberate failure to deliver a found animal to its owner, knowing the owner's identity. Intent to gain may be inferred from such conduct.

• Cattle Rustling; "Taking Away" Defined — Presidential Decree No. 533 defines cattle rustling as "taking away by any means, methods or schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser." The Court clarified that this is not limited to forcible or clandestine theft but includes any act of depriving the owner of possession, such as finding a lost animal and deliberately failing to return it while claiming ownership.
• Intent to Gain from Circumstantial Evidence — In crimes against property, intent to gain (animus lucrandi) may be inferred from the overt acts of the accused. The deliberate concealment of a found object and a false claim of ownership are circumstances that sufficiently demonstrate such intent.

• "The several circumstances enumerated earlier constitute an unbroken chain of events which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion — which is that the accused indeed took the calf with the intent to appropriate it." — This passage encapsulates the Court's reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the requisite criminal intent.
• "The stubborn insistence of the accused that the missing calf belonged to his brother, Agustin, knowing fully well that it belonged to the complainant (as he later admitted in his answers to questions of the trial court), in essence, is cattle rustling." — This highlights the core factual finding that transformed a found-property situation into a criminal act.

• U.S. v. Tegrado, 36 Phil. 789 (1917) — Cited for the principle that the conduct of a young animal running to its mother manifests ownership, which was used to corroborate the complainant's claim of ownership.
• People v. Rodrigo, L-18507, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 475 — Cited for the rule that intent to gain may be inferred from the deliberate failure to deliver lost property to the proper person, the finder knowing the property does not belong to him.

• Section 2(c), Presidential Decree No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974) — Defines cattle rustling as "taking away by any means, methods or schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of the above mentioned animals whether or not for profit or gain..." The Court interpreted this to cover the accused's actions.

• Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera
• Justice Edgardo L. Paras
• Justice Teodoro R. Padilla
• Justice Regalado E. Maambong

N/A — The decision was unanimous.