FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242144. January 16, 2019.]
JOHMAR JAVINIAR Y LORENZO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242144 (Johmar Javiniar y Lorenzo v. People of the Philippines). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to establish that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision of Branch 275, Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping, punishable under Republic Act (RA) No. 6539, 1 as amended by RA No. 7659.
Petitioner ascribes error on the CA's and the trial court's finding that petitioner was the one who took the vehicle, for having been based on "mere purported possession of the same by the latter." 2 He also points out the failure of the prosecution to present James Tagle (Tagle), the person who identified him as having possession of the stolen vehicle, as a witness.
Petitioner's denial and alibi cannot outweigh the positive and categorical testimony of the prosecution witness which proves his possession of the stolen vehicle mere minutes after it was reported stolen and the circumstance by which the stolen vehicle turned up at the location where it was found. Further, based on the records, the prosecution was able to adequately establish that petitioner indeed committed the crime even without the testimony of Tagle. Thus:
x x x [R]equisites as would warrant [petitioner's] conviction through circumstantial evidence have been dutifully met in this case. The testimonies of the witnesses interweave to establish [petitioner's] culpability in the unlawful taking of [private complainant's] vehicle. The reasonable sequence of events, from the identification of [petitioner] to his role in the discovery of [private complainant's] vehicle, sufficiently proved that [petitioner] is guilty of the crime of carnapping. 3
Consequently, no error was committed by the CA and the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 23, 2018 and Resolution dated September 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38737 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.
2.Rollo, p. 19.
3.Id. at 39.