Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 135904
January 21, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. !L"N T!N y L!G!M!#O, accused-appellant. $!"$E, JR., C.J.:
In this petition fo evie! unde u nde Rule "# of the Rules of $out, petitione %lvin Tan Tan &heeafte T%N' T%N' see(s his ac)uittal b* a evesal of the + une / decision of the $out of %ppeals in $%-0.R. $R No. +12// !hich affi3ed his conviction fo violatin4 Republic %ct No. 2#5, %n %ct Peventin4 and Penali6in4 $anappin4. + T%N7s 3otion fo econsideation of said decision and 3otion fo oal a4u3ents !ee denied fo lac( l ac( of 3eit b* the $out of %ppeals 5 in its 2 Octobe / esolution. Said decision and esolution esolution of the $out of %ppeals %ppeals affi3ed the Dece3be Dece3be " 8ud43ent of conviction a4ainst T%N b* the Re4ional Tial $out, 9anch #, :ue6on $it* in $i3inal $ase No. :-5-"#"". T%N7s indict3ent " fo violation of Republic %ct No. 2#5 eads as follo!s; That on o about the
IP S??, of undete3ined value, to the da3a4e and pe8udice of said Philip See. @pon his aai4n3ent on " ul* 5 and !ith the assistance of counsel, Tan pleaded not 4uilt* to the cha4e. Tial i33ediatel* ensued as the paties !aived the holdin4 of a peli3ina* confeence. The tial cout7s tese ecapitulation of the posecution evidence poceeded in this 3anne; # . . . APBivate co3plainant Philip See is the e4isteed o!ne of a /< Mitsubishi 0allant fou-doo valued at P"+1,111.11, beain4 plate no. $0S-<+5, coloed blue, and !ith 3oto no. "05+-F0+<1" and seialCchassis no. %2@>-51. So3eti3e in Mach +, accused %lvin Tan !as intoduced to Philip b* %lvin7s fiancee, one Vienna u, and fo3 then on, Philip and %lvin beca3e fiends and stated to see each othe on seveal occasions theeafte. On Nove3be <, +, about ;51 a.3., Philip to4ethe !ith his !ife Rub* See and Robet $hua &a nei4hbo' nei4hbo' !as at his place of esidence esidence . . . !hen %lvin %lvin aived theeat. theeat. =e 3ade it (no!n to Philip that he !as intendin4 to bu* Philip7s afoesaid ca and that he !anted to test-dive it. On account of thei fiendship and believin4 %lvin7s assuance that he !ould etun the ca afte he shall have test-diven it, Philip 4anted %lvin7s e)uest . . . . On thus 4ettin4 hold of the ca, %lvin sped a!a* and neve etuned. In vain, Philip !aited fo %lvin to sho! up and etun the caE %lvin si3pl* did not sho! up, 3uch less cause the etun of the ca. Thus, Philip stated to call up and loo( fo %lvin at his office at Roosevelt %venue, %venue, :$, but %lvin avoided hi3 b* efusin4 to ans!e the telephone calls o petendin4 he !as not aoundE and Philip7s atte3pts to see %lvin at his office si3ilal* poved futile, fo !heneve Philip !ould 4o to said office, %lvin !ould efuse to see hi3. Dis3a*ed thou4h he !as, Philip desisted as lon4 as he could fo3 epotin4 and co3plainin4 about the 3atte to the authoitiesE Philip still believed that bein4 a fiend, %lvin eventuall* !ould co3e aound to etunin4 the ca to hi3. Mean!hile, so3eti3e on Mach #, 5, !ith the assistance of so3e pesonnel of the >and Tanspotation Office &>TO', Philip !as able to cause the ca7s 5 ene!al e4istation in the absence of the vehicle and he !as issued the coespondin4 official eceipt theefo. 1âwphi1.nêt
So3eti3e on Ma* , 5, Philip a4ain tied to see %lvin at his place at Roosevelt. %4ain Philip !as told that %lvin !as not aound. One of %lvin7s e3plo*ees, ho!eve, advised Philip to the effect that the ca !as pa(ed and hidden i4ht behind %lvin7s !aehouse. The location of the !aehouse havin4 been 4iven to hi3, Philip !ent to the place and at a distance of so3e five feet, he sa! the vehicle pa(ed at the ea end of the !aehouse. To his shoc( and supise, he sa! that pats of the ca, li(e the bu3pe, a doo, and seveal
inteio accessoies, had been dis3antled and !ee alead* 3issin4. ose, seveal pieces of !ood !ee piled on top of the ca as if puposel* hide and conceal it fo3 vie!. Still failin4 to ecove his ca, Philip on o about une +, 5, fo3all* lod4ed a co3plaint fo canappin4 a4ainst %lvin befoe the :$ police station. So3e t!o da*s late, o on une ", 5, Philip epoted the loss of his ca to the Philippine National Police &PNP' Taffic Mana4e3ent $o33and and he accodin4l* si4ned the coespondin4 co3plaint sheets. Too, an ala3 fo the sub8ect ca !as issued. To his futhe shoc( and constenation, Philip !as info3ed b* the PNP7s =i4h!a* Patol 0oup &=P0' that so3ebod* had applied fo a cleaance to sell the ca and that the applicant !as 3ade to appea as one Philip See. . . . Philip denied his alle4ed si4natue on the application and also denied havin4 supposedl* applied fo cleaance to sell his vehicle. Mean!hile, actin4 on the co3plaint lod4ed b* Philip a4ainst %lvin befoe the :$ police station , the police authoities scheduled a visit to the place of %lvin, !ith Philip bein4 as(ed b* the3 to pinpoint and identif* %lvin in the couse theeof. %ccodin4l*, at %lvin7s place, he !as identified and invited b* the police to the station fo investi4ation. hile still at %lvin7s office, Philip sa! on top of %lvin7s table !hat Philip believed to be accessoies fo3 his ca, consistin4 of a t!o-!a* adio antenna and ca steeo, !hich appeaed to hi3 to have been dis3antled fo3 the sub8ect ca. %t that ti3e %lvin too( the ca supposedl* to test-dive it on Nove3be <, +, the ca !as in i n top condition, had lo! 3ilea4e, !as Gfull* loadedG !ith co3plete inteio accessoies includin4 an i3poted Hen!ood steeo, and had i3poted 3a4!heels. ?pectedl*, ?pectedl*, Tan Tan i3pu4ned the posecution7s vesion and pesented a co3pletel* divese tale. Fistl*, T%N asseted that Philip See &heeafte S??' filed the co3plaint to puposel* collect a debt fo3 hi3 and !ittin4l* use the cout as collectin4 a4ent. Secondl*, T%N T%N clai3ed that S?? instituted the co3plaint in even4e of the )uaels the* had ove T%N7s 4ilfiend !ho3 S?? !ooed, and &+' in etaliation a4ainst the co3plaint fo 4ave theats and ille4al possession of fiea3s filed b* b * one of T%N7s e3plo*ees a4ainst S??. T%N then taced this le4al pedica3ent to the ti3e !hen his 4ilfiend intoduced hi3 to S?? in Mach +. T%N and S?? instantl* instantl* beca3e fiends fo the* shaed shaed a si3ila si3ila acu3en fo business business and passion passion fo ta4et ta4et shootin4. Inevitabl*, the* en4a4ed in and enteed into seveal business tansactions !hich esulted in T%N7s indebtedness to S?? in the a3ount of P/11,111. Inspite of this, S?? still offeed to sell the sub8ect Mitsubishi 0alant to T%N fo the a3ount of P+/1,111. T%N declined the offe. S?? pesisted to the etent that he bou4ht the ca to T%N7s esidence on +2 Nove3be + and 4eneousl* su44ested that he !ould 8ust add into the latte7s eistin4 indebtedness to hi3 the ca7s puchase pice. So3eti3e in Febua* 5, S?? tied to collect the ca7s puchase pice but T%N had still no funds. So T%N su44ested su44ested that he !ould appl* !ith a ban( fo a ca loan usin4 the ca as secuit* and appl* the poceeds of said loan in pa*3ent fo the ca. S?? a4eed. Subse)uentl*, T%N sub3itted in his na3e a loan application !ith the 9PI Fa3il* 9an( in Ma(ati. In co3pliance !ith the e)uie3ents of the loan application, S?? pesonall* supevised the ca7s appaisal appaisal and inspection inspection on Mach 5. T%N T%N additionall* 3aintained 3aintained that he and S?? si4ned a deed of sale covein4 the sub8ect auto3obile but that T%N did not eceive a cop* of said deed upon S??7s petet that he !ould use it fo facilitation of the loan. The ban( appoved the loan application but onl* in the a3ount of P+,111. Natuall*, S?? consideed the a3ount insufficient and hence, efused to accept the te3s of the loan. $onse)uentl*, T%N did not see( the elease of the loan. The fiendship eventuall* soued and the esultin4 G3isundestandin4G !ith S?? i3pelled T%N on Ma* 5 to instuct his !aehouse ovesee to etun the ca to S??7s esidence. T%N7s T%N7s e3plo*ee dove the ca to S??7s house, pa(ed the ca outside the 4ate and then handed ove the (e*s of the ca to S??7s !ife, Rub*. Tan !as theefoe supised !hen on " une 5, police offices aived at his esidence and invited hi3 to the police stationE this, to T%N7s additional be!ilde3ent, !as in connection !ith S??7s co3plaint fo the canappin4 of the ca he alead* etuned. T%N peacefull* !ent !ith the police authoities to the station. 2 ei4hin4 the evidence thus poffeed, the tial cout believed in the posecution7s vesion, paticulal* in S??7s clea, positive, and stai4htfo!ad account J !hich said cout found a3pl* de3onstated J that S?? had !ithda!n the consent initiall* 4iven to T%N !hen the latte !ent be*ond test-divin4 and appopiated the ca fo his o!n use and benefit. To the tial cout, T%N7s failue to etun the ca and his conse)uent appopiation theeof constituted
inteio accessoies, had been dis3antled and !ee alead* 3issin4. ose, seveal pieces of !ood !ee piled on top of the ca as if puposel* hide and conceal it fo3 vie!. Still failin4 to ecove his ca, Philip on o about une +, 5, fo3all* lod4ed a co3plaint fo canappin4 a4ainst %lvin befoe the :$ police station. So3e t!o da*s late, o on une ", 5, Philip epoted the loss of his ca to the Philippine National Police &PNP' Taffic Mana4e3ent $o33and and he accodin4l* si4ned the coespondin4 co3plaint sheets. Too, an ala3 fo the sub8ect ca !as issued. To his futhe shoc( and constenation, Philip !as info3ed b* the PNP7s =i4h!a* Patol 0oup &=P0' that so3ebod* had applied fo a cleaance to sell the ca and that the applicant !as 3ade to appea as one Philip See. . . . Philip denied his alle4ed si4natue on the application and also denied havin4 supposedl* applied fo cleaance to sell his vehicle. Mean!hile, actin4 on the co3plaint lod4ed b* Philip a4ainst %lvin befoe the :$ police station , the police authoities scheduled a visit to the place of %lvin, !ith Philip bein4 as(ed b* the3 to pinpoint and identif* %lvin in the couse theeof. %ccodin4l*, at %lvin7s place, he !as identified and invited b* the police to the station fo investi4ation. hile still at %lvin7s office, Philip sa! on top of %lvin7s table !hat Philip believed to be accessoies fo3 his ca, consistin4 of a t!o-!a* adio antenna and ca steeo, !hich appeaed to hi3 to have been dis3antled fo3 the sub8ect ca. %t that ti3e %lvin too( the ca supposedl* to test-dive it on Nove3be <, +, the ca !as in i n top condition, had lo! 3ilea4e, !as Gfull* loadedG !ith co3plete inteio accessoies includin4 an i3poted Hen!ood steeo, and had i3poted 3a4!heels. ?pectedl*, ?pectedl*, Tan Tan i3pu4ned the posecution7s vesion and pesented a co3pletel* divese tale. Fistl*, T%N asseted that Philip See &heeafte S??' filed the co3plaint to puposel* collect a debt fo3 hi3 and !ittin4l* use the cout as collectin4 a4ent. Secondl*, T%N T%N clai3ed that S?? instituted the co3plaint in even4e of the )uaels the* had ove T%N7s 4ilfiend !ho3 S?? !ooed, and &+' in etaliation a4ainst the co3plaint fo 4ave theats and ille4al possession of fiea3s filed b* b * one of T%N7s e3plo*ees a4ainst S??. T%N then taced this le4al pedica3ent to the ti3e !hen his 4ilfiend intoduced hi3 to S?? in Mach +. T%N and S?? instantl* instantl* beca3e fiends fo the* shaed shaed a si3ila si3ila acu3en fo business business and passion passion fo ta4et ta4et shootin4. Inevitabl*, the* en4a4ed in and enteed into seveal business tansactions !hich esulted in T%N7s indebtedness to S?? in the a3ount of P/11,111. Inspite of this, S?? still offeed to sell the sub8ect Mitsubishi 0alant to T%N fo the a3ount of P+/1,111. T%N declined the offe. S?? pesisted to the etent that he bou4ht the ca to T%N7s esidence on +2 Nove3be + and 4eneousl* su44ested that he !ould 8ust add into the latte7s eistin4 indebtedness to hi3 the ca7s puchase pice. So3eti3e in Febua* 5, S?? tied to collect the ca7s puchase pice but T%N had still no funds. So T%N su44ested su44ested that he !ould appl* !ith a ban( fo a ca loan usin4 the ca as secuit* and appl* the poceeds of said loan in pa*3ent fo the ca. S?? a4eed. Subse)uentl*, T%N sub3itted in his na3e a loan application !ith the 9PI Fa3il* 9an( in Ma(ati. In co3pliance !ith the e)uie3ents of the loan application, S?? pesonall* supevised the ca7s appaisal appaisal and inspection inspection on Mach 5. T%N T%N additionall* 3aintained 3aintained that he and S?? si4ned a deed of sale covein4 the sub8ect auto3obile but that T%N did not eceive a cop* of said deed upon S??7s petet that he !ould use it fo facilitation of the loan. The ban( appoved the loan application but onl* in the a3ount of P+,111. Natuall*, S?? consideed the a3ount insufficient and hence, efused to accept the te3s of the loan. $onse)uentl*, T%N did not see( the elease of the loan. The fiendship eventuall* soued and the esultin4 G3isundestandin4G !ith S?? i3pelled T%N on Ma* 5 to instuct his !aehouse ovesee to etun the ca to S??7s esidence. T%N7s T%N7s e3plo*ee dove the ca to S??7s house, pa(ed the ca outside the 4ate and then handed ove the (e*s of the ca to S??7s !ife, Rub*. Tan !as theefoe supised !hen on " une 5, police offices aived at his esidence and invited hi3 to the police stationE this, to T%N7s additional be!ilde3ent, !as in connection !ith S??7s co3plaint fo the canappin4 of the ca he alead* etuned. T%N peacefull* !ent !ith the police authoities to the station. 2 ei4hin4 the evidence thus poffeed, the tial cout believed in the posecution7s vesion, paticulal* in S??7s clea, positive, and stai4htfo!ad account J !hich said cout found a3pl* de3onstated J that S?? had !ithda!n the consent initiall* 4iven to T%N !hen the latte !ent be*ond test-divin4 and appopiated the ca fo his o!n use and benefit. To the tial cout, T%N7s failue to etun the ca and his conse)uent appopiation theeof constituted
unla!ful ta(in4 J the 4ava3en of the ci3e cha4ed. It then concluded that T%N !as obviousl* actuated b* intent to 4ain. The tial cout then consideed as co3pletel* undesevin4 of belief, T%N7s supposition that despite his heav* indebtedness and 4iven his inceasin4 difficult* to pa* his loans, S?? had beni4nl* etended hi3 cedit, deliveed to hi3 the sub8ect ca and besto!ed upon hi3 the ulti3ate pivile4e of pa*in4 the ca at his convenience. Thus, in a decision decision po3ul4ated po3ul4ated on anua* anua* ", the tial cout convicted convicted T%N, the dispositive dispositive potion potion of !hich ead as < follo!s; =?R?FOR?, the $out finds accused %lvin Tan * >a4a3a*o 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of the ci3e of canappin4 cha4ed heein, defined and punished in Sec. +, in connection !ith Sec. ", both of Rep. %ct No. 2#5 . . . and, accodin4l*, he is heeb* sentenced to suffe the indete3inate penalt* of i3pison3ent of fo3 fouteen *eas, ei4ht 3onths, and fifteen da*s as 3ini3u3, to seventeen *eas and fou 3onths as 3ai3u3E to estoe to the offended pat*, Philip See, the sub8ect ca . . . o in default theeof, to inde3nif* said offended pat* in the su3 of fou hunded t!ent* thousand pesosE and, to pa* the costs, !ithout pe8udice to the application of Rep. %ct No. 2+< in accused7s favo. T%N filed a 3otion fo ne! tial on the 4ound of ne!l* discoveed evidence !hich !as 4anted b* the tial cout in its " ul* " ode. S?? then 3oved fo econsideation, but !as denied b* the tial cout in its Mach # ode. S?? challen4ed these afoe3entioned odes of the tial cout in a petition fo certiorari filed filed !ith the $out of %ppeals. On +5 %u4ust #, the appellate cout 4ave due couse to and 4anted the petition. T%N T%N assailed the decision of the $out of %ppeals thou4h a petition fo evie! befoe the Supe3e $out, !hich po3ptl* dis3issed the petition. / Subse)uentl*, based on T%N7s T%N7s GNotice of %ppeal Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam ,G the tial cout odeed the elevation of the ecods of the case to the $out of %ppeals. Mean!hile, T%N challe4ed the $out of %ppeals7 affi3ance of his, conviction. =e a4ues befoe this $out that the appellate cout eed in &' i4noin4 the peculia natue of the la! on canappin4, &+' dise4adin4 that thee !as no unla!ful ta(in4, and &5' e8ectin4 cicu3stances on ecod !hich, if consideed, !ould be sufficient to ac)uit hi3 on easonable doubt. In invo(in4 the specificit* of the canappin4 la!, T%N contends that the $out of %ppeals should not have e3plo*ed as bases fo his conviction the basic pinciples in theft enunciated in &' People v. Roxas , !hee ice !as eceived, cated cated a!a* and consu3ed, consu3ed, &+' U.S. v. de era ,1 !hee a ba of 4old and P+11 in ban( notes !ee eceived fo ea3in ea3inati ation on and chan4in chan4in4 4 into into coins coins but instea instead d appop appopia iated ted,, and &5' People People v. !rinidad !rinidad ,!hee a in4 !as eceived fo pled4in4 but !as sold and the poceeds theeof appopiated fo the pesonal use of eceive. % cuso* eadin4 of the petinent potion of the challen4ed $out of %ppeals decision eveals that the basic pinciples of theft alluded to petain to the si4nification of unla!ful ta(in4 and as to !hen this ta(es place. Thus, the $out in Roas, de Vea and Tinidad declaed that Gthe unla!ful ta(in4 o depivation 3a* occu at o soon afte the tansfe of ph*sical possessionG !hee Gan act done b* the eceive soon afte the actual tansfe of possession esulted in unla!ful ta(in4.G In such a case, Gthe aticle !as ta(en a!a*, not eceived, althou4h at the be4innin4 the aticle !as in fact 4iven and eceived.G =ence, in appl*in4 these pinciples, the $out of %ppeals adopted the theo* of the Solicito 0eneal that S?? entusted his ca to T%N 3eel* fo test divin4, and the latte initiall* eceived the sa3e fo that pupose onl*E T%N 3ust pefoce be dee3ed to have unla!full* Gta(enG the ca soon afte the testdivin4 fo he failed to sho!-up and etun said vehicle. + Thee is no a4uin4 that the anti-canappin4 la! is a special la!, diffeent fo3 the ci3es of obbe* and theft included in the Revised Penal $ode. It paticulal* addesses the ta(in4, !ith intent of 4ain, of a 3oto vehicle belon4in4 to anothe !ithout the latte7s consent, o b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons, o b* usin4 foce upon thin4s. 5 9ut a caeful caeful co3paison of this special special la! !ith the ci3es ci3es of obbe* obbe* and theft eadil* eadil* eveals thei co33on featues and chaacteistics, to !it; unla!ful ta(in4, intent to 4ain, and that pesonal popet* belon4in4 to anothe is ta(en !ithout the latte7s consent. =o!eve, the anti-canappin4 la! paticulal* deals !ith the theft and obbe* of 3oto vehicles. " =ence, a 3oto vehicle is said to have been canapped !hen it has been ta(en, !ith intent to 4ain, !ithout the o!ne7s consent, !hethe the ta(in4 !as done !ith o !ithout violence o inti3idation of pesons o !ith o !ithout the use of foce upon thin4s. ithout the anti-canappin4 la!, such unla!ful ta(in4 of a 3oto vehicle !ould fall !ithin the puvie! of eithe ei the theft o obbe* !hich !as cetainl* the case befoe the enact3ent of said statute. Obviousl*, T%N7s poposition that the udi3ents of theft, paticulal* as e4ads unla!ful ta(in4, should not have been applied b* the $out of %ppeals, !as 3isplaced. e shall see late on that the appellate cout7s intepetation edounded in T%N7s favo. %s an ele3ent co33on to theft, obbe* and canappin4, unla!ful ta(in4 J its i3pot, intention and concept J should be consideed as also co33on to these ci3es. # =o!eve, !e e8ect the $out of
%ppeals7 acceptance, hoo(, line and sin(e of the Office of the Solicito 0eneal7s thesis that thee !as unla!ful ta(in4 in this case. S?? asseted that on < Nove3be + he tuned ove possession of his Mitsubishi 0alant to T%N fo test-divin4 onl*, but the latte did not etun the sa3e afte the lapse of not 8ust seveal hous but a nu3be of 3onths. S?? fo3all* filed the co3plaint fo canappin4 on + une 5. In the 3eanti3e, duin4 the seven-3onth inteval !hen the ca !as alle4edl* in T%N7s possession, &' S?? had pesistentl* and pesevein4l* atte3pted to tal( to and see T%N but the latte ada3antl* efused to espond to his telephone calls o pesonall* eceive hi3 in his visitsE &+' S?? !as able to e4iste the ca !ith the >TO on # Mach 5E and &5' S?? had seen his ca on Ma* 5 fo3 a distance of so3e five feet, pa(ed at the ea of T%N7s !aehouse and in the initial sta4es of dis3antlin4. S?? also believed that Gbein4 a fiend, AT%NB eventuall* !ould co3e aound to etunin4 the ca to hi3.G 2 ?ven solel* fo3 this testi3on*, this $out finds that thee !as no unla!ful ta(in4. % felonious ta(in4 3a* be defined as the act of depivin4 anothe of the possession and do3inion of 3ovable popet* !ithout his pivit* and consent and !ithout animus revertendi .< Thus, an unla!ful ta(in4 ta(es place !hen the o!ne o 8uidical possesso does not 4ive his consent to the ta(in4E o, if the consent !as 4iven, it !as vitiatedE o in the case of Roas, Tinidad and de Vea, !hee an act b* the eceive soon afte the actual tansfe of possession constitutes unla!ful ta(in4. In the last scenaio, the eceive7s act could be consideed as havin4 been eecuted !ithout the consent of the 4ive. S??7s testi3on* cleal* evinced his assent to T%N7s ta(in4 of the ca not onl* at the ti3e he *ielded the ph*sical possession theeof fo the alle4ed test-divin4 but even theeafte, fo he neithe !ithheld his consent no !ithde! the sa3e duin4 the seven 3onth peiod the ca !as !ith T%N. %t the ve* least, S?? toleated T%N7s possession of the ca. % conta* conclusion inspies onl* disbelief. Fo if the ca !as tul* canapped, !h* did S?? !ait fo seven 3onths befoe he epoted the sa3eK Futhe, T%N7s alle4ed efusal to 3eet S?? despite his epeated atte3pts to do so should have sufficientl* aleted hi3 of the fo3e7s supposed 3alevolent intent, *et he still did not epot the ta(in4. ?ven if he failed to epot the ta(in4, 3onths afte the alle4ed test-divin4, he had alle4edl* seen his ca in the initial sta4es of dis3e3be3ent on Ma* 5 *et, a4ain, he did not epot the canappin4 on that da* no on the net, but 3uch late on < une 5 o al3ost a 3onth theeafte. S?? said he believed and epected that the ca !ould inevitabl* be etuned to hi3. This is not onl* unsatisfacto* but ieconcilable and contadicto* !ith his i3putations of canappin4. Fo if he believed that the vehicle !ould be etuned to hi3 fo fiendship7s sa(e then he could not have at the sa3e ti3e also believed that this fiend canapped his ca. $leal*, S??7s behavio i33ediatel* pecedin4, conte3poaneous and subse)uent to the alle4ed unla!ful ta(in4 !as definitel* not the distau4ht conduct of a 3an !hose ca !as canapped. =e !as even able to e4iste the aveed stolen vehicle !ithout soundin4 the ala3. % "ortiori , the cases of Roas, Tinidad and de Vea cited b* the $out of %ppeals have no application hee as no unla!ful depivation o ta(in4 of S??7s possession of, en8o*3ent and benefit ove the ca occued soon o lon4 afte his initial consent to the tansfe theeof. Neithe !as thee an act eecuted b* T%N soon afte the alle4ed testdivin4 that !ould constitute unla!ful ta(in4. These conclusions ae buttessed b* T%N7s testi3on*, dul* suppoted b* docu3enta* evidence, that S?? coopeated !ith hi3 fo the avail3ent of a ca loan !ith the 9PI Fa3il* 9an( in Ma(ati, and that S?? pesonall* attended to the inspection and appaisal of the sub8ect ca. The ecods, theefoe, do not suppot the findin4 of canappin4. Noticeabl*, the $out of %ppeals7 eoneous conta* conclusions !ee heavil* pedicated on the a4u3ents of the Office of the Solicito 0eneal that T%N7s failue to sho! a !itten deed of sale and to see( the elease of his ca loan G!ee inconsistent !ith Athe latte7sB idea of sale.G It then posed fou )uestions !hich it concluded Gcetainl* debilitated the petensions of AT%NB,G thus;/ If thee !as eall* a deed of sale, !h* could not AT%NB pesent a cop* theeofK %ssu3in4 ar#uendo that AS??B 4ot AT%N7sB cop* of the deed of sale, !h* did he not secue anothe cop* fo3 the nota* public !ho notai6ed the sa3eK O, bette still, !h* did he not pesent the nota* public to testif* on the fact of the saleK h* did AS??B have to sell the sub8ect ca to AT%NB at P+/1,111.11 !hen the latte !as ad3ittedl* indebted to the fo3e to the tune of P/11,111K If AT%NB eall* bou4ht the sub8ect ca fo3 pivate co3plainant, !h* did he have to etun the sa3e &ca' to the lafte on Ma* ", 5K Fo3 this line of easonin4, !e easil* deduce that the $out of %ppeals si3pl* e)uated the lac( of a !itten deed of sale to S??7s lac( of consent to T%N7s ta(in4 of the ca. 9ut the 3ee absence of a !itten contact of sale in this
case does not necessail* 3ean that S?? did not also consent to the ta(in4 no that T%N7s possession of the ca !as unla!ful. The posecution still has the onus probandi of sho!in4 that T%N7s ta(in4 !as unla!ful. hat too( place in these poceedin4s !as that the appellate cout 3a4nified the !ea(ness of the defense and oveloo(ed the posecution7s failue to discha4e the onus probandi J to sho! be*ond easonable doubt that the ci3e of canappin4 !as indeed pepetated. In shot, the $out of %ppeals and the tial cout si3pl* believed and accepted the posecution7s tale. It i4noed the basic le4al pecepts that conviction ests upon the sten4th of evidence of the posecution and not on the !ea(ness of the evidence fo the defenseE and assu3in4 that the evidence of the accused is !ea(, the sa3e is no eason to convict, especiall*, as in this case, !hee the case of the posecution is not ston4 enou4h to sustain a conviction. To eiteate, the buden of poof ests upon the posecution, and unless the State succeeds in povin4 b* ove!hel3in4 evidence the 4uilt of the accused, the constitutional pesu3ption of innocence applies. % conviction in ci3inal cases 3ust est on nothin4 less than the 3oal cetaint* of 4uilt. +1 Thee is no )uael in the conclusiveness of the findin4s of fact of the $out of %ppeals, fo upon this pinciple hin4es the ule that the 8uisdiction of the Supe3e $out in cases bou4ht befoe it fo3 the $out of %ppeals is li3ited to evie!in4 eos of la!. =o!eve, it appeas on ecod that the appellate cout oveloo(ed, i4noed, and dise4aded so3e fact and cicu3stance of !ei4ht o si4nificance that if consideed !ould have alteed the esult. $o4ent easons theefoe eist 8ustif*in4 the dise4ad of the findin4s of the appellate cout, supesedin4 the sa3e !ith ou o!n dete3inations and conclusions, and odein4 the evesal of the )uestioned decision and esolution of said $out of %ppeals. + =?R?FOR?, in vie! of all the foe4oin4, the heein i3pu4ned + une / decision and 2 Octobe / esolution of the $out of %ppeals affi3in4 the tial cout7s 8ud43ent convictin4 accused-appellant %lvin Tan of violation of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+ ae heeb* R?V?RS?D and S?T %SID?E a ne! 8ud43ent is enteed %$:@ITTIN0 said accused-appellant on 4ound of easonable doubt. 1âwphi1.nêt
$osts de $""icio. SO ORD?R?D.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L%513&0 !u'u() 31, 19*1 !M!$O +ON an JMM# MLL! petitiones,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, espondent.
$E C!STRO-, J.:
Petitiones !ee cha4ed, to4ethe !ith Pedo Divino, in the $icuit $i3inal $out, Thid udicial Distict, Olon4apo $it*, !ith Robbe* !ith Violence %4ainst Peson, unde an info3ation eadin4 as follo!s; That on o about the /th da* of Septe3be, <<, in the $it* of Olon4apo, Philippines, and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above-na3ed accused, conspiin4, confedeatin4 to4ethe and 3utuall* helpin4 one anothe and b* 3eans of violence and inti3idation applied upon the peson of Re*naldo To4oio co33itted b* the accused i33* Milla * $astillo and Pedo Divino * 9ateo !ho !ee a3ed !ith bladed !eapon !hich the* pointed to one Re*naldo To4oio and used in stabbin4 hi3 and the accused %3ado I6on * 9atulo !ho helped in 3aulin4 hi3 theeb* inflictin4 upon said Re*naldo To4oio the follo!in4 ph*sical in8uies, to !it; Incised !ound + c3. lon4 and + c3. deep lateal aspect uppe thid a3 i4ht. Incised !ound + inches lon4 bet!een thu3b and inde fin4e left %basion stenoclavicula function alon4 2 ib left. >inea abasion 5 c3. lon4 level of | |
!hich in8uies shall e)uie 3edical attendance fo a peiod of less than nine &' da*s, bain4 co3plications, did then and thee !ilfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl* ta(e, steal and ca* a!a* one &' 3otoi6ed tic*cle !ith 3oto No. 911-+#-2"/ !ith $hasis No. 9+1-1##/ and Plate No. M$= :"1+ o !ith a total value of P,111.11, Philippine $uenc* belon4in4 to Re*naldo To4oio to the da3a4e and pe8udice of the latte in the afoe3entioned a3ount of Pll,111.11. =o!eve, the 3otoi6ed tic*cle Lu(u3i +1, Moto No. 9OO-+#-2"/ !ith $hasis No.9-+1-1##/ !as ecoveed. 1 Pleadin4 4uilt* upon aai4n3ent, petitiones !ee sentenced to the penalt* povided in Republic %ct No. 2#5 (no!n as %nti-$a-nappin4 %ct of <+ !hich defines 3oto vehicle as follo!s; Moto vehicle is an* vehicle popelled b* an* po!e othe than 3uscula po!e usin4 the public hi#hwa%s, but eceptin4 oad olles, tolle* cas, steet s!eepes, spin(les, la!n 3o!es, bulldo6es, 4ades, fo(-lifts a3phibian tuc(s, and canes if not used on public hi#hwa%s , vehicles !hich un onl* on ails o tac(s, and tactos, tailes and taction en4ines of all (inds used eclusivel* fo a4icultual puposes. Tailes havin4 an* nu3be of !heels, !hen popelled o intended to be popelled b* attach3ent to a 3oto vehicle, shall be classified as sepaate 3oto vehicle !ith no po!e atin4. 2 &?3phasis supplied'. $ontendin4 that the cout a &uo eed in i3posin4 the penalt* pescibed in the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+ instead of that pescibed in the Revised Penal $ode fo si3ple obbe* !ith violence, because the info3ation did not alle4e that the 3otoi6ed tic*cle stolen !as usin4 the public hi#hwa% , so as to 3a(e it a 3oto vehicle as the te3 is defined in the canappin4 la!, and theefoe failed to info3 the3 that the* !ee bein4 cha4ed unde the cited statute, in violation of thei constitutional i4ht to be info3ed of the natue and cause of the accusation a4ainst the petitiones ca3e to this $out !ith the instant petition fo evie!. The pincipal issue thus aised is !hethe a 3otoi6ed tic*cle is a 3oto vehicle !ithin the definition 4iven to the te3 b* the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+. %s a conse)uence of thei contention that the 3otoi6ed tic*cle is not a 3oto vehicle unde the definition of the afoecited %ct, petitiones also clai3 that the* ae not popel* info3ed of the cause and natue of the accusation a4ainst the3 in violation of thei constitutional i4ht. Petitiones 3aintain that the tic*cle in )uestion is not a G3oto vehicleG as the anti-canappin4 la! defines the te3 because it is not licensed to opeate on the Gpublic hi4h!a*s.G The Solicito 0eneal contends othe!ise !ith the follo!in4 a4u3ent; The !od GpublicG 3eans Gco33on to all o 3an*E 4enealE open to co33on useG &9lac(7s >a! Dictiona* 55 ARevised "th ?d.B. On the othe hand, 7hi4h!a*7 efes to a 7fee and public oad !a*, o steetE one !hich eve* peson has the i4ht to use &ide3. at p. /2+'. lt is clea that a steet !ithin a to!n is a public hi4h!a* if it is used b* the public. To li3it the !ods Gpublic hi4h!a*sG to a national oad connectin4 the vaious to!ns, as petitiones7 su44est &Repl* dated anua* +#, /1' !ould ceate a distinction !hich the statute itself does not 3a(e. @nde petitiones7 poposition, a distinction should be 3ade bet!een 3oto vehicles opeatin4 !ithin a to!n li(e the 3otoi6ed tic*cle involved heein, and those usin4 oads connectin4 to!ns. This, ho!eve, 4oes a4ainst the !ell (no!n 3ai3 that !hee the la! does not distin4uish, no distinction should be 3ade &Robles vs. La3bales $ho3ite Minin4 $o., 1" Phi> 2//'. It is also to be pointed out that to li3it the application of the %ct to 3oto vehicles tavellin4 bet!een diffeent to!ns, 3a* lead to absud esults. Fo ea3ple, pivatel* o!ned 3otoc*cle used b* its o!ne in tavellin4 fo3 one povince to anothe !ould be coveed b* the la!. @pon the othe hand, a 3otoi6ed tic*cle &!ith sideca' !hich is 3oe epensive than the fo3e but opeated !ithin to!ns !ould not be potected b* the la!. No uneasonable intend3ent should be ead into a statute so that an in8ustice 3a* be !o(ed o an absub esult poduced &In e Mooe7s ?state, N..S. +nd +/, 2# Misc. 2/5'. It can be concluded, theefoe, that the 3otoi6ed tic*cle involves in this case is a 73oto vehicle7 !ithin the a3bit of section + of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+. The lo!e cout coectl* i3posed the penalt* fo violation of said %ct on heein petitiones. 3 e peceive no eason not to accod full validit* of the Solicito 0eneal7s a4u3ent, not even on the petitione7s sub3ission that a 3otoi6ed tic*cle, not havin4 licensed to use a public hi4h!a*, is not a 3oto, vehicle unde the povision of the anti-canappin4 act.
Fo3 the definition cited b* the 0oven3ent !hich petitiones ad3it as authoitative, hi4h!a*s ae al!a*s public, fee fo the use of eve* peson. Thee is nothin4 in the la! that e)uies a license to use a public hi4h!a* to 3a(e the vehicle a G3oto vehicleG !ithin the definition 4iven the anti-canappin4 la!. If a vehicle uses the steets !ith o !ithout the e)uied license, sa3e co3es !ithin the potection of the la!, fo the seveit* of the offense is not to be 3easued b* !hat (ind of steets o hi4h!a* the sa3e is usedE but b* the ve* natue of the vehicle itself and the use to !hich it is devoted. Othe!ise, cas usin4 the steets but still unlicensed o une4isteed as !hen the* have 8ust beet bou4ht fo3 the co3pan*, o onl* on test uns, 3a* be stolen !ithout the penal sanction of the anticanappin4 statute, but onl* as si3ple obbe* punishable unde the povision of the Revised Penal $ode. This obviousl*, could could not have been the intention of the anti-canappin4 la!. 0oin4 ove the enu3eations of ecepted vehicle, it !ould eadil* be noted that an* vehicle !hich is 3otoi6ed usin4 the steets !hich ae public, not eclusivel* fo pivate use, co3es !ithin the concept of 3oto vehicle. % tic*cle !hich is not included in the eception, is thus dee3ed to be that (ind of 3oto vehicle as defined in the la! the stealin4 of !hich co3es !ithin its penal sanction. In an* event, it is a 3atte of 8udicial notice that 3otoi6ed tic*cles ae unnin4 in doves alon4 hi4h!a*s ad3ittedl* public, as those 4oin4 to the noth li(e 9a4uio $it*. Those 3otoi6ed tic*cles cetainl* co3e !ithin the definition of the la!, even unde the esticted constuction that petitiones !ould !ant 4iven to it. If these tic*cles ae G3oto vehiclesG then, thee is no co4ent eason to teat the tic*cle in )uestion diffeentl*. ith the foe4oin4 discussion, it !ould lo4icall* follo! that the petitiones co3plaint of not havin4 been info3ed of the natue and cause of the accusation a4ainst the3 and fo !hich the* !ee convicted upon thei plea of 4uilt*, is unfounded, le4all* and factuall*. factuall*. %4ain, on tills point, e e find the obsevation of the Solicito 0eneal valid, e have no othe couse than to sustain it. Thus J % peusal of the info3ation &%nne of espondent People7s $o33ent dated d ated Nove3be 2, <' eadil* sho!s that petitiones !ee not theeb* info3ed that the* !ee bein4 accused fo violation of the Revised Penal $ode. The cha4e 3eel* desi4nated the offense as one fo; GRO99?R IT= VIO> VIO>?N ?N$? $? %0%IN 0%INST ST P?RS P?RSON ON.G .G The The fact facts s alle alle4e 4ed d in the the info info3 3at ation ion 3a(e 3a(e out out a case case of Gcanappin4G. This offense is defined in section + of Republic %ct No. 2#5 as 7the ta(in4, !ith intent to 4ain, of a 3oto vehicle belon4in4 to anothe !ithout the latte7s consent, o b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons, o b* usin4 foce upon thin4s The info3ation cleal* specified that !hat !as ta(en and caied a!a* !as Gone &' 3otoi6ed tic*cle.G =eein petitiones cannot clai3 that the* !ee 3isled b* the info3ation into pleadin4 4uilt*. It is not necessa* fo the potection of the substantial i4ht of the accused, no the effective pepaation of his defense, that he be info3ed of the technical na3e of the ci3e of !hich he stands cha4ed. =e 3ust loo( to the facts alle4ed &People vs. $osae, # Phi> 2#2E @.S. vs. >i3 San < Phil. +<#'. FOR %>> T=? FOR?0OIN0, the petition is heeb* dis3issed. No costs. SO ORD?R?D.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 201092
January 15, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, Plaintiff -%ppellee,
vs. JOEL !UNO y CEN$!N! / !ONG, %ccused-%ppellant.
D?$ISION LEON!R$O%$E C!STRO, J.:
4
9efoe this $out is an appeal fo3 a Decision dated ul* +, +1 of the $out of %ppeals in $%-0.R. $R.-=.$. No. 1"+2#, entitled People of the Philippines v. oel %)uino * $endana alias %(on4, !hich affi3ed !ith 3odifications the Decision dated Septe3be / +11 of the Re4ional Tial $out of Malolos, 9ulacan, 9anch + !hich convicted appellant oel %)uino * $endana alias %(on4 fo the felon* of Mude unde %ticle +"/ of the Revised Penal $ode in $i3inal $ase No. "/5-M-+115 "/5-M-+115 and fo the ci3e of violation violation of Republic Republic %ct No. 2#5 othe!ise othe!ise (no!n as the %nti-$a3appin4 %ct %ct of <+ in $i3inal $ase No. "/"-M-+115.
+
The petinent potion of the lnfo3ation dated Dece3be , +11+ cha4in4 appellant !ith Mude in $i3inal $ase No. "/5-M-+115 is epoduced hee; 5
That on o about the 2th da* of Septe3be, +11+, in San ose del Monte $it*, povince of 9ulacan, Philippines, and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above-na3ed accused, a3ed !ith an ice pic( and !ith intent to (ill (ill one esus esus O. >ita, >ita, !ith !ith eviden evidentt pe3ed pe3edita itatio tion, n, teach teache* e* and abuse abuse of supei supeio o sten4 sten4th, th, conspi conspiin4 in4,, confedeatin4 and 3utuall* helpin4 one anothe, did then and thee !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl* attac(, assault and stab !ith the said ice pic( the said esus O. >ita, hittin4 hi3 on the diffeent pats of his bod*, theeb* inflictin4 upon hi3 3otal !ounds !hich diectl* caused his death. On the othe hand, the accusato* potion of the Info3ation also dated Dece3be , +11+ accusin4 appellant !ith violatin4 Republic %ct No. 2#5 in $i3inal $ase No. "/"-M-+115 eads; "
That on o about the 2th da* of Septe3be, +11+, in San ose del Monte $it*, povince of 9ulacan, Philippines, and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above-na3ed accused, a3ed !ith an ice pic( and b* 3eans of foce, violence and inti3idation, conspiin4, confedeatin4 and 3utuall* helpin4 one anothe, did then and thee !illfull*, unla!full* unla!full* and feloniousl*, !ith intent AtoB 4ain and !ithout the (no!led4e and consent of the o!ne theeof, ta(e, steal and ca* a!a* !ith the3 one &' tic*cle !ith Plate No. TP-/ valued atP+1,#11.11, belon4in4 to esu esus s >ita >ita and and Sisi Sisini nio o $ont $onti ida das, s, to the the da3a da3a4e 4e and and pe8 pe8ud udic ice e of the the said said o!ne o!nes s in the the said said a3ou a3ount nt of P+1,#11.11E and that on the occasion o b* eason of said canappin4, the said accused, pusuant to thei conspiac* and !ith intent to (ill, attac(, assault and stab esus >ita, o!ne and dive of the said tic*cle, hittin4 hi3 on the diffeent pats of his bod* !hich diectl* caused his death. %ai4n3ent fo the t!o ci3inal cases !as 8ointl* held on Febua* 5, +11" !heein appellant pleaded GNOT 0@I>TG 0@I>TG to both cha4es. #
%s indicated in the %ppellees 9ief, 9ief, the follo!in4 naation constitutes constitutes the posecutions su33ation su33ation of this case; On Septe3be #, +11#, at aound /;51 in the evenin4, the victi3 esus >ita, acco3panied b* his ten-*ea old son, effeson, !ent out aboad the fo3es blac( Ha!asa(i tic*cle. @pon eachin4 San ose del Monte ?le3enta* School, appellant oel %)uino to4ethe !ith No*no* %l3o4uea a.(.a. Ne4o, Rodnal, 9in4, ohn Doe and Pete Doe boaded the tic*cle. No*no* %l3o4uea instucted the victi3 to poceed to the nipa hut o!ned b* appellant. @pon eachin4 the said nipa hut, esus >ita, appellant and his co3panions had a shabu session !hile effeson !as !atchi !atchin4 n4 TV. TV. %fte %fte usin4 usin4 shabu, shabu, No*no* No*no* %l3o4ue %l3o4uea a de3and de3anded ed fo3 fo3 the victi3 victi3 to pa* Five Five =unde =unded d Pesos Pesos &P#11.11', but the victi3 said that he had no 3one*. %ppellant shouted at the victi3 de3andin4 hi3 to pa*. 9in4 su44ested to he co3panions that the* leave the nipa hut. Thus, the victi3 3ounted his tic*cle and stated the en4ine. No*no* %l3o4uea and ohn Doe ode in the tic*cle behind the victi3 !hile appellant and Rodnal ode in the sideca !ith effeson Asittin4B at the toolbo of the tic*cle. Inside the tic*cle, appellant pointed a (nife at effeson !hile No*no* %l3o4uea stabbed the victi3s side. %fte the victi3 !as stabbed, he !as tansfeed inside the tic*cle !hile appellant dove the tic*cle to his fiends house !hee the* a4ain stabbed the victi3 usin4 the lattes o!n (nife. Then the* loaded the victi3 to the tic*cle and dove to a 4ass* aea !hee appellant and his co3panions co3panions du3ped the bod* of the victi3. Theeafte Theeafte,, the* etuned etuned to appellants appellants esidence. esidence. effeson effeson told the siste of appellant about the death of his fathe but the siste of appellant onl* told hi3 to sleep. The net da*, effeson !as bou4ht to the 8eepne* te3inal !hee he ode a 8eepne* to 4et ho3e. effeson told his 3othe, Ma. Theesa $alitisan->ita, about the death of his fathe. In the 3eanti3e, SPO5 Sevillano >actao $abadin4 eceived a call fo3 9aan4a* $aptain Danilo Ro4elio of 9aan4a* San Rafael IV, San ose Del Monte $it*, 9ulacan thu the t!o &+' !a* adio, that the bod* of a 3ale peson !ith seveal stab !ounds !as found dead on a 4ass* aea beside the oad of the said baan4a*. I33ediatel*, SPO5 $abadin4 to4ethe !ith a police aide poceeded to the aea. Theeat, the* found the dead bod* !ho3 the* identified thu his Dives >icense in his !allet as esus >ita, the victi3. %lso ecoveed !ee a bi4 stainless ice pic( about / inches lon4 includin4 the handle and a tic*cle (e*. The police offices bou4ht the bod* of the victi3 to the Sapan4 Pala* Distict =ospital. Theeafte, Theeafte, the* poceeded to the addess of the victi3.
Ma. Theesa $alitisan->ita and effeson !ee about to leave fo the 3o4ue !hen the* 3et SPO5 $abadin4 outside thei esidence. SPO5 $abadin4 info3ed Ma. Theesa that the bod* of the victi3 !as found in 9aan4a* San Rafael IV. effeson told SPO5 $abadin4 that he !as !ith his fathe at the ti3e of his death and he bou4ht the police offices to the place !hee his fathe !as stabbed and to the hut o!ned b* appellant. Theeat, the police offices ecoveed a 3aoon coloed (nife case and the sandals of the victi3. %ppellant !as invited to the police station fo )uestionin4 but he efused alle4in4 that he does not (no! an*thin4 about the incident. The police offices !ee able to obtain a pictue of appellant !hich !as sho!n to effeson and he positivel* identified the sa3e as G%(on4G one of those !ho stabbed his fathe. >i(e!ise, a video foota4e of No*no* %l3o4uea alias GNe4oG !as sho!n to effeson and he li(e!ise identified the peson in the video foota4e as the sa3e GNe4oG !ho also stabbed his fathe. D. Richad Ivan Via*, 3edico-le4al, !ho conducted an autops* on the victi3, concluded that cause of death is =e3oha4ic Shoc( due to 3ultiple stab !ounds. 2
=o!eve, appellant held a diffeent vesion of the events of this case. In his %ppellants 9ief, the succeedin4 account is enteed; A%ppellantB denied the accusations a4ainst hi3. On Septe3be 2, +11+, he !as !o(in4 as a laboeC3ason in the constuction of his uncles &Rene $endana' house located at %ea $, %cacia =o3es, $avite, to4ethe !ith Paul Ma4la)ue, ?3an >o6ada, Raul >o6ada and >oen6o $endana. The* !o(ed fo3 <;51 in the 3onin4 until ";51 in the aftenoon, !ith lunch and G3eiendaG bea(s fo3 ;51 to +;11 ocloc( noon and 5;11 ocloc( to 5;# in the aftenoon, espectivel*. %fte !o(, the* 8ust sta*ed in thei baac(s located !ithin thei !o(place. The* !ould pepae thei food and ta(e suppe at aound <;11 ocloc( to <;51 in the evenin4, afte !hich, the* !ould s3o(e ci4aettes. The* !ould 4o to bed at aound /;11 ocloc( to ;11 ocloc( in the evenin4. =e 4oes ho3e to Sapan4 Pala*, San ose Del Monte $it*, 9ulacan eve* Satuda*. Duin4 Monda*s, he !ould leave thei house at aound ";11 ocloc( to #;11 ocloc( in the 3onin4 and !ould aive at his !o(place at aound /;11 ocloc( o ;11 ocloc( in the 3onin4. A%ppellantB does not (no! eithe Ma. Theesa >ita, his son effeson, o the victi3 esus >ita. %lso, he does not (no! a cetain No*no* %l3o4uea and alias Rodnal. >i(e!ise, he d enied usin4 ille4al du4s &i.e., shabu'. A%ppellantB (ne! SPO5 $abadin4 because the fo3e had seved as a police aide to hi3 since he !as seventeen &<' *eas old. =e had no 3isundestandin4 !ith the police office. =e cannot thin( of an* eason !h* Ma. Theesa >ita and effeson pointed to hi3 as one of the pepetatos of the sub8ect ci3es. Paul Ma4la4ue &Paul' cooboated AappellantsB testi3on*. testi3on*. On Septe3be 2, +11+, a Fida*, AappellantB !as !o(in4 !ith hi3, to4ethe !ith Roldan >o6ada and O!en4 $endana, at %ea $, Das3aias, $avite, in the constuction of 9o* $endanas house, Pauls bothe-in-la!. Paul !as the ce3ent 3ie !hile AappellantB, bein4 his patne, caies it to !heeve it is needed. Thei !o( ends at #;11 ocloc( in the aftenoon. %fte thei !o(, the* 8ust sta*ed in thei baac(s located !ithin thei !o(place. A%ppellantB !as thei coo(. The* usuall* sleep at aound /;11 ocloc( to ;11 ocloc( in the evenin4. The* 4et thei pa* onl* duin4 Satuda*s. =ence, the* !ould 4o ho3e to 9ulacan eve* Satuda*. %t aound 2;11 ocloc( to <;11 ocloc( in the evenin4 of Septe3be <, +11+, the* left $avite and !ent to thei espective ho3es in 9ulacan. On the ni4ht of Septe3be #, +11+, AappellantB slept to4ethe !ith Paul and thei othe co-!o(es inside thei baac(s. Paul !o(e up in the 3iddle of the ni4ht to uinate and !as not able to see !hethe the accused !as thee, as thee !ee no li4hts in the place !hee the* !ee sleepin4. The follo!in4 3onin4, AappellantB !as the one !ho coo(ed thei food. food . &$itations o3itted.' <
%t the conclusion of tial, a 4uilt* vedict !as handed do!n b* the tial cout on both ci3inal cha4es. The dispositive potion of the assailed Septe3be /, +11 Decision states; =?R?FOR?, in $i3inal $ase No. "/5-M-+115, the $out finds the %ccused O?> %:@INO alias G%(on4G 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of the ci3e of Mude and heeb* sentences hi3 to suffe the penalt* of Reclusion Pepetua. The $out heeb* odes the accused O?> %:@INO to pa* the heis of esus >ita, the epenses incued in his buial and funeal sevices in the total a3ount of Sit* Thousand One =unded &P21,11.11' Pesos as actual actual da3a4e da3a4es, s, the su3 of Fift* Fift* Thousa Thousand nd &P#1,11 &P#1,111.1 1.11' 1' Pesos Pesos as 3oal 3oal da3a4e da3a4es, s, and P51,11 P51,111.1 1.11 1 as ee3pla* da3a4es.
In $i3inal $ase No. "/"-M-+115, the $out li(e!ise finds the accused O?> %:@INO alias G%(on4G 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of violatin4 R.%. 2#5, othe!ise (no!n as the %nti-$anappin4 >a!, and heeb* sentences hi3 to suffe the penalt* of >ife I3pison3ent pusuant to Section " of the said R.%. 2#5. The said accused is also odeed to pa* the a3ount of Sit*-Five Thousand ?i4ht =unded Sevent*-Five & P2#,/<#.11' Pesos epesentin4 the total install3ent pa*3ents of the Motoc*cle. The accused is also odeed to pa* costs of this suit.
/
Insistin4 on his innocence, appellant filed an appeal !ith the $out of %ppeals. =o!eve, the appellate cout upheld the 8ud43ent of the tial cout alon4 !ith so3e 3odifications. The dispositive potion of the assailed ul* +, +1 Decision of the $out of %ppeals, in tun, eads; =?R?FOR?, the appealed Decision is heeb* MODIFI?D, as follo!s; a' In $i3inal $ase No. "/5-M-+115, appellant is sentenced to suffe the penalt* of eclusion pepetua !ithout eli4ibilit* fo paole. %ppellant is odeed to pa* the heis of the victi3 actual da3a4es in the su3 ofP21,11.11, dul* poven duin4 the tial, P<#,111.11 civil inde3nit*, P<#,111.11 3oal da3a4es andP51,111.11 ee3pla* da3a4es. b' In $i3inal $ase No. "/"-M-+115, appellant is sentenced to suffe the penalt* of i3pison3ent of Fouteen &"' *eas and ?i4ht &/' 3onths, as 3ini3u3, to Seventeen &<' *eas and Fou &"' 3onths, as 3ai3u3 and to pa* the su3 of P2#,/<#.11 epesentin4 the total install3ent pa*3ents of the 3otoc*cle.
=ence, appellant see(s the $outs favoable action on the instant appeal. In his 9ief, appellant eiteated the follo!in4 eos alle4edl* co33itted b* the tial cout !hen it ad8ud4ed hi3 4uilt* of the cha4es leveled a4ainst hi3; I T=? TRI%> $O@RT 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN FINDIN0 T=? %$$@S?D-%PP?>>%NT 0@I>T 9?OND R?%SON%9>? DO@9T OF T=? $RIM?S $=%R0?D. II T=? TRI%> $O@RT 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN FINDIN0 T=%T T=? %>>?0?D >ON? ??ITN?SS POSITIV?> ID?NTIFI?D T=? %$$@S?D-%PP?>>%NT %S ON? OF T=? P?RP?TR%TORS OF T=? $RIM?S. III T=? TRI%> $O@RT 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN FINDIN0 T=%T TR?%$=?R %TT?ND?D T=? HI>>IN0.
1
%ppellant challen4es his conviction b* a4uin4 that the tial cout !as not able to pove his 4uilt be*ond easonable doubt because it onl* elied on the incedible and inconsistent testi3on* of effeson >ita the sole e*e!itness pesented b* the posecution. =e contends that if effeson !as indeed pesent duin4 the 3ude of his fathe, esus >ita, then it !ould be hi4hl* inconceivable that effeson !ould have lived to tell that tale since he !ould 3ost li(el* be also (illed b* the pepetatos bein4 an e*e!itness to the ci3e. Futhe3oe, appellant 3aintains that he cannot possibl* have co33itted the ci3es attibuted to hi3 because, on the ni4ht that esus !as 3udeed, he !as asleep in the baac(s of a constuction site so3e!hee in Das3aias $it*, $avite. e ae not pesuaded. It is settled in 8uispudence that, absent an* sho!in4 that the lo!e cout oveloo(ed cicu3stances !hich !ould ovetun the final outco3e of the case, due espect 3ust be 3ade to its assess3ent and factual findin4s, 3oeove, such findin4s, !hen affi3ed b* the $out of %ppeals, ae 4eneall* bindin4 and conclusive upon this $out. %fte a thoou4h ea3ination of the ecods of this case, !e find no co3pellin4 eason to doubt the veacit* of the findin4s and conclusions 3ade b* the tial cout.
ith e4ad to appellants in)ui* into the cedibilit* of the lone e*e!itness of the posecution, !e depend upon the pinciple that the tial cout is in a bette position to ad8ud4e the cedibilit* of a !itness. In People v. Ve4aa, !e elaboated on this pe3ise in this !ise; +
hen it co3es to the 3atte of cedibilit* of a !itness, settled ae the 4uidin4 ules so3e of !hich ae that &' the appellate cout !ill not distub the factual findin4s of the lo!e cout, unless thee is a sho!in4 that it had
oveloo(ed, 3isundestood o 3isapplied so3e fact o cicu3stance of !ei4ht and substance that !ould have affected the esult of the case, !hich sho!in4 is absent heeinE &+' the findin4s of the tial cout petainin4 to the cedibilit* of a !itness is entitled to 4eat espect since it had the oppotunit* to ea3ine his de3eano as he testified on the !itness stand, and, theefoe, can discen if such !itness is tellin4 the tuth o notE and &5' a !itness !ho testifies in a cate4oical, stai4htfo!ad, spontaneous and fan( 3anne and e3ains consistent on cossea3ination is a cedible !itness. 5
uispudence also tells us that !hen a testi3on* is 4iven in a candid and stai4htfo!ad 3anne, thee is no oo3 fo doubt that the !itness is tellin4 the tuth. % peusal of the testi3on* of effeson indicates that he testified in a 3anne that satisfies the afoe3entioned test of cedibilit*. Moe i3potantl*, duin4 his ti3e at the !itness stand, effeson positivel* and cate4oicall* identified appellant as one of the individuals !ho stabbed his fathe. "
e )uote the elevant potions of effesons detailed testi3on*; APROS?$@TOR $%R%I0B : h* do *ou (no! that *ou fathe died on the eal* 3onin4 of Septe3be 2, +11+, in Sapan4 Pala*, San ose del MonteK % 9ecause !e left the house to4ethe at /;51 in the evenin4, and 3* fathe loo(ed at the calenda. : ou said *ou !ee !ith *ou fathe. Do *ou (no! !hee !ee *ou 4oin4 at that ti3eK % To the house of %(on4. : %nd !hat 3ode of tanspotation did *ou ta(e, as *ou said, *ou !ee 4oin4 to the house of %(on4K % Ou tic*cle, si. : Do *ou (no! the tade 3a( of that tic*cle of *ou fatheK % Ha!asa(i, si. : Do *ou (no! the colo of that tic*cleK % 9lac(, si. : hile on *ou !a* to the esidence of %(on4, could *ou please tell us if thee !as an* unusual incident that too( placeK % es, si, thee !as. : hat !as thatK % M* fathe !as bein4 stabbed. : Did *ou see !ho stabbed *ou fatheK % es, si. : =o! 3an*K % Thee !ee thee &5' of the3. : If *ou !ill see those thee &5' pesons a4ain, can *ou still identif* the3K % es, si. : %e the* inside the coutoo3K
% es, si. : ill *ou please loo( aound and point to the3. INT?RPR?T?R itness pointed to accused oel %)uino inside the coutoo3. APROS?$@TOR $%R%I0B : ho elseK % The othes ae not hee. : No!, pio to the stabbin4 incident and *ou !ee able to eco4ni6e the thee, one of the3 *ou identified hee inside the coutoo3. hat !as oel %)uino doin4 !hen *ou fist sa! hi3K % =e !as inside ou tic*cle sittin4. : ou ae efein4 to the sideca of *ou tic*cleK % es, si. : ou said a !hile a4o that *ou and *ou fathe !ee onl* the oneAsB on boad the tic*cle. h* !as he, that oel, no! inside the tic*cleK % The* ode in ou tic*cle. : ou ae efein4 to %)uino to4ethe !ith his t!o &+' co3panionsK % es, si. : hee in paticula did these thee &5' pesons ide in *ou tic*cleK % oel %)uino !as inside the sideca of ou tic*cle !hile the othe t!o &+' ode at the bac( of 3* fathe. : %t that pecise 3o3ent, !hee !ee *ou seatedK % %lso inside the sideca, si. : ou ae sittin4 side b* side !ith %)uinoK Is that !hat *ou 3eanK % No, si. : hile inside the tic*cle, !hat did %)uino do, if an*K % =e pointed his (nife at 3e. : hat elseK % Nothin4 else. : hat about the t!o &+' co3panions, !hat did the* do, if an*K % Inunahan nila a4ad an4 Tata* (o sa ta4ilian. : hat do *ou 3ean b* GinunahanGK % The* stabbed 3* fathe on his side. : Did *ou see !hat pat of the bod* of *ou fathe !as stabbedK
$O@RT; itness pointin4 to the i4ht side of his sto3ach. APROS?$@TOR $%R%I0B : hat happened to *ou fathe !hen he !as stabbedK % =e appeaed di66* and he !as placed inside the sideca. : %nd !ho bou4ht *ou fathe inside the sidecaK % The t!o &+' othe pesons peviousl* at the bac( of 3* fathe. : %nd at that ti3e, !hat did oel doK % =e stated divin4 the tic*cle. : Did %)uino dive the tic*cle afte he stated itK % es, si. : %nd did *ou co3e to (no! !hee did oel %)uino poceedK % To thei house, si. : =o! fa !as that house of %)uino fo3 the place !hee *ou fathe !as stabbedK % :uite fa, si. : ee *ou able to each the house of oel %)uinoK % es, si. : hat did %)uino and these t!o &+' pesons do to *ou fathe !hen *ou eached his houseK % The* bou4ht hi3 do!n fo3 the tic*cle. : hee did these thee &5' pesons bin4 *ou fatheK % The* bou4ht 3* fathe to thei fiend. : Did *ou co3e to (no! !ho !as that fiend !hee *ou fathe !as bou4htK % I do not (no! the na3e of thei fiend. : hat happened to *ou fathe !hen he !as bou4ht to thei fiendK % M* fathe !as alead* d*in4 and the* !ent bac( to hi3 and stabbed hi3 seveal ti3es. : =o! 3an* ti3es !as *ou fathe stabbed at that ti3eK % I do not (no!, si. : Did *ou see !ho stabbed hi3 a4ainK % es, si. : hoK
% The thee &5' of the3. : Do *ou 3ean to sa* that %)uino at that ti3e stabbed *ou fatheK % es, si. : Did *ou see !hat (ind of !eapon did these thee &5' pesons use in stabbin4 *ou fatheK % M* fathes o!n (nife. : ho a3on4 the thee &5' used *ou fathes (nifeK % %(on4 po. : That %(on4 !as the fiend of the thee &5' pesons to !hee these thee &5' pesons bou4ht *ou fatheK % No, si. : ou ae efein4 to one of the t!o &+' co3panions of oelK % es, si. : %nd afte that !hat else tanspied netK % The* boaded 3* fathe to the tic*cle. : =o! about *ouK % hile the* !ee boadin4 3* fathe to the tic*cle, %(on4 pointed his (nife at 3* sto3ach. : ee the thee &5' pesons able to boad *ou fathe inside *ou tic*cleK % es, si. : %nd !hat did the thee &5' pesons do afte *ou fathe !as alead* inside the tic*cleK % The* stated the tic*cle. : %nd then !hat happened netK % %fte the* stated the 3otoc*cle, the* dove the tic*cle and the! a!a* 3* fathe. : Did *ou see the act of these thee &5' pesons tho!in4 *ou fathe a!a* fo3 the tic*cleK % es, si. : =o! fa !ee *ou fo3 the3 !hen the* the! *ou fatheK % Moe o less about # to 2 3etes, si. : Descibe the place !hee *ou fathe !as tho!n. % It !as a 4ass* aea. : The 4ass ae tallK % Shot 4ass, si. : %nd afte *ou fathe !as tho!n a!a*, !hat did the thee &5' pesons doK % The* stated ou tic*cle and left 3* fathe.
#
In the face of this seious accusation, appellant puts fo!ad the defense of alibi. e have held that fo the defense of alibi to pospe, the accused 3ust pove not onl* that he !as at so3e othe place at the ti3e of the co33ission
of the ci3e, but also that it !as ph*sicall* i3possible fo hi3 to be at the locus delicti o !ithin its i33ediate vicinit*. These e)uie3ents of ti3e and place 3ust be stictl* 3et. % evie! of the evidence pesented b* appellant eveals that it falls shot of the standad set b* 8uispudence. %ppellant failed to establish b* clea and convincin4 evidence that it !as ph*sicall* i3possible fo hi3 to be at San ose Del Monte $it*, 9ulacan !hen esus !as 3udeed. =is o!n testi3on* evealed that the distance bet!een the locus delicti and Das3aias $it*, $avite is onl* a fou to five hou e4ula co33ute. Thus, it !ould not be ph*sicall* i3possible fo hi3 to 3a(e the ound tip bet!een those t!o points fo3 dus( till da!n of Septe3be #-2, +11+ and still have 3oe than enou4h ti3e to paticipate in the events suoundin4 the 3ude of esus. 2
<
Futhe3oe, the onl* peson that could cooboate appellants alibi is his fiend and fo3e co-!o(e, Paul Ma4la)ue. =o!eve, !e have consistentl* assi4ned less pobative !ei4ht to a defense of alibi !hen it is cooboated b* fiends and elatives since !e have established in 8uispudence that, in ode fo cooboation to be cedible, the sa3e 3ust be offeed pefeabl* b* disinteested !itnesses. $leal*, due to his fiendship !ith appellant, Ma4la)ue cannot be consideed as a disinteested !itness. /
Nevetheless, it is 8uispudentiall* settled that positive identification pevails ove alibi since the latte can easil* be fabicated and is inheentl* uneliable. It is li(e!ise settled that !hee thee is nothin4 to indicate that a !itness fo the posecution !as actuated b* i3pope 3otive, the pesu3ption is that he !as not so actuated and his testi3on* is entitled to full faith and cedit. In the case at ba, no alle4ation !as 3ade no poven to sho! that effeson had an* ill 3otive to falsel* testif* a4ainst appellant.
+1
ith e4ad to appellants a4u3ent that effeson !ould suel* have also been (illed b* his fathes 3udees had he indeed !itnessed the ci3e, !e can onl* su3ise and speculate on this point. hateve 3a* be the (illes 3otivation to spae effesons life e3ains a 3*ste*. Nonetheless, it does not advesel* affect !hat has been cleal* established in this case and that is the cold-blooded 3ude of esus b* a 4oup of assailants !hich includes heein appellant. %ccodin4 to 8uispudence, to be convicted of 3ude, the follo!in4 3ust be established; &' a peson !as (illedE &+' the accused (illed hi3E the (illin4 !as !ith the attendance of an* of the )ualif*in4 cicu3stances unde %ticle +"/ of the Revised Penal $odeE and &"' the (illin4 neithe constitutes paicide no infanticide. +
$onta* to appellants assetion, the )ualif*in4 cicu3stance of teache* did attend the (illin4 of esus. e have consistentl* held that teache* is pesent !hen the offende co33its an* of the ci3es a4ainst pesons, e3plo*in4 3eans, 3ethods, o fo3s in the eecution, !hich tend diectl* and speciall* to insue its eecution, !ithout is( to the offende aisin4 fo3 the defense !hich the offended pat* 3i4ht 3a(e. On this point, !e )uote !ith appoval the $out of %ppeals discussion of this aspect of the case, to !it; 1âwphi1
++
The essence of teache* is the sudden and unepected attac( b* the a44esso on an unsuspectin4 victi3, depivin4 hi3 of an* eal chance to defend hi3self. ?ven !hen the victi3 !as foe!aned of the dan4e to his peson, teache* 3a* still be appeciated since !hat is decisive is that the eecution of the attac( 3ade it i3possible fo the victi3 to defend hi3self o to etaliate. Recods disclose that esus !as stabbed b* the 4oup on the lateal pat of his bod* !hile he !as unde the i3pession that the* !ee si3pl* leavin4 the place !hee the* had AaB shabu session. udicial notice can be ta(en that !hen the tic*cle dive is seated on the 3otoc*cle, his head is usuall* hi4he o at the level of the oof of the side ca !hich leaves his toso eposed to the passen4es !ho ae seated in the side ca. =ence, thee !as no !a* fo esus to even be foe!aned of the intended stabbin4 of his bod* both fo3 the people seated in the side ca and those seated behind hi3. Thus, the tial couts findin4 of teache* should be affi3ed. Thee is teache* !hen the 3eans, 3ethods, and fo3s of eecution 4ave the peson attac(ed no oppotunit* to defend hi3self o to etaliateE and such 3eans, 3ethods, and fo3s of eecution !ee delibeatel* and consciousl* adopted b* the accused !ithout dan4e to his peson. hat is decisive in an appeciation of teache* is that the eecution of the attac( 3ade it i3possible fo the victi3 to defend hi3self. &$itations o3itted.' +5
=o!eve, in contast to the ponounce3ents of both the tial cout and the $out of %ppeals, !e cannot conside abuse of supeio sten4th as an a44avatin4 cicu3stance in this case. %s pe 8uispudence, !hen the cicu3stance of abuse of supeio sten4th concus !ith teache*, the fo3e is absobed in the latte. Since thee is no a44avatin4 o 3iti4atin4 cicu3stance pesent, the pope penalt* is eclusion pepetua, in accodance !ith %ticle 25 paa4aph + of the Revised Penal $ode, it bein4 the lesse penalt* bet!een the t!o indivisible penalties fo the felon* of 3ude !hich is eclusion pepetua to death. +"
+#
=o!eve, !e concu !ith the 3odification 3ade b* the $out of %ppeals !ith espect to the penalt* of life i3pison3ent fo canappin4 oi4inall* i3posed b* the tial cout. >ife i3pison3ent has lo n4 been eplaced !ith the penalt* of eclusion pepetua to death b* vitue of Republic %ct No. <2#. Futhe3oe, the said penalt* is
applicable onl* to the special co3ple ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide !hich is not obtainin4 in this case. uispudence tells us that to pove the special co3ple ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide, thee 3ust be poof not onl* of the essential ele3ents of canappin4, but also that it !as the oi4inal ci3inal desi4n of the culpit and the (illin4 !as pepetated in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof. The appellate cout coectl* obseved that the (illin4 of esus cannot )ualif* the canappin4 into a special co3ple ci3e because the canappin4 !as 3eel* an aftethou4ht !hen the victi3s death !as alead* fait acco3pli. Thus, appellant is 4uilt* onl* of si3ple canappin4. +2
It is enshined in 8uispudence that !hen death occus due to a ci3e, the follo!in4 da3a4es 3a* be a!aded; &' civil inde3nit* e delicto fo the death of the victi3E &+' actual o co3pensato* da3a4esE &5' 3oal da3a4esE &"' ee3pla* da3a4esE and &#' te3peate da3a4es. +<
Thee bein4 no a44avatin4 cicu3stance since, as discussed ealie, abuse of supeio sten4th is absobed in the )ualif*in4 cicu3stance of teache*, the a!ad of P<#,111.11 as 3oal da3a4es should be deceased toP#1,111.11. Such an a3ount is 4anted even in the absence of poof of 3ental and e3otional suffein4 of the victi3s heis. +/
Pusuant to cuent 8uispudence, the a!ad of civil inde3nit* in the a3ount of P<#,111.11 and ee3pla* da3a4es in the a3ount of P51,111.11 is coect. The a3ount of actual da3a4es dul* poven in cout in the su3 of P21,11.11 is li(e!ise upheld. Finall*, !e i3pose inteest at the ate of 2 pe annu3 on all da3a4es fo3 the date of finalit* of this ulin4 until full* paid. +
51
5
ith e4ad to appellants conviction fo si3ple canappin4, !e affi3 the penalt* of i3pison3ent i3posed b* the $out of %ppeals !hich is fouteen &"' *eas and ei4ht &/' 3onths, as 3ini3u3, to seventeen &<' *eas and fou &"' 3onths, as 3ai3u3. >i(e!ise, !e uphold the ode upon appellant to pa* the su3 of P2#,/<#.11 epesentin4 the total a3ount of the install3ent pa*3ents 3ade on the 3otoc*cle. =?R?FOR?, pe3ises consideed, the Decision dated ul* +, +1 of the $out of %ppeals in $%-0.R. $R.-=.$. No. 1"+2#, affi3in4 the conviction of appellant oel %)uino $endana alias G%(on4G in $i3inal $ases No. "/5-M+115 and "/"-M-+115, is heeb* %FFIRM?D !ith the MODIFI$%TIONS that; &' The a3ount of 3oal da3a4es to be paid b* appellant oel %)uino $endana alias G%(on4G in $i3inal $ase No. "/5-M-+115, is deceased fo3 Sevent*-Five Thousand Pesos &P<#,111.11' to Fift* Thousand Pesos &PS1,111.11'E and &+' %ppellant oel %)uino $endana alias %(on4 is odeed to pa* inteest on all da3a4es at the le4al ate of si pecent & 2' pe annu3 fo3 the date of finalit* of this 8ud43ent. No ponounce3ent as to costs. SO ORD?R?D.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 103299 !u'u() 1&, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. LOPE "ENTE y M!PL, accused-appellant. !he Solicitor 'eneral "or plainti""(appellee. Abel C. Coloma "or accused(appellant.
$!"$E, JR., J.:
In an info3ation filed on " %pil / !ith the Re4ional Tial $out &RT$' of Manila, accused >ope Viente * Mapili !as cha4ed !ith the violation of Republic %ct No. 2#5, othe!ise (no! as the %nti-$anappin4 %ct, in that; . . . on o about the +th da* of anua*, /, in the $it* of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiin4 and confedeatin4 !ith t!o othes !hose tue na3es, identities and !heeabouts ae still un(no!n and helpin4 one anothe, did then and thee !ilfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl*, !ith intent of &sic ' 4ain and b* 3eans of foce, violence and inti3idation, to !it; b* then and thee po(in4 a 4un at the nape of one Naciso $abatas * >i3oa, dive of an Isu6u passen4e 8itne* !ith Plate No. DV9-"+", !ith Moto Nu3be 5/21+/ and $hassis Nu3be SPMM-1"1/-/2-$, valued at P#1,111.11, o!ned b* >ucila $espino * Man6alan, 4abbin4 the !heels & sic ' of the said vehicle and pushin4 the said dive off the sa3e, ta(e, steal and ca* a!a* the said passen4e 8itne*, a4ainst the !ill of said Naciso $abatas * >i3oa, to the da3a4es and pe8udice of the said o!ne in the afoesaid su3 of P#1,111.11, Philippine $uenc*. 1
The case !as doc(eted as $i3inal $ase No. /-<++15 and !as assi4ned to 9anch +/ &Pilot $out' of the said cout. Tial on the 3eits ensued afte the accused had enteed a plea of not 4uilt* at his aai4n3ent on une /. 2 The posecution pesented as its !itnesses Naciso $abatas, >ucila $ispino and S4t. ilfedo 9autista fo its evidence in chief. The !itnesses fo the defense !ee ai3e Nua*, esus 9enitua, Ro3eo Rosales, Nona Nua*, %tt*. ?lpidio @nto &defense counsel' and the accused. The posecution ecalled Ms. $ispino and S4t. 9autista as ebuttal !itnesses !hile the defense pesented the accused and his bothe, Vaselides Viente, as suebuttal !itnesses. % de3ue to evidence filed b* the defense afte the posecution had ested its case !as denied b* the cout. 3 On < Octobe , the tial cout, pe ud4e Rosalio 0. De la Rosa, po3ul4ated its decision, the dispositive potion of !hich eads as follo!s; =?R?FOR?, the accused is found 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of the ci3e of canappin4 o violation of Republic %ct 2#5 and is sentenced to suffe i3pison3ent of thit* &51' *eas and to inde3nif* the subsidia* i3pison3ent in case of insolvenc*, and to pa* the costs. 4 The accused &heeinafte efeed to as the %ppellant' seasonabl* filed a notice of appeal !hich the tial cout appoved. This $out accepted the appeal in the Resolution of Febua* +. On < Ma* +, the appellant !ote this $out a lette 5 !heein he stated that his counsel, %tt*. ?lpidio D. @nto, had failed to file a fo3al offe of evidence in the cout belo! and had late abandoned hi3. =e as(s that a counsel de o"icio be assi4ned to hi3. On 1 une +, this $out elieved %tt*. @nto as counsel fo the appellant and subse)uentl* appointed %tt*. %bel $. $olo3a of :uasha %speilla %ncheta Pea Q Nolasco as counsel de o"icio. The appellant and the appellee filed thei 3ain biefs on +# Septe3be + and Mach 5, espectivel*. The fo3e filed a Repl* 9ief on +1 %pil 5. The facts of this case, as culled fo3 the ecods and the pleadin4s, ae as follo!s; Naciso $abatas is the dive of an Isu6u passen4e 8eepne* o!ned b* >ucila $ispino !hich plies the 9aclaan$ubao oute. %t about ";11 a.3. of + anua* /, $abatas left >ibetad, Pasa* on boad the 8eepne* in ode to pl* his oute. & %t the cone of 0il Pu*at and Taft %venues, thee 3en boaded the passen4e 8eepne* and sat at the bac(. One of the 3en sat diectl* behind $abatas on the left side of the 8eepne* !hile the othe t!o sat at the i4ht side opposite the fist one. @pon eachin4 the cone of Taft %venue and Malva Steet nea the Philippine o3en7s @nivesit* at about ";# to ";51 a.3., one of the thee 3en si4naled $abatas to stop. hen $abatas stopped the 8eepne* in font of the Philippine o3en7s @nivesit*, one of the t!o 3en seated at the i4ht side po(ed a 4un at $abatas7 nape and odeed the othe passen4es to ali4ht fo3 the 8eepne*. The othe passen4es 4ot do!n fo3 the 8eepne*E theeafte one of the 3en pulled $abatas to the i4ht font seat !hile the 3an seated diectl* behind $abatas tansfeed to the dive7s seat. It !as at this point that $abatas sa! the face of the one !ho had ta(en hold of the steein4 !heel. $abatas !as then shoved out of the 8eepne* b* one of the 3en at the bac(. hile on the pave3ent, $abatas head one of the 3en utte; GParen# )ope* pata+buhin mo na an# ,eepG The thee 3en then dove off. * $abatas i33ediatel* epoted the incident to the esten Police Distict &PD' %nti-$anappin4 Section at the PD =ead)uates in @.N. %venue, Manila. 9 =e !as advised to etun at /;11 a.3. of the follo!in4 da* !ith the e4istation papes of the vehicle. =e !ent to >ucila $ispino, told he of !hat tanspied and 3entioned to he the state3ent utteed b* one of the 10 canappes. The net da*, $abatas and Ms. $ispino !ent to the PD. =e !as assued b* the offices of the PD %nti$anappin4 Section that the* !ould i33ediatel* send out an G%la3 RepotG of the incident. 11 $abatas and Ms. $ispino also epoted the incident to the P$CINP %nti-$anappin4 Section at $a3p $a3e, :ue6on $it* as !ell as to the P$ $%P$OM at $a3p 9a4on4 Di!a, 9icutan, Ta4i4 on # %pil /. 12 $abatas told the $%P$OM offices that he had t!ice seen the suspect idin4 in passen4e 8eepne*s pl*in4 the 9aclaan-Divisoia oute. 13 Theeupon, >t. %lfedo Obeta, S4t. ilfedo 9autista and S4t. ?duado 9autista as(ed hi3 to acco3pan* the3 in a suveillance opeation alon4 Taft %venue. The fist da* of suveillance poved unfuitful. On the second da* of suveillance o on 5 Mach /, $abatas and the $%P$OM offices posted the3selves at the cone of Taft %venue and
Pedo 0il Steet. $abatas then spotted the suspect aboad a nothbound passen4e 8eepne* and pointed hi3 out to the $%P$OM offices. The $%P$OM offices told $abatas to 4o ho3e and, afte!ads, to poceed to the $%P$OM head)uates the net da*. The $%P$OM offices then follo!ed the suspect and appehended hi3 alon4 Taft %venue in font of the ai %lai 9uildin4. The peson aested !as identified as >ope Viente, the heein appellant. The follo!in4 da* at the $%P$OM head)uates, $abatas positivel* identified the appellant fo3 a five-3an line-up as the one !ho had 4abbed the steein4 !heel of the 8eepne*. 14
It appeas that the da* befoe the appellant7s aest, %tt*. ?lpidio @nto had visited >ucila $ispino in he esidence, acco3panied b* a 3an and a !o3an, both of !ho3 he did not intoduce to Ms. $ispino. %tt*. @nto pleaded to Ms. $ispino not to suspect his nephe!s !ho he said !ee 4ood people. 15 >ucila !as codial enou4h, but told %tt*. @nto she !ould file a case a4ainst !hoeve stole he 8eepne*. The 3an !ho had acco3panied %tt*. @nto !as late identified as the appellant. 1 hile in the custod* of the $%P$OM, the appellant eecuted a; G Sinumpaan# Sala%sa% G &?hibit G>G' dated 5 Mach /. =e !as also bou4ht to the Depat3ent of ustice &DO' !hee he eecuted a hand!itten state3ent &?hibit GNG'. The hand!itten state3ent contains the cetification of State Posecuto =enani T. 9aios that he had pesonall* ea3ined the appellant and that he is satisfied that the appellant voluntail* eecuted and undestood his affidavit. 9oth state3ents !ee 4iven !ithout the assistance of counsel. The appellant elies on the defense of alibi !hich his !itnesses tied to !eave. ai3e Nua* testified that he is a dive-8eepne* opeato and that he has (no!n the appellant since childhood. The appellant !as his altenate dive, a conducto of one of his 8eepne*s and a pi4 butche. Duin4 the incident in )uestion, the appellant !as at his &Nua*7s' esidence at ++51 Muo6 Steet, Malate, Manila butchein4 ho4s fo3 +;11 a.3. to #;11 a.3. and then slicin4 and coo(in4 the 3eat fo3 #;11 a.3. until 1;11 a.3. 1& esus 9enitua, !ho is a esident of ++"1 Muo6 Steet, Malate, Manila, (no!s the appellant to be a dive and conducto. 9enitua testified that the latte sta*s at the esidence of ai3e Nua*, his &9enitua7s' net-doo nei4hbo. On + anua* / at +;11 a.3., he sa! the accused butchein4 pi4s at the house of ai3e Nua*. 1* Ro3eo Rosales, a fo3e dive of Ms. $ispino, testified that at about <;11 o /;11 o7cloc( in the 3onin4 of + anua* /, he !as !ith the appellant eatin4 and din(in4 at the latte7s place. The appellant is his Gba(adaG and the bothe of his G compadre,G Vaselides Viente. 19 Nona Nua*, the !ife of ai3e Nua*, cooboated the testi3on* of the othe !itnesses that the appellant !as at thei esidence butchein4 and coo(in4 pi4s. The appellant is a thid cousin of he husband, ai3e Nua*. 20 %tt*. ?lpidio @nto, then counsel fo the defense, testified fo the appellant, 21 actin4 as both the ea3inin4 la!*e and the defense !itness. =e declaed that he, to4ethe !ith the appellant and the siste of Deio Punto, !ent to the esidence of Ms. $ispino and pleaded to the latte not to suspect his elatives as the* ae 4ood people. 22 =e did not bothe to intoduce the appellant to Ms. $ispino. 23 The appellant !as his fo3e bod*4uad !ho is pobabl* capable of (illin4 so3ebod* but not of stealin4. 24 =e aveed that he had filed ad3inistative and cout cases a4ainst the $%P$OM offices and that the !ould sub3it a fo3al offe of docu3ents anent these 3attes. The ecod sho!s, ho!eve, that he failed to do so. 25 The appellant testified that he !o(ed as an altenate dive and conducto fo3 Monda* to Satuda* each !ee(, and as a pi4 butche on Sunda*s. =e is (no!n to the $ispino spouses and Naciso $abatas. =e !as aested on 5 Mach / and bou4ht to the $%P$OM !hee he !as totued and foced to eecute a state3ent &?hibit G>G'. =e !as then bou4ht to the DO !hee he eecuted anothe state3ent &?hibit GNG' unde theat of death fo3 the acco3pan*in4 $%P$OM offices. 2 In his 3ain bief, the appellant 3a(es the follo!in4 assi4n3ent of eos; T=? TRI%> $O@RT 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN DISR?0%RDIN0 T=? D?F?NS?S OF D?NI%> %ND %>I9I 0IV?N 9 T=? %$$@S?D-%PP?>>%NT. T=? TRI%> $O@RT 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN DISR?0%RDIN0 T=? $R?DI9>? %ND $ORRO9OR%TIV? T?STIMONI?S OF %$$@S?D7S ITN?SS?S IN S@PPORT OF T=? D?F?NS?S OF D?NI%> %ND %>I9I. T=? TRI%> $O@RT 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN FINDIN0 T=%T T=? %$$@S?D-%PP?>>%NT %S 0@I>T 9?OND R?%SON%9>? DO@9T OF VIO>%TIN0 R?P@9>I$ %$T NO. 2#5. 2&
In suppot of the fist assi4ned eo, the appellant insists that Naciso $abatas is not a cedible !itness because he eadil* ad3itted that the o!nes of the stolen 8eepne* ae his elatives and e3plo*esE hence, he is Gspecificall* inclined to colo his state3ents, to suppess the tuth, o to state !hat is false.G Futhe3oe, he points out the inconsistenc* bet!een $abatas7 cout testi3on* that he !as shoved out of the 8eepne* and his state3ent enteed in the %la3 Repot &?hibit G%G' that he decided to 8u3p off fo fea of his life. =e also )uestions the failue of $abatas to i33ediatel* info3 the police o >ucila $ispino concenin4 the state3ent one of the canappes utteed. e ae not pesuaded. The elationship of $abatas !ith the o!nes of the stolen 8eepne* neithe dis)ualifies hi3 fo3 testif*in4 no endes his testi3on* un!oth* of belief considein4 the lac( of sho!in4 of an* i3pope 3otive co3pellin4 hi3 to testif* falsel* a4ainst the appellant. The latte7s su44estion that G$abatas !as pessued to point to an*one as the pobable canappe since it !as he !ho lost the vehicle sub8ect of this caseG is nothin4 but a self-sevin4 conclusion !hich finds no suppot !hatsoeve. e have held that a !itness7 elationship to a victi3, fa fo3 endein4 his testi3on* biased, !ould even ende it 3oe cedible as it !ould be unnatual fo a elative !ho is inteested in vindicatin4 the ci3e to accuse so3ebod* othe than the eal culpit. 2* No is the testi3on* of a !itness discedited b* the 3ee fact that he is an e3plo*ee of the co3plainant. 29 The clai3ed inconsistenc* is 3oe appaent than eal. e adopt !hat the appellee said in efutation theeof; The s!on state3ent i3puted to $abatas is not !hat appellant clai3s it to be. ?hibit G%G is 3eel* an %la3 Repot pepaed b* the %nti-$anappin4 Section of the esten Police Distict, @.N. %venue, Manila, !hich ve* biefl* su33ai6es the events epoted b* $abatas. ose, it is not unde oath. It see3s that said epot !as pepaed solel* b* the investi4atin4 offices afte heain4 $abatas7 naation. Moeove, ?hibit G%G is in ?n4lish, a lan4ua4e alien to $abatas testified that his hi4hest educational attain3ent !as 3eel* 0ade 2. =e cannot spea( o !ite ?n4lish &tsn. Oct. ", /, p. #'. hateve inaccuacies and o3issions in the tanslation of $abatas7 sto*, theefoe, can not be ta(en a4ainst hi3 o be e4aded as in an* !a* detactin4 fo3 his cedibilit* as a !itness. %ppellant convenientl* fails to 3ention, ho!eve, that $abatas7 Sinu3paan4 Sala*sa* dated Mach 51, /, 4iven befoe the Office of the Re4ional Investi4ation @nit, $a3p 9a4on4 Di!a, 9icutan, cooboates pacticall* all 3ateial points of his testi3on* at the tial. . . . . In ?hibit G9,G $abatas cate4oicall* stated that he !as pushedCshoved out of the 8eepne* and that he late head one of appellant7s co3panions utte the alle4ed state3ent. ?hibit G9G is a eal affidavit, subscibed and s!on to b* $abatas, unli(e ?hibits G%G, !hich is 3eel* an %la3 Repot. If consistenc* bet!een eta8udicial state3entCaffidavit, and testi3on* in open cout is appellant7s *adstic( of a !itness7 cedibilit*, suel*, $abatas 3oe than ade)uatel* 3easues up to this standad. 30 The alle4ation that $abatas failed to foth!ith info3 >ucila $ispino about the state3ent he head fo3 one of the canappes, vi-. , GParen# )ope* pata+buhin mo na and eep G is tavesed b* the testi3onies of Naciso $abatas and Ms. $ispino that the fo3e had info3ed the latte of the said utteance on the da* of the incident. 31 The eticence of $abatas to i33ediatel* eveal the said state3ent to the police offices !as satisfactoil* eplained; he !as then afaid. 32 The natual eluctance of !itnesses to voluntee info3ation to the police authoities in ci3inal cases is a 3atte of 8udicial notice. 33 =e 3i4ht have dee3ed it the bette pat of valo not to 4ive the na3e of the accused !ho !as still at la4e and !ho pobabl* eco4ni6ed hi3. Such eluctance should not affect his testi3on*. The decisive facto is that he in fact identified the accused. 34 Finall*, the appellant a4ues that it is hi4hl* i3pobable fo hi3 to focibl* ta(e a 8eepne* fo3 so3eone !ho could easil* identif* hi3. =e states that he is (no!n to both Naciso $abatas and Ms. $ispino, !hich, ho!eve, the t!o den*. Defense !itness Ro3eo Rosales declaed that $abatas and the appellant (no!n each othe because Gthis is the Visa*an custo3, that !hen !e 3et !e beca3e &sic' close to each othe.G et, in the sa3e beath he stated that he (ne! $abatas onl* b* face, 35 althou4h both he and $abatas ae Visa*ans. ai3e Nua*, !ho used to dive fo Ms. $ispino, also testified that he did not (no! the na3e of one of the dives. 3 $onsidein4 the fact that thee !ee 3oe than thit* dives e3plo*ed b* Ms. $ispino 3& and that Ro3eo Rosales too( the appellant as his conducto !ithout the pe3ission and (no!led4e of Ms. $ispino, and even paid the appellant out of his o!n poc(et, 3* it is not i3pobable that the appellant !as no! (no!n to $abatas and Ms. $ispino.
The appellant7s atte3pts to discedit Naciso $abatas not havin4 3et !ith success, the issue then boils do!n to !hethe his defense of alibi should be favoabl* consideed. %io3atic is the ule that the said defense cannot pevail ove the positive identification of an accused. 39 In the instant case, thee is no doubt in ou 3inds that the appellant !as positivel* identified b* $abatas. The effots of the defense counsel duin4 coss-ea3ination to cast doubt theeon onl* succeeded in sten4thenin4 $abatas7 testi3on*. Thus; %TT. @NTO; : M. itness, *ou said duin4 the last session that *ou loo(ed at the peson !ho too( the !heel of the 8eepne* fo3 *ou and *ou sa! his face, is that i4htK ITN?SS; % es, si. : %nd ho! lon4 and ho! 3an* seconds o 3inutes !ee *ou able to see his faceK % It !as li(e this, si. That 3an !ho too( the !heel fo3 3e ca3e fo3 the bac(seat of the 8eepne*. So that !hen he tansfeed to the dive7s seat I loo(ed at hi3 and then he shoved 3e and then this 3an pushed 3e to!ads the i4ht potion of the font seat. %TT. @NTO; : %nd in fact, at that ti3e *ou did not (no! his na3e *et, is that i4htK % es, si. I did not (no! his na3e *et as of that date. : %nd did *ou eve co3e to (no! his na3e late. % es, si. I ca3e to (no! his na3e late. : =o!K % ell, I head his co3panion called hi3 b* his na3e. I head his co3panion said; GPaen4 >ope, pata(buhin 3o na an4 8eep.G $O@RT; : =o! 3an* !ee his co3panionsK % =e has t!o co3panions and his co3panions told hi3; GPaen4 >ope, pata(buhin 3o na.G %TT. @NTO; : %nd please tell us, befoe his co3panions utteed those !ods *ou neve eco4ni6ed his face and *ou neve (ne! his na3e is G>opeGK % I !as able to eco4ni6e the face of the accused. : =o! did *ou eco4ni6ed his face o !hat is *ou basis on ho! *ou !ee able to eco4ni6e his faceK % 9ecause the place !as alead* !ell li4hted. $O@RT; : as the inteio of *ou passen4e 8eepne* !ith li4hts onK
ITN?SS; % es, ou =ono. %s a 3atte of fact the li4hts in the inteio pat of the 8eepne* !ee on. 40 9esides, !e a4ee !ith the obsevation of the appellee that the appellant7s testi3on* Gdoes not contain an* info3ation as to his activities on the date and the ti3e of the canappin4 incident.G In shot, he !as co3pletel* silent e4adin4 vital facts in suppot of the defense of alibi. =is ton4ue stubbonl* efused to epess it. Onl* his !itnesses testified on !hat he did and !hee he !as at the ti3e the canappin4 too( place. Thus, !e have hee a situation !hee, as aptl* put b* the appellee, Gappellant7s alibi is not eall* his,G o the !itnesses concocted the alibi fo the appellant !hich the latte did not even bothe to cooboate. %ll told, the alibi in )uestion cannot convince an* ational 3ind and 3iseabl* fails to cast an* dubiet* on the positive identification of the appellant. That thee !itnesses 41 testified in suppot of the appellant7s defense of alibi !ill not suffice to eoneate the latte. In dete3inin4 the sufficienc* of evidence, !hat 3attes is not the nu3be of !itnesses but the cedibilit*, natue and )ualit* of the testi3on*. 42 itnesses ae !ei4hed, not nu3beed, and the testi3on* of a sin4le !itness 3a* suffice fo conviction if othe!ise tust!oth* and eliable. 43 The 3atte of assi4nin4 values to declaations at the !itness stand is best pefo3ed b* a tial 8ud4e !ho is in a fa advanta4eous position than us to distin4uish 3oe co3petentl* the pevaicatos a3on4 the !itnesses fo3 those !ho testified the tuth. 44 In passin4, it 3a* be noted that althou4h the appellant7s Sinumpaan# Sala%sa% &?hibit G>G' and hand!itten state3ent &?hibit GNG' !ee obtained fo3 hi3 !ithout the assistance of counsel, thei inad3issibilit* unde paa4aphs &' and &5', Section +, %ticle III of the /< $onstitution has not been s)uael* aised befoe us. In an* event, !e find it unnecessa* to d!ell on thei inad3issibilit* since the evidence on ecod is 3oe than ade)uate to !aant the appellant7s conviction. hee thee is independent evidence, apat fo3 the appellant7s uncounselled confession that he is tul* 4uilt*, he accodin4l* faces a conviction. 45 e a4ee !ith the Solicito 0eneal that the tial cout eed in i3posin4 upon the appellant a stai4ht penalt* of i3pison3ent fo thit* *eas. The canappin4 in this case !as co33itted b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons. The penalt* pescibed theefo unde Section " of R.%. No. 2#5 is Gi3pison3ent fo not less than seventeen *eas and fou 3onths and not 3oe than thit* *eas.G @nde Section of the Indete3inate Sentence >a!, 4 if an offense is punished b* a special la!, the cout shall sentence the accused to an indete3inate sentence, the 3ai3u3 te3 of !hich shall not eceed the 3ai3u3 fied b* the said la! and the 3ini3u3 shall not be less than the 3ini3u3 te3 pescibed b* the sa3e. The pope penalt* to be i3posed should not, theefoe, be thit* *eas, but an indete3inate penalt* !hich is heeb* set at seventeen &<' *eas and fou &"' 3onths as minimum to thit* &51' *eas as maximum. =?R?FOR?, ecept as to the 3odification e4adin4 the penalt*, the appealed 8ud43ent is heeb* %FFIRM?D in all othe espects. %s 3odified, appellant is heeb* sentenced to suffe an indete3inate penalt* of i3pison3ent an4in4 fo3 seventeen &<' *eas and fou &"' 3onths as minimum to thit* &51' *eas as maximum. $osts a4ainst the appellant. SO ORD?R?D.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila S?$OND DIVISION G.R. No. 1&9041
!r 1, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, Plaintiff-%ppellee,
vs. !RNEL NOCUM,- RE# JOHNN# R!MOS, C!RLOS JUN POS!$!S, P!N$!O POLNG P!NG!N$!G 6a a) ar'78, %ccused, RE#N!L$O M!LL!R, %ccused-%ppellant.
D?$ISION $EL C!STLLO, J.:
This is an appeal fo3 the anua* 5, +11< Decision of the $out of %ppeals &$%' in $%-0.R. $R-=.$. No. 1151, !hich dis3issed the appeal of appellant Re*naldo Mallai &Mallai' and affi3ed !ith 3odification the Dece3be #, +115 Decision+ of the Re4ional Tial $out &RT$', 9anch +<2, Muntinlupa $it* in $i3inal $ase No. 11-## findin4 Mallai 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of the ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide. Fa)ua !n)777n)(
On Ma* +#, +111, an Info3ation 5 !as filed cha4in4 Mallai and co-accused %ne Nocu3 &Nocu3 ', Re* ohnn* Ra3os &Ra3os', $alos un Posadas &Posadas' and Pandao Polin4 Pan4anda4 alias Re Pan4anda4 &Pan4anda4' !ith violation of Republic %ct &R%' No. 2#5, othe!ise (no!n as the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+, as a3ended b* R% <2#. " The accusato* potion of the Info3ation eads; That on o about Septe3be +, / in Muntinlupa $it*, Philippines and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above-na3ed accused conspiin4, confedeatin4 and 3utuall* helpin4 one anothe, !ith intent to 4ain fo the3selves and !ithout the consent of the o!ne, did then and thee, !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl* ta(e and ca* a!a* one 3oto vehicle 3oe paticulal* descibed as follo!s; Ma(eCT*pe
;-
To*ota Ta3aa! F
Moto No.
;-
$hassis No.
;-
HF#+-121
Plate No.
;-
PT- "5
$olo
;-
Med. 0e* Net
valued at 3oe o less Thee =unded Thousand Pesos &P511,111.11' to the da3a4e and pe8udice of its o!ne, >oudes ?leccion, in the afoestated a3ount and in the couse of the co33ission theeof, ?ico Medel, the dive of the said vehicle, !as (illed. $ONTR%R TO >%.# hen the case !as called fo aai4n3ent on Nove3be 1, +111, onl* Mallai appeaed as his co-accused e3ain at-la4e. =e pleaded Gnot 4uilt*G to the cha4e. 2 Theeafte, tial ensued. T:7 Pro(7u)on;( "7r(on
The posecutions lone !itness !as $his Mahilac &Mahilac', a self-confessed 3e3be of GF 4an4,G a s*ndicate notoious fo ca8ac(in4 To*ota F vehicles. The 3odus opeandi of the 4an4 is to canap To*ota F vehicles, tanspot the3 to Mindanao, and have the3 e4isteed and sold to pospective bu*es thee. To4ethe !ith Mallai and seveal othes, Mahilac !as peviousl* cha4ed !ith canappin4 < befoe the RT$ of Paaa)ue $it* but !as late on discha4ed to be a state !itness. / $onse)uentl*, Mahilac !as placed unde the itness Potection Po4a3 of the Depat3ent of ustice &DO'. Mahilac testified that the GF 4an4G !as active in Meto Manila and Mindanao. 1 Nocu3 led the s*ndicates ci3inal activities in Meto Manila !hile Pan4anda4, !ho !as the head of the >and Tanspotation Office in >anao Del Note, led the Mindanao opeations. + Ra3os, Posadas and Mallai !ee 3e3bes of the 4an4. 5 On Septe3be 2, /, !hile in $ala3ba, >a4una, Mahilac eceived a call fo3 Nocu3 " info3in4 hi3 of Pan4anda4s aival in Manila on Septe3be +, /. # Subse)uentl*, Mahilac, Nocu3, Pan4anda4, Ra3os,
Posadas and Mallai 3et in $ho!(in4 fastfood estauant in Poblacion, Muntinlupa $it*. 2 Duin4 the said 3eetin4, Pan4anda4 de3anded that thei 4oup delive t!o To*ota F vehicles to hi3 in >anao Del Note b* Monda* o Tuesda* of the follo!in4 !ee(. < Nocu3 a4eed and 4ave Mallai P+1,111.11 fo opeatin4 epenses. Mahilac eceived P5,#11.11 and !as instucted to 3eet the 4oup in $a4a*an de Oo $it* ./ %s the 4oup !as depatin4 fo3 the estauant, a To*ota F tai !ith plate nu3be PT-"5 passed-b* .Mallai fla44ed it do!n, tal(ed to the dive, and boaded the sa3e to4ethe !ith Ra3os and Posadas. +1 The* poceeded south.+ On Septe3be ", /, Mahilac aived in $a4a*an de Oo $it* and poceeded to McDonalds Restauant on >i3(et(ai Steet. ++ Mallai, Ra3os and Posadas aived at aound ";" p.3. on boad the sa3e To*ota F tai that Mallai fla44ed do!n in Muntinlupa $it*.+5 The* a4eed to poceed to Ili4an $it* en oute to Tubod, >anao del Note, !hee said vehicle !as to be deliveed to Pan4anda4. +" Mallai told Mahilac not to boad the said vehicle because its bac( potion ee(ed of the died blood of the F tai dive, ?ico ∗∗∗ Medel &Medel', !ho !as stabbed to death !hile esistin4 the 4oup. +# Mallai also info3ed Mahilac that Medels copse !as du3ped so3e!hee in %ti3onan, :ue6on.+2 Mahilac thus too( a tai to Ili4an $it*. +< @pon thei aival in Ili4an $it*, Pan4anda4 instucted the3 to ta(e the vehicle to his esidence in Tubod, >anao del Note.+/ The* aived at Pan4anda4s esidence and !ee 4iven P+#1,111.11 as consideation fo the vehicle.+ Mahilac eceived P+1,111.11 as his shae. The 4an4 continued to en4a4e in this nefaious activit* until Mahilacs aest b* la! enfoce3ent offices. 51 In the 3eanti3e, on Septe3be +<, , a cadave in advance state of deco3position !as found alon4 Li46a4 Road, 9aan4a* Malinao Ila*a, %ti3onan, :ue6on. It !as inteed in the 3unicipal ce3ete* of %ti3onan, :ue6on but !as late on ehu3ed fo identification. 5 9ased on the fou etacted teeth and a piece of !hite GFI>%G shoe,5+ the 3othe and the !ife of the victi3 positivel* identified the cadave to be that of Medel. !7an);( "7r(on
Mallai denied an* (no!led4e of the canappin4 incident. 55 =e also denied (no!in4 Nocu3, Ra3os and Posadas.5" =e testified that he !as !ith his !ife and t!o childen in thei ho3e in Tunasan, Muntinlupa $it* at the ti3e the alle4ed canappin4 occued. 5# =e clai3ed that on une +#, , fou 3en in civilian clothes ca3e to his house and foced hi3 to boad a van 52 !hee he !as blindfolded. =e !as then ta(en to $a3p $a3e, :ue6on $it*. 5< %ccodin4 to Mallai, Mahilac !as his e3plo*e.5/ =e !as una!ae of Mahilacs eason fo i3plicatin4 hi3 in the case.5 Mallai futhe testified that !hile in detention, he !as 3ade to si4n a docu3ent !hich he cannot e3e3be. "1 =e !as ta(en to the DO and told that his case !ould be studied if he si4ns a docu3ent the contents of !hich !ee dul* eplained to hi3." Should he not si4n the sa3e, he !ill be cha4ed i33ediatel* !ith canappin4 !ith ho3icide."+ =e theefoe decided to si4n the docu3ents !ithout the assistance of a la!*e, but continued to be detained in $a3p $a3e, :ue6on $it*."5 Run' o< ):7 R7'ona Tra Cour)
On Dece3be #, +115, the RT$ endeed its Decision "" findin4 Mallai 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of canappin4 !ith ho3icide. The tial cout uled that the testi3on* of Mahilac that Mallai paticipated in the theft of the F tai and the (illin4 of its dive, Medel, cannot be ne4ated b* Mallais denial and uncooboated alibi. It also found that the co33ission of the ci3e !as a esult of a planned opeation !ith Mallai and all the accused doin4 thei assi4ned tas(s to ensue the consu33ation of thei co33on ci3inal ob8ective. "# The tial cout futhe held that Mahilac !ould not have (no!n about the (illin4 of Medel if he had not been info3ed b* Mallai. =e had no eason to falsel* accuse Mallai and even i3plicated hi3self b*; &' ad3ittin4 his pesence duin4 the planned theft of the F taiE &+' ad3ittin4 his pesence in $a4a*an De Oo $it* to4ethe !ith MallaiE &5' diectin4 Mallai and his co-accused to poceed !ith hi3 to Pan4anda4 in >anao Del NoteE and &"' eceivin4 the su3 of P+1,111.11 as his shae in the ci3inal opeation. The dispositive potion of the Decision eads; PR?MIS?S $ONSID?R?D, %ccused Re*naldo Mallai is found 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt fo the ci3e of $%RN%PPIN0 IT= =OMI$ID? and is heeb* sentenced to die b* lethal in8ection. The ail aden of Muntinlupa $it* is heeb* diected to bin4 Re*naldo Mallai to the Ne! 9ilibid Pison !hee he 3a* seve his sentence. It Is SO ORD?R?D. "2
Run' o< ):7 Cour) o< !7a(
On anua* 5, +11<, the $% endeed its Decision "< affi3in4 !ith 3odification the ulin4 of the tial cout. The appellate cout held that Mahilacs positive identification of Mallai as a 3e3be of the GF 4an4G and his paticipation in the theft of the F tai and (illin4 of its dive, Medel, sufficientl* established his 4uilt be*ond easonable doubt of the ci3e cha4ed. The discove* of the e3ains of Medel in the vicinit* 3entioned b* Mallai to Mahilac also 4ave cedence to the lattes testi3on*. The $% futhe held that the tial couts dete3ination on the cedibilit* of Mahilac 3ust be 4iven 4eat espect and, as a ule, !ill not be evesed on appeal in the absence of co4ent eason. The $% also found no ill-3otive on the pat of Mahilac to testif* falsel* a4ainst Mallai. %ccodin4 to the $%, the fact that the posecution pesented Mahilac as its sole !itness is of no 3o3ent. =is positive and cedible testi3on* is sufficient to convict Mallai, "/ !hose defense of denial and alibi cannot pevail ove the stai4htfo!ad testi3on* of the fo3e. " =o!eve, the $% 3odified the penalt* fo3 death to eclusion pepetua pusuant to R% 5"2 #1 !hich pohibited the i3position of the death penalt*.# The dispositive potion of the $% Decision eads; =?R?FOR?, pe3ises consideed, the appeal is heeb* DISMISS?D. The assailed Dece3be #, +115 Decision of the Re4ional Tial $out of Muntinlupa $it*, 9anch +<2, in $i3inal $ase No. 11-##, is heeb* %FFIRM?D !ith MODIFI$%TION in that the death penalt* i3posed is educed to eclusion pepetua, pusuant to Republic %ct No. 5"2, !hich did a!a* !ith the i3position of death penalt*. SO ORD?R?D.#+ Mallai filed a Notice of %ppeal. #5 On Octobe #, +11<, #" !e accepted the appeal and notified the paties to file thei supple3ental biefs. =o!eve, Mallai opted not to file a supple3ental bief in the absence of ne! issues to be aised. Fo its pat, the Office of the Solicito 0eneal 3anifested that it is li(e!ise adoptin4 the %ppellees 9ief it filed !ith the $% as its Supple3ental 9ief. ## T:7 !(('n=7n) o< Error(
The eos assi4ned in the %ppellants 9ief ae as follo!s; I. T=? $O@RT % :@O 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN FINDIN0 T=%T T=? 0@I>T OF T=? %$$@S?D-%PP?>>%NT =%S 9??N PROV?N 9?OND R?%SON%9>? DO@9T D?SPIT? T=? >%$H OF M%T?RI%> ?VID?N$? TO @STIF =IS $ONVI$TIONE and II. 0R%NTIN0 IT=O@T %DMITTIN0 T=%T T=? %$$@S?D- %PP?>>%NT $OMMITT?D T=? $RIM? $=%R0?D, T=? $O@RT % :@O 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN IMPOSIN0 T=? S@PR?M? P?N%>T OF D?%T= D?SPIT? T=? >%$H OF ?VID?N$? OT=?R T=%N T=? M?R? %>>?0%TION 9 T=? >ON? PROS?$@TION ITN?SS $=RIS M%=I>%$ T=%T T=? %$$@S?D-%PP?>>%NT P%RTI$IP%T?D IN T=? HI>>IN0 OF ?RI$ M?D?>. #2 Mallai assails the cedibilit* of Mahilac. =e contends that as a state !itness unde the itness Potection Po4a3 of the DO, Mahilac !ould i3plicate 8ust an* peson as his cohot to 8ustif* his inclusion in the po4a3. #< Mallai also a4ues that the evidence of the posecution is not sufficient to pove his 4uilt be*ond e asonable doubt. #/ On the othe hand, the posecution 3aintains that the cicu3stantial evidence !as sufficient to convict Mallai.#Finall*, the posecution sou4ht civil inde3nit* and 3oal da3a4es of P#1,111.11 each. 21 Our Run'
The appeal is un3eitoious. Carnapping defined; Burden of the prosecution in a case for Carnapping with Homicide.
Section + of R% 2#5 defines canappin4 as Gthe ta(in4, !ith intent to 4ain, of a 3oto vehicle belon4in4 to anothe !ithout the lattes consent, o b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons, o b* usin4 foce upon thin4s.G The ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide is punishable unde Section " 2 of the said la!, as a3ended b* Section +1 of R% <2#. To pove the special co3ple ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide, thee 3ust be poof not onl* of the essential ele3ents of canappin4, but also that it !as the oi4inal ci3inal desi4n of the culpit and the (illin4 !as pepetated Gin the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof.G Thus, the posecution in this case has the buden of povin4 that; &' Mallai too( the To*ota F taiE &+' his oi4inal ci3inal
desi4n !as canappin4E &5' he (illed the dive, MedelE and &"' the (illin4 !as pepetated Gin the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof.G 2+ The tial and appellate couts held that the posecution !as able to discha4e its buden of povin4 that Mallai !as 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of canappin4 !ith ho3icide. These couts uled that Mallai stole the F tai diven b* Medel afte he a4eed to ille4all* suppl* his co-accused !ith this t*pe of vehicle. The tial and appellate couts found that Mallai (illed Medel in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4. e find no eason to deviate fo3 these couts evaluation as to Mallais culpabilit*. The crime of carnapping with homicide, as well as the identity of Mallari as one of the perpetrators of the crime, is duly established by circumstantial eidence.
The culpabilit* of Mallai fo the co3ple ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide is dul* established b* the confluence of cicu3stantial evidence. Mahilac testified that he !as pesent !hen Mallai and his co-accused, all 3e3bes of the GF 0an4,G 4atheed in Muntinlupa $it* to plan and conspie to steal vehicles and sell the3 to unscupulous bu*es in Mindanao. I33ediatel* afte said 3eetin4, Mahilac sa! Mallai hail the F tai diven b* Medel, tal( to hi3, boad it to4ethe !ith t!o othe conspiatos, and head south to!ads the diection of :ue6on povince. % fe! da*s late, Mallai and his co3panions 3et Mahilac in $a4a*an De Oo $it* on boad the sa3e F tai the* ode in Muntinlupa $it*. %ll these sho! that Mallais oi4inal ci3inal desi4n !as to canap the tai and that he acco3plished his pupose !ithout the consent of its o!ne. In addition, !hen the vehicle !as bou4ht to $a4a*an de Oo $it*, its dive, Medel, !as no lon4e !ith the3. The vehicle also ee(ed of died hu3an blood. @pon in)ui* b* Mahilac, Mallai ad3itted that the died blood belon4ed to Medel !ho had to be (illed fo esistin4 the 4oup. Mallai also told hi3 that Medels bod* !as du3ped alon4 Li46a4 Road in %ti3onan, :ue6on. Mallai and his co-accused eceived P+#1,111.11 upon delive* of the F tai to its final destination. These pove that Medel !as (illed in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4. The identit* of Medel as the dive of the tai !as established b* his 3othe and !ife !ho both stated that he !as the dive of the tai on the da* it !as stolen b* Mallai and his co-conspiatos. 25 The t!o late on identified his copse !hen it !as discoveed in the sa3e vicinit* !hich Mallai told Mahilac to be the place !hee the* du3ped the dead bod* of Medel. 2" In fine, all the ele3ents of the special co3ple ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide, as !ell as the identit* of Mallai as one of the pepetatos of the ci3e, !ee all poved be*ond easonable doubt. The foe4oin4 cicu3stances inevitabl* lead to the lone, fai and easonable conclusion that Mallai paticipated in stealin4 the F tai diven b* Medel and in (illin4 hi3. Mallais defense of alibi deseves no cedence. Mallais clai3 that he !as helpin4 his !ife !ith household choes at the ti3e the ci3e !as co33itted does not deseve cedence. This defense of alibi cannot pevail ove the testi3on* of Mahilac !hich, ta(en in its entiet*, leads to the easonable conclusion that Mallai paticipated in the co33ission of the ci3e. Moeove, alibi is inheentl* !ea(, uneliable, and can be easil* fabicated. 2# =ence, it 3ust be suppoted b* cedible cooboation fo3 disinteested !itnesses, and if not, is fatal to the accused. 22 =ee, Mallai could have pesented evidence to suppot his alibi, but oddl*, he did not. Thus, such a defense fails. T:7 P7na)y
@nde the last clause of Section " of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+ as a3ended b* Section +1 of R% <2#, the penalt* of eclusion pepetua to death shall be i3posed !hen the o!ne o dive of the vehicle is (illed in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof. 2< In this case, the tial cout consideed as a44avatin4 cicu3stance the co33ission of the offense b* a 3e3be of an o4ani6ed o s*ndicated ci3e 4oup unde %ticle 2+ of the RP$ as a3ended b* R% <2# 2/ and, hence, i3posed upon Mallai the death penalt*. =o!eve, unde Rule 1, Section / of the Rules of $out, all a44avatin4 and )ualif*in4 cicu3stances 3ust be alle4ed in the Info3ation. This ne! ule too( effect on Dece3be , +111, but applies etoactivel* to pendin4 cases since it is favoable to the appellant. 2 =ee, thee is no alle4ation in the Info3ation that Mallai !as a 3e3be of a s*ndicate o that he and his co3panions Ghad fo3ed pat of a 4oup o4ani6ed fo the 4eneal pupose of co33ittin4 ci3es fo 4ain, !hich is the essence of a s*ndicated o o4ani6ed ci3e 4oup.G <1 =ence, the sa3e cannot be appeciated as an a44avatin4 cicu3stance a4ainst Mallai. Thus, in consonance !ith %ticle 25&+' of the RP$, !hich povides that in the absence of an* a44avatin4 cicu3stance in the co33ission of the offense, the lesse penalt* shall be applied. Mallai 3ust, theefoe, suffe the lesse penalt* of eclusion pepetua. < Mallai is also not eli4ible fo paole pusuant to Section 5 <+ of R% 5"2. T:7 $a=a'7(
Fo the (illin4 of Medel, !e a!ad to his heis the a3ount of P#1,111.11 as civil inde3nit* pusuant to pevailin4 8uispudence.<5 Said heis ae also entitled to an a!ad of 3oal da3a4es in the su3 of P#1,111.11 as in all cases
of 3ude and ho3icide, !ithout need of alle4ation and poof othe than the death of the victi3. <" e cannot, ho!eve, a!ad actual da3a4es due to the absence of eceipts to substantiate the epenses incued fo Medels funeal. The ule is that onl* dul* eceipted epenses can be the basis of actual da3a4es. <#GNonetheless, unde %ticle +++" of the $ivil $ode, te3peate da3a4es 3a* be ecoveed as it cannot be denied that the heis of the victi3 suffeed pecunia* loss althou4h the eact a3ount !as not poved.G <2 e theefoe a!ad the su3 of P+#,111.11 as te3peate da3a4es in lieu of actual da3a4es to the heis of Medel.. GIn addition, and in confo3it* !ith cuent polic*, !e also i3pose on all the 3oneta* a!ads fo da3a4es an inteest at the le4al ate of 2oCo fo3 date of finalit* of this Decision until full* paid.G << =?R?FOR?, the appeal is DISMISS?D. The Decision of the $out of %ppeals in $%-0.R. $R-=$ No. 1151 findin4 appellant Re*naldo Mallai 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of the special co3ple ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide is %FFIRM?D !ith the follo!in4 3odifications; & ' appellant Re*naldo Mallai is sentenced to suffe the penalt* of eclusion pepetua !ithout eli4ibilit* fo paoleE and, &+' appellant Re*naldo Mallai is odeed to pa* the heis of ?ico Medel the a3ounts of P#1,111.11 as civil inde3nit*, P#1,111.11 as 3oal da3a4es,P+#,111.11 as te3peate da3a4es in lieu of actual da3a4es, and inteest on all these da3a4es assessed at the le4al ate of 2 fo3 date of finalit* of this Decision until full* paid. SO ORD?R?D.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No(. 14112%3
Juy 11, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ERLN$! $EL! CRU+, L!RR# PER$!S an G ERR# "ENTURN! 6a) ar'78, accused. ERLN$! $EL! CRU+ an L!RR# PER$!S, accused-appellants. #N!RES%S!NT!GO, J .>
9efoe us is an appeal of the 8oint decision of the Re4ional Tial $out of Malolos, 9ulacan, 9anch a* Peidas 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of ho3icide in $i3inal $ase No. /+/-M-/, and findin4 both accused-appellants ?linda Dela $u6 and >a* Peidas 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of violation of Republic %ct. No. 2#5, othe!ise (no!n as the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+, in $i3inal $ase No. /+-M-/. %ccused-appellants ?linda Dela $u6 and >a* Peidas, to4ethe !ith 0e* Ventuina, !ee cha4ed in the follo!in4 info3ations; Criminal Case !o. "#"$M$%"
That on o about the # th da* of anua*, /, in the 3unicipalit* of Pulilan, povince of 9ulacan, Philippines and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above na3ed accused a3ed !ith bladed instu3ent and !ith intent to (ill one s3ael Manan)uil, conspiin4, confedeatin4 to4ethe and helpin4 one anothe, did then and thee !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl*, !ith evident pe3editation, abuse of supeio sten4th and teache*, attac(, assault and stab !ith the bladed instu3ent the said s3ael Manan)uil * %4uila, hittin4 the latte on the diffeent pats of his bod*, theeb* causin4 hi3 seious ph*sical in8uies !hich diectl* caused his death. $onta* to >a!. Criminal Case !o. "#%$M$%"
That on o about the # th da* of anua*, /, in the 3unicipalit* of Pulilan, povince of 9ulacan, Philippines and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above na3ed accused, conspiin4, confedeatin4 to4ethe and helpin4 one anothe, did then and thee !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl*, !ith intent of 4ain and !ithout the (no!led4e and consent of the o!ne theeof, ta(e steal, and ca* a!a* !ith the3 one &' tai ca GHI%G beain4 Plate No. PVS "2/, belon4in4 to one %lvin 0. Sanche6, to the da3a4e and pe8udice of the said o!ne. $onta* to >a!.+ The t!o cases !ee consolidated. @pon aai4n3ent, both accused-appellants enteed a plea of not 4uilt*. %ccused 0e* Ventuina, on the othe hand, e3ained at la4e. %fte 8oint tial, 8ud43ent !as endeed a4ainst accusedappellants, the dispositive potion 5 of !hich eads; =?R?FOR?, the foe4oin4 consideed, . In $i3. $ase No. /+/-M-/ accused ?linda dela $u6 * Sanche6 is heeb* %$:@ITT?D of the ci3e cha4ed, !hile accused >a* Peidas is heeb* found 0@I>T be*ond easonable doubt of the ci3e of =o3icide and sentenced to suffe the indete3inate penalt* of + *eas of prision ma%or as 3ini3u3 to < *eas " 3onths and da* to +1 *eas of reclusion temporal as 3ai3u3 and to pa* the beeaved fa3il* of victi3 s3ael Manan)uil the a3ount of P21,111.11 as co3pensato* da3a4es and P<#,111.11 as inde3nit* fo the victi3s death. +. In $i3. $ase No. /+-M-/
accused ?linda dela $u6 * Sanche6 and >a* Peidas ae heeb* found 0@I>T be*ond easonable doubt of Violation of Republic %ct 2#5 othe!ise (no!n as the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+, as a3ended, and sentenced to suffe the penalt* of reclusion perpetua !ill all its accesso* penalties. The instant cases as a4ainst accused 0e* Ventuina ae heeb* odeed sent to the files of %R$=IV?D cases pendin4 the aest of said accused. %ccodin4l*, let a !aant of aest be issued fo his i33ediate appehension to stand tial befoe this $out. ith costs. SO ORD?R?D. The facts of the case ae as follo!s; On anua* #, /, at about +;51 in the 3onin4, accused-appellants ?linda Dela $u6 a nd >a* Peidas !ent to the house of Meliton ?stella in Poblacion, Plaidel, 9ulacan on boad a HI% Pide taicab, !hich Dela $u6 dove. hen the* aived at ?stellas house, Dela $u6 !ent inside to invite hi3 to 4o !ith the3, !hile Peidas sta*ed in the taicab. hen ?stella !ent out, he sa! a 3an l*in4 on the floo of the taicab !hose head !as bein4 pinned do!n b* Peidas foot. %faid of bein4 i3plicated, ?stella efused to 4o sa*in4, /0la%o nin%o %an at ba+a pati a+o a% madama%./ " %ccused-appellants left and poceeded to the house of accused 0e* Ventuina in 9aliua4, 9ulacan. Thee the* stipped the taicab of all its accessoies. # >ate that da*, at about <;11 a.3., Peidas etuned to ?stellas house. Peidas told ?stella that he had (illed the 3an and Ventuina the! a!a* the bod* in Pulilan. 2 Since his clothes !ee coveed !ith bloodstains, he boo!ed clothes fo3 ?stella and as(ed hi3 to bun his sando and t-shit. ?stella did not bun the bloodied clothes. Instead, he tuned the3 ove late to the National 9ueau of Investi4ation Office in Pulilan. Peidas left to fetch the son of Dela $u6. =e etuned to ?stellas house at about 1;51 to ;11 a.3. Thee, he !aited fo Dela $u6, !ho aived at past t!elve noon divin4 the sa3e taicab ?stella ealie sa!. The license plate of the vehicle had been eplaced fo3 one beain4 the nu3be; PVS "2/ to one !ith the nu3be; T%@ 22<. %ccused-appellants, to4ethe !ith ?stella and Dela $u6s son, boaded the taicab and dove to 0ui3ba, Nueva ?ci8a. %lon4 the !a*, the* !ee fla44ed do!n at a chec(point set up b* the Taffic $o33and. Dela $u6 !as unable to sho! he license and the vehicles e4istation, but the police offices let the3 thou4h afte she told the3 that she is the !ife of 0e* Ventuina. The* stopped b* >au, Nueva ?ci8a to boo! 3one* fo3 a fiend of Dela $u6, afte !hich the* poceeded to Peidas house in 0ui3ba. That sa3e ni4ht, Dela $u6 dove bac( to Plaidel. 9efoe she left, ?stella tied to boo! 3one* fo3 Dela $u6 fo his fae bac( to Plaidel but she tuned hi3 do!n. So, ?stella had to sta* in 0ui3ba fo thee da*s until he !as able to boo! 3one* fo3 Peidas on the petet that he !as 4oin4 to fetch Dela $u6. hen ?stella aived in Plaidel, he info3ed his elde siste about the incident. To4ethe, the* epoted the 3atte to $apt. Ileto and SPO" Ieneo Mauicio, then to N9I-Pulilan, !hee he tuned ove the sando and t-shit !hich Peidas as(ed hi3 to bun. The investi4ation led to the ecove* of the copse of s3ael Manan)uil in Pulilan, 9ulacan as !ell as the taicab used b* accused-appellants, !hich !as found five 3etes a!a* fo3 the esidence of Dela $u6. ?ventuall*, accused-appellants Dela $u6 and Peidas !ee aested. In he defense, accused-appellants ?linda Dela $u6 alle4e d that at +;11 a.3. of anua* #, /, she !as asleep in he house in Ma. >oudes Subdivision, Taban4, Plaidel, 9ulacan, to4ethe !ith he siblin4s, chil den and accused-appellant >a* Peidas. On anua* 2, /, she sta*ed ho3e to do he choes. On anua* /, /, she sta*ed ho3e in the 3onin4 and, in the evenin4, !ent to the Monte $alo Video(e in 9aliua4 !hee she !o(ed. She clai3ed that duin4 all this ti3e, she neve sa! Meliton ?stella. < %ccused-appellant >a* Peidas li(e!ise testified that he !as sleepin4 in the house of Dela $u6 on anua* #, /, !hen the alle4ed ci3es too( place. =e sta*ed thee fo a fe! da*s and helped in the house!o(. / One Re*naldo Tinidad cooboated accused-appellants testi3onies that the* !ee in Dela $u6s house on the date and ti3e of the alle4ed co33ission of the ci3es. %fte tial, the lo!e cout endeed 8ud43ent a4ainst accused-appellants. =ence, this appeal, !hich aises the follo!in4 issues;
I =?T=?R OR NOT T=? SO-$%>>?D INV?STI0%TION OF T=?S? TO $%S?S =%V? 9??N IMPROP?R> M%D? %ND RON0> ??$@T?D. II =?T=?R OR NOT T=? PR?SIDIN0 @D0? R?>I?D =?%VI> ON ITN?SS M?>ITON ?STR?>>%S P?R@R?D T?STIMON. III =?T=?R OR NOT $IR$@MST%NTI%> ?VID?N$? %R? %PP>I$%9>? IN T=?S? $%S?S. IV =?T=?R OR NOT D?F?NS? ?VID?N$? =%V? 9??N 0>OSS?D OV?R %ND 0IV?N S$%NT $ONSID?R%TION 9 T=? TRI%> $O@RT. In thei 8oint bief, accused-appellants alle4e that the follo!in4 ie4ulaities attended the investi4ation of the case, to !it; &' that nothin4 !as done b* the authoities fo3 the ti3e $apt. de %3as of Plaidel called that a cadave !as etieved fo3 9aan4a* %4na*a until anua* ++, /, !hen Inspecto Ileto eceived info3ation about a canappin4 and 3ude incidentE &+' that Meliton ?stella actuall* 4ave hi3self up fo his i3plication in the 3ude and canappin4E &5' that Inspecto Ileto and SPO" Mauicio did not conduct an investi4ation but 3eel* elied on the N9I epot !hich !as a co3plete falsehoodE &"' that the sub8ect taicab, !hich !as pa(ed ad8acent to the PNP $i3e >aboato*, !as not sub8ected to ph*sical and foensic investi4ationE &#' that the N9I and PNP co33itted shotcuts in pusuin4 the investi4ationE &2' that N9I %4ent Seafin 0il is not a la!*e and violated thei i4hts unde the Mianda doctineE and &<' that Inspecto Ileto is a 4aduate of 9ulacan National %4icultual School !ith no bac(4ound in ci3inal investi4ation and intelli4ence. The above a4u3ents involve factual issues, the esolution of !hich e)uie ou e-evaluation of the tial couts findin4s of facts. To do so, ho!eve, !ill be an unnecessa* deviation fo3 the 8uispudential ule that conclusions of the tial cout on the cedibilit* of !itnesses ae 4eneall* not distubed b* appellate couts. Tial couts ae in a bette position to decide the issues, havin4 head the !itnesses the3selves and obseved thei depot3ent and 3anne of testif*in4 duin4 the tial. 1 The eception to this ule is !hee thee is poof of so3e fact o cicu3stance of !ei4ht and influence that 3i4ht have been oveloo(ed, o its si4nificance 3isintepeted, b* the tial cout !hich, if popel* consideed, could affect the esult of the case. %fte a 3eticulous evie! of the ecods, !e find no co3pellin4 eason to depat fo3 such ule. The evidence on ecod sho! that, conta* to accused-appellants assetion, it !as onl* on anua* ++, / that SPO" Ieneo Mauicio, $apt. Ileto and N9I %4ent Seafin 0il + fist ca3e to (no!, thou4h Meliton ?stella, about the canappin4 of the taicab, the (illin4 of the dive theeof and the subse)uent du3pin4 of the bod* so3e!hee in Pulilan. %ctin4 on the info3ation 4iven b* ?stella, the* !ee able to ecove the sub8ect vehicle at Dela $u6s house in %4na*a, Plaidel, 9ulacan, and as(ed the fa3il* of s3ael Manan)uil to id entif* his deco3posin4 copse. %nent the clai3 that Dela $u6 !as aested !ithout !aant, foced to si4n a docu3ent, and detained fo 3oe o less 5 to " !ee(s, 5 thee is no sho!in4 that she ob8ected to the 3anne of he aest and detention befoe she enteed he plea and paticipated in the tial. Petinent heeto is ou ulin4 in People v. )ope-*" to !it; AIBt is too late fo appellant to aise the )uestion of his aest !ithout a !aant. hen accused-appellant !as aested and a case !as filed a4ainst hi3, he pleaded not 4uilt* upon aai4n3ent, paticipated in the tial and pesented his evidence. %ppellant is thus estopped fo3 )uestionin4 the le4alit* of his aest. It is !ellsettled that an* ob8ection involvin4 a !aant of aest o pocedue in the ac)uisition b* the cout of 8uisdiction ove the peson of an accused 3ust be 3ade befoe he entes his plea, othe!ise the ob8ection is dee3ed !aived. 9esides, this issue is bein4 aised fo the fist ti3e b* appellant. =e did not 3ove fo the )uashal of the info3ation befoe the tial cout on this 4ound. $onse)uentl*, an* ie4ulait* attendant to his aest, if an*, !as cued !hen he voluntail* sub3itted hi3self to the 8uisdiction of the tial cout b* entein4 a plea of not 4uilt* and b* paticipatin4 in the tial. Moeove, the ille4al aest of an accused is not sufficient cause fo settin4 aside a valid 8ud43ent endeed upon a sufficient co3plaint afte tial fee fo3 eo.
$o3in4 no! to the sufficienc* of poof of thei 4uilt, accused-appellants contend that the testi3on* of Meliton ?stella !as pe8uedE that the evidence a4ainst the3 consisted of cicu3stantial evidence !hich !as not sufficient to establish thei 4uiltE and that the tial cout 3eel* 4lossed ove and 4ave scant consideation to the evidence the* pesented. The contentions lac( 3eit. e a4ee !ith the tial couts findin4s that the testi3on* of posecution !itness Meliton ?stella !as clea, stai4htfo!ad and devoid of an* si4ns of atificialit*. Moeove, no i3pope 3otive !as i3puted on ?stella !ho positivel* identified both accused-appellants as the pepetatos of the offense. # %ccused-appellants net assail the tial couts eliance on cicu3stantial evidence. e have lon4 held that cicu3stantial evidence is sufficient fo conviction in ci3inal cases !hee thee is 3oe than one cicu3stance deived fo3 the facts dul* 4iven and the co3bination of all is such as to poduce conviction be*ond easonable doubt. The test fo acceptin4 cicu3stantial evidence as poof of 4uilt be*ond easonable doubt is; the seies of cicu3stances dul* poved 3ust be consistent !ith each othe and that each and eve* cicu3stance 3ust be consistent !ith the accuseds 4uilt and inconsistent !ith his innocence. 2 In the case at ba, the tial cout based its 8ud43ent of conviction on the follo!in4 established facts; that Dela $u6 and Peidas aived in Plaidel at +;51 in the 3onin4 of anua* #, / on boad a taicabE that the accessoies of the taicab !ee e3oved and its license plate !as eplacedE that accused-appellants !ee unable to poduce the e4istation papes of the vehicleE that the sub8ect vehicle !as identified as the one diven b* s3ael Manan)uil befoe its loss on anua* #, /E and that the 3issin4 taicab !as ecoveed b* the police fo3 Dela $u6. < e find that the foe4oin4 facts constitute an unbo(en chain of events that undeniabl* point to the culpabilit* of accused-appellants fo violation of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct. The testi3on* of Meliton ?stella !as cooboated b* the testi3on* of SPO" Mauicio, N9I %4ent Seafin 0il and $apt. Ileto. The testi3on* of the police offices caied !ith it the pesu3ption of e4ulait* in the pefo3ance of official functions. / Moeove, accused-appellants failed to oveco3e the disputable pesu3ption that Ga peson found in possession of a thin4 ta(en in the doin4 of a ecent !on4ful act is the ta(e and the doe of the !hole act.G The tial cout convicted accused-appellant >a* Peidas onl* of ho3icide based on its findin4 of 4uilt due to Peidas ad3ission to Meliton ?stella that he had disposed of 2tinapos3 Mana)uil, !hose bod* !as du3ped in Pulilan, 9ulacan, !hee it !as late found b* the police. Pio to that, ?stella sa! Peidas steppin4 on the head of Mana)uil on the floo of the canapped vehicle. In othe !ods, it !as Peidas !ho !as !ith the victi3 !hen the latte !as last seen alive b* ?stella. +1 =o!eve, the alle4ations of evident pe3editation, abuse of supeio sten4th and teache* as )ualif*in4 cicu3stances !ee not sufficientl* established, thus the ci3e co33itted !as onl* ho3icide.+ In Aballe v. People,++ !e held that the declaation of an accused epessl* ac(no!led4in4 his 4uilt of the offense 3a* be 4iven in evidence a4ainst hi3 and an* peson, othe!ise co3petent to testif* as a !itness, !ho head the confession, is co3petent to testif* as to the substance of !hat he head if he head and undestood it. The said !itness need not epeat vebati3 the oal confessionE it suffices if he 4ives its substance. In the ecent case of People v. 4uela,+5 !e uled that an ad3ission 3ade to a pivate peson is ad3issible in evidence a4ainst the declaant pusuant to Rule 51, Section +2 of the Rules of $out, !hich states that the Gact, declaation o o3ission of a pat* as to a elevant fact 3a* be 4iven in evidence a4ainst hi3.G In thei defense, accused-appellants can onl* aise alibi and bae denial. %libi is the !ea(est of all defenses, because it is eas* to concoct and difficult to dispove. Fo alibi to pospe, it is not enou4h to pove that the defendant !as so3e!hee else !hen the ci3e !as co33ittedE he 3ust li(e!ise de3onstate that it !as ph*sicall* i3possible fo hi3 to have been at the scene of the ci3e at the ti3e. Futhe3oe, alibi cannot pevail ove the positive and une)uivocal identification of accused-appellants. $ate4oical and consistent positive identification, absent an* sho!in4 of ill-3otive on the pat of the e*e!itness testif*in4 on the 3atte, pevails ove accusedappellant7s defense of denial and alibi. @nless substantiated b* clea and convincin4 poof, such defense is ne4ative, self-sevin4, and undesevin4 of an* !ei4ht in la!. +" The tial cout !as coect in convictin4 accused-appellants sepaatel* on the cha4es of canappin4 and ho3icide, athe than &uali"ied carnappin# o a##ravated "orm o" carnappin#* +# as defined in Section " of Republic %ct No. 2#5, as a3ended b* Section +1 of Republic %ct No. <2#, !hich i3poses the penalt* of reclusion perpetua to death !heneve the o!ne, dive o occupant of the canapped 3oto vehicle is (illed in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof.
In the case at ba, accused-appellants !ee cha4ed sepaatel* !ith the ci3es of canappin4 and 3ude. e cannot convict the3 of the ci3e of )ualified canappin4, !hich consists of the t!o ci3es alle4ed in the t!o sepaate info3ation, !ithout i3paiin4 thei constitutional i4ht to be i nfo3ed of the natue and cause of the accusation a4ainst the3. +2 =o!eve, the tial cout eed in i3posin4 the penalt* of reclusion perpetua fo the ci3e of canappin4, considein4 that the Info3ation neithe alle4ed that the victi3 !as (illed in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on occasion theeof, +< o that the canappin4 !as co33itted b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of an* peson. The ci3e alle4ed bein4 onl* canappin4 unde the fist clause of R.%. 2#5, Section ", as a3ended, the pope penalt* to be i3posed 3ust not be less than fouteen &"' *eas and ei4ht &/' 3onths and not 3oe than seventeen &<' *eas and fou &"' 3onths. @nde the Indete3inate Sentence >a! +/, if the offense is punished b* a special la!, the cout shall sentence the accused to an indete3inate sentence, the 3ai3u3 te3 of !hich shall not eceed the 3ai3u3 fied b* said la! and the 3ini3u3 te3 shall not be less than the 3ini3u3 pescibed b* the sa3e. Thus, !e hold that the pope penalt* to be i3posed on each of the accused-appellants is an indete3inate sentence of fouteen &"' *eas and ei4ht &/' 3onths, as 3ini3u3, to seventeen &<' *eas and fou &"' 3onths, as 3ai3u3. On the othe hand, the penalt* fo ho3icide is reclusion temporal* the an4e of !hich is fo3 t!elve &+' *eas and one &' da* to t!ent* &+1' *eas. %ppl*in4 the Indete3inate Sentence >a!, and thee bein4 no 3odif*in4 cicu3stance, !e heeb* sentence accused-appellant >a* Peidas to a pison te3 of ei4ht &/' *eas, fou &"' 3onths and ten &1' da*s of prision ma%or* as 3ini3u3, to fouteen &"' *eas, ten &1' 3onths and t!ent* &+1' da*s of reclusion temporal* as 3ai3u3 + Finall*, !e educe the a!ad of Sevent* Five Thousand Pesos &P<#,111.11' odeed b* the tial cout as inde3nit* fo the victi3s death to Fift* Thousand Pesos &P#1,111.11', consistent !ith cuent 8uispudence. 51 ?HEREFORE, in vie! of the foe4oin4, the decision of the Re4ional Tial $out, 9anch
$i3inal $ase No. /+/-M-/, findin4 accused-appellant >%RR P?RID%S 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of ho3icide, is !FFRME$ !ith the MO$FC!TON that he is sentenced to an indete3inate pison te3 of ei4ht &/' *eas, fou &"' 3onths and ten &1' da*s of prision ma%or , as 3ini3u3, to fouteen &"' *eas, ten &1' 3onths and t!ent* &+1' da*s of reclusion temporal , as 3ai3u3. In addition, said accused-appellant >%RR P?RID%S is odeed to pa* death inde3nit* to the heis of s3ael Manan)uil in the a3ount of P#1,111.11. The decision of the Re4ional Tial $out, 9anch %RR P?RID%S and ?R>IND% D?>% $R@L 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of violation of Republic %ct No. 2#5, as a3ended, is !FFRME$ !ith the MO$FC!TON that said accused-appellants ae sentenced to an indete3inate pison te3 of fouteen &"' *eas and ei4ht &/' 3onths, as 3ini3u3, to seventeen &<' *eas and fou &"' 3onths, as 3ai3u3. $osts de o""icio. SO OR$ERE$.
SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
G$R$ N%$ &'()+
Present:
- versus -
QUISUMBING, J ., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,* and BRION, JJ .
MARLON DELA CRUZ @ DAGUL,* ADRIANO MELECIO, Pro!"#ated: JESSIE REYES @ PISO, !" $e%r!ar& '(, ')) JEPOY O#ELLO, Appellant. ++
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J. -o In/orat0ons, one /or 10o"at0on o/ Re2!%"03 A3t No. 456 7t8e Ant0Carna220n# La9, and t8e ot8er /or Ro%%er& 0t8 Ho030de, ere /0"ed a#a0nst a22e""ant Mar"on de"a Cr! 7de"a Cr!9, to#et8er 0t8 Adr0ano Me"e30o 7Me"e30o9, Jess0e Re&es 7Re&es9, and Je2o& O%e""o 7O%e""o9 %e/ore t8e Re#0ona" -r0a" Co!rt 7R-C9 o/ ;a#!2an C0t&.
-8e a33!sator& 2ort0on o/ t8e In/orat0on 0n Cr00na" Case No. '))<)('6;, /or 10o"at0on o/ t8e Ant0Carna220n# La, reads: -8at on or a%o!t t8e (t8 da& o/ J!ne, '))<, 0n t8e C0t& o/ ;a#!2an, P80"0220nes, and 0t80n t8e =!r0sd03t0on o/ t80s Honora%"e Co!rt, t8e a%o1enaed a33!sed, MARLON ;ELA CRU> ? ;a#!", A;RIANO MELECIO & Sendo, JESSIE RE@ES & E1an#e"0sta ? P0so and JEPO@ OBELLO, 0t8 0ntent to #a0n and %& eans o/ 10o"en3e or 0nt00dat0on a#a0nst 2ersons, 3on/ederat0n#, to#et8er, a3t0n# =o0nt"& and 8e"20n# one anot8er, d0d t8en and t8ere, 0""/!""&, !n"a/!""& and 3r00na""& tae, stea", and dr01e aa& a @aa8a otor0ed tr03&3"e 0t8 s0de3ar, %e"on#0n# to one JULIANA sic -AMIN, 0t8o!t 8er no"ed#e and 3onsent, to t8e daa#e and 2re=!d03e o/ t8e "atter .<
-8e a33!sator& 2ort0on o/ t8e In/orat0on 0n Cr00na" Case No. '))<)('(;, /or ro%%er& reads: -8at on or a%o!t t8e (t8 da& o/ J!ne, '))<, 0n t8e C0t& o/ ;a#!2an, P80"0220nes, and 0t80n t8e =!r0sd03t0on o/ t80s Honora%"e Co!rt, t8e a%o1enaed a33!sed, MARLON ;ELA CRU> ? ;a#!", A;RIANO MELECIO & Sendo, JESSIE RE@ES & E1an#e"0sta? P0so and JEPO@ OBELLO, 0t8 0ntent to #a0n and %& eans o/ 10o"en3e or 0nt00dat0on a#a0nst 2ersons, 3on/ederat0n# to#et8er, a3t0n# =o0nt"& and 8e"20n# one anot8er, d0d t8en and t8ere, 0""/!""&, !n"a/!"& and 3r00na""&, ro% one -EO$ILO -AMIN SR. o/ 80s earn0n#s and 3as8 one& 0n t8e ao!nt o/ P4,))).)) and dr01e aa& 80s otor0ed 1e803"e, and 0t8 0ntent to 0"" t8e "atter, atta3, assa!"t, and !se 2ersona" 10o"en3e !2on sa0d -EO$ILO -AMIN SR. %& 80tt0n# 80s 8ead se1era" t0es, t8ere%& 3a!s0n# 80s deat8 t8erea/ter d!e to 0ntre3ran0a" 0n=!r&, %ra0n 8eorr8a#e and "a3erat0on se3ondar& to de2ress /ra3t!re as 2er A!to2s& Re2ort and Cert0/03ate o/ ;eat8, %ot8 0ss!ed %& ;r. Ben=a0n M. Ba!t0sta, to t8e daa#e and 2re=!d03e o/ t8e "e#a" 8e0rs o/ sa0d de3eased, -EO$ILO -AMIN SR., 0n t8e ao!nt o/ P5),))),)).)) and ot8er 3onseD!ent0a" daa#es.'
Me"e30o and O%e""o 8a1e rea0ned at "ar#e. ;e"a Cr! and Re&es, on arra0#nent, 2"eaded not #!0"t&.6 Re&es as "ater to %e a3D!0tted.
$ro t8e e10den3e /or t8e 2rose3!t0on, t8e /o""o0n# 1ers0on 0s #at8ered: ( At ':)) 0n t8e orn0n# o/ J!ne (, '))<, -eo/0"o -a0n Sr. 7t8e 103t09 as d0s3o1ered dead %es0de 80s 2!s8 3art sta"" a"on# Pere Bo!"e1ard, ;a#!2an C0t&. A otor0ed tr03&3"e 8038 t8e 103t0 and 80s son =o0nt"& oned as 0ss0n# and 8038 a22ears to 8a1e %een 2ared near t8e sta"", as as t8e 103t0s %e"t %a# 3onta0n0n# P<,))). -8e 0ss0n# 3as8 0n3"!ded t8e ao!nt 8038 as 0ntended to 2a& /or to ont8s aort0at0on o/ t8e otor3&3"e. A!to2s& o/ t8e 103t0 &0e"ded t8e /o""o0n#: EF-ERNAL $IN;INGS Cada1er as 0n r0#or ort0s and sa"" %od& %!0"t.
Cont!s0on 8eatoa, <5+<4 3, "e/t 2er0or%0ta" area and &#oat03 area 7 0n /ront o/ "e/t ear9. Cont!s0on 8eatoa, 5+( 3, 0d "e/t 2ar0eta" area, "e1e" <' 3 a%o1e t8e r0#8t ear. Cont!s0on 8eatoa, 4+5 3, 0d r0#8t 2ar0eta" area, "e1e" 4 3 a%o1e t8e r0#8t ear. Cont!s0on 8eatoa, <(+<) 3, o33020ta" area 0t8 de2ress s!"" /ra3t!re (+6 3. L0near s0n a%ras0on, P s8a2e, ( 3, "e/t 0d 3"a103!"ar "0ne, "e1e" (.5 3 %e"o t8e "e/t n022"e.
IN-ERNAL $IN;INGS Intra3ran0a" 8eorr8a#e, oderate. Cere%ra" 8eorr8a#e, <)+ 3, "e/t 2ar0eta" te2ora" area 0t8 "a3er at0on. Cere%ra" 8eorr8a#e, <)+ 3, r0#8t 2ar0eta" te2ora" area 0t8 "a3erat0on. ;e2ress s!"" /ra3t!re, (+6 3, o33020ta" area. Cere%e""! 8eorr8a#e, +4 3, 0d"0ne ore 0n r0#8t 0t8 "a3erat0on. Ca!se o/ deat8: 0ntra3ran0a" 0n=!r&, %ra0n 8eorr8a#e and "a3erat0on se3ondar& to de2ress /ra3t!re. ;!e to: u./!0.5 7E28as0s and !nders3or0n# s!22"0ed9
;r. Ben=a0n Mar30a" O. Ba!t0sta 8o 3ond!3ted t8e a!to2s& o20ned t8at t8e 0n=!r0es on t8e 103t0s 8ead ere 3a!sed %& t8e e2"o&ent o/ a 8ard o%=e3t 80"e t8e o!nd on t8e 38est as 3a!sed %& a s8ar2 0nstr!ent. -8e ;a#!2an C0t& 2o"03e re3o1ered t8e s0de3ar atta38ed to t8e otor3&3"e a 0"oeter aa& /ro t8e 3r0e s3ene at a roads0de 3orner. $ro 0n/orat0on #at8ered /ro %&standers, t8e 2o"03e "earned t8at de "a Cr!, a notor0o!s t80e/ 8o 8ad 2re10o!s"& %een 3on103ted /or t8e/t, and an !n0dent0/0ed an ere seen r0d0n# on a red @aa8a otor3&3"e on J!ne (, '))< t8at /ro a s!r1e0""an3e 3ond!3ted, de "a Cr! as not 0n 80s ;a#!2an res0den3e and t8at 80s ot8er Mar0a Rosar0o 7Mar0a9 0s "010n# 0n t8e !n0302a"0t& o/ San Q!0nt0n. On J!ne , '))<, t8e San Q!0nt0n 2o"03e re2orted to t8e ;a#!2an C0t& 2o"03e t8at a red otor3&3"e as re3o1ered /ro de "a Cr!s ot8er Mar0as 8o!se 0n San Q!0nt0n, and t8at Me"e30o as a22re8ended, 80"e de "a Cr! 4 and O%e""o es3a2ed. ;e "a Cr!s /r0ends An#e"03a Pere 7An#e"03a9 and Anna ;at"a# 7Anna9, 8o ere at t8e t0e sta&0n# at Mar0as 8o!se, ere 0n10ted /or D!est0on0n#.
Anna re"ated to t8e 2o"03e, 8038 s8e e38oed at t8e 0tness stand, as /o""os: On J!ne ', '))<, 80"e s8e, An#e"03a, de "a Cr!, and O%e""o ere on 1a3at0on 0n L!2ao, N!e1a E30=a, de "a Cr! "e/t /or ;a#!2an C0t& and ret!rned on J!ne (, '))< on %oard a red otor3&3"e to#et8er 0t8 Me"e30o. 8en s8e ased 8ere 8e #ot t8e otor3&3"e, de "a Cr! re2"0ed t8at 0t 3ae /ro 80s !n3"e. A"so on J!ne (, '))<, t8e #ro!2 2ro3eeded to de "a Cr!s ot8er Mar0as 8o!se 0n San Q!0nt0n, 0t8 de "a Cr! and An#e"03a on %oard t8e otor3&3"e, 80"e t8e rest %oarded a %!s. -8e #ro!2 sta&ed 0n Mar0as 8o!se /or /o!r da&s. Anna /!rt8er re"ated: On J!ne 4, '))<, s8e ased de "a Cr! 8o ons t8e red otor3&3"e to 8038 8e re2"0ed t8at 8e too 0t /ro an o"d an 8o as s"ee20n# a/ter 8e 80t t8e o"d an 0t8 a stone and Me"e30o sta%%ed 80 at t8e r0#8t s0de o/ 80s %od&, /o""o0n# 8038 t8e& too t8e one& o/ t8e o"d an. As a res!"t o/ /o""o!2 0n1est0#at0ons, t8e 2o"03e 0n10ted Re&es /or 3!stod0a" 0n1est0#at0on. -8e 2o"03e "ater ret!rned t8e otor3&3"e to t8e 103t0s 0/e J!"0ta a/ter s8e 0dent0/0ed 0t as t8e one atta38ed to t8e s0de3ar o/ t8e 103t0. U2on t8e ot8er 8and, de "a Cr! 2!t !2 a"0%0, 3"a00n# t8at 8e as as"ee2 0n 80s 8o!se at Ca""e=on E+tens0on, ;a#!2an C0t& on t8e n0#8t o/ Jan!ar& 6, '))< t8at on a0n# !2 t8e /o""o0n# da&, Jan!ar& (, '))<, O%e""o and Me"e30o arr01ed and 0n10ted 80 to, as 8e d0d =o0n t8e to San Q!0nt0n on %oard a otor3&3"e 8038 t8e to 3"a0ed %e"on#s to t8e0r !n3"e t8at t8e #ro!2 ent /0rst to L!2ao, N!e1a E30=a 8ere t8e& et Anna and An#e"03a 8o, on 80s 0n10tat0on, =o0ned t8e 0n San Q!0nt0n 8ere t8e& sta&ed /or a /e da&s. ;e "a Cr! ent on to 3"a0 as /o""os: 80"e t8e& ere 0n San Q!0nt0n, Me"e30o and O%e""o ased 80 to "oo /or a %!&er o/ t8e otor3&3"e, dra0n# 80 and 80s ot8er Rosar0o to s3o"d t8e to and as t8e to #o 8oe. -8e to 0ns0sted on sta&0n# 0n San Q!0nt0n, 8oe1er, !nt0" t8e& 3o!"d /0nd a %!&er o/ t8e otor3&3"e. -8e to e1ent!a""& ad0tted t8at t8e& too t8e otor3&3"e /ro an o"d an 8o t8e& 8ad 80t. H0s ot8er t8ere!2on ased 80 to send 80s /r0ends aa&, 8038 8e d0d, %!t t8e& re/!sed to "ea1e.Not ant0n# to %e 02"03ated 0n a 3r0e, 8e ent 8oe to ;a#!2an on J!ne , '))<. A/ter tr0a", Bran38 (6 o/ t8e ;a#!2an C0t& R-C 3on103ted de"a Cr! o/ %ot8 38ar#es. As re/"e3ted ear"& on, 0t a3D!0tted Re&es. -8e tr0a" 3o!rt d0s2osed: 1HEREFORE, t8e Co!rt /0nds a33!sed MARLON ;ELA CRU> a"0as ;a#!" GUIL-@ %e&ond reasona%"e do!%t /or t8e /e"on0es o/ ro%%er& 0t8 Ho030de AN; V0o"at0on o/ R.A. No. 456 7An a3t 2re1ent0n# and 2ena"00n# 3arna220n#9 and 0n 3on/or0t& 0t8 "a, 8e 0s senten3ed to s!//er t8e 2ena"t& o/ RECLUSION PERPE-UA 0n ea38 3ase.
A33!sed JESSIE RE@ES 0s ordered a3D!0tted on #ro!nd o/ reasona%"e do!%t. $!rt8er, a33!sed 0s ordered to 2a& t8e 103t0s 0/e t8e /o""o0n# to 0t: <. '. 6. (.
P5),))).)) as 0nden0t& P5),))).)) as ora" daa#es P6),))).)) as e+e2"ar& daa#es P6<,'6(.)) re2resent0n# /!nera"%!r0a" 0s3e""aneo!s e+2enses
5. P<,))).)) re2resent0n# 103t0s one& 0ntended to 2a& to 7'9 ont8s 0nsta""ent o/ 80s ne otor0ed tr03&3"e Be 0t stressed t8at 103t0s 3arna22ed otor0ed tr03&3"e as re3o1ered. -8e BJMP o/ ;a#!2an C0t& 0s ordered to 3o0t t8e 2erson o/ t8e a33!sed to t8e Nat0ona" Pen0tent0ar& 0ed0ate"& and 0t8o!t !nne3essar& de"a&. SO ORDERED.
On a22ea" %e/ore t8e Co!rt o/ A22ea"s, de "a Cr! /a!"ted t8e tr0a" 3o!rt I F F F IN REL@ING HEAVIL@ ON SUPPOSI-IONS AN; PRESUMP-IONS -O JUS-I$@ -HE CONVIC-ION O$ ACCUSE;APPELLAN- MARLON ;ELA CRU> SINCE -HERE AS NO E@EI-NESS -O -HE CRIMES COMMI--E; AGAINS- -HE PERSON O$ -EO$ILO -AMIN, SR. II F F F IN BELIEVING -HE -ES-IMON@ O$ PROSECU-ION I-NESS ANNA ;A-LAG ;ESPI-E -HE REMARKABLE MO-IVE BEHIN; HER AC- O$ PINNING ;ON ACCUSE;APPELLAN- MARLON ;ELA CRU>. III FFF IN IMPOSING -HE PENAL-@ O$ RECLUSION PERPE-UA $OR EACH CASE. IV FFF IN $IN;ING -HE ACCUSE;APPELLAN- GUIL-@ BE@ON; REASONABLE ;OUB- O$ -HE COMPLEF CRIME O$ ROBBER@ I-H HOMICI;E SANS EVI;ENCE -O PROVE -HE SAME. <) 7Unders3or0n# s!22"0ed9
-8e Co!rt o/ A22ea"s a//0red de "a Cr!s 3on103t0on, %!t od0/0ed t8e 2ena"t& 0n "0#8t o/ t8e /o""o0n# o%ser1at0ons: << + + + -8e tr0a" 3o!rt erred 0n 02os0n# t8e 2ena"t& o/ re3"!s0on 2er2et!a 0n %ot8 3ases, /or t8e 3r0e o/ 3arna220n#, 3ons0der0n# t8at t8e 0n/orat0on on"& a""e#ed t8at ;ELA CRU> 3o0tted t8e 3r0e %& eans o/ 10o"en3e or 0nt00dat0on a#a0nst 2ersons and d0d not a""e#e t8at t8e 103t0 as 0""ed 0n t8e 3o!rse o/ t8e 3o0ss0on o/ t8e 3arna220n# or on o33as0on t8ereo/.In t8e sae a& t8at re30d010s 3annot %e a22re30ated a#a0nst ;ELA CRU> not0t8stand0n# 80s ad0ss0on 0n 3o!rt t8at 8e as 2r0or"& 3on103ted o/ t8e/t, a 3r0e 2!n0s8ed !nder t8e sae t0t"e o/ t8e Code as t8e 3r0e o/ ro%%er& 0t8 8o030de, and as =!st re"eased /ro M!nt0n"!2a at t8e t0e o/ t8e tr0a" o/ t8e se3ond 3ase. Sa0d a##ra1at0n# 30r3!stan3es ere not a""e#ed 0n t8e 0n/orat0on 0n 3onsonan3e 0t8 t8e reD!0reent o/ Se3t0on , R!"e <<) o/ t8e R!"es o/ Cr00na" Pro3ed!re. A"so, 80"e t8e Co!rt a3no"ed#es t8at 3erta0n "osses and e+2enses ere a3t!a""& 0n3!rred %& t8e 0/e o/ t8e 103t0 and 8er /a0"&, t8e Co!rt notes t8at e+3e2t
/or t8e ao!nt o/ P<6,))).)) re2resent0n# t8e 2a&ent ade to $!nerar0a ;a#!2an, t8e ot8er e+2enses /or /!nera"%!r0a" o/ t8e 103t0 ere not 2ro2er"& s!%stant0ated %& re3e02ts. $or 8038 reason, e 3annot #rant t8e sae. -8e a""e#at0on a"so t8at t8e earn0n#s o/ t8e da&, taen %& ;ELA CRU> and MELECIO /ro -EO$ILO, SR., ao!nted to P<),))).)) sic as not s!//030ent"& 2ro1en. It 0s so e+!%erant sic 3ons0der0n# t8e nat!re o/ t8e %!s0ness o/ t8e 103t0 at t8e t0e t8e 0n30dent o33!rred. -8e #rant o/ e+e2"ar& daa#es 0s a"so de"eted 0n t8e a%sen3e o/ a##ra1at0n# 30r3!stan3es attend0n# t8e 3o0ss0on o/ t8e 3r0e as a""e#ed 0n t8e 0n/orat0on.<' 7Unders3or0n# s!22"0ed9
-8e Co!rt o/ A22ea"s t8!s d0s2osed: 1HEREFORE, 2re0ses 3ons0dered, /0nd0n# no error 3o0tted %& t8e tr0a" 3o!rt 0n arr010n# at t8e assa0"ed de30s0on, t8e sae 0s AFFIRMED 0t8 od0/03at0ons:
7a9
$0nd0n# a33!seda22e""ant Mar"on de"a Cr! ? ;a#!" #!0"t& o/ ro%%er& 0t8 8o030de and senten30n# 80 to t8e 2ena"t& o/ re3"!s0on 2er2et!a
7%9
$0nd0n# a33!seda22e""ant Mar"on de"a Cr! ? ;a#!" #!0"t& o/ t8e 3r0e o/ 3arna220n# %& eans o/ /or3e and 10o"en3e !2on 2erson and senten30n# 80 to t8e 0ndeter0nate 2ena"t& o/ 02r0sonent o/ < &ears and /o!r ont8s as 0n0! to 6) &ears as a+0!.
739
Order0n# t8e a33!seda22e""ant Mar"on de"a Cr! ? ;a#!" to 2a& t8e 103t0s 0/e: 7<9 7'9 769 7(9
P5),))) as 0nden0t& P5),))) as ora" daa#es P<6,))) as /!nera" and %!r0a" e+2enses P,)) P6,5)( + ' re2resent0n# t8e to ont8s earn0n#s set as0de /or t8e aort0at0on o/ t8e 1e803"e 759 P'),))) as te2erate daa#es. SO ORDERED.<6 7E28as0s and 0ta"03s 0n t8e or0#0na" !nders3or0n# s!22"0ed9
Hen3e, t8e 2resent a22ea" o/ de "a Cr! 78erea/ter a22e""ant9. <( -8e a22ea" 0s %ere/t o/ er0t. -8ere %e0n# no e&e0tness to t8e 3o0ss0on o/ t8e 3r0e, t8e /o""o0n# 2ro10s0on o/ Se3t0on ( o/ R!"e <66 o/ t8e R!"es o/ Co!rt on 30r3!stant0a" e10den3e a22"0es: SEC. (. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. C0r3!stant0a" e10den3e 0s s!//030ent /or 3on103t0on 0/: 7a9 -8ere 0s ore t8an one 30r3!stan3e 7%9 -8e /a3ts /ro 8038 t8e 0n/eren3es are der01ed are 2ro1en and 739 -8e 3o%0nat0on o/ a"" t8e 30r3!stan3es 0s s!38 as to 2rod!3e a 3on103t0on %e&ond reasona%"e do!%t.
Con103t0on %ased on 30r3!stant0a" e10den3e 3an %e s!sta0ned, 2ro10ded t8e 30r3!stan3es 2ro1en 3onst0t!te an !n%roen 38a0n 8038 "ead to one /a0r and reasona%"e 3on3"!s0on t8at 2o0nts to t8e a33!sed, to t8e e+3"!s0on o/ a"" ot8ers, as t8e #!0"t& 2erson. <5 In t8e 3ases at %ar, t8e 2rose3!t0on 2ro1ed t8e /o""o0n# /a3ts: <. A22e""ant "e/t L!2ao, N!e1a E30=a /or ;a#!2an on J!ne ', '))< and ret!rned to L!2ao on J!ne (, '))<, t80s t0e on %oard a red @aa8a otor3&3"e '. On J!ne (, '))<, t8e 103t0 as /o!nd dead near 80s sta"", and 80s one& and t8e tr03&3"e 7otor3&3"e cum s0de 3ar9 ere 0ss0n# 6. -8e res!"t o/ t8e a!to2s& o/ t8e 103t0 s8oed t8at, aon# ot8er t80n#s, 8e 8ad a o!nd on t8e 8ead 8038 as o20ned to 8a1e %een 3a!sed %& a 8ard o%=e3t (. On J!ne (, '))<, a22e""ant to#et8er 0t8 80s /r0ends, "e/t L!2ao /or 80s ot8ers 8o!se at San Q!0nt0n. A22e""ant and 80s /r0end An#e"03a %oarded t8e red @aa8a otor3&3"e 5. -8e s0de3ar /or0n# 2art o/ t8e tr03&3"e as e1ent!a""& re3o1ered a 0"oeter aa& /ro t8e locus criminis 4. A22e""ant and 80s /r0ends sta&ed 0n 80s ot8ers 8o!se at San Q!0nt0n /or /o!r da&s or !2 to J!ne , '))< 0n t8e 3o!rse o/ 8038 a22e""ant 3on/essed to Anna t8at 8e too t8e red @aa8a otor3&3"e and soe one& /ro an o"d an 8o 8e 8ad 80t 0t8 a stone and 8o Me"e30o sta%%ed and . -8e red @aa8a otor3&3"e to 8038 t8e s0de3ar as atta38ed as re3o1ered on J!ne , '))< /ro t8e 8o!se o/ a22e""ants ot8er at San Q!0nt0n and as ret!rned to t8e 103t0s 0/e J!"0ta a/ter s8e 0dent0/0ed 0t to %e t8at o/ t8e 103t0s. Carna220n# 0s t8e ta0n#, 0t8 0ntent to #a0n, o/ a otor 1e803"e %e"on#0n# to anot8er 0t8o!t t8e "atters 3onsent, or %& eans o/ 10o"en3e a#a0nst or 0nt00dat0on o/ 2ersons, or %& !s0n# /or3e !2on t80n#s. <4
Ro%%er& 0t8 8o030de, on t8e ot8er 8and 8as t8e /o""o0n# e"eents: <. t8e ta0n# o/ 2ersona" 2ro2ert& 0s 3o0tted 0t8 10o"en3e or 0nt00dat0on a#a0nst 2ersons '. t8e 2ro2ert& taen %e"on#s to anot8er 6. t8e ta0n# 0s 38ara3ter0ed %& 0ntent to #a0n or animo lucrandi (. %& reason o/ t8e ro%%er& or on o33as0on t8ereo/, 8o030de 0s 3o0tted.<
$ro t8e 3o%0nat0on o/ t8e a%o1een!erated 2ro1en 30r3!stan3es, t8e e+0sten3e o/ t8e e"eents o/ 3arna220n# and ro%%er& 0t8 8o030de, as e"" as t8e 0dent0t& o/ a22e""ant as t8e one or one o/ t8ose 8o 3o0tted t8e 3r0es, 3an %e reasona%"& 0n/erred. A22e""ant 02!#ns 2rose3!t0on 0tness Annas test0on& a%o!t 80s 3on/ess0on to 8er as 8earsa&, 8oe1er. -80s Co!rt 0s not 2ers!aded. Se3t0on 66 o/ R!"e <6) o/ t8e R!"es o/ Co!rt 2ro10des t8at t8e de3"arat0on o/ an a33!sed a3no"ed#0n# 80s #!0"t o/ t8e o//ense 38ar#ed, or o/ an& o//ense ne3essar0"& 0n3"!ded t8ere0n, a& %e #01en 0n e10den3e a#a0nst 80. People v. Licayan< 0nstr!3ts: A33!seda22e""ant 3annot 1a"0d"& 3"a0 t8at t8e stateent ade %& Ro#e"0o Jun-jun ;a80"an, Jr. as to t8e "o3at0on o/ t8e 103t0s %od& 0s 8earsa&. An& ora" or do3!entar& e10den3e 0s 2ers3 %& nat!re if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witnesses but on the knowlede of some other person who was never presented on the witness stand ,%e3a!se 0t /s 42e opportunity to crossea!ine 52/62 !e04es 42e 6./ 424 42e 44ers 4es4/7/e" 4% 83 5/4!ess re 2ers3. In t8e 0nstant 3ase, Ro#e"0o ;a80"an, Jr. test0/0ed t8at a33!sed a22e""ant 0ndeed to"d 80 8ere t8e 103t0s %od& 3an %e /o!nd.< 7Ita"03s 0n t8e or0#0na" e28as0s and !nders3or0n# s!22"0ed9
-8e re3ords s8o t8at a22e""ant 3rosse+a0ned 2rose3!t0on 0tness Anna. Her test0on& a%o!t a22e""ants 3on/ess0on to 8er 0s not t8!s 8earsa&. S!38 3on/ess0on 0s 0n /a3t 3orro%orated %& t8e e10den3e /or t8e 2rose3!t0on, vi! : t8e 103t0s %od& %ore 0n=!r0es on t8e 8ead 8038 t8e do3tor o20ned to 8a1e %een 3a!sed %& a 8ard o%=e3t and t8e otor3&3"e as e1ent!a""& re3o1ered on J!ne , '))< /ro t8e 8o!se o/ a22e""ants ot8er to 8038 a22e""ant and 3o2an& re2a0red to on J!ne (, '))< ') and sta&ed !2 to J!ne , '))<. A22e""ant #oes on to %rand as %0ased Annas test0on& %& tr&0n# to 20n 80 . . . 0n order to sa1e 8erse"/. Not on"& as Anna not 38ar#ed o/ 3o2"030t& 0n t8e 3o0ss0on o/ t8e 3r0es, 8oe1er. S8e 8as not %een s8on to 8a1e an& ot01e to test0/& /a"se"& a#a0nst 80. $0na""&, a22e""ant ar#!es t8at e1en 0/ t8e a""e#at0on on t8e "oss o/ soe 3as8 ere tr!e, t8e sae s8o!"d %e a%sor%ed 0n 3arna220n# s0n3e 3arna220n# and ro%%er& 8a1e t8e sae e"eent o/ ta0n# 0t8 0ntent to #a0n. '< -8e Co!rt 0s "0e0se not 2ers!aded. Carna220n# re/ers s2e30/03a""& to t8e ta0n# o/ a otor 1e803"e. It does not 3o1er t8e ta0n# o/ 3as8 or 2ersona" 2ro2ert& 8038 0s not a otor 1e803"e. As t8e Co!rt o/ A22ea"s noted, + + + -o 7'9 art03"es ere taen /ro -EO$ILLO, SR., 80s tr03&3"e and soe 3as8. -8e ta0n# o/ t8e tr03&3"e 3onst0t!tes a 10o"at0on o/ t8e ant03arna220n# "a, RA 456, 80"e t8e ta0n# o/ t8e 3as8 /ro tEO$ILO, SR. %& 80tt0n# 80 0t8 a stone and sta%%0n# 80 0n t8e 38est 3onst0t!tes t8e 3r0e o/ ro%%er& 0t8 8o030de !nder Art03"e '( o/ t8e Re10sed Pena" Code. ''
1HEREFORE, t8e 38a""en#ed J!ne 6), '))4 ;e30s0on o/ t8e Co!rt o/ A22ea"s 0s A$$IRME;.
SO OR;ERE;.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
T=IRD DIVISION G.R. No. 12&500
Jun7 *, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. NOEL S!NTOS y CRSPNO an FELC!NO FUNCON alias JON%JON, au(7, NOEL S!NTOS y CRSPNO, accused-appellant. GON+!G!%RE#ES, J .>
9efoe us is an appeal fo3 the decision of the Re4ional Tial $out of Pasa* $it*, 9anch <, convictin4 accusedappellant of violation of Republic %ct No. 2#5, as a3ended, also (no!n as the %nti-$anappin4 %ct, and sentencin4 hi3 to suffe the penalt* of reclusion perpetua, on the basis of an Info3ation the accusato* potion of !hich eads; That on o about the /th da* of une, #, in Pasa* $it*, Meto Manila, Philippines and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above-na3ed accused, conspiin4 and confedeatin4 to4ethe and 3utuall* helpin4 one anothe, !ith intent to 4ain, and b* 3eans of violence e3plo*ed a4ainst R@?> V%>?NTINO MOR%>?S, did then and thee !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl* ta(e and dive a!a* fo3 the latte a To*ota Ta3aa!, beain4 Plate No. @%M #"1, ?n4ine No. +-$ ++/225 and $hassis No. $F#111+"#" valued at P5/<,111.11 and belon4in4 to T?OD@>O N%TIVID%D * D?>% $R@L, to the da3a4e and pe8udice of said o!ne in the a3ount of P5/<,111.11E that as a esult of the violence e3plo*ed on the peson of R@?> V%>?NTINO MOR%>?S, the latte sustained in8uies !hich caused his death. + The above Info3ation, !hich na3ed as accused Noel Santos and one ohn Doe, !as a3ended on ul* 5, # to cancel the desi4nation of ohn Doe and substitute in its place the na3e of Feliciano Funcion, alias on-8on.5 @p to the ti3e of the endition of the assailed decision, ho!eve, accused Funcion e3ained at la4e. The posecution pesented ten !itnesses duin4 tial, consistin4 of the appehendin4 and investi4atin4 offices of the Pasa* $it* and Ma4alan4, Pa3pan4a police stations, the 3edico-le4al office, and the fa3il* and fiends of the victi3. %lso sub3itted in evidence !ee the aticles ecoveed at the scene of the ci3e, includin4 the 3ude !eapon and pesonal belon4in4s of both the victi3 and accused-appellant. PO5 %lfedo 0alan4 !as 3annin4 the taffic at the intesection in Doloes, Ma4alan4, Pa3pan4a at aound +;51 in the 3onin4 of une , # !hen he noticed an Govespeedin4G To*ota Ta3aa! F. =e si4naled fo the vehicle
to pull ove to the side of the oad, appoached the vehicle then as(ed the dive fo his license. The dive, !ho tuned out to be accused-at-la4e on-8on Funcion, handed hi3 an epied dive7s license !ithout plastic cove issued in the na3e of the victi3, Ruel Moales. " Obsevin4 that the dive and his co3panion, heein accusedappellant, !ee actin4 suspiciousl*, PO5 0alan4 as(ed the3 to tun on the li4hts inside the vehicle, to !hich accused-appellant co3plied. =e then boo!ed the (e* to the ea doo of the F fo3 the dive. hile PO5 0alan4 !as openin4 the ea doo, the dive fled unpusued to!ads a neab* su4acane field. The ea potion of the F, as PO5 0alan4 found out shotl* theeafte, contained the dead bod* of victi3 Ruel Moales !apped in the seat cove and cutains of the vehicle. This account !as cooboated b* ?nesto 0on6ales, one of t!o taffic aides then stationed at the taffic outpost in Doloes, Ma4alan4, Pa3pan4a, and !ho assisted PO5 0alan4 in the inspection of the F and the appehension of accused-appellant. PO5 0alan4 too( custod* of accused-appellant, !ho all thou4h out the incident e3ained seated in the font passen4e seat of the F. =e called a funeal palo to collect the copse, bou4ht the F and accused-appellant to the Ma4alan4 police station, and i33ediatel* eecuted an affidavit of aest # a4ainst accused-appellant. The net da*, accused-appellant !as bou4ht b* one SPO+ Nu)ui of the Ma4alan4 police station to the Pasa* $it* police station and indosed to the office on dut*, SPO+ Renato 0u63an. It !as SPO+ 0u63an !ho intevie!ed accused-appellant, !ho in tun denied esponsibilit* fo the death of Moales and pointed all the bla3e at accusedat-la4e on-8on Funcion. %lso deliveed to the Pasa* $it* police !ee an autops* epot of the bod* of the victi3, a 4a* To*ota Ta3aa! F !ith Plate No. @%M #"1, and the ite3s ecoveed theein. SPO Manuel %beno8a, the evidence custodian of the Pasa* $it* police station, identified in open cout the aticles ecoveed fo3 inside the F, na3el*; a defo3ed and blood-stained (itchen (nife, a stone 3easuin4 about 5 to " inches acoss, a $etificate of Re4istation petainin4 to the To*ota Ta3aa! F issued in the na3e of Teodulo $. Natividad, a pai of chec(eed shot pants, a !ist !atch, a bo!n scapula nec(lace, t!o leathe !allets, a P$I9an( cad in the na3e of Ruel Valentine Moales, a Ma(ati Public Safet* Office bad4e, thee pictues of Ruel Moales, a pai of deni3 lon4 pants, a leathe belt, thee pais of shoes, and assoted identification papes in the na3e of Ruel Moales. 2 D. Ma. >oudes Natividad, ual health ph*sician of Ma4alan4, Pa3pan4a, conducted the post(mortemea3ination of the bod* of the victi3. 9ased on he findin4s, the cause of death !as he3oha4e as a esult of the victi37s factued s(ull. D. Natividad testified to the pesence of the follo!in4 in8uies on the victi37s bod*; factue of the fontonasal bone &bet!een the victi37s e*es <'E 3ultiple laceations, incisions and he3ato3a on the face and a3s, abasions on the face and lo!e ete3ities, and li4atue etendin4 hoi6ontall* fo3 i4ht to left and covein4 al3ost t!o-thids of the nec(. / In he testi3on*, the docto stated that the factue bet!een the victi37s e*es and the contusions !ee li(el* caused b* a blunt instu3ent, !hile the laceated and incised !ounds !ee inflicted b* a shap instu3ent. The li4atue acoss the nec( could have been caused b* stan4lin4 !ith a ope. Thee of the victi37s fiends !ho last sa! hi3 alive !ee also pesented as posecution !itnesses. ?li6alde $laidad declaed that at aound ;11 in the evenin4 of une /, #, he !as din(in4 !ith his fiends at the cone of >i3 and M. Re*es Steets in Ma(ati $it* !hen Ruel Moales dove b* in a To*ota Ta3aa! F. Moales called to hi3 and as(ed that he acco3pan* hi3 in loo(in4 fo his &Moales7s' bothe, =opp*. Moales !as !eain4 a T-shit, shots, slippes and a lad*7s Role !ist !atch !ith 4e3stones. The* dove aound 9aan4a* 9an4(al in Ma(ati then poceeded to Padi7s Point, a estauant-ba at Pasa* Road, also in Ma(atiE unable to locate the bothe, Moales dopped hi3 off at the cone of >i3 and M. Re*es Steets and dove bac( to Pasa* Road. The net ti3e he sa! Moales !as the net da*, !hen the* fetched his bod* in the 3o4ue in Pa3pan4a. Mean!hile, %nie 9odeos testified that on the ni4ht of une /, #, bet!een 1;11 to ;11, he sa! Ruel Moales in a To*ota Ta3aa! F alon4 M. Re*es and 0eneal >una Steets in Ma(ati convesin4 !ith t!o pesons b* the side of the oad. ?alie to this convesation, these t!o pesons appoached hi3 and his fiends and tal(ed to the3 in a dun(en and ude 3anne. One of the3, !ho3 he identified as heein accused-appellant, even ba44ed that he !as the nephe! of a cit* 3a*o. =e then sa! Moales openin4 the passen4e doos to let the t!o pesons in, then Moales dove a!a* !ith the t!o on boad. >eo Soiba, !ho !as !ith %nie 9odeos at the ti3e, cooboated this account. Teodulo Natividad testified that he !as the o!ne of the To*ota Ta3aa! F !hee the victi37s bod* !as found. =e stated that on une /, # he lent the F to the victi3, Ruel Moales, !ho !as a 4ood fiend of his and !ho often boo!ed the F fo3 hi3. The vehicle !as ecoveed and estoed to hi3 b* the Pasa* $it* police. It had a dent on the oof and the seat coves and cutains !ee 3issin4, but it !as in othe!ise 4ood condition. 1
%ntonio Moales, . pesented eceipts covein4 the epenses incued b* his fa3il* fo the !a(e and buial of his bothe. The total costs eflected in the eceipts a3ounted to P#2,5.51. =e also stated that his bothe !o(ed as an entetaine in apan, eanin4 @S,111.11 a 3onth. =e !as, ho!eve, unable to sub3it docu3enta* evidence to suppot this. In contast to the ten !itnesses pesented b* the posecution, defense pesented as its sole !itness accusedappellant hi3self. In his vesion of the sto*, accused-appellant !as at the Malva Spots $o3ple in 9an4(al, Ma(ati $it* on une /, # at aound 1;11 in the evenin4. =e !as pla*in4 dats !ith accused-at-la4e on-8on Funcion and t!o othe fiends, !hen on-8on told the3 that he !as in need of 3one* as he needed to 4o to Talac to see his 4ilfiend. 9ecause no one a3on4 the3 could lend hi3 3one*, on-8on as(ed accused-appellant to acco3pan* hi3 to the house of one $ouncilo Fedie ?usebio fo3 !ho3 he intended to boo! 3one*. @pon eachin4 ?usebio7s house, ho!eve, on-8on decided a4ainst it because it !as alead* late at ni4ht and it see3ed as if the occupants of the house !ee alead* asleep. The* etuned to the Malva Spots $o3ple !hee one of thei fiends, effe* %bi4abel, su44ested the* t* boo!in4 3one* fo3 his fiend, oel. on-8on left !ith Funcion to 4o to oel, but the* etuned shotl* afte. effe* then said he !as 4oin4 ho3e, and as effe* !as !al(in4 a!a* fo3 the3 a To*ota Ta3aa! F stopped beside hi3. %ccused-appellant sa! effe* convese !ith the dive of the F, then effe* !ent on his !a* and the F !ent to!ads Mabolo Steet. %ccused-appellant then said that on-8on as(ed hi3 !ho the dive of the F !as, but he ans!eed that he did not (no!. Then on-8on left to!ads the diection of Mabolo Steet, sa*in4 Gdidis(ate a! si*a n4 pea.G + %t this point, accused-appellant decided to 4o ho3e. hile !al(in4 alon4 Macabolos Steet he 3et the F, bein4 diven b* on-8on, !hich stopped beside hi3. The peson on the font passen4e seat opened his !indo!, and he obseved that the peson !as G4a*G. on-8on as(ed hi3 !hee he !as 4oin4, and !hen he said he !as on his !a* ho3e, he and the G4a*G passen4e invited hi3 to ide !ith the3 and that the* !ill dop hi3 off at his house. =e identified the passen4e as GShaonG, o the victi3 Ruel Moales in the instant case. %ccused-appellant accepted the offe and boaded the F. =o!eve, instead of doppin4 hi3 off at his house in Maliba*, Pasa* $it*, on-8on dove to PI$$, !hee the* pa(ed in a da( aea !hee the tees sceened off the li4ht of the electic la3ps. on-8on then as(ed accused-appellant to step out of the F, sa*in4 that he and GShaonG had 3attes to discuss. =e consented, !al(in4 about / 3etes a!a* fo3 the vehicle. 9ecause it !as da(, he could not see the inteio of the F but he obseved that it !as Gu3uu4aG, o oc(in4 li4htl*, fo about 1 to # 3inutes. =e ca3e to the conclusion that the t!o !ee havin4 se. Then on-8on called hi3 and ali4hted fo3 the 3iddle i4ht-side doo of the F. hen accused-appellant appoached, on-8on placed his i4ht a3 on the i4ht shoulde of accused-appellant, and the latte noticed fo3 the open ca doo that so3eone !as l*in4 inside the F. =e as(ed on-8on !hat happened and he epotedl* eplied, GDon7t as( an*3oe, *ou 3i4ht be the net one.G 5 Then he felt so3ethin4 po(e hi3 shapl* on the nec(, and on 8on said in an an4* voice, Gust follo! !hat I instucted & sic ', if not, I !ill (ill *ou.G " on-8on then told hi3 to e3ove the seat coves of the F and as he did so, on-8on !ent behind hi3 levelin4 the (nife on accused-appellant7s nec( !ith one hand !hile holdin4 to the !aistband of accused-appellant7 pants !ith the othe. # on-8on 3ade hi3 cove the dead bod*, !ith the seat covesE then on-8on tied both of accused-appellant7s hands behind his bac(, too( his !allet and 3ade hi3 sit on the font passen4e seat of the F. =e then placed a seat belt aound hi3, loc(ed the doo at his side, stated the en4ine and dove to 9uendia %venue and noth to Pa3pan4a. %ll the !hile on-8on epotedl* theatened to (ill hi3 if he atte3pted to escape o to alet an*one, such as the toll booth pesonnel, of !hat !as happenin4. 2 Thou4hout his testi3on*, !hich an the couse of fou heain4s, accused-appellant insisted that he had no oppotunit* to escape and that he !as oveco3e b* fea of accused-at-la4e on-8on Funcion. hen the* !ee accosted at the intesection in Doloes, Ma4alan4, Pa3pan4a, accused-appellant testified to the follo!in4 chain of events; on-8on pulled ove to the side of the oad, unfastened the seat belt aound accusedappellant, untied accused-appellant7s hands, the! so3ethin4 at the bac( of the vehicle, tuned on the li4ht, told accused-appellant to e3ove his &accused-appellant7s' s!eatshit, !oe the s!eatshit to cove the blood stains on his a3s, tuned off the li4ht, theatened hi3 so3e 3oe, too( 3one* fo3 accused-appellant7s !allet, then ali4hted. < %ll of this pesu3abl* tanspied duin4 the interim that it too( fo PO5 0alan4, !ho !as at a distance of about 51 3etes a!a*, / to appoach the F. %t so3e point in his testi3on*, accused-appellant said that !hile the police3an and on-8on !ee tal(in4, he called to one of the taffic aides and said that thee !as a dead bod* at the bac( of the ca. This, ho!eve, !as not in the testi3on* of ?nesto 0on6ales, one of the taffic aides pesent at the ti3e. %fte on-8on Funcion fled and the police office found the dead bod* at the bac( of the F, the* appoached accused-appellant !ho e3ained seated at the font passen4e seat and led hi3 to the neab* police outpost. =e !as then bou4ht to a police station !hee he !as placed unde investi4ation.
The tial cout vie!ed !ith disbelief the vesion of accused-appellant. In its decision endeed on Octobe +#, 2, it declaed; The $out believes that on-8on alone could not inflict all the !ounds on Moales alias Shaon !hich caused his death. So that the clai3 of Santos that he had no paticipation in the (illin4 of Moales is not cedible. Santos hi3self testified that his fiend on-8on !as in need of 3one* as he !as to 4o to his 4ilfiend in Talac. hen the* !ee not able to boo! 3one* fo3 $ouncilo ?usebio, Moales ca3e alon4 and invited the3 to PI$$. Moales alias Shaon bein4 a 4a* !anted to use on-8on and Santos !ho !ee teena4es. hile thee is no diect evidence in the (illin4 of Moales, the pesu3ption is that the peson found in the uneplained possession of the stolen effects is the autho of the a44ession and death of the victi3 and the obbe* co33itted on hi3. &People vs. Pado, 0.R. No. #+21, Mach /, 2' %t the ti3e the* !ee co33ittin4 the ci3e, thei action i3pliedl* sho!ed a unit* of pupose bet!een the3 and a conceted effot to bin4 about the death of Moales. &People vs. Fee, et. al ., 0.R. Nos. "5-55, Nove3be 2, #' +1 Thus, the tial cout 3ade a findin4 of i3plied conspiac* and 3eted out a 8ud43ent of conviction. The dispositive potion of the assailed decision is )uoted as follo!s; =?R?FOR?, in vie! of the foe4oin4, the $out finds the accused Noel Santos * $ispino 0@I>T be*ond easonable doubt fo violation of Republic %ct No. 2#5, as a3ended &%nti-$anappin4 %ct'. Thee bein4 no a44avatin4 o 3iti4atin4 cicu3stances, the $out sentences hi3 to the penalt* of reclusion perpetuaE to inde3nif* the heis of Ruel Valentino Moales in the a3ount of P#1,111.11E the a3ount of P#2,5.51 as da3a4es, and to pa* the costs. SO ORD?R?D. + On appeal, accused-appellant assi4ns the follo!in4 eos; . The tial cout 4avel* eed in findin4 that Noel Santos is 4uilt* of violatin4 Republic %ct No. 2#5, as a3ended &the G%nti-$anappin4 %ctG', considein4 that the posecution failed to pove the 4uilt of Noel Santos be*ond easonable doubt. a. The tial cout 4avel* eed in findin4 that thee !as conspiac* bet!een Funcion and Noel Santos, and that thei actions sho!ed unit* of pupose and a conceted effot to bin4 about the death of victi3 Moales. b. The tial cout 4avel* eed in findin4 that Noel Santos paticipated in the focible ta(in4 of the Ta3aa! F and the (illin4 of victi3 Moales. c. The tial cout eed in findin4 that Funcion alone could not inflict all the !ounds victi3 Moales sustained. +. The tial cout 4avel* eed in findin4 that the posecution !as able to sufficientl* establish the pesence of Noel Santos in the vehicle !hen the ci3e !as co33itted b* Funcion. +a. The tial cout 4avel* eed in findin4 Noel Santos 4uilt* based on a pesu3ption that the peson found in the uneplained possession of the stolen effects is the autho of the a44ession and death of the victi3 and of the obbe* co33itted on hi3, considein4 that Noel Santos !as able to full* eplain his pesence in said vehicle !hee the bod* of the victi3 Moales !as found. ++ ?ve* ci3inal conviction e)uies of the posecution to pove t!o thin4s; the fact of the ci3e, i .e., the pesence of all the ele3ents of the ci3e fo !hich the accused stands cha4ed, and the fact that the accused is the pepetato of the ci3e. In the instant case !e find the posecution unable to discha4e on both aspects, leavin4 us !ith no option but to ac)uit on easonable doubt. G$anappin4G, as defined b* Republic %ct No. 2#5, o the %nti-$anappin4 %ct, as a3ended, is the ta(in4, !ith intent to 4ain, of a 3oto vehicle belon4in4 to anothe !ithout the latte7s consent, o b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons, o b* usin4 foce upon thin4s. +5 9* the a3end3ent in Section +1 of Republic %ct No. <2#, Section " of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct no! eads; Sec. ". Penalt% "or Carnappin# . J %n* peson found 4uilt* of canappin4, as this te3 is defined in Section T!o of this %ct, shall, iespective of the value of the 3oto vehicle ta(en, be punished b* i3pison3ent fo not less than fouteen *eas and ei4ht 3onths and not 3oe that seventeen *eas and fou 3onths, !hen
the canappin4 is co33itted !ithout violence o inti3idation of pesons, o foce upon thin4s, and b* i3pison3ent fo not less than seventeen *eas and fou 3onths and not 3oe than thit* *eas, !hat the canappin4 is co33itted b* 3eans of violence o inti3idation of an* peson, o foce upon thin4sE and the penalt* of reclusion perpetua to death shallE be i3posed !hen the o!ne, dive o occupant of the canapped 3oto vehicle is (illed o aped in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof. &?3phasis supplied' On the last clause, thee a3end3ents have been 3ade to the oi4inal Section " of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct; &' the chan4e of the penalt* fo3 life i3pison3ent to reclusion perpetua, &+' the inclusion of ape, and &5' the chan4e of the phase Gin the co33ission of the canappin4G to Gin the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof.G +" This thid a3end3ent 3a(es clea the intention of the la! to 3a(e the offense a special co3ple ci3e, b* !a* of analo4* vis(a(vis paa4aphs to " of the Revised Penal $ode on obbe* !ith violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons. +# Thus, unde the last clause of Section " of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct, the posecution not onl* has to pove the essential e)uisites of canappin4 and of the ho3icide o 3ude of Ruel Moales +2 but 3oe i3potantl*, it 3ust sho! that the oi4inal ci3inal desi4n of the culpit !as canappin4 and that the (illin4 !as pepetated Gin the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof.G Needless to sa*, !hee the ele3ents of canappin4 ae not poved, the povisions of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct !ould cease to be applicable and the ho3icide o 3ude &if poven' !ould be punishable unde the Revised Penal $ode. In the heein case, !e find the cha4e of canappin4 unsubstantiated fo failue of the posecution to pove an unla!ful ta(in4. The application of the pesu3ption that a peson found in possession of the pesonal effects belon4in4 to a peson obbed o (illed is consideed the autho of the a44ession, the death of the peson, as !ell as the obbe* co33itted, has been invaiabl* li3ited to cases !hee such possession is eithe uneplained o that the poffeed eplanation is endeed i3plausible in vie! of independent evidence inconsistent theeto. +
The canappin4 not bein4 dul* poved, the (illin4 of Ruel Moales 3a* not be teated as an incident of canappin4. Nonetheless, even unde the povisions of ho3icide and 3ude unde the Revised Penal $ode, !e find that the 4uilt of accused-appellant !as not established be*ond easonable doubt. The tial cout itself ad3its that thee is no diect evidence indicatin4 the 4uilt of accused-appellant fo the (illin4 of Ruel Moales. Follo!in4 ae the cicu3stantial evidence elied upon fo his conviction; fist, accused-appellant !as in the To*ota Ta3aa! F containin4 the victi37s bod* and a blood-stained (nifeE second, the F !as cau4ht Govespeedin4G at +;51 in the 3onin4 at a povincial intesection, and the occupants !ee actin4 suspiciousl*E thid, ealie accused-appellant !as seen !ith accused-at-la4e in Pasa* $it*, appeain4 dun( and behavin4 udel*E and fouth, he !as seen !ith accused-at-la4e boadin4 an F bein4 diven b* the victi3, the sa3e F !hee the victi37s bod* !as subse)uentl* found. Fo cicu3stantial evidence to convict, the Rules of $out e)uie that; &' thee is 3oe than one cicu3stanceE &+' the facts fo3 !hich the infeences ae deived ae povenE and &5' the co3bination of all the cicu3stances is such as to poduce a conviction be*ond easonable doubt. + On the latte, decided cases epound that the cicu3stancial evidence pesented and poved 3ust constitute an unbo(en chain !hich leads to one fai and easonable conclusion pointin4 to accused, to the eclusion of all othes, as the 4uilt* peson. 51 The cicu3stances above3entioned do not lead to an infeence eclusivel* consistent !ith the 4uilt of accusedappellant. :uite to the conta*, !e obseve that !hile the aestin4 office !as peoccupied !ith openin4 the ea doo of the F, at !hich ti3e accused-at-la4e too( the oppotunit* to flee, accused-appellant e3ained seated on the font passen4e seat, a behavio )uite unco33on fo a 4uilt* 3an faced !ith the inevitabilit* of aest. %lthou4h
no one cooboated accused-appellant7s alle4ation that he volunteeed the info3ation that thee !as a dead bod* at the bac( of the ca, his de3eano all thou4hout the seach of the F and duin4 his aest !as, to sa* the least, not inconsistent !ith the h*pothesis of innocence. =e did not esist aest, and duin4 his testi3on* he did not !ave in insistin4 that it !as accused-at-la4e alone !ho !as esponsible fo the ci3e. Thus, even if !e accept as cedible all the testi3onies of the posecution !itnesses, it does not ule out the pobabilit* of accused-appellant7s sto* J that it !as accused-at-la4e !ho (illed Moales then theatened hi3 at (nife-point J havin4 ta(en place, fo thee !ee no e*e!itnesses to the (illin4 itself, and all the posecution !as able to sho! !ee the events befoe and afte the (illin4 of Moales. % situation as this calls fo the application of the e)uipoise ule, !hich e)uies that !hee the inculpato* cicu3stances ae capable of t!o infeences, one of !hich is consistent !ith the pesu3ption of innocence and the othe co3patible !ith a findin4 of 4uilt, the cout 3ust ac)uit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of 3oal cetaint* and theefoe is insufficient to suppot a 8ud 43ent of conviction. 5 Ou ulin4 to ac)uit does not hold a coolla* upholdin4 of the cedibilit* of the testi3on* of accused-appellant. The basis of the ac)uittal is easonable doubt, !hich si3pl* 3eans that the evidence of the posecution !as not sufficient to sustain the 4uilt of accused-appellant be*ond the point of 3oal cetaint*. Poof be*ond easonable doubt, ho!eve, is a buden paticula to the posecution and does not appl* to eculpato* facts as 3a* be aised b* the defenseE the accused is not e)uied to establish 3attes in 3iti4ation o defense be*ond a easonable doubt, no is he e)uied to establish the tuth of such 3attes b* a pepondeance of the evidence, o even to a easonable pobabilit*. 5+ %n ac)uittal based on easonable doubt !ill pospe even thou4h the accused7s innocence 3a* be doubted, 55 fo a ci3inal conviction ests on the sten4th of the evidence of the posecution and not on the !ea(ness of the defense. 5" =avin4 esolved a4ainst the individual culpabilit* of accused-appellant in this 3anne, the theo* of i3plied conspiac* of the tial cout 3ust li(e!ise fail. =?R?FOR?, the decision in $i3inal $ase No. #-<+#/ of 9anch < of the Re4ional Tial $out of Pasa* $it* is heeb* R?V?RS?D. %ccused-appellant Noel Santos * $ispino is %$:@ITT?D on the 4ound that his 4uilt has not been poved be*ond easonable doubt. =is i33ediate elease fo3 detention is heeb* odeed, unless othe la!ful and valid 4ounds fo his futhe detention eist. No costs. SO ORD?R?D.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila ?N 9%N$
G.R. No. 132&**
O)o@7r 23, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, appellee,
vs. S!!S FERN!N$E+ y "ER!S a.A.a. S!!H FERN!N$E+, ROBERT BOBB# ?!S y BN!?E, JOHN $OE, PETER $OE an CH!RLE $OE, accused, S!!S FERN!N$E+ y "ER!S a.&.a. S!!H FERN!N$E+, appellant.
D?$ISION USUMBNG, J.:
Fo auto3atic evie! is the decision of the Re4ional Tial $out of 9a4uio $it*, 9anch 2, dated anua* ", /, in $i3inal $ase No. "51-R, findin4 appellant Isaias Fenande6 * Veas, 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of violatin4 Republic %ct No. 2#5, + as a3ended b* Republic %ct No. <2#, and sentencin4 hi3 to death. In an Info3ation dated une /, 2, the Office of the $it* Posecuto of 9a4uio $it* cha4ed heein appellant, Robet G9obb*G Hi!as, and thee Does !ith violation of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct as a3ended b* Rep. %ct No. <2#, alle4edl* co33itted as follo!s; That on o about the +st da* of %pil 2, in the $it* of 9a4uio, Philippines, and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above-na3ed accused, !ith intent of 4ain and !ithout the consent of the o!ne theeof, conspiin4, confedeatin4 and 3utuall* aidin4 one anothe, did then and thee !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl* ta(e, steal and dive a!a* a 3oto vehicle descibed as follo!s; M%H?---------------------------TOOT% S?RI?S--------------------------T%M%R% F TP? OF 9OD---------------%0ON P>%T? NO.---------------------%VF-<+5 MOTOR NO.--------------------+$ 51+1#1< S?RI%>C$=%SSIS NO. ------$F#1 1121+< belon4in4 to SPO@S?S ?FFR?D %$OP Q OS?P=IN? %$OP and diven b* $>IFFORD 0@IN0@INO * 0ORIO and on the occasion and b* eason of said canappin4, !ith intent to (ill and !ith teache* and evident pe3editation, the accused attac(ed, assaulted and shot the said $liffod 0uin4uino * 0oio, theeb* inflictin4 upon the latte; $adio Respiato* failue, =*povole3ic shoc(, $adiac ta3ponade, =e3othoa Inta %bdo3inal =e3oha4e Seconda* to 0unshot ound, Multiple, !hich caused his death. $ONTR%R TO >%.5 On Ma* +, <, appellant Fenande6, !ho !as then at la4e, !as aested b* ele3ents of the Philippine National Police $i3inal Investi4ation 0oup &PNP-$I0' in 9a4uio $it*, b* vitue of a !aant of aest issued b* the tial cout." The follo!in4 da*, appellant !as aai4ned and !ith assistance of counsel, pleaded not 4uilt* to the indict3ent. #=e !aived pe-tial. Theeafte, the case !as set fo continuous tial to te3inate !ithin sit* &21' da*s, pusuant to Supe3e $out %d3. Ode No. 1"-2. 2 %ppellant !as tied sepaatel* as his co-accused, Robet G9obb*G Hi!as, had been ealie tied and convicted of the offense cha4ed. The facts of this case, as da!n fo3 the ecods, ae as follo!s; ?n4inee effed %cop, a esident of 9a4uio $it* !as the o!ne and opeato of t!o Ta3aa! F tais, e4isteed as GR%M%.G < One of said tais !as 3aoon in colo and boe e4ist* plate no. %VF <+5. Its e4ula dive !as $liffod 0uin4uino./ On the 3onin4 of %pil +, 2, 0uin4uino too( out the 3aoon Ta3aa! F tai to pl* his dail* ounds in 9a4uio $it*. >ate that da*, so3eti3e bet!een 2;11 to <;11 p.3., posecution !itness %cadio %!al, 0uin4uinos bothe-inla!1 and a tai dive b* occupation, encounteed the latte divin4 the GR%M%G tai of ?n4. %cop at 0oveno Pac( Road, 9a4uio $it* !hile 0uin4uino !as divin4 the 3aoon Ta3aa! F GR%M%G tai to!ads Macos =i4h!a*. %!al used to dive the GR%M%G tai that 0uin4uino !as divin4. + 0uin4uino had fou o five 3ale passen4es on boad.5 %!al, ho!eve, failed to eco4ni6e the faces of 0uin4uinos passen4es as it !as alead* da( and the t!o vehicles !ee 3ovin4 at a fast clip. " %!al and 0uin4uinos vehicles passed each othe )uic(l* and the* ble! the
hons of the vehicles the* !ee divin4 as an echan4e of 4eetin4s. It !as to be the last ti3e that 0uin4uino !as seen alive. ?n4. %cop !aited that !hole ni4ht fo 0uin4uino to etun the tai he !as divin4 but in vain. # %t aound /;11 a.3. of %pil ++, 2, Police Pecinct No. # in 9a4uio $it* eceived a call info3in4 the3 that a dead bod* !as to be found at Inteio 9alacbac, 9a4uio $it*. 2 I33ediatel*, SPO" >ucio %lvaado, !ho too( the call and his fello! la! enfoce, SPO ilfedo $aba*anan, poceeded to the aea. On seein4 that thee !as indeed a 3ale copse in the aea, appaentl* the victi3 of foul pla*, SPO" %lvaado i33ediatel* left to call a 3edico-le4al office, leavin4 SPO $aba*anan to secue the ci3e scene. The latte initiall* ea3ined the cadave and sa! that it had sustained seveal 4unshot !ounds. < %fte so3e 3inutes, D. %senio 9. %venido, a 3edico-le4al office of the 9a4uio $it* =ealth Depat3ent aived. %fte his o!n peli3ina* ea3ination of the victi3s e3ains, D. %venido su3ised that the victi3 had been (illed eithe late in the evenin4 of the pevious da* o ve* eal* in the 3onin4 of %pil ++, 2. / The copse !as then e3oved fo3 the scene to enable D. %venido to conduct a pope autops*. The post-3ote3 ea3ination conducted b* D. %venido sho!ed that the victi3 had sustained the follo!in4 in8uies; =?%D No evidence of etenal ph*sical in8u* N?$H 0unshot !ound 5 c3. . 1.5 c3., +." c3. in depth lateo 3edial nec( i4ht point of eit once T=OR% ound 4unshot ." 1.< c3., 5 c3. in depth h*pochondiu3 left %9DOM?N 0unshot !ound ." c3. c3., " c3. in depth anteio lu3ba i4ht. In the couse of his ea3ination, D. %venido ecoveed a slu4 fo3 the bod*, !hich a ballistic ea3ination sho!ed had been fied fo3 a .++ calibe fiea3. +1 =e tuned ove the slu4 to the police fo a ballistic ea3ination. + D. %venido found the cause of death to be; $adio espiato* failue, h*povole3ic shoc(, cadiac ta3ponade, he3othoa inta abdo3inal he3oha4e due to 4unshot !ound, 3ultiple. ++ Mean!hile, on %pil +5, 2, ?n4. %cop acco3panied b* %!al and Ma4dalena 0uin4uino, the victi3s 3othe, !ent to 9a4uio $it* Police Pecinct No. # to epot that %cops Ta3aa! F tai and its dive !ee 3issin4. hen sho!n the copse found b* the police at Inteio 9alacbac, %cop identified it to be the e3ains of his 3issin4 dive, $liffod 0uin4uino. The 9a4uio $it* police foce then conducted a seies of seach and ecove* opeations to find and 4et bac( the 3issin4 3oto vehicle, but to no avail. =avin4 co3e up e3pt* thou4h thei effots, the 9a4uio $it* police then spead the !od about the 3issin4 vehicle to the police units in the neab* povinces and e)uested thei assistance in locatin4 it. +5 hile the 9a4uio $it* police !ee still bus* !ith !hat poved to be fuitless effots to locate the GR%M%G Ta3aa! F tai, !hich see3ed to have vanished fo3 the face of the eath, late one evenin4 in the last !ee( of %pil 2, posecution !itness >auencio Ducusin, the baran#a% captain of $asanfenandoan, Po6oubio, Pan4asinan, !as info3ed b* so3e of the baran#a% tanods, that a Ta3aa! F had stopped at one of thei chec(points. Ducusin and the tanods !ee at that ti3e doin4 the ni4htl* ronda in the baran#a% .+" Ducusin poceeded to the chec(point and sa! a 3aoon Ta3aa! F diven b* his bothe-in-la!, the appellant heein.+# =e had fou 3ale co3panions !ith hi3 aboad the vehicle, one of !ho3 !as efeed to as GHi!as.G+2Ducusin then 4ot aboad the vehicle and the* poceeded to his house, !ith the appellant divin4. On eachin4 his house, Ducusin eeted all effots to be hospitable to his visitos. +< The appellant then info3ed Ducusin that the vehicle he !as divin4 !as o!ned b* the appellants +umpare. Ducusin noticed, ho!eve, that the* !ee a3ed !ith fiea3s of vaious calibes, +/ but 4ave no futhe thou4ht to it since he (ne! fo a fact that the appellant !as !o(in4 as a secuit* office fo a 9a4uio-based secuit* a4enc*. + The appellant and his 4oup sta*ed fo t!o &+' da*s at the house of Ducusin. The* left the vehicle !ith hi3, sa*in4 that the* !ould be bac( fo it .51 Seveal da*s late, thee of appellants co3panions, one of !ho3 Ducusin eco4ni6ed as Hi!as, etuned to Ducusins place and too( the vehicle !ith the3. 5 %fte leavin4 fo places un(no!n, the* etuned and sta*ed !ith Ducusin fo anothe t!o da*s. hen the* depated, the* left the vehicle !ith Ducusin, on the petet that it had a defect.5+ %fte seveal 3oe da*s, Hi!as to4ethe !ith fou co3panions etuned and li(e the last ti3e, Hi!as dove a!a* the vehicle onl* to etun afte seveal hous. 55 hen Ducusin as(ed !h* the* !ee usin4 the vehicle althou4h it supposedl* had a defect, Hi!as eplied that the* !ould have it epaied. 5" The 4oup then left, leavin4 Ducusin a4ain in possession of the vehicle. The* po3ised to etun fo the vehicle !ith the appellant !ho3 the* efeed to as Gsi.G5#
%fte the lapse of seveal da*s, a 3echanic aived at Ducusins house sa*in4 that the appellants 4oup had sent hi3 to effect epais on the vehicle. 52 Mean!hile, Ducusin had pa(ed the vehicle inside the camali# of his 3othe, $atalina Ducusin, !hich !as so3e t!o hunded &+11' 3etes a!a* fo3 his house. 5< The 3echanic !o(ed fo seveal da*s. =e chan4ed its chassis 5/ and then epainted the vehicle, chan4in4 its colo fo3 3aoon to 4old. 5 Ducusin !as 3ade suspicious b* this tun of events and feaful that the vehicle !as not eall* o!ned b* his bothein-la!s +umpare, he confided his suspicions to SPO+ Mai3iano 9alelo of the Po6oubio Police Station on une #, 2."1 SPO+ 9alelo ecalled that on %pil +5, 2, the 9a4uio $it* Police $o33and advised the3 to be on the loo(out fo a canapped 3aoon Ta3aa! F tai !ith the 3a(in4 GR%M%,G !hich had been ta(en b* unidentified 3en in Macos =i4h!a* in the evenin4 of %pil +, 2. " The Po6oubio police conducted suveillance opeations to dete3ine if the vehicle !as in thei aea of 8uisdiction. SPO+ 9alelo then advised his supeio office, $hief Inspecto >oen6o Pedo, Po6oubio $hief of Police, about the info3ation he eceived fo3 Ducusin. ?le3ents of the Po6oubio police i33ediatel* conducted suveillance opeations in baran#a% $asanfenandoan to veif* Ducusins epot. "+ On une #, 2, the police confi3ed the info3ation 4iven b* Ducusin that a Ta3aa! F !as indeed to be found in $asanfenandoan. The net da*, the police ecoveed said vehicle at the camali# of Ducusins 3othe. The* called up ?n4. %cop in 9a4uio $it* and as(ed hi3 to 4o to Pan4asinan to see if the vehicle ecoveed !as his 3issin4 Ta3aa! F tai. Despite the chan4e in its colo, ?n4. %cop !as able to identif* the vehicle ecoveed b* the Po6oubio police as his 3issin4 R%M% tai. =is identification !as 3ade thou4h the stic(es that he placed on the vehicle, the floo3ats, the steein4 !heel cove, and the seveal dents on its bod*. "5 =e also tied his spae (e* in the vehicles i4nition to dete3ine if this !ould fit. It tuned out to be a pefect fit. "" ?n4. %cop could not identif* the vehicle thou4h its en4ine nu3be o chassis nu3be, leadin4 hi3 to believe that both the en4ine and the chassis had been chan4ed, but nonetheless, the vehicle ecoveed boe the sa3e poduction nu3be & -1+' as his 3issin4 Ta3aa! F. The ecoveed vehicle !as then bou4ht bac( to 9a4uio $it*. In 9a4uio $it*, a 3aco-etchin4 ea3ination !as conducted b* %l3a Ma4aita D. Villaseo, the PNP Foensic $he3ist at $a3p 9ado Dan4!a, >a Tinidad. "# The ea3ination sho!ed that the en4ine nu3be of the ecoveed vehicle had not been ta3peed !ith, but the chassis nu3be &?V?R 2-"<+-$' !as diffeent fo3 that in its cetificate of e4istation &$F-#1-1121+<'. "2 This led Villaseo to conclude that the chassis had been eplaced."< Nonetheless, Villaseo obseved that the vehicle could still be identified thou4h its poduction nu3be & -1+', a secet 3anufactues nu3be used to distin4uish a paticula vehicle fo3 othes of the sa3e 3a(e o 3odel."/ One of the !itnesses pesented b* the posecution, Robet Re*es, a 3a(etin4 eecutive of To*ota $ubao, Inc., testified that thee ae thee &5' !a*s b* !hich a To*ota vehicle 3a* be identified; &' b* the en4ine nu3beE &+' b* the chassis nu3beE and &5' its poduction nu3be. Re*es cate4oicall* declaed that no t!o &+' To*ota vehicles !ould have identical en4ine, chassis, and poduction nu3bes. " Re*es also identified the poduction nu3be of the To*ota & -1+' as that indicated in the sales invoice pepaed b* To*ota $ubao, Inc. !hen the said vehicle !as sold b* the3 to NOR$%R %llied Motos in 9a4uio $it*.#1 =onoio Dan4anan, o!ne of NOR$%R %llied Motos, an authoi6ed To*ota deale in 9a4uio $it* declaed on the !itness stand that he sold a To*ota Ta3aa! F to the spouses %cop !ith the follo!in4 vehicle identification 3a(in4s; &' ?n4ine nu3be; +$-51+#1
a Tinidad, 9en4uet fo canappin4 !ith violence of anothe To*ota Ta3aa! F belon4in4 to a cetain a3es %dvincula. #5 %t the tial, heein appellant aised the defense of denial and alibi in his bid to escape culpabilit*. =e clai3ed that on %pil +, 2, the date !hen $liffod 0uin4uino !as (illed, he !as !o(in4 at the office of 9IS%I until ;11 p.3.#" %3on4 the thin4s he did !as to pepae his belon4in4s as he !as scheduled to 4o to 9alatoc, %nta3o(, San4ilo to delive the pa* of the 4uads stationed thee. %fte he !as thou4h !ith his pepaations, he !ent stai4ht ho3e to 9oo(side, 9a4uio $it*.## %ppellant futhe clai3ed that on %pil +/, 2, he !ent ho3e to 9ued, 9inalonan, Pan4asinan, afte office hous. =e said his fa3il* !as tho!in4 a than(s4ivin4 pat* fo his dau4hte $ala o* Fenande6, !ho 8ust 4aduated fo3 St. >ouis @nivesit* !ith a nusin4 de4ee. #2 $ala o*, ho!eve, !as not pesent at said affai as she !as alead* attendin4 boad evie! classes in Manila. #< =e added that it !as in the 3idst of the fa3il* pat* that at about p.3. Hi!as aived. =e said Hi!as !as one of the secuit* pesonnel of 9IS%I. To4ethe !ith five &#' 3ale co3panions, Hi!as ca3e on boad a To*ota Ta3aa! F !ith GR%M%G 3a(in4s on the sides. #/
%ccodin4 to appellant, Hi!as intoduced to hi3 one of his co3panions, G9enn*,G as a +umpare. G9enn*G !as supposedl* in need of 3one* and !illin4 to 3ot4a4e the vehicle to the appellant. # %s the latte had no 3one* !ith hi3, Hi!as as(ed if the* could 4o to the appellants siste in Po6oubio, Pan4asinan, to 3ot4a4e the vehicle. 21 %ppellant stated that he acco3panied Hi!as and his 4oup to his sistes esidence in Po6oubio. The* aived in to!n at aound ;11 p.3. Thee the* an into a chec(point 3anned b* the baran#a% police. %ppellant info3ed the3 that he !as loo(in4 fo the baran#a% captain, >auencio Ducusin, !ho happened to be his bothe-in-la!. 2 hen Ducusin aived, the appellant clai3ed that he info3ed hi3 about the offe of G9enn*G to 3ot4a4e the vehicle. %s Ducusin !as a4eeable, appellant then as(ed Hi!as to ta(e hi3 bac( to 9inalonan as it !as alead* late and he had to epot fo !o( the follo!in4 da* in 9a4uio $it*. 2+ =e denied sta*in4 at the Ducusin esidence fo t!o da*s. =e said Ducusin and t!o of the co3panions of Hi!as bou4ht hi3 bac( to 9inalonan i4ht a!a*, aivin4 thee at aound t!o ocloc( in the 3onin4. 25 To buttess his alibi that he !as at !o( in 9IS%I the ni4ht of %pil +, 2, !hen $liffod 0uin4uino !as (illed and the To*ota Ta3aa! F vehicle he !as divin4 disappeaed, the appellant pesented Rolanda Paaan, fo3e %d3inistative Mana4e of 9IS%I and t!o accountin4 cle(s of said secuit* a4enc*, na3el*; ?33a Ruth %lcantaa and ?vel*n Madaan4. 1awphi1.n5t
%lcantaa and Madaan4 cooboated appellants alibi that he !o(ed fo3 <;11 a.3. to <;11 p.3. on %pil +, 2.2" %ppellants defense pesented the pa*oll of 9IS%I and his dail* ti3e ecod. 9ut on coss-ea3ination, none of the defense !itnesses could state !ith cetaint* !hee appellant !as fo3 the ti3e he epoted to !o( in the 3onin4 to the ti3e he left in the evenin4. 2# %s appellants o!n testi3on* sho!ed, his !o( as secuit* opeations office !as 3ainl* in the field, supevisin4 and inspectin4 the secuit* 4uads deplo*ed in vaious places in 9a4uio $it*.22 Neithe %lcantaa no Madaan4 could cate4oicall* state !hethe appellant had in fact etuned to the office fo3 his ounds of the secuit* postin4s to lo4 out at <;11 p.3. since both ladies left the 9IS%I offices at #;11 p.3. On anua* ", /, the tial cout po3ul4ated its 8ud43ent as follo!s; =?R?FOR?, the $out finds the accused IS%I%= F?RN%ND?L V?R%S, also (no!n as Isaias Fenande6, 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of violation of Section " of Republic %ct 2#5, as a3ended b* Section +1 of Republic %ct <2# &:ualified $anappin4 !hee the dive of the canapped vehicle, $liffod 0uin4uino, !as (illed in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof' as cha4ed in the Info3ation in conspiac* !ith Robet Hi!as &!ho !as alead* convicted afte a sepaate tial ealie' and othes !hose identities and !heeabouts ae *et un(no!n, and heeb* sentences hi3 to suffe the supe3e penalt* of D?%T= to be i3ple3ented in accodance !ith la!E to inde3nif* 8ointl* and seveall* !ith his confedeates, the heis of $liffod 0uin4uino the su3 of P#1,111.11 fo his death, P<","#.11 as actual da3a4es, P+11,111.11 as 3oal da3a4es, and P,#1,111.11 as uneaned inco3eE and to li(e!ise inde3nif* 8ointl* and seveall* !ith his confedeates, the spouses effed %cop and osephine %cop, the o!nes of the canapped sub8ect tai, the a3ount of P5<5,#11.11 as value of the canapped vehicle, all inde3nifications ae !ithout subsidia* i3pison3ent in case of insolvenc*E and to pa* the popotionate costs. SO ORD?R?D.2< In vie! of the i3position of the death penalt*, the ecods of $i3inal $ase No. "51-R !ee elevated to this $out fo auto3atic evie!. 9efoe us, the appellant assi4ns the follo!in4 eos; I T=? TRI%> $O@RT ?RR?D IN FINDIN0 T=%T F?RN%ND?L IS 0@I>T 9?OND R?%SON%9>? DO@9T OF :@%>IFI?D $%RN%PPIN0. %. T=? TRI%> $O@RT ?RR?D IN =O>DIN0 T=%T T=?R? IS S@FFI$I?NT $IR$@MST%NTI%> ?VID?N$? ON R?$ORD TO PROV? T=%T F?RN%ND?L $OMMITT?D :@%>IFI?D $%RN%PPIN0. 9. T=? TRI%> $O@RT ?RR?D IN >?NDIN0 @ND@? $R?D?N$? TO ITN?SS >%@R?N$IO D@$@SINS P%T?NT> @NR?>I%9>? T?STIMON. $. T=? TRI%> $O@RT ?RR?D IN =O>DIN0 T=%T T=?R? IS S@FFI$I?NT $IR$@MST%NTI%> ?VID?N$? ON R?$ORD TO PROV? T=%T F?RN%ND?L $ONSPIR?D IT= RO9?RT HI%S %ND T=R?? &5' O=N DO?S TO $OMMIT :@%>IFI?D $%RN%PPIN0. D. T=? TRI%> $O@RT ?RR?D IN R?>IN0 ON P%T?NT> IN%DMISSI9>? ?VID?N$? TO S@PPORT ITS FINDIN0 OF 0@I>T %0%INST F?RN%ND?L.
?. T=? TRI%> $O@RT ?RR?D IN R?F@SIN0 TO >?ND $R?D?N$? TO F?RN%ND?L V?RSION OF T=? ?V?NTS. 1a678phi1.net
F. T=? TRI%> $O@RT VIO>%T?D F?RN%ND?L $ONSTIT@TION%> RI0=T TO 9? PR?S@M?D INNO$?NT @NTI> PROV?N 0@I>T. II T=? TRI%> $O@RT ?RR?D IN IMPOSIN0 ON F?RN%ND?L T=? S@PR?M? P?N%>T OF D?%T=. %. T=? TRI%> $O@RT ?RR?D IN =O>DIN0 T=%T F?RN%ND?L IS % M?M9?R OF %N OR0%NIL?D 0RO@P OR SNDI$%T? ?N0%0?D IN %N I>>?0%> $%RN%PPIN0 S$=?M?. 2/ 9iefl* stated, the issues fo ou esolution ae; &' the sufficienc* of the evidence to sustain appellants convictionE and &+' the popiet* of the penalt* i3posed. On the "irst issue, appellant a4ues that the posecution failed to pove the essential ele3ents of canappin4 as defined in Section " of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+, as a3ended. =e contends that, assu3in4 ar#uendothee is on ecod cicu3stantial evidence a4ainst appellant, nonetheless such evidence could not be elied upon b* the tial cout to constitute poof be*ond easonable doubt that he paticipated in the unla!ful ta(in4 of the vehicle and fatal shootin4 of its dive. Instead, accodin4 to appellant, the 3ost that could be attibuted to hi3 is that he acco3panied the 4oup of Hi!as in bin4in4 the stolen vehicle to >auencio Ducusin in Pan4asinan. Fo the appellee, the Office of the Solicito 0eneal &OS0' countes that the undisputed factual cicu3stances established b* the posecution constitute an unbo(en chain of events !hich lead fail* and easonabl* to but one conclusion, na3el*; that the appellant is 4uilt* of the offense cha4ed. Fo cicu3stantial evidence to be a sufficient basis fo a conviction, the follo!in4 e)uisites 3ust be satisfied; &' thee 3ust be 3oe than one cicu3stanceE &+' the facts fo3 !hich the infeences ae deived ae povenE and &5' the co3bination of all the cicu3stances is such as to poduce a conviction be*ond easonable doubt. 2 $onsidein4 the evidence on ecod, !ith the sub3ission of the paties, !e find the posecution evidence sufficient to sustain appellants conviction be*ond easonable doubt. Thus, !e find no eason to deviate fo3 the tial couts assess3ent as to appellants culpabilit* fo canappin4 !ith ho3icide. The tial cout found appellant and his co3panions !ee in contol and possession of the sub8ect vehicle soon afte the shootin4 of the dive, $liffod 0uin4uino. itness >auencio Ducusin testified that !hen the 4oup of appellant aived in Po66oubio, Pan4asinan, appellant !ho !as addessed as GSiG b* his co3panions, !as the one divin4 the vehicle. %ppellant hi3self ad3itted that the tai he ode in 4oin4 to the Ducusins had the 3a(in4 GR%M%G on it.<1 In the absence of an eplanation of ho! one has co3e into the possession of stolen effects belon4in4 to a peson shot, !ounded and teacheousl* (illed, he 3ust necessail* be consideed the autho of the a44ession, the death of the peson, as !ell as the obbe* co33itted.< This pesu3ption is consonant !ith Rule 5 &5' &8' of the Rules of $out<+ and validl* applies to a case of canappin4 fo, indeed, the concept of unla!ful ta(in4 in theft, obbe* and canappin4 is the sa3e and, had it not been fo the enact3ent of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct, the unla!ful ta(in4 of the 3oto vehicle !ould cetainl* fall !ithin the puvie! of eithe theft o obbe*. This pesu3ption etends to cases !hee such possession is eithe uneplained o that the poffeed eplanation is endeed i3plausible in vie! of independent evidence inconsistent theeto. <5 %ppellant havin4 failed to 4ive a plausible eplanation fo his possession of the stolen Ta3aa! F, pefoce, he is pesu3ed to have ta(en the vehicle a!a* fo3 the i4htful o!ne o possesso theeof. e have no eason to doubt Ducusins cedibilit* as a !itness. Ducusin is appellants o!n bothe-in-la!, but he is also a 9aran#a% $aptain. Despite his elationship !ith appellant, his sense of 8ustice poved unein4. =e baed his suspicion to the police that the vehicle left in his cae !as a hot ite3. %ppellant tied to ascibe ill-3otive on Ducusin fo testif*in4 a4ainst hi3, but appellant failed in this e4ad. %bsent a sho!in4 that the !itness !as actuated b* an i3pope 3otive, the pesu3ption is that he !as not so actuated and his testi3on* is entitled to full faith and cedit.<" This ule has a 3oe co3pellin4 application !hen the !itness testifies a4ainst a elative, fo no peson !ould i3plicate in a ci3e his o!n (in, dise4adin4 the unspea(able social sti43a it 3a* cause a4ainst his entie fa3il*, unless that peson see(s onl* the tuth, fo 8ustice to pevail. e find that sufficient cicu3stantial evidence eists, consistent !ith appellants 4uilt, and inconsistent !ith his innocence. <# %4ainst appellant ae the follo!in4 cicu3stances; &' =e and his 4oup !ee in possession of the stolen Ta3aa! F afte its dive !as shot to death. &+' The victi3, $liffod 0uin4uino, !as last seen bet!een 2 to < p.3. that ni4ht, !ith five 3en aboad the F dovetailin4 !ith the testi3on* of Ducusin that appellants pat* of five 3en !ee on boad the vehicle !hen the* aived in Pan4asinan befoe 3idni4ht so3eti3e in the latte pat of %pil. &5' %ppellant !ho !as addessed as GSiG b* the 4oup, !as the one divin4 the vehicle !hen he, Hi!as, and thee ohn Does aived in Pan4asinan hous afte the 0uin4uinos fatal shootin4. &"' On aival in Pan4asinan, appellant and Hi!as !ee a3ed !ith .++ calibe 4uns !hile the othes !ee ca*in4 .5/ calibe 4uns, !hich 3atch the
!ounds of the victi3, so3e of !hich !ee chaacteistic of .++ calibe bullets !hile the othes !ee bi44e, t*pical of a .5/ calibe. &#' %ppellant and his 4oup left the vehicle at the Ducusins at the petet that it needed epais, althou4h it !as band ne! and !as able to un all the !a* fo3 9a4uio. &2' Instead of 8ust epaiin4 it, a 3an sent b* appellants 4oup chan4ed the en4ine and chassis of the vehicle and epainted its bod* fo3 3aoon to 4old. &<' %ppellant did a vanishin4 act fo3 his !o( a da* afte the stolen ca !as identified b* its o!ne and placed in custodia le#is. &/' =e !ent into hidin4 and !as unhead of until his aest. The foe4oin4 factual cicu3stances constitute evidence of !ei4ht and pobative foce !hich 3a* even supass diect evidence in its effect upon the $out. <2 The peculiait* of cicu3stantial evidence unde Sec. ", Rule 55 of the Rules of $out << is that the 4uilt of the accused cannot be deduced fo3 scutini6in4 8ust one paticula piece of evidence. $icu3stantial evidence is li(e a ope co3posed of 3an* stands and cods. One stand 3i4ht be insufficient, but five to4ethe 3a* suffice to 4ive it sten4th. astl*, !e find appellants defense of alibi inade)uate to suppot his eculpation. %ccodin4 to appellant, on %pil +, 2, he !as at !o( fo3 <;11 a.3. to ;11 p.3. and the net da*, %pil ++, fo3 <;11 a.3. to <;11 p.3. =e pesented in this e4ad his pa*oll eceipts as suppotin4 evidence. =o!eve, as found b* the tial cout, his clai3 that he !o(ed on %pil +, 2 in 9IS%I fo3 < a.3. to p.3. is contadicted b* his o!n dail* ti3e ecod, !hich stated that he !as at !o( fo3 < a.3. to < p.3. onl* that da*. %lso, the %ccountin4 $le( fo3 9IS%I !ho pepaed the said pa*oll, said thee !as no !a* of ascetainin4 !hethe appellant !as in fact pesent at his post of dut* because, as ovin4 supeviso, he chec(ed secuit* 4uads in thei posts located at vaious client-establish3ents. 1:vvphi1.n5t
%ppellant clai3s that he !ent do!n to 9inalonan to attend his dau4htes 4aduation than(s4ivin4 pat* on %pil +/, 2. Thee at about p.3., Hi!as and five co3panions !ho3 he had not 3et befoe aived on boad the sub8ect GR%M%G tai and spo(e to hi3 about thei die need of cash and thei !illin4ness to 3ot4a4e the sub8ect tai, accodin4 to appellant. Since he !as cash-stapped hi3self, appellant said, he acco3panied the3 to the house of his siste and bothe-in-la!, >auencio Ducusin, in Po6oubio, Pan4asinan. The* aived in Po6oubio at about 3idni4ht. 9ut, accodin4 to appellant, it !as not he but onl* Hi!as and his 4oup !ho tansacted business !ith his siste. Theeafte, at + a.3. the net da*, the 4oup bou4ht hi3 bac( to 9inalonan !hile Hi!as and othes spent the est of the ni4ht in Po6oubio !ith the Ducusins. %s the tial cout obseved, appellants vesion of events uns conta* to odina* hu3an epeience. =is sto* taes ones cedulit* too 3uch. h* !ould appellants fa3il* set the celebation of his dau4htes 4aduation on a date !hen supposedl* the celebant !as in Manila alead* evie!in4 fo the boad ea3sK hats the lo4ic behind Hi!as divin4 all the !a* fo3 9a4uio to Pan4asinan in the 3iddle of the ni4ht 8ust to boo! 3one* fo3 appellantK h* !as Hi!as acco3panied b* five 3en 8ust to 4et the alle4ed loanK hat po3pted appellant to ush !ith a 4oup of stan4es to his sistes house in Po6oubio, Pan4asinan, in the 3iddle of the ni4htK h* boo! onl* P1,111, but leave a ne! F tai !oth P"11,111 as collatealK %ll these )uestions be4 to be ans!eed, but in vain, as !e t* to 3a(e sense of appellants tale. %s a supeviso of the secuit* a4enc*, appellant !as not a novice in the nuances of the la!. Seein4 the tais GR%M%G 3a(in4s boldl* !itten on it, appellant should have been 3oe cicu3spect as to vehicles o!neship. h* didnt he in)uie fo the e4istation papes of the FK Fo so3eone of his statue and epeience, it !as athe odd that he did not in)uie into the basics of a ush tansaction. ?ven 3oe pu66lin4, appellant did not pesent his siste to cooboate the essentials of his sto*. The defense had no cooboatin4 !itnesses at all to bac( appellants vesion. =is denial and alibi have no le4 to stand on. In su3, !e find no eason no 8ustification to evese the findin4s and conclusions of the tial cout. In affi3in4 convictions, the evidence e)uied e3ains, as al!a*s, one be*ond easonable doubt, thou4h !e do not as( fo poof that ecludes all possibilit* of eo. < Onl* 3oal, not absolute, cetaint* is !hat the funda3ental la! e)uies. In this case, considein4 the cicu3stances of the case, !e entetain no doubt on appellants 4uilt. %s to the penalt*, the tial cout i3posed the death sentence on appellant. Pusuant to the last clause of Section " of the %nti-$anappin4 %ct, a3ended b* Section +1 of Republic %ct <2#, the penalt* of reclusion perpetua to death is i3posable !hen the o!ne o the dive of the vehicle is (illed in the couse of the co33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof. /1 $onsidein4 as a44avatin4 the co33ission of the offense b* a peson belon4in4 to an o4ani6ed o s*ndicated ci3e 4oup unde %ticle 2+ of the Revised Penal $ode, as a3ended b* R.%. <2#, / the tial cout i3posed the ete3e penalt* on appellant. 9ut appellants defense no! )uestions the popiet* of i3posin4 on hi3 the death sentence. @nde Rule 1, Section / of the Revised Rules of $i3inal Pocedue, both a44avatin4 and )ualif*in4 cicu3stances 3ust be alle4ed in the info3ation. 9ein4 favoable, to the appellant, this ne! ule can be 4iven etoactive effect as the* ae applicable to pendin4 cases. /+
In this case, the alle4ation of bein4 pat of a s*ndicate o that appellant and co3panions :a fo3ed pat of a 4oup o4ani6ed fo the 4eneal pupose of co33ittin4 ci3es fo 4ain, !hich is the essence of a s*ndicated o o4ani6ed ci3e 4oup, /5 !as neithe alle4ed no poved b* the posecution. =ence, !e a4ee that it !as eo fo the tial cout to sentence appellant unde %ticle 2+ of the Revised Penal $ode, as a3ended b* R.%. <2#. No a44avatin4 cicu3stance havin4 been alle4ed o poved popel* in this case, the povisions of %ticle 25 &+' of the Revised Penal $ode should be applied. ithout 3iti4atin4 no a44avatin4 cicu3stance found in the co33ission of the offense, the lesse penalt* fo the offense, !hich is reclusion perpetua* should be i3posed on appellant. %s to da3a4es, the a3ount of the tial couts a!ad fo lost eanin4s needs to be eco3puted and 3odified accodin4l*. The $out notes that the victi3 !as +< *eas old at the ti3e of his death and his !ife testified that as a dive of the Ta3aa! F tai, he !as eanin4 at least P+#1. /" =ence, the da3a4es pa*able fo the loss of the victi3s eanin4 capacit* follo!in4 the fo3ula /# used b* the $out in People v. isperas* '.R. ;o. 1<=>1? , anua* 5, +115, is co3puted thus; 0oss %nnual ?anin4s
U P+#1 +2 !o(in4 da*s in a *ea U P 2#,+#1
Net ?anin4 $apacit*
U +C5 &/1-+<' AP 2#,+#1- P 5+,2+#B U 5#.55 P 5+,2+#
>ost ?anin4s
U P ,#+,2"
ith espect to the a!ad b* the tial cout of P+11,111 in 3oal da3a4es, in line !ith pevailin4 8uispudence, it should be deleted fo lac( of needed poof. The a!ad of P<","# as buial and othe epenses is also deleted fo lac( of ade)uate poof, but the victi3s heis ae entitled to te3peate da3a4es in the a3ount of P+#,111 pusuant to case la!. The a!ad of P5<5,#11 to the Spouses effed and osephine %cop, as estitution of the value of thei F tai, should also be upheld because it is suppoted b* evidence on ecod. /2 ?HEREFORE, the decision of the Re4ional Tial $out of 9a4uio $it*, 9anch 2, dated anua* ", /, in
$i3inal $ase No. "51-R, findin4 appellant IS%I%S F?RN%ND?L * V?R%S a.(.a. GIS%I%= F?RN%ND?LG 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of violation of Republic %ct No. 2#5 is %FFIRM?D !ith MODIFI$%TIONS. %ppellant is sentenced to suffe the penalt* of reclusion perpetua and to pa* the heis of the victi3 $>IFFORD 0@IN0@INO the su3 of P#1,111 as civil inde3nit*, P,#+,2" epesentin4 lost eanin4s, and P+#,111.11 as te3peate da3a4es. %ppellant is also ORD?R?D TO P% the o!nes of the F tai, Spouses effed and osephine %cop, the a3ount of P5<5,#11, as estitution fo the stolen vehicle. $osts de o"icio. SO ORD?R?D.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 1592*0
May 1*, 2004
!UGUSTO SM, JR., petitione,
vs. HON. COURT OF !PPE!LS an T:7 PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, espondents.
D?$ISION #N!RES%S!NT!GO, J.:
On appeal b* petition fo evie! on cetioai unde Rule "# of the < Rules of $ivil Pocedue is a Decision b* the $out of %ppeals &$%' dated Ma* +, +115 affi3in4 !ith 3odification the Decision + of the Re4ional Tial $out &RT$' of Manila, 9anch 5", findin4 petitione %u4usto Si3, . and co-accused ?lison Villaflo 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of estafa unde %ticle 5#, paa4aph + &a' of the Revised Penal $ode, instead of %ticle 5#, paa4aph &b' theeof, as !ell as its Resolution 5 dated %u4ust , +115 den*in4 appellants Motion fo Reconsideation. Petitione and co-accused ?lison Villaflo !ee sentenced to suffe an indete3inate pison te3 of fou &"' *eas and t!o &+' 3onths of prisi@n correccional , as 3ini3u3, to t!ent* &+1' *eas of reclusi@n temporal , as 3ai3u3, and to inde3nif* the pivate co3plainant a* 9*on Ila4an the su3 of P"/1,111.11 epesentin4 the a3ount paid fo the puchase of the ca that !as i3pounded b* the authoities. ?lison Villaflo and %u4usto Si3, ., !ee fo3all* cha4ed !ith the ci3e of ?stafa in an Info3ation dated Septe3be 2, !hich eads; " That on o about Ma* +, /, in the $it* of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiin4 and confedeatin4 to4ethe and 3utuall* helpin4 one anothe, did then and thee !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl* defaud a* 9*on Ila4an in the follo!in4 3anne, to !it; the said accused b* 3eans of false 3anifestations !hich the* 3ade to said a* 9*on Ila4an to the effect that the* ae sellin4 one &' coloed 4een Nissan Pathfinde pic(-up !ith 3oto nu3be PD+<-###<5# beain4 Plate No. 9$F-2+1 in the a3ount of P"/1,111.11 e4isteed in the na3e of =en* %ustia, and b* 3eans of othe si3ila deceits, induced and succeeded in inducin4 said a* 9*on Ila4an to 4ive and delive, as in fact he 4ave and deliveed to said accused the a3ount of P"/1,111.11 on the sten4th of said 3anifestations and epesentations, said accused !ell (no!in4 that the sa3e !ee false and faudulent, as the said ca is a stolen ca and the* ae not the o!ne, and !ee 3ade solel*, to obtain, as in fact the* did obtain the a3ount of P"/1,111.11 !hich a3ount once in thei possession, !ith intent to defaud, !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl* 3isappopiated, 3isapplied and conveted to thei o!n pesonal use and benefit, to the da3a4e and pe8udice of said a* 9*on Ila4an in the afoesaid a3ount of P5#1,111.11, Philippine cuenc*. $onta* to la!. Pivate co3plainant a* 9*on Ila4an is a tie supplie !hose stoe, Mafi Tie Suppl*, is located alon4 the hi4h!a* at San Pablo $it*, >a4una. =e had been dealin4 !ith accused ?lison Villaflo fo t!ent* *eas, as the latte is en4a4ed in the sa3e business of sellin4 ties and i3s at 5 $-5 Road, Da4at-Da4atan, $aloocan $it*. In Mach /, pivate co3plainant tal(ed to ?lison so3e!hee in Tondo, Manila, and epessed his inteest in bu*in4 a vehicle. ?lison told hi3 that he (ne! so3eone !ho sells vehicles at a cheap pice, and that he had bou4ht a To*ota Ta3aa! F at lo!e than the 3a(et pice. Pivate co3plainant then as(ed ?lison to as( if thee !as an Isu6u pic(-up fo sale. % 3onth late, ?lison called pivate co3plainant to info3 hi3 that he !as able to find a < Nissan Pathfinde. The* a4eed to inspect the vehicle to4ethe as pivate co3plainant !anted to bu* it befoe his bithda* on Ma* 5, /. # On %pil 51, /, onl* ?lison !ent to Da4upan $it* to 4et the Nissan Pathfinde fo3 his fiend, petitione %u4usto Si3, . Petitione told ?lison that the Nissan Pathfinde !as 4iven to hi3 b* a custo3e in pa*3ent of a debt and had been used onl* fo a *ea. ?lison bou4ht the < Nissan Pathfinde to San Pablo $it*. Pivate co3plainant at fist did not li(e the vehicle since it !as not the band he !as loo(in4 fo. ?lison said that his +umpadre !ould loo( at the vehicle as the latte !as also inteested in it. 2 Pivate co3plainant decided to bu* the < Nissan Pathfinde at the a4eed pice of P"/1,111.11. The a3ount !as paid in five chec(s issued b* Fe Ila4an unde he account at Solidban(-San Pablo 9anch. One chec( !as dated Ma* 2, / in the su3 of P5#1,111.11, and fou chec(s in the su3 of P5+,#11.11 each !as dated une 2, ul* 2, %u4ust 2 and Septe3be 2, all in /. <
?lison 4ave pivate co3plainant photocopies of the $etificate of Re4istation &$.R.' and Official Receipt &O.R.' issued b* the >and Tanspotation Office &>TO' sho!in4 the na3e of the o!ne as one =en* %ustia. hile !aitin4 fo the pocessin4 of the papes, the vehicle !as pa(ed at pivate co3plainants place. %fte a !ee(, ?lison bou4ht the deed of sale !hich pivate co3plainant si4ned !ithout the si4natue of the o!ne, =en* %ustia. %fte pivate co3plainant si4ned the deed of sale, he 4ave it bac( to ?lison to be bou4ht bac( to Da4upan $it* fo si4nin4 b* the o!neCvendo and tansfe of e4istation in the na3e of pivate co3plainant. / On une <, /, ?lison etuned and deliveed to pivate co3plainant the deed of sale si4ned b* the o!neCvendo, to4ethe !ith the ne! $.R. and O.R. issued b* the >TO of >in4a*en, Pan4asinan in the na3e of pivate co3plainant. The chec(s 4iven b* pivate co3plainant in pa*3ent of the vehicle !ee deposited b* petitione in his na3e at Solidban(-Da4upan 9anch. %ll five chec(s !ee debited in favo of petitione. %fte eceivin4 the e4istation papes fo3 ?lison, pivate co3plainant !as eventuall* able to use the Nissan Pathfinde. 1 On Octobe +/, /, pivate co3plainants vehicle !as a ppehended b* %nti-$anappin4 opeatives of the Philippine National Police &%N$%R N$RTMO'. The vehicle and its e4istation papes !ee inspected and theeafte bou4ht to $a3p $a3e. It tuned out that the vehicle !as a G hot car G as it had been epoted stolen on Nove3be +, < b* its eal o!ne, 0olf $onstuction of the Philippines, Inc. pusuant to the %la3 Sheet issued b* the PNP Taffic Mana4e3ent 0oup. Pivate co3plainant acco3panied the %N$%R opeatives to the esidence of ?lison. =e !ent !ith the3 to $a3p $a3e, and na3ed petitione as the o!ne of the vehicle. =o!eve, the* !ee not able to locate petitione i4ht a!a*. Mean!hile, the vehicle !as i3pounded b* the authoities. The investi4ation evealed that its oi4inal 3oto and chassis nu3bes !ee eplaced andCo ta3peed but its Poduction Nu3be e3ained intact. ?ventuall*, the eal desciption of the vehicle !as full* established and identified b* no less than the 3anufactueCasse3ble of the unit, @nivesal Motos $opoation. + Pivate co3plainant spo(e !ith ?lison about the possible ecove* of the 3one* paid b* hi3 fo the confiscated vehicle. On Nove3be 51, /, pivate co3plainant 3et petitione fo the fist ti3e. Petitione si4ned a Po3isso* Note !ith Deed of @ndeta(in4 !heeb* he obli4ated hi3self to pa* pivate co3plainant the a3ount of P"/1,111.11 plus attone*s fees of P#1,111.11 in scheduled install3ents. Petitione issued a chec( in the a3ount of P<#,111.11 but pivate co3plainant did not encash it, thin(in4 that if he does, petitione !ould not pa* hi3 an*3oe. Pivate co3plainant !as unable to ecove the 3one* paid b* hi3 to petitione. 5 Theeafte, ?lison and petitione !ee cha4ed !ith estafa unde a ci3inal info3ation dated Septe3be 2, . ?lison !as aai4ned on Septe3be <, E !hile petitione !as aai4ned on une , +111. 9oth pleaded G not #uilt% .G %fte tial, the tial cout convicted both ?lison and petitione of the ci3e of estafa unde %t. 5#, pa. &b' of the Revised Penal $ode. On appeal, the $out of %ppeals affi3ed the tial couts 8ud43ent !ith the 3odification that appellants should be convicted of estafa unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a'. =ence, this petition fo evie! on cetioai, assi4nin4 the follo!in4 eos; I T=? =ONOR%9>? $O@RT OF %PP?%>S, IT= D@? R?SP?$T, $OMMITT?D R?V?RSI9>? ?RROR =?N IT R@>?D T=%T $ONSPIR%$ IS PR?S?NT $ONTR%R TO T=? ?VID?N$? ON R?$ORD. II T=? =ONOR%9>? $O@RT OF %PP?%>S, IT= D@? R?SP?$T, $OMMITT?D R?V?RSI9>? ?RROR =?N IT F%I>?D TO R@>? ON T=? %$:@ITT%> OF =?R?IN P?TITION?R. T!o issues ae pesented befoe this $out; &' hethe thee !as conspiac* bet!een petitione and ?lison Villaflo in defaudin4 pivate co3plainant a* 9*on Ila4anE and &+' hethe petitione is 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of the ci3e of estafa unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a' of the Revised Penal $ode. On the fist assi4n3ent of eo, petitione a4ues that thee is no conspiac* bet!een h i3 and co-accused. =e points that it !as onl* co-accused ?lison Villaflo !ho dealt !ith pivate co3plainant. The latte had not even 3et hi3 befoe he !as alle4edl* foced to si4n the a3icable a4ee3ent.
Petitione futhe alle4es that conta* to the findin4s of the appellate cout, thee is no convincin4 evidence to sho! that petitione pefo3ed an* pevious o si3ultaneous act !ith ?lison in co33ittin4 the offense a4ainst pivate co3plainant. The !itnesses pesented b* the posecution did not sho! o pove that petitione diectl* paticipated in the co33ission of the offense o pefo3ed an act !hich !ould sho! co33unit* of pupose !ith ?lison. Petitiones a4u3ent is beeft of 3eit. ?ven in the absence of diect evidence of pio a4ee3ent to co33it the ci3e, conspiac* 3a* be deduced fo3 the acts of the pepetatos befoe, duin4 and afte the co33ission of the ci3e, !hich ae indicative of a co33on desi4n, conceted action and concuence of senti3ents. " $onspiac* is dee3ed i3plied !hen the 3alefactos have a co33on pupose and !ee united in its eecution. Spontaneous a4ee3ent o active coopeation b* all pepetatos at the 3o3ent of the co33ission of the ci3e is sufficient to ceate 8oint ci3inal esponsibilit*. # In Er&uia#a v. Court o" Appeals ,2 !e uled that conspiac*, as a ule, has to be established !ith the sa3e )uantu3 of poof as the ci3e itself and sho!n as cleal* as the co33ission of the ci3e. =o!eve, conspiac* need not be sho!n b* diect evidence, but 3a* ta(e the fo3 of cicu3stances !hich, if ta(en to4ethe, !ould conclusivel* sho! that the accused ca3e to an a4ee3ent to co33it a ci3e and decided to ca* it out !ith thei full coopeation and paticipation. %s coectl* pointed out b* the appellate cout, petitiones actions in elation to the faudulent sale of the Nissan Pathfinde to pivate co3plainant cleal* established conspiac* as alle4ed in the info3ation, !hich acts tanscend 3ee (no!led4e o fiendship !ith co-accused ?lison. < Not!ithstandin4 the fact that it !as onl* ?lison !ho dealt !ith o pesonall* tansacted !ith pivate co3plainant until the ti3e the sale !as consu33ated, b* his o!n testi3on* petitione ad3itted all the acts b* !hich he activel* coopeated and not 3eel* ac)uiesced in pepetatin4 the faud upon pivate co3plainant. / That petitione is a conspiato havin4 8oint ci3inal desi4n !ith ?lison is evident fo3 the fact that as bet!een the3, both (ne! that petitione !as the peson sellin4 the vehicle unde the false petense that a cetain =en* %ustia !as the e4isteed o!ne. Petitione, to4ethe !ith ?lison, cleal* deceived pivate co3plainant in ode to defaud hi3 in the a3ount of P"/1,111.11, to the lattes da3a4e and pe8udice. In addition, the acts of petitione in delibeatel* 3isepesentin4 hi3self to pivate co3plainant as havin4 the necessa* authoit* to possess and sell to the latte the vehicle so that he could collect fo3 hi3 P"/1,111.11 onl* to ene4e on that po3ise and fo failue to ei3buse the said a3ount he collected fo3 pivate co3plainant, despite de3and, a3ount to estafa punishable unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a'. The $out of %ppeals, in affi3in4 the findin4s of fact of the tial cout, aptl* obseved; +1 That conviction unde the afoe-cited povision is 3oe pope is evident fo3 the tial couts findin4 that appellant %u4usto Si3, . fo3 the ve* be4innin4 !as a!ae that the sub8ect vehicle !as not his no 4iven to hi3 in pa*3ent of debt as he 3ade appellant Villaflo to believe. Nonetheless, appellant Villaflo !as not absolved fo3 liabilit*, havin4 activel* conspied !ith appellant %u4usto Si3, . to convince pivate co3plainant to puchase the Pathfinde upon thei false petense and epesentation that said vehicle !as bein4 sold b* its real owner , =en* %ustia, the na3e appeain4 in the e4istation papes and deed of sale unde cicu3stances cleal* sho!in4 thei (no!led4e that the status of said vehicle is dubious o ano3alous, as in fact it tuned out to be a Ghot caG o had been stolenCcanapped fo3 its tue o!ne. The totalit* of the evidence indicates a co33on o 8oint desi4n, pupose and ob8ective of the accused-appellants to defaud pivate co3plainant !ho pated !ith his 3one* upon the belief that thee is no poble3 e4adin4 the o!neship of the Pathfinde sold to hi3 b* the appellants. The tial cout e8ected the a4u3ent of the defense that it !as pivate co3plainant !ho supposedl* had the vehicle and its e4istation papes chec(ed at $a3p $a3e befoe bu*in4 the sa3e. It pointed out that veification !ould have been difficult considein4 that the 3oto and chassis nu3bes i n the e4istation papes ae coect but the na3e of the o!ne appeain4 theein is false. ?lisons false petense in holdin4 out that he had authoi6ation fo3 the o!ne to sell the < Nissan Pathfinde !as 3ade in con8unction !ith petitiones faudulent 3isepesentation that he !as le4all* entitled to possess the afoesaid vehicle. The evidence sho!s that petitione and ?lison acted in conspiac* to deceive pivate co3plainant into bu*in4 a stolen Nissan Pathfinde, theeb* defaudin4 the latte in the a3ount of P"/1,111.11, and upon thei false petense and epesentation as to the eal status of the vehicle, i.e., that said unit is in fact bein4 sold b* its tue o!ne =en* %ustia and that %u4usto Si3, . in !hose na3e the chec(s !ee issued had the authoit* o i4ht to sell the sa3e. %fte a fe! 3onths, the vehicle sold !as appehended and i3pounded b* police authoities fo bein4 stolen o canapped !hich esulted in pecunia* da3a4e to pivate co3plainant !ho had de3anded the etun of his 3one* fo3 petitione and ?lison. + The evidence of the posecution satisfactoil* established the faudulent acts and epesentations !hich induced pivate co3plainant to pat !ith his 3one* fo !hich he suffeed
da3a4e and loss !hen the vehicle sold to hi3 b* petitione and ?lison !as ecoveed b* its tue o!ne thou4h opeatives of the police anti-canappin4 4oup. ++ On the second assi4n3ent of eo, petitione contends that the evidence is not sufficient to pove p etitiones 4uilt be*ond easonable doubt fo the ci3e of estafa unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a' of the Revised Penal $ode. Petitiones contention is untenable. hile the tial cout cha4ed and convicted petitione and his co-accused of estafa unde %t. 5#, pa. &b' of the Revised Penal $ode, the appellate cout 3odified the lo!e couts decision b* convictin4 the3 of the sa3e ci3e unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a'. Re4adless of !hethe petitione is cha4ed o convicted unde eithe pa. &b' o pa. + &a' of %t. 5# of the Revised Penal $ode, he !ould still be 4uilt* of estafa because da3a4e and deceit, !hich ae essential ele3ents of the ci3e, have been established b* poof be*ond easonable doubt. False petenses o faudulent acts !ee co33itted pio to o si3ultaneous !ith the co33ission of the faud b* falsel* petendin4 to possess popet*. In this case, false petenses o faudulent acts !ee e3plo*ed pio to o si3ultaneousl* !ith the co33ission of the faud b* falsel* petendin4 to possess the < Nissan Pathfinde, !hee da3a4e and deceit have been established b* poof be*ond easonable doubt. Faud, in its 4eneal sense, is dee3ed to co3pise an*thin4 calculated to deceive, includin 4 all acts, o3issions and conceal3ent involvin4 a beach of le4al o e)uitable dut*, tust o confidence 8ustl* eposed, esultin4 in da3a4e to anothe, o b* !hich an undue and unconscientious advanta4e is ta(en of anothe. It is a 4eneic te3 e3bacin4 all 3ultifaious 3eans !hich hu3an in4enuit* can device, and !hich ae esoted to b* one individual to secue an advanta4e ove anothe b* false su44estions o b* suppession of tuth and includes all supise, tic(, cunnin4, disse3blin4 and an* unfai !a* b* !hich anothe is cheated. Deceit is a species of faud. +5 S!indlin4 o estafa b* 3eans of false petenses o faudulent acts eecuted pio to o si3ultaneousl* !ith the co33ission of the faud is co33itted GAbB* usin4 fictitious na3e, o falsel* p etendin4 to possess po!e, influence, )ualifications, popet*, cedit, a4enc*, business o i3a4ina* tansactions, o b* othe si3ila deceits.G +" The ele3ents of estafa unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a' ae; &' Thee 3ust be a false petense, faudulent act o faudulent 3eansE &+' Such false petense, faudulent act o faudulent 3eans 3ust be 3ade o eecuted pio to o si3ultaneousl* !ith the co33ission of the faudE &5' The offended pat* 3ust have el ied on the false petense, faudulent act o faudulent 3eans, that is, he !as induced to pat !ith his 3one* o popet* because of the false petense, faudulent act o faudulent 3eansE &"' %s a esult theeof, the offended pat* suffeed da3a4e. +# These fou ele3ents ae pesent in the instant case; &' False petenses !ee e3plo*ed b* petitione and his coaccused to deceive pivate co3plainant into puchasin4 the stolen Nissan PathfindeE &+' False petenses !ee e3plo*ed pio to, and si3ultaneousl* !ith, the faudulent sale of the Nissan PathfindeE &5' Pivate co3plainant elied on false petenses of petitione and co-accused, inducin4 hi3 to pat !ith his 3one* due to the 3isepesentation e3plo*ed b* the pepetatos of the faudE and &"' %s a esult of false petenses and 3isepesentations b* petitione and co-accused, pivate co3plainant suffeed da3a4es in the a3ount of P"/1,111.11. Futhe3oe, !e find no co4ent eason to distub the findin4s of the tial cout, !hich is in the best position to 3a(e an assess3ent of the !itnesses cedibilit* and to appeciate co3plainants tuthfulness, honest* and cando.+2 Factual findin4s of tial couts, as !ell as thei assess3ent of the cedibilit* of !itnesses, ae entitled to 4eat !ei4ht and espect b* this $out 3oe so !hen these ae affi3ed b* the $out of %ppeals. +< %s a4ainst the positive and cate4oical testi3onies of the co3plainant, petitiones 3ee denial cannot pevail. The pope i3posable penalt* fo the ci3e of estafa unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a' is prisi@n correccional in its 3ai3u3 peiod to prisi@n ma%or in its 3ini3u3 peiod, if the a3ount of the faud is ove P+,111.11 but does not eceed P++,111.11, and if such a3ount eceeds the latte su3, the penalt* shall be i3posed in its 3ai3u3 peiod, addin4 one &' *ea fo each additional P1,111.11E but the total penalt* !hich 3a* be i3posed shall not eceed t!ent* &+1' *eas. In such cases, the penalt* shall be te3ed prisi@n ma%or o reclusi@n temporal , as the case 3a* be. @nde the Indete3inate Sentence >a!, +/ if the offense is punished b* the Revised Penal $ode, the cout shall sentence the accused to an indete3inate penalt*, the 3ai3u3 te3 of !hich shall be that !hich, in vie! of the attendin4 cicu3stances, could be popel* i3posed unde the ules of the Revised Penal $ode, and the 3ini3u3 te3 of !hich shall be !ithin the an4e of the penalt* net lo!e to that pescibed b* the $ode fo the offense. The penalt* net lo!e should be based on the penalt* pescibed b* the $ode fo the offense, !ithout fist considein4
an* 3odif*in4 cicu3stance attendant to the co33ission of the ci3e. The dete3ination of the 3ini3u3 penalt* is left b* la! to the sound discetion of the cout and can be an*!hee !ithin the an4e of the penalt* net lo!e !ithout an* efeence to the peiods into !hich it 3i4ht be subdivided. The 3odif*in4 cicu3stances ae consideed onl* in the i3position of the 3ai3u3 te3 of the indete3inate sentence. In the pesent case, petitione defauded pivate co3plainant in the a3ount of P"/1,111.11. The fact that the a3ount involved in the case at ba eceeds P++,111.11 should not be consideed in the initial dete3ination of the indete3inate penalt*E instead, the 3atte should be so ta(en as analo4ous to 3odif*in4 cicu3stances in the i3position of the 3ai3u3 te3 of the full indete3inate sentence. This le4al intepetation accods !ith the ule that penal la!s should be constued in favo of the accused. + The 3ai3u3 penalt* to be i3posed on petitione should be ta(en fo3 the 3ai3u3 peiod of the penalt* unde %t. 5#, !hich is reclusi@n temporal , since the a3ount defauded eceeds P++,111.11, addin4 o ne *ea fo each additional P1,111.11, but the total penalt* !hich 3a* be i3posed should not eceed t!ent* &+1' *eas. Since the penalt* pescibed b* la! fo the ci3e of estafa unde %t. 5# 51 is prisi@n ma%or in its 3ini3u3 peiod if the a3ount of the faud eceeds P++,111.11, the 3ini3u3 te3 should be !ithin the an4e of the penalt* net lo!e to that pescibed b* the $ode fo the offense, !hich is prisi@n correccional in its 3ai3u3 peiod. =ence, the 3ini3u3 peiod of the penalt* should be fo3 fou &"' *eas, t!o &+' 3onths and one &' da* to si &2' *eas. The dete3ination of the 3ini3u3 penalt* is left b* la! to the sound discetion of the cout and can be an*!hee !ithin the an4e of the penalt* net lo!e !ithout an* efeence to the peiods into !hich it 3i4ht be subdivided. e ae convinced that the appopiate penalt* in accodance !ith la! that can best seve the ends of 8ustice in the case at ba should an4e fo3 fou &"' *eas, t!o &+' 3onths and one &' da* of prisi@n correccional , as 3ini3u3, to t!ent* *eas of reclusi@n temporal , as 3ai3u3, fo the ci3e of esta"a unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a' of the Revised Penal $ode. ?HEREFORE, the Ma* +, +115 Decision and %u4ust , +115 Resolution of the $out of %ppeals is !FFRME$!ith MO$FC!TON as to the penalt* i3posed. %ppellant %u4usto Si3, . is sentenced to an indete3inate pison te3 of fou &"' *eas, t!o &+' 3onths and one &' da* of prisi@n correccional , as 3ini3u3, to t!ent* &+1' *eas of reclusi@n temporal , as 3ai3u3, fo the ci3e of esta"a unde %t. 5#, pa. + &a'. =e is futhe
odeed to inde3nif* the pivate co3plainant a* 9*on Ila4an, 8ointl* and seveall* !ith ?lison Villaflo, the su3 of P"/1,111.11 !ith inteest of t!elve pecent &+' pe annu3 until full* paid. $osts a4ainst petitione. SO ORD?R?D.
R7u@ o< ):7 P:n7( Sur7=7 Cour) Mana FRST $"SON
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES,
G.R. No. 1*&044
Plaintiff-%ppellee, Pesent; $ORON%, C..* $haipeson, >?ON%RDO-D? $%STRO, 9?RS%MIN, D?> $%STI>>O, and VI>>%R%M%, R., .
- versus -
REN!TO L!G!T y G!?!Na.A.a. REN!T G!?!N anJ!MES P!L!L!# y"LL!ROS!,
Po3ul4ated;
%ccused-%ppellants.
Septe3be ", +1
---------------------------------------------------- $ECSO N
LEON!R$O%$E C!STRO, J .>
This appeal !as filed b* accused-appellants Renato >a4at * 0a!an &>a4at', also (no!n as Renat 0a!an, and a3es Palala* * Villaosa &Palala*' to challen4e the Cour) o< !7a( Octobe /, +11/ $7(on AB in C!%G.R.
CR.%H.C.
No.
02*9 ,
fo affi3in4 !ith
3odification
the
Mach
,
+11< $7(on 2D of the R7'ona Tra Cour) 6RTC8, Bran: 21, San)a'o C)y , !heein the* !ee found 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of :ualified $anappin4 in Cr=na Ca(7 No. 21%4949 .
%ccused-appellants >a4at and Palala* !ee cha4ed !ith the ci3e of $anappin4 as defined unde Section + and penali6ed unde Section "A5B of Republic %ct No. 2#5.The accusato* potion of the Info3ation,A"B eads; That on o about the + th da* of %pil +11#, at Santia4o $it*, Philippines, and !ithin the 8uisdiction of this =onoable $out, the above-na3ed accused, conspiin4, connivin4 !ith each othe, and 3utuall* helpin4 one anothe and !ith intent to 4ain and !ithout the consent of the o!ne theeof, did then and thee !illfull*, unla!full* and feloniousl* ta(e, steal and ca* a!a* one &' unit %S@HI tic*cle beain4 ?n4ine No. 2FM"#5#"+1 and Moto No. >/P$H115"D11++"5 then diven and o!ned b* OS? 9I%0, valued at ₱<1,111.11, to the da3a4e and pe8udice of the o!ne theeof. That in the couse of the co33ission of canappin4, o on occasion theeof, the above-na3ed accused, conspiin4, connivin4 confedeatin4 and helpin4 each othe, and !ith intent to (ill, did then and thee assault, attac( and !ound the said OS? 9I%0 !ith shap and pointed instu3ent diectin4 blo!s a4ainst the vital pats of the bod* of the latte theeb* inflictin4 upon hi3 3ultiple stab and hac(in4 !ounds !hich diectl* caused the death of the said OS? 9I%0.
>a4at pleaded not 4uilt* upon aai4n3ent on une 2, +11#.A#B Palala*, on the othe hand, did not ente an* pleaE hence, a plea of not 4uilt* !as enteed b* the RT$ fo hi3.A2B On %u4ust , +11#, both accused poposed to plead 4uilt* to a lesse offense.A
%fte the pe-tial confeence, tial on the 3eits ensued. The posecution fist pesented Floida 9ia4 &Floida', the !ife of the victi3 ose 9ia4 &9ia4', to testif* on the cicu3stances leadin4 to 9ia4s disappeaance and the discove* of his bod*, the ecove* of 9ia4s tic*cle, and the epenses she incued and the inco3e she had lost as a esult of he husbands death. Floida testified that he husband !as a fa3e, a baran#a% tanod , and a tic*cle dive. AB On %pil +, +11#, at aound t!o ocloc( in the 3onin4, he husband left to opeate his tic*cle fo public use.It !as aound ;11 a.3. of %pil 5, +11#, !hen ne!s eached he that thei tic*cle !as !ith the Philippine National Police &PNP' of the Municipalit* of %licia and that he husband had fi4ued in an accident. %fte leanin4 of the incident, Floida sou4ht the help of thei 9aan4a* &94*.' $aptain, =eheson Dula*, !ho i33ediatel* left fo %n4adanan !ithout he. %t aound +;11 p.3., 94*. $aptain Dula* info3edA+B Floida of !hat had happened to he husband.A5B Floida then pesented in cout the eceiptsA"B evidencin4 the epenses she had incued fo he husbands !a(e and funeal and fo the epai of thei tic*cle, !hich !as ecoveed !ith 3issin4 pats. She also testified as to the inco3e 9ia4 !as eanin4 as a fa3e, a tanod , and a tic*cle dive, and clai3ed that his death had caused he sleepless ni4hts.A#B
The second !itness fo the posecution !as the $hief !anod of 9aan4a* Ri6al, Poe Ru3baoa, S. &Ru3baoa'. =e testified that on %pil 5, +11#, afte he and 94*. $aptain Dula* eceived Floidas epot, the* i33ediatel* !ent to the %licia Police Station, !heein the* found 9ia4s tic*cle. The PNP of %licia sho!ed the3 the identification cad ecoveed in the tic*cle and told the3 that the tic*cle !as used in stealin4 pala% fo3 a stoe in %n4adanan, Isabela that belon4ed to a cetain i33* ?steban &?steban'.Ru3baoa and 94*. $aptain Dula* !ee also told that the o!ne of the tic*cle !as (illed and du3ped alon4 the %n4adanan and San 0uille3o Road. The* !ee theeafte sho!n the t!o suspects and the place !hee 9ia4s bod* !as du3ped. Ru3baoa said that he !as able to identif* the bod* as 9ia4s, !hich !as al3ost uneco4ni6able because it !as bloated all ove, onl* because 9ia4 had a 3a( on his i4ht shoulde, !hich Ru3baoa (ne! of.A2B Police Office + &PO+' %thu Salvado, a 3e3be of the PNP in %licia, too( the !itness stand net. =e testified that on %pil 5, +11#, he !as on dut* alon4 !ith othe collea4ues at the %licia PNP Station, !hen the* eceived a epot fo3 ?steban that the cavans of pala% stolen fo3 hi3 !ee seen at %lice Pala* 9u*in4 Station in %licia, Isabela, in a tic*cle co33andeeed b* t!o unidentified 3ale pesons. PO+ Salvado said that upon eceipt of this epot, thei $hief of Police co3posed a tea3, !hich included hi3, PO+ 9enad I4nacio, and PO+ Nathan %buan, to veif* the veacit* of the epot. %t %lice Pala* 9u*in4 Station, the* sa! the tic*cle descibed to the3 b* thei chief, !ith the cavans of pala% , and the t!o accused, >a4at and Palala*. PO+ Salvado aveed that he and his tea3 !ee about to appoach the tic*cle !hen the t!o accused sca3peedAand Tanspotation Office in the na3e of ose 9ia4. hen the* as(ed the t!o accused about thei discoveies, >a4at and Palala* voluntail* ans!eed that the na3e in the papes is that of the o!ne of the tic*cle, !ho3 the* (illed and du3ped alon4 %n4adanan and San 0uille3o Road, !hen the* canapped his tic*le. PO+ Salvado alle4ed that upon heain4 this evelation, the* a4ain info3ed >a4at and Palala* that an*thin4 the* sa* !ould be used a4ainst the3, and that the* had a i4ht to counsel. Theeafte, the* coodinated !ith the PNP of %n4adanan Police Station, and to4ethe !ith the t!o accused, the* poceeded to %n4adanan-San 0uille3o Road, !hee the* found 9ia4s bod* in a avine 8ust afte the bid4e nea the oad.AB The posecutions last !itness, PO+ I4nacio cooboated PO+ Salvados testi3on* on the events that led the3 to the tic*cle, the pala% , the t!o accused, and the bod* of 9ia4. =e also confi3ed PO+ Salvados clai3 that the* had info3ed the t!o accused of thei i4hts but the latte 8ust i4noed the3E hence, the* continued !ith thei investi4ation.A+1B PO+ I4nacio added that the t!o accused also told the3 ho! the* (illed 9ia4, to !it; %-
The* ented a tic*cle fo3 Santia4o to %licia but the* poceeded to %n4adanan. %nd upon aival at the site, the* po(ed a (nife to the dive and the dive an a!a*. The* chased hi3 and stabbed hi3, si .A+B
@pon coss-ea3ination, PO+ I4nacio aveed that the* !ee not able to ecove the 3ude !eapon despite dili4ent effots to loo( fo it and that the* had )uestioned the people at %lice Pala* 9u*in4 Station and
!ee told that the t!o accused had no othe co3panion. PO+ I4nacio also ad3itted that !hile the* info3ed >a4at and Palala* of thei constitutional i4hts, the t!o !ee neve assisted b* counsel at an* ti3e duin4 the custodial investi4ation.A++B The posecution also sub3itted the Post-Mote3 %utops* RepotA+5B on 9ia4 of D. ?d4a Ro3anchito P. 9a*an4, the %ssistant $it* =ealth and Medico->e4al Office of Santia4o $it*. The Repot sho!ed that 9ia4 !as li(el* (illed bet!een +;11 noon and +;11 p.3. of %pil +, +11", and that he had sustained thee stab !ounds, an incise !ound, t!o hac( !ounds and an avulsion of the s(in etendin4 to!ads the abdo3en.A+"B %fte the posecution ested its case, the accused filed a Motion to Dis3iss on De3ue to ?videnceA+#B !ithout leave of cout A+2B on the 4ound that the posecution failed to pove thei 4uilt be*ond easonable doubt. >a4at and Palala* aveed that thei constitutional i4hts on custodial investi4ation !ee 4ossl* violated as the* !ee inteo4ated fo hous !ithout counsel, elatives, o an* disinteested thid peson to assist the3. Moeove, the ad3issions the* alle4edl* 3ade !ee not suppoted b* docu3enta* evidence. Palala* futhe clai3ed that Ru3baoas testi3on* sho!ed that he had a s!ellin4 above his i4ht e*e and a (nife !ound in his left a3, !hich su44ests that he !as 3alteated !hile unde police custod*.A+a4at and Palala* a4ued that the posecution failed to establish an unbo(en chain of events that sho!ed thei 4uilt be*ond easonable doubt, thus, the* !ee entitled to en8o* the constitutional pesu3ption of innocence absent poof that the* !ee 4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt.A+/B %s the accused filed thei De3ue to ?vidence !ithout leave of cout, the* in effect !aived thei i4ht to pesent evidence, and sub3itted the case fo 8ud43ent on the basis of the evidence fo the posecution.A+B On Mach , +11<, the RT$ endeed a Decision, the dispositive potion of !hich eads; =?R?FOR? in the li4ht of the foe4oin4 consideations the $out finds the accused Renato >a4at * 0a!an and a3es Palala* * Villaosa 0@I>T be*ond easonable doubt of )ualified canappin4 and heeb* sentences each of the3 to the penalt* of reclusion perpetua. The* ae also ORD?R?D TO P% Floida 9ia4 the su3 of T!elve thousand thee hunded pesos &₱+,511.11' as actual da3a4es plus Fift* thousand pesos &₱#1,111.11' fo death inde3nit* and anothe Fift* thousand pesos &₱#1,111.11' fo 3oal da3a4es.A51B
%fte evaluatin4 the evidence the posecution pesented, the RT$ a4eed !ith the accused that thei i4hts !ee violated duin4 thei custodial investi4ation as the* had no counsel to assist the3. Thus, !hateve ad3issions the* had 3ade, !hethe voluntail* o not, could not be used a4ainst the3 and !ee inad3issible in evidence.A5B =o!eve, the RT$ held that despite the absence of an e*e!itness, the posecution !as able to establish enou4h cicu3stantial evidence to pove that >a4at and Palala* co33itted the ci3e, to !it; .
The accused !ee cau4ht b* the %licia PNP in possession of 9ia4s tic*cle, loaded !ith stolen pala% E
+.
The accused an i33ediatel* !hen the* sa! the %licia PNP appoachin4 the3E
5.
The %licia PNP found bloodstains on the tic*cle and 9ia4s !allet !ith docu3ents to pove that 9ia4 o!ned the tic*cleE
".
The %licia PNP contacted the PNP of Santia4o $it* to in)uie about a ose 9ia4, and this !as ho! the baran#a% officials of Santia4o $it* and Floida found out that 9ia4s tic*cle !as !ith the %licia PNPE
#.
9ia4 left eal* 3onin4 on %pil +, +11# and neve etuned ho3eE
2.
The accused the3selves led the %licia PNP and 9aan4a* $aptain Dula* and Ru3baoa to !hee the* du3ped 9ia4s bod*.A5+B
The RT$ convicted >a4at and Palala* of the ci3e of canappin4, )ualified b* the (illin4 of 9ia4, !hich, accodin4 to the RT$, appeaed to have been done in the couse of the canappin4.A55B >a4at and Palala* as(ed the RT$ to econside its Decision on the 4ounds that it eed in 4ivin4 full cedence to the testi3onies of the posecutions !itnesses and in el*in4 on the cicu3stantial evidence pesented b* the posecution.A5"B On Ma* +, +11<, the RT$ denied A5#B this 3otion, holdin4 that the testi3onies of the !itnesses !ee cedible and suppoted b* the attendin4 facts and cicu3stances, and that thee !as sufficient cicu3stantial evidence to convict the accused. >a4at and Palala* !entA52B to the $out of %ppeals, assetin4 that thei 4uilt !as not established be*ond easonable doubt.A5
The accuseds possession of the tic*cle cannot pove that the* (illed its o!neE
+.
Thei act of fleein4 3a* be due to the stolen pala% &!hich is not the sub8ect of this case', and not the tic*cleE
5.
No evidence !as 4iven that !ould lin( the bloodstains found in the tic*cle to 9ia4 hi3self. The* could have easil* been Palala*s, !ho !as sho!n to have a (nife !oundE and
".
The accuseds act of pointin4 to the police and the baran#a% officials the avine !hee 9ia4s bod* !as du3ped !as pat of thei inteo4ation !ithout counsel, !hich the RT$ itself declaed as inad3issible in evidence.A5B
On Octobe /, +11/, the $out of %ppeals endeed its Decision !ith the follo!in4 dispositive potion; ?HEREFORE, the Decision dated Mach , +11< of the RT$, 9anch +, Santia4o $it*, in $i3inal $ase No. +-"", is !FFRME$ !ith the MO$FC!TON that accused-
appellants Renato >a4at * 0a!an and a3es Palala* * Villaosa ae odeed to pa* to pivate co3plainant the inceased a3ount of ₱",11.11 as actual da3a4es.A"1B In affi3in4 the conviction of the accused, the $out of %ppeals held that the ele3ents of canappin4 !ee all pesent in this case. The $out of %ppeals pointed out that >a4at and Palala* !ee in possession of the 3issin4 tic*cle !hen the* !ee appehended b* the %licia PNP. Moeove, the* failed to offe an* eplanation as to ho! the* ca3e to be in possession of the tic*cle. The $out of %ppeals also a4eed !ith the RT$ that !hateve confession o ad3ission the %licia PNP etacted out of the accused could not be used in evidence fo havin4 been done !ithout the assistance of counsel. The $out of %ppeals nonetheless affi3ed the RT$s 8ud43ent as it !as convinced that the follo!in4 cicu3stantial evidence suppoted the conviction of the accused fo )ualified canappin4;
.
9ia4 and his tic*cle !ent 3issin4 on %pil +, +11#E
+.
>a4at and Palala* !ee found in unauthoi6ed possession of the tic*cle on %pil 5, +11#E
5.
The %licia PNP, upon inspection of the tic*cle, found taces of blood inside it, to4ethe !ith the oi4inal eceipt and cetificate of e4istation of the vehicle in the na3e of ose 9ia4E
".
Palala* had a stab !ound on his left a3 !hen the %licia PNP pesented hi3 and >a4at to 94*. $apt. Dula* and posecution !itness Ru3baoaE
#.
9ia4 boe five &#' hac( !ounds on his bod* !hen the %licia PNP ecoveed his copse in a avineE and
2.
>a4at and Palala* failed to account fo thei possession of the bloodstained tic*cle i33ediatel* afte thei aest.A"B
The accused ae no! befoe us !ith the sa3e lone assi4n3ent of eo the* posited befoe the $out of %ppeals, to !it; T=? TRI%> $O@RT 0R%V?> ?RR?D IN FINDIN0 T=? %$$@S?D-%PP?>>%NTS 0@I>T OF T=? $RIM? $=%R0?D D?SPIT? F%I>@R? OF T=? PROS?$@TION TO ?ST%9>IS= =IS 0@I>T 9?OND R?%SON%9>? [email protected]"+B 'uling of the Court
>a4at and Palala* have been cha4ed and convicted of the ci3e of )ualified canappin4 unde Republic %ct. No. 2#5A"5B o the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+. Section + of the %ct defines canappin4 and 3oto vehicle as follo!s; $anappin4 is the ta(in4, !ith intent to 4ain, of a 3oto vehicle belon4in4 to anothe !ithout the lattes consent, o b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons, o b* usin4 foce upon thin4s. Moto vehicle is an* vehicle popelled b* an* po!e othe than 3uscula po!e usin4 the public hi4h!a*s, but eceptin4 oad olles, tolle* cas, steet-s!eepes, spin(les, la!n 3o!es, bulldo6es, 4ades, fo(-lifts, a3phibian tuc(s, and canes if not used on public hi4h!a*s, vehicles, !hich un onl* on ails o tac(s, and tactos, tailes and taction en4ines of all (inds used eclusivel* fo a4icultual puposes. Tailes havin4 an* nu3be of !heels, !hen popelled o intended to be popelled b* attach3ent to a 3oto vehicle, shall be classified as sepaate 3oto vehicle !ith no po!e atin4.A""B
The ele3ents of canappin4 as defined and penali6ed unde the %nti-$anappin4 %ct of <+ ae the follo!in4; .
That thee is an actual ta(in4 of the vehicleE
+.
That the vehicle belon4s to a peson othe than the offende hi3selfE
5.
That the ta(in4 is !ithout the consent of the o!ne theeofE o that the ta(in4 !as co33itted b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons, o b* usin4 foce upon thin4sE and
".
That the offende intends to 4ain fo3 the ta(in4 of the vehicle.A"#B
The ecods of this case sho! that all the ele3ents of canappin4 ae pesent and !ee poven duin4 tial. The tic*cle, !hich !as definitivel* ascetained to belon4 to 9ia4, as evidenced b* the e4istation papes, !as found in >a4at and Palala*s possession. %side fo3 this, the posecution !as also able to establish that >a4at and Palala* fled the scene !hen the %licia PNP tied to appoach the3 at the pala% bu*in4 station. To top it all, >a4at and Palala* failed to 4ive an* eason !h* the* had 9ia4s tic*cle. Thei uneplained
possession aises the pesu3ption that the* !ee esponsible fo the unla!ful ta(in4 of the tic*cle. Section 5&8', Rule 5 of the Rules of $out states that; A%B peson found in possession of a thin4 ta(en in the doin4 of a ecent !on4ful act is the ta(e and the doe of the !hole actE othe!ise, that thin4 !hich a peson possesses, o eecises acts of o!neship ove, ae o!ned b* hi3.
In )itton ills* 0nc. v. Sales ,A"2B !e said that fo such pesu3ption to aise, it 3ust be poven that; &a' the popet* !as stolenE &b' it !as co33itted ecentl*E &c' that the stolen popet* !as found in the possession of the accusedE and &d' the accused is unable to eplain his possession satisfactoil*. A"a4at and Palala* had unla!full* ta(en 9ia4s tic*cle. In People v. 9ustinera ,A"/B this $out defined unla!ful ta(in4, as follo!s; @nla!ful ta(in4, o apoderamiento , is the ta(in4 of the 3oto vehicle !ithout the consent of the o!ne, o b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of pesons, o b* usin4 foce upon thin4sE it is dee3ed co3plete fo3 the 3o3ent the offende 4ains possession of the thin4, even if he has no oppotunit* to dispose of the sa3e.A"B >a4at and Palala*s intent to 4ain fo3 the canapped tic*cle !as also poven as the* !ee cau4ht in a pala% bu*in4 station, on boad the stolen tic*cle, !hich the* obviousl* used to tanspot the cavans of pala% the* had stolen and !ee 4oin4 to sell at the station. In 9ustinera* !e elucidated on the concept of intent to 4ain and said; Intent to 4ain o animus lucrandi is an intenal act, pesu3ed fo3 the unla!ful ta(in4 of the 3oto vehicle. %ctual 4ain is ielevant as the i3potant consideation is the intent to 4ain.The te3 4ain is not 3eel* li3ited to pecunia* benefit but also includes the benefit !hich in an* othe sense 3a* be deived o epected fo3 the act !hich is pefo3ed. Thus, the 3ee use of the thin4 !hich !as ta(en !ithout the o!nes consent constitutes 4ain. A#1B
=avin4 established that the ele3ents of canappin4 ae pesent in this case, !e no! 4o to the a4u3ent of the t!o accused that the* cannot be convicted based on the cicu3stantial evidence pesented b* the posecution. @nde Section ", Rule 55 of the Rules of $out, cicu3stantial evidence is sufficient fo conviction if; &a'
Thee is 3oe than one cicu3stanceE
&b' The facts fo3 !hich the infeences ae deived ae povenE and &c' The co3bination of all the cicu3stances esults in a 3oal cetaint* that the accused, to the eclusion of all othes, is the one !ho has co33itted the ci3e.
In People v. ansueto ,A#B !e said; $icu3stantial evidence is that evidence !hich poves a fact o seies of facts fo3 !hich the facts in issue 3a* be established b* infeence. Such evidence is founded on epeience and obseved facts and coincidences establishin4 a connection bet!een the (no!n and poven facts and the facts sou4ht to be poved.A#+B
=ence, to 8ustif* a conviction based on cicu3stantial evidence, the co3bination of cicu3stances 3ust be inte!oven in such a !a* as to leave no easonable doubt as to the 4uilt of the accused. A#5B % caeful and ehaustive ea3ination of the evidence pesented, ecludin4 those that ae inad3issible, sho! that the cicu3stantial evidence, !hen vie!ed as a !hole, effectivel* establishes the 4uilt of >a4at and Palala* be*ond easonable doubt. e consideed the follo!in4 pieces of evidence as convincin4;
Birst , >a4at and Palala* !ee found in possession of the tic*cle the sa3e da* that it, to4ethe !ith its
o!ne 9ia4, !as epoted 3issin4. Second , >a4at and Palala* !ee found at a pala% bu*in4 station, !ith the stolen tic*cle pac(ed
!ith cavans of pala% alle4edl* stolen in %licia, Isabela. !hird , >a4at and Palala* !ho !ee then on boad the tic*cle, 8u3ped and an the 3o3ent the* sa!
the %licia PNP appoachin4 the3. Bourth , >a4at and Palala* could not eplain to the %licia PNP !h* the* !ee in possession of 9ia4s
tic*cle. Bi"th, 9ia4s !allet and his tic*cles e4istation papes !ee found in the tic*cle upon its inspection b*
the %licia PNP. Sixth, 9ia4s bod* boe hac( !ounds as evidenced b* the post-3ote3 autops* done on hi3, !hile his
tic*cle had taces of blood in it. The foe4oin4 cicu3stantial evidence onl* leads to the conclusion that >a4at and Palala* conspied to (ill 9ia4 in ode to steal his tic*cle. Diect poof that the t!o accused conspied is not essential as it 3a* be infeed fo3 thei conduct befoe, duin4, and afte thei co33ission of the ci3e that the* acted !ith a co33on pupose and desi4n.A#"B The pieces of evidence pesented b* the posecution ae consistent !ith one anothe and the onl* ational poposition that can be da!n theefo3 is that the accused ae 4uilt* of (illin4 9ia4 to arna his tic*cle. hen a peson is (illed o aped in the couse of o on the occasion of the canappin4, the ci3e of canappin4 is )ualified and the penalt* is inceased pusuant to Section " of Republic %ct No. 2#5, as a3ended; S7)on 14. Penalt% "or Carnappin#. %n* peson !ho is found 4uilt* of canappin4, as
this te3 is defined in Section T!o of this %ct, shall, iespective of the value of 3oto vehicle ta(en, be punished b* i3pison3ent fo not less than fouteen *eas and ei4ht 3onths and not 3oe than seventeen *eas and fou 3onths, !hen the canappin4 is co33itted !ithout violence o inti3idation of pesons, o foce upon thin4sE and b* i3pison3ent fo not less than seventeen *eas and fou 3onths and not 3oe than thit* *eas, !hen the canappin4 is co33itted b* 3eans of violence a4ainst o inti3idation of an* peson, o foce upon thin4sE and ):7 7na)y o< reclusion perpetua )o 7a): (:a @7 =o(7 :7n ):7 on7r, r7r or ouan) o< ):7 arna7 =o)or 7:7 ( A7 or ra7 n ):7 our(7 o< ):7 o==((on o< ):7 arnan' or on ):7 oa(on ):7r7o<. &%s a3ended b* R.%. No. <2#.' &?3phasis ous' %s thee !as no a44avatin4 cicu3stance attendant in the co33ission of the ci3e, the RT$ popel* i3posed the penalt* of reclusion perpetua . In confo3it* !ith pevailin4 8uispudence, !e affi3 the a!ad of
₱#1,111.11
as civil inde3nit* ex
delicto fo the death of ose 9ia4 and ₱#1,111.11 as 3oal da3a4es fo the poven 3ental suffein4 of his !ife
as a esult of his unti3el* death. =o!eve, !hen actual da3a4es poven b* eceipts duin4 tial a3ount to less than ₱+#,111.11, as in this case, the a!ad of te3peate da3a4es fo ₱+#,111.11 is 8ustified in lieu of actual da3a4es of a lesse a3ount. A##B Thus, an a!ad of ₱+#,111.11 as te3peate da3a4es in lieu of the a3ount of ₱",11.11
that the $out of %ppeals a!aded as actual da3a4es is pope in this case.
