People vs. Macatanda

Lack of instruction as a mitigating circumstance must be directly and positively proved and does not apply to crimes of theft or robbery; mere membership in a cultural minority, without proof of an uncivilized or semi-uncivilized state, does not constitute a mitigating circumstance. Presidential Decree No. 533 is not a special law wholly distinct from the Revised Penal Code; by using the nomenclature and duration of penalties in the Code, it is deemed an amendment to Article 310 (theft of large cattle), so the rules on graduation of penalties under Article 64 and the provisions on civil liability remain applicable.

Saglala Macatanda, a Muslim, was charged with cattle rustling after being caught in possession of two stolen carabaos in Lanao del Norte. He pleaded guilty and was convicted by the Court of First Instance. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and extreme poverty but declined to consider lack of instruction or membership in a cultural minority. Macatanda appealed directly to the Supreme Court on purely legal questions: the appreciation of those additional mitigating circumstances and the correctness of the penalty computation.

• The Loss and Recovery of the Carabaos: In the evening of December 25, 1976, the complainant left his two carabaos near his house in Salug, Sapad, Lanao del Norte. The following morning, he discovered they were missing and reported the loss to the team leader of the constabulary home defense unit. A posse, including the complainant and the barangay captain, searched and eventually found the carabaos in Pawak, Salvador, Lanao del Norte, in the possession of Macabaas, Mangigya, Makaonggos, and appellant Saglala Macatanda. The four engaged the posse in a gun battle; appellant was wounded, and his companions fled, leaving him and the carabaos behind.

• Charge and Plea: Macatanda was taken into custody and charged with cattle rustling under Presidential Decree No. 533. He pleaded guilty, and the trial court proceeded to impose sentence. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and extreme poverty, with no aggravating circumstances, and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. No evidence was presented regarding appellant’s level of instruction, education, or specific condition as a member of a cultural minority.

• Mitigating Circumstances of Lack of Instruction and Membership in a Cultural Minority: Appellant maintained that his lack of instruction and education, together with his membership in a cultural minority as a Muslim, should have been appreciated as mitigating circumstances, invoking U.S. v. Maqui (27 Phil. 97) where the accused was considered an uncivilized Igorot. He argued that the two circumstances, taken together, should constitute the alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, and that the prosecution’s failure to object warranted their appreciation.

• Penalty Computation: Appellant contended that the trial court erred in computing the penalty. He argued that the presence of two mitigating circumstances entitled him to a reduction of the penalty by one degree under Article 64, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, and that the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be imposed within the range of the penalty next lower in degree.

• Proof and Applicability of Mitigating Circumstances: The People countered that lack of instruction requires direct and positive proof, which was absent because appellant pleaded guilty and no evidence was presented. Citing People v. Melendrez (59 Phil. 154), mere membership in a cultural minority is not a mitigating circumstance expressly recognized by Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, and lack of instruction does not apply to crimes of theft or robbery.

• PD 533 as a Special Law: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that PD 533 is a special law entirely distinct from the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Article 64 of the Code does not govern the graduation of penalties. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as applied to special laws, the penalty should have a minimum of not less than ten years and one day and a maximum of not more than seventeen years and four months, corresponding to the penalty range in PD 533.

• Mitigating Circumstances: Whether the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction and membership in a cultural minority should be appreciated in favor of the appellant.

• Nature of PD 533 and Proper Penalty: Whether Presidential Decree No. 533 is a special law, making Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code inapplicable to the computation of the penalty, and what the correct indeterminate penalty should be.

• Mitigating Circumstances: The mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction and membership in a cultural minority were not appreciated. The records contained no evidence to prove appellant’s degree of instruction because his plea of guilty dispensed with the presentation of evidence. The rule is settled that all circumstances modifying criminal liability must be proved directly and positively. Moreover, lack of instruction does not apply to crimes of theft or robbery, as held in U.S. v. Pascual (9 Phil. 491), People v. Melendrez (59 Phil. 154), and People v. Condemena (23 SCRA 910). U.S. v. Maqui did not support appellant’s position because in that case, the accused was an uncivilized Igorot, a condition that went beyond mere lack of instruction; here, there was no proof that appellant was similarly uncivilized or semi-uncivilized. Mere membership in a cultural minority is not a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, nor is it analogous to any circumstance listed therein.

• Nature of PD 533 and Proper Penalty: PD 533 is not a special law wholly divorced from the Revised Penal Code. The penalties in the decree are set in terms of the classification and duration of penalties under the Revised Penal Code, indicating that PD 533 was intended as an amendment to Article 310 of the Code with respect to theft of large cattle. Consequently, applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code, including Article 64 on the graduation of penalties and Article 104 on civil liability, remain operative. With two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and extreme poverty) and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty prescribed by PD 533 — prision mayor in its maximum period — must be lowered by one degree, resulting in reclusion temporal in its medium period. For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term must fall within the range of the penalty next lower to that, i.e., arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium (four months and one day to four years and two months). The trial court’s maximum of eight years of prision mayor was within the proper range, but its minimum of six years and one day of prision mayor exceeded the correct maximum minimum. Accordingly, the minimum was reduced to four years of prision correccional.

• Proof of Mitigating Circumstances of Lack of Instruction and Cultural Minority — All circumstances modifying criminal liability must be proved directly and positively. Lack of instruction, even if proven, does not apply to crimes of theft or robbery. Membership in a cultural minority does not, by itself, constitute a mitigating circumstance; to be considered analogous to lack of instruction, the offender must be shown to be in an uncivilized or semi-uncivilized state, a condition not presumed from minority membership alone.

• PD 533 as an Amendment to the Revised Penal Code — Presidential Decree No. 533 is not a special law separate from the Revised Penal Code. Because its penalty is couched in the nomenclature and duration of penalties under the Code, its design is to amend Article 310 for the offense of theft of large cattle. Hence, the rules on the graduation of penalties under Article 64 and the provisions on civil liability under Article 104 apply to violations of PD 533.

• "Membership in a cultural minority does not per se imply being an uncivilized or semi-uncivilized state of the offender, which is the circumstance that induced the Supreme Court in the Maqui case, to apply lack of instruction to the appellant therein who was charged also with theft of large cattle." — This passage delineates the specific factual predicate of the Maqui ruling and rejects the appellant’s broad reliance on cultural minority status.

• "From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, which is not for penalties as are ordinarily imposed in special laws, the intent seems clear that P.D. 533 shall be deemed as an amendment of the Revised Penal Code, with respect to the offense of theft of large cattle (Art. 310), or otherwise to be subject to applicable provisions thereof such as Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code on civil liability of the offender, a provision which is not found in the decree, but which could not have been intended to be discarded or eliminated by the decree." — The ratio decidendi on why PD 533 is treated as an amendment rather than a stand-alone special law.

• U.S. v. Maqui, 27 Phil. 97 — Distinguished. The mitigating circumstance there applied to an uncivilized Igorot, a condition not proved in this case. The ruling is limited to its facts and does not support an automatic mitigation based solely on membership in a cultural minority.
• People v. Melendrez, 59 Phil. 154 — Followed. The Supreme Court applied its holding that lack of instruction must be directly proved and that it does not mitigate theft or robbery.
• People v. Condemena, 23 SCRA 910 — Followed. Reiterated that lack of instruction is not a mitigating circumstance for theft or robbery.
• U.S. v. Pascual, 9 Phil. 491 — Cited as early authority that lack of instruction does not apply to crimes of theft or robbery.

• Presidential Decree No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974) — Prescribed the penalty of prision mayor, maximum period for cattle rustling. The Supreme Court interpreted the decree as an amendment to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code rather than a separate special law.
• Article 64, Revised Penal Code — Applied to lower the penalty by one degree due to the presence of two mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225) — Applied to determine the minimum and maximum ranges of the indeterminate sentence. Since PD 533 was treated as an amendment to the Revised Penal Code, the minimum term was set within the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed after considering mitigating circumstances.

Justices Makasiar, Fernandez, and Guerrero concurred. Justice Teehankee took no part. Justice Melencio-Herrera concurred in the result.