Neri, Denise Blesila M. Prof.

Olaso-Coronel
2015-89218 Written Copy of Report
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (P.D. 533)

I.
Background of the Law (Whereas Clause)

WHEREAS, large cattle are indispensable to the livelihood and economic growth of our people, particularly
the agricultural workers, because such large cattle are the work animals of our farmers and the source
of fresh meat and dairy products for our people, and provide raw material for our tanning and canning
industries;
WHEREAS, reports from the law-enforcement agencies reveal that there is a resurgence of thievery of
large cattle, commonly known as "cattle rustling", especially in the rural areas, thereby directly
prejudicing the livelihood of the agricultural workers and adversely affecting our food production
program for self-sufficiency in rice, corn and other staple crops, as well as in fresh meat;
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to protect large cattle raising industry and small time large cattle
owners and raisers from the nefarious activities of lawless elements in order to encourage our
hardworking cattle raisers and farmers to raise more cattle and concentrate in their agricultural
works, thus increasing our source of meat and dairy products as well as agricultural production and
allied industries which depend on the cattle raising industry;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution and pursuant to Proclamations No. 1081, dated
September 21, 1972 and No. 1104, dated January 17, 1973 and General Order No. 1 dated
September 22, 1972, do hereby order and decree as part of the law of the land, the following:

II.
Provisions

Section 1. Title.
This Decree shall be known as the "Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974."

Section 2. Definition of Terms.

The following terms shall mean and be understood to be as herein defined:
a. Large cattle as herein used shall include the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated
member of the bovine family.
b. Owner/raiser shall include the herdsman, caretaker, employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged
in the raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of such large cattle.
c. Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of any of the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or whether
committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes
the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.

Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) Written Report | 1

Notes on Section 2:
Large cattle
Cow
Carabao
Horse
Mule
Ass
Other domesticated member of the bovine family (e.g. bison, African buffalo, yak, etc.)
Goats, sheep, and other small bovines are NOT included (People of the Philippines v.
Nazareno)
Owner/raiser
Herdsman
Caretaker
Employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the raising of large cattle
Other persons in lawful possession of such large cattle
Cattle rustling
Taking away by any means, methods or scheme
Includes: killing of the large cattle or taking its meat or hide
Without the consent of the owner/raiser
Any of the above-mentioned animals
Whether or not for profit or gain
Committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon
things

Section 3. Duty of owner/raiser to register.

The owner/raiser shall, before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the age of six months, register
the same with the office of the city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised. The
city/municipality concerned may impose and collect the fees authorized by existing laws for such
registration and the issuance of a certificate of ownership to the owner/raiser.

Section 4. Duty of city/municipal treasurers and other concerned public officers and employees.
All public officials and employees concerned with the registration of large cattle are required to observe
strict adherence with pertinent provisions of Chapter 22, Section 511 to 534, of the Revised Administrative
Code, except insofar as they may be inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree.

Section 5. Permit to buy and sell large cattle.

No person, partnership, association, corporation or entity shall engage in the business of buy and sell of
large cattle without first securing a permit for the said purpose from the Provincial Commander of the
province where it shall conduct such business and the city/municipal treasurer of the place of residence
of such person, partnership, association, corporation or entity. The permit shall only be valid in such
province.

Section 6. Clearance for shipment of large cattle.

Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) Written Report | 2

Any person, partnership, association, corporation or entity desiring to ship or transport large cattle, its
hides, or meat, from one province to another shall secure a permit for such purpose from the Provincial
Commander of the province where the large cattle is registered. Before issuance of the permit herein
prescribed, the Provincial Commander shall require the submission of the certificate of ownership as
prescribed in Section 3 hereof, a certification from the Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large
cattle, hides or meat are free from any disease; and such other documents or records as may be necessary.
Shipment of large cattle, its hides or meat from one city/municipality to another within the same province
may be done upon securing permit from the city/municipal treasurer of the place of origin.

Section 7. Presumption of cattle rustling.

Every person having in his possession, control or custody of large cattle shall, upon demand by
competent authorities, exhibit the documents prescribed in the preceding sections. Failure to exhibit the
required documents shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his possession, control or
custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling.

Section 8. Penal provisions.

Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle
involved, be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period
if the offense is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. If the
offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If a person is seriously
injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed.

When the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to the foregoing penalty, be
disqualified from voting or being voted upon in any election/referendum and from holding any public
office or employment.

When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported immediately upon the completion of the service of
his sentence without further proceedings.

Section 9. Rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Chief of Constabulary.

The chief of Constabulary shall promulgate the rules and regulations for the effective implementation of
this Decree.

Section 10. Repealing clause.

The provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, all laws, decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with this
Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 11. Effectivity.

This Decree shall take effect upon approval. Done in the City of Manila, this 8th day of August, in the year
of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-four.

Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) Written Report | 3

 III.
Elements of Cattle Rustling (Canta v. People)

1. A large cattle is taken.

2. It (large cattle) belongs to another.
3. The taking is done without the consent of the owner.
4. The taking is done by any means, methods, or scheme.
Includes: Any means, methods, or scheme, including killing of the large cattle or taking its meat
or hide.
5. The taking is with or without intent to gain.
6. The taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against person or force upon
things.

IV.
Table of Penalties

V.
Cases

CANTA v. PEOPLE (2001)

Petition for review on certiorari: CA affirming RTCs decision convicting Exuperancio Canta finding him
guilty of violating PD No. 533.
FACTS:
Narciso Gabriel acquired from his sister Erlinda Monter a cow (black female).
Remained in Erlindas custody, then to Generoso Cabonce, then Maria Tura, then lastly to
Gardenio Agapay.
March 14, 1985, under Agapays care, it got lost.

Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) Written Report | 4

 March 13, 5pm, Agapay took the cow to graze in the mountain of Pilipogan in Brgy. Cantadag,
about 40m from his hut. Came back for it at 9pm but gone.
Found hoof prints leading to the house of Filomeno Vallejos. Told that Exuperancio Canta took it.
Gardenio and Maria went to recover cow from Cantas wife, but were informed that Canta
delivered cow to father, Florentino Canta (barangay captain).
Maria and Gardenio went to Florentinos house. Otw, they met Canta and he said that if the cow
was really Narcisos then he should get it himself.
Nevertheless, he accompanied them to his fathers house. Maria recognized cow. Father not
home. Canta said he would call them nalang the next day so that they could talk the matter over
with his father. Petitioner never called.
Narciso reported matter to the police. They were called to an investigation.

DEFENSE:
Canta said he took the cow but it was his!!! He lost it on Dec. 3, 1985 and presented two
certificates of ownership (dated Mar. 17, 1986 and Feb. 27, 1985).
Narciso presented a certificate of ownership as well (issued March 9, 1986) signed by municipal
treasurer) for cow female 2 years old. Other side was a sketch of the cow with specific cowlicks.
Caretakers identified the cow as the same one they took care of as well.
Canrta said he got the cow under an agreement he had a certain Pat. Diosdado Villanueva. He had
to take care of a female cow of the latter and former would get a cow if it produced two offsprings.
Said cow in question was his share and it was born on Dec. 5, 1984. He said he lost it on Dec. 2,
1985 and reported it to the police.
He said his uncle told him he saw the cow at Agapays so he went there with the mother cow and
it suckled on the mother cow. When it did, he took it with him and brought it together with the
mother cow to his father.
Maria tried to get the cow from Florentino but he said call Narciso so they could settle ownership.
Narciso did not come the following day so Florentino told Canta to bring the cow to Municipal
Hall. Three days later they were called for an investigation.
Canta presented a Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle plus a statement executed by Franklin
Telen (janitor at treasurers office) saying he issued a CoO to Canta in Feb 1985.
CoO was denied by treasurer however saying Canta had no CoO. Telen said he antedated it lang
because he was asked by Canta to do so.

Other facts:
Jan. 1997 RTC found Canta guilty of cattle rustling.
Why would he lie on its registration and ask Telen to antedate the issuance of CoO?
CA affirmed. Denied MR. Hence petition.
Contention: prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt his criminal intent.
FIRST. He claims good faith:
o Mother cow proof.
o Comparison of cowlicks on his CoO.
o Immediate turnover of the cow to the barangay captain after dispute.
o Filed criminal complaint against Narciso for violation of PD No. 533.

Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) Written Report | 5

 Without merit. Elements of Cattle Rustling was laid out in this case. (refer to slide)
Requisites are present in this case. Good faith not a defense.
Cows frequently suckle to alien cows, so this cannot be a defense.
He said CoO filing was merely not in order, still done in good faith: only mistake of fact. COURT:
not merely mistake of fact but fraudulent. Automatically negates good faith and honest mistake.
Even if done in good faith, if he believed the cow was his, he should have resorted to the court
for settlement of his claim.

Decision AFFIRMED with modification to penalty.

TAER v. CA
Petition for review on certiorari: CA affirming RTCs decision finding Jorge Taer guilty of cattle rustling.
Namocatcat, Cago, Taer, and Saludes charged with the crime of cattle rustling.
Dec. 5 1981 in Valencia, Bohol, the four conspired and took away 2 male carabaos belonging to
Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca, aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
After trial, Saludes and Cago were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence but Namocatcat and
Taer were convicted.
Taer appealed, saying that his participation was just the same as the two who were acquitted, so
he should be acquitted too.
And that the only evidence proving the alleged conspiracy between him and Namocatcat was the
confession of the latter he said this should not be considered as admissible because of the rule
res inter alios acta.

Facts found by the RTC are as follows:

o Saludes slept in the house of his compadre Jorge Taer. At about 2am, Namocatcat and
Cago arrived at Taers house with 2 male carabaos allegedly owned by Namocatcat for
Taer to tend. Left the carabaos there.
o The next morning, Dalde and Palaca discovered that their carabaos were missing. After
searching in vain, they reported the matter to the police.
o About a week later, a certain Felipe Reyes informed Dalde that he saw the latters lost
carabao at Datag at Taers place.
o They went there and found their carabos tied to a bamboo thicket.
o When they asked him, he said that the carabaos reached his place tied together without
any person in company.
o According to Taer, what he told Dalde and Palaca was that the carabaos weer brought to
his place by Namocatcat who asked him to tell anybody who came looking for them that
they just strayed thereat.
Court held that there was conspiracy because why else would Taer help Namocatcat without
being suspicious of the origin of the two carabaos and at 2am at that.
He never apprised the barangay captain who lives near him, and he continued to hold on to the 2
carabaos for 10 days.
Ordinarily, one would not hold on to a thing he suspects to be stolen to obviate any criminal
responsibility or implication.
But Taer did proof of some unlawful agreement between him and Namocatcat.

Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) Written Report | 6

 He even tried his best to cover Namocatcat`s identity.

RTC decision AFFIRMED but MODIFIED in that Taer was convicted as an accessory of the crime of cattle
rustling. (No agreement to commit the crime, only mere knowledge/acquiescence but not participation
in the taking of the cows thus only accessory after the fact).

*Additional notes:

Jurisprudence used in the report:

Canta v. People (2001) G.R. No. 140937 used for the elements of cattle rustling; first case decided where
the Court enumerated and specified said elements.

Ordonio v. CA (1991) SCRA 873 did not include in the report for being procedural in nature; no elements
specified.

Taer v. CA (1990) 186 SCRA 598 same as Ordonio v. CA but included in the report.

People of the Philippines v. Nazareno (1976) G.R. No. L-40037 used for the definition of large cattle.

Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. 533) Written Report | 7