Theft

110. Of theft in general.—There is a considerable degree of difference in the severity with which theft is punished in different parts of Ifugao. The following is the general law with respect to the theft of articles of medium or slight value:

Kadangyang class: It is a general principle that true kadangyang do not steal. However, it sometimes occurs, especially in the Kiangan-Maggok area, that persons who have the right to claim this rank become needy. The rule for the punishment of members of this class is: The kadangyang must return the stolen thing, or, if it shall have been consumed, its equivalent in value, and must entirely surround it with like things of equivalent value. This rule merely amounts to the paying of five times the value of the stolen thing. He must also pay a fee to the go-between.

Middle class: A thief of this class must return the stolen thing and ulpitan it, i.e., place a like thing, or an equivalent value, on either side of it. He must also pay a liwa fee to the go-between of the case.

Very poor: A thief of this class must repay the stolen article or its equivalent value, tokopna, and pay a fee to the go-between in the case.

In the case of the theft of heirlooms of great value, such as rice-wine jars, or gansas, the thief must repay, besides the stolen articles, their tokop, or equal, and in addition must furnish a certain number of pigs or other articles of medium value. The following shows how the Ifugao visualizes a payment of this sort.

Theft should not be confused with improper or illegal confiscation. This latter is commonly effected by members of the kadangyang class. It is punished in much the same way as theft, but is not so disgraceful.

A thief discovered in delicto is likely to be punished by death if the thief be of a different district. If not punished by death, the culprit is caught and tied and kept prisoner until his kin in the other district pay the fine demanded. This fine, needless to say, is somewhat larger than would ordinarily be assessed for the crime. If a member of the home district be caught in an unaccomplished theft, the case is not altered in any way from an ordinary, consummated theft.

111. Theft of rice from a granary.—The theft of rice is considerably more serious than would be theft of any other article of equal value, because it ruins the miraculous increase of the rice that the Ifugao as well as all other Malay tribes in these islands so thoroughly believe in. If the thief confesses and shows himself docile, he may wipe out his guilt with the following payment:

If, however, the accused persistently deny his guilt, he is challenged to an ordeal. If by this he is proven guilty, he is fined one bakid or one “ten”—in Kiangan about thirty pesos—in addition to the payment above. If he refuse to submit to the ordeal, he is adjudged guilty, and has to make the same payments as if he had submitted to the ordeal and had been adjudged guilty. The fee of the monkalun is included in, and is not additional to, the bakid in this case.

112. Theft of unharvested rice.—In a case of this sort, the amount of rice stolen can be determined by estimating it from the number of headless stalks. The punishment is:

113. Illegal confiscation.—What the Ifugao recognizes as legal confiscation is treated below under Procedure, sections 134 to 138. The following is a case of illegal confiscation in the district of Banaue.

A owes B a debt, which he persistently refuses to pay. Both men are of the Kadangyang class. B is somewhat afraid of A, or for some reason cannot or does not dare collect the debt according to the ordinary mode of procedure. He accordingly runs away with a valuable rice-wine jar belonging to A, leaving nothing behind to show who took it.

B finds out who ran away with his jar. He pays the debt he owes B, if it be truly owed, and demands the following from him for his improper procedure:

The return of the stolen jar.

Another one like it, or an equivalent of some sort.

A gong as a dalag (fine for illegal confiscation).

A large pig for a honga (general welfare feast).

A kettle worth five pesos called habale (pegs on which house charms are hung).

4 yards of brass wire. This payment is called nundopa, referring to the jumping down of the culprit when he carried off the jar.

Death blanket with which to carry jar home.

If B, when he ran away with the jar, had left behind his scabbard or bolo or some other of his belongings to show his identity, the above would have been a case of legal confiscation, and not punishable.

Illegal confiscation lacks the elements of disgrace that theft carries with it, and, in the mind of the confiscator and his relatives at least, is justifiable. It may be that it is for this very reason that this crime is punished more severely than ordinary theft.