You are on page 1of 11

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 83798 March 29, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DANILO DE LA CR! " RADO, ROMEO SAL#ADOR " MENDO!A, DANTES
$ELOSO " DE CASTRO, defendants-Appellants.
The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Natalio M. Panganiban for appellant Dantes Beloso.
Malinis & Associates for appellant Salvador.
Scip! Sala"ar! #ernande" & Gat$aitan for appellant Danilo Dela %r&".

MELENCIO%HERRERA, J.:
A case of Carnapping with Homicide, as defined and penalized under Section 14 of
Repulic Act !o. "#$%, also &nown as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1%'(.
)here is no *uestion that on # +ecemer 1%,4, a -ord )elstar automoile, ).# earing
/late !o. !-/+0-$,(, was carnapped, and that A!)H1!2 3anzon, the registered
owner of said car, was shot and &illed.
)he )rial Court decided & that the three accused, +anilo +4 5A CR67 8 Ruado, Romeo
SA59A+1R 8 :endoza, and +antes 3451S1 8 de Castro, had ;conspired to steal
awa8 as the8 in fact stole and carried awa8 the )45S)AR of A!)H1!2 3anzon;< held
them ;liale as principals 8 direct participation; for the crime of Carnapping with
Homicide< and sentenced them as follows=
0H4R4-1R4, finding accused +anilo de la Cruz 8 Ruado, Romeo Salvador 8 :endoza
and +antes 3eloso 8 de Castro, guilt8 e8ond reasonale dout of the crime of
carnapping with homicide, penalized under section 14 of R.A. "#$%, the Court here8
sentences each of them to suffer the penalt8 of recl&sion perpet&a, instead of the
supreme penalt8 of death, inasmuch as the latter penalt8 has een deleted under the
new constitution< for each accused to >ointl8 and severall8 indemnif8 the heirs of the
deceased Anthon8 3anzon in the amount of /$?,???.??< also to pa8, >ointl8 and
severall8, /(??,???.?? for moral damages< /(??,???.?? for lost earnings< /",??(.#? for
food e@penses during the wa&e< /,,???.?? for coffin and memorial services< /(,#$?.??
for interment fees< /,??.?? for transportation e@penses< and /(,%4'.?? for the
hospitalization e@penses of +ionisia Alvarez 3anzon, the mother of the deceased.
Challenging their conviction, the three accused interposed the present appeal.
However, during the pendenc8 hereof, +anilo +4 5A CR67 withdrew his appeal on 1
+ecemer 1%,%. )his appeal is thus confined to +antes 3451S1 and Romeo
SA59A+1R.
38 piecing together the voluminous testimonial evidence and documentar8 e@hiits, the
factual ac&ground from the viewpoint of the prosecution ma8 e narrated thus= +anilo
+4 5A CR67, +antes 3451S1 and Romeo SA59A+1R were ac*uaintances. +4 5A
CR67, $1, claimed to e a 1st 5ieutenant of the /hilippine Arm8 as well as a customs
ro&er. 3451S1, (%, single was a >oless individual. SA59A+1R, $", married, was
also unemplo8ed. SA59A+1R had &nown +4 5A CR67 since 1" !ovemer 1%,4 when
the8 first met at Hot Cit8 +isco Restaurant. )he8 then met again on 4 +ecemer 1%,4
App. #-", )S!, # :arch 1%,"B. 3451S1, for his part, had &nown +4 5A CR67 since
April of 1%,4 and had met with him for aout 4 or # times thereafter Ap. ", )S!, %
1ctoer 1%,#B. 3451S1 sta8ed with +4 5A CR67 in the latterCs house for several
months. 3451S1 also met SA59A+1R once sometime in !ovemer 1%,4 at a night
clu somewhere in Ro@as 3oulevard. 4vidence further shows that on the eve of 4
+ecemer 1%,4, +4 5A CR67, 3451S1 and SA59A+1R met at the Dool Ding
Restaurant along /asong )amo Street on :a&ati to discuss a certain ;car deal; that
would ta&e place the following da8 E # +ecemer 1%,4 Ap. 1$, )S!, " Fanuar8 1%,"B.
1n (% !ovemer 1%,4, 3451S1 caused the placing of an advertisement in the 3ulletin
)oda8, page (%, column $, reading=
0anted to 3u8 Car
3ali&a8an ,(-,$ Silver
4dition or 5ancer
Call ,1"4,"# ,1"4,""
:r. Garcia %-#
A4@hiit ;++-l; p. "'$-3, RecordsB
)he victim, A!)H1!2 3anzon, a ($-8ear ld student of aeronautical engineering, was
among those who responded to the advertisement and signified his interest to sell his
1%,$ model )elstar.
1n # +ecemer 1%,4, at around %=?? A.:., +ionisia Alvarez 3anzon, mother of
A!)H1!2, received a telephone call from a certain :i&e Garcia who informed her that
he was the u8er of her sonCs car. A!)H1!2, arriving home a little later, was informed
8 his mother of the telephone call. )he victim, together with his mother, then left for
GarciaCs office located at the Centrum Condominium, :a&ati, :etro :anila, on oard
the )elstar. )he8 arrived at their destination a little after 11=?? A.:. 1nce there, a man
>ust across the street where their car was par&ed was pointed to 8 A!)H1!2 as :r.
Garcia, the person interested in u8ing the car. Hn the identification made 8 +ionisia
Alvarez 3anzon during the trial, that man turned out to e accused +antes 3451S1.
+ionisia then proceeded to Shoemart on a ta@i, leaving A!)H1!2 at the Centrum App.
#$-#,, )S!, (% :a8 1%,#B, little suspecting that it would e the last time that she would
see her son.
Hnside the Centrum office A!)H1!2 and 3451S1 discussed the price of the car,
which A!)H1!2 fi@ed at /1,,,???.??. 3451S1 then advised A!)H1!2 to wait for
+anilo +4 5A CR67 to arrive as he would e the one to decide whether or not to u8
the car. After a while, +4 5A CR67 arrived and 3451S1 introduced A!)H1!2 to the
former. At around 1=?? /.:., +4 5A CR67 and A!)H1!2 left the office to go to the
formerCs house. A!)H1!2 rought with him an envelope containing the certificate of
registration, official receipt, and other papers pertaining to the car App. %-1(, )S!, %
1ctoer 1%,#B. 0hen the8 arrived at the house, SA59A+1R was alread8 there.
SA59A+1R recounted in his Sworn Statement A4@hiit ;3 ;B that +4 5A CR67 had told
him to have some snac&s at a near8 ;lugawan; while he and A!)H1!2 tal&ed. 0hen
SA59A+1R returned, he saw +4 5A CR67 and A!)H1!2 seated near the dining
tale. SA59A+1R then went to the comfort room and while inside, he heard a shot.
0hen he got out, he found A!)H1!2 sprawled on the floor, the latterCs head athed in
his own lood, and saw +4 5A CR67 holding a gun App. "4?-"41, RecordsB.
Strangel8 enough, the d8phen8lamine paraffin tests done on +4 5A CR67 on "
+ecemer 1%,4 showed negative results A4@hiit !;B while those on 3451S1 and
SA59A+1R proved positive A4@hiits ;1; and / )he paraffin casts on the latter two
were ta&en on ' +ecemer, which were then sealed and preserved until the actual
testing on 11 +ecemer 1%,4.
Continuing with the facts E at around $=?? /.:., +antes 3451S1, who was at the
Centrum office, received a call from +4 5A CR67, who instructed him to proceed to his
A+4 5A CR67B house at 1rero Street, :a&ati, :etro :anila. 1n 3451S1 called for
+4 5A CR67, who came out and handed to him the &e8 of the )elstar. +4 5A CR67
instructed 3451S1 to drive for SA59A+1R who did not &now how to drive. 3451S1
then oarded the car and waited for SA59A+1R who came out of the house some 1#
to (? minutes later. Hn his Affidavit A4@hiit ;C-11 ;B, 3451S1 recounted that
SA59A+1R related to him that he had seen a dead man in the house of +4 5A CR67
ut that the8 were to &eep it to themselves ecause he ASA59A+1RB was seared of +4
5A CR67. SA59A+1R then showed to 3451S1 a phone numer of a certain :r.
Hernandez who was interested in u8ing the car. After driving a short distance,
3451S1 stopped at a telephone ooth to call Hernandez to as& for the latterCs address.
)he8 then started to loo& for the place ut failed to locate it. Since 3451S1 was
alread8 hungr8, he par&ed the car at the 3runch Restaurant in front of 64R: and too&
his snac& thereat while SA59A+1R too& a ta@i and proceeded to Hernandez Ap. 1$-1",
)S!, % 1ctoer 1%,#B.
SA59A+1R was ale to reach HernandezC place at aout 4=?? /.:. Rodolfo Hernandez
recalled during the trial that SA59A+1R introduced himself as A!)H1!2 3anzon and
offered to sell a car, which was par&ed at a near8 Calte@ station. )he8 proceeded to
the station to loo& at the car. Hernandez then loo&ed at the certificate of registration of
the car in the name of A!)H1!2 3anzon and the residence certificate presented to
him 8 SA59A+1R, which was also in the name of A!)H1!2 3anzon. 3elieving that
SA59A+1R was reall8 A!)H1!2 3anzon, Hernandez then suggested that the8 go to
the actual u8er at the :etropolitan /awnshop at /. Campa Street, Sampaloc, :etro
:anila, leaving 3451S1 at the 64R:. At the pawnshop, the8 met HernandezC contact,
/atrolman Rosauro de la Rosa, who is the rother of the owner of the pawnshop. Again,
SA59A+1R introduced himself as A!)H1!2 3anzon, the owner of the car and offered
to sell it for /1$?,???.??. Hernandez then left the pawnshop App. ,#-%#, )S!, 1 :arch
1%,#< pp. 4-1$, )S!, , :arch 1%,#B.
+uring the negotiation, /at. de la Rosa ecame suspicious that the car had een stolen
ecause of the low price of /1$?,???.??, and when told that he would e paid the ne@t
da8, SA59A+1R insisted that if possile, the former pa8 /1??,???.?? in advance as he
was in need of mone8 ver8 adl8. 1n top of that, when /at. de la Rosa declined to pa8
immediatel8, SA59A+1R left the car ehind. /at. de la Rosa then reported his
suspicions to Sgt. Re8naldo Roldan of the Iuezon Cit8 /olice App. ,-1%, )S!, , :arch
1%,#B. Sgt. Roldan forthwith dispatched /fc. +amaso 1sma, /at. 4dgardo de 5eon,
/at. Anthon8 !ame and /at. Fustiniano 4strella, Fr., to /. Campa Street App. %#-%",
)S!, (' -eruar8 1%,#< p. 4, )S!, (# :arch 1%,#B.
At /. Campa Street, the dispatched policemen, together with /at. de la Rosa, posted
themselves and waited for SA59A+1R to arrive. At aout ,=?? /.:., SA59A+1R did
arrive together with 3451S1. )he8 got inside the car with 3451S1 ta&ing the steering
wheel. )he policemen approached and as&ed the two to alight. 3451S1 started
shouting that he was A!)H1!2 3anzon, the owner of the car and showed the car
registration and a residence certificate, all in the name of A!)H1!2 3anzon. )his all
the more aroused /at. de la RosaCs suspicion for earlier it was SA59A+1R who claimed
to e A!)H1!2. )he policemen decided to ta&e the two to the Iuezon Cit8 /olice
Head*uarters for *uestioning App. %'-1?(, )S!, (% -eruar8 1%,#< pp. (1-(,, )S!, ,
:arch 1%,#< pp. ("$1, )S!, 1$ :arch 1%,#< pp. '1-'", )S!, 1, :arch 1%,#B.
:eanwhile, at around %=?? /.:. of the same da8, C8nthia Fuarez a oarder of the
house of +4 5A CR67, reported to /fc. 4velio 3actad of the :a&ati /olice that when
she arrived at the oarding house she found it unloc&ed ut with the lights on and a
dead man in the &itchen. )he house is located at 1rero Street, :a&ati, :etro :anila.
3actad proceeded to the place to conduct an investigation and there found a lifeless
od8 of a man, a alread8 in the state of rigor mortis with a gunshot wound on the
forehead, and an empt8 super.$, calier shell aout two feet awa8 from the left side of
his od8 App. 14-(1, )S!, (# -eruar8 1%,#B. C8nthia Fuarez mista&enl8 identified the
od8 to e that of her landlord +anilo +4 5A CR67.
At aout (=?? A.:. of " +ecemer 1%,4, a male person went to the same :a&ati police
station to report that his house has een ransac&ed 8 someone. He introduced himself
as +anilo +4 5A CR67. /fc. 3actad, perple@ed as to the identit8 of the dead od8, held
+4 5A CR67 for further *uestioning App. 14-(#, )S!, (# -eruar8 1%,#B. /fc. 3actad
then coordinated with the Iuezon Cit8 /olice anti-carnapping unit, which had given
notice that the8 had apprehended two persons, Romeo SA59A+1R and +antes
3451S1. )hese two were later turned over to the :a&ati /olice /recinct. /fc. 3actad
was suse*uentl8 ale to straighten out the identit8 of the victim to e A!)H1!2
3anzon App. ((-(' and %#, )S!, ibid.B.
)he medical e@amination conducted 8 a medicolegal officer of the !3H on the cadaver
of the victim on " +ecemer 1%,4 revealed the cause of death to e ;hemorrhage,
intracranial severe, secondar8 to gunshot wound.; )he ullet used was identified as a .
$, calier gun, fired at short distance from the victim, entered the ac& of the head and
e@ited through his forehead. )he same ph8sician placed the time of death at aout four
A4B hours, more or less, after he had ta&en his last meal App. #'-#%, )S!, (' -eruar8
1%,#B.
Sgt. Re8naldo Roldan, a Iuezon Cit8 policeman, who was called 8 /at. de la Rosa to
report the latterCs suspicion aout a carnapped vehicle, interrogated 3451S1 and
SA59A+1R and elicited their modus operandi as follows= 1B lan& residence certificates
were secured and &ept 8 the three accused< (B their ;usiness; of u8ing of cars was
advertised in the newspapers< $B the ads 8ielding fruitful results, prospective sellers
would e as&ed aout their respective certificates of registration and other documents<
4B when the portion for the signature of the owner is found to e lan&, the accused
would pretend to test the car, demand the certificate of registration, and fill in the
signature space with their own signature< #B present the same certificate of registration
earing their own signature, along with the residence certificate supplied 8 +4 5A
CR67 which is made to coincide with the name and signature appearing in the
certificate of registration, to the prospective u8ers< and "B pretend to test the car
although, in fact, >ust waiting for the opportunit8 to leave the owner of the car ehind so
that the accused could dispose of the same in the meantime.
All accused, on the other hand, profess innocence. 3451S1 claims that he was merel8
hired to man the office at Centrum Condominium< that he had nothing to do with the
carnapping of A!)H1!2CS vehicle< that he went to the house of +4 5A CR67 at aout
$=?? /.:. of # +ecemer 1%,4, ut was not allowed to enter the same< and that while
he was 8 the gate, he was given the &e8 of A!)H1!2Cs car 8 +4 5A CR67 to drive
for SA59A+1R who did not &now how to drive< that, in turn, the registration papers of
the car and other documents were handed to SA59A+1R with specific instructions to
ring the vehicle to the prospective u8er, Hernandez.
-or his part, SA59A+1R claims that he was merel8 called 8 +4 5A CR67 to go to the
latterCs house to assist 3451S1 in the sale of the car. He denies having een a long
ac*uaintance of either +4 5A CR67 or 3451S1. He claims that on # +ecemer 1%,4
+4 5A CR67 instructed him to go to the Ro8al 3eaut8 /arlor etween 1?=?? and 11=??
A.:., which he did. After waiting for some ten A1?B to fifteen A1#B minutes, +4 5A CR67
arrived on oard a ta@i ca. )he8 proceeded to +4 5A CR67Cs house. Arriving thereat
and finding it closed, the8 went to 5ugawan sa :a&ati for a snac&. After eating, the8
returned to +4 5A CR67Cs house around 1(=?? noon. A few minutes later, 4lmer
:aunga, driver of +4 5A CR67 arrived App. 14-1#, )S!, :arch #, 1%,"B. At 1(=$?
/.:., the three of them left the house. 4lmer rode in a >eepne8 while the8 too& a ta@i.
+4 5A CR67 dropped him off at the Ro8al 3eaut8 /arlor while +4 5A CR67 proceeded
to Centrum Condominium. He was instructed 8 +4 5A CR67 to wait from (=?? to (=$?
/.:. after which he should go ac& to the house. At around $=?? /.:., he went ac&
and after calling +4 5A CR67Cname, the latter came out of the house, opened the first
door, and told him to wait for 3451S1. At around $=(? to $=$? /.:., 3451S1 arrived.
-rom here on, the testimonies of 3451S1 and SA59A+1R are sustantiall8 similar in
that the8 were given the &e8s of the car and some documents and told to go to a certain
Hernandez, a prospective u8er.
Hn a nutshell, it is 3451S1 and SA59A+1RCs position that the8 were unaware of an8
carnapping< that the8 were in a regular usiness transaction to sell a car with promise of
a commission< that the8 were not in the house of +4 5A CR67 in the earl8 afternoon of
# +ecemer 1%,4 when A!)H1!2 was &illed< that the8 were unaware of the &illing, of
A!)H1!2 which, according to SA59A+1R was +4 5A CR67C own doing.
3oth 3451S1 and SA59A+1R are in unison in claiming that their statements, mar&ed
as 4@hiits ;3; for SA59A+1R, and ;C; and ;D; for 3451S1, are inadmissile in
evidence as the same were e@tracted 8 force and without the presence of counsel.
)he )rial Court gave no credence to the e@culpator8 allegations of 3451S1 and
SA59A+1R and convicted them, as well as +4 5A CR67, of Carnapping with
Homicide. Hence, this appeal, filed originall8 8 all three accused.
Appellants 3451S1 and SA59A+1R ascrie the following errors to the )rial Court=
38 +antes 3451S1=
H. )he )rial Fudge who had no occasion to oserve demeanors of witnesses as he merel8
prepared the decision in this case as the trial was entirel8 heard 8 Fustice 4linas erred
in concluding that at around %=?? A.:. of +ecemer #, 1%,4 the late Anthon8 3anzon
was called 8 3eloso.
HH. )he 5ower Court, with due respect, gravel8 erred in holding that the three A$B accused
conspired in stealing the car su>ect of this case.
HHH. )he 5ower Court again, with due respect, gravel8 erred in appl8ing the case of People
vs. Mang&labnan! et al. in concluding that the three A$B accused are liale in the death of
Anthon8 3anzon and that 3eloso could have een present at the time the victim was
shot.
H9. )he Court a '&o gravel8 erred in ruling that all the accused conspired in the &illing of
Anthon8 3anzon and 3eloso Ccould have een inside the house and was present at the
time 3anzon was shotC ecause if he were not present, Che could have een found
negative of gun powder nitrates.
9. All in all, the 5ower Court, as far as 3eloso is concerned, as shown 8 induitale
facts heretofore andJor hereinafter discussed and as facts and evidence on records will
show, committed grave error in convicting 3eloso of the crime charged.
38 Romeo SA59A+1R=
)he Court a '&o erred=
H. Gravel8 in admitting SalvadorCs alleged e@tra>udicial confession A4@iit C3CB ta&en 8
police officers during custodial investigation without assistance of counsel.
HH. Hn giving e*ual weight and effect on the prosecutionCs evidence presented during the
>oint trial which are not applicale to appellant Salvador.
HHH. Hn finding Salvador a co-conspirator of the crime charged although his admitted
participation was onl8 to assist in the aorted sale of the car without &nowledge that it
was a CcarnappedC vehicle and without &nowledge that the registered owner was earlier-
&illed.
H9. Hn convicting Salvador in the asence of proof e8ond reasonale dout.
Ht ma8, indeed, e that Fudge /hinne8 C. Ara*uil, who penned the )rial Court +ecision,
had not heard the case at all, the trial having een conducted 8 then Fudge Fesus :.
4linias, who was elevated to the Court of Appeals. !onetheless, the transcripts of
stenographic notes ta&en during the trial were e@tant and complete and there was no
impediment for Fudge Ara*uil to have decided the case. Ht is not unusual for a Fudge
who did not tr8 a case to decide it on the asis of the record A/eople vs. 4scalante, 5-
$'14', (( August 1%,4, 1$1 SCRA ($'B. )he fact that the Fudge who heard the
evidence is not the one who rendered the >udgment and that for that reason the latter
did not have the opportunit8 to oserve the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial
ut merel8 relied on the records of the case does not render the >udgment erroneous
ACo )ao vs. Court of Appeals, 1?1 /hil. 1,, K1%#'LB.
)he rest of the assigned errors center on the findings of conspirac8 and guilt 8 the )rial
Court and ma8 e considered >ointl8.
)he evidence sustains those findings.
)he three accused had &nown one another some time efore +ecemer 1%,4 at
relativel8 different periods. 3efore /fc. 3actad at the police station, 3451S1 and
SA59A+1R identified +4 5A CR67 as an ;associate; although the latter denied it
Ap.(%, )S!, (# -eruar8 1%,#,B. 3451S1 had een hired through +4 5A CR67 to man
the office at Centrum Condominium, /erez Street, 5egazpi 9illage, :a&ati. 1n 4
+ecemer 1%,4, the8 had gotten together at the Dool Ding Restaurant at /asong )amo,
:a&ati, to discuss a ;car deal; to e consummated the ne@t da8. +antes 3451S1,
mas*uerading for :i&e Garcia, had caused an advertisement to e pulished in the (,
and (% !ovemer issues of the 3ulletin )oda8. 1n the same dates, 3451S1 had
rented an office space at the Centrum Condominium under the name of said Garcia for
the two da8s mentioned, and again on # +ecemer 1%,4 at /#?.?? per hour, complete
with staff facilities. 3451S1 held himself out as in the usiness of u8ing cars. )he
victim, A!)H1!2, responded to the ad, went to said office and offered to sell his
)elstar, :odel C,$. /osing again as :i&e Garcia, 3451S1 called A!)H1!2Cs house at
around %=?? A.:. on # +ecemer 1%,4 and informed the latterCs mother that he was the
u8er of the car. 0hen A!)H1!2 went to the Centrum office, 3451S1 told A!)H1!2
to wait for +4 5A CR67. 6pon the latterCs arrival, he had a tal& with A!)H1!2. +4 5A
1R)H7 made sure that A!)H1!2Cs certificate of registration, official receipt and other
pertinent papers of the )elstar were in order App. %-1(, )S!, 1ctoer %, 1%,#B.
A!)H1!2 and +4 5A CR67 then proceeded to the latterCs house at 3arrio 1rero,
:a&ati.
:eanwhile, SA59A+1R was instructed 8 +4 5A CR67 also to wait at the latterCs
house. 0hen +4 5A CR67 and A!)H1!2 arrived, the former told SA59A+1R to ta&e
a snac& somewhere while he A+4 5A CR67B and A!)H1!2 tal&ed. Ht was after
SA59A+1R returned to the house that the &illing of A!)H1!2 transpired etween
1(=?? noon and (=?? /.:. 5ater, at aout $=?? /.:., +4 5A CR67 then allegedl8 called
for 3451S1 at the Centrum office. 0hen 3451S1 arrived, +4 5A CR67 handed him
the &e8s to the car, which was par&ed near8. +4 5A CR67 also handed to
SA59A+1R a rown envelope containing papers of the )elstar with the instruction to
ring the car to a certain Hernandez, who was u8ing the car. -ollowing that idding,
the two left and loo&ed for Hernandez. 3ut unale to locate him, SA59A+1R went on
his own in a ta@i. 3451S1 was left with the car at the 3runch Restaurant near 64R:.
After having located Hernandez, SA59A+1R, Hernandez, and a driver went ac& to
where 3451S1 was, too& the car and proceeded to the :etropolitan /awnshop leaving
3451S1 ehind. At this place, the three alighted. SA59A+1R introduced himself as
A!)H1!2 3anzon, the owner of the car and the name appearing in the carCs Certificate
of Registration, to /at. Rosauro de la Rosa, rother of the pawnshop owner who was
the real u8er of the car. SA59A+1R even showed the Registration Certificate and a
Residence Certificate, purportedl8 A!)H1!2CS, as proof thereof. SA59A+1R then
as&ed for /1$?,???.?? as selling price. /at. de la Rosa agreed ut as&ed that pa8ment
e made the following da8 as an&s were alread8 closed. SA59A+1R, however,
insisted on pa8ment that evening as he was adl8 in need of mone8. )his made /at. de
la Rosa suspicious that the car had een stolen, and reported t" the Iuezon Cit8 police.
/at. de la Rosa then instructed SA59A+1R to return to the pawnshop the ne@t da8. As
SA59A+1R did not &now how to drive he left the )elstar at the pawnshop, went to the
3runch Restaurant near 64R:, pic&ed up 3451S1 so the latter could drive the car
ac& to +4 5A CR67. 0hen the8 returned that night and oarded the car, elements of
the Iuezon Cit8 police approached them and as&ed them *uestions. 3451S1 got
down from the car and started shouting that he was A!)H1!2, the owner of the car Ap.
($, )S!, :arch ,, 1%,#B. !otwithstanding, the police rought them to the Iuezon Cit8
police head*uarters. Here, the investigators recovered some documents inside
3451S1Cs clutch ag, among them, a residence certificate in A!)H1!2Cs name
A4@hiit ;H-1;B. Hn 3451S1Cs possession were also found a motor registration certificate
in A!)H1!2Cs name, two A(B lan& residence certificates and one residence certificate
in the name of :ar& Garcia Ap. 1(?, )S!, (' -eruar8 1%,#B.
3451S1Cs and SA59A+1RCs protestations of innocence do not inspire elief. 3oth of
them posed as A!)H1!2 at one time or another during the ;negotiations.; 0hen
SA59A+1R offered to sell the car to Rodolfo Hernandez, he introduced himself as
A!)H1!2 3anzon. He even presented to Hernandez a car registration certificate and a
residence certificate all in the name of A!)H1!2 3anzon. 5ater, when Hernandez
introduced SA59A+1R to /at. de la Rosa, the formerCs contact, SA59A+1R again
introduced himself as A!)H1!2 3anzon App. ,#-%#, )S!, 1 :arch 1%,#< pp. 4-1$,
)S!, , :arch 1%,#B. )hese misrepresentations are indication that he &new the car was
stolen. at further olsters the conclusion that he had a hand in the commission of the
crime was the fact that when he and 3451S1 were arrested 8 the Iuezon Cit8 anti-
carnapping unit, it was now 3451S1 claiming to e A!)H1!2 3anzon App. %'-1?(,
)S!, (% -eruar8 1%,#< pp. (1-(,, )S!, , :arch 1%,#< pp. ("-$1, )S!, 1$ :arch
1%,#< pp. '1-'", )S!, 1, :arch 1%,#B. 3451S1Cs claim that he was A!)H1!2
3anzon and SA59A+1RCs silence in the face of such claim, despite the fact that he had
earlier misrepresented himself as A!)H1!2, all the more reveal that the two of them
were one in &eeping secret the true ownership of the car.
A more perfect e@ample of a conspirac8 cannot e contrived 3451S1 and SA59A+1R
shared the same purpose with +4 5A CR67 in carnapping the vehicle with a view to
selling it at a low price and ma&ing mone8 which the8 adl8 needed. )he8 were united
in its e@ecution as ma8 e inferred from the facts and circumstances estalished 8 the
evidence. Conspirac8 need not e estalished 8 direct evidence of the acts charged,
ut ma8 and generall8 must e proved 8 a numer of indefinite acts, condition and
circumstances which var8 according to the purpose to e accomplished A/eople vs.
Colman, et al., G.R. !os. 5-""#(-#4, (, -eruar8 1%#,, 1?$ /hil. "B. )he e@istence of
conspirac8 ma8 e inferred from acts tending to show a communit8 of design or
purpose A/eople vs. :ada-H Santalani, G.R. !o. 5-(%%'%, (, Septemer 1%'%, %$
SCRA $1#B.
0hat of the &illing of A!)H1!2M )here is no *uestion that he was &illed ;in the
commission of the carnapping; ASec. 14, RA "#$%B. Ht is clear from the evidence as well
that he was &illed in the house of +4 5A CR67 etween 1=$? and (=?? /.:. on #
+ecemer 1%,4 A3rief, +anilo de la Cruz, p. 1%B. Ht was at that house where A!)H1!2
was found dead 8 a oarder 8 the name of C8nthia Fuarez at around %=?? /.:. of the
same date. +4 5A CR67 tried to camouflage the &illing 8 ostensil8 reporting to the
police that his place had een ransac&ed and that a person had een &illed. As /at.
3actad testified, however, when he and a police team went to the house, elongings
therein were found wrapped and read8 to e transferred.
3451S1 claims that he was sent for 8 +4 5A CR67 from the Centrum office onl8 at
$=?? /.:. on # +ecemer 1%,4 and was not, therefore, at the +4 5A CR67 residence
at the time the &illing was perpetrated in the nearl8 afternoon of that date. Similarl8
SA59A+1R claims that he went to the +4 5A CR67 house onl8 at $=?? /.:. and when
he did he was merel8 at the gate and did not enter the house. Conse*uentl8 the8
conclude that neither of them can e held culpale for A!)H1!2CS death.
)hose denial, however, cannot prevail over the ph8sical evidence that 3451S1 and
SA59A+1R were found positive for nitrates, which means that the8 were within the
vicinit8 when the gun was fired.
0hen a paraffin or nitrate test is applied, there appears gunpowders nitrate which are
dar& lue collor. )hese spects are nothing more or less than minutes particles of nitrate
which have lown into the s&in 8 what might e termed the invisile ac&fire of the
pistol, ut the8 do not appear unless a hand has een instrumental in pulling the trigger,
ARinson, Science Cathes the Criminal, pp. %%-1??B.
)he fact that +4 5A CR67 was negative for powder urns, although he was tagged 8
SA59A+1R as the triggerman, can onl8 mean that he &new hoe to sufficientl8 protect
himself, a &nowledge that must have een derived form his stint as an officer of the
/hilippine Arm8.
)he identical claims of 3451S1 and SA59A+1R that the8 were heav8 smo&ers, of
aout $ pac&s of :arloro cigarretes a da8, which accounts for the pressent of nitrate in
oth their right and left hands, is contradicted 8 the testimon8 of the forensic chemist
that nitrates produced 8 cigarrete smo&ing have different characteristics form those
caused 8 powder urns.
3451S1Cs and SA59A+1RCs complicit8 in the &iling is, therefore, estalished not 8
an8 of the e@tradu>icial confesions A4@hiits ;3;, ;C; and ;D;B ut 8 the ph8sical
evidence on record. So that, even if those sworns statements are declared inadmissile
for having een given without the presence of the counsel, their culpailit8 is orne out
8 the evidence indefendent of the same.
)hat the respective participations of 3451S1 and SA59A+1R in the &iling is not
claercut is of no moment=
Hn order to determine the e@istence of the crime of roer8 with homicide, it is enough
that a homicide would result 8 reason or on the occasion of the roer8 and it is
immaterial that the death would supervene 8 mere accident provided that the homicide
e produced 8 reason or on occasion of the roer8 inasmuch as it is onl8 the result
otained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to e ta&en into
consideration.; A/eople vs. :angulanan, et al., %% /hil. %%( K1%#"LB.
:oreover, conspirac8 having een ade*uatel8 proven, all the conspirators are liale as
co-principals regardless of the e@tent and character of their participation ecause in
contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all. )he degree of actual participation
8 each of the conspirators is immaterial A/eople vs. 5oreno, G.R. !o. #4414, % Ful8
1%,4, 1$? SCRA $11B. As conspirators, each is e*uall8 responsile for the acts of their
co-conspirators.
At this >uncture, we find it apropos to state that earmar&s of the voluntariness of the
e@tra>udicial confessions e@ist. -or one, there is no convincing evidence of
maltreatment. -or another, SA59A+1R suscried and swore to his Statement efore
Sr. State Counsel !orerto C. /once who certified ;H have personall8 e@amined the
affiant and that H am satisfied that he voluntaril8 e@ecuted and understood his affidavit.;
Signing as witness was Att8. -lorito S. :acalino of C5A1 A4@hiit ;3-#;B. Similarl8,
3451S1 suscried and swore to his Affidavit efore (nd Asst. -iscal +ennis :. 9illa
Hgnacio, with Att8. 0illiam ). 68 of C5A1, :a&ati, as witness A4@hiit ;C-4;B. 1f record
also is the fact that during the e@ecution of the e@tra>udicial confessions, )im 1livares, a
police reporter of the newspaper ;)empo; was present. )his would further negate the
alleged maltreatment suffered 8 3451S1 and SA59A+1R at the hands of police
authorities. )hat reporter would surel8 have pounced upon an8 sign or report of
maltreatment A/eople vs. 5adrera, G.R. !o. ###$%, (1 :a8 1%,', 1#? SCRA 11$B.
-urther, in 3451S1Cs Affidavit, 4@hiit ;CC;, erasures appear, dul8 countersigned 8
him, which clearl8 negate his claim that his confession was made involuntaril8 A/eople
vs. )anchico, G.R. !o. 5-($"%?, ($ 1ctoer 1%'%, %$ SCRA #'#B.
)he crime committed is Camapping with Homicide, with carnapping defined as ;the
ta&ing, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle elonging to another without the latterCs
consent, or 8 means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or 8 using force
upon things; ASec. (, RA !o. "#$%B. )he penalt8 prescried 8 the same law reads=
Sec. 14. Penalt for %arnapping. E An8 person who is found guilt8 of carnapping, as this
term is defined in Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle
ta&en, e punished 8 imprisonment for not less than fourteen 8ears and eight months
and not more than seventeen 8ears and four months, when the carnapping is committed
without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things< and 8 imprisonment for
not less than seventeen 8ears and four months and not more than thirt8 8ears, when the
carnapping is committed 8 means of violence against or intimidation of an8 person, or
force upon things< and the penalt8 of life imprisonment to death shall e imposed when
the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is &illed in the commission
of the carnapping ASec. 14, iid.B.
Hn this case, the owner of the carnapped vehicle was &illed in the commission of the
carnapping oviousl8 to gain possession of the car, its registration certificate and other
pertinent papers, get the owner out of the wa8, and thus facilitate its sale to a third
part8, in &eeping with the $od&s operandi of the perpetrators.
0H4R4-1R4, the >udgment appealed from is here8 A--HR:4+, with proportionate
costs against accused-appellants +antes 3eloso and Romeo Salvador.
S1 1R+4R4+.
Padilla! Sar$iento and (egalado! )).! conc&r.
Paras ).! too* no part.

You might also like