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.