Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 19, MANILA
Email Address: rtc1mnl019@judiciary.gov.ph
Landline: (02) 5310-228

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO. R-MNL-22-

02585-CR
-versus- For: Violation of R.A. 10883
(New Anti-Carnapping Act of
2016)

JERWIN REYES y OMAÑA a.k.a

“WIN,”
Accused.
x------------------------------------------x

DECISION

This resolves the complaint for Violation of Republic Act No. 10883 (New
Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016) filed against accused Jerwin Reyes y Omaña a.k.a
“Win.”

Facts

Records show that on March 26, 2022, at about 2:00 o’clock in the morning,
herein private complainant Jeyson Tiongson was awakened by his live-in partner,
Rose Ann Comorposa, informing him that his motorcycle which was parked in front
of their house at Block 9 Lot 22 Quezon St., Tondo, Manila was stolen by a certain
male individual. Private complainant tried to chase the culprit but to no avail. After
which, they immediately went to their barangay hall at Barangay 72 and requested a
CCTV footage to verify the identity of the culprit. However, Barangay 72 informed
them that the CCTVs around the vicinity of their barangay is not functioning, thus,
they went straight to the nearby Barangay 120 and checked if they can view any
CCTV footage recorded therein. Fortunately, Barangay 120 was able to produce
CCTV footage that helped them identify the culprit and the streets the he traversed.
They also went to the adjacent barangays, including Barangay 105, to gather more
CCTV footages. Subsequently, private complainant reported the incident to
Raxabago Police Station 1 Don Bosco PCP (“Don Bosco PCP”).

After ascertaining the information presented by the private complainant,

personnel of Don Bosco PCP were dispatched to conduct follow-up operation and
back tracking of CCTVs installed within the area where the incident occurred. In the
evening of the same date, another team from Don Bosco PCP were again dispatched
and conducted relentless follow-up operation together with the private complainant.
While traversing the alley of Building 17, Temporary Housing Aroma Compound,
Barangay 105, Tondo, Manila, Don Bosco PCP personnel together with the private
complainant saw the accused dismantling the stolen motorcycle. When the team
approached the accused, he immediately went inside his abode. A short chase ensued
until the accused was cornered, hence, his arrest.

During the confrontation at the place of the recovery of the motorcycle, the
private complainant positively identified the recovered motorcycle as his own
vehicle that was stolen in front of their house. Private complainant also identified
the accused as the person who stole his motorcycle.

Subsequently, Don Bosco PCP brought the accused at Gat Andres Bonifacio
Medical Center for mandatory physical examination and later on, turned him over
to District Anti-Carnapping Unit together with the private complainant.

On March 28, 2022 at 4:30 o’clock in the afternoon, inquest proceeding was
held wherein ACP Medel Allan M. Milan, Inquest Prosecutor, recommended that an
Information be filed against the accused for Violation of Republic Act No. 10883
(The New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016) (“RA 10883”).

Consequently, an Information was filed against the accused for Violation of

RA 10883 which was raffled and docketed before this Court. A bail in the amount
of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) was recommended for the temporary release
of the accused.

On April 11, 2022, the accused was arraigned ang pleaded not guilty to the
charged of Carnapping. On pre-trial, both parties stipulated on the identity of the
accused as the same person arraigned and charged with the said offense.

On August 01, 2022, the accused was presented and testified that he has no
knowledge of the crime of carnapping charged to him. He likewise denied knowing
the private complainant not until the day that he was arrested. As his defense, he
narrated that he was in his residence, with his wife, at the time of the commission of
the offense, and thus, it is physically impossible for him to be within the area of the
residence of the private complainant where the latter’s motorcycle was stolen.

After the presentation of witnesses and reception of evidence offered by both

parties, this case was submitted for resolution.

Issue

The lone issue in this case is whether or not accused Jerwin Reyes y Omaña
a.k.a “Win” is guilty for the Violation of Republic Act No. 10883 (“RA 10883”) or
the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016.

Our Ruling

After taking into close scrutiny and judicious evaluation of the evidence of
the parties, the Court finds accused Jerwin Reyes y Omaña a.k.a “Win” guilty for
the Violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 10883 (“RA 10883”) or the New
Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016.
 The information charges accused of violation of Republic Act No. 10883
(“RA 10883”) or the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016, which states that:

Section 3. Carnapping; Penalties. - Carnapping is the taking, with intent

to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things.

To emphasize, RA 10883 enumerated the elements that must be present for

the conviction of an accused of the crime of carnapping, to wit:

(1) That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

(2) That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;

(3) That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the
taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things; and

(4) That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.

In this case, the information alleges that accused, with intent to gain, took the
Mitsukoshi Motorcycle owned by the private complainant without the knowledge
and consent of the latter. Thus, the indictment alleges every element of the crime of
carnapping and the prosecution proved the same.

There was an actual taking of the

motorcycle owned by the Private
Complainant.

On the onset of this case, it was established by evidence presented that a

motorcycle vehicle was stolen and that same stolen vehicle belongs to private
complainant.

It was ascertained by the facts presented in this case as well as the pieces of
evidence offered by the prosecution that a Mitsukoshi Motorcycle was stolen while
it was parked within the vicinity of the residence of the herein private complainant.

Further, the private complainant had also proven his ownership over the
subject motorcycle by the Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle dated January 11, 2022
executed in favor of the private complainant. He was also able to present the original
copies of the Certificate of Registration and Original Receipt of the same
motorcycle.

However, accused did not present even a single evidence of his ownership of
the motorcycle. In fact, he specifically denied having knowledge of the said vehicle
during his testimony.

Thus, the fact that the Mitsukoshi Motorcycle owned by the private
complainant was stolen in his residence was already established and proven in this
case by the prosecution.
 The taking of the motorcycle was
done without the knowledge and
consent of the Private
Complainant.

People of the Philippines vs. Bustinera,1 defined unlawful taking as:

“Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor

vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed
complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing,
even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.” (Underscoring
supplied)

There is no dispute that the Mitsukoshi Motorcycle owned by the private

complainant was unlawfully stolen from him without his consent nor knowledge.

Private complainant also testified that he was surprised when his live-in
partner called his attention and urgently informed him that his motorcycle was
stolen:

T Tapos, pagka-park mo, Ginoong Testigo, mga bandang ala una

(1), anong ginawa mo?

S Umakyat na po sa taas upang magpahinga saka….

T Makalipas ang ilang oras, mayroon bang hindi pangkaraniwang

nangyari noong madaling araw ng Marso 26, 2022, Ginoong
Testigo, kung maalala mo?

S Opo. Sinisigaw na po nung aking live-in partner na si Rose Ann

Comorposa na “Mahal! Mahal! ‘Yung motor mo kinuha ng
lalaki.”2

In view of his testimony, the private complainant was not aware that his
motorcycle was stolen not until his live-in partner informed him of the said incident.
Hence, the third element of unlawful taking was established in this case.

The accused was positively identified

by the private complainant and his
witness to be the same person who,
with intent to gain, took possession of
his motorcycle vehicle.

In the same case of Bustinera, intent to gain was further elaborated to mean
as:
“Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from
the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the
important consideration is the intent to gain. The term "gain" is not merely
limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other

1
People of the Philippines vs. Luisito D. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, 08 June 2004 citing the case of People vs.
Ellasos, 358 SCRA 516, 527 (2001).
2
Transcript of the Stenographic Notes dated May 18, 2022, Testimony of Private Complainant Jeyson Tiongson.
 sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus,
the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner’s consent
constitutes gain.”

During the testimony of the live-in partner of the private complainant was able
to positively identify the accused to be the same person who took the motorcycle of
the latter:

T Ano ang hindi pangkaraniwang pangyayari ang nangyari noong mga

mahigit kumulang ala-una kwarenta ng madaling araw noong Marso 27,
2022?

S Naka sabay ko po siyang kumain ng Mami/Pares.

T Sinong “siya” yung tinutukoy mo?

S Si Jerwin Reyes, po.

T Ah, okay. Nakasaby mong kumain? Okay. Tapos? Pagkakain, anong

sumunod na nangyari noon, sabay kayo sabi mo?

S Tapos na po siya kumain noon, nag-yosi pa po sita sa gilif ng tricycle.

T Tapos pagkatapos niyang mag-yosi, ano ang ginawa niya, kung meron
man?

S Tangay-tangay niya na po niya ‘yung motorsiklo po ng aking live-in

partner.

xxx

T Okay. Ma’am paano mo nasabi niya na tinangay niya ‘yung motorsiklo

ng ka-live-in partner mo?

S Kitang-kita ko po noong tangayin niya po. Na pilit ko po siyang habulin

kaso hindi ko na po siya naabutan.

xxx

T … Maari mo bang sabihin, ma’am kung sabi mo, katabi mo siyang

kumain ng Mami, noong kumakain kayo, anong napansin mo sa
pangangatawan nito, sa mukha niya kung meron man?

S Payat po siya; maliit lang po siya.

T Okay. Maliban doon ano pa bang pagkakilanlan mo sa kanya noong

habang kumakain kayo?

S Nakatanggal po ‘yung sombrero niya, Nakita ko po ‘yung poknat niya

po sa ulo.

T Poknat sa ulo?
 S Opo.

T Maari mo bang idescribe kung ano ‘yung poknat sa ulo?

S Bilog po siya na maliit.

T Okay. Ano pa po? Sa kanya ulo, sa kanyang mukha?

S Kalbo po.3

Based on the foregoing testimony of the live-in partner of the private

complainant who actually saw the taking of the motorcycle owned by the latter, it
was established that she positively identified the accused as the one who took the
same motorcycle of her live-in partner, the herein private complainant.

Applying the pronouncements in the cited jurisprudence, it can be ascertained

that the accused willfully took the motorcycle owned by the private complainant
having in mind the advantage of gaining possession of the said motorcycle.

The accused, on the other hand, did not present other evidence, aside from his
own testimony, to support his claim of having no knowledge on the fact the
commission of the offense. His statements were not even corroborated by any of his
wife who was allegedly with him at the time of the incident. Thus, his arguments of
lack of knowledge and physical impossibility are self-serving, more so, bereft of
merit.

Accordingly, the Information having sufficiently alleged the necessary

elements of the crime, such as: (1) actual taking of a vehicle, (2) that the vehicle
belongs to another other than the offender himself, (3) the taking is without the
consent of the owner thereof and (4) that the offender intends to gain from the taking,
the offense is covered by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 10883 or the New Anti-
Carnapping Act of 2016,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Jerwin

Reyes y Omaña a.k.a. “Win” GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Carnapping under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 10883 or the New Anti-Carnapping
Act of 2016, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twenty
(20) years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty-three (23) years, three (3) months
and three (3) days as maximum.

SO ORDERED.

3
Transcript of the Stenographic Notes dated June 1, 2022, Testimony of Rose Ann T. Comorposa.