People v Cariño
GR No. 232624, July 9, 2018
Reyes, Jr., J
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crimes of Robbery with Homicide, and Carnapping
Ruling:
Yes.
The accused-appellants are also
Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt
for the Crime of Simple Carnapping
Carnapping is defined and penalized under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, 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."
Notably, 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.
Significantly, the taking of the motor vehicle is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. The intent to gain or the animus lucrandi, being an internal act, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Notably, " [a]ctual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain." Likewise, the term gain is not limited to a pecuniary benefit, but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent already constitutes gain.
In the case at bar, the prosecution proved the existence of all the elements of carnapping beyond reasonable doubt. The Nissan Sentra, which was owned by Moeller, was stolen by the accused-appellants from the victim's house, and brought to Isabela. To eradicate all traces of its previous ownership, the accused-appellants even changed the vehicle's plate number. However, despite their attempt to conceal their crime, the police discovered that the retrieved vehicle bore the same engine and chassis number as the victim's stolen vehicle.
Likewise, the police found the stolen vehicle in Isabela, no less from the information supplanted by Cariño himself. Certainly, Cariño's knowledge about the vehicle's exact location shows his complicity in its taking. Added to this, Cariño was in possession of the car keys, which he surrendered to the police.
Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt
for the Crime of Simple Carnapping
Carnapping is defined and penalized under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, 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."
Notably, 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.
Significantly, the taking of the motor vehicle is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. The intent to gain or the animus lucrandi, being an internal act, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Notably, " [a]ctual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain." Likewise, the term gain is not limited to a pecuniary benefit, but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent already constitutes gain.
In the case at bar, the prosecution proved the existence of all the elements of carnapping beyond reasonable doubt. The Nissan Sentra, which was owned by Moeller, was stolen by the accused-appellants from the victim's house, and brought to Isabela. To eradicate all traces of its previous ownership, the accused-appellants even changed the vehicle's plate number. However, despite their attempt to conceal their crime, the police discovered that the retrieved vehicle bore the same engine and chassis number as the victim's stolen vehicle.
Likewise, the police found the stolen vehicle in Isabela, no less from the information supplanted by Cariño himself. Certainly, Cariño's knowledge about the vehicle's exact location shows his complicity in its taking. Added to this, Cariño was in possession of the car keys, which he surrendered to the police.
Aggravating Circumstance Not Alleged
in the Information while Proved in the
Course of Trial cannot be Appreciated
in the Information while Proved in the
Course of Trial cannot be Appreciated
It must be noted that the Information charging the accused-appellants with carnapping under R.A. No. 6539, as amended, failed to allege that the carnapping was committed by means of violence against, or intimidation of, any person, or force upon things. While these circumstances were proven at the trial, they cannot be appreciated because they were not alleged in the Information. Hence, pursuant to the strict constitutional mandate that an accused must always be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him, the accused-appellants may only be convicted of simple carnapping.
