Omama v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mauro Omana was charged with theft for allegedly gathering and stealing approximately 3 kilos of abaca fiber valued at P7.50 from the abaca plantation of Mrs. Milagros Ubana without her knowledge and consent on August 23, 1976. The offended party claimed damages of P200.00. Procedural History: The Municipal Court of San Vicente, Camarines Norte, found petitioner guilty of theft and sentenced him to one (1) month and fifteen (15) days of imprisonment. The Court of First Instance affirmed this decision in toto. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on questions of law, challenging whether the crime of theft was committed, if there was intent of gain, and if conviction under PD 705 was proper without proper charge.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime of theft was committed by the petitioner when he gathered and stripped wild abacas in the forest which is admittedly not owned nor possessed by the complainant Milagros Ubana. Whether there was intent of gain on the part of the accused petitioner when he gathered and stripped abaca in broad daylight at the instance of his father Bernardino Omana. Whether the petitioner could be convicted of the crime of theft as provided under Presidential Decree No. 705, of which the accused has not been charged and without there being any complaint by the proper government authority in charge of the enforcement of the forestry laws.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, but modified the penalty by increasing it to three (3) months imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the crime of theft was committed: The Supreme Court found that the evidence showed Pedro Ubana, husband of the complainant, had been in possession and occupied the land since 1967, declared it for taxation in 1974, and paid real property taxes from 1971 to 1976. The land was planted with coconut and abaca plants. Therefore, even if the land was still public forest, the abaca plants were owned by the Ubanas. The petitioner's conflicting claims about gathering wild abaca from a public forest or from Luis Hidalgo's land upon his father's order, without substantiating these claims, cast doubt on his innocence. Furthermore, an admission by Ernesto Serrano that he warned the petitioner not to gather abaca from the subject parcel of land on order of Pedro Ubana conclusively demonstrated the petitioner's prior knowledge of the Ubana spouses' claim of ownership. On Whether there was intent of gain: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim of no intent to gain should be disregarded because the evidence clearly showed he took the abaca belonging to the Ubanas without their consent. Intent to gain (animo lucrandi) is presumed from the furtive taking of useful property belonging to another, unless special circumstances indicate a different intent. The act of taking another's property is sufficient to infer animo lucrandi. On Whether the petitioner could be convicted under PD 705: The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to address this issue. The petitioner was charged in the municipal court with theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the court found him guilty of that specific crime. The issue of conviction under PD 705 was not raised or discussed in the petition before the Supreme Court, and the conviction was based on the elements of theft as defined in the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for theft of abaca fiber, increasing the penalty due to the value of the stolen goods, and clarified that intent to gain is presumed from the furtive taking of useful property belonging to another.