FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242874. April 1, 2019.]
RICHARD ESTUYE y BRUZO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 1, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242874 — Richard Estuye y Bruzo, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
Acting on petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari praying for an additional thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on November 20, 2018 or until December 20, 2018 within which to file his petition, the Court resolves to GRANT the same.
After a thorough review of the allegations, issues, and arguments raised in the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising factual issues; and (2) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its April 18, 2018 Decision and October 19, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 38379.
Basic is the rule in this jurisdiction that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the CA is limited to reviewing errors of law, the findings of facts of the appellate court being conclusive. This Court does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case and already considered in the proceedings therein. It is well-settled principle that this Court is not a trier of facts. 1
Petitioner's arguments that Ejay Oriel was not the registered owner of the subject motorcycle at the time it was stolen and that he was not positively identified as the carnapper essentially relate to factual matters which are not reviewable under the aforesaid rule. As aptly noted by the CA, viz.: CAIHTE
x x x Ejay is the rightful owner of the stolen motorcycle because he has legal title over it. The unregistered Deed of Sale between the seller Percival Bernardo and Ejay Oriel and the subsequent delivery of the motorcycle to the latter already transferred the ownership to the buyer because in a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold. x x x. 2
Regarding petitioner's positive identification, the CA held that:
x x x However, such contention is miniscule and can be disregarded for Jerome unmistakably and categorically pointed to the appellant as the culprit in his direct and re-direct examinations. In fact, Jerome even mentioned that appellant turned to face him while the latter was bringing the motorcycle out of Ejay's house. 3
In any event, even if we relax the rules and evaluate petitioner's arguments on the merits, still the petition must fail.
Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things. Its elements are: (1) there is an actual taking of the vehicle; (2) the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle; (3) the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; and (4) the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof or it was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things. 4
The trial court and the CA correctly ruled that these elements were established in this case. The existence of the motor vehicle and its ownership was duly proven through the Deed of Sale. Intent to gain on the part of the petitioner was presumed from the moment he took away the vehicle without the consent of the owner. Respecting petitioner's alibi, the same was rightly brushed aside in view of his positive identification and his physical impossibility to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission.
The CA correctly affirmed the trial court in imposing the penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum. Likewise, the CA properly modified the trial court's decision by imposing nominal damages in the amount of P15,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from finality of the judgment until fully paid pursuant to established jurisprudence. 5
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision dated April 18, 2018 and Resolution dated October 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38379. DETACa
SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., no part; Reyes, Jr., A., J., designated member per Raffle dated February 27, 2019; Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.De Leon vs. De Leon-Reyes, 785 Phil. 832, 842 (2016).
2. CA Decision, p. 9.
3.Id. at 15.
4.People vs. Arcenal, G.R. No. 216012, March 27, 2017, 821 SCRA 549, 559.
5.People vs. Fieldad, 737 Phil. 455, 484 (2014).