11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
G.R.No.187044
PlaintiffAppellee,

Present:

CORONA,C.J.,
versus
Chairperson,

LEONARDODECASTRO,

BERSAMIN,

DELCASTILLO,and

VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.
RENATOLAGATyGAWAN a.k.a.

RENAT GAWAN and JAMES

Promulgated:
PALALAYyVILLAROSA,

AccusedAppellants.
September14,2011
xx

DECISION

LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:

This appeal was filed by accusedappellants Renato Lagat y Gawan (Lagat), also known as
RenatGawan,andJamesPalalayyVillarosa(Palalay)tochallengetheCourtofAppealsOctober8,
[1]
2008Decision inCAG.R.CR.H.C.No.02869,foraffirmingwithmodificationtheMarch19,
[2]
2007Decision oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch21,SantiagoCity,whereintheywere
foundguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofQualifiedCarnappinginCriminalCaseNo.214949.

AccusedappellantsLagatandPalalaywerechargedwiththecrimeofCarnappingasdefined
[3]
underSection2andpenalizedunderSection14 ofRepublicActNo.6539.Theaccusatoryportion
[4]
oftheInformation, reads:

Thatonoraboutthe12thdayofApril2005,atSantiagoCity,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionof
thisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,conspiring,connivingwitheachother,andmutually
helpingoneanotherandwithintenttogainandwithouttheconsentoftheownerthereof,didthenand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

1/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

helpingoneanotherandwithintenttogainandwithouttheconsentoftheownerthereof,didthenand
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away one (1) unit YASUKI tricycle
bearingEngineNo.161FMJ41535420andMotorNo.LX8PCK0034D002243thendrivenandowned
byJOSEBIAG,valuedat70,000.00,tothedamageandprejudiceoftheownerthereof.

Thatinthecourseofthecommissionofcarnapping,oronoccasionthereof,theabovenamedaccused,
conspiring,connivingconfederatingandhelpingeachother,andwithintenttokill,didthenandthere
assault, attack and wound the said JOSE BIAG with sharp and pointed instrument directing blows
againstthevitalpartsofthebodyofthelattertherebyinflictinguponhimmultiplestabandhacking
woundswhichdirectlycausedthedeathofthesaidJOSEBIAG.

[5]
LagatpleadednotguiltyuponarraignmentonJune16,2005. Palalay,ontheotherhand,did
[6]
notenteranypleahence,apleaofnotguiltywasenteredbytheRTCforhim.

[7]
OnAugust1,2005,bothaccusedproposedtopleadguiltytoalesseroffense. Intheirplea
[8]
bargaining proposal, they asked that they be allowed to plead guilty to the crime of Homicide
underArticle249oftheRevisedPenalCodeandthatthemitigatingcircumstancesofpleaofguilty
and/or no intention to commit so grave a wrong be considered in their favor. They also asked that
[9]
damagesbefixedat120,000.00.Thisproposalwasrejected bytheprosecutionthus,thepretrial
conferenceproceeded.ThepretrialOrdercontainedthefollowingfactsasadmittedbytheparties:

1. ThatthecadaverofJoseBiagwasrecoveredalongAngadananandSn.Guillermoroadby
membersofthepolicetogetherwithBarangayCaptainHehersonDulayandChiefTanodRumbaoa,Sr.

2.ThatthetwoaccusedwerearrestedinpossessionofpalayallegedlystoleninAlicia,Isabela.

3.ThatthecauseofdeathofJoseBiagwasmultiplestabandhackwoundsasdescribedinthe
[10]
AutopsyReportanddeathcertificatewhichshallbesubmittedduringtrial.

Afterthepretrialconference,trialonthemeritsensued.

TheprosecutionfirstpresentedFloridaBiag(Florida),thewifeofthevictimJoseBiag(Biag),
to testify on the circumstances leading to Biags disappearance and the discovery of his body, the
recoveryofBiagstricycle,andtheexpensessheincurredandtheincomeshehadlostasaresultof
herhusbandsdeath.Floridatestifiedthatherhusbandwasafarmer,abarangaytanod,andatricycle
[11]
driver.
OnApril12,2005,ataroundtwooclockinthemorning,herhusbandlefttooperatehis
tricycleforpublicuse.Itwasaround11:00a.m.ofApril13,2005,whennewsreachedherthattheir
tricycle was with the Philippine National Police (PNP) of the Municipality of Alicia and that her
husband had figured in an accident. After learning of the incident, Florida sought the help of their
Barangay (Brgy.) Captain, Heherson Dulay, who immediately left for Angadanan without her. At
[12]
Floridaofwhathadhappenedtoherhusband.

around2:00p.m.,Brgy.CaptainDulayinformed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

2/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044
[12]
around2:00p.m.,Brgy.CaptainDulayinformed
Floridaofwhathadhappenedtoherhusband.

[13]
[14]
Floridathenpresentedincourtthereceipts
evidencingtheexpensesshehadincurredforher
husbands wake and funeral and for the repair of their tricycle, which was recovered with missing
parts.ShealsotestifiedastotheincomeBiagwasearningasafarmer,atanod,andatricycledriver,
[15]
andclaimedthathisdeathhadcausedhersleeplessnights.

ThesecondwitnessfortheprosecutionwastheChiefTanodofBarangayRizal,PoeRumbaoa,
Sr. (Rumbaoa). He testified that on April 13, 2005, after he and Brgy. Captain Dulay received
Floridas report, they immediately went to the Alicia Police Station, wherein they found Biags
tricycle. The PNP ofAlicia showed them the identification card recovered in the tricycle and told
themthatthetricyclewasusedinstealingpalayfromastoreinAngadanan,Isabelathatbelongedtoa
certainJimmyEsteban(Esteban).RumbaoaandBrgy.CaptainDulaywerealsotoldthattheownerof
the tricycle was killed and dumped along the Angadanan and San Guillermo Road. They were
thereaftershownthetwosuspectsandtheplacewhereBiagsbodywasdumped.Rumbaoa said that
hewasabletoidentifythebodyasBiags,whichwasalmostunrecognizablebecauseitwasbloatedall
[16]
over,onlybecauseBiaghadamarkonhisrightshoulder,whichRumbaoaknewof.

PoliceOfficer2(PO2)ArthurSalvador,amemberofthePNPinAlicia,tookthewitnessstand
next. He testified that on April 13, 2005, he was on duty along with other colleagues at the Alicia
PNPStation,whentheyreceivedareportfromEstebanthatthecavansofpalaystolenfromhimwere
seenatAlicePalayBuyingStationinAlicia,Isabela,inatricyclecommandeeredbytwounidentified
malepersons. PO2 Salvador said that upon receipt of this report, their Chief of Police composed a
team,whichincludedhim,PO2BernardIgnacio,andPO2NathanAbuan,toverifytheveracityofthe
report.AtAlicePalayBuyingStation,theysawthetricycledescribedtothembytheirchief,withthe
cavansofpalay,andthetwoaccused,LagatandPalalay.PO2Salvadoraverredthatheandhisteam
[17]
wereabouttoapproachthetricyclewhenthetwoaccusedscampered
todifferentdirections.After
collaringthetwoaccused,theybroughtthemtotheAliciaPNPStationtogetherwiththetricycleand
itscontents.PO2Salvadorasseveratedthatwhentheyreachedthestation,theyaskedthetwoaccused
iftheyhadanypaperstoshowforboththetricycleandthepalay,towhichthetwoaccuseddidnot
answer.Theyallegedlykeptsilentevenaftertheywereinformedoftheirrightsnotonlytoremainas
such,butalsotohavecounsel,eitheroftheirownchoosing,ortobeassignedtothemiftheycannot
afford one. PO2 Salvador then continued that when they unloaded the tricycle, they discovered
bloodstainsinsideandoutsidethesidecar.Healsopersonallyfoundawalletcontainingthetricycles
[18]
CertificateofRegistrationandOfficialReceipt
issuedbytheLandTransportationOfficeinthe
name of Jose Biag. When they asked the two accused about their discoveries, Lagat and Palalay
voluntarilyansweredthatthenameinthepapersisthatoftheownerofthetricycle,whomtheykilled
and dumped along Angadanan and San Guillermo
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

Road, when they carnapped his tricyle. PO2

3/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

and dumped along Angadanan and San Guillermo Road, when they carnapped his tricyle. PO2
Salvador alleged that upon hearing this revelation, they again informed Lagat and Palalay that
anythingtheysaywouldbeusedagainstthem,andthattheyhadarighttocounsel.Thereafter,they
coordinated with the PNP of Angadanan Police Station, and together with the two accused, they
proceededtoAngadananSanGuillermoRoad,wheretheyfoundBiagsbodyinaravinejustafterthe
[19]
bridgeneartheroad.

The prosecutions last witness, PO2 Ignacio corroborated PO2 Salvadors testimony on the
events that led them to the tricycle, the palay, the two accused, and the body of Biag. He also
confirmedPO2Salvadorsclaimthattheyhadinformedthetwoaccusedoftheirrightsbutthelatter
[20]
justignoredthemhence,theycontinuedwiththeirinvestigation.
PO2Ignacioaddedthatthetwo
accusedalsotoldthemhowtheykilledBiag,towit:

A TheyrentedatricyclefromSantiagotoAliciabuttheyproceededtoAngadanan.And upon
arrivalatthesite,theypokedaknifetothedriverandthedriverranaway.Theychasedhimand
[21]
stabbedhim,sir.

Upon crossexamination, PO2 Ignacio averred that they were not able to recover the murder
weapondespitediligenteffortstolookforitandthattheyhadquestionedthepeopleatAlicePalay
Buying Station and were told that the two accused had no other companion. PO2 Ignacio also
admittedthatwhiletheyinformedLagatandPalalayoftheirconstitutionalrights,thetwowerenever
[22]
assistedbycounselatanytimeduringthecustodialinvestigation.

[23]
The prosecution also submitted the PostMortem Autopsy Report
on Biag of Dr. Edgar
Romanchito P. Bayang, the Assistant City Health and MedicoLegal Officer of Santiago City. The
ReportshowedthatBiagwaslikelykilledbetween12:00noonand2:00p.m.ofApril12,2004,and
thathehadsustainedthreestabwounds,anincisewound,twohackwoundsandanavulsionofthe
[24]
skinextendingtowardstheabdomen.

After the prosecution rested its case, the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to
[25]
[26]
Evidence
withoutleaveofcourt
onthegroundthattheprosecutionfailedtoprovetheirguilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Lagat and Palalay averred that their constitutional rights on custodial
investigationweregrosslyviolatedastheywereinterrogatedforhourswithoutcounsel,relatives,or
anydisinterestedthirdpersontoassistthem.Moreover,theadmissionstheyallegedlymadewerenot
supportedbydocumentaryevidence.Palalay further claimed that Rumbaoas testimony showed that
hehadaswellingabovehisrighteyeandaknifewoundinhisleftarm,whichsuggeststhathewas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

4/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

[27]
maltreatedwhileunderpolicecustody.

Theaccusedalsoclaimedthatthecircumstantialevidencepresentedbytheprosecutionwasnot
sufficienttoconvictthem.They averred that aside from the alleged admissions they had made, the
prosecutionhadnothingelse:theyhadnoobjectevidenceforthebloodstainsallegedlyfoundinthe
tricyclethemurderweaponwasneverfoundandnoeyewitnessasidefromthepoliceofficerswas
presentedtoshowthattheywereinpossessionofthetricycleatthetimetheywerearrested. Lagat
andPalalayarguedthattheprosecutionfailedtoestablishanunbrokenchainofeventsthatshowed
theirguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt,thus,theywereentitledtoenjoytheconstitutionalpresumption
[28]
ofinnocenceabsentproofthattheywereguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt.

AstheaccusedfiledtheirDemurrertoEvidencewithoutleaveofcourt,theyineffectwaived
theirrighttopresentevidence,andsubmittedthecaseforjudgmentonthebasisoftheevidencefor
[29]
theprosecution.

OnMarch19,2007,theRTCrenderedaDecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFOREinthelightoftheforegoingconsiderationstheCourtfindstheaccusedRenato
Lagat y Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of qualified
carnapping and hereby sentences each of them to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are also
ORDERED TO PAY Florida Biag the sum of Twelve thousand three hundred pesos (12,300.00) as
actualdamagesplusFiftythousandpesos(50,000.00)fordeathindemnityandanotherFiftythousand
[30]
pesos(50,000.00)formoraldamages.

Afterevaluatingtheevidencetheprosecutionpresented,theRTCagreedwiththeaccusedthat
theirrightswereviolatedduringtheircustodialinvestigationastheyhadnocounseltoassistthem.
Thus,whateveradmissionstheyhadmade,whethervoluntarilyornot,couldnotbeusedagainstthem
[31]
andwereinadmissibleinevidence.

However,theRTCheldthatdespitetheabsenceofaneyewitness,theprosecutionwasableto
establishenoughcircumstantialevidencetoprovethatLagatandPalalaycommittedthecrime,towit:

1. TheaccusedwerecaughtbytheAliciaPNPinpossessionofBiagstricycle,loadedwith
stolenpalay
2.TheaccusedranimmediatelywhentheysawtheAliciaPNPapproachingthem
3.TheAliciaPNPfoundbloodstainsonthetricycleandBiagswalletwithdocumentstoprove
thatBiagownedthetricycle
4. TheAliciaPNPcontactedthePNPofSantiagoCitytoinquireaboutaJoseBiag,andthis
washowthebarangayofficialsofSantiagoCityandFloridafoundoutthatBiagstricycle

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

5/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

washowthebarangayofficialsofSantiagoCityandFloridafoundoutthatBiagstricycle
waswiththeAliciaPNP
5.BiagleftearlymorningonApril12,2005andneverreturnedhome
6. TheaccusedthemselvesledtheAliciaPNPandBarangayCaptainDulayandRumbaoato
[32]
wheretheydumpedBiagsbody.

The RTC convicted Lagat and Palalay of the crime of carnapping, qualified by the killing of

[33]
Biag,which,accordingtotheRTC,appearedtohavebeendoneinthecourseofthecarnapping.

Lagat and Palalay asked the RTC to reconsider its Decision on the grounds that it erred in
giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses and in relying on the
[34]
circumstantialevidencepresentedbytheprosecution.

[35]
On May 29, 2007, the RTC denied
this motion, holding that the testimonies of the
witnesseswerecredibleandsupportedbytheattendingfactsandcircumstances,andthattherewas
sufficientcircumstantialevidencetoconvicttheaccused.

[36]
Lagat and Palalay went
to the Court of Appeals, asserting that their guilt was not
[37]
establishedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Theyaverredthatcircumstantialevidence,tobesufficient
[38]
forajudgmentofconviction,mustexcludeeachandeveryhypothesisconsistentwithinnocence,
which was allegedly not the case in their situation. They elaborated on why the circumstantial
evidencetheRTCenumeratedcouldnotbetakenagainstthem:

1.Theaccusedspossessionofthetricyclecannotprovethattheykilleditsowner
2. Theiractoffleeingmaybeduetothestolenpalay(whichisnotthesubjectofthiscase),
andnotthetricycle
3.NoevidencewasgiventhatwouldlinkthebloodstainsfoundinthetricycletoBiaghimself.
TheycouldhaveeasilybeenPalalays,whowasshowntohaveaknifewoundand
4.TheaccusedsactofpointingtothepoliceandthebarangayofficialstheravinewhereBiags
body was dumped was part of their interrogation without counsel, which the RTC itself
[39]
declaredasinadmissibleinevidence.
OnOctober8,2008,theCourtofAppealsrendereditsDecisionwiththefollowingdispositive
portion:

WHEREFORE,theDecisiondatedMarch19,2007oftheRTC,Branch21,SantiagoCity,in
Criminal Case No. 214949, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accusedappellants

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

6/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

Criminal Case No. 214949, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accusedappellants
Renato Lagat y Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa are ordered to pay to private complainant the
[40]
increasedamountof14,900.00asactualdamages.

In affirming the conviction of the accused, the Court of Appeals held that the elements of
carnapping were all present in this case. The Court of Appeals pointed out that Lagat and Palalay
wereinpossessionofthemissingtricyclewhentheywereapprehendedbytheAliciaPNP.Moreover,
theyfailedtoofferanyexplanationastohowtheycametobeinpossessionofthetricycle.TheCourt
ofAppealsalsoagreedwiththeRTCthatwhateverconfessionoradmissiontheAliciaPNPextracted
out of the accused could not be used in evidence for having been done without the assistance of
counsel.TheCourtofAppealsnonethelessaffirmedtheRTCsjudgmentasitwasconvincedthatthe
followingcircumstantialevidencesupportedtheconvictionoftheaccusedforqualifiedcarnapping:

1.BiagandhistricyclewentmissingonApril12,2005
2.LagatandPalalaywerefoundinunauthorizedpossessionofthetricycleonApril13,2005
3. TheAliciaPNP,uponinspectionofthetricycle,foundtracesofbloodinsideit,together
with the original receipt and certificate of registration of the vehicle in the name of Jose
Biag
4.PalalayhadastabwoundonhisleftarmwhentheAliciaPNPpresentedhimandLagatto
Brgy.Capt.DulayandprosecutionwitnessRumbaoa
5.Biagborefive(5)hackwoundsonhisbodywhentheAliciaPNPrecoveredhiscorpseina
ravineand
6. Lagat and Palalay failed to account for their possession of the bloodstained tricycle
[41]
immediatelyaftertheirarrest.

Theaccusedarenowbeforeuswiththesameloneassignmentoferrortheypositedbeforethe
CourtofAppeals,towit:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS GUILTY

OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OFTHE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS
[42]
GUILTBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

RulingoftheCourt
LagatandPalalayhavebeenchargedandconvictedofthecrimeofqualifiedcarnappingunder
[43]
Republic Act. No. 6539
or the AntiCarnapping Act of 1972. Section 2 of the Act defines
carnappingandmotorvehicleasfollows:

Carnappingisthetaking,withintenttogain,ofamotorvehiclebelongingtoanotherwithoutthelatters
consent,orbymeansofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersons,orbyusingforceuponthings.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

7/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

Motor vehicle is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public
highways,butexceptingroadrollers,trolleycars,streetsweepers,sprinklers,lawnmowers,bulldozers,
graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run
only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for
agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be
propelledbyattachmenttoamotorvehicle,shallbeclassifiedasseparatemotorvehiclewithnopower
[44]
rating.

TheelementsofcarnappingasdefinedandpenalizedundertheAntiCarnappingActof1972
arethefollowing:
1.Thatthereisanactualtakingofthevehicle
2.Thatthevehiclebelongstoapersonotherthantheoffenderhimself
3. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof or that the taking was
committedbymeansofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersons,orbyusingforceupon
thingsand
[45]
4.Thattheoffenderintendstogainfromthetakingofthevehicle.

Therecordsofthiscaseshowthatalltheelementsofcarnappingarepresentandwereproven
duringtrial.

The tricycle, which was definitively ascertained to belong to Biag, as evidenced by the
registrationpapers,wasfoundinLagatandPalalayspossession.Asidefromthis,theprosecutionwas
also able to establish that Lagat and Palalay fled the scene when the Alicia PNP tried to approach
thematthepalaybuyingstation.Totopitall,LagatandPalalayfailedtogiveanyreasonwhythey
had Biags tricycle. Their unexplained possession raises the presumption that they were responsible
fortheunlawfultakingofthetricycle.Section3(j),Rule131oftheRulesofCourtstatesthat:

[A]personfoundinpossessionofathingtakeninthedoingofarecentwrongfulactisthetakerandthe
doerofthewholeactotherwise,thatthingwhichapersonpossesses,orexercisesactsofownership
over,areownedbyhim.

[46]
InLittonMills,Inc.v.Sales,
wesaidthatforsuchpresumptiontoarise,itmustbeproven
that:(a)thepropertywasstolen(b)itwascommittedrecently(c)thatthestolenpropertywasfound
inthepossessionoftheaccusedand(d)theaccusedisunabletoexplainhispossessionsatisfactorily.
[47]
Asmentionedabove,allthesewereprovenbytheprosecutionduringtrial.Thus,itispresumed
[48]
that Lagat and Palalay had unlawfully taken Biags tricycle. In People v. Bustinera,
this Court
definedunlawfultaking,asfollows:

Unlawfultaking,orapoderamiento,isthetakingofthemotorvehiclewithouttheconsentofthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

8/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

Unlawfultaking,orapoderamiento,isthetakingofthemotorvehiclewithouttheconsentofthe
owner,orbymeansofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersons,orbyusingforceuponthingsitis
deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no
[49]
opportunitytodisposeofthesame.

Lagat and Palalays intent to gain from the carnapped tricycle was also proven as they were
caughtinapalaybuyingstation,onboardthestolentricycle,whichtheyobviouslyusedtotransport
thecavansofpalaytheyhadstolenandweregoingtosellatthestation.InBustinera,weelucidated
ontheconceptofintenttogainandsaid:

Intenttogainoranimuslucrandiisaninternalact,presumedfromtheunlawfultakingofthe
motorvehicle.Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term
gainisnotmerelylimitedtopecuniarybenefitbutalsoincludesthebenefitwhichinanyothersense
maybederivedorexpectedfromtheactwhichisperformed.Thus,themereuseofthethingwhichwas
[50]
takenwithouttheownersconsentconstitutesgain.

Havingestablishedthattheelementsofcarnappingarepresentinthiscase,wenowgotothe
argument of the two accused that they cannot be convicted based on the circumstantial evidence
presentedbytheprosecution.

Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
convictionif:

(a)Thereismorethanonecircumstance

(b)Thefactsfromwhichtheinferencesarederivedareprovenand

(c)Thecombinationofallthecircumstancesresultsinamoralcertaintythattheaccused,totheexclusionofall
others,istheonewhohascommittedthecrime.

[51]
InPeoplev.Mansueto,
wesaid:

Circumstantialevidenceisthatevidencewhichprovesafactorseriesoffactsfromwhichthe
factsinissuemaybeestablishedbyinference.Suchevidenceisfoundedonexperienceandobserved
facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts
[52]
soughttobeproved.

Hence, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of

circumstancesmustbeinterwoveninsuchawayastoleavenoreasonabledoubtastotheguiltofthe
[53]
accused.

A careful and exhaustive examination of the evidence presented, excluding those that are
inadmissible,showthatthecircumstantialevidence,whenviewedasawhole,effectivelyestablishes
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

9/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

inadmissible,showthatthecircumstantialevidence,whenviewedasawhole,effectivelyestablishes
the guilt of Lagat and Palalay beyond reasonable doubt. We considered the following pieces of
evidenceasconvincing:

First,LagatandPalalaywerefoundinpossessionofthetricyclethesamedaythatit,together
withitsownerBiag,wasreportedmissing.

Second,LagatandPalalaywerefoundatapalaybuyingstation,withthestolentricyclepacked
withcavansofpalayallegedlystoleninAlicia,Isabela.

Third,LagatandPalalaywhowerethenonboardthetricycle,jumpedandranthemomentthey
sawtheAliciaPNPapproachingthem.

Fourth,LagatandPalalaycouldnotexplaintotheAliciaPNPwhytheywereinpossessionof
Biagstricycle.

Fifth, Biags wallet and his tricycles registration papers were found in the tricycle upon its
inspectionbytheAliciaPNP.

Sixth,Biagsbodyborehackwoundsasevidencedbythepostmortemautopsydoneonhim,
whilehistricyclehadtracesofbloodinit.

The foregoing circumstantial evidence only leads to the conclusion that Lagat and Palalay
conspiredtokillBiaginordertostealhistricycle.Directproofthatthetwoaccusedconspiredisnot
essential as it may be inferred from their conduct before, during, and after their commission of the
[54]
crimethattheyactedwithacommonpurposeanddesign.
The pieces of evidence presented by
theprosecutionareconsistentwithoneanotherandtheonlyrationalpropositionthatcanbedrawn
therefromisthattheaccusedareguiltyofkillingBiagtocarnaphistricycle.

When a person is killed or raped in the course of or on the occasion of the carnapping, the
crimeofcarnappingisqualifiedandthepenaltyisincreasedpursuanttoSection14ofRepublicAct
No.6539,asamended:

Section14.PenaltyforCarnapping.Anypersonwhoisfoundguiltyofcarnapping,asthisterm
is defined in Section Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be
punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than
seventeenyearsandfourmonths,whenthecarnappingiscommittedwithoutviolenceorintimidationof
persons,orforceuponthingsandbyimprisonmentfornotlessthanseventeenyearsandfourmonths
and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or
intimidationofanyperson,orforceuponthingsandthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeathshall
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

10/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

intimidationofanyperson,orforceuponthingsandthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeathshall
beimposedwhentheowner,driveroroccupantofthecarnappedmotorvehicleiskilledorraped
inthecourseofthecommissionofthecarnappingorontheoccasionthereof.(AsamendedbyR.A.
No.7659.)(Emphasisours)

Astherewasnoaggravatingcircumstanceattendantinthecommissionofthecrime,theRTC
properlyimposedthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.

In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, we affirm the award of 50,000.00 as civil

indemnity ex delicto for the death of Jose Biag and 50,000.00 as moral damages for the proven
mentalsufferingofhiswifeasaresultofhisuntimelydeath.However,whenactualdamagesproven
by receipts during trial amount to less than 25,000.00, as in this case, the award of temperate
[55]
damagesfor25,000.00isjustifiedinlieuofactualdamagesofalesseramount.
Thus,anaward
of25,000.00astemperatedamagesinlieuoftheamountof14,900.00thattheCourtofAppeals
awardedasactualdamagesisproperinthiscase.

BoththeRTCandtheCourtofAppealsfailedtoconsiderthatunderArticle2206oftheCivil
Code,theaccusedarealsojointlyandseverallyliableforthelossoftheearningcapacityofBiagand

[56]

suchindemnityshouldbepaidtohisheirs.

[57]
thisCourtsaid:

InPeoplev.Jadap,

Asarule,documentaryevidenceshouldbepresentedtosubstantiatetheclaimfordamagesforlossof
earningcapacity.Bywayofexception,damagesforlossofearningcapacitymaybeawardeddespite
theabsenceofdocumentaryevidencewhen(1)thedeceasedisselfemployedandearninglessthanthe
minimumwageundercurrentlaborlaws,inwhichcasejudicialnoticemaybetakenofthefactthatin
thedeceased'slineofworknodocumentaryevidenceisavailableor(2)thedeceasedisemployedasa
daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. In this case, no
documentaryevidencewaspresentedtoprovetheclaimofthevictimsheirsfordamagesbyreasonof
lossofearningcapacity.However,thevictimsfathertestifiedthatatthetimeofhissonsdeath,hewas
only 20 years old and was working as a mason with a monthly income of 3,000.00. We find the
[58]
fatherstestimonysufficienttojustifytheawardofdamagesforlossofearningcapacity.

Biags widow, Florida, testified that Biag worked as a farmer, tanod, and tricycle driver, and
thathisincomeamountedto40,000.00percroppingseasonasafarmer,2,000.00permonthasa
tanod,and300.00perdayasatricycledriver.However,sincetheprosecutionfailedtopresentany
documentpertainingtoBiagsappointmentasatanod,orthatheactuallyworkedasafarmer,weshall
[59]
consideronlyhisearningsasatricycledriver.Accordingtothedeathcertificate
submittedbythe
prosecution,Biagwas56yearsoldatthetimeofhisdeath.

Theamountofdamagesrecoverableforthelossofearningcapacityofthedeceasedisbasedon
twofactors:1)thenumberofyearsonthebasisofwhichthedamagesshallbecomputedand2)the
rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs of the deceased should be fixed. The first factor is

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

11/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs of the deceased should be fixed. The first factor is
basedontheformula(2/3x80ageofthedeceasedatthetimeofhisdeath=lifeexpectancy)whichis
[60]
adoptedfromtheAmericanExpectancyTableofMortality.
Netincomeiscomputedbydeducting
fromtheamountofthevictimsgrossincometheamountofhislivingexpenses.Asthereisnoproof
[61]
of Biags living expenses, the net income is estimated to be 50% of the gross annual income.
Thus,thelossofearningcapacityofthedeceasediscomputedasfollows:

[62]
NetEarningCapacity=lifeexpectancyx[grossannualincomelivingexpenses]
=2/3[80ageattimeofdeath]x[grossannualincome50%ofgrossannualincome]
=2/3[8056]x[109,500.0054,750.00]
=16x54,750.00
=876,000.00

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the October 8, 2008 decision of the

CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CR.H.C.No.02869.AccusedappellantsRenatoLagatyGawanand
James Palalay y Villarosa are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
QUALIFIEDCARNAPPINGandaresentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua. They
areherebyORDEREDtopaytheheirsofthevictimJoseBiagthefollowing:(a)50,000.00ascivil
indemnity(b)50,000.00asmoraldamages(c)25,000.00astemperatedamages(d)876,000.00
aslossofearningcapacityand(e)interestonalldamagesawardedattherateof6%perannumfrom
thedateoffinalityofthisjudgment.

SOORDERED.

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htmChairperson

12/15

11/8/2016

G.R.No.187044

Chairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.217pennedbyAssociateJusticeHakimS.AbdulwahidwithAssociateJusticesPortiaAlioHormachuelosandTeresitaDy
LiaccoFlores,concurring.
[2]
Records,pp.126133.
[3]
AsamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659.
[4]
Records,pp.12.
[5]
Id.at22.
[6]
Id.at21.
[7]
Id.at28.
[8]
Id.at38.
[9]
Id.at41.
[10]
Id.at39.
[11]
TSN,January9,2006,p.10.
[12]
Records,p.4.
[13]
TSN,January9,2006,pp.36.
[14]
Records,pp.98A98I.
[15]
TSN,January9,2006,pp.713.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

13/15

11/8/2016

TSN,January9,2006,pp.713.
[16]
TSN,April20,2006,pp.36.
[17]
TSN,September18,2006,p.5.
[18]
Records,p.8.
[19]
TSN,September18,2006,pp.416.
[20]
TSN,November15,2006,pp.410.
[21]
Id.at9.
[22]
Id.at1321.
[23]
Records,pp.9496.
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id.at104110.
[26]
RulesofCourt,Rule119,Section23.
[27]
TSN,April20,2006,p.10.

G.R.No.187044

[28]
Records,pp.108109.
[29]
RulesofCourt,Rule119,Section23,paragraph2.
[30]
Records,p.133.
[31]
Id.at130131.
[32]
Id.at131132.
[33]
Id.at131133.
[34]
Id.at135138.
[35]
Id.at141142.
[36]
Id.at143.
[37]
CArollo,p.29.
[38]
Id.at34.
[39]
Id.at3536.
[40]
Rollo,p.16.
[41]
Id.at14.
[42]
CArollo,p.33.
[43]
AsamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659.
[44]
RepublicActNo.6539,Section2.
[45]
Peoplev.BernabeandGarcia,448Phil.269,280(2003).
[46]
G.R.No.151400,September1,2004,437SCRA488.
[47]
Id.at502.
[48]
G.R.No.148233,June8,2004,431SCRA284.
[49]
Id.at295.
[50]
Id.at296.
[51]
391Phil.611(2000).
[52]
Id.at629.
[53]
Peoplev.Casitas,Jr.,445Phil.407,417(2003).
[54]
Peoplev.Sube,449Phil.165,176177(2003).
[55]
Peoplev.Magdaraog,G.R.No.151251,May19,2004,428SCRA529,543.
[56]
Peoplev.Sirad,390Phil.412,426(2000).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

14/15

11/8/2016

[56]
Peoplev.Sirad,390Phil.412,426(2000).
[57]
G.R.No.177983,March30,2010,617SCRA179.
[58]
Id.at196197.
[59]
Records,p.9.
[60]
Peoplev.Librando,390Phil.543,559(2000).
[61]
Peoplev.Templo,400Phil.471,494(2000).
[62]
Peoplev.Verde,362Phil.305,321(1999).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

G.R.No.187044

15/15