Soriano y Gelua v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243153. November 23, 2021.]

EDUARDSON SORIANO y GELUA @ "EDUARD," RODEL LEGASPI y TATEL @ "DOC," RODORA MIRANDA y GUTIERREZ @ "DORY," AND SALLY BOY SAN DIEGO y GARCIA @ "SALLY BOY"/"SONNY", petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 23, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243153 (Eduardson Soriano y Gelua @ "Eduard," Rodel Legaspi y Tatel @ "Doc," Rodora Miranda y Gutierrez @ "Dory," and Sally Boy San Diego y Garcia @ "Sally Boy"/"Sonny," petitioners, v. People of the Philippines, respondent).

This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, from the June 14, 2018 Decision 1 and November 6, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39146, which affirmed with modification the September 16, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 264 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 150110-SJ, finding herein petitioners guilty of the crime of carnapping.

Antecedents

Eduardson Soriano y Gelua (Eduardson), Rodel Legaspi y Tatel (Rodel), Rodora Miranda y Gutierrez (Rodora) and Sally Boy San Diego y Garcia (Sally Boy; collectively, petitioners) were charged with the crime of carnapping together with their co-accused Ariel Vicencio y Dizon (Ariel) and Gerry Soriano y Penollar (Gerry) in an Information dated January 3, 2013, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 29th day of December 2012, in the City of San Juan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with one alias "Bernard" whose identity and present whereabouts are still unknown, acting as an organized/syndicated crime group, with intent to gain and by means of violence or intimidation of persons. (sic) did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and criminally take, carnap and drive away a motor vehicle one (1) unit of Mitsubishi Montero Sport with Plate No. PIT-727, registered under the name of Lowell Hayno y Hamor, to the latter's damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

When arraigned, all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. A pre-trial conference was held, and trial ensued thereafter. CAIHTE

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented as witnesses, private complainants Lowell Hayno y Hamor (Lowell) and Almina Peralta Hayno (Almina), and Senior Police Officer II Roderick M. Baltazar (SPO2 Baltazar). The RTC summarized the presentation of prosecution's evidence, thus:

Private complainant Lowell H. Hayno is the registered owner of the subject Mitsubishi Montero, color black, model 2010, and with plate number PIT[-]727, as evidenced by the Certificate of Registration and Official Receipt of the motor vehicle.

Between 5:30 to 6:00 in the morning on December 29, 2012, Lowell, together with his brother PO2 Arturo Hayno (now deceased), arrived at his rented house at 303-C JV Alvior St., San Juan City, Metro Manila, on board the subject Mitsubishi Montero. After Lowell parked the vehicle at the garage, Arturo got [off] and led the dog outside to urinate and defecate.

While Lowell was about to enter their house, a man, later identified as herein accused Sally Boy San Diego y Garcia @ "Sally Boy" and "Sonny," suddenly grabbed his arm and poked a gun at his head. Sally Boy dragged Lowell to the living room; forced him to kneel down; took his wallet and shoulder bag and pulled his necklace. Then a second man, later identified as herein accused Eduardson Soriano y Gelua @ "Eduard," appeared from inside the house. Eduardson tied Lowell's hands.

Afterwards, Eduardson forced Lowell to stand up from the kneeling position and [led] him towards the kitchen area beside the bed of his mother. Lowell's mother was laying on her bed with her hands tied. Lowell was forced to lay down beside her. Sally Boy asked Lowell if there are persons upstairs, to which he responded that his wife (Almina Peralta Hayno) and his son were upstairs. Sally Boy immediately went upstairs. A few moments later, Lowell heard his wife screaming "Sino ka?[.]" Lowell shouted to his wife: "Huwag kang lumaban, huwag kang sumigaw."

Eduardson then took Lowell and his mother upstairs to the master's bedroom. Lowell begged not to hurt them and just take what they want. Subsequently, Arturo was also brought inside the room, his hands were also tied. Sally Boy and Eduardson opened the cabinets and closets and took [their] money, jewelries, watches and signature bags. Then a third man, later identified as herein accused Rodel Legaspi y Tatel @ "Doc" entered the room and joined the duo in ransacking the house.

At one point, Eduardson forcibly took Almina and forced her to go with him in the toilet located inside the master's bedroom. Almira (sic) screamed and Lowell pleaded to Sally Boy: "Pare, yon misis ko huwag nyo naman saktan." Sally Boy knocked on the toilet door. When Eduardson opened the door, Sally Boy said: "Sabi ni boss, huwag pakikialaman yan" and then he slapped Eduardson's head. Almira (sic) went out of the toilet and joined her family.

While ransacking the house, Sally Boy was continuously talking to someone through his cell phone. In one instance, Lowell overheard him say: "Sabi ni boss Ariel maraming pera ito bakit parang wala." After ransacking the house for about an hour, Sally Boy told Lowell that they will withdraw money from Lowell's bank as per instruction from their "boss." Lowell heard him said over his cell phone: "Boss sige boss" and afterwards, Sally Boy ordered his two companions: "O sabi ni boss ilabas na yan," referring to Lowell, his wife and his son because they are going to withdraw money from Lowell's bank account.

The men then brought Lowell, his wife and their son downstairs, where another man, called by the cohorts as "Bernard" was present. At gunpoint, Sally Boy and Eduardson forced them to board [Lowell's] black Mitsubishi Montero, with plate number PIT 727. Bernard was behind the wheels. Lowell was at the front passenger side. On the second row were Eduardson and Lowell's son and wife and on the third row were Sally Boy and Rodel. They left the house and upon reaching Shell Station at the corner of F. Blumentritt and Valenzuela Street, San Juan City, another man, later identified as herein accused Gerry Soriano y Penollar @ "Spankie" boarded the vehicle and sat beside Lowell.

They proceeded to Araneta Avenue. Along the way, Sally Boy talked again to his "boss" over his cell phone. Sally Boy then told his group that he will bring the loots to the "boss." He said: "O pinadadala na sa akin itong mga ito" referring to the loots that he was holding. Sally Boy and Rodel then got out of the vehicle and boarded a taxi with the loots, while the rest continued to travel along Araneta Avenue.

After a while, Eduardson talked on the phone then said: "kailangan magwithdraw ng isang million." Eduardson also asked Lowell: "O sabi ni boss, may baril ka raw?" Lowell responded: "Wala, baka yong sa utol ko." But, when Eduardson pointed his gun to Lowell's son, Lowell was forced to tell him that the gun was in a backseat pocket of the driver's seat. Eduardson searched the backseat pocket and found the gun of Lowell's brother, PO2 Arturo Hayno. Eduardson toyed with the gun, sometimes pointing it to Lowell's son and then tucked it on his waist.

After travelling for about an hour, they ended up at Ocean Park beside Quirino Grandstand, Manila. They stayed at Ocean Park for about an hour. Afterwards, they proceeded in front of the Quirino Grandstand where they met two (2) female, one of them was later identified as herein accused [Rodora] Miranda y Gutierrez @ "Dory," who brought and gave to them Lowell's personal identification card and passbook, which Lowell would be needing in withdrawing money from the bank. The said identification card and passbook were all inside Lowell's bag that was taken by Sally Boy when he got out of the vehicle along Araneta Avenue.

They then started travelling going to San Juan City. When they were near Araneta Avenue, along E. Rodriguez Avenue, Eduardson ordered Lowell and Gerry to get out of the vehicle and take a cab in going to Banco De Oro, F. Blumentritt, San Juan Branch to withdraw money from Lowell's bank account. Lowell and Gerry did get out of the vehicle but before that, Eduardson pointed the gun to Lowell's son threatening to kill him and his wife if Lowell will not cooperate. Bernard and Eduardson took Lowell's wife and son as hostage, using the Mitsubishi Montero as their vehicle.

At BDO F. Blumentritt, San Juan Branch, Lowell tried to withdraw One Million Pesos but he was able to withdraw only One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (Php175,000.00). When they got out of the bank, Lowell and Gerry boarded a taxi and proceeded towards SM Centerpoint, Manila. At the middle of the bridge along Araneta Avenue Extension, policemen intercepted the taxi and arrested Gerry. The policemen brought Gerry and Lowell at Camp Crame, Quezon City and then they proceeded to the Office of Anti Kidnapping Task Force. Lowell was able to elicit information from Gerry that their mastermind was herein accused Ariel Vicencio y Dizon @ Ariel, Lowell's friend and kumpare. Lowell asked Gerry personal questions about Ariel Vicencio and Gerry was able to answer them all.

The policemen interviewed Lowell and asked him to make a brief narrative statement of what had happened. At this point, Gerry was already very cooperative. When Gerry's cell phone rang and he was asked by one of the policemen: "Who is calling?," Gerry answered that it was Sally Boy. Upon instructions from the policemen, Gerry answered and told Sally Boy: "Nasa akin na pera." According to Gerry, he was instructed by Sally Boy to bring the money at SM Marilao.

Meanwhile, after Lowell and Gerry alighted from the subject Mitsubishi Montero, Bernard brought the vehicle and parked the same in front of Puregold at E. Rodriguez Avenue, near Quezon Institute. After some time, the vehicle resumed travelling, and then Eduardson said: "Okey na, nakuha na ang pera." When they reached Valenzuela City, Eduardson alighted from the vehicle. Bernard drove farther and then parked the vehicle in front of Puregold, Valenzuela. He turned off the engine, left the key and alighted from the vehicle.

After Bernard left, Almira (sic) carried her son, took the key and locked the vehicle. At a nearby internet cafe, she managed to call their household that they were already released and asked that they be fetched in Valenzuela. But when she and her son went out of the internet cafe, she felt fear and decided to take a taxi and go to their condominium unit in Quezon City.

At that time, policemen, together with Gerry and Lowell [were] travelling along EDSA going to SM Marilao where Gerry was supposed to give the ransom money to Sally Boy. While traversing EDSA, they received information through hand held radio that Lowell's wife and son have already been released because his wife called their household and said that they were at Puregold Valenzuela. Lowell instructed his friend Jun Caridad and SPO4 Paul Catalogo to fetch his wife and son. Lowell's group proceeded to SM Marilao via McArthur Highway. They passed by Puregold Valenzuela where they saw the subject Mitsubishi Motnero n already cordoned by the policemen. Along the way, Sally Boy instructed Gerry to proceed to Barko Restaurant located opposite SM Marilao. They passed by Barko Restaurant and went to a nearby gasoline station where the policemen planned their actions. Afterwards, they proceeded to Barko Restaurant where Sally Boy was arrested after Gerry handed to him the ransom money. They went back to the gasoline station where they asked questions to Sally Boy about Ariel Vicencio.

Then Ariel called Gerry and instructed the latter to bring the money to a "talyer." According to Gerry, he knows the "talyer" and they proceeded there. Upon reaching the "talyer," Ariel was not there. Gerry received another instruction from Ariel to proceed to Tapsi Restaurant. They proceeded to the said place. Upon reaching Tapsi Restaurant, they circled the place twice and saw Ariel's vehicle. Rodel was standing beside the vehicle. Inside the restaurant, Ariel was sitting beside Eduardson and Rodora.

The policemen then proceeded to a vacant lot where they planned their arrest of Ariel and his group. They went back to Tapsi Restaurant and after Gerry handed the ransom money to Ariel, the policemen effected the arrest of Ariel, Eduardson, Rodora and Rodel.

Because of the carnapping incident, Lowell and his family suffered fright, anxiety, sleepless nights especially his child who would sometimes wake up in the middle of the night and shout "Dapa Dapa."5

Evidence for the Defense

For their part, petitioners raised the defense of denial and alibi.

Eduardson testified that he is a tattoo artist, and on the morning of December 29, 2012, he was at the house of a client, Katherine Francia (Katherine). He claims that he was there working on her tattoo from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Afterwards, he stopped by a restaurant to eat, and while he was there, armed men barged in and ordered everyone to lay on their stomachs. Someone then stepped on his back and uttered: "positive, maraming tattoo ito." He was then brought to the San Juan Police Station. Eduardson claims that it was there that he saw Lowell for the first time, and that Lowell did not even seem to recognize him when they saw each other. He denied knowing any of his co-accused. 6

Katherine testified that she fetched Eduardson on the morning of December 29, 2012, and brought him to her place in Meycauayan, Bulacan, to work on her tattoo. She averred that Eduardson worked on her tattoo and never left the house from the time he got there until 5:00 p.m. 7 DETACa

Rodora denied any participation in the case, alleging that she was merely working as a waitress in a restaurant in Meycauayan, Bulacan, and she was taking the order of a customer who turned out to be Ariel. She denied knowing any of her co-accused, and claims to have been a victim of mistaken identity, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. She added that she could not have possibly handed a [passbook] on December 29, 2012, a Saturday, as banks are closed on Saturdays. 8

Rodel alleged that on December 29, 2012, at around 5:00 p.m., while he was on his way home to Malabon, he stopped by a loading station to buy load for his phone. Policemen then arrived, seized him by the nape, and made him lie on his stomach. Around five or six policemen arrested him, wrapped packaging tape around his face, and made him board a vehicle. He inquired why he was being arrested, and was informed that he was one of the people who entered and robbed Lowell's house, which he denied. He was seated beside someone in the vehicle, who he later came to learn was Sally Boy. While inside the vehicle, policemen asked if he knew Ariel. Rodel claims that at the San Juan Police Station, he was beaten by other inmates and forced to admit his association to Ariel. He denied knowing Ariel or any of his co-accused, whom he met only at the police station. 9

Sally Boy claims that he was engaged in the buying and selling of second-hand gadgets. In the early morning of December 29, 2012, he came home late from a drinking session, and slept until noon. After having lunch, he received a text message from a certain "Roel" regarding a client interested in buying and selling iPhones. At around 3:00 p.m., he waited at Barko Restaurant for the said potential client. After ordering something to eat and drink, armed men suddenly entered the restaurant and ordered everyone to lay on their stomachs. He was then forced to board a vehicle with a paper bag covering his head. Inside the vehicle with him were policemen and Gerry. Sally Boy admitted meeting Gerry once about a gadget, but said that they did not know each other well. He denied knowing anything about the case, and claimed that Gerry implicated him and the other co-accused so the charges against Gerry would be dropped. Sally Boy claimed hearing plans to make Gerry a state witness, but this was not allowed by the court. He alleged that the first time he saw Lowell was in the police station, and the latter did not even recognize him. He argues that if Lowell and Almina were confident of his involvement with the people who ransacked their house, then they would not have needed Gerry to implicate the people responsible. 10

For the failure of accused Ariel and his counsel to appear for trial despite notice, his right to present evidence was deemed waived.

On the other hand, Gerry testified that on the day before the incident, he, along with Eduardson, Rodel, Sally Boy, Rodora, and Ariel, were at the latter's house in Potrero, Malabon City because Ariel called for a meeting. Gerry claims that Ariel was the mastermind of the crime who directed the participation of each of the co-accused. Eduardson, Rodel, and Sally Boy were instructed by Ariel to enter, rob, and ransack Lowell's house. Sally Boy and Rodel were tasked to secure the things looted from the house and to bring them to Ariel. Ariel assigned Gerry to accompany Lowell to the bank to withdraw money. Rodora was designated to bring documents needed to make the withdrawal. Gerry was then supposed to bring the ransom money to Ariel, who would be waiting at Tapsi Restaurant in Meycauayan, Bulacan. 11

Gerry testified that the robbery went smoothly, but they became complacent and left Lowell's mother and brother behind. The latter eventually freed themselves and sought police assistance. While accompanying Lowell to the bank, their taxi was intercepted by the police at the bridge along Araneta Avenue. Gerry admitted that he was forced to cooperate with the police by delivering the ransom money to Ariel, who was later on arrested along with the other co-accused. 12

The RTC Ruling

The RTC found that the prosecution established all the elements of carnapping, as defined in Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539. The Mitsubishi Montero of Lowell was actually taken from him on December 29, 2012, without his consent, and there was intent to gain from the taking — the use of the said vehicle to transport hostages until Lowell gives them money.

On the culpability of the accused, the RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove that they acted in conspiracy with one another, in furtherance of their goal of extracting money from Lowell.

Lowell and Almina positively identified Eduardson, Rodel, and Sally Boy as the persons who, along with a certain Bernard, took their vehicle with threat to their lives. They likewise positively identified Rodora as one of the persons who gave Lowell his identification card and passbook to enable him to withdraw money from the bank. They also positively identified Gerry as the person who escorted Lowell when he withdrew money from the bank, and as the person to whom Lowell gave the ransom money to. More, Gerry was arrested while he was with Lowell after the withdrawal was made. Ariel instructed Gerry to deliver the ransom money to him (Ariel), and he was arrested after Gerry actually handed him the money. Eduardson, Rodel, and Rodora, who were with Ariel at the time, were also arrested.

The collective and individual acts of the accused demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. They are all liable as principals, as the act of one is the act of all.

The RTC gave full faith and credit to the testimonies of Lowell and Almina, who were not shown to have been actuated by any improper or ulterior motive to falsely testify against the accused. The positive and forthright declarations of the prosecution witnesses are more worthy of credit than the mere self-serving denials of the accused. Petitioners' defenses of alibi cannot prevail over such positive identification. The defense failed to show that it was physically impossible for the petitioners to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. aDSIHc

The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Court finds accused Ariel Vicencio y Dizon @ ["]Ariel" and "Coronel," Gerry Soriano y Penoliar n @ "Spunkie," Eduardson Soriano y Gelua @ "Eduard," Rodel Legaspi y Tatel @ "Doc," Rodora Miranda y Gutierrez @ "Dory" and Sally Boy San Diego y Garcia @ "Sally Boy" and "Sonny" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping and hereby sentences each of them to suffer the indeterminate prison term of Fourteen (14) Years and Eight (8) Months, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months, as maximum. All the accused are ordered to pay private complainant Lowell H. Hayno, jointly and severally, moral damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

SO ORDERED.13

Petitioners, together with Ariel, elevated the case to the CA, while Gerry no longer appealed his conviction.

The CA Ruling

Before the CA, petitioners alleged that the RTC erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and argued that it erred in finding that said witnesses positively identified them as the perpetrators of the crime. They further alleged that the RTC erred in admitting Gerry's confession.

The CA held that the petitioners were correctly charged and convicted of carnapping, and that the elements thereof were proven during trial.

Petitioners had alleged that the testimony of SPO2 Baltazar was inconsistent with the documentary evidence. SPO2 Baltazar testified that the identities of the perpetrators were already known to the San Juan Police Station by around 1:30 p.m. of December 29, 2012. However, based on the Memorandum dated December 29, 2012 of the Philippine National Police (PNP)-Valenzuela City, the armed men who barged inside Lowell's house were still unidentified as of 4:00 p.m. that same day.

The CA ruled that the difference in time as to when the perpetrators were identified by different police stations has no connection to whether or not the perpetrators were actually identified, as Lowell and Almina did, in fact, positively identify petitioners as the perpetrators of the crime. Furthermore, the CA found that, naturally, there would be a difference in the time as to when the perpetrators would be identified because two different police stations were involved.

The CA also gave no merit to petitioners' claim that Lowell and Almina's identification of their assailants was suspect. The CA held that the supposed discrepancies in their testimonies were clarified by them in open court. They positively identified petitioners as the perpetrators of the crime, and the CA found nothing in the record that would show that Lowell and Almina were actuated by any improper motive to testify falsely against petitioners.

Petitioners further argued that Gerry's extrajudicial confession was tainted with illegality, since he was not assisted by counsel at the time. The CA found little merit in the argument, as Gerry repeated his statements in open court. In any case, the RTC convicted petitioners not solely based on such admission, but also on the testimonies of Lowell, Almina, and SPO2 Baltazar, as well as documentary evidence.

Thus, the CA affirmed the conviction of petitioners for carnapping, with modification as to the penalty, finding that the crime was committed with intimidation of persons. It likewise adjusted the amount of damages awarded. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 16 September 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 264, Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 150110-SJ finding accused-appellants Ariel Vicencio y Dizon, Eduardson Soriano y Gelua, Rodel Legaspi y Tatel, Rodora Miranda y Gutierrez, and Sally Boy San Diego y Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1) Accused-appellants are SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months, as minimum to Twenty[-]Five (25) years, as maximum.

2) The amount of moral damages is REDUCED to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

3) An interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded to Lowell is likewise IMPOSED upon accused-appellants to be computed from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.14

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied by the CA in its November 6, 2018 Resolution, hence this appeal.

Issues

Petitioners present the following issues for resolution:

I.

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS DESPITE THE MATERIALLY INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND THEIR FAILURE TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE PETITIONERS AS PERPETRATORS[;]

II.

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF GERRY SORIANO'S CONFESSION, WHICH LED TO THE ILLEGAL ARREST AND ERRONEOUS CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS. 15

Petitioners point to the fact that Gerry and Lowell were allegedly intercepted by the police a little past 12:20 in the afternoon, after the pair had left the bank in San Juan. At around 1:30 p.m., police had already coordinated with the Anti-Kidnapping Task Force in Camp Crame. According to petitioners, this is contradicted by the Memorandum of PNP-Valenzuela City dated December 29, 2012, submitted as evidence by the prosecution itself, which states that the armed men who barged into the house of Lowell were still unidentified as of 4:00 p.m. of said date. Such glaring and material inconsistency erodes the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. ETHIDa

Petitioners also argue that their identification by Lowell and Almina is highly suspect, contrived, and merely derivative. Consider that their testimonies did not have much description of the physical appearance or features of the perpetrators who allegedly entered their house and took the vehicle, such as their height, complexion, clothing, voice, mannerisms, or gait. At one point, Almina even admitted on the witness stand that she did not see the felons, as it was only through Gerry that she learned who they were. Moreover, there was no picture of the room or house where the alleged robbery took place, as it would have corroborated the claim of the spouses that they saw the faces of the culprits. Petitioners further question why the other victims who were at the house failed to testify to substantiate their accounts.

Lastly, petitioners challenge the admissibility and credibility of Gerry's account. One, his extrajudicial confession was tainted with illegality since he was not assisted by counsel after he was arrested. While he executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay implicating petitioners on January 11, 2013, with the assistance of Atty. Prudencio Jalandoni (Atty. Jalandoni), there is nothing to show that such assistance was independent and competent. Nowhere in the affidavit did it categorically state that Atty. Jalandoni apprised Gerry of his rights. Furthermore, after admitting his complicity in the said affidavit with the assistance of Atty. Jalandoni, the latter still represented Gerry during trial to prove his defense of denial.

The People, represented herein by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counters that Lowell and Almina were able to positively identify petitioners as the perpetrators of the crime charged. Lowell explained that he was able to have a good look at the faces of the perpetrators during the commission of the crime, and that he even had conversations with some of them. On the witness stand Almina testified that she was able to actually see petitioners, and she, in fact, was able to positively identify them in open court.

On the admissibility of Gerry's testimony, the OSG points out that Gerry's extrajudicial admissions after his arrest were given in an ordinary manner. He freely and voluntarily cooperated with the authorities, and there is no showing that his admissions were extorted from him. In any case, his admissions were repeated in open court. Even if his extrajudicial admissions were to be deemed inadmissible, the totality of the remaining evidence would still be sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court's Ruling

The instant appeal is unmeritorious.

Whittled down to its core, the instant petition begs the Court to reassess the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, which is a question of fact. It should be noted that this appeal was brought before the Court by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review; the Court is not a trier of facts. 16 Although jurisprudence has provided several exceptions to this rule, such exceptions must be alleged, substantiated and proved by the parties so that the Court may effectively evaluate and review the factual issues raised. 17 Petitioners allege that the trial court overlooked some facts of weight and substance, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case. We disagree, and do not find that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied any facts or circumstances that would have resulted in a different verdict.

With regard to the circumstance that PNP-Valenzuela City noted that the perpetrators were still unidentified as of 4:00 p.m. on December 29, 2012, this is not inconsistent with the narrative of the prosecution that petitioners had already been earlier identified, at around 1:30 p.m. It will be recalled that Gerry gave the names of his co-accused to SPO2 Baltazar and members of the San Juan Police. Thus, as the CA noted, the difference in time as to when the perpetrators were identified is but natural, considering that two different police stations were involved. At its worst, this circumstance merely illustrates inefficiency in communication between two separate police stations. However, this does not discredit SPO2 Baltazar's testimony regarding the circumstances under which the identities of the petitioners were initially made known to him.

As to the admissibility of Gerry's extrajudicial admission, it is unnecessary for the Court to belabor the point. After admitting his participation in the crime immediately after he was apprehended, and in his Sinumpaang Salaysay, Gerry did not change his story during trial. His affirmation of his participation, and his narration on the witness stand, converted his extrajudicial admissions into judicial admissions.

It appears that he attempted to absolve himself, or at least sought leniency from the court, by trying to portray himself as someone who was merely compelled to go along with the criminal plan. Whether or not such strategy was sound is not a matter for the Court to dwell. We find no inconsistency in his legal defense and no basis to support petitioners' claim that the assistance rendered to him by Atty. Jalandoni was wanting. Petitioners failed to establish any ground to doubt the admissibility or credibility of Gerry's testimony. cSEDTC

Carnapping is defined in Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 6539 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, thus: (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. 18

Here, the evidence sufficiently established all the elements of the offense. Lowell's Mitsubishi Montero with plate number PIT-727 was taken from him without his consent and by means of force and intimidation. It was driven by a certain Bernard, while petitioners Eduardson, Rodel, and Sally Boy threatened the lives of Lowell, Almina, and their son at gunpoint. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender, and is presumed from the proven unlawful taking. 19 It is evident from the taking of possession of personal property belonging to another and using it, since the offender derives utility therefrom. 20 Here, petitioners took possession of the vehicle and used it to transport and detain their victims while attempting to rob them.

The lower courts likewise correctly found that there was conspiracy among petitioners. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. 21 Even discounting Gerry's testimony that they had all participated in and executed the plan devised by Ariel, the acts of the petitioners clearly show their concurrence with the use of the subject motor vehicle to advance their scheme of robbing and extorting money from Lowell.

Penalty

R.A. No. 6539, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 prescribes:

SEC. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. — Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished x x x by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things x x x.

R.A. No. 6539 was again amended by R.A. No. 10883, also known as the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016. The crime of carnapping committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things, is substantially the same in both laws, but with modification as to the imposable penalty. Since R.A. No. 10883 was enacted subsequent to the commission of the crime and prescribes a more severe penalty, its provisions are not favorable to petitioners herein and will not be made to apply to them retroactively. Thus, the CA imposed the correct penalty on petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The June 14, 2018 Decision and November 6, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39146 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Accused Ariel Vicencio y Dizon, Gerry Soriano y Penollar, Eduardson Soriano y Gelua, Rodel Legaspi y Tatel, Rodora Miranda y Gutierrez, and Sally Boy San Diego y Garcia are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping and are each SENTENCED to suffer indeterminate imprisonment of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as minimum to twenty-five (25) years, as maximum.

All the accused are ORDERED to PAY private complainant Lowell H. Hayno, jointly and severally, moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded, to be computed from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J.,on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 47-75; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.

2.Id. at 77-78-A.

3.Id. at 108-123; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Genie G. Gapas-Agbada.

4.Id. at 48.

5.Id. at 109-113 (citations omitted).

6.Id. at 56-57.

7.Id. at 57.

8.Id. at 56.

9.Id. at 58.

10.Id. at 57-58.

11.Id. at 58-59.

12.Id. at 59.

13.Id. at 123.

14.Id. at 74.

15.Id. at 24-25.

16.Calaoagan v. People, G.R. No. 222974, March 20, 2019, 898 SCRA 25, 35.

17.Denila v. Republic, G.R. No. 206077, July 15, 2020.

18.Silver v. Judge Daray, G.R. No. 219157, August 14, 2019.

19.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 237982, October 14, 2020.

20. See Villacorta v. The Insurance Commission, 188 Phil. 497, 503 (1980).

21.People v. Macaranas, 811 Phil. 610, 623 (2017).

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.