[48] Expurancio Canta Vs. People Of The Philippines, G.r. No. 140937, February 28, 2001.doc

Canta v. People (G.R. No. 140937) Facts: Narciso Gabriel owns a cow that was passed on from one person to another and each person was responsible for the care and custody of the said cow. At the time the cow got lost, it was under the care and custody of Gardenio Agapay. Agapay took the cow in the mountain of Pilipogan, 40 meters away from his hut, at around 5:00 in the afternoon. When he came back to get the cow at past 9 in the evening, the cow was gone. However, Aagapay saw footprints that led to the house of Filomeno Vallejos. Vallejos told Agapay that Exuperancio Canta took the cow. Agapay and Maria were instructed by Narciso to get the cow and on their way to Florenitno Canta's house, they saw Exuperancio. The latter told them that if it was really Narciso who was the owner of the cow, he should get it himself. Exuperancia accompanied the two to his father's house and both recognized the cow but Florentino was not home. Exuperancio told Maria and Agapay that he would call them the next day to talk about the matter with his father. Exuperancio never called. The matter was reported to the police and Narciso and Exuperancio were called for investigation. Exuperancio admitted taking the cow but claims that he was the real owner of the cow and that it was lost on December 3, 1985. However, Narciso presented a certificate of ownership issued on March 9, 1986, signed by the municipal treasurer, in which the cow was described as two years old and female. Then, the petitioner also presented a Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle dated February 27, 1985 and a statement executed by Franklin Telen, who was the janitor at the treasurer's office of the municipality, that he executed the certificate of ownership in favor of Exuperancio. The trial court rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of the offense charged. Exuperancio filed a Motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's decision. Issue: Whether or not the lower courts were correct in sentencing Exuperancio to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months, and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay the costs? Decision: No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly found petitioner guilty of violation of §2(c) of P. D. No. 533, otherwise known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. However, it erred in imposing the penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years, 5 months and 11 days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The trial court apparently considered P. D. No. 533 as a special law and applied §1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides that "if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same." However, as held in People v. Macatanda,P. D. No. 533 is not a special law.