PEOPLE v VILLACASTIN,

FACTS:
Late July 1987, at about 2am in the morning, Dionesio Himaya was watching over his
cornfield when he saw Joselito Escarda and Jose Villacastin remove the cyclone wire used for
the corral of 2 carabaos of Rosalina Plaza, with Himaya testifying that he was only four
arms-length away from them. They untied the carabaos and rode away on it, and afterwards
Himaya woke Plaza, who then went to inform Joel Barrieses, the carabaos owner, of the
theft.
Later, Plaza would testify later that Himaya only mentioned Villacastin (There were four
persons charged in the complaint: Escarda and Villacastin, and the two at-large at the time,
Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Caedo). After informing Barrieses, she went to the PC to report
the incident.
Escarda and Villacastin denied the charges, saying they were sleeping at different houses at
the time. Escarda and Villacastin each testified he did not know the others, that each was
also maltreated repeatedly by the PC who arrested them at a fiesta. Escarda claimed no
medical attention was given to him, that he made a confession but did not sign. Both said
that they were forced to admit to the crime, and that they did not know who the
complainant was (Barrieses).
The TC found them guilty as charged, believing the prosecution witnesses testimony over
the defense of denial and alibi by Escarda and Villacastin. Only the two were convicted of
cattle-rustling, as the charges against Caedo and Alegre were dismissed for lack of
evidence. While both appealed initially, Escarda would later withdraw his appeal, and now
Villacastin appeals to the SC.
ISSUE:
WON the TC erred in convicting him of cattle rustling.
NO

HELD/RATIO:
Villacasta argues that the element of taking away by any means, method or scheme w/out
the consent of the owner was not proven by the prosecution, that his identity was not
established beyond reasonable doubt, that the prosecution failed to prove ownership of the
stolen carabaos by presenting the certificate of ownership, as required by PD 533, the AntiCattle Rustling law.
In this case, the over act was the taking away of the carabaos by Villacasta by cutting the
wire and untying the carabaos, then riding them. These were confirmed by Plaza, the
caretaker of the carabaos. Regarding the identity, Himaya said the moonlight and the short
distance, plus the fact that he knew Villacasta long before as his wifes nephew, made the
identification positive.
Probably most relevant: Villacasta asserts that the certificate of ownership should have
been presented to warrant his contention. This is untenable: the gravamen of the crime is
the taking or killing of large cattle or their meat without the consent of the owner. The
owner includes the caretaker, in this case, Plaza, who informed Barrieses the owner of the
theft. Nor was this issue ever put before the TC, and cannot be raised now.
His alibi also fails. Sleeping for eleven hours straight is unbelievable, and Villacasta failed to
demonstrate satisfactorily that it was physically impossible for him to be in the crime scene
at the time of the incident, being only a 15 minute walk away fom his house.
DECISION AFFIRMED.