Carnapping Cases

8/17/2019 Carnapping Cases

1/67

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 Rule "# of the Rules of $out, petitione %lvin Tan &heeafte 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( of 3eit b* the $out of %ppeals

in its 2 Octobe / esolution.5 Said decision and esolution of the $out of %ppeals affi3ed the 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 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

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt1


2/67

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. . . . Philipdenied 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


3/67

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 po3ul4ated on anua* ", the tial cout convicted T%N, the dispositive 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. %ctNo. 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 !ith the $out of

%ppeals. On +5 %u4ust #, the appellate cout 4ave due couse to and 4anted the petition. T%N assailed the

decision of the $out of %ppeals thou4h a petition fo evie! befoe the Supe3e $out, !hich po3ptl* dis3issedthe petition./

Subse)uentl*, based on 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*edas bases fo his conviction the basic pinciples in theft enunciated in &' People v. Roxas, !hee ice !as eceived,

cated a!a* and consu3ed, &+' U.S. v. de era,1 !hee a ba of 4old and P+11 in ban( notes !ee eceived fo

ea3ination and chan4in4 into coins but instead appopiated, and &5' People v. !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 test-

divin4 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 co3paison of this special la! !ith the ci3es of obbe* and theft 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 beenta(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 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

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_135904_2000.html#fnt15


4/67

%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 fo3a 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.G2

?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 .


5/67

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 unlessthe 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


6/67

!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


7/67

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 anti-

canappin4 statute, but onl* as si3ple obbe* punishable unde the povision of the Revised Penal $ode. This

obviousl*, 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*.

%4ain, on tills point, 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 Nove3be 2, 2#2E @.S. vs. >i3 San < Phil. +


8/67

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 and fo the ci3e of violation of Republic %ct No. 2#5 othe!ise (no!n as the

%nti-$a3appin4 %ct of 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, the* poceeded to the addess of the victi3.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt5


9/67

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 stabbedhis 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 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 denied 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

&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


10/67

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#,/>%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!itnesspesented 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 athoou4h 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

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt12


11/67

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 coss-

ea3ination 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 a3anne 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

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt14


12/67

% 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


13/67

$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


14/67

% 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

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_201092_2014.html#fnt15


15/67

of the ci3e, but also that it !as ph*sicall* i3possible fo hi3 to be at the locus delicti o !ithin its i33ediate

vicinit*.2 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.


16/67

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. +2 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.

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


17/67


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 intentof &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


18/67

The case !as doc(eted as $i3inal $ase No. /-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 odeedthe 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

canappes. 10

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


19/67

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 toMs. $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 adive-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 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&


20/67

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 thecanappes, vi-., GParen# )ope* pata+buhin mo na and eepG 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!oden*. 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.


21/67

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(seatof 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


22/67

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 asituation !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 Indete3inateSentence >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 &


23/67

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME 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 ? $ I S I O N

$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 +oudes ?leccion, in the afoestated a3ount and in the couse of the co33ission theeof, ?ico Medel, the dive ofthe 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 e3ainat-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*ndicatenotoious 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 Mallaiand seveal othes, Mahilac !as peviousl* cha4ed !ith canappin4


24/67

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* oTuesda* of the follo!in4 !ee(.i3(et(ai Steet.++ Mallai, Ra3os and Posadas aived at aound ";" p.3. on boad the sa3e To*ota F tai thatMallai 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 itsbac( potion ee(ed of the died blood of the F tai dive, ?ico∗∗∗ Medel &Medel', !ho !as stabbed to death !hileesistin4 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 delNote.+/ The* aived at Pan4anda4s esidence and !ee 4iven P+#1,111.11 as consideation fo thevehicle.+ 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 +%Gshoe,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 andPosadas.5" =e testified that he !as !ith his !ife and t!o childen in thei ho3e in Tunasan, Muntinlupa $it* at theti3e 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 van52

!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 thecase.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 !eedul* eplained to hi3." Should he not si4n the sa3e, he !ill be cha4ed i33ediatel* !ith canappin4 !ithho3icide."+ =e theefoe decided to si4n the docu3ents !ithout the assistance of a la!*e, but continued to bedetained 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 ofcanappin4 !ith ho3icide. The tial cout uled that the testi3on* of Mahilac that Mallai paticipated in the theft ofthe F tai and the (illin4 of its dive, Medel, cannot be ne4ated b* Mallais denial and uncooboated alibi. It alsofound that the co33ission of the ci3e !as a esult of a planned opeation !ith Mallai and all the accused doin4thei 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 info3edb* Mallai. =e had no eason to falsel* accuse Mallai and even i3plicated hi3self b*; &' ad3ittin4 his pesenceduin4 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 thesu3 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 he3a* seve his sentence.

It Is SO ORD?R?D."2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_179041_2013.html#fnt46


25/67

Run' o< ):7 Cour) o< !7a(

On anua* 5, +11


26/67

desi4n !as canappin4E &5' he (illed the dive, MedelE and &"' the (illin4 !as pepetated Gin the couse of theco33ission of the canappin4 o on the occasion theeof.G2+

The tial and appellate couts held that the posecution !as able to discha4e its buden of povin4 that Mallai !as4uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of canappin4 !ith ho3icide. These couts uled that Mallai stole the F tai divenb* Medel afte he a4eed to ille4all* suppl* his co-accused !ith this t*pe of vehicle. The tial and appellate coutsfound 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 thecrime, is duly established by circumstantial eidence.

The culpabilit* of Mallai fo the co3ple ci3e of canappin4 !ith ho3icide is dul* established b* the confluence ofcicu3stantial evidence. Mahilac testified that he !as pesent !hen Mallai and his co-accused, all 3e3bes of theGF 0an4,G 4atheed in Muntinlupa $it* to plan and conspie to steal vehicles and sell the3 to unscupulous bu*esin Mindanao. I33ediatel* afte said 3eetin4, Mahilac sa! Mallai hail the F tai diven b* Medel, tal( to hi3, boadit 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 hispupose !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 toldhi3 that Medels bod* !as du3ped alon4 Li46a4 Road in %ti3onan, :ue6on. Mallai and his co-accusedeceived P+#1,111.11 upon delive* of the F tai to its final destination. These pove that Medel !as (illed in thecouse 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 !asthe dive of the tai on the da* it !as stolen b* Mallai and his co-conspiatos.25 The t!o late on identified hiscopse !hen it !as discoveed in the sa3e vicinit* !hich Mallai told Mahilac to be the place !hee the* du3pedthe 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 cicu3stancesinevitabl* 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 notdeseve 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* cediblecooboation fo3 disinteested !itnesses, and if not, is fatal to the accused.22 =ee, Mallai could have pesentedevidence 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


27/67

of 3ude and ho3icide, !ithout need of alle4ation and poof othe than the death of the victi3.


28/67


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 GERR# "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 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 pe8udiceof 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 accused-

appellants, the dispositive potion5 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


29/67

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 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 oudes Subdivision, Taban4, Plaidel, 9ulacan, to4ethe !ith he siblin4s, childen 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;


30/67

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 &


31/67

$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)uilbefoe 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 inPulilan, 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 accused-

appellant7s defense of denial and alibi. @nless substantiated b* clea and convincin4 poof, such defense isne4ative, 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.


32/67

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 info3ed 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,+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%RR P?RID%S isodeed 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

&


33/67

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Appellee,

- versus -

MARLON DELA CRUZ @

DAGUL,* ADRIANO MELECIO,

JESSIE REYES @ PISO, !"

JEPOY O#ELLO,

Appellant.

G$R$ N%$ &'()+

Present:

QUISUMBING, J ., Chairperson,

CARPIO MORALES,

VELASCO, JR.,

NACHURA,* and

BRION, JJ .

Pro!"#ated:

$e%r!ar& '(, '))

+ +

D E C I S I O N

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&.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/174658.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/174658.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/174658.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/174658.htm#_ftn2


34/67

-8e a33!sator& 2ort0on o/ t8e In/orat0on 0n Cr00na" Case No. ')) ? ;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 .


35/67

Cont!s0on 8eatoa,


36/67

Anna re"ated to t8e 2o"03e, 8038 s8e e38oed at t8e 0tness stand, as /o""os: On J!ne ',

')) 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:


37/67

5. P


38/67

/or t8e ao!nt o/ P and MELECIO /ro -EO$ILO, SR.,

ao!nted to P


39/67

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.


40/67

$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


41/67

SO OR;ERE;.


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

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#1-

11+"#" valued at P5/O N%TIVID%D * D?>% $R@L, to the da3a4e

and pe8udice of said o!ne in the a3ount of P5/ 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

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_127500_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_127500_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_127500_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_127500_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_127500_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_127500_2000.html#fnt3


42/67

Documents

Carnapping Cases