Title
Silver vs. Daray
Case
G.R. No. 219157
Decision Date
Aug 14, 2019
Dispute over vehicle ownership between Silver and Hao led to carnapping charges; SC upheld probable cause, affirming LTO registration as proof of ownership.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219157)

Key Individuals and Context
Petitioners
• Zenaida E. Silver, motor vehicle trader under “ZSH Commercial”
• SPO4 Nelson Salcedo, police officer
Private Respondents
• Loreto Hao and nephew Kenneth Hao (financier and liaison)
• Zenaida Talattad and Maureen Ella M. Macasindil (third-party registrants)
Judicial Actors
• Judge Marivic Trabajo Daray, RTC-11, Davao City (judge designate)
• Judge Danilo Belo, RTC-11, Davao City (initial warrant issuer)
• Court of Appeals, Twenty-Second Division
Applicable Law
• RA No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972)
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2
• Rule 112, Secs. 5(a), 6(a) and (b), Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Petition’s Subject Matter
Petitioners sought review of the CA’s (1) Decision of August 14, 2014, affirming probable cause findings for violation of RA 6539, and (2) Resolution of June 2, 2015, denying reconsideration. They contended the trial court judges failed to personally determine probable cause and that ownership disputes over vehicles negated carnapping.

Memorandum of Agreement and Auction Transaction
On February 4, 2005, Silver and Hao executed a loan agreement: Hao would finance a Bureau of Customs auction, Silver would execute a deed of sale at a higher price, assign five percent of resale profits, and share net proceeds 70-30 post-loan. Silver won the February 10 auction at P5,790,100, but Hao paid BOC directly. Ninety-five vehicles and parts were released in ZSH Commercial’s name. Vehicles were stored at Honasan Compound, Panacan, Davao City.

Dispute Over Vehicle Disposition
Silver granted Kenneth Hao a special power of attorney to sell and account for vehicles. Allegedly without Silver’s knowledge, Kenneth disposed of 64 items, generating over P10 million. Other vehicles were registered in third-party names. Silver rescinded the SPA, but Hao interests continued to remove and sell remaining vehicles, prompting criminal complaints.

Loreto Hao’s Counter-Affidavit and Reinvestment of Interest
Hao denied Silver’s version, asserting Silver’s initial bid was invalid. He funded the February 10 auction, Silver executed a deed of sale, and he took possession. A supplemental March 17, 2005 agreement and SPA to Kenneth confirmed his sole ownership. Silver later canceled these documents; she and companions forcibly attempted to retake vehicles from his Obrero compound. Hao counter-charged Silver and Salcedo with perjury, falsification, estafa, qualified theft, and carnapping for removing eleven vehicles without his consent.

Parallel Replevin Actions and Counters
Silver filed replevin actions before various RTC branches to recover vehicles under custodia legis. RTC-16 ordered seizure of 22 vehicles; eight were later removed by Silver without court permission. Hao filed carnapping counter-charges against Silver, Salcedo, Sheriff Andres, and others.

Dismissals and Findings of Probable Cause by DOJ
The City Prosecutor dismissed complaints on November 17, 2005. On June 27, 2007, the DOJ modified, finding probable cause for eight counts of RA 6539 against Silver, Salcedo, Egca, E. Salcedo, Gloria, Ramos, Tampos, and Andres, directing filing of informations. Branch 14 RTC subsequently granted prosecution’s motion to withdraw, dismissing the case. On July 10, 2009, the DOJ ordered reinstatement of the informations, which were raffled to Branch 11 as Criminal Cases Nos. 66,237-09 to 66,244-09.

Trial Court Proceedings on Warrant Issuance
On April 28, 2011, RTC-11 (Judge Belo) found probable cause for carnapping and directed issuance of warrants against Silver, Salcedo, Egca, Edward Salcedo, Gloria, Ramos, and Tampos; Andres was held insufficiently implicated. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on September 14, 2012, by Joint Order (Judge Belo and Judge Daray), after evaluating all pleadings and evidentiary submissions.

Court of Appeals’ Determination
Silver and Salcedo filed a certiorari petition before the CA, arguing the trial court judges did not personally determine probable cause and that ownership disputes negated carnapping. By Decision of August 14, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion: judges examined the prosecutor’s report, supporting documents, conducted a hearing, and independently evaluated evidence. The denial of reconsideration was affirmed on June 2, 2015.

Legal Issue on Probable Cause Determination
Whether the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s finding of probable cause for violation of RA 6539, given petitioners’ ownership claims and alleged procedural defects in warrant issuance.

Applicable Probable Cause Standards under the 1987 Constitution and Rules
Under Rule 112, Sec. 6(a), Rule 112, the RTC judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolutio



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.