129) People vs. Isinain (85 Phil. 648 (1950) )

2/20/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085
[No. L-2857. February 28, 1950]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs.

MORO ISNAIN, defendant and appellant.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ARTICLE 310, REVISED PENAL

CODE IMPOSES HEAVIER PENALTY FOR STEALING OF
COCONUTS THAN SIMILAR PRODUCE; EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.—The constitutional guarantee
requires the treatment alike, in the same place and under like
circumstances and conditions, of all persons subjected to state
legislation. But a state, "as a part of its police power, may exercise
a large measure of discretion, in creating and defining criminal
offenses, and may make classifications as to persons amenable to
punishment, so long as the classifications are reasonable * * *."
2. ID.; CLASSIFICATION; THEFT OF COCONUTS; PURPOSE OF

THE HEAVIER PENALTY.—The purpose of the heavier penalty
of theft of coconuts, is to promote the development of the industry.
Unlike rice and sugar cane farms, coconut groves can not be
efficiently watched. There is therefore, some reason for the special
treatment accorded the industry; and the plea of unconstitutionality
must be denied.
649
VOL. 85, FEBRUARY 28, 1950 649

People vs. Isnain
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Zamboanga. Villalobos, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Eduardo F. Elizalde for appellant.
Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Acting
Solicitor Antonio Consing for appellee.
BENGZON, J.:
In the morning of March 7, 1947, Urbano Cruz, the encargado of the

coconut grove of Arturo Eustaquio in Latuan and Balagtasan, City
of Zamboanga, was informed by Lazaro Viernes, one of the guards,
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177bfd1bd163e31d1b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/4
that there were three persons stealing coconuts in the said plantation.
Cruz called Ernesto Fargas, the truck driver of Eustaquio, and
accompanied by some laborers, both proceeded to the plantation.
There the group saw three persons, chopping coconuts. When they
approached, the trespassers started to run away, but Cruz fired a shot
into the air, and one stopped and was apprehended. He turned out to
be the herein appellant, Moro Isnain, who, upon investigation by the
precinct commander of the corresponding police station (Lt. Bucoy)
acknowledged his culpability, asked for pardon and identified his
confederates as Moros Addi and Akik (who are still at large). Before
the justice of the peace he pleaded guilty to the charge.
However, in the court of first instance he changed his mind. He
admitted he had been arrested during the raid, but submitted the
flimsy excuse that he had merely gone to the place because he was
thirsty. Anyway, he confessed that he joined the other two thieves in
order to drink—and did drink—coconut water. This naturally
constitutes theft of the coconuts. He also owned to having asked
pardon from Lieutenant Bucoy "even to the extent of kissing his
hand." Therefore there is no question in our minds that the appellant,
with the other two runaways unlawfully picked coconuts from the
plantation of Arturo Eustaquio, fruits which, according to the
evidence, were valued at more than thirty-three pesos (P33.76).
650
650 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Isnain
The only question raised with much earnestness by his attorney de

oficio is that article 310 of the Revised Penal Code classifying as
qualified theft, the stealing of coconuts is unconstitutional, because
it punishes the larceny of such products more heavily than the taking
away of similar produce, such as rice and sugar, and thereby denies
him the equal protection of the laws. It is unquestionable that the
constitutional guaranty requires the treatment alike, in the same
place and under like circumstances and conditions, of all persons
subjected to state legislation. But a state, "as a part of its police
power, may exercise a large measure of discretion, without violating
the equal protection guaranty, in creating and defining criminal
offenses, and may make classifications as to persons amenable to
punishment, so long as the classifications are reasonable and the
legislation bears equally on all in the same class, and, where a
reasonable classification is made as between persons or
corporations, the persons or corporations in each class may be dealt
with in a manner different from that employed
1
with regard to the
persons or corporations in other classes."
Thus it means no violation of the constitutional provision to
make it a felony fraudulently to sell a part of a stock of trade
whereas the fraudulent sale of other property is made a misdemeanor

only, and to make it grand theft to2 steal bovine animals, and petty
theft to steal other kinds of animals.
In the matter of theft of coconuts, the purpose of the heavier
penalty is to encourage and protect the development of3 the coconut
industry as one of the sources of our national economy. Unlike rice
and sugar cane farms where the range of vision is unobstructed,
coconut groves can not be efficiently watched because of the nature
of
_______________
116 Corpus Juris Secundum, pp. 1131-1132.

2 People vs. Waller, 222 Pac., 171; 64 Cal. App., 390; People vs. Andrich, 26 Pac.
(2d), 902; 135 Cal., App., 274.
3 People vs. Esmillio, 40 Off. Gaz. (11th S.), No. 15, p. 111 (Padilla, Criminal
Law, 1949 Ed., p. 811).
651
VOL. 85, FEBRUARY 28, 1950 651

People vs. Garcia
the growth of coconut trees; and without a special measure to protect

this kind of property,
4
it will be, as it has been in the past the favorite
resort of thieves. There is therefore, some reason for the special
treatment accorded the industry; and as it can not be said that the
classification is entirely without basis, the plea of unconstitutionality
must be denied.
The crime is punished by article 309, paragraph 5, in connection
with article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 417. (Republic Act No. 120, enacted after
the offense, is not applicable.) The penalty is prisión correccional to
its full extent. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
appellant should be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 4
months of arresto mayor nor more than 4 years and 2 months of
prisión correccional. Thus modified, the appealed decision will be
affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor,

Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.
Judgment modified.
________________
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

129) People vs. Isinain (85 Phil. 648 (1950) )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

129) People vs. Isinain (85 Phil. 648 (1950) )

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

129) People vs. Isinain (85 Phil. 648 (1950) )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/20/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

[No. L-2857. February 28, 1950]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ARTICLE 310, REVISED PENAL

2. ID.; CLASSIFICATION; THEFT OF COCONUTS; PURPOSE OF

VOL. 85, FEBRUARY 28, 1950 649

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

In the morning of March 7, 1947, Urbano Cruz, the encargado of the

650 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

The only question raised with much earnestness by his attorney de

whereas the fraudulent sale of other property is made a misdemeanor

116 Corpus Juris Secundum, pp. 1131-1132.

VOL. 85, FEBRUARY 28, 1950 651

the growth of coconut trees; and without a special measure to protect

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor,

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like