P.D. NO.

1612 – ANTI-FENCING

Dizon-Pamintuan vs People (PARANAQUE, MNL)

G.R. No. 111426; July 11, 1994
Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law), is "the act of any
person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in
any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft."

The crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the other, are
separate and distinct offenses.

The state may thus choose to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code or
P.D. No. 1612, although the preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering
that fencing is a malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of
fencing and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.

The elements of the crime of fencing are:

1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the

commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or
anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the
said crime;

3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article,
item, object or anything of value has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and

4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or
for another.

Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact.

The Court must determine such knowledge with care from the overt acts of that
person. And given two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the
court should choose the one which sustains the constitutional presumption of
innocence.
Facts:
Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary, DPWH testified that when he arrived at his
residence, he immediately proceeded inside the house, leaving behind his driver and
two housemaids outside to pick-up his personal belongings from his case.
It was at this point that five unidentified masked armed persons appeared from the
grassy portion of the lot beside the house and poked their guns to his driver and two
helpers and dragged them inside his house. They were made to lie face down on the
floor and thereafter, the robbers ransacked the house and took away jewelries and
other personal properties including cash.
After the intruders left the house he reported the matter immediately to the police. He
was later told that some of the lost items were in Chinatown area as tipped by the
informer the police and an entrapment was made with their participation.
He and his wife posed as a buyer and were able to recognize items of the jewelry stolen
displayed at the stall being tended by Norma Dizon Pamintuan.
The trial court held that the prosecution was able to prove by evidence that the
recovered items were part of the loot and such recovered items belong to the spouses
Encarnacion, the herein private complainants. That the recovered items were found in
the possession of the accused and she was not able to rebut the presumption though
the evidence for the defense alleged that the stall is owned by one Fredo. The CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court but set aside the penalty imposed.
Issue: WON the accused knew or should have known that the items recovered from her
were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
Held:
Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law), is "the act of any
person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in
any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft."
The accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted as such under the
RPC or under P.D. No. 1612. However, in the latter case, he ceases to be a mere
accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. The state may thus choose
to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code or P.D. No. 1612, although the
preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is
a malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing 14 and
prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property. 15
The elements of the crime of fencing are:
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the
crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
 sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item,
object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said
crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft; and
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

In the instant case, there is no doubt that the first, second, and fourth elements were
duly established. A robbery was committed on 12 February 1988 in the house of the
private complainants who afterwards reported the incident to the authorities and
submitted a list of the lost items and sketches of the jewelry that were later displayed for
sale at a stall tended to by the petitioner in Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
The public display of the articles for sale clearly manifested an intent to gain on the part
of the petitioner.
Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that "[m]ere possession of any
good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing," it follows that the petitioner is
presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the
proceeds of robbery or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or
logical inference can arise from the established fact of her possession of the proceeds
of the crime of robbery or theft. This presumption does not offend the presumption of
innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.
The petitioner was unable to rebut the presumption under P.D. No. 1612. She relied
solely on the testimony of her brother which was insufficient to overcome the
presumption, and, on the contrary, even disclosed that the petitioner was engaged in
the purchase and sale of jewelry and that she used to buy from a certain Fredo.23
Fredo was not presented as a witness and it was not established that he was a licensed
dealer or supplier of jewelry. Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 provides that "all stores,
establishments or entitles dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article, item, object or
anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before
offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from
the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such
store, establishment or entity is located." Under the Rules and
Regulations 24 promulgated to carry out the provisions of Section 6, an unlicensed
dealer/supplier refers to any person, partnership, firm, corporation, association or any
other entity or establishment not licensed by the government to engage in the business
of dealing in or supplying "used secondhand articles," which refers to any good, article,
item, object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier,
regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been used.
 Mariano Lim vs People (DAVAO)

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove the first and third essential element of
the crime charged in the information. Thus, petitioner should be acquitted due to
insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt.

Theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code has been defined as the taking of
someone's property without the owner's consent, for his personal gain, and
without committing any violence against or intimidation of persons or force, upon
things.
The elements of theft are:
(1) that there be taking of personal property;
(2) that said property belongs to another;
(3) that the taking be done with intent to gain;
(4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
(5) that the taking be accomplished without the Use of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things.
FACTS:

 RTC Branch 8 in Davao City, convicting petitioner Mariano Lim (Lim) for
violating Presidential Decree No. 1612 (PD 1612), otherwise known as the Anti-
Fencing Law of 1979.
 CA which affirmed the Decision of RTC
Facts:
 An Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.

Version of the Prosecution

 The prosecution presented two witnesses:
(1) Engr. Herminio Gulmatico, the project engineer of the Second Rural Road
Improvement Project (SRRIP) PMO-DPWH of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat; and
(2) SPO4 Alfredo T. Santillana.

 The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were summarized by the trial court, as
follows:
SPO4; Santillana testified that:
i. Sometime in January 1997, he was an investigator of the theft and robbery
section of Police Precinct No. 3, Talomo, Davao City;
ii. In the afternoon of January 31, 1997, Engr. Herminio Gulmatico went to his
office to seek assistance in the recovery of a Komatsu Road Grader bearing
Engine Serial Number 6D951-55 845 and Chassis No. GD-51R-100[0]49;
iii. He was informed by Gulmatico that said heavy equipment could be found at
Basco Metal Metal (sic) Supply along Me Arthur Highway, Davao City;
iv. This information was caused to be verified by the station commander of said
Police Precinct and after finding out that it was accurate, a search warrant
was applied for; and
v. The search warrant was served on Basco Metal Supply where the
aforedescribed heavy equipment was found.

Engr. Gulmatico for his part testified that:

i. He is the project engineer of the [SRRIP] PMO-DPWH of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat;
ii. On July 1, 1996, he received from Engineer Ireneo Veracion, the former project
engineer, the aforesaid heavy equipment;
iii. Sometime in June of 1997 the heavy equipment was in the Facoma Compound
in Norala, South Cotabato undergoing repairs;
iv. Around the third week of January, ; 1997, he was. informed that the heavy
equipment was removed from that n compound by-Petronilo Banosing;
v. He was also told that the heavy equipment was loaded on a ten wheeler truck
and brought to DaVao City particularly at Km. 3 Me Arthur Highway;
vi. Armed with this information tie proceeded to Davao City and sought the
assistance of Talomo Police Precinct;
vii. The consequent search warrant applied for by the police officers of that precinct
was served on Basco Metal Supply where the heavy equipment was found

Version of the Defense

 On the other hand, petitioner was presented as the sole witness for the defense.
 The trial court summarized petitioner's testimony, to wit:
 rAccused Mariano Lim did not present testimonial evidence other than his
and testified, thus:
i. He bought the heavy equipment from Petronilo Banosing for Four Hundred
Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos;
ii. Banosing showed him a Certificate of Ownership that stated that the heavy
equipment is his; and,
iii. He checked with the DPWH in Manila and found out that the subject heavy
equipment is not included in the inventory of equipment of the DPWH.
RTC’s ruling
 The RTC found Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of fencing
under PD 1612
 Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the case to the CA.

CA’s ruling
 On July 30, 2013, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision upholding me
findings of the trial court
 Petitioner filed a MR but the CA denied the same in the assailed Resolution, ruling
that the arguments raised had already been considered and thoroughly discussed in
the assailed Decision.
 Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the elements of the crime of fencing were established by the
prosecution

RULING:

No, it failed to prove the FIRST and THIRD element of the crime.

In the present case, the trial court relied heavily on the testimony of Engr. Gulmatico in
finding that all elements of fencing exist.

After a careful and thorough review of the records, we are convinced that the trial court
erred in convicting herein petitioner.

 ON THE FIRST ELEMENT, we find that the prosecution failed to establish that
theft had been committed.
 While the CA correctly ruled that conviction of the principal in the crime of theft is not
necessary for an accused to be found guilty of the crime of fencing, we disagree
with its ruling that the prosecution sufficiently proved the DPWH's ownership
of the Komatsu Grader.
 Except for his statement that the subject' grader was procured by his office,
Engr. Gulmatico failed to establish his or his office's ownership over the
subject grader. (
 Nowhere in the Memorandum Receipt does it state that the subject grader is
owned by the DPWH.
 The prosecution's failure to present a sufficient proof of ownership of the
grader despite the many opportunities it had to do so places doubt on the
DPWH's claim of ownership.
 Thus, it cannot be said that the first element of fencing had been established.

 In fact, the prosecution even failed to conclusively establish that the grader
had been stolen. Engr. Gulmatico's testimony on the alleged act of theft should not
be given any weight considering that he had no personal knowledge of the actual
theft.
 Most, if not his entire testimony, consisted of hearsay evidence as he relied mostly
on the information given to him by various persons.
 Consequently, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative
value unless it is shown that the evidence falls within any of the exceptions to the
hearsay rule as provided in the Rules of Court

THIRD ELEMENT IS MISSING

 THIRD ELEMENT OF FENCING is wanting in this case.
 The trial court ruled that petitioner should not have relied upon the Certificate
of Ownership presented by Banosing as it is self-serving.
 Instead, petitioner should have secured a clearance or permit from the police,
in compliance with Sec. 6 of PD 1612.
 The CA WAS WRONG in placing the burden on petitioner
 On the presumption that fencing had been committed as provided by Sec. 5 of
PD 1612, we rule that petitioner was able to overcome the same upon his
presentation of the Affidavit of Ownership which he secured from, Petronilo
Banosing.
 Both the RTC and the CA failed to consider that the Affidavit of Ownership
given by Petronilo Banosing to petitioner was a DULY NOTARIZED DOCUMENT
which, by virtue of its notarization, enjoys a presumption of regularity,
 To overcome the presumption of regularity of notarized documents, it is necessary
to contradict it with "evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant."
 Contrary to respondent's assertion, the ownership of the subject grader was not
conclusively established by the prosecution
 As earlier stated, Engr. Gulmatico was unable to confirm its ownership in his
testimony.
 Further, the Memorandum Receipt also failed to establish this.
 The trial court also erred in applying Sec. 6 of PD 1612 to the present case:
 While one who is in possession of the proceeds of robbery or theft is
presumed to have knowledge of the fact that said items were Stolen or (sic) PD
1612 provides a safeguard or a protection for a would be buyer of second hand
articles.
 It appears that both the RTC and the CA ruled that petitioner should have first
secured a Clearance or a permit from the police, in compliance with Sec. 6 of PD
1612.

 Clearly, the clearance stated in Sec. 6 of PD 1612 is only required if several

conditions, are met: 
 first, that the person, store, establishment or entity is in the business of
buying and selling of any good, articles item object, or anything of value; 
 second, that such thing of value was obtained from an unlicensed dealer
or supplier thereof; and 
 third, that such thing of value is to be offered for sale to the public.

The fact that the subject grader was not intended to be sold to the public is even
further bolstered by the prosecution's witnesses' discovery that the grader was found
in several pieces and in different locations within petitioner's compound

 Furthermore, requiring petitioner to secure the police certification is an act of

futility considering that at the time when the subject grader was being offered
to petitioner, no police report of the alleged theft has yet been made.

CONCLUSION
 From the foregoing, we find that the CA erred in affirming the trial court's findings
and in convicting herein petitioner. It is necessary to remember that in all criminal
prosecutions, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
 It has the duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the
information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime.
 Furthermore, the information must correctly reflect the charges against the accused
before any conviction may be made.
 In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove the first and third essential
element of the crime charged in the information.
 Thus, petitioner should be acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence and
reasonable doubt.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 30, 2013 and the Resolution
dated February 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00740-MIN,
affirming the Decision dated February 17, 2009 issued by the Regional Trial Court of
Davao City, Branch 8, which found petitioner Mariano Lim guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing
Law of 1979, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Mariano Lim is
hereby ACQUITTED based on insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt.
 R.A. NO. 10833 – ANTI-CARNAPPING

PEOPLE VS RENATO LAGAT (SANTIAGO CITY)

"Carnapping" is 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 as defined and penalized under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (REPEALED) are the
following:

1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;

3. 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

4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.

Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual
gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term "gain" is not merely limited to 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 constitutes gain.

Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be
established by inference. Such evidence is founded on experience and observed facts and coincidences establishing
a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved.

To justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in
such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. (Moral Certainty)

When a person is killed or raped in the course of or on the occasion of the carnapping, the crime of carnapping is
qualified and the penalty is increased pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6539 (REPEALED, now Sectiuon
3, RA. 10883 – Penalty: LIFE IMPRISONMENT)

RECLUSIÓN PERPETUA (20 TO 40 YEARS) is prescribed on crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code,
while LIFE IMPRISONMENT (INDEFINITE DURATION) is imposed on offenses punishable by Special Laws.
Reclusión perpetua carries the accessory penalty in which, as defined by Philippine Law, the prisoner is barred for life
from holding political office.
FACTS:
 Information: Accused-appellants Lagat and Palalay were charged with the crime of
Carnapping as defined under Section 2 and penalized under Section 14 3 of Republic
Act No. 6539.
 Both accused proposed to plead guilty to a lesser offense of the crime of Homicide
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and that the mitigating circumstances of
plea of guilty and/or no intention to commit so grave a wrong. This proposal was
rejected by the prosecution.
 PROSECUTION:
 The victim Jose Biag was a farmer, a barangay tanod, and a tricycle driver. Around
two o'clock in the morning, he left to operate his tricycle for public use. News reached
his wife that their tricycle was with the PNP of the Municipality of Alicia and that Jose
Biag had figured in an accident.
 The victim’s tricycle was used in stealing palay from a store in Angadanan, Isabela
that belonged to a certain Jimmy Esteban (Esteban). Jose Biag was killed and dumped
along the Angadanan and San Guillermo Road. The Report showed that Biag was likely
killed between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. of April 12, 2004, and that he had sustained
three stab wounds, an incise wound, two hack wounds and an "avulsion of the skin
extending towards the abdomen."
 The police received a report from Esteban that the cavans of palay stolen from him
were seen at Alice Palay Buying Station in Alicia, Isabela, in a tricycle commandeered
by two unidentified male persons. At Alice Palay Buying Station, they saw the tricycle
with the cavans of palay, and the two accused, Lagat and Palalay. PO2 Salvador
averred that he and his team were about to approach the tricycle when the two accused
"scampered" to different directions. After "collaring" the two accused, they brought them
to the Alicia PNP Station together with the tricycle and its contents.
 PO2 Ignacio admitted that while the police informed Lagat and Palalay of their
constitutional rights, the two were never assisted by counsel at any time during the
custodial investigation.
 DEFENSE:
 After the prosecution rested its case, the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss on
Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court on the ground that the prosecution failed to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 Lagat and Palalay averred that their constitutional rights on custodial investigation
were grossly violated as they were interrogated for hours without counsel, relatives, or
any disinterested third person to assist them. Moreover, the admissions they allegedly
made were not supported by documentary evidence. Palalay further claimed that
Rumbaoa's testimony showed that he had a "swelling above his right eye" and "a knife
wound in his left arm," which suggests that he was maltreated while under police
custody.  As the accused filed their Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court, they
in effect waived their right to present evidence, and submitted the case for judgment on
the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. G.R. No. 187044 People v. Lagat y
Gawan September 14, 2011
 RTC:
The RTC convicted Lagat and Palalay of the crime of Qualified Carnapping. It was
qualified by the killing of Biag, which, according to the RTC, appeared to have been
done in the course of the carnapping.
 The RTC agreed with the accused that their rights were violated during their custodial
investigation as they had no counsel to assist them. Thus, whatever admissions they
had made, whether voluntarily or not, could not be used against them and were
inadmissible in evidence.
 However, the RTC held that despite the absence of an eyewitness, the prosecution
was able to establish enough circumstantial evidence to prove that Lagat and Palalay
committed the crime.
 CA:
Affirmed the conviction of the accused. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court gravely
erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged despite failure of the
prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
 SC:
Affirmed the decision of CA. The two accused are found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED CARNAPPING
 "Carnapping" is 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 records of this case show that all the
elements of carnapping are present and were proven during trial. The elements of
carnapping as defined and penalized under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972
(REPEALED) are the following:
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
3. 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
4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.
 Their unexplained possession raises the presumption that they were responsible for
the unlawful taking of the tricycle.
 In Litton Mills, Inc. v. Sales, the SC said that for such presumption to arise, it must be
proven that:
(a) the property was stolen;
(b) it was committed recently;
(c) that the stolen property was found in the possession of the accused; and
(d) the accused is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily. All these were proven
by the prosecution during trial. Thus, it is presumed that Lagat and Palalay had
unlawfully taken Biag's tricycle.
 Lagat and Palalay's intent to gain from the carnapped tricycle was also proven as
they were caught in a palay buying station, on board the stolen tricycle, which they
obviously used to transport the cavans of palay they had stolen and were going to sell
at the station.
 When a person is killed or raped in the course of or on the occasion of the
carnapping, the crime of carnapping is qualified and the penalty is increased pursuant to
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6539.
 PEOPLE VS ENRILE DONIO (ANGELES CITY)
People vs. Enrile Donio Y Untalan
GR No. 212815
March 1, 2017

FACTS:

Accused-Appellant Donio together with his two co-accused were charged of carnapping
with homicide. Donio assisted by counsel de officio pleaded not guilty when arraigned
while his two co-accused were at-large.
   
Trial on the merits proceeded.

One of the witnesses for the prosecution is a police officer who in line with their duties
and functions, conducting a checkpoint  on November 26,2003 were implementing their
campaign against hijacking, carnapping  and kidnapping along McArthur Highway.

When a speeding tricycle abruptly stop near the check point which caught the attention
of the police officers. They approached the vehicle and asked the identity of the driver,
and the driver handed over to the Police Officer a temporary license bearing the name
Raul Layug which he likewise identified himself as Raul Layug but later identified as
Enrile Donio. When asked by the Police Officers, Donio and his two companions to
produce the Certificate of Legislation and official receipt of the vehicle, they failed to do
so and were asked to bring the tricycle to the check point.
   
Upon visual search, the police officers discovered a bloodstained mini jungle bolo
inside. The motorcycle and the bolo were seized by the policeman and brought the
three to the police station.
   
While in the police station, Donio was allowed to leave when he asked permission to get
the OR and CR of the vehicle,but never returned.
   
 Meanwhile, in the morning of the same date, November 26, 2003, Rodrigo, the brother
of Raul Layug was searching for him, the victim , who have not returned home since last
night and was driving the tricycle owned by Rodrigo. Rodrigo accompanied by his
cousin went to a certain barangay where they found the remains of Raul Layug. Another
tricycle driver informed Rodrigo that he saw a similar tricycle that of Rodrigo's at the
Conception Police Station. Rodrigo and his other brother went to the police station and
found out that the two other companion of Donio were released.
   

When on December 2003, the Layug brothers returned to the police station learning
that Donio was apprehended.
   
The police officer who brought Donio and his companions at the police station on
November 26, 2003 when summoned to identify Donio as the person who asked
permission from him to get the document is the same person who was apprehend by
him on November 2003.
   
Another prosecution witness was a doctor who conducted the Post Mortem
Investigation regarding the cause of death of the victim Raul Layug and determined that
he sustained stab wounds using a sharp instrument.
   
On the other hand, the defense has its lone witness, the accused , who testified on the
defense of alibi. That he is a grass cutter in a sugar cane plantation and seldom go
home being a stay in plantation worker and never leave his place of work for six
months, instead his wife visited him. That in one occasion, on the night of November 25,
2003 until the next day he was in their house after his wife fetched him  in his place of
work and went home to tend their sick child.
   
Donio in a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court was found guilty and case
was elevated to the Court of Appeals but the decision was affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether the Prosecution has successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of
the accused of the crime of car napping with homicide.

RULING:

Yes. The prosecution has proven that the accused committed the crime of carnapping 
considering that all  of the elements of the crime were existent and homicide was
produced in the course of the commission of the carnapping.
The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under the R.A. No.
6539(REPEALED), as amended are the following:

1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;

3. 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

4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.

Records show that all the elements of camapping in the instant case are present and
proven during the trial.

Unlawful taking" or apoderamiento is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent
of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using
force upon things. It is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.28 Section
3 (j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides the presumption that a person found in
possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
doer of the whole act.

The presumption that a person found in possession of the personal effects belonging to
the person robbed and killed is considered the author of the aggression, the death of
the person, as well as the robbery committed, has been invariably limited to cases
where such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is
rendered implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.29 The said
principle may be applied in this case as the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery
and carnapping being the same.30 Here, Donio failed to produce the vehicle's papers at
the checkpoint. He impersonated the victim before the police officers when his identity
was asked, and left under the guise of getting the said documents. It was also
established that he and the others were strangers to Rodrigo. Donio's unexplained
possession, coupled with the circumstances proven in the trial, therefore, raises the
presumption that he was one of the perpetrators responsible for the unlawful taking of
the vehicle and Raul's death.
Intent to gain or animus lucrandi, which is an internal act, is presumed from the unlawful
taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the
intent to gain. The term "gain" is not merely limited to 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 constitutes gain.31 Donio's intent to gain from the carnapped tricycle
was proven as he and his companions were using it as means of transportation when
they were confronted by the Concepcion police officers.

In sum, the prosecution established through sufficient circumstantial evidence that the
accused was indeed one of the perpetrators of the crime of carnapping with homicide.