SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255831. October 6, 2021.]
MARTIN BINUYA, JR. y SARMIENTO alias "JUN TIPOS", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255831 (Martin Binuya, Jr. y Sarmiento alias "Jun Tipos" v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated June 17, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated February 2, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42676 affirming the Decision 4 dated October 3, 2018 of Branch 34, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, finding Martin Binuya, Jr. y Sarmiento alias "Jun Tipos" (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of carnapping under Republic Act (RA) No. 6539, 5 or the "Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972." 6
The Antecedents
Petitioner, together with an unidentified companion, was charged with carnapping under RA 6539 before the RTC. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or before the 12th day of September 2001, in the Municipality of Cabiao, Province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to gain, armed with short firearms, conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal [and] carry away a Kawasaki KMX 125 motorcycle with plate number MC-1351, belt bag containing P120,000.00, wallet with personal documents, one (1) [wrist] watch worth P3,000.00 with total amount of P123,000.00 belonging to one Lino P. Jose, Jr., against his will and consent and by means of violence against and intimidation to said Lino P. Jose, Jr.[,] to his damage and prejudice[.] IAETDc
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
The RTC issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner in December 2002, but the latter was apprehended only on June 9, 2016, or after more than a decade. 7
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. 8
Trial ensued. 9
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented private complainant Lino Pascual Jose (Jose) as its primary witness. 10
Jose testified that on September 12, 2001, while he was on his way to Brgy. Mangga, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija aboard his motorcycle, two men blocked his way, pointed a gun at him, made him lie facing the ground, shot him on the leg, and thereafter took the motorcycle as well as his personal belongings. After which, the two men fled the scene. When he reported the incident at the police station, the police authorities presented him with a rogue gallery from where he identified petitioner as one of his assailants, specifically, the man who pointed a gun at him and shot him on the leg. 11
Per the medical certificate executed by Dr. Antonio Duque, Jose suffered a gunshot wound and was hospitalized for two days at the Lacson General Hospital. 12
Version of the Defense
For his part, petitioner raised the defense of alibi. He asserted that he was in Sta. Maria, Bulacan on the date of the incident which is one to two hours away from Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. 13
Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision 14 dated October 3, 2018, the RTC convicted petitioner of carnapping under RA 6539 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum. The RTC further ordered petitioner to pay Cor's Services, Inc., the registered owner of the motorcycle, through Jose, the amount of P75,000.00 representing the value of the carnapped motorcycle. 15
The RTC ruled that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed the offense of carnapping with violence against or intimidation of persons, noting, in particular, Jose's positive identification of petitioner as one of the assailants. 16
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification as to the award of damages. The CA awarded temperate damages of P50,000.00 in lieu of actual damages as the value of the motorcycle had not been clearly established during the trial. 17
The CA found that the prosecution established all the elements of carnapping in the case: first, there was an actual taking of the motorcycle by petitioner; second, intent to gain is presumed from the taking of the vehicle; third, the motorcycle did not belong to petitioner; and fourth, the taking of the vehicle which was owned by Cor's Services, Inc., Jose's employer, was committed by means of violence and intimidation. 18
Petitioner moved for reconsideration 19 of the CA Decision. However, the CA denied the motion in the assailed Resolution 20 for lack of merit. 21
Hence, the present Petition. 23
Issue
Whether petitioner's guilt for carnapping under RA 6539 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is without merit. DcHSEa
At the outset, it bears stressing that the issue as to petitioner's guilt for carnapping is clearly factual in nature. As such, it cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition where the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law that might have been committed by the lower courts. 24 On this ground alone, the petition should be denied in the absence of any exceptional circumstance25 as to merit the Court's review of factual questions that have already been settled by the lower courts.
Still, the Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, because petitioner failed to show that the lower courts had overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated some facts or circumstances of weight that could have altered the result of the case. 26
Under Section 2 of RA 6539, carnapping is defined as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things." Thus, to successfully prosecute the offense of carnapping, the following elements must be proven with moral certainty:
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle;
3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof, or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons; or by using force upon things. 27
As the CA aptly ruled, the prosecution sufficiently established that petitioner took the subject motorcycle which did not belong to him, from Jose, through violence and intimidation. 28 His intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, being an internal act, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle. 29
The Court notes, too, that petitioner's flight from the scene, coupled with his act of evading lawful arrest for more than a decade, is indicative of his guilt of the charge. 30
Besides, faced with the weight of the prosecution's evidence, petitioner merely raised the defense of alibi, which is negative and self-serving in nature. 31 This defense simply cannot prevail over Jose's positive identification of petitioner as one of the assailants. 32
Based on these considerations, the Court resolves to deny the petition for failure of petitioner to show any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the findings and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in the Decision dated June 17, 2020 and the Resolution dated February 2, 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 42676 finding petitioner Martin Binuya, Jr. y Sarmiento alias "Jun Tipos" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and to pay Cor's Services, Inc., through Lino Pascual Jose, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
The Court resolves to NOTE and GRANT the Manifestation (with Profuse Apology) dated June 3, 2021 of counsel for petitioner, praying that the attached Annex "D" of the petition be admitted in the interest of justice, since counsel failed to attach the same through inadvertence. SCaITA
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 26-40.
2. Id. at 44-54; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3. Id. at 56-57.
4. Id. at 73-79; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Celso O. Baguio.
5. An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping. Approved on August 26, 1972.
6. Id. at 78.
6. Id. at 73.
7. Id. at 45.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 45-46.
12. Id. at 46.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 73-79.
15. Id. at 78-79.
16. Id. at 77-78.
17. Id. at 53.
18. Id. at 52.
19. Id. at 82-88.
20. Id. at 56-57.
21. Id. at 31.
22. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. Missing Footnote Reference and Footnote Text.
23. Id. at 26-40.
24. Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 770 (2013).
25. In New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 499 Phil. 207, 212-213 (2005), the Court recognized the following exceptions to the rule that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
26. People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 562 (2008).
27. People v. Roxas, 642 Phil. 522, 543 (2010).
28. Rollo, p. 52.
29. People v. Obillo, 411 Phil. 139, 150 (2001).
30. See Balina v. People, G.R. No. 205950, January 12, 2021.
31. See People v. Quinanola, G.R. No. 248874 (Notice of Resolution), May 14, 2021.
32. Id.