G.R. No. 154941 - ERNESTO PIL-EY v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 154941 : July 9, 2007]

ERNESTO PIL-EY,1, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the November 29, 2001
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 19810, which affirmed the ruling of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), First Judicial Region, Branch 36, Bontoc, Mountain Province.

On May 27, 1994, an Information was filed with the RTC charging petitioner Ernesto Pil-ey and his two
co-accused, Constancio Manochon and Waclet Anamot, with violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
533, or the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law, committed as follows:

That on or before April 15, 1994, in the evening thereof at [S]itio Ta-ed, Bontoc, Mountain Province, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and
helping one another and with intent to gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
steal and load on a Ford Fierra one (1) male cow, and thereafter butchered the same, against and
without the consent of the owner, Rita Khayad, resulting to the damage and prejudice of the said owner
in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00), Philippine currency.

That the use of a motor vehicle attended and facilitated the commission of the crime.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3

On arraignment, the three pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.4 Thereafter, the RTC proceeded to
try the case.

From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the facts are as follows.

On April 16, 1994, private complainant Rita Khayad of Bontoc, Mt. Province discovered that her 3-year-
old white and black-spotted cow,5 which was grazing at Sitio Taed with her 4 other bovines, was
missing.6 She and her children searched for it but to no avail. She was later informed by her grandson,
Ronnie Faluyan, that in the afternoon of April 15, 1994, while the latter was with his friends at the 156
Store at the back of the market, he saw a cow similar to that of his grandmother's7 loaded in a blue Ford
Fiera driven along the national highway by accused Manochon.8 With Manochon in the Fiera was his
helper, petitioner Pil-ey.9 Manochon was a butcher and meat vendor.10

After having ascertained from people in the market that the cow was already slaughtered,11 Rita
reported the matter to the police.12 Tagged as the primary suspects were petitioner Pil-ey, his co-
accused, Manochon and Anamot. The 3 accused were invited by the authorities to the Bontoc Municipal
Police Station for questioning.13 On April 17, 1994, Rita, Annie and Ronnie went to the station to file
their respective affidavits.14 During the confrontation between the parties, petitioner Pil-ey admitted
that they were the ones who took the cow. Since they were relatives, Pil-ey asked for a settlement of
the case.15 Rita, however, rebuffed the request.16 On separate occasions, Anamot and Manochon went
to the house of Rita,17 to offer a compromise, but again, Rita refused.18

Traversing the prosecution evidence, accused Manochon and Pil-ey testified that on April 12, 1994,
Anamot went to Manochon's house and offered his cow for sale and butchering19 for P7,000.00.
Manochon agreed and gave him P1,000.00 as advance payment; the balance of P6,000.00 shall be paid
after the cow's meat had been sold.20 At 7:00 a.m. of April 15, 1994, Anamot went to the market and
requested Pil-ey to ask Manochon, who was then busy chopping meat for sale, if his cow could be
scheduled for butchering on the following day.21 Manochon consented so Anamot described the white
and black-spotted cow and instructed Pil-ey to get the same above the road at Sitio Taed.22
Hence, at 2:00 p.m. on that day, while Manochon was in Sagada buying pigs,23 Pil-ey went to Sitio Taed,
found the subject cow, tied it to a tree within the area, and then went home to wait for Manochon.24
When the latter came back from Sagada, they proceeded back to Sitio Taed at around 4:00 p.m. to load
the cow in the blue Ford Fiera.25 Passing along the national road,26 they then went back to Manochon's
house in Caluttit.27 At 11:00 p.m., they butchered the cow at Manochon's house and readied it for
sale.28

In the afternoon of April 16, 1994, they were surprised when they were invited by the Bontoc Police for
investigation in view of the complaint of Rita Khayad who claimed to be the owner of the cow.29
Manochon further stated that only Pil-ey and Anamot answered the questions of the police officers and
the private complainant, and that he was not able to explain his side as they were forced and sent
immediately to jail.30 He denied offering a settlement and explained that he went to Rita Khayad's
house to deliver the P6,000.00.31 Petitioner Pil-ey denied asking forgiveness from private complainant
and insisted that the cow they took was Anamot's.32

For his part, Anamot denied having conspired with his co-accused in taking the subject cow.33 He
testified that in 1993, he and Rita co-owned a white female cow, which was hacked and sold for
butchering to Manochon.34 On April 12, 1994, he went to see Manochon at his house in order to collect
his share of the payment.35 He further claimed that, aside from the cow he co-owned with Rita, he had
three other cows grazing near the road going to Guina-ang but he had nothing at Sitio Taed;36 hence, he
denied seeing and talking to Manochon and Pil-ey on April 15, 1994 and instructing them to get a cow at
Sitio Taed. He stated that after the meeting on April 12, 1994, he saw his co-accused again when they
were already behind bars.37 He further alleged that he went to Rita's place not to ask for a settlement
but only to ask from the latter why he was included in her complaint.38

On March 22, 1996, the RTC rendered its Decision39 finding the three accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating P.D. No. 533, otherwise known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974. The fallo of the
RTC's decision reads:

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the process,
sentencing each of the above-named accused to indeterminate imprisonment of 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 as maximum - the statute violated being a special law; ordering the said accused to
pay jointly and severally the sum of P10,000.00 to the offended party; and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.40

Individual notices of appeal41 were, then, filed by the accused. On November 29, 2001, the appellate
court affirmed the ruling of the RTC and disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment of conviction dated March 22, 1996, rendered
by Branch 36 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Bontoc, Mountain Province, in Criminal
Case No. 1025 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Constancio Manochon, Waclet Anamot and Ernesto
Pil-ey," the same is AFFIRMED in toto.

With costs against accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.42