 |
|||
|
| |||
Hence, the instant appeal was instituted. In its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Supplemental Brief,16 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) informed this Court that it opted not to file a supplemental brief for the same would only be a repetition of the raised arguments considering that all relevant matters regarding Donio' s guilt for the crime of carnapping with homicide were extensively argued and discussed in the People's Brief17 dated July 9, 2013. Likewise, Donio, through the Public Attorney's Office, manifested his intention not to file a supplemental brief and prayed that the case be deemed submitted for decision.18 In essence, the issue to be resolved by this Court in this appeal is whether the prosecution has successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that Donio is guilty of the crime of carnapping with homicide. After a judicious review of the records and the submissions of the parties, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse Donio' s conviction. At the outset, the CA noted that the prosecution should have filed an Information for the special complex crime of qualified carnapping in aggravated form.19 while it is necessary that the statutory designation be stated in the information, a mistake in the caption of an indictment in designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal defect as it is not the designation that is controlling but the facts alleged in the information which determines the real nature of the crime.20 Recently, it was held that failure to designate the offense by the statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged.21 The recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information determines the character of the crime and not the caption or preamble of the information or the specification of the provision of the law alleged to have been violated.22 In the case at bar, the acts alleged to have been committed by Donio are averred in the Information, and the same described the acts defined and penalized under Sections 2 and 14 of R.A. 6539, as amended. The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under the R.A. No. 6539, as amended are the following:
Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. 6539, as amended, the prosecution has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the victim, and more importantly, it must show that the original criminal design of the culprit was camapping and that the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof "24 In other words, to prove the special complex crime of camapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the camapping or on the occasion thereof.25 Records show that all the elements of camapping in the instant case are present and proven during the trial. The tricycle was definitely ascertained to belong to Rodrigo, as evidenced by a Deed of Conditional Sale in his favor.26 Donio was found driving the vehicle in the early morning of November 26, 2003, the same day Rodrigo was looking for his missing brother Raul. Also, SP04 Taberdo positively identified Donio as the driver he flagged down at the checkpoint in his testimony, viz.:
"Unlawful taking" or apoderamiento is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. It is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.28 Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides the presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. The presumption that a person found in possession of the personal effects belonging to the person robbed and killed is considered the author of the aggression, the death of the person, as well as the robbery committed, has been invariably limited to cases where such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.29 The said principle may be applied in this case as the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same.30 Here, Donio failed to produce the vehicle's papers at the checkpoint. He impersonated the victim before the police officers when his identity was asked, and left under the guise of getting the said documents. It was also established that he and the others were strangers to Rodrigo. Donio's unexplained possession, coupled with the circumstances proven in the trial, therefore, raises the presumption that he was one of the perpetrators responsible for the unlawful taking of the vehicle and Raul's death. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi, which is an internal act, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term "gain" is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain.31 Donio's intent to gain from the carnapped tricycle was proven as he and his companions were using it as means of transportation when they were confronted by the Concepcion police officers. Having established that the elements of carnapping are present in the instant case, We now discuss the argument that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution are insufficient to convict Donio of the crime of carnapping with homicide. He alleges that while it is true that criminal conviction may be predicated on a series of circumstantial evidence, the same must be convincing, plausible and credible. It cannot be discounted that SP04 Taberdo testified only on the circumstances after the alleged carnapping. He failed to establish his alleged participation prior to or during the actual taking of the vehicle. The facts established by SP04 Taberdo' s testimony- the Concepcion police operatives caught him in possession of the stolen tricycle on November 26, 2003; the tricycle was registered under the name of Rodrigo; and he was in possession of Raul's license - are insufficient bases and do not lead to an inference exclusively consistent with his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such contention fails scrutiny. The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused can no longer be proved by any other evidence. Circumstantial, indirect or presumptive evidence, if sufficient, can replace direct evidence as provided by Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, which, to warrant the conviction of an accused, requires that: (a) there is more than one (1) circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all these circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the one who committed the crime.32 Hence, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.33 After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that the confluence of the following pieces of circumstantial evidence, consistent with one another, establishes Donio's guilt beyond reasonable doubt: First, Donio was driving the tricycle when he, Paulino and Ryan were accosted during a checkpoint at the junction of the MacArthur Highway by elements of the Concepcion Police Station at around 2:30 in the morning on November 26, 2003; Second, his possession of the vehicle was not fully explained as he failed to produce its registration papers; Third, he was in possession of the victim's temporary license. He even presented it and introduced himself as Raul to the police; Fourth, a bloodstained mini jungle bolo was found inside the tricycle; Fifth, Rodrigo ascertained that Raul was the driver of his tricycle, and that he was looking for him on the same day that Donio and the others were flagged down; Sixth, Raul was last seen driving the tricycle at 10:00 in the evening on November 25, 2003 when he passed by at the Mawaque Terminal at the comer of MacArthur Highway and Mawaque Road.34 Seventh, the Bantay Bayan of Madapdap Resettlement found Raul's body at around 6:30 in the morning on November 26, 2003 at a vacant lot towards the road to Sta. Lucia Resettlement comer Barangay Dapdap. Eighth, Raul sustained multiple stab wounds caused by a sharp instrument as depicted in the post-mortem examination sketch by Dr. Dizon and reflected in the Certificate of Death, which states:
Ninth, Donio was subsequently apprehended and SP04 Taberdo positively identified him as the driver they flagged down at the checkpoint.36 Likewise, the victim's lifeless body was found sprawled with multiple stab wounds and was noted in a state of rigor mortis. Rigor mortis, which consists in the stiffening of the muscular tissues and joints of the body setting in at a greater or less interval after death, may be utilized to approximate the length of time the body has been dead. In temperate countries, it usually appears three to six hours after death but in warmer countries, it may develop earlier. In tropical countries, the usual duration of rigor mortis is twenty-four to forty-eight hours during cold weather and eighteen to thirty-six hours during summer. When rigor mortis sets in early, it passes off quickly and viceversa.37 From the foregoing, it was established that Raul was last seen driving the tricycle at 10:00 in the evening on November 25, 2003, and that his body was discovered at 6:30 in the morning the next day. Considering the condition of the body upon discovery, he could have been killed between 10:00 in the evening and 3:30 in the morning on the next day. Donio and his companions were hailed at the checkpoint at around 2:3038 in the morning on November 26, 2003 aboard the missing tricycle. Taking into account the distance of the Mawaque Terminal area or of the vacant lot near Barangay Dapdap from the junction of the MacArthur Highway in Concepcion, Tarlac and the time they were hailed at the checkpoint, it can be logically concluded that Donio and the others were in contact with Raul during the approximate period of the latter's time of death. Also, it was during that period that they gained possession of the vehicle. Thus, the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the totality of the foregoing facts and circumstances is that Donio and his companions, to the exclusion of others, are guilty of carnapping the tricycle and of killing Raul in the course thereof. Moreover, when Donio was brought to the police station, he asked permission from the officers to get the registration papers but never returned. Undoubtedly, Donio's flight is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind. Indeed, the wicked man flees though no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.39 This Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.40 The factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.41 In the case at bar, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness. Records are bereft of evidence which showed ill-will or malicious intent on the part of SP04 Taberdo. In absence of evidence to the contrary, this Court finds that the RTC and the CA did not err in the findings of facts and the credibility of the witnesses. As for Donio's defense of alibi, he argues that it must not be looked with disfavor, as there are instances when the accused may really have no other defense but denial and alibi which, if established to be truth, may tilt the scales of justice in his favor, especially when the prosecution evidence is inherently weak. He insists that he was tortured and subjected to harsh treatment during arrest.1âwphi1 He insinuates that the police arrested the first person they suspected without conducting any in-depth investigation. Donio maintained that he first learned of the camapping charge when the police came to his house in Madapdap, Mabalacat, Pampanga on December 6, 2003. However, he also alleged that as a stay-in sugarcane plantation worker in Capas, Tarlac with a six-month work period ending in January, he never left the workplace and that his wife visited him instead. Donio testified during direct and cross examination as follows:
No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason, it is generally rejected. For the alibi to prosper, the accused must establish the following: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.44 It must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and if not, is fatal to the accused.45 When he was confronted with his inconsistency, Donio clarified that he was in Capas, Tarlac and was fetched by his wife in the evening to attend to his sick child. We note, however, the proximity of the area of Donio’s residence with the Barangay Dapdap and Sta. Lucia Resettlement area where the victim was found dead. To buttress his defense of alibi, Donio could have presented the testimony of a fellow plantation worker or any disinterested witness who could have substantiated the same. Aside from his bare allegations, he failed to present convincing evidence of the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene at the time of carnapping. Similarly, this Court is unconvinced of his insistence that he was tortured in view of lack of any evidence to validate the same. Thus, the uncorroborated alibi and denial of Donio must be brushed aside in light of the fact that the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained his identity. It is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.46 In sum, the prosecution established through sufficient circumstantial evidence that the accused was indeed one of the perpetrators of the crime of carnapping with homicide. As to the imposable penalty, Section 14 of RA No. 6539, as amended, provides that:
The RTC is correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua considering that there was no alleged and proven aggravating circumstance. However, in line with the recent jurisprudence,48 in cases of special complex crimes like carnapping with homicide, among others, where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are pegged at ₱75,000.00 each .. This Court orders Donio to pay ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the award of ₱25,000.00 as actual damages. Also, Donio is ordered to pay the heirs of Raul interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Decision. WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 4, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05418, finding accused-appellant Enrile Donio y Untalan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Carnapping with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: accused-appellant Donio is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Raul L. Layug the amount of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of the Decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
On official leave C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO Chief Justice Footnotes * Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated September 1, 2014. (On official leave) ** On official leave. 1 Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring, rollo, pp. 2-12. 2 Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Angelica T. Paras-Quiambao, CA rollo, pp. 42-61. 3 Id at 42. 4 Id. at 43. 5 Id at 46. 6 Id 7 Id 8 Id at45. 9 Supra note 5. 10 Id. at 49. 11 Id at 61. 12 Id. at 56. 13 Id. at 57. 14 Rollo p. 8. 15 Id at 12. (Emphasis in the original) 16 Id at 22-24. 17 CA rollo pp. 71-91. 18 Rollo pp. 27-28. 19 Supra note 16. 20 People v. Bali-balita, 394 Phil. 790, 814 (2000). 21 People v. Victor Padit, G .R. No. 202978, February 1, 2016. 22 Id. 23 People v. Bernabe and Garcia, 448 Phil. 269, 280 (2003). 24 People v. Fabian Urzais y Lanurias, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016. 25 People v. Aquino, 724 Phil. 739, 757 (2014). 26 CA rollo p. 44. 27 TSN, May 11, 2006, pp. 8-9. 28 People v. Lagat, et al., 673 Phil. 351, 367 (2011). 29 People v. Geron, 346 Phil. 14, 25 (1997). (Emphasis supplied). 30 People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 284. 31 Id 32 People v. Banez y Baylon, G.R. No. 198057, September 21, 2015. 33 People v. Lagat, et al., supra note 28. 34 Records, p. 11, Advance Information Report, Mabalacat Municipal Police Station. 35 CA rollo p. 52. 36 Id. at 53-54. 37 People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 92600, January 18, 1993, 217 SCRA 103, 119, citing Solis, ,ega Medicine 127 [1987 ed.] (underscoring supplied). 38 2:45 in other parts of Records. 39 People v. Dela Cruz, 4459 Phil. 130, 137 (2003). 40 People v. Abat, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 557, 564. 41 Corpuz v. People, 734 Phil. 353, 391 (2014). 42 TSN, September 24, 2009, p. 6. 43 TSN, August 3, 2010, pp. 3 and 5. 44 People v. Regaspi, G.R. No. 198309, September 7, 2015. 45 People v. Mallari, 707 Phil. 267, 281 (2013). 46 People v. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA 687, 704. 47 Emphasis supplied. 48 People v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||
