Title
Supreme Court
Casanas y Cabantac vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 223833
Decision Date
Dec 11, 2017
Casanas charged with carnapping in Valenzuela; Supreme Court dismissed case due to lack of jurisdiction, as crime occurred in Marilao, Bulacan.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223833)

Factual Background

On August 14, 2012 at about 9:00 p.m., Calderon parked his Racal motorcycle with sidecar outside the Marilao public market in Bulacan. He lent the tricycle’s key to petitioner Joshua Casanas to convey a passenger. Casanas never returned the vehicle. The next afternoon, Calderon reported the disappearance to the Marilao police. On August 19, 2012, Valenzuela City officers found Casanas beside the motorcycle (now sold without its sidecar), arrested him, and brought him to the police station. Casanas admitted borrowing the motorcycle on August 18 but claimed inability to return it due to social drinking; he denied felonious intent.

Trial Court Findings

By Decision dated May 15, 2013, the RTC-Valenzuela convicted Casanas of Carnapping under Section 2 of RA 6539. It held that:

  1. Initial possession was lawful as a borrowing arrangement.
  2. Failure to return the vehicle within the agreed period transformed possession into an unlawful taking.
  3. Continued personal use established intent to gain.
    Casanas was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 14 years and 8 months to 15 years.

Court of Appeals Ruling

In its July 28, 2015 Decision, the CA affirmed in toto. It emphasized that:

  • Only the motorcycle (without the sidecar) was recovered, underscoring intent to appropriate.
  • Casanas never sought Calderon’s permission for extended use nor produced registration papers when confronted by police.
    A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on January 11, 2016.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the RTC-Valenzuela had territorial jurisdiction over the alleged carnapping.
  2. Whether Casanas’s conviction for Carnapping was correctly upheld.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Jurisdiction

The Court held that a criminal court’s venue is jurisdictional and may be questioned at any stage. Under Rule 110, Sections 10 and 15(a), an information must allege that the offense or one of its essential ingredients occurred within the court’s territory. Although the information alleged commission in Valenzuela City, both Calderon’s sworn statement and trial testimony placed the taking at the public market in Marilao, Bulacan.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.