Case Digest (G.R. No. 135904)
Facts:
On November 7, 1992 in Quezon City, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES charged ALVIN TAN with carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539 for allegedly taking a Mitsubishi Galant owned by Philip See; Tan pleaded not guilty and trial followed. The trial court accepted See’s testimony that Tan took the car on a test drive and failed to return it, convicted Tan, and the Court of Appeals affirmed its conviction on June 29, 1998; Tan sought review in the Supreme Court.Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying principles of theft to convict ALVIN TAN under Republic Act No. 6539?
- Was there an *unlawful taking* of Philip See’s vehicle as required for carnapping?
- Did the prosecution sustain its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, and entered a judgment acquitting ALVIN TAN on the ground of reasonable doubt; costs were taxed de officio. The Co Case Digest (G.R. No. 135904)
Facts:
- Parties and procedural posture
- People of the Philippines was the plaintiff-appellee in the criminal prosecution.
- Alvin Tan y Lagamayo (hereafter TAN) was the accused-appellant and petitioner before the Supreme Court.
- TAN sought review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the Court of Appeals' 29 June 1998 decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 20688 and its 6 October 1998 resolution denying reconsideration and oral arguments.
- The Court of Appeals had affirmed the regional trial court judgment of conviction in Criminal Case No. Q-93-45449, Branch 95, Quezon City, identified in the record as a judgment of 19 December 1994 and elsewhere noted as promulgated on 19 January 1994.
- Indictment and plea
- TAN was indicted for violation of Republic Act No. 6539, An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping, the indictment alleging that on or about November 7, 1992, in Quezon City, TAN willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took one Mitsubishi Gallant, plate no. CGS-723, owned by Philip See, without the owner’s consent and with intent to gain.
- TAN pleaded not guilty at arraignment on July 14, 1993; trial began immediately after the parties waived a preliminary conference.
- Prosecution evidence and material factual assertions
- Philip See testified that he was the registered owner of a 1987 Mitsubishi Gallant (valued at P 420,000), and that sometime in March 1992 TAN was introduced to him and they became friends.
- See testified that on November 7, 1992, TAN requested to test-drive the car, See acceded because of their friendship and assurances TAN would return it, and TAN drove away and never returned the vehicle.
- See recounted persistent attempts thereafter to contact TAN by telephone and personal visits, all allegedly unsuccessful because TAN refused to answer or receive him.
- See did not immediately report the disappearance; instead he believed TAN, as a friend, would return the car.
- On March 5, 1993 with assistance from Land Transportation Office personnel, See caused the car’s 1993 registration renewal despite the vehicle’s absence.
- On May 19, 1993, See allegedly saw the vehicle parked at the rear of TAN’s warehouse at a distance of some five feet; parts had been dismantled and pieces of wood had been piled on top to conceal it.
- See formally lodged a complaint for carnapping against TAN on or about June 2, 1993, and reported the loss to the PNP Traffic Management Command on June 4, 1993; an alarm for the car was issued.
- See denied an application for clearance to sell the car that the PNP said had been filed in his name, and denied the purported signature on such application.
- During a police visit to TAN’s premises, See identified TAN and observed on TAN’s table objects he believed to be accessories from his car (a two-way radio antenna and car stereo).
- Defense evidence and material factual assertions
- TAN denied carnapping and testified that the complaint was a collection ploy arising from his indebtedness to See and from personal quarrels; TAN claimed indebtedness of P 800,000 to See.
- TAN asserted that See agreed to sell the Mitsubishi Gallant to TAN for P 280,000 and that the car was brought to TAN’s residence on November 26, 1992 for that purpose.
- TAN claimed he applied for a car loan with BPI Family Bank in Makati, that See personally supervised the car’s appraisal and inspection on March 19, 1993, and that TAN and See signed a deed of sale which TAN did not receive because See retained it to facilitate the loan.
- The bank approved a loan only for P 129,000; See purportedly refused those terms and TAN did not seek release of the loan proceeds.
- TAN testified that, after the friendship soured, he instructed his warehouse overseer to return the car to See on May 19, 1993; the overseer allegedly delivered the car outside See’s gate and handed the keys to See’s wife, Ruby.
- TAN peacefully accompanied police when invited to the station on June 14, 1993 in relation to See’s complaint.
- Trial court findings, sentence, and post-trial motions
- The trial court believed the prosecution’s version, finding See’s account clear, positive and straightforward and concluding that See had withdrawn consent when TAN appropriated the car for his own use; the court found TAN acted with intent to gain.
- The trial court found TAN’s explanation of sale and loan arrangements to be unworthy of belief....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Legal and factual issues presented for review
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying principles drawn from theft cases (e.g., People v. Roxas, *U.S. v. de Vera*, People v. Trinidad) to find there was an unlawful taking constituting carnapping.
- Whether the evidence established unlawful taking of the motor vehicle within the meaning of Rep. Act No. 6539, i.e., taking with intent to gain without the owner’s consent.
- Whether the Court of Appeals disregarded exculpatory circumstances and critical facts that, if considered, would create reasonable doubt and require acquittal.
- Whether the absence of a written deed of sale or other documentary proof of purchase is dispositive of the lack of owner con...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)