10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canta vs. People
*
G.R. No. 140937. February 28, 2001.

EXUPERANCIO CANTA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Law; Presidential Decree No. 533; Elements of the

crime of AntiCattle Rustling Law.The crime is committed if the
following elements concur: (1) a large cattle is taken; (2) it 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;
(5) the taking is with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking
is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against
person or force upon things.
Same; Mitigating Circumstance; Voluntary Surrender;
Elements of the Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender;
It has been repeatedly held that for surrender to be voluntary,
there must be an intent to submit oneself unconditionally to the
authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the
trouble and expense that his search and capture would require.
The circumstance of voluntary surrender has the following
elements: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the
offender surrenders to a person in authority or to the latters
agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. In the present case,
petitioner Exuperancio Canta had not actually been arrested. In
fact, no complaint had yet been filed against him when he
surrendered the cow to the authorities. It has been repeatedly
held that for surrender to be voluntary, there must be an intent to
submit oneself unconditionally to the authorities, showing an
intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense that his
search and capture would require. In petitioners case, he
voluntarily took the cow to the municipal hall of Padre Burgos to
place it unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and thus
saved them the trouble of having to recover the cow from him.
This circumstance can be considered analogous to voluntary
surrender and should be considered in favor of petitioner.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

251

VOL. 353, FEBRUARY 28, 2001 251

Canta vs. People

Public Attorneys Office for petitioner.

Solicitor General for the People.

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision,

dated August 31, 1999, and resolution,
1
dated November 22,
1999, of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision
of the 2Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Maasin, Southern
Leyte, finding petitioner Exuperancio Canta guilty of
violation of P.D. No. 533, otherwise known as the Anti
Cattle Rustling Law of 1974, and sentencing him 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.
The information against petitioner alleged:

That on or about March 14, 1986, in the municipality of Malitbog,

province of Southern Leyte, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
with intent to gain, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, take, steal and carry away one (1) black female cow
belonging to Narciso Gabriel valued at Three Thousand Pesos
(P3,000.00) without the knowledge and consent of the aforesaid
owner, to his damage and prejudice in the amount aforestated.
3
CONTRARY TO LAW.

The prosecution established the following facts:

Narciso Gabriel acquired from his halfsister Erlinda
Monter a cow, subject of the case, upon its birth on March
10, 1984. The cow remained under the care of Erlinda
Monter for sometime. Subsequently, Narciso gave the care
and custody of the animal, first, to Generoso Cabonce, from
October 24, 1984 to March 17, 1985; then to Maria Tura,
from May 17, 1985 to March 2, 1986; and lastly, to
Gardenio Agapay, from March 3, 1986 until March 14, 1986
when
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

_______________

1 Per Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Hector L.

Hofilenia and Omar U. Amin.
2 Judge Numeriano R. Avila, Jr.
3 Records, p. 24.

252

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canta vs. People
4
it was lost. It appears that at 5 oclock in the afternoon of
March 13, 1986, Agapay took the cow to graze in the
mountain of Pilipogan in Barangay Candatag, about 40
meters from his hut. However, when he came back for it at
past 9 oclock in the morning of March 14, 1986, Agapay
found the cow gone. He found hoof prints which led to the
house of Filomeno Vallejos. He was told 5
that petitioner
Exuperancio Canta had taken the animal.
Upon instructions of the owner, Gardenio and Maria
Tura went to recover the animal from petitioners wife, but
they were informed that petitioner had delivered the cow to
his father, Florentino Canta, who was at that time
barangay captain of Laca, Padre Burgos, Southern Leyte.
Accordingly, the two went to Florentinos house. On their
way, they met petitioner who told them that if Narciso was
the owner, he should claim the cow himself. Nevertheless,
petitioner accompanied the two to his fathers house, where
Maria recognized the cow. As petitioners father was not in
the house, petitioner told Gardenio and Maria he would
call them the next day so that they could talk the matter
over with his father.
However, petitioner never called them. Hence, Narciso
Gabriel reported6 the matter to the police of Malitbog,
Southern Leyte. As a result, Narciso and petitioner
Exuperancio were called to an investigation. Petitioner
admitted taking the cow but claimed that it was his and
that it was lost on December 3, 1985. He presented two
certificates of ownership, one dated March 17, 1986 and
another 7dated February 27, 1985, to support his claim
(Exh. B).
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. On the
reverse side of the

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353
4 TSN (Erlinda Monter), p. 4, Oct. 23, 1990; TSN (Generoso Cabonce),
p. 5, Feb. 1, 1989; TSN (Generoso Cabonce), pp. 45, April 4, 1989; TSN
(Maria Tura), p. 7, Jan. 3, 1990; TSN (Gardenio Agapay), p. 7, Oct. 15,
1987; TSN (Narciso Gabriel), p. 7, July 9, 1991.
5 TSN (Gardenio Agapay), p. 10, Nov. 25, 1987; TSN (Gardenio
Agapay), pp. 35, Oct. 15, 1987.
6 TSN (Narciso Gabriel), p. 18, July 9, 1991.
7 TSN (Narciso Gabriel), pp. 34, July 10, 1991; Bill of Exhibits, p. 1.

253

VOL. 353, FEBRUARY 28, 2001 253

Canta vs. People

certificate is the drawing of a cow with cowlicks in the

middle of the forehead, between the ears, on the right and
left back, and at 8the base of the forelegs and hindlegs
(Exhs. C, C1 to 4). All four caretakers of the cow identified
the cow as the same one they had taken care of, based on
the location of its cowlicks, its sex, and its color. Gardenio
described the cow as black in color, with a small portion of
its abdomen containing a brownish cowlick, a cowlick in the
middle of the forehead, another at the back portion
between the two ears, and four cowlicks9
located near the
base of its forelegs and the hindlegs.
On the other hand, petitioner claimed he acquired the
animal under an agreement which he had with Pat.
Diosdado Villanueva, that petitioner take care of a female
cow of Pat. Villanueva in consideration for which petitioner
would get a calf if the cow produced two offsprings.
Petitioner claimed that the cow in question was his share
and that it was born on December 5, 1984. This cow,
however, was lost on December 2, 1985. Petitioner said he
reported the loss to the police of Macrohon, Padre Burgos, 10
and Malitbog, on December 3, 1985 (Exh. A and Exh. I).
Petitioner said that on March 14, 1986, his uncle Meno
told him that he had seen the cow at Pilipogan, under the
care of Gardenio Agapay. He, therefore, went to Pilipogan
with the mother cow on March 14, 1986 to see whether the
cow would suckle the mother cow. As the cow did,
petitioner took it with him and brought it, together 11
with
the mother cow, to his father Florentino Canta. Maria
Tura tried to get the cow, but Florentino refused to give it
to her and instead told her to call Narciso 12
so that they
could determine the ownership of the cow. As Narciso did
not come the following day, although Maria did, Florentino
said he told his son to take the cow to the Municipal Hall of
Padre Burgos. Petitioner did
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

_______________

8 Id., pp. 67; Id., p. 3.

9 TSN (Gardenio Agapay), p. 7, Oct. 15, 1987.
10 TSN (Exuperancio Canta), pp. 68, Sept. 12, 1991; Bill of Exhibit, pp.
1, 11.
11 TSN (Exuperancio Canta), pp. 1011, 1823, Sept. 12, 1991; TSN
(Exuperancio Canta), p. 6, Nov. 6, 1991.
12 TSN (Florentino Canta), pp. 68, Nov. 7, 1991.

254

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canta vs. People

as he was told. Three days later, Florentino and

Exuperancio 13were called to the police station for
investigation.
Petitioner presented a Certificate
14
of Ownership of Large
Cattle dated February 27, 1985 and a statement executed
by Franklin Telen, janitor at the treasurers office of the
municipality of Padre Burgos, to the effect that he issued a
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle in the name of
petitioner
15
Exuperancio Canta on February 27, 1985 (Exh.
5). The statement was executed at the preliminary
investigation
16
of the complaint filed by petitioner against
Narciso.
Petitioners Certificate of Ownership was, however,
denied by the municipal treasurer, who stated that
petitioner Exuperancio Canta had no Certificate of
Ownership of Large Cattle in 17
the municipality of Padre
Burgos (Exhs. E, El and 2). On the other hand, Telen
testified that he issued the Certificate of Ownership of
Large Cattle to petitioner on March 24, 1986 but, at the
instance 18of petitioner, he (Telen) antedated it to February
27, 1985.
On January 24, 1997, the trial court rendered its
decision finding petitioner guilty of the offense charged. In
giving credence to the evidence for the prosecution, the
trial court stated:

From the affidavits and testimonies of the complainant and his

witnesses, it is indubitable that it was accused Exuperancio
Canta who actually took the cow away without the knowledge and
consent of either the owner/raiser/caretaker Gardenio Agapay.
That the taking of the cow by the accused was done with
strategy and stealth considering that it was made at the time

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

when Gardenio Agapay was at his shelterhut forty (40) meters

away tethered to a coconut tree but separated by a hill.
The accused in his defense tried to justify his taking away of
the cow by claiming ownership. He, however, failed to prove such
ownership. Accused alleged that on February 27, 1985 he was
issued a Certificate of

_______________

13 Id., pp. 811.

14 Exh. J; Exh. 2.
15 Exh. J; Exh. 2.
16 TSN (Franklin Telen), p. 5, June 30, 1992.
17 TSN (Narciso Gabriel), pp. 89, July 10, 1991; Bill of Exhibits, p. 5.
18 TSN (Franklyn Telen), pp. 48, June 3, 1992.

255

VOL. 353, FEBRUARY 28, 2001 255

Canta vs. People

Ownership of Large Cattle (Exh. 2A) for his cow by Franklin

Telen, a janitor at the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Padre
Burgos, a neighboring town. On rebuttal Franklin Telen denied in
Court the testimony of the accused and even categorically
declared that it was only on March 24, 1986 that the accused
brought the cow to the Municipal Hall of Padre Burgos, when he
issued a Certificate of Ownership of Large* Cattle for the cow,
and not on February 27, 1985. Franklin Telen testified thus:

Q. According to the defense, this Certificate of Ownership of

Large Cattle was issued by you on February 27, 1985. Is that
correct?
A. Based on the request of Exuperancio, I antedated this.
(TSN, June 3, 1992, p. 7)

The testimony of Franklin Telen was confirmed in open court

by no less than the Municipal Treasurer of Padre Burgos, Mr.
Feliciano Salva. (TSN, September 29, 1992, pp. 58).
If accused Exuperancio Canta were the owner of the cow in
question, why would he lie on its registration? And why would he
have to ask Mr. Franklin Telen to antedate its registry? It is clear
that accused secured a Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle
(Exh. 2A) by feigning and manipulation (Exhs. A & B) only after
the act complained of in the instant case was committed on March
14, 1986. His claim of ownership upon which he justifies his
taking away of the cow has no leg to stand on. Upon the other
hand, the complainant has shown all the regular and necessary
19
proofs of ownership of the cow in question.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision and

denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, this
petition. It is contended that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt his criminal intent in taking the
disputed cow.
First Petitioner claims good faith and honest belief in
taking the cow. He cites the following circumstances to
prove his claim:

1. He brought the mother cow to Pilipogan to see if the

cow in question would suckle to the mother cow,
thus proving his ownership of it;
2. He compared the cowlicks of the subject cow to that
indicated in the Certificate of Ownership of Large
Cattle issued on February 27, 1985 in his name,
and found that they tally;

_______________

19 Decision, pp. 34; Rollo, pp. 2627.

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canta vs. People

3. He immediately turned over the cow to the

barangay captain, after taking it, and later to the
police authorities, after a dispute arose as to its
ownership; and
4. He filed a criminal complaint against Narciso
Gabriel for violation of P.D. No. 533.

These contentions are without merit.

P.D. No. 533, 2(c) defines cattlerustling as

. . . the taking away by any means, methods or scheme, without

the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of the abovementioned
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.

The crime is committed if the following elements concur: (1)

a large cattle is taken; (2) it 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; (5) the
taking is with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

is accomplished with or without violence

20
or intimidation
against person or force upon things.
These requisites are present in this case. First, there is
no question that the cow belongs to Narciso Gabriel.
Petitioners only defense is that in taking the animal he
acted in good faith and in the honest belief that it was the
cow which he had lost. Second, petitioner, without the
consent of the owner, took the cow from the custody of the
caretaker, Gardenio Agapay, despite the fact that he knew
all along that the latter was holding the animal for the
owner, Narciso. Third, petitioner falsified his Certificate of
Ownership of Large Cattle by asking Telen to antedate it
prior to the taking to make it appear that he owned the cow
in question. Fourth, petitioner adopted means, methods,
or schemes to deprive Narciso of his possession of his cow,
thus manifesting his intent to gain. Fifth, no violence or
intimidation against persons or force upon things attended
the commission of the crime.
Indeed, the evidence shows that the Certificate of
Ownership of Large Cattle which petitioner presented to
prove his ownership was falsified. Franklin Telen, the
janitor in the municipal treas

_______________

20 People v. Bago, G.R. No. 122290, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 115.

257

VOL. 353, FEBRUARY 28, 2001 257

Canta vs. People

urers office, admitted that he issued the certificate to

petitioner 10 days after Narcisos cow had been stolen.
Although Telen has previously executed a sworn statement
claiming that he issued the certificate on February 27,
1985, he later admitted that he antedated it at the instance
of petitioner Exuperancio21 Canta, his friend, who assured
him that the cow was his.
Telens testimony was corroborated by the certification
of the municipal treasurer of Padre Burgos that no
registration in the name of petitioner was recorded in the
municipal records. Thus, petitioners claim that the
cowlicks found on the cow tally with that indicated on the
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle has no value, as
this same certificate was issued after the cow had been
taken by petitioner from Gardenio Agapay. Obviously, he
had every opportunity to make sure that the drawings on
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

the certificate would tally with that existing on the cow in

question.
The fact that petitioner took the cow to the barangay
captain and later to the police authorities does not prove
his good faith. He had already committed the crime, and
the barangay captain to whom he delivered the cow after
taking it from its owner is his own father. While the
records show that he filed on April 30, 1986 a criminal
complaint against Narciso Gabriel, the complaint was
dismissed after it was shown that it was filed as a
countercharge to a complaint earlier filed on April 16, 1986
against him by Narciso Gabriel.
Petitioner says that he brought a mother cow to see if
the cow in question would suckle to the mother 22 cow. But
cows frequently attempt to suckle to alien cows. Hence,
the fact that the cow suckled to the mother cow brought by
petitioner is not conclusive proof that it was the offspring of
the mother cow.
Second. Petitioner contends that even assuming that his
Certificate of Ownership is not in order, it does not
necessarily follow that he did not believe in good faith that
the cow was his. If it

_______________

21 TSN (Franklin Telen), pp. 910, June 3, 1992.

22 Louise Lindegaard Weinrich. MODULE: DESIGN AND
MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIC LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS
<http//www.irs.aber. ac.uk/studente/RS33020/Weinrichcalfrearing.htm.
[5]>

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canta vs. People

turned out later that he was mistaken, he argues that he

committed only a mistake of fact but he is not criminally
liable.
Petitioners Certificate of Ownership is not only not in
order. It is fraudulent, having been antedated to make it
appear it had been issued to him before he allegedly took
the cow in question. That he obtained such fraudulent
certificate and made use of it negates his claim of good
faith and honest mistake. That he took the cow despite the
fact that he knew it was in the custody of its caretaker
23
cannot save him from the consequences of his act. As the
Solicitor General states in his Comment:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

If petitioner had been responsible and careful he would have first

verified the identity and/or ownership of the cow from either
Narciso Gabriel or Gardenio Agapay, who is petitioners cousin
(TSN, 9/12/91, p. 26). Petitioner, however, did not do so despite
the opportunity and instead rushed to take the cow. Thus, even if
petitioner had committed a mistake of fact he is not exempted
24
from criminal liability due to his negligence.

In any event, petitioner was not justified in taking the cow

without the knowledge and permission of its owner. If he
thought it was the cow he had allegedly lost, he should
have resorted to the court for the settlement of his claim.
Art. 433 of the Civil Code provides that The true owner
must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the
property. What petitioner25
did in this case was to take the
law in his own hands. He surreptitiously took the cow
from the custody of the caretaker, Gardenio Agapay, which
act belies his claim of good faith.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the evidence
fully supports the finding of both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals that accusedappellant is guilty as
charged. There is therefore no reason to disturb their
findings.
However, the decision of the Court of Appeals should be
modified in two respects.

_______________

23 Rollo,p. 89.
24 Id., p. 90.
25 Manlapaz v. CA, 191 SCRA 795 (1990); De la Cruz v. Burgos, et al.,
28 SCRA 977 (1969).

259

VOL. 353, FEBRUARY 28, 2001 259

Canta vs. People

First, accusedappellant should be given the benefit of

mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender.
The circumstance of voluntary surrender has the following
elements: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested;
(2) the offender surrenders to a person in authority or26
to
the latters agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. In
the present case, petitioner Exuperancio Canta had not
actually been arrested. In fact, no complaint had yet been
filed against him when he surrendered the cow to the
authorities. It has been repeatedly held that for surrender

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

to be voluntary, there must be an intent to submit oneself

unconditionally to the authorities, showing an intention to
save the authorities the trouble27 and expense that his
search and capture would require. In petitioners case, he
voluntarily took the cow to the municipal hall of Padre
Burgos to place it unconditionally in the custody of the
authorities and thus saved them the trouble of having to
recover the cow from him. This circumstance can be
considered analogous to voluntary surrender and should be
considered in favor of petitioner.
Second, the trial court correctly found petitioner guilty
of violation of 2(c) of P.D. No. 533, otherwise known as the
AntiCattle 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 prescribed28 by the same.
However, as held in People v. Macatanda, P.D. No. 533 is
not a special law. The penalty for its violation is in terms of
the classification and duration of penalties prescribed in
the Revised Penal Code, thus indicating that the intent of
the lawmaker

_______________

26 People v. Rebamontan, 305 SCRA 609 (1999).

27 Id.; People v. Santillana, 308 SCRA 104 (1999).
28 109 SCRA 35 (1981).

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canta vs. People

was to amend the Revised Penal Code with respect to the

offense of theft of large cattle. In fact, 10 of the law
provides:

The provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of Act No. 3815, otherwise
known as the Revised Penal Code, as amended, pertinent
provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, all
laws, decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations which

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 353

are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified

accordingly.

There being one mitigating circumstance and no

aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime,
the penalty to be imposed in this case should be fixed in its
minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, in relation to Art. 64 of the Revised Penal Code,
petitioner should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty,
the minimum of which is within the range of the penalty
next lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional maximum to
prision mayor medium, and the maximum of which is
prision mayor in its maximum period.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED, with the modification that petitioner
Exuperancio Canta is hereby SENTENCED to suffer a
prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional maximum, as minimum, to ten (10) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena and De

Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Note.There is no voluntary surrender where the

accused was arrested by the police. (People vs. Realin, 301
SCRA 495 [1999])

o0o

261

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca7d67ed74cae08003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12