THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237753. July 3, 2019.]
BERNARD CARALIPIO y CAYABYAB, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 3, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237753 (Bernard Caralipio y Cayabyab vs. People of the Philippines). — Petitioner, Bernard Caralipio y Cayabyab (Caralipio) filed this instant Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to challenge the Decision 1 dated September 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37958 affirming with modification the August 27, 2015 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 44.
Caralipio, Rodel Sibayan y Magno (Sibayan) and Alberto Mamitag y Paragas (Mamitag) were charged with carnapping in an Information dated December 8, 2010. The Information reads:
That on or about December 6, 2010 in the evening in Brgy. Navaluan, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one another and Marlon de Vera who was earlier charged, with intent to gain, armed with an unlicensed cal. 38 revolver, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and driven away the HONDA motorized tricycle of JOJIT AQUINO y Barrozo, with plate no. XF-7278 to his damage and prejudice.
Contrary to R.A. 6539. 3
Upon arraignment, all three accused, Caralipio, Sibayan and Mamitag pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Meantime, Marlon de Vera (De Vera) was impleaded as the fourth accused and was included in the Amended Information dated March 1, 2011. 4 When re-arraigned, all pleaded not guilty to the offense charged under the Amended Information.
Accordingly, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented Jojit Aquino, Corazon Laluan Gregorio and Police Officer 3 (PO3) Vicente Soriano, Jr. (PO3 Soriano) as witnesses.
Jojit Aquino (Aquino) testified 5 that he is a tricycle driver plying his route using his tricycle with Plate No. XF 7278. According to him, he was at the Mangaldan Public Market on December 5, 2010, at around 8:20 in the evening, waiting for passengers when accused De Vera arrived and hired him to bring him to Barangay (Brgy.) Embarcadero in Mangaldan, Pangasinan. Before they could reach Brgy. Embarcadero, De Vera requested him to stop at the Saint Peter Memorial Cemetery at Barangay Navaluan because he had to urinate.
However, Aquino did not see De Vera urinate. Instead, when the latter alighted from the tricycle, accused Caralipio appeared and poked a .38 caliber gun at Aquino. Caralipio then ordered him to alight from the tricycle and to lie face down, while Caralipio called De Vera, who was standing at the side of the sidecar, to drive the tricycle. De Vera did not pay heed and instead ran away causing Caralipio to drive the same towards Barangay Navaluan.
Aquino further testified that he sought help at the corner of Barangay Navaluan and reported the incident to the police station of Mangaldan where De Vera arrived later. On December 8, 2010, Aquino was able to recover his tricycle at the police station of Mangaldan although the same was already in separated portions. The motorcycle was recovered in Camiling, Tarlac, while the sidecar was recovered in Naguilayan, Binmaley, Pangasinan by the police officers of Mangaldan. He also later heard from his neighbors that Caralipio and De Vera were companions.
Aquino also identified the Original Receipt and Certificate of Registration of the public utility Honda tricycle with plate number XF 7278, as well as the affidavit and the supplemental affidavit he executed. He was also able to positively identify Caralipio and De Vera.
PO3 Soriano, on the other hand, testified 6 that he was on duty at around 8:25 in the evening of December 6, 2010 when Aquino reported the incident. After a while, De Vera also appeared at the police station and declared that it was Caralipio who took the tricycle. Thereafter, upon instruction of Chief of Police Mateo Casupong, PO3 Soriano conducted a hot pursuit operation against Caralipio with SPO4 Joseph Daroy (SPO4 Daroy) and SPO1 Leonardo Frias. Later in his testimony, PO3 Soriano identified the documents evidencing the operation, such as the coordination report, inventory of confiscated/seized items, and the photographs of the tricycle.
PO3 Soriano also testified that with the help of De Vera who called Caralipio, they were able to locate and arrest the latter who was then in Camiling, Tarlac. When caught, Caralipio cooperated with the police officers in locating Aquino's tricycle, which was then in the possession of one Joel Angeles.
According to PO3 Soriano, Caralipio admitted while they were on their way back to the police station that he committed the crime with accused Sibayan and Mamitag. PO3 Soriano narrated that Caralipio told him that it was Sibayan who took the motorcycle and sold the sidecar to a certain Reming de Vera for P5,000.00. The .38 caliber revolver, on the other hand, was borrowed from Mamitag who was also the mastermind. It was in Naguilayan, Binmaley, Pangasinan where they were able to locate MAMITAG at St. Lucy's Center, a private hospital, where he was working as a security guard. CARALIPIO was able to identify not only Mamitag but also the gun tucked in his waist as the same firearm he used in the carnapping. Upon PO3 Soriano's invitation, Mamitag voluntarily went with them to Mangaldan Police Station.
The defense, on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial and alibi. According to Caralipio, he was at home on the night of December 6, 2010 with his live-in partner, Teresa Valerio, in Barangay Sinilian, Camiling, Tarlac, when police officers arrived at around 10:30 in the evening. 7 According to Caralipio, the police officer kicked down their door to gain entry and arrested him. They arrived at the Mangaldan Police Station at around 12:30 in the morning of December 8, 2010. Later that day, the police officers also picked up Sibayan who was at that time playing "taksing" at a basketball court. Thereafter, Caralipio accompanied the police officers to St. Lucy's Center to get Mamitag. Caralipio stated that he saw the police officers point a gun at the latter who was boarded in the Revo car of PO1 Dante Mangonon. Subsequently, they all returned to the police station.
Caralipio also further testified that when they arrived at the police station, he was called to enter an investigation room by the Chief of Police of Mangaldan and SPO3 Daroy, where he was beaten by the police officers. 8
In his testimony, however, Caralipio denied supplying the names of Sibayan, Mamitag and De Vera to the police officers as his companions in the carnapping. He also denied knowing Reming de Vera, the person whom the sidecar of the tricycle was sold to and Joel Angeles, from whose residence the motorcycle was discovered. Likewise, he denied the statement he made in the Affidavit of Arrest, that in the morning of December 8, 2010, he admitted to their modus operandi in the carnapping and named his companions and their corresponding involvement in the commission of the crime. 9
De Vera, on other hand, declared that on December 6, 2010, he was having a drinking session with Caralipio at a store in Barangay Embarcadero, Mangaldan, Pangasinan. 10 He said that he was instructed by Caralipio to hail a tricycle to bring him home, hence, he secured the services of Aquino. De Vera then narrated how the tricycle was forcibly taken by someone who suddenly intercepted them and held them at gunpoint then drove the tricycle away. He recognized the person later to be Caralipio. De Vera further stated that he went to the police station supposedly to report the incident of carnapping. However, because Aquino was already there to report the same, he was led into an office by the Chief of Police where he was suddenly slapped with a slipper. He was, likewise, boxed in the stomach twice by PO3 Soriano, and the latter removed his shorts. SPO4 Daroy, likewise boxed him twice in each of the following body parts — his stomach, chest and throat. As a result of the beating, he was in so much pain and was not able to eat for two (2) days. Later on, he was informed by the police officers that he was already implicated in the carnapping of Aquino's tricycle despite his insistence that he had no involvement in the crime and that it was only Caralipio who acted alone. 11
As to Sibayan, he also denied being a lookout in the carnapping of the tricycle of Aquino, as he claimed that he was in Mangaldan, Pangasinan at the time of the incident playing billiards. 12
On August 27, 2015, the RTC rendered the challenged Decision 13 finding De Vera and Caralipio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of carnapping. While Sibayan and Mamitag were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence, the RTC, however, was convinced that De Vera and Caralipio acted in conspiracy in the commission of the offense. Taking notice of the inconsistencies in the testimony of Caralipio, the RTC, likewise, did not give credit to the latter's defense of denial and alibi especially in light of Aquino's positive identification of him being the perpetrator of the offense. The RTC disposed:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Marlon de Vera and Bernardo Caralipio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seventeen (17) years and Four (4) months, as minimum, to Thirty (30) n Years, as maximum.
Accused Rodel Sibayan and Alberto Mamitag are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged for insufficiency of evidence.
In the meantime, the Jail Warden of the BJMP, Dagupan City, or his duly authorized representative, is hereby ordered to immediately release accused Rodel Sibayan and Alberto Mamitag from custody unless there is a valid reason for their continued detention.
The .38 caliber pistol subject of this case is hereby ordered disposed of in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.14
Aggrieved by the decision of the RTC, Caralipio and De Vera appealed to the CA. However, as stated at the outset, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC, as the former affirmed the conviction of Caralipio, but ordered the acquittal of De Vera. The CA decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision dated 27 August 2015 rendered by Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. 2010-0673-D. Accused-Appellant Marlon de Vera is ACQUITTED for lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Jail Warden of the BJMP, Dagupan City, or his duly authorized representative, is hereby ordered to immediately RELEASE Accused-Appellant Marlon de Vera from custody unless there is a valid reason for his continued detention. He shall inform the Court of such release or the reason for non-release within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.15
Aggrieved by the Decision, Caralipio moved for the reconsideration 16 of the same, but his motion was denied by the CA in a Resolution 17 dated February 14, 2018.
Hence, this petition assailing the CA's decision. Caralipio insists on his innocence as he challenges the credibility of private complainant Aquino. According to Caralipio, Aquino was not able to prove his identity hence, it was erroneous for both the RTC and the CA to find him guilty without reasonable doubt.
The Court is not impressed.
It is an established rule that only questions of law are entertained in a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. 18 Clearly, what petitioner Caralipio seeks is a review of the factual findings of the lower court which is not within the ambit of Rule 45. Indeed, only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. While factual review may be allowed in certain cases, 19 the party praying for a review of factual findings of the lower court must allege, substantiate and prove those exceptions in order that the Court may reevaluate and review the facts of the case. A party could not simply claim that the case falls under the exceptions.
These recognized exceptions are:
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact 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 respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 20 (Citations omitted)
Here, the case clearly does not fall under the exceptions as the findings of fact of the CA and the RTC were supported by evidence.
Indeed, Caralipio's attempt to discredit the witness cannot be given weight as he was positively identified by Aquino as the one who poked a gun at him and took away the tricycle. For while Aquino did not know Caralipio by name, he, however, was able to recognize his face as there was sufficient illumination from the tricycle light which allowed him to see CARALIPIO's face. 21
Likewise, there are several circumstantial evidence that proved Caralipio's culpability.
First, De Vera admitted during his testimony that he was having a drinking session with Caralipio on the night of the incident and that the latter requested him to rent a tricycle as his ride home.
Second, De Vera corroborated Aquino's testimony that when they were somewhere near the cemetery in Barangay Navaluan, they were suddenly intercepted by a person who pointed a gun at them, and that person, whom he recognized as Caralipio, boarded the tricycle and drove away.
And third, it was Caralipio himself who gave the information to the police officers that the tricycle of Aquino was with Sibayan. Such information was later verified to be true and thus led to the recovery of the tricycle at the exact place that Caralipio stated.
The guilt of the accused could not only be proved by direct evidence as it is not the only means to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The crime charged may also be proved by circumstantial evidence which, apparently, are present in this case and sufficient enough to establish beyond doubt that Caralipio is guilty of carnapping under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539.
Carnapping is defined under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Law, 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."
The elements of carnapping are: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. Essentially, carnapping is the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle. 22
In this case, the elements of carnapping are undeniably complete.
As regards De Vera, on the other hand, the Court agrees with the CA that there is no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that he ran away when Caralipio suddenly appeared and poked a gun at Aquino only proves his lack of intent to take part in the commission of the offense despite having been ordered to drive away the tricycle. His innocence is bolstered by the fact that he immediately and voluntarily went to the police station to report the incident. Moreover, there is nothing in the facts or in the records pointing that De Vera participated in the plan to commit the offense with Caralipio nor did he gain profit from such. Thus, as De Vera's guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, his acquittal is proper.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated September 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37958, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villio and Manuel M. Barrios concurring; rollo, pp. 33-56.
2.Id. at 87-98.
3.Id. at 87.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 88-89.
6.Id. at 89-91.
7.Id. at 39.
8.Id. at 40.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 37.
11.Id. at 38.
12.Id. at 92.
13.Id. at 87-98.
14.Id. at 98.
15.Id. at 55.
16.Id. at 61-65.
17.Id. at 59-60.
18.Sps. Miano v. Manila Electric Company, 800 Phil. 118, 119 (2016).
19. See Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167 (2016); Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225 (1990).
20.Id. at 182-183; id. at 232.
21.Id. at 45.
22.People of the Philippines v. Renato Cariño y Gocong and Alvin Aquino y Ragam, G.R. No. 232624, July 9, 2018.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "(3)" in the original document.