SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252707. September 30, 2020.]
ROLANDO OLIVA y OCATE, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252707 (Rolando Oliva y Ocate v. People of the Philippines). — The Court NOTES the Manifestation (with attached Petition for Review on Certiorari) dated August 27, 2020 of counsel for petitioner Rolando Oliva y Ocate (petitioner), stating that pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 43A-2020 dated August 3, 2020 (Re: Addendum to Administrative Circular No. 43-2020) suspending the reglementary periods for filing of petitions, appeals, motions, and other court submissions from August 4 to 18, 2020, the instant petition is filed within the extended period granted by the Court.
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 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 60, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Carnapping, punishable under Republic Act No. (RA) 6539, 2 otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.
Petitioner ascribes error on the CA and the RTC in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness and for not giving weight to his defense of denial and alibi.
In this case, the Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements 3 of carnapping: (1) Felino Santos (Santos) is the registered owner of a Toyota Innova 2.5 J Diesel, with Plate Number NOT 692, Chassis Number KUN405035359, Engine Number 2KD6472596; (2) the vehicle was taken by petitioner without the consent of complainant; and (3) petitioner intended to gain from the unlawful taking of the vehicle. The positive and straightforward testimony of prosecution witness prevails over the testimony of petitioner, who merely denied the accusation against him.
This Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witness[es], 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 witness[es]. 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. 4 Based on the foregoing considerations, We find no reason nor justification to reverse the findings and the conclusions of the trial court and the CA that Santos' identification of petitioner as the author of the crime to be positive and conclusive.
As regards petitioner's defense of denial and alibi, the Court finds them inadequate to support his acquittal. Time and again, the Court has consistently ruled that a denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the assailants made by a credible witness. In fact, a denial is often viewed with disfavor especially if it is uncorroborated. Also, an alibi will only prosper, if the accused can show that it was physically impossible for him/her to be at the scene of the crime. Thus, as between the categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on the one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 5
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision 6 dated July 12, 2019 and the Resolution 7 dated June 10, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41508 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERSITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Presiding Judge Eda P. Dizon-Era; rollo, pp. 52-55.
2. Entitled "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING" (August 26, 1972).
3. The elements of carnapping are: (i) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (ii) 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 (iii) the taking is done with intent to gain. Essentially, carnapping is the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle. (People v. Bustinera, 475 Phil. 190, 203 (2004]).
4.People v. Macaranas, 811 Phil. 610, 621-622 (2017).
5.People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 232624, July 9, 2018.
6. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-37.
7. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring; id. at 40-41.