PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RYAN GONZALES Y VILLA, ANGELO GUEVARRA Y BUENO ALIAS “ELO”, ALVIN EUGENIO Y LACAY AND ROGELIO TALENS ALIAS “MONG”, ACCUSED-APP…

People versus Gonzales

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Ryan Gonzales, Angelo Guevarra, Alvin Eugenio, and Rogelio Talens for the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended. The victim was Benjamin Carlos Jr., a sixty-one-year-old tricycle driver who was found dead on the morning of September 8, 2007, his body bearing nineteen stab wounds and a bashed head, and whose tricycle was later found being dismantled and repainted in the possession of two of the accused. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the elements of carnapping, the test for the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, the proof of conspiracy by inference from conduct, the rule on unexplained possession of stolen effects, and the strict requirements of the defense of alibi.

Procedural History

The accused were charged by Information with carnapping with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 27. They pleaded not guilty, and after pre-trial and trial on the merits, the trial court convicted all four of carnapping with homicide, sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to pay the heirs of the victim death indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages, with interest. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction but modified the damages, increasing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in line with the ruling in People versus Jugueta. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court decided it in June 2019.

Facts

On the night of September 7, 2007, at around half past eleven, Benjamin Carlos Jr. was plying his route on the streets of Cabanatuan City, driving a red Suzuki tricycle with a sidecar registered in the name of his wife, Nena Carlos. A fellow tricycle driver, Melquiades Verde, saw three of the accused on board the victim's tricycle and the fourth, Angelo Guevarra, on board another tricycle, at about eleven to half past eleven that night. The following morning, Benjamin was found dead along Vergara Highway in Barangay Santa Arcadia, with nineteen stab wounds and a bashed head. The autopsy placed the time of death between eleven in the evening and midnight of September 7, and the medico-legal examiner testified that the number and location of the wounds suggested a commotion and two or more assailants.

On September 10, 2007, a civilian informant reported to the police that a tricycle fitting the description of the stolen one was being dismantled at Sitio Cantarilla in Barangay Valdefuente. Police officers proceeded to the place and caught Ryan Gonzales and Alvin Eugenio in the act of dismantling the tricycle and about to repaint the motorcycle. The two were immediately arrested.

For their part, Rogelio Talens claimed he was having a drinking session with friends at a waiting shed in Barangay Vijandre and went home around half past eleven, while Alvin Eugenio claimed he was with his parents in their house in Valdefuente at the time of the incident. The trial court and the appellate court both found the testimonies of Verde and of the arresting officer straightforward and credible, found no ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, and rejected the defenses of denial and alibi as inherently weak against the positive identification and the unexplained possession of the victim's tricycle.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide.
• Whether or not conspiracy among the accused was established.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi can prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses and the unexplained possession of the stolen tricycle.

Applicable Provisions

Republic Act Number 6539, the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines and penalizes carnapping, and the Court quotes its elements as follows:

That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.

These elements are the threshold the prosecution had to prove, and the Court found each of them established.

On the complex crime, the Court states the governing rule in these words:

For the crime to be considered a special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, it must be proven that the victim was killed in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.

This is the test that raises the killing to the special complex crime, and it required the prosecution to show that the carnapping was the original criminal intent and that the killing was done in the course of executing it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of carnapping were satisfactorily proved. The tricycle did not belong to the accused, as shown by the testimony that it was purchased on installment and registered in the name of the victim's wife. It was forcibly taken from Benjamin with intent to gain, as shown by Verde's eyewitness account of the accused flagging down the victim's tricycle at about the time of his death, and by the police finding the dismantled tricycle in the possession of Gonzales and Eugenio. The killing was committed on the occasion of the carnapping, so the special complex crime was established.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing that they acted with a common purpose and design. Where the evidence is consistent with one another, the only rational conclusion is that the accused killed their victim for the purpose of taking his vehicle for their own benefit.

On the third issue, the Court rejected denial and alibi as self-serving negative evidence that cannot outweigh the declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. It quoted its own teaching:

Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.

The Court also relied on the rule on unexplained possession of stolen effects, quoting the appellate court: in the absence of an explanation of how one came into possession of stolen effects belonging to a person wounded and treacherously killed, he must necessarily be considered the author of the aggression and death of that person and of the robbery committed on him. The accused failed to justify their possession of the victim's tricycle, which cast serious doubt on their defenses. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the modified damages, but upgraded the temperate damages from twenty-five thousand pesos to fifty thousand pesos in light of recent jurisprudence.

Doctrine

First, carnapping under the Anti-Carnapping Act requires four elements: actual taking of the vehicle, ownership by a person other than the offender, taking without the owner's consent or by violence, intimidation, or force upon things, and intent to gain.

Second, carnapping with homicide is a special complex crime, and it is not enough to prove the elements of carnapping; the prosecution must show that the killing was committed in the course of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof, and that the carnapping was the original criminal intent.

Third, conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, showing a common purpose and design.

Fourth, alibi prospers only if the accused proves he was elsewhere at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene; the least chance of presence defeats it.

Fifth, unexplained possession of stolen effects belonging to a person killed in the same event makes the possessor the author of the aggression and the taking.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of all four accused for carnapping with homicide, with the modification that they pay the heirs of Benjamin Carlos Jr. fifty thousand pesos as temperate damages instead of twenty-five thousand pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that carnapping with homicide requires proof that the victim was killed in the course of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof, and that the carnapping was the original criminal intent. Examiners use this case to test the elements of carnapping, the special complex crime rule, conspiracy by inference, and the strict requirements of alibi.