1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs.

Appellant pleaded "not guilty" during his arraignment and after

JEFFREY MACARANAS y FERNANDEZ, Accused- the pre-trial ended, the trial ensued.
Appellant G.R. No. 226846
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Jacqueline
PERALTA, J.: Langaman, Kathlyn Irish Mae Cervantes, Dr. Gene Patrick De
Leon and SPO 1 Hernan Roble Berciles, Jr.
For consideration of this Court is the appeal of the
Decision 1 dated October 29, 2015 of the Court of Appellant, on the other hand, testified in his defense and denied
Appeals (CA) dismissing appellant Jeffrey Macaranas y the charges against him claiming that on February 18, 2007, he
Fernandez's appeal and affirming with modification the fetched his cousin Richard Lalata before proceeding to his father
Judgment2 dated August 22, 2012 of the Regional Trial Eming Macaranas' house at Brgy. Lawa, where they usually eat
Court (RTC), Branch 79, Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. and sleep. According to him, they left early in the morning of the
38-M-2008, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of following day' and just slept the whole day at their house in
violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539, otherwise known as Brgy. Daungan. Thereafter, sometime in June, 2007, barangay
the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. officials arrested him and claimed that they beat and mauled
him in order to admit that he killed Frank, and under coercion,
The facts follow. he pointed to his cousin Richard Lalata as the perpetrator.

Frank Karim Langaman and his girlfriend Kathlyn Irish Mae The RTC, in its decision, found appellant guilty beyond
Cervantes were at Meyland Village, Meycauayan, Bulacan, in the reasonable doubt of the offense charged and disposed the case,
evening of February 18, 2007, aboard Frank's motorcycle, a as follows:
green Honda Wave 125 with Plate No. NQ 8724, registered
under the name of Jacqueline Corpuz Langaman. When they WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds
were about to leave the place, two (2) men, both wearing jackets accused Jeffrey Macaranas, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
and bonnets suddenly approached them, followed by a third [of] the crime of Carnapping.
man who was earlier standing at a post. One of the three men
held Frank by the neck and shot Frank causing the latter to fall Accordingly, accused Jeffrey Macaranas is hereby SENTENCED:
down. The same man pointed his gun at Kathlyn and demanded
that she give him her cellphone. After Kathlyn gave her
cellphone, the same man hit her on the back. Thereafter, Kathlyn (a) To suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua;
pretended to be unconscious and saw that the men searched the
body of Frank for any valuables. While the incident was taking (b) To indemnify the private complainant Jacqueline Langaman
place, the second man took Frank's motorcycle, while the third Corpuz the amount of Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the
man, herein appellant, just stood to guard them and acted as the death of Frank Karim Corpuz Langaman;
look-out. Afterwards, the three men left together riding Frank's
motorcycle. It was then that Kathlyn was able to seek help and (c) To pay the private complainant Jacqueline Langaman the
Frank was taken to the hospital. amount of PhpS0,000.00 as temperate damages;

According to Dr. Gene Patrick De Leon, Frank sustained a (d) To restore to the offended party, Jacqueline Langaman, the
gunshot injury traversing the neck area which necessitated subject motorcycle or in default thereof, to indemnify said
surgery. Eventually, Frank died on the 27th post-operative day offended party in the sum of Php25,000.00; and
or on March 30, 2007. The cause of Frank's death was
"cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to the spinal cord injury
with retained metallic foreign body secondary conjunction (e) To pay the costs of the suit.
injury status post the surgery done which is laminectomy
infusion with rods and screws," as shown in the Post-Mortem The case against accused Richard Lalata who remained at large
Certificate. since the filing of the Information is ordered ARCHIVED to be
revived upon his apprehension. Issue an alias warrant of arrest
Thus, an Information was filed against appellant, Richard Lalata for the arrest of accused Lalata. SO ORDERED.3
and a certain John Doe charging them of violation of R.A. No.
6539, which reads as follows: On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with
modification, thus:
That on or about the 18th day of February, 2007, in the City of
Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, is DENIED. Accordingly, the Judgment of the Regional Trial
armed with gun, by means of violence and intimidation, with Court, Branch79, Malolos, Bulacan, dated 22 August 2012 is
intent of gain and without the consent of the owner, conspiring, hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED to read as follows:
confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry Accordingly, accused Jeffrey Macaranas is hereby SENTENCED:
away with them one Honda Wave 125 motorcycle with Plate No.
NQ 8724 valued at ₱59,000.00 belonging to Jacqueline Corpuz
[Langaman], to her damage and prejudice in the aforesaid (a) To suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua;
amount of ₱59,000.00, and by reason or on the occasion of the
commission of the said carnapping act, the said accused in (b) To indemnify the private complainant Jacqueline Langaman
furtherance of their conspiracy and with intent to kill did then [y] Corpuz the amount of seventy-five thousand
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and (Php75,000.00) pesos as civil indemnity forthe death of Frank
shoot Frank Karim Langaman with the gun they were then Karim Corpuz Langaman;
provided, hitting the latter on his neck which caused his death.

SPL – FULL TEXT CASES

RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
(c) To pay the private complainant Jacqueline Langaman the carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the victim, and
amount of fifty thousand (Php50,000.00)pesos as moral more importantly, it must show that the original criminal design
damages; of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing was
perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or
(d) To pay the private complainant Jacqueline Langaman the on theoccasion thereof" Consequently, where the elements of
amount of thirty thousand (Php30,000.00)pesos as carnapping are notproved, the provisions of the Anti-
exemplary damages; Carnapping Act would cease to be applicable and the homicide
or murder (if proven) would be punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.6
(e) To pay the private complainant Jacqueline Langaman the
amount of twenty-five thousand(Php25,000.00) pesos as
temperate damages in lieu of actual damages; "There is no arguing that the anti-camapping law is a special law,
different from the crime of robbery and theft included in the
Revised Penal Code. It particularly addresses the taking, with
(f) To restore to the offended party, Jacqueline Langaman, the intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without
subject motorcycle or in default thereof, to indemnify said the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or
offended party in the sum of Php25,000.00; and intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. But a
careful comparison of this special law with the crimes of robbery
(g) To pay the costs of the suit. and theft readily reveals their common features and
characteristics, to wit: unlawful taking, intent to gain, and that
The damages awarded shall earn interest at six percent personal property belonging to another is taken without the
(6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully latter's consent. However, the anti-carnapping law particularly
satisfied. deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Hence a
motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been
taken, with intent to gain, without the owner's consent, whether
The case against accused Richard Lalata who remained at large the taking was done with or without the use of force upon things.
since the filing of the Information is ordered ARCHIVED to be Without the anti-carnapping law, such unlawful taking of a
revived upon his apprehension. Issue an alias warrant of arrest motor vehicle would fall within the purview of either theft or
for the arrest of accused Lalata. SO ORDERED. robbery which was certainly the case before the enactment of
said statute."7
Hence, the present appeal.
So, essentially, carnapping is the robbery or theft of a motorized
Appellant insists that the trial court and the CA committed an vehicle and it becomes qualified or aggravated when, in the
error in giving full credence to the testimony of the lone witness course of the commission or on the occasion of the carnapping,
and in rejecting his defense of denial and alibi. the owner, driver or occupant is killed or raped. 8 As we have
ruled in People v. Mejia: 9
R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended,
defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor The killing or the rape merely qualifies the crime of carnapping
vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by x x x and no distinction must be made between homicide and
means of violence against or intimidation against persons, or by murder. Whether it is one or the other which is committed "in
using force upon things. 5 By the amendment in Section 20 of the course of carnapping or on the occasion thereof' makes no
R.A. No. 7659, Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act now reads: difference insofar as the penalty is concerned.

SEC. 14. Penally for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty It is similar to the special complex crime of robbery with
of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section two of this Act, homicide and in People v. Bariquit, 10 it was ruled that:
shall, irrespective of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be
punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and In the present case, the accused-appellants were charged with,
eight months and not more than seventeen years and four tried, and convicted for the crime of robbery with homicide. In
months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or our jurisdiction, this special complex crime is primarily
intimidation of persons, or force upon things, and by classified as a crime against property and not against persons,
imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four homicide being a mere incident of the robbery with the latter
months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is being the main purpose and object of the criminal.
committed by means of violence or intimidation of any person,
or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the Under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, treachery is
carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the applicable only to crimes against persons. Accordingly,
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion inasmuch as robbery with homicide is a crime against property
thereof (Emphasis supplied) and not against persons, cannot treachery be validly considered
in the present case.
Three amendments have been made to the original Section 14 of
the Anti-Carnapping Act: (1) the penalty of life imprisonment Thus, the elements of carnapping as defined and penalized
was changed to reclusion perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and under R.A. No. 6539, as amended are the following:
(3) the change of the phrase "in the commission of the
carnapping" to "in the course of thecommissionof the carnapping 1) That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
or on the occasion thereof" This thirdamendment clarifies the
law's intent to make the offense a special complex crime, by way 2) That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender
of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code himself;
on robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
Thus, under the last clause of Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping
Act, the prosecution has to prove the essential requisites of
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
3) That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; There was indeed a positive and unequivocal identification of
or that the taking was committed by means of violence against the accused. It has long been settled that where the witnesses of
or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and the prosecution were not actuated by ill motive, it is presumed
that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to
4) That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the full faith and credit. Herein, no imputation of improper motive
vehicle. 11 on the part of Kathlyn was ever made by the accused-appellant,
as the latter even testified he was without knowledge of any
grudge Kathlyn might have against him. Further,
Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. No. 6539, as relationship per se of Kathlyn with the victim does not
amended, the prosecution has to prove the essential requisites necessarily mean that her testimony is biased and/or fabricated.
of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the victim, and
more importantly, it must show that the original criminal design
of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing was Moreover, as correctly held by the People, through the OSG, any
perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping inconsistency, if at all, was already superseded by Kathlyn's
or on the occasion thereof." 12 In other words, to prove the positive identification of the accused-appellant in court. x x x
special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must
be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but Conspiracy was also proven in this case. Conspiracy exists when
also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need
carnapping or on the occasion thereof. 13 not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the
conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission
In this particular case, all the elements are present as the pieces of the crime, 18 which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted
of evidence presented by the prosecution show that there were action and concurrence of sentiments. 19 In conspiracy, the act
two (2) men both wearing jackets and bonnets, together with of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is present when one concurs
the appellant who approached the victim and the witness with the criminal design of another, indicated by the
Kathlyn and employed force and intimidation upon them and performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. It
thereafter forcibly took the victim's motorcycle and then shot may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
the victim on the neck causing his death. was perpetrated. 20 As the CA correctly ruled:

Appellant argues that the RTC, as well as the CA, erred in In the present case, conspiracy was evident from the
appreciating the testimony of the lone witness of the coordinated movements of the three accused. Accused-
prosecution because of its inconsistencies and the improbability appellant was seen standing by the post looking at Kathlyn and
of her imputations. the victim aboard the motorcycle. When his co-accused
approached the former, accused-appellant followed suit and
was standing guard nearby, while his companions committed
This Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of their criminal acts. After the victim fell down, and apparently
the testimony of the witness[es], considering its unique position thinking Kathlyn to be unconscious, the trio left together taking
in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the with them the victim's motorcycle. Clearly, the accused-
stand. 14 From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best appellant and company all acted in confabulation in furtherance
position to determine the truthfulness of witness[es]. 15 The of their common design and purpose, i.e., to carnal the
factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, motorcycle. As aptly held by the court a quo thus -
and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings
of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally
devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly From the acts of accused Jeffrey Macaranas, there was unity in
erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion. 16 his action with his co-accused and a concerted effort to commit
the crime charged. The simultaneous acts of Macaranas and his
two (2) companions indicate a joint purpose and concurrence of
The CA, therefore, did not err when it concurred with the RTC intentions on their part. x x x
on the following:
Anent appellant's defense of denial and alibi, this Court has
The testimony of Kathlyn satisfies the aforementioned test of consistently ruled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and
credibility. More importantly, during her time at the witness convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence,
stand, Kathlyn positively and categorically identified accused- which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater
appellant as one of the three (3) men who committed the crime. evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible witnesses
We agree with the court aquo's observation on this, thus - who testify on affirmative matters22 and that for the defense of
alibi to prosper, the accused must prove (a) that he was present
The testimony of the Prosecution witness Kathlyn Irish Mae at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and
Cervantes reveals that she came face to face with accused Jeffrey (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of
Macaranas. Though the other two (2) accused wore bonnet at the crime23 during its commission.24 In correctly ruling that the
the time of the shooting incident, she was able to identify defense of denial and alibi of appellant is inconsequential, the
accused Jeffrey Macaranas and narrate to the court his specific CA stated the following:
participation in the carnapping incident. She testified that
before the two (2) male persons approached her and Frank In the face of the serious accusation, accused-appellant merely
Karim, she saw accused Jeffrey Macaranas who was then interposed the defense of denial and alibi to prove his
standing beside a post, staring at them while they were moving innocence.1âwphi1 Time and again, this Court held that denial is
slowly on board the motorcycle. Again, she saw Jeffrey following an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon
the two male persons who approached her and Frank Karim. with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be
Jeffrey Macaranas was just a meter away from her because he concocted. Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the
was near the person holding the motorcycle. Jeffrey Macaranas in the light of positive identification of the accused-appellant, as
boarded the motorcycle together with his two (2) male in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only
companions immediately after the incident. when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the case here. Verily, Criminal Case No. MCOS-11421:
mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, For Violation of R.A. No. 6539
is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater
evidentiary weight than the testimony of the prosecution That on or about the 11th day of July 2007, in the City of
witness who testified on affirmative matters. The Court finds Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
inadequate the accused-appellant's defense of alibi absent any Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to gain,
credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, to without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did
exculpate him of the crime charged. 25 then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, ste[a]l
and carry away a motorcycle, Honda XRM with plate no. UU-
As to the imposable penalty under Section 14 of RA No. 6539, as 9142 amounting to P49,000.00 belonging to EMELINA GLORIA
amended, it is provided that: Y UMAL[I] without the latter's consent, to the damage and
prejudice of the latter in the aforementioned sum ofP49,000.00.
Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. - Any person who is found guilty CONTRARY TO LAW.
of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act, Criminal Case No. MCOS-11422:
shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be For Qualified Theft
punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and
eight months and not more than seventeen years and four That on or about the 11th day of July 2007, in the City of
months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or Mandaluyong, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then
imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four employed as a messenger of E. Gloria's Money Changer owned
months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is by Emelina Gloria y Umali, with grave abuse of confidence and
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any taking advantage of the trust reposed upon him, with intent to
person, or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion gain, without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof,
perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the steal and carry away cash money of various denominations
course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion P800,000.00, Yen 660,000.00, Pounds 50.00, Dirham 530.00,
thereof. Brunei Dollar 100.00 and Singapore Dollar 467.00 with an
aggregate amount of P1,077,995.00, to the damage and
Thus, the RTC did not commit an error in imposing the penalty prejudice of the complainant in the aforementioned amount of
of reclusion perpetua considering that there was no alleged and P1,077,995.00. CONTRARY TO LAW.4
proven aggravating circumstance. In line, however, with the
recent jurisprudence,26 in cases of special complex crimes like The criminal cases were temporarily archived, but were revived
carnapping with homicide, among others, where the imposable with the arrest of appellant in Zamboanga City on February 25,
penalty is reclusion perpetua, the amounts of civil indemnity, 2009.
moral damages, and exemplary damages are pegged at
₱75,000.00 each. The appellant is also ordered to pay Assisted by a counsel de oficio at his arraignment on August 19,
₱50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the award of 2009, appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" to both charges.
₱25,000.00 as actual damages to the private complainant.27 All
the other dispositions of the CA stays. In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented Emelina Gloria y
Umali (Emelina), proprietor of E. Gloria Money Changer where
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Jeffrey Macaranas y Fernandez appellant works as a messenger; and fmee Gerbon6 (Imee),
is DISMISSED. Consequently, the Decision dated October 29, domestic helper of Emelina. Among the documentary evidence
2015 of theCourt of Appeals is AFFIRMED with presented by the prosecution were (1) the list of currencies
the MODIFICATION that the appellant is ordered to indemnify Emelina entrusted to appellant that fateful day of July 11, 2007
the private complainant Jacqueline Langaman the amount of (Exhibit "F"7); and (2) Sales Invoice Retail No. 16607 (Exhibit
₱75,000.00 instead of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, "I"8), Official Receipt (Exhibit "J''9), and certification (Exhibit
₱75,000.00 instead of ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages and "K"10), all issued by Triumph JT Marketing Corporation, which
the amount of ₱50,000.00 instead of ₱25,000.00 as temperate show that the Honda XRM motorcycle with plate number UU-
damages in lieu of actual damages. SO ORDERED. 9142 was purchased by Emelina's husband.

2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- The defense presented appellant as its sole witness. He denied
Appellee, v. JULKIPLI ASAMUDDIN Y SALAPUDIN the charges against him.
A.K.A."JUL" AND "REY", Accused-Appellant. G.R. No.
213913, September 02, 2015 THE FACTS

Emelina hired appellant as messenger in E. Gloria Money

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Changer, Mandaluyong City, sometime in 2006, with the main
function of delivering local or foreign currencies to clients or
On appeal is the Decision1 dated May 22, 2014 of the Court of other money changers.11 Assigned to appellant to be used in the
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05870, which affirmed with performance of his work is a blue Honda XRM motorcycle with
modification the Decision2 dated October 15, 2012 of the plate number UU-9142.
Regional Trial Comt (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212, in
the consolidated Criminal Case Nos. MC08-11421 and MC08- At 12:30 in the afternoon of July 11, 2007, Emelina handed to
11422. appellant the cash amount of P800,000.00, and various foreign
denominations consisting of 66 pieces of lapad,13 50 pounds,
The consolidated cases for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 530 dirhams, 467 Singaporean dollars, and 100 Brunei
6539, the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, and dollars,14 with a peso value of P277,995.00.15 She instructed
Qualified Theft were filed on January 16, 2008 against accused appellant to bring the currencies to her friend Rina Rosalial, a
Julkipli Asamuddin y Salapudin (appellant). The accusatory money changer in Mabini, Manila.16 After receiving the monies
portions of the Informations alleged as follow:
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
from Emelina, appellant left aboard his service motorcycle on
his way to Manila. In the Decision dated May 22, 2014, the appellate court
dismissed the appeal but modified appellant's civil liability in
Imee, the domestic helper of Emelina, was then inside E. Gloria Criminal Case No. MC08-11422 by reducing the awarded actual
Money Changer, and saw Emelina hand to appellant currencies damages from P1,877,995.00 to P1,077,995.00.28 The appellate
of various denominations,18 and as appellant left his service court emphasized that the amount alleged in the Information for
motorcycle.19cralawrednad Qualified Theft, and established by Exhibit "F" was only
PI,077,995.00.
By 1:30 p.m. of the same day, Emelina received a call from Rina
Rosalial informing her that appellant has yet to arrive in her Appellant perfected his appeal to this Court with the timely filing
shop.20 Emelina's calls to the cellular phones of appellant and his of a Notice of Appeal on June 16, 2014.30 The Solicitor General
wife were at naught,21 prompting her to lodge a complaint and appellant separately manifested to adopt their respective
against appellant at the Philippine National Police, Criminal briefs filed before the CA as their supplemental briefs.
Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), Camp Crame.
The main issue for resolution is whether the CA correctly
In August 2007, the blue Honda XRM motorcycle with plate affirmed the conviction of the appellant for Qualified Theft and
number UU-9142 was found abandoned in Silang, Cavite, and Carnapping.
was returned to Emelina.
The Court rules in the affirmative and finds the appeal without
Appellant vehemently denied asporting currency totaling merit.
P1,077,995.00, and the subject motorcycle. He admitted
working as a Messenger/Runner at the E. Gloria Money Changer Appellant primarily assails the testimony of Emelina to be
starting October 2006 but he resigned from his job on July 10, inadequate to anchor his conviction for the crimes charged.
2007. Appellant asserted that the money he received from Branding Emelina's testimony to be self-serving,
Emelina on July 11, 2007 was his last salary for the period July 1 unsubstantiated, and uncorroborated by documentary and
to 10, 2007. His family's return to Zamboanga City on September credible testimonial evidence, appellant asserted that no
7, 2007 was due to the high cost of living in Metro Manila which credible proof was presented by the prosecution to establish
he could no longer afford. that he actually received from Emelina the subject peso and
foreign currencies and that he used and unlawfully took away
the service motorcycle.
Relying on the categorical and straightforward testimony of
Emelina, and rejecting the defense of denial advanced by
appellant, the RTC rendered a guilty verdict in both criminal When the credibility of the witness is in issue, the settled rule is
cases, thus: that the trial court's assessment thereof is accorded great
weight by appellate courts absent any showing that the trial
court overlooked certain matters which, if taken into
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the court finds
consideration, would have materially affected the outcome of
the accused JULKIPILI ASAMUDDIN Y SALAPUDIN
the case.32 And where the trial court's findings have been
@ ''Jul" and "Rey" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
affirmed by the CA, these are generally binding and conclusive
Violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of
upon this Court.33 The determination of the credibility of
1972)[,] as amended[,] and he is hereby sentenced to an
witnesses is best left to the trial court judge because of his
indeterminate imprisonment of fourteen (14) years and eight
untrammeled opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of
(8) months, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
a witness on the stand and, thus, to determine whether he or she
months, as maximum. Likewise[,] the court finds JULKIPLI
is telling the truth.34 After a circumspect scrutiny of the records
ASAMUDDIN Y SALAPUDIN @ "Jul" @ "Rey" GUILTY beyond
of the case, we find no reason to modify, alter or reverse the
reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft and he is hereby sentenced
factual finding of the lower court and affirmed by the CA that in
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua but with all the
the afternoon of July 11, 2007, appellant received money from
accessories of the penalty imposed under Article 40 of the
Emelina; used his service motorcycle; and disappeared with the
Revised Penal Code. Accused is also condemned to pay the
money and the motorcycle.
offended party, EMELINA GLORIA Y UMALI[,] the sum of
Php1,877,995.00, as actual damages representing the total
amount of the money entrusted to him by the said offended Moreover, appellant failed to establish the alleged ill-motive of
party. Emelina in implicating him in the present case. No evidence was
presented to show that the business of Emelina incurred losses
Further, let a Commitment Order be issued for the transfer of that needed to be concealed from her business partners. Absent
accused JULKlPLI ASAMUDDIN Y any improper motive to falsely testify against the appellant,
SALAPUDIN @ "Jul" @ "Rey" from Mandaluyong City Jail to the Emelina's declarations are worthy of full faith and credence.35 In
Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City. SO ORDERED. like manner, Imee's employment as the domestic servant of
Emelina is not a ground to disregard her testimony. Relationship
alone is not enough reason to discredit and label Imee's
On November 6, 2012, appellant timely tiled his Notice of testimony as biased and unworthy of credence. It is settled that
Appeal. The consolidated cases were subsequently elevated to the witness' relationship to the victim does not automatically
the CA, and was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05870. Before affect the veracity of his or her testimony.
the CA, appellant ascribed to the RTC the following errors:
We now resolve the criminal liability of the appellant for the
I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING unlawful taking of the service motorcycle, and the peso and
[APPELLANT'S] TESTIMONY. foreign currencies amounting to a total of P1,077,995.00.

II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING I. Criminal Case No. MCOS-11421 (For Violation of R.A. No.
[APPELLANT] OF QUALIFIED THEFT AND CARNAPPING 6539)
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS
FAVOR.27
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
The elements of Carnapping as defined under Section 2 of R.A. For the successful prosecution for Qualified Theft committed
No. 6539, as amended, are: with grave abuse of confidence, the prosecution must establish
beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) taking of
(1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; personal property; (2) that the said property belongs to another;
(3) that the said taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that it be
(2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means done without the owner's consent; (5) that it be accomplished
of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor
upon things; and of force upon things; and (6) that it be done with grave abuse of
confidence.
(3) the taking is done with intent to gain.
All these elements are present in the instant case. Emelina
All these elements were established by the prosecution beyond positively and credibly testified that she entrusted to appellant
reasonable doubt. the amount of P800,000.00 and foreign currencies valued at
P277,995.00. Instead of delivering the money to the designated
money changer as directed by Emelina, appellant breached the
Exhibits "I"38 "J"39 and "K",40 proved that the blue Honda XRM
trust reposed in him and disappeared with the cash bills.
motorcycle with plate number UU-9142 used as a service
vehicle by appellant was acquired from Triumph JT Marketing
We agree with the RTC and the CA that a fiduciary relationship
Corporation by Manolito, Emelina's spouse, establishing
between appellant and Emelina, his employer, existed contrary
the first element.
to the assertion of appellant.
It is the second element that the appellant claimed was not
proven because the prosecution's evidence failed to show that In Candelaria v. People,52 petitioner Candelaria was the driver of
he took the motorcycle without the consent of Emelina. Indeed, the truck loaded with liters of diesel fuel for delivery to a
Emelina herself tasked the appellant to proceed to Mabini, customer. Instead of delivering the fuel, petitioner Candelaria
Manila, and permitted him to use the service motorcycle. disappeared together with the truck and its cargo. With the
recovery of the truck, petitioner Candelaria was convicted of
Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor Qualified Theft for the lost fuel.
vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force Here, the function of the appellant as a messenger of the E. Gloria
upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the Money Changer is to deliver amounts of money, both peso and
offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no foreign currency, to the clients or to exchange the currency with
opportunity to dispose of the same.41 In Roque v. People,42 the another money changer. Emelina routinely entrusts to
Court ruled that qualified theft may be committed even when appellant, on a daily basis, various amounts of money from
the personal property is in the lawful possession of the accused P50,000.00 to P500,000.0053 without requiring the latter to
prior to the commission of the felony. The concept of unlawful acknowledge receipt thereof. Emelina testified that she does not
taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same,43the have proof that he handed to appellant P800,000.00 and various
holding in Roque v. People44 equally applies to carnapping. foreign currency on July 11, 2007 because of her total trust and
Henee, in People v. Bustinera,45 appellant, who was hired as taxi high degree of confidence on appellant ("tiwalaan lang
driver, was found guilty of carnapping under R.A. No. 6539 after po").54 This exhibited the trust and confidence of Emelina to the
he failed to return the Daewoo Racer taxi assigned to him by the appellant which he exploited to enrich himself to the damage
cab company where he was employed. and prejudice of the former.

In the present case, the Solicitor General aptly argued that The straightforward and credible testimony55 of Emelina is
appellant's failure to return the motorcycle to Emelina after his adequate to establish the exact amount of money handed to
working hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.46 constitutes appellant. She could not have forgotten about the
"unlawful taking". Emelina lodged a complaint against appellant denominations given to appellant as the same is subject of her
with the PNP-CIDG for the loss of the service transaction with a money changer in Mabini, Manila, and she
motorcycle47 confirming that appellant's continued possession counted56 the same before handing it to appellant. Thus, the
thereof is without her authority. testimony of Emelina sufficiently proved beyond reasonable
doubt that she delivered to appellant monies valued in the total
The subsequent recovery of the stolen motorcycle will not amount of P1,077,995.00.
preclude the presence of the third element. Actual gain is
irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain APPELLANT'S DEFENSE
or animus lucrandi.48 Intent to gain is an internal act presumed
from the unlawful taking49 of the motor vehicle which the The lame defense of denial is all that appellant could offer
appellant failed to overcome with evidence to the contrary. against the prosecution evidence. Denial is a negative and self-
Verily, the mere use of the thing unlawfully taken constitutes serving evidence that requires to be substantiated by clear and
gain. convincing evidence of nonculpability to merit
credibility.57 Otherwise, it will not overcome the testimony of
Appellant is thus guilty of the crime of carnapping under R.A. No. the prosecution witness/es who testified on affirmative
6539. matters.58 Except for the testimonial assertion of appellant in
the present case, no credible corroborating evidence was
II. Criminal Case No. MCOS-11422 (For Qualified Theft) presented by the defense to bolster his denial. Emelina's
positive assertions that she handed to appellant the money to be
Appellant asserted that he cannot be convicted of Qualified delivered to a money changer in Mabini, Manila, and that he did
Theft because his employment as messenger did not create a not return the service motorcycle, prevail over the denial of the
fiduciary relationship that will qualify the crime of theft. He also appellant. Appellant's admission59 that he was at E. Gloria
insisted that Exhibit "F" is self-serving and is incompetent to Money Changer shop in the morning of July 11, 2007 further
establish the amount of money handed to him by Emelina. served to bolster the testimony of Emelina.

SPL – FULL TEXT CASES

RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
In the face of the overwhelming and positive evidence against 3. G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016
the appellant, even if his return to Zamboanga City is
disregarded as an indication of his guilty conscience, his PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee,
conviction should still be sustained. Unfortunately for appellant, v. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX BAUTISTA, AND RICKY
there is no case law holding non-flight as an indication or as BAUTISTA, Accused.
conclusive proof of innocence.60cralawrednad
PEREZ, J.:
THE PENALTIES
Before us for review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly imposed in Criminal
in C.A. G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04812 dated 19 November 2012 which
Case No. MCOS-11421 (for carnapping) the penalty of 14 years
dismissed the appeal of accused-appellant Fabian Urzais y
and 8 months, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months, as
Lanurias and affirmed with modification the Judgment2 of the
maximum, which is within the range of the imposable penalty
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City, Branch 27, in
under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539:
Criminal Case No. 13155 finding accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping with
SEC. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty homicide through the use of unlicensed firearm.
of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act,
shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be
punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years Accused-appellant, together with co-accused Alex Bautista and
and eight months and not more than seventeen years and Ricky Bautista, was charged with Violation of Republic Act (R.A.)
four months, when the carnapping is committed without No. 6539, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972,
violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things x x as amended by R.A. No. 7659, with homicide through the use of
x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) an unlicensed firearm. The accusatory portion of the
Information reads as follows:

Further, appellant was correctly meted the penalty of reclusion

That on or about the 13th day of November, 2002, or prior
perpetua for Qualified Theft in Criminal Case No. MCOS-
thereto, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines
11422. Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring, confederating with and abetting one
ART. 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and
punished by: intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium feloniously take, steal and carry away, a Isuzu Highlander car,
periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos colored Forest Green, with Plate No. UUT-838 of one MARIO
but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing MAGDATO, valued at FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the (P500,000.00) Philippine Currency, owned by and belonging to
maximum period of the one. prescribed in this paragraph, and said MARIO MAGDATO, against his will and consent and to his
one year tor each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of damage and prejudice in the aforestated amount of
the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty P500,000.00, and on the occasion of the carnapping, did assault
years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory and use personal violence upon the person of one MARIO
penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the MAGDATO, that is, by shooting the latter with an unlicensed
other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision firearm, a Norinco cal. 9mm Pistol with Serial No. 508432,
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. (Emphasis thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on the head which
supplied) caused his death.3ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The basic penalty when the value of the stolen item exceeded At his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The
P22,000.00 is the maximum period of the penalty of prision trial proceeded against him. His two co-accused remain at large.
mayor in its minimum and medium periods which is 8 years, 8
months and 1 day to 10 years of prision mayor. To determine the The prosecution presented as witnesses Shirley Magdato
additional years of imprisonment, the difference after deducting (Shirley), Senior Police Officer 2 Fernando Figueroa (SPO2
P22,000.00 shall be divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any Figueroa) and Dr. Jun Concepcion (Dr. Concepcion).
amount less than P10,000.00. The amount of cash stolen by
appellant is P1,077,995.00. Thus, 105 years61 shall be added to Shirley, the widow of the victim, testified mainly regarding her
the basic penalty. However, the penalty for Simple Theft cannot husband's disappearance and discovery of his death. She
go beyond 20 years of reclusion temporal, and such will be the narrated that her husband used to drive for hire their Isuzu
sentence of appellant if he committed Simple Theft. Highlander with plate number UUT-838 from Pulilan, Bulacan to
the LRT Terminal in Metro Manila. On 12 November 2002,
The penalty for Qualified Theft is two degrees higher under around four o'clock in the morning, her husband left their house
Article 31062 of the Revised Penal Code, thus appellant was in Pulilan and headed for the terminal at the Pulilan Public
correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua. However, appellant is Market to ply his usual route. When her husband did not return
disqualified under R.A. No. 9346,63 in relation to Resolution No. home that day, Shirley inquired of his whereabouts from his
24-4-1064 to avail the benefits of parole. friends to no avail. Shirley went to the terminal the following day
and the barker there told her that a person had hired their
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The appealed vehicle to go to Manila. Shirley then asked her neighbors to call
Decision dated May 22, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. her husband's mobile phone but no one answered. At around 10
CR-H.C. No. 05870 is AFFIRMED and UPHELD. With costs o'clock in the morning of 13 November 2002, her husband's co-
against the accused-appellant. SO ORDERED. members in the drivers' association arrived at their house and
thereafter accompanied Shirley to her husband's supposed
location. At the Sta.Rosa police station in Nueva Ecija, Shirley
was informed that her husband had passed away. She then took
her husband's body home.4 Shirley retrieved their vehicle on 21
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
November 2002 from the Cabanatuan City Police Station. She appellant also served as his computer technician. Angeles
then had it cleaned as it had blood stains and reeked of a foul testified that accused-appellant previously did not own any
odor.5 vehicle until the latter purchased the Isuzu Highlander for
P30,000.00 from the latter's friends in Bulacan. Angeles advised
SPO2 Figueroa of the Philippine National Police (PNP), accused-appellant that the vehicle might have been carnapped
Cabanatuan City, testified concerning the circumstances due to its very low selling price. Angeles corroborated accused-
surrounding accused-appellant's arrest. He stated that in appellant's testimony that he did not want to surrender the car
November 2002, their office received a "flash alarm" from the at first as he wanted to recover his payment for it.11
Bulacan PNP about an alleged carnapped Isuzu Highlander in
forest green color. Thereafter, their office was informed that the On 18 October 2010, the RTC rendered judgment finding
subject vehicle had been seen in the AGL Subdivision, accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. The RTC
Cabanatuan City. Thus, a team conducted surveillance there and anchored its ruling on the disputable presumption that a person
a checkpoint had been set up outside its gate. Around three found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
o'clock in the afternoon of 20 November 2002, a vehicle that fit wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.12 It held
the description of the carnapped vehicle appeared. The officers that the elements of carnapping were proven by the prosecution
apprehended the vehicle and asked the driver, accused- beyond reasonable doubt through the recovery of the
appellant, who had been alone, to alight therefrom. When the purportedly carnapped vehicle from the accused-appellant's
officers noticed the accused-appellant's waist to be bulging of possession and by his continued possession thereof even after
something, he was ordered to raise his shirt and a gun was the lapse of one week from the commission of the crime.13 The
discovered tucked there. The officers confiscated the unlicensed dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
9mm Norinco, with magazine and twelve (12) live ammunitions.
The officers confirmed that the engine of the vehicle matched WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds
that of the victim's. Found inside the vehicle were two (2) plates accused Fabian Urzais alias Michael Tapayan y
with the marking "UUT-838" and a passport. Said vehicle Lanurias GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
contained traces of blood on the car seats at the back and on its carnapping as defined and penalized by Republic Act 6539
flooring. The officers detained accused-appellant and filed a case (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972) as amended by R.A. 7659 with
for illegal possession of firearm against him. The subject firearm homicide thru the use of unlicensed firearm. Accordingly, he is
was identified in open court.6 hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of forty (40) years
of reclusion perpetua.
Dr. Concepcion testified about the wounds the victim sustained
In the service of the sentence, accused shall be credited with the
and the cause of his death. He stated that the victim sustained
full time of his preventive detention if he agreed voluntarily and
one (1) gunshot wound in the head, the entrance of which is at
in writing to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed upon
the right temporal area exiting at the opposite side. The victim
convicted prisoners pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal
also had several abrasions on the right upper eyelid, the tip of
Code.
the nose and around the right eye. He also had blisters on his
cheek area which could have been caused by a lighted cigarette.7 Accused is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Mario
Magdato the sum of Php50,000.00 as death indemnity,
Accused-appellant testified in his defense and interposed the Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php672,000.00 as loss of
defense of denial. earning capacity.
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 December
Accused-appellant testified that he had ordered in October 2002 2010.15
from brothers Alex and Ricky Bautista, an owner-type jeepney
worth P60,000.00 for use in his business. The brothers, On 19 November 2012, the CA rendered the assailed judgment
however, allegedly delivered instead a green Isuzu Highlander affirming with modification the trial court's decision. The CA
around half past three o'clock in the afternoon of 13 November noted the absence of eyewitnesses to the crime yet ruled that
2002. The brothers told accused-appellant that his P60,000.00 sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented to prove
would serve as initial payment with the remaining accused-appellant's guilt, solely, accused-appellant's possession
undetermined amount to be paid a week after. Accused- of the allegedly carnapped vehicle.
appellant agreed to this, amazed that he had been given a new Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before this Court. In
vehicle at such low price. Accused-appellant then borrowed a Resolution16 dated 12 August 2013, accused-appellant and the
money from someone to pay the balance but the brothers never Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) were asked to file their
replied to his text messages. On 16 November 2002, his friend respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. Accused-
Oscar Angeles advised him to surrender the vehicle as it could appellant filed a Supplemental Brief17 while the OSG
be a "hot car." Accused-appellant was initially hesitant to this manifested18 that it adopts its Brief19 filed before the CA for the
idea as he wanted to recover the amount he had paid but he purpose of the instant appeal.
eventually decided to sell the vehicle. He removed its plate
number and placed a "for sale" sign at the back. On 18 November Before the Court, accused-appellant vehemently maintains that
2002, he allegedly decided to surrender the vehicle upon advice there is no direct evidence that he robbed and murdered the
by a certain Angie. But when he arrived home in the afternoon victim; and that the lower courts erred in convicting him based
of that day, he alleged that he was arrested by Alex Villareal, a on circumstantial evidence consisting only of the fact of his
member of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group possession of the allegedly carnapped vehicle. Accused-
(CIDG) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.8 Accused-appellant also appellant decries the appellate court's error in relying on the
testified that he found out in jail the owner of the vehicle and his disputable presumption created by law under Section 3 (j), Rule
unfortunate demise.9 On cross-examination, accused-appellant 131 of the Rules of Court to conclude that by virtue of his
admitted that his real name is "Michael Tapayan y Baguio" and possession of the vehicle, he is considered the author of both the
that he used the name Fabian Urzais to secure a second passport carnapping of the vehicle and the killing of its owner. Accused-
in 2001 to be able to return to Taiwan.10 appellant asserts that such presumption does not hold in the
case at bar.
The other defense witness, Oscar Angeles (Angeles), testified The Court agrees.
that he had known the accused-appellant as Michael Tapayan
when they became neighbors in the AGL subdivision. Accused-
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are
(2) things: 1. The fact of the crime, i.e. the presence of all the derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
elements of the crime for which the accused stands charged; and circumstances is as such as to produce a conviction beyond
(2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The reasonable doubt.23 Decided cases expound that the
Court finds the prosecution unable to prove both aspects, thus, circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute
it is left with no option but to acquit on reasonable doubt. an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others,
R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, as the guilty person. All the circumstances must be consistent
defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused
vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis
means of violence against or intimidation against persons, or by that he is innocent, and with every other rationale except that of
using force upon things.20 By the amendment in Section 20 of guilt.24
R.A. No. 7659, Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act now reads:
In the case at bar, notably there is only one circumstantial
SEC. 14. Penally for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty
evidence. And this sole circumstantial evidence of possession of
of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section two of this Act,
the vehicle does not lead to an inference exclusively consistent
shall, irrespective of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be
with guilt. Fundamentally, prosecution did not offer any iota of
punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and
evidence detailing the seizure of the vehicle, much less with
eight months and not more than seventeen years and four
accused-appellant's participation. In fact, there is even a
months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or
variance concerning how accused-appellant was discovered to
intimidation of persons, or force upon things, and by
be in possession of the vehicle. The prosecution's
imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four
uncorroborated evidence says accused-appellant was
months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is
apprehended while driving the vehicle at a checkpoint, although
committed by means of violence or intimidation of any person,
the vehicle did not bear any license plates, while the latter
or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
testified he was arrested at home. The following testimony of
death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the
prosecution witness SPO2 Figueroa on cross-examination raises
carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the
even more questions:
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.
(Emphasis supplied)
Xxxx
Three amendments have been made to the original Section 14 of
the Anti-Carnapping Act: (1) the penalty of life imprisonment Considering the dearth of evidence, the subject vehicle is at best
was changed to reclusion perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and classified as "missing" since the non-return of the victim and his
(3) the change of the phrase "in the commission of the vehicle on 12 November 2002. Why the check-point had begun
carnapping" to "in the course of the commission of the carnapping before then, as early 3 November 2002, as stated by the
or on the occasion thereof." This third amendment clarifies the prosecution witness raises doubts about the prosecution's
law's intent to make the offense a special complex crime, by way version of the case. Perhaps, the check-point had been set up for
of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code another vehicle which had gone missing earlier. In any event,
on robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. accused-appellant's crime, if at all, was being in possession of a
Thus, under the last clause of Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping missing vehicle whose owner had been found dead. There is
Act, the prosecution has to prove the essential requisites of perhaps guilt in the acquisition of the vehicle priced so
carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the victim, and suspiciously below standard. But how this alone should lead to
more importantly, it must show that the original criminal design a conviction for the special complex crime of carnapping with
of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing was homicide/murder, affirmed by the appellate court is downright
perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or disturbing.
on the occasion thereof." Consequently, where the elements of
carnapping are not proved, the provisions of the Anti- The application of disputable presumption found in Section 3 (j),
Carnapping Act would cease to be applicable and the homicide Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that a person found in possession
or murder (if proven) would be punishable under the Revised of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker
Penal Code.21 and doer of the whole act, in this case the alleged carnapping and
the homicide/murder of its owner, is limited to cases where
In the instant case, the Court finds the charge of carnapping such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered
unsubstantiated for failure of the prosecution to prove all its explanation is rendered implausible in view of independent
elements. For one, the trial court's decision itself makes no evidence inconsistent thereto.26 In the instant case, accused-
mention of any direct evidence indicating the guilt of accused- appellant set-up a defense of denial of the charges and adhered
appellant. Indeed, the CA confirmed the lack of such direct to his unrebutted version of the story that the vehicle had been
evidence.22 Both lower courts solely based accused-appellant's sold to him by the brothers Alex and Ricky Bautista. Though the
conviction of the special complex crime on one circumstantial explanation is not seamless, once the explanation is made for the
evidence and that is, the fact of his possession of the allegedly possession, the presumption arising from the unexplained
carnapped vehicle. possession may not anymore be invoked and the burden shifts
once more to the prosecution to produce evidence that would
The Court notes that the prosecution's evidence only consists of render the defense of the accused improbable. And this burden,
the fact of the victim's disappearance, the discovery of his death the prosecution was unable to discharge. In contrast to
and the details surrounding accused-appellant's arrest on prosecution witness SPO2 Figueroa's confused, apprehensive
rumors that the vehicle he possessed had been carnapped. and uncorroborated testimony accused-appellant unflinchingly
Theres is absolutely no evidence supporting the prosecution's testified as follows:
theory that the victim's vehicle had been carnapped, much less
that the accused-appellant is the author of the same. Xxxx

Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence that an accused may Significantly, accused-appellant's testimony was corroborated
be convicted, but for circumstantial evidence to sustain a by defense witness Angeles who had known accused-appellant
conviction, following are the guidelines: (1) there is more than
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
by his real name "Michael Tapayan y Baguio," to wit: In the final analysis, the circumstances narrated by the
prosecution engender doubt rather than moral certainty on the
Xxxx guilt of accused-appellant.

Evidently, the disputable presumption cannot prevail over WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court
accused-appellant's explanation for his possession of the of Appeals dated 19 November 2012 in C.A. G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
missing vehicle. The possession having been explained, the legal 04812 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. FABIAN URZAIS Y
presumption is disputed and thus, cannot find application in the LANURIAS alias Michael Tapayan y Baguio is ACQUITTED on
instant case. To hold otherwise would be a miscarriage of justice reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping with homicide,
as criminal convictions necessarily require proof of guilt of the without prejudice to investigation for the crime of fencing
crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of penalized under Presidential Decree 1612. His immediate
such proof, should not be solely based on legal disputable release from confinement is hereby ordered, unless he is being
presumptions. held for some other lawful cause. SO ORDERED.

The carnapping not being duly proved, the killing of the victim
may not be treated as an incident of carnapping. Nonetheless, 4. G.R. No. 232624, July 09, 2018
even under the provisions of homicide and murder under the
Revised Penal Code, the Court finds the guilt of accused-
appellant was not established beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO
CARIÑO Y GOCONG AND ALVIN AQUINO Y RAGAM
There were no eyewitnesses to the killing of the victim, Mario
Magdato. Again, both courts relied only on the circumstantial This treats of the Notice of Appeal1 under Rule 124 of the Rules
evidence of accused-appellant's possession of the missing of Criminal Procedure filed by Renato Cariño y Gocong (Cariño),
vehicle for the latter's conviction. Shirley, the widow, testified and Alvin Aquino y Ragam (Aquino) (collectively referred as
that her husband and their vehicle went missing on 12 accused-appellants), seeking the reversal of the Decision2 dated
November 2002. Dr. Concepcion gave testimony on the cause of September 14, 2016, rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in
death of Mario Magdato and the injuries he had sustained. Most CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06217, convicting them of Robbery with
glaringly, no connection had been established between the Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
victim's gunshot wound which caused his death and the firearm and Carnapping under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539,3 as
found in the person of accused-appellant. Only SPO2 Figueroa's amended.
testimony gave light on how allegedly accused-appellant was
found to have been in possession of the missing vehicle of the The Antecedents
victim. But even if this uncorroborated testimony was true, it An Information was filed against the accused-appellants,
does not link accused-appellant to the carnapping, much less, charging them with Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of
the murder or homicide of the victim. And it does not preclude the RPC, committed as follows:
the probability of accused-appellant's story that he had merely
bought the vehicle from the Bautista brothers who have
That on or about the 29th day of August, 2002, in Quezon City,
themselves since gone missing.
Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping each other, with intent
The equipoise rule states that where the inculpatory facts and
of gain, by means of force, violence and/or intimidation against
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
person, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
rob one MIRKO MOELLER of the following personal items:
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil
the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
One (1) cellphone, wallet, small camera, video camera and VCD
conviction. The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence
player, and by reason and on the occasion of the said robbery,
in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional,
said accused pursuant to their conspiracy, with intent to kill,
presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the
attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of
accused.30
MIRKO MOELLER by then and there mauling him with the use of
a dumbbell, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal
The basis of the acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply
wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death,
means that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to
to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.
sustain the guilt of accused-appellant beyond the point of moral
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
certainty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, however, is a burden
particular to the prosecution and does not apply to exculpatory Another Information was also filed against the accused-
facts as may be raised by the defense; the accused is not required appellants for the crime of Carnapping as defined and penalized
to establish matters in mitigation or defense beyond a under R.A. No. 6539, as amended, committed as follows:
reasonable doubt, nor is he required to establish the truth of
such matters by a preponderance of the evidence, or even to a That on or about the 29th day of August, 2002, in Quezon City,
reasonable probability.31 Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping each other, with intent
It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side to gain and without knowledge and consent of the owner
with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only thereof, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
logical and inevitable conclusion. What is required of it is to take, steal and carry away one (1) Unit of Nissan Sentra with
justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty. Upon Plate No. PN-USD-666 colored silver/pink, of undetermined
the prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the amount belonging to MIRKO MOELLER, to the damage and
constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with prejudice of the said owner thereof. CONTRARY TO LAW.5
the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest
The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trial
of his life.32 The constitutional right to be presumed innocent
ensued thereafter.6
until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.33

SPL – FULL TEXT CASES

RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
Evidence of the Prosecution stopped in front of him. He was forced to board the said vehicle.
On August 28, 2002, Leonardo Advincula (Advincula) was While inside, he was handcuffed and shown a cartographic
driving an R&E Taxi with plate number TVH 298, and traversing sketch, and was asked if the image was familiar. He said that he
through East Avenue, Quezon City, when he was flagged down did know who the person in the sketch was. Suddenly, he was
by Cariño in front of the Social Security System building. Cariño hit on his right temple and on the back of his head. This caused
asked Advincula to take him to Ortigas. Upon arriving at Ortigas, him to pass out. When he regained consciousness, he found
Cariño asked Advincula to stop along the comer of Julia Vargas himself inside an unfamiliar small house, with his t-shirt bearing
and Meralco Avenue. While parked thereat, a silver Nissan blood stains. Thereafter, he was placed inside a van, where he
Sentra with plate number USD 666 arrived. Cariño alighted and was subjected to physical abuse. Later on, he was brought to
approached the Nissan Sentra. Upon returning to the taxi, Cariño Camp Karingal, where he was again physically abused by the
asked Advincula to follow the Nissan Sentra. After driving for a police officers. He was later on brought for inquest proceedings,
short distance, the Nissan Sentra entered Gate 1 of the where he learned that he was being charged with Robbery with
Corinthian Gardens Subdivision in Quezon City.7 Homicide.14

At around 10:39 p.m. of August 28, 2002, Jimmy Caporado In the same vein, Cariño claimed that on September 19, 2002,
(Caporado), a security guard at the Corinthian Gardens between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m., a group of police officers suddenly
Subdivision was manning Gate 1 of the said subdivision. barged inside the house where he and his girlfriend were
Caporado noticed a Nissan Sentra with plate number USD 666, staying. He was arrested and brought to Isabela. He was
pass through Gate 1. Trailing behind the Nissan Sentra was an photographed while seated in a car, and was told that he stole
R&E taxi with plate number TVH 298. Upon passing through the the same. Then, he was brought to Camp Karingal where he was
gate, the driver of the Nissan Sentra, who Caporado recognized accused of killing a German national. Cariño denied knowing
as Mirko Moeller (Moeller), a resident of the said subdivision, Aquino.15
opened the car window to inform the former that the passenger
inside the taxi was his visitor. During this time, Caporado Ruling of the Trial Court
noticed that Moeller was with Aquino. Obeying Moeller's On April 29, 2013, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a
instructions, Caporado flagged down the taxi cab to take the Decision16 convicting the accused-appellants for the crimes of
driver's license, and then let the taxi pass.8 Caporado identified Robbery with Homicide, and Carnapping. The RTC concluded
the passenger of the taxi as Cariño, who he pointed to in open that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict
court.9 them. In particular, the RTC noted that the prosecution
witnesses confirmed that the accused-appellants were the last
Meanwhile, Advincula dropped off Cariño at No. 11 Young persons to be seen with the victim.17 Added to this, the RTC
Street, Corinthian Gardens Subdivision. Cariño alighted from the observed that the victim's stolen properties were recovered
taxi and asked Advincula to wait for his payment. Moeller, the from the accused-appellants.18 Also, when the police officer
victim, alighted from the Nissan Sentra and approached the taxi asked them about the stolen car, they were able to pinpoint its
to pay for Cariño's fare.10 Advincula drove away without a exact location.19 Finding these as sufficient proof of their guilt,
passenger. the RTC sentenced them to a penalty of reclusion perpetua for
the crime of robbery with homicide; and the maximum sentence
Subsequently, at around 7:30 a.m. of August 29, 2002, Nena Taro of life imprisonment for the carnapping, considering that
(Taro), the housemaid of Moeller arrived at the latter's home. Moeller, the owner of the vehicle, was killed on the occasion of
Taro noticed that the main gate and the door of the house were the carnapping.20
unlocked. Upon entering the house, she was surprised to see
dried blood on the wall beside the light switch. She walked to The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
the backdoor leading to the swimming pool to look for Moeller.
There, she was horrified to see him lying face down in front of WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-02-111947, judgment is
the swimming pool. Shocked by what she had seen, she rushed hereby rendered finding [the accused-appellants] guilty beyond
out of the house to ask for help. Moments later, the security reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, and imposing on
guards and the police arrived.11 said accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Months after the incident, on September 4, 2002, Senior Police The Court likewise adjudges [the accused-appellants] jointly
Officer 4 Celso Jeresano (SPO4 Jeresano), together with other and severally liable to pay the heirs of the victim Mirko
police officers, arrested the accused-appellants in Bagaquin, Moller,21 represented by Anthony Q. Paguio, the following
Baguio City. They were tipped off by an informant about the amounts:
whereabouts of the said accused-appellants. During the arrest,
the police recovered a camera, video camera, and charger from 1. P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto.
the accused-appellants. The police also tracked down the stolen 2. P75,000.00 as moral damages.
Nissan Sentra in Isabela, after Cariño pointed to its 3. P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
location.12 Cariño also surrendered the keys of the Nissan 4. 75,000.00 as temperate damages.
Sentra. 5. The costs of suit.

During the trial, Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez (Dr. Marquez), Medico- In Criminal Case No. Q-02-111948, judgment is also rendered
Legal Officer, testified that the victim's cause of death was finding [the accused-appellants] guilty beyond reasonable
intracranial hemorrhage, as a result of traumatic injuries in the doubt of carnapping, in violation of [R.A.] No. 6539, and
head.13 imposing on said accused the penalty of life imprisonment.

The accused shall be fully credited with their respective periods

Version of the Defense
of preventive detention, pursuant to Article 29 of the [RPC].
The accused-appellants vehemently denied the charges leveled
They shall henceforth be committed to the National Penitentiary
against them.
in Muntinlupa City to commence the service of their sentence.
SO ORDERED.22
Aquino claimed that on September 4, 2002, while he was waiting
for a jeepney bound for Manila, a tinted Tamaraw FX suddenly
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the accused-appellants filed an Aggrieved, the accused-appellants filed the instant Notice of
appeal with the CA. Appeal under Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The Issue
Ruling of the CA The main issue raised for the Court's resolution is whether or
On September 14, 2016, the CA rendered the assailed not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants
Decision,23 affirming the RTC's conviction against the accused- for the crimes of Robbery with Homicide, and Carnapping.
appellants for Robbery with Homicide, and Carnapping. Echoing
the trial court's findings, the CA affirmed that all the facts In a Manifestation33 dated January 25, 2018, the accused-
proven, and taken together, created an unbroken chain of appellants dispensed with the filing of their Supplemental Brief,
circumstances proving their guilt beyond reasonable and prayed that their respective Appellant's Brief filed before
doubt.24 The CA held that their defense of alibi was unavailing, the CA, be considered in lieu of their Supplemental Brief.
and faltered against the positive identification of the
prosecution witnesses.25 Likewise, the CA found that the results In support of their plea for exoneration, the accused-appellants
of the police investigation revealed that violence was employed assert that the trial court erroneously convicted them on the
against the victim, which resulted to the latter's death. Also, the basis of insufficient circumstantial evidence. They point out that
camera, video camera and charger, which all belonged to the none of the prosecution witnesses specifically identified them as
victim, were found in the possession of the accused-appellants the ones who actually robbed and killed the victim, and
when they were arrested in Baguio City.26 They were not able to carnapped the latter's vehicle.34 In fact, they stress that no less
explain the reason why they possessed the said items.27 Added than the trial court stated that no one witnessed the killing of
to this, they knew the location of the stolen the victim or the taking of the latter's properties.35 They harp on
vehicle.28 Consequently, the CA concluded that all these the fact that the absence of any eyewitness engenders doubt on
established circumstances show that the accused-appellants their culpability.36
conspired with each other to commit the crimes charged.29
Second, the accused-appellants claim that the trial court erred
As for the penalties, the CA affirmed the sentence of reclusion
in concluding that they took the stolen articles, simply because
perpetua for the charge of Robbery with Homicide, but modified
they were found in possession thereof. Added to this, they point
the amount of damages awarded by the RTC. Specifically, the CA
out that the ownership of the personal items was not even
deleted the award of exemplary damages finding that there
definitely determined.37
were no aggravating circumstances that attended the
commission of the crime. Also, the CA reduced the amount of
temperate damages to Php 50,000.00, to conform with recent Third, anent their conviction for carnapping, they aver that the
jurisprudence. prosecution failed to prove the presence of all the elements of
As for the crime of Carnapping, the CA found that the RTC erred the said crime. The trial court erred in concluding that the act of
in imposing the maximum penalty for the said crime. The CA changing the vehicle's plate number constitutes proof of intent
pointed out that the Information charging the accused- to gain.38 They posit that at most, the vehicle was merely used as
appellants of carnapping, failed to indicate that the victim was a means to escape.39 Also, they question how they could be
killed in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on convicted of carnapping with homicide, when the victim was
the occasion thereof. Neither was there an allegation that the already dead when the car was taken.40
carnapping was committed with violence or intimidation of
persons. The CA surmised that based on the attendant Finally, the accused-appellants bewail that there was no
circumstances, the victim was presumably dead when the evidence proving that they conspired to commit the crimes.
accused-appellants unlawfully took the vehicle as a means to There was no showing that they were in fact motivated by a
escape the crime scene. Thus, there being no causal connection common purpose to perpetrate the crimes.41
between the carnapping and the killing, the accused-appellants
should be meted with the lesser sentence of fourteen (14) years On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor
and eight (8) months and not more than seventeen (17) years General, (OSG) counters that the prosecution sufficiently proved
and four (4) months, for the crime of carnapping.31 the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
The OSG avers that the trial court correctly found the nexus
The decretal portion of the assailed CA decision reads: between the robbery and the killing of the victim. There is no
doubt that Moeller was killed. The fact of death was established
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal through the Medico-Legal Report, and the testimony of Dr.
is DENIED. The Decision dated April 29, 2013 of the Quezon City Marquez, who described the killing of Moeller as brutal and
[RTC], Branch 219, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-02-111947 and Q- intentional. Likewise, the OSG points out that Aquino admitted
02-111948 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that: to SPO4 Jeresano that he killed Moeller.42

1.) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-111947, the award of exemplary In the same vein, the OSG maintains that the trial court also
damages is DELETED and the award of temperate damages is correctly found Aquino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
hereby REDUCED to Php 50,000.00. carnapping. Records show that all the elements of carnapping
In addition, accused-appellants are jointly and were present in the instant case. Aquino, in conspiracy with
severally ORDERED to PAY interest on all the damages Cariño, without the consent of Moeller, and with intent to gain,
imposed at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date and by means of violence against the person of the victim, took
of finality of this decision until fully paid. the latter's Nissan Sentra. The OSG posits that intent to gain is
evident when one takes property belonging to another against
2.) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-111948, the accused-appellants
the latter's will.43
are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Fourteen
(14) years and Eight (8) months, as minimum, to Seventeen
(17) years and Four (4) months, as maximum. Ruling of the Court
The instant appeal is bereft of merit.
All other aspects of the fallo of the assailed Decision STAND. SO The Prosecution Established Beyond Reasonable Doubt the
ORDERED.32 Guilt of the accused-appellants for the Crime of Robbery with
Homicide

SPL – FULL TEXT CASES

RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
The RPC defines and penalizes the crime of robbery as follows: iv. Advincula, the driver of the taxi, confirmed that Cariño
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery. - Any person who, with was his passenger. He testified that he dropped off
intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to Cariño at the house of a foreigner in Corinthian
another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or Gardens Subdivision.
using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery. v. Moeller's Nissan Sentra was seen to have exited Gate 4
of Corinthian Gardens Subdivision at around 12:00
Article 295. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of midnight on August 29, 2002.
persons; Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of vi. In the morning of August 29, 2002, Taro, the victim's
violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: housemaid, found the latter at the backyard of his
home, lifeless.
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or vii. A dumbbell was found near the body of the victim.
on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have viii. The Medico-Legal Report showed that Moeller died
been committed. due to intra-cranial hemorrhage, which was caused by
a blow inflicted using a hard and blunt object.
Parenthetically, to sustain a conviction for robbery with
ix. During their arrest, Cariño and Aquino were caught in
homicide under Article 294 of the RPC, the prosecution must
possession of a camera, video camera and charger.
prove the existence of the following elements, namely, (i) "the
x. Taro confirmed that the said items belonged to
taking of personal property is committed with violence or
Moeller.
intimidation against persons; (ii) the property taken belongs to
xi. Cariño admitted to the police officers that the Nissan
another; (iii) the taking is [with] animo lucrandi; and (iv) by
Sentra was in Isabela. True enough, the said vehicle
reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is
was recovered in the said location.
committed."44
xii. SPO4 Jeresano testified that the accused-appellants
admitted that the Nissan Sentra belonged to Moeller.
Notably, the phrase "by reason of the robbery," covers a
xiii. Aquino even surrendered the keys of the Nissan Sentra
situation where the killing of the person is committed either
to the police.
before or after the taking of personal property.45 It is imperative
to establish that "the intent to rob must precede the taking of
human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the The fact that the accused-appellants were the last persons seen
robbery."46 Remarkably, homicide is said to be committed: (i) with Moeller prior to his demise was clearly confirmed through
"to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (ii) to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Caporado and
preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (iii) to prevent Advincula.
discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (iv) to eliminate
witnesses in the commission of the crime."47 Thus, a conviction Moreover, the accused-appellants' unexplained possession of
for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the stolen articles gave rise to the presumption that they were
the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing the taker and the doer of the robbery.52 This presumption
is merely incidental to the robbery.48 Consequently, once it has applies considering that (i) the property was stolen; (ii) the
been established with certainty that a person was killed on the crime was committed recently; (iii) the stolen property was
occasion of the robbery, the accused may be convicted of found in their possession; and (iv) they were unable to explain
robbery with homicide. their possession satisfactorily.53 It must be noted that during
their arrest, the police officers found Moeller's camera, video
It is equally important to note that a conviction for robbery with camera and charger in their hideout. They were unable to offer
homicide need not be proven solely through direct evidence of any satisfactory and believable explanation justifying their
the malefactor's culpability. Rather, the offender's guilt may possession of the subject articles. All that they did to rebut this
likewise be proven through circumstantial evidence, as long as presumption was to question the ownership of the said articles.
the following requisites are present: (i) there must be more than This defense fails considering that Taro identified the said items
one circumstance; (ii) the inference must be based on proven and confirmed that they indeed belonged to Moeller. Her
facts; and (iii) the combination of all circumstances produces a familiarity with the said items cannot be doubted considering
conviction beyond doubt of the guilt of the that she was the personal maid of the victim for several years,
accused.49 Imperatively, all the circumstances taken together and had cleaned the said items on a regular basis.
must form an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion The accused-appellants are also Guilty Beyond Reasonable
of all others, as the author of the crime.50 To rule otherwise, Doubt for the Crime of Simple Carnapping
would lead to the pernicious situation wherein felons would be
set free to the detriment of the judicial system, and thereby Carnapping is defined and penalized under Section 2 of R.A. No.
cause danger to the community.51 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, as "the
taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to
In the case at bar, the circumstances surrounding the fateful day another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence
of August 28, 2002, when the victim was robbed and killed, lead against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
to an unbroken chain of facts, which establish beyond things."
reasonable doubt the accused-appellants' culpability, to wit:
Notably, the elements of carnapping are: (i) the taking of a motor
vehicle which belongs to another; (ii) the taking is without the
i. At 10:39 p.m. of August 28, 2002, security guard consent of the owner or by means of violence against or
Caporado saw Moeller pass through Gate 1 of intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (iii)
Corinthian Gardens Subdivision in his Nissan Sentra. the taking is done with intent to gain. Essentially, carnapping is
Moeller was accompanied by Aquino, who Caporado the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle.54
recognized and identified in open court.
ii. The Nissan Sentra was trailed by the R&E taxi driven
Significantly, the taking of the motor vehicle is deemed complete
by Advincula.
from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing,
iii. Caporado recognized Cariño as the passenger of the
even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.55 The
taxi.
intent to gain or the animus lucrandi, being an internal act, is
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor and Advincula, who saw them at the house of Moeller on the
vehicle.56 Notably, " [a]ctual gain is irrelevant as the important night that the latter was killed. It bears noting that Caporado
consideration is the intent to gain."57 Likewise, the term gain is confirmed that he saw Aquino riding with Moeller in his Nissan
not limited to a pecuniary benefit, but also includes the benefit Sentra on the fateful night of August 28, 2002. Similarly,
which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the Caporado confirmed that he saw Cariño on board the taxi that
act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which trailed the Nissan Sentra. There was no reason for Caporado, a
was taken without the owner's consent already constitutes disinterested witness, to falsely testify against the accused-
gain.58 appellants.

In the case at bar, the prosecution proved the existence of all the Equally telling is the fact that Advincula corroborated
elements of carnapping beyond reasonable doubt. The Nissan Caporado's testimony, by affirming that he dropped off Cariño
Sentra, which was owned by Moeller, was stolen by the accused- at the victim's home in Corinthian Gardens Subdivision. In fact,
appellants from the victim's house, and brought to Isabela. To Advincula related that the driver of the Nissan Sentra was a
eradicate all traces of its previous ownership, the accused- foreigner, which fit the description of the victim.
appellants even changed the vehicle's plate number. However,
despite their attempt to conceal their crime, the police Moreover, the Court finds that Cariño lied about not knowing the
discovered that the retrieved vehicle bore the same engine and victim. Taro affirmed on the witness stand that she saw Cariño
chassis number as the victim's stolen vehicle. one month before the victim's death, at the latter's home.65 This
fact is significant because it established the relationship
Likewise, the police found the stolen vehicle in Isabela, no less between Cariño and the victim, which the former denied.
from the information supplanted by Cariño himself. Certainly, Clearly, Cariño's denial is nothing but a vain attempt to
Cariño's knowledge about the vehicle's exact location shows his exculpate himself from liability.
complicity in its taking. Added to this, Cariño was in possession
of the car keys, which he surrendered to the police. All told, there was no reason for the prosecution witnesses to lie
and falsely testify against the accused-appellants. Hence, absent
The accused-appellants Conspired and Confederated with any proof of ill-motive on their part, there can be no doubt that
Each Other to Commit the Said Crimes. their testimonies certainly bear the earmarks of truth and
candor.
It becomes all too apparent that all the interwoven
circumstances form a chain of events that lead to the The Penalty for Robbery with Homicide
inescapable conclusion that the accused-appellants robbed and
killed Moeller, and took his Nissan Sentra. It is evident that the The trial court correctly sentenced the accused-appellants with
accused-appellants conspired and confederated with each other the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 294,
to commit the said horrid crimes. paragraph 1 of the RPC,66 for their crime of robbery with
homicide.
It bears stressing that direct proof of a previous agreement to
commit a crime is not indispensable in conspiracy. Rather, As for the amount of damages imposed, the Court affirms the
conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by awards of civil indemnity of Php 75,000.00, and moral damages
which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of of Php 75,000.00.67 The Court likewise agrees that the victim's
the accused themselves, when such point to a joint purpose and heirs should be awarded temperate damages of Php 50,000.00.
design.59 Undoubtedly, from the moment the accused- Temperate damages may be recovered when some pecuniary
appellants met in Ortigas, went to Moeller's home, took his loss has been suffered but definite proof of its amount was not
valuables and car, up to the time when they were both arrested presented in court.68
in possession of the said valuables, lead to no other conclusion
than that they hatched a criminal scheme, synchronized their However, the Court finds that the CA erred in deleting the award
acts for unity in its execution, and aided each other for its of exemplary damages. Remarkably, exemplary damages should
consummation. Consequently, once a conspiracy has been be granted as a punishment for the reprehensible act committed
established, the act of one malefactor, is the act of all.60 against the victim. This is in consonance with the Court's ruling
in People v. Jugueta,69 where exemplary damages worth to Php
The Defenses of Denial and Alibi are Weak and Easily 75,000.00 was awarded to the victim's heirs.
Crumble Against the Positive Identification Made by Reliable
and Credible Witnesses The Penalty for Carnapping

In seeking exoneration from the charges filed against them, the R.A. No. 6539, as amended by Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659,
accused-appellants interpose the defenses of denial and alibi. provides the penalties for carnapping, as follows:

The Court is not convinced. SEC. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty
of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section two of this Act,
Time and again, the Court has consistently ruled that a denial shall, irrespective of the value of the motor vehicle taken,
and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen
assailants made by a credible witness.61 In fact, a denial is often years and eight months and not more than seventeen years
viewed with disfavor especially if it is uncorroborated.62 Also, an and four months, when the carnapping is
alibi will only prosper, if the accused can show that it was committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or
physically impossible for him/her to be at the scene of the force upon things, and by imprisonment for not less than
crime.63 Thus, as between the categorical testimony which has a seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty
ring of truth on the one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence
other, the former is generally held to prevail.64 or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when
This said, the accused-appellants' defenses of denial and alibi the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is
falter in light of the positive identifications made by Caporado killed or raped in the course of the commission of the
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
carnapping or on the occasion thereof. (Emphasis and Antecedents
underscoring Ours) On January 25, 1994, Chua, along with Leonardo Reyes alias Leo
and Arnold Lato y Baniel alias Arnold or Rodel, was charged in
It must be noted that the Information charging the accused-
Criminal Case No. 397-M-94 of the RTC with the crime of
appellants with carnapping under R.A. No. 6539, as amended,
carnapping under the information alleging as follows:
failed to allege that the carnapping was committed by means of
That on or about the 24th day of October, 1993, in the
violence against, or intimidation of, any person, or force upon
municipality of Bocaue, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
things. While these circumstances were proven at the trial, they
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
cannot be appreciated because they were not alleged in the
named accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping
Information. Hence, pursuant to the strict constitutional
one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
mandate that an accused must always be informed of the nature
feloniously, with intent to gain and without the consent of the
and the cause of the accusation against him,70 the accused-
owner thereof, take, steal and carry away with them one owner
appellants may only be convicted of simple carnapping.
type jeep (stainless) bearing Plate No. CFC-327, belonging to
Accordingly, the CA was correct in modifying the maximum
Sps. Reynaldo Ravago and Teresa Ravago, to the damage and
sentence of life imprisonment originally imposed by the RTC,
prejudice of the said owners in the amount of P170,000.00.
and reducing the same to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
months, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months, as maximum. This term of imprisonment imposed by On January 27, 1994, the same accused were charged with
the CA is likewise in consonance with Section 1 of the robbery under the information filed in Criminal Case No. 428-M-
Indeterminate Sentence Law which ordains that if the offense 94, to wit:
committed is punishable by a special law, the court shall That on or about the 24th day of October, 1993 in the
sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty expressed at municipality of Bocaue, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
a range whose maximum term shall not exceed the maximum within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
fixed by the special law, and the minimum term not be less than named accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping
the minimum prescribed.71 one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is intimidation, take, rob and carry away with them the following,
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision to wit:
dated September 14, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
xxxxxxx
HC No. 06217, convicting accused-appellants Renato
Cariño y Gocong and Alvin Aquino y Ragam of the crimes of belonging to Sps. Reynaldo Ravago and Theresa Ravago, to the
Robbery with Homicide, and Carnapping, are damage and prejudice of the said spouses in the total amount of
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In Criminal Case No. P122,000.00; and by reason of and on the occasion of the
Q-02-111947 for Robbery with Homicide, the accused- commission of the said robbery, the above-named accused
appellants are ordered to pay exemplary damages worth Php conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, did
75,000.00 to the heirs of victim Mirko Moeller. All the amounts then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
due shall earn a legal interest of six percent (6%) per assault and stab with bladed instrument, said Reynaldo E.
annum from the finality of this ruling until the full satisfaction Ravago thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries
thereof. The assailed decision is affirmed in all other respects. which required medical attendance and incapacitated him from
his customary labor for a period of not more than thirty (30)
SO ORDERED. days.4
Reyes and Lato remained at large; hence, only Chua was
arraigned and tried for the crimes.
5. G.R. No. 172193, September 13, 2017
The CA synthesized the procedural and factual antecedents
CELERINO CHUA ALIAS SUNTAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF adduced by the Prosecution and the Defense as follows:
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. The prosecution presented eight (8) witnesses, namely: Teresa
Legaspi-Ravago, Reynaldo Ravago, Valentina Legaspi, Juanito
Olivario, Gerry Ormesa, Moises Legaspi, Jessie Tugas and John
BERSAMIN, J.:
Laguidao.

The violence against or intimidation of persons perpetrated by The facts established by prosecution witness Teresa Ravago as
the accused to commit a robbery under Article 294 of follows:
the Revised Penal Code renders the accused also liable for
carnapping committed by means of violence against or On October 24, 1993 at around 2:50 o'clock in the morning,
intimidation of persons as defined and punished by Section 14 Teresa Legaspi-Ravago, accompanied by a helper, was about to
of Republic Act 6539 involving the taking of a vehicle to leave for work at the Maymart Market in Meycauayan, Bulacan.
transport the stolen goods. Upon opening the door, she was immediately pushed inside the
house by accused Arnold Lato. Lato was followed by accused
The Case Leonardo Reyes. Arnold tied the hands of Teresa and the helper
Celerino Chua alias Suntay (Chua) seeks to reverse the decision with straw. Leonardo on the other hand went to the master's
promulgated on October 20, 2005,1 whereby the Court of bedroom where Reynaldo was sleeping. Reynaldo was stabbed
Appeals (CA) affirmed his convictions for carnapping in four times but was able to run to the bathroom and lock himself
violation of Republic Act 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972) in.
and for robbery as defined and punished by Article 294(5) of
the Revised Penal Code handed down by the Regional Trial Court, The accused demanded jewelry and cash that the Ravagos
Branch 81, in Malolos, Bulacan (RTC) through its decision of earned as broker's commission from the sale of a fishpond. The
September 25, 2002.2 two robbers wore stockings on the head to conceal their
identities. Teresa was able to recognize the face of Arnold when
the latter removed the stocking off his face as he searched for
jewelry.
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
 among those stolen from the Ravagos, was recovered from the
Said two (2) accused carted off their television sets, Sony same nipa hut where Chua and his companion stayed.
Betamax sets, Karaoke, compact disc, assorted pieces of jewelry,
Valentina Legaspi, Teresa's mother, confirmed that the jeep,
VHS player and cash. The said stolen items were loaded in a
although registered in her name, was given to the spouses
stainless owner type jeep registered in the name of Teresa's
Ravago in 1991.
mother, Valentina Legaspi, but given to the private complainants
in 1990. Juanita Olivario, the husband of Reynaldo Ravago's sister,
accompanied Reynaldo to Bani, Pangasinan. They went first to
The robbery was immediately reported to the Bocaue Police
the police station and requested for an escort to the shop of
Station. In the course of the investigation, Teresa was able to
Jessie Tugas. Laguidao, the buyer of the jeep, was no longer in
identify Arnold through photographs shown to her.
Bani. Reynaldo requested for a copy of the deed of sale between
The robbers were later on identified as Arnold Lato and Chua and Laguidao. They were told it was missing.
Leonardo Reyes. Arnold Lato was about her height, 5'2", dark
Gerry Ormesa identified Celerino Chua in court. Chua is his
and had earring on his right ear. The other, Leonardo Reyes, was
sister's compadre. He identified the straw ropes to belong to him
5'7" or 5'8", fair complexioned, thin and lanky. Both accused
but used by the two accused, Arnold and Leo, in their work. He
who were still at large were workers of Gerry Ormesa. Appellant
also admitted that the clothes shown him belonged to the two
Chua referred both accused to Gerry Ormesa. The straw ropes
(2) accused.
that were used to tie Teresa and her helper were being used by
Arnold and Leo in their work. The built and height of the accused Moises Legaspi, Teresa's father, identified the pictures of the
as described by Teresa fit the description of aforenamed subject vehicle (Exhibit "J", "J-1" to "J-16").
workers of Gerry Ormesa. The clothes the robbers wore as Jessie Tugas, a resident of Bani, Pangasinan, identified Chua in
described by Teresa were recognized by their employer Gerry court. He came to know him when introduced by a nephew. He
as among those few clothings his two workers owned. Arnold had an auto repair shop then. Chua was with MeAnn and two (2)
and Leonardo stopped working after the October 24 incident. men. He admitted that the jeep in question was repaired in his
They left without waiting to receive the salaries due them. shop. Chua represented that he owned the jeep. He was offering
it for sale. A "For Sale" sign was even posted at the back of the
Prior to the incident appellant Celerino Chua, together with his jeep. Tugas identified the pictures of the jeep (Exhibits "J", "J-1"
legitimate family resided about twenty (20) meters away from
to "J-16"). He also admitted that the picture (Exhibit "J-13")
complainants' house. After the incident, they left. Before Chua showed the nipa hut where Chua, MeAnn and his nephew
went into hiding he wrote the Ravagos to keep quiet about the stayed. Laguidao, his brother-in-law, bought the jeep. Laguidao
incident, otherwise, harm would befall their family. gave a down payment of P20,000.00. Before the balance was
A couple from the place where the appellant resided gave paid, Reynaldo Ravago came to recover the vehicle.
information that the jeep was brought by the appellant Chua to John Laguidao identified Celerino Chua in court. He identified
Bani, Pangasinan. The jeep was recovered at Jessie Tugas' motor the pictures of the jeep. It was sold to him. Before he could pay
shop in Pangasinan. Appellant Chua and his live-in partner then the balance in full, the real owner came and showed him the
resided in a nipa hut near the motor shop from November to certificate of registration. Upon verification of the chassis and
December 1993. One Betamax unit was recovered in the nipa
engine numbers, the owner took the vehicle. Laguidao's receipt
hut where appellant Chua and his girlfriend stayed. for the transaction could not be located anymore.
Appellant Chua told Tugas that he is the owner of the jeep. Chua The accused thereafter presented defense evidence.
approached John Alden Laguidao, a friend of Tugas, who agreed
to purchase the vehicle for Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00). Accused Celerino Chua testified that he has no knowledge about
Laguidao made a partial payment of Twenty Thousand Pesos the charges against him. He did not know personally the other
(P20,000.00) on the condition that the balance shall be paid accused, Leonardo and Arnold. He drove part time for Reynaldo.
upon the presentation of the certificate of registration. In the early morning of October 24, 1993, he agreed to drive for
Reynaldo but the vehicle he was supposed to drive was under
Teresa was shocked by the incident. She was unable to return to repair. He went home and drove a passenger jeep instead. He
work for sometime because of fear to step outside in the started at 9:00 o'clock in the morning and went home at 6:00
morning. She even received threats. She left the amount of o'clock in the evening. He proceeded to Sapang Palay, San Jose
damages to the discretion of the court. del Monte where he had a live-in partner, Mary-Ann Rodrigesa.
Reynaldo Ravago corroborated Teresa's testimony. He added He learned that the house of Reynaldo Ravago was robbed when
that he was stabbed four (4) times by the taller malefactor. He the policemen came to Sapang Palay to ask him questions. He
(Reynaldo) ran to the bathroom and locked himself in to avoid hid in Malolos because he was afraid that he might be killed. He
further harm. He heard the two robbers asking for their jewelry also denied knowing John Laguidao and Jessie Tugas. He hid in
and cash which they earned as commission from the sale of a his father's house in Malolos, Bulacan for three (3) years. He had
fishpond which they brokered. Appellant Celerino Chua knew of not been to Bani, Pangasinan.
said transaction. Reynaldo stayed inside the bathroom for as A barriomate and childhood playmate, Manuel Calumpang,
long as the two (2) robbers had not yet left. After Reynaldo's testified in behalf of appellant Chua. Sometime in 1994, upon a
wife opened the bathroom door, he was brought for treatment chance meeting with the appellant, he heard two (2) persons
to Yanga Clinic. He was confined for five (5) days. He incurred talking to the former threatening him not to point to them
expenses of about P17,000.00. otherwise he and his family would be killed. He was also told by
They were able to recover the vehicle in Jessie Tugas' shop in the appellant that he had a case. Of the two who made the
Bani, Pangasinan. It had already been sold to one John Aldrin threats, one was short and the other was tall.5
Laguidao for P40,000.00. He saw the terms of the sale on a Ruling of the RTC
yellow pad which showed the seller to be Celerino Chua and one As stated, the RTC convicted Chua for the crimes charged,
Meann (Chua's live-in partner). Pictures of the vehicle already decreeing:
dismantled (Exhibits "J", "J-1" to "J-19") and taken in Jessie's
shop were presented. An inventory of the jeep's parts (Exhibits
"M", and "M-1") were offered. Picture (Exhibit "J-13") of the nipa WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, finding accused
hut where Chua and MeAnn stayed was taken. The Betamax, CELERINO CHUA alias SUNTAY guilty under Criminal Case No.
397- M-94 for violation of Republic Act 6539 otherwise known
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
as the AntiCarnapping Act of 1972, he is hereby sentenced to always been a strong indication of guilt, betraying a desire to
suffer an indeterminate sentence of fourteen years (14) and evade responsibility.
eight (8) months as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four
Fourth is the sale of the owner type jeep. The seller was Celerino
(4) months as maximum.
Chua. Both Jessie Tugas and John Laguidao categorically
Further, finding accused CELERINO CHUA alias SUNTAY guilty identified him as the person who sold and received the partial
in Criminal Case No. 428-M-94 for Robbery under Article 294 payment for the vehicle. During the recovery of the vehicle,
(5) of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer a another stolen item, the Betamax, was found in the place where
penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day Chua and his live-in partner had stayed. A disputable
of arresto mayor as minimum to eight (8) years and twenty one presumption exists that a person found in possession of a thing
(21) days of prision mayor as maximum and to indemnify the taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
complainants Spouses Teresa Ravago and Reynaldo Ravago the doer of the whole act. Appellants offered no evidence to
amount of Php One Hundred Thirteen Thousand (less the value overcome or contradict such presumption.
of (1) recovered Betamax Sony).
It is also noted by this Court that appellant denied any
With accused preventive imprisonment credited in his favor. knowledge in the commission of the crime as well as the fact that
he knows the other accused. However, it was testified that
Accused Celerino Chua is likewise directed to pay complainant
appellant Chua was the one who referred Leonardo and Arnold
Teresa Ravago the amount of Php Two Hundred Thousand as
to their employer. Being evidence that is negative and self-
and for actual damages.
serving in nature, disavowals cannot secure more worthiness
Costs against accused CELERINO CHUA. than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testified on
Let the records of the case be sent to archive as against accused clear and positive evidence.
LEONARDO REYES alias "LEO" and ARNOLD LATO y BANIEL @ Furthermore, the defense of the accused is alibi and denial. Alibi
Arnold or Rodel who are still at large. SO ORDERED.6 and denial are intrinsically weak absent material evidence of
Decision of the CA non-culpability.
On appeal, Chua contended that the RTC had erred:
The defense also failed to prove any reason for the filing of a case
I xxx IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT SOLELY ON THE against the appellant. Settled is the doctrine that when there is
BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive
why a prosecution would testify falsely against the accused or
II xxx IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE implicate him in a serious offense the testimony deserves full
FACT THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN faith and credit.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.7 A judgment of conviction by the lower court is upheld on the
On October 20, 2005, the CA promulgated the assailed decision basis of the circumstantial evidence that constitutes an
affirming the findings and conclusions of the RTC, pertinently unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
observing: conclusion that the defendant is guilty.
This Court affirms the conviction of Celerino Chua in Criminal
Direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not only the Case No. 397-M-94 without modification of the penalty imposed
matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and by the trial court.8
finding of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is like a rope composed
The CA modified the penalty meted on Chua for the robbery
of many strands and cords one strand might be insufficient, but
stating thusly:
five together may suffice to give it strength.
The requisite of circumstantial evidence to be sufficient basis for
However, this Court finds the penalty in Criminal Case No. 428-
conviction are: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) the
M-94 for Robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal
facts from which the inferences are derived have been
Code inaccurate. Though this Court agrees with the trial court
established; and (c) the combination of all the circumstance is
that there was no evidence that Celerino Chua was part of any
such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
plan to inflict physical injury in the course of the robbery which
justified imposition of the penalty under paragraph 5, Article
This Court is convinced that the three (3) accused conspired to
294 of the Revised Penal Code, yet, the penalty actually imposed
commit the crime. The circumstances before, during and after
was not accurate.
the incident point to the appellant as the mastermind. Direct
proof is not essential to the establishment of conspiracy, as it Since there is no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the
may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and maximum penalty should have been prision mayor in its
after the commission of the crime. minimum period and the minimum penalty should have been
the penalty next lower prescribed by the code. The minimum of
The circumstances in this case that point to appellant Chua as
the indeterminate penalty is left to the sound discretion of the
the mastermind are:
court, to fix from within the range of the penalty next lower
First, the day before the incident, Reynaldo Ravago told his without reference to the periods into which it may be
compadre about the broker's commission he received in the sale subdivided.9
of a fishpond. Appellant Chua eavesdropped and intently
The CA then accordingly disposed:
listened to the conversation.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is
Second, on the day of the robbery, Leonardo and Arnold, the two hereby DENIED. The decision of Branch 81 of the Regional Trial
(2) other accused, asked for the said broker's commission. Only Court of Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 397-M-94
Celerino Chua could have told Arnold and Leo About said is AFFIRMED in toto.
commission.
Conviction in Criminal Case No. 428-M-94 is AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that appellant Chua is hereby sentenced to
Third, subsequent to the commission of the crime, Celerino Chua
suffer a penalty of Four (4) years and Two (2) months of Prision
disappeared. He left the place where he stayed. He hid in his
Correccional as minimum to Eight (8) years of Prision Mayor as
father's house in Malolos Bulacan. Flight in jurisprudence has
maximum.
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
 Second, on the day of the robbery, Leonardo and Arnold, the two
Preventive imprisonment is credit(ed) in favor of the accused. (2) other accused, asked for the said broker's commission. Only
Accused Celerino Chua is likewise directed to pay complainant Celerino Chua could have told Arnold and Leo About said
Teresa Ravago the amount of Php Two Hundred Thousand for commission.
actual damages. Costs against accused Celerino Chua. SO
ORDERED.10 Third, subsequent to the commission of the crime, Celerino Chua
disappeared. He left the place where he stayed. He hid in his
father's house in Malolos Bulacan. Flight in jurisprudence has
Issue
always been a strong indication of guilt, betraying a desire to
In his petition, Chua submits that the CA committed reversible
evade responsibility.
errors in finding the existence of a conspiracy between him and
the two other accused despite the failure of the State to establish Fourth is the sale of the owner type jeep. The seller was Celerino
his actual participation in the commission of the crimes charged; Chua. Both Jessie Tugas and John Laguidao categorically
in finding him guilty of the crimes charged despite the identified him as the person who sold and received the partial
insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence; and in holding him payment for the vehicle.
guilty as a principal in the commission of the crimes charged
During the recovery of the vehicle, another stolen item, the
even assuming that he had sold the motor vehicle of the victims
Betamax, was found in the place where Chua and his live-in
and that the betamax machine had been found in his place.
partner had stayed. A disputable presumption exists that a
person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a
Was Chua's guilt for robbery and carnapping established
recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.
beyond reasonable doubt?
Appellants offered no evidence to overcome or contradict such
presumption.
Ruling of the Court
The Court UPHOLDS the decision of the CA. It is also noted by this Court that appellant denied any
knowledge in the commission of the crime as well as the fact that
1. The State presented sufficient and reliable circumstantial he knows the other accused. However, it was testified that
evidence to establish the guilt of Chua beyond reasonable appellant Chua was the one who referred Leonardo and Arnold
doubt for robbery and carnapping, as charged to their employer. Being evidence that is negative and self-
serving in nature, disavowals cannot secure more worthiness
Direct evidence was not the sole means of establishing the guilt than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testified on
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The lack or absence of clear and positive evidence.13
direct evidence putting the accused at or near the scene of
robbery and carnapping at the time of their commission did not Chua's complicity in the commission of robbery and carnapping
necessarily mean that his guilt could not be proved by evidence is beyond dispute. It was he who had earlier referred his co-
other than direct evidence. Conviction could also rest purely on accused Lato and Reyes to Gerry Ormesa for purposes of
circumstantial evidence, which is that evidence that proves a employing them. But Lato and Reyes stopped working for
fact or series of facts from which the fact in issue may be Ormesa immediately after the commission of the crimes on
established by inference. Circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, October 24, 1993, and left even without receiving the salaries
could supplant the lack or absence of direct evidence. It may be due to them. After the commission of the crimes, Chua himself,
resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately along with his common-law spouse, left his residence in the
lead to setting felons free.11 neighborhood where the house of complainant Reynaldo
Ravago was (being only about 20 meters away from the latter's
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides when residence). Before he transferred, however, he warned Ravago
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the to keep quiet about the robbery, or else harm would befall him
conditions enumerated therein are shown to exist, to wit: and his family. Chua was also the person who later on sold the
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. - vehicle subject of the carnapping for P40,000.00 to one John
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: Alden Laguidao who partially paid him P20,000.00 with the
balance of P20,000.00 to be given upon Chua's presentation of
(a) There is more than one circumstance; the certificate of registration. In the meantime, Ravago learned
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; from a couple who were residing in the place where Chua had
and transferred that the latter had brought the vehicle subject of the
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to carnapping to Bani, Pangasinan. Thus, Ravago, with the help
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. from the local police station, successfully recovered the vehicle,
already dismantled, from the motor shop of one Jessie Tugas
With respect to the third requisite, it is essential that the located in that place. Laguidao, Chua's buyer, was the brother-
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken in-law of Tugas, who himself recalled that Chua, in the company
chain that leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing of two men, had brought the vehicle to his shop claiming to be
to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person.12 the owner of the vehicle. Chua and his common-law spouse then
lived in a nipa hut near the motor shop. It was hardly
Circumstances that fully warranted the inference of Chua's coincidental that at the time of the recovery of the vehicle,
having been the mastermind in the commission of the Ravago's Betamax unit was recovered from Chua's nipa hut.
carnapping and the robbery incriminated him beyond
reasonable doubt in the crimes for which he was convicted. It is 2. Despite his physical absence from the scene of the crime,
relevant to note that the CA listed the several circumstances Chua was liable as a principal by inducement, and also for
that, taken together, proved the complicity of Chua in the the violence committed by Lato and Reyes during the
robbery and carnapping, as follows: execution of the crimes

First, the day before the incident, Reynaldo Ravago told his The foregoing circumstances were sufficient and competent to
compadre about the broker's commission he received in the sale prove that Chua masterminded the robbery and carnapping. As
of a fishpond. Appellant Chua eavesdropped and intently the mastermind, he directly induced Lato and Reyes to commit
listened to the conversation. the robbery and the carnapping. His inducement of them was
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
not merely casual but influential and controlling. Lato and Reyes The CA properly convicted Chua of robbery as defmed and
could not have committed the crimes without Chua's punished under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code.
inducement and plotting. In that capacity, Chua was a principal
by inducement within the context of Article 17 of the Revised During the commission of robbery, Reyes, the taller between
Penal Code, which provides: him and Lato, stabbed Ravago four times. Ravago escaped
further harm only by running to the bathroom and locking
himself in. In that time, the robbers demanded to know from him
Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:
the hiding place of the jewelry and the commission earned from
the sale of a fishpond that Ravago had brokered. The latter
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
ignored the demand and just stayed inside the bathroom until
after they had left, and his wife opened the bathroom door. She
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
rushed him to the Yanga Clinic for treatment. He was confined
in the Yanga Clinic for five days, and incurred expenses of about
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
P17,000.00.
another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an Yet, the physical injuries inflicted by the stabbing in the course
agreement concerning the commission of a crime, and decide to of the execution of the robbery did not constitute any of the
commit it.14 For an accused to be validly held to conspire with serious physical injuries mentioned under Article 263 of
his co-accused in committing the crimes, his overt acts must the Revised Penal Code as required by Article 294(2)(3) and (4)
tend to execute the offense agreed upon, for the merely passive of the Revised Penal Code. Specifically, the physical injuries
conspirator cannot be held to be still part of the conspiracy inflicted on him did not render him insane, imbecile, impotent
without such overt acts, unless such passive conspirator is the or blind; he did not also lose the use of speech or the power to
mastermind. In that respect, it is not always required to hear or to smell, or an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg; or the
establish that two or more persons met and explicitly entered use of any of such member; he did not also become incapacitated
into the agreement to commit the crime by laying down the for the work in which he was theretofore habitually engaged; he
details of how their unlawful scheme or objective would be did not become deformed; he did not lose any other part of his
carried out.15 Conspiracy can also be deduced from the mode body, or the use thereof; he did not become ill or incapacitated
and manner in which the offense is perpetrated, or can be for the performance of the work in which he was habitually
inferred from the acts of the several accused evincing their joint engaged for a period of more than 90 days; or he did not become
or common purpose and design, concerted action and ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days. The crime is
community of interest.16 Clearly, the State successfully proved simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code.
the existence of a conspiracy among the three accused.
The CA modified the penalty meted by the RTC after observing
3. Robbery committed was that under Article 294(5) of that "there was no evidence that Celerino Chua was part of any
the Revised Penal Code plan to inflict physical injury in the course of the
robbery."18 Although both lower courts agreed that there was
Robbery is defined and punished under Article 294 of no evidence showing that Chua had been part of any plan to
the Revised Penal Code, to wit: inflict physical injury in the course of the robbery, the Court
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of deems it necessary to issue a rectification lest such observation
persons; Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of be unduly taken as sanctioned with concurrence.
violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
Being the mastermind, Chua was as responsible for the
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or consequences of the acts committed by Lato and Reyes, the
on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have principals by direct participation. This is because of the
been committed.17 conspiracy among the three of them. The informations had
properly charged them as co-conspirators in robbery and
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period
carnapping. Once their conspiracy was established, the act of
to reclusion perpetua when the robbery shall have been
each of the conspirators became the act of all. Indeed, Chua
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason
could not escape responsibility for the acts done by his co-
or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries
conspirators. The very nature of the planned robbery as a crime
penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been
that entailed violence against persons warranted holding Chua
inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery
fully responsible for all the consequences of the criminal plot.
accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall
In People v. Pareja,19 the trial court had appreciated one of two
be reclusion perpetua to death (As amended by PD No. 767).
aggravating circumstances (price or reward) as the qualifying
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on circumstance but had refused to consider the other (treachery)
occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in as a generic aggravating circumstance against the accused, who
subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding was the mastermind, on the ground that he had not been present
paragraph, shall have been inflicted. when the crime was being actually committed, having left the
means, modes or methods of its commission to a great extent to
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
the discretion of the others. The trial court cited as its authority
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or
the ruling in People v. De Otero (51 Phil. 201). The Court, on
intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall
appeal, disagreed with the lower court, and opined per
have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the
curiam as follows:
commission of the crime, or in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for
its commission any of the physical injuries covered by sub- The citation is not in point. It refers to a case where the accused
divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263. was convicted as principal by inducement per se under
paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, without
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
proof of conspiracy with the other accused. In the case at bar,
to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases. (As
however, there was conspiracy among the defendants, and the
amended by R. A. 18).
SPL – FULL TEXT CASES
RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
rule is that every conspirator is responsible for the acts of the 4. Carnapping committed with violence or intimidation of
others in furtherance of the conspiracy. Treachery - evident in persons was established beyond reasonable doubt; hence,
the act of the gunman in suddenly firing his revolver, preceded Chua's proper penalty should be higher
as it was by a false showing of courtesy to the victim, thus
insuring the execution of the crime without risk from any Carnapping is defined as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a
defense or retaliation the victim might offer should be motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent,
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance against or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
appellant.20 using force upon things."22 Under Section 14 of Republic Act No.
6539, the penalty for carnapping committed without violence or
For the robbery, the RTC set the indeterminate sentence at four
intimidation of persons, or force upon things is imprisonment of
years, two months and one day of arresto mayor, as the
not less than 14 years and eight months and not more than 17
minimum, and eight years and 21 days of prision mayor, as the
years and four months; if committed by means of violence
maximum. The CA modified the indeterminhte sentence by
against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things, the
imposing four years and two months of prision correccional, as
penalty is imprisonment of not less than 17 years and four
minimum, to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum.
months and not more than 30 years.
The imposable penalty for robbery under Article 294(5) of
the Revised Penal Code is prision correccional in its maximum The taking of the motor vehicle (owner-type jeep) belonging to
period to prision mayor in its medium period, which ranges from the Ravagos by Lato and Reyes constituted carnapping. But it
four years, two months and one day to 10 years. In the absence was clear error for the lower courts to punish Chua with the
of modifying circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its penalty for carnapping committed without violence or
medium period, that is, six years, one month and 11 days to eight intimidation of persons, or force upon things. Even ifthe robbers
years and 20 days. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence took the motor vehicle after consummating the robbery in the
is taken from the penalty next lower, which is arresto mayor in course of the execution of which one of them stabbed Ravago
its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period four times, the taking of the motor vehicle in order to carry the
(that is, four months and one day to four years and two months). stolen articles out was still attended by the same violence and
The CA correctly fixed the minimum of the indeterminate intimidation of the owner and his wife, as well as of the rest of
sentence. On the other hand, the maximum of the indeterminate their household. As such, the correct imposable penalty is
sentence should be from the medium period of the penalty as imprisonment of not less than 17 years and four months and not
stated herein. more than 30 years. Accordingly, the indeterminate sentence is
imprisonment for 18 years, as minimum, to 22 years, as
In its judgment, the CA applied the ceiling of the penalty but did maximum.
not tender any justification for doing so. Such justification was
required by the seventh rule enunciated in Article 64 of 5. Civil liability
the Revised Penal Code on the application of penalties containing
three periods. The need for the justification is explained We affirm the civil liability awarded to Ravago considering that
in Ladines v. People,21 to wit: Chua did not assail the award. Yet, we have to direct the payment
of legal interest of 6% per annum on the P200,000.00 awarded
as actual damages reckoned frorri the finality of this decision
x x x although Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, which has set until full satisfaction.
the rules "for the application of penalties which contain three
periods," requires under its first rule that the courts should WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review
impose the penalty prescribed by law in the medium on certiorari; AFFIRMS in all respects the decision promulgated
period should there be neither aggravating nor mitigating on October 20, 2005, subject to the following MODIFICATIONS,
circumstances, its seventh rule expressly demands that to wit:
"[w]ithin the limits of each period, the courts shall deterff!ine
the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature (1) Petitioner CELERINO CHUA ALIAS SUNTAY is punished in
of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the Criminal Case No. 397-M-94, for carnapping, with the
greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime." By indeterminate sentence of 18 years, as minimum, to 22 years, as
not specifying the justification for imposing the ceiling of maximum; and
the period of the imposable penalty, the fixing of the
indeterminate sentence became arbitrary, or whim ical, or (2) The actual damages of P200,000.00 shall earn legal interest
capricious. In the absence of the specification, the of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until
maximum of the indeterminate sentence for the petitioner full satisfaction.
should be the lowest of the medium period of reclusion
temporal, which is 14 years, eight months and one day The petitioner shall pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.
of reclusion temporal. (Bold under coring supplied for
emphasis; italicized portions are part of the original text)
Although the CA should not have fixed the ceiling of the penalty
without tendering the justification for doing so, we nonetheless
note that such ceiling of eight years as the maximum of the
indeterminate penalty was warranted. The appeal by Chua
threw the records open for review, such that the penalty meted
on him could be reviewed as a matter of course and rectified, if
necessary, without infringing on his right as an accused. Thus,
the Court will itself now tender the justification for imposing the
ceiling of the penalty. Chua's masterminding of the robbery and
carnapping against his own neighbor manifested the high
degree of his criminality.

SPL – FULL TEXT CASES

RA NO 6539 ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972