JOSE GALVEZ MORALES,

Complainant,
NPS Docket No. XV-05-
INV-18E-0583

-versus-

For: Violation of Republic Act No.

10883 (New Anti-Carnapping

Act of 2016)

RICHARD GILBUELA LAYOS, Promulgated:

Respondent. ________________
x———————————————x

RESOLUTION

This resolves the petition for review filed by respondent of the Resolu-
tion dated 26 July 2018 of Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City, in the
above-captioned case finding probable cause against him for violation of Re-
public Act No. 10883 (RA 10883) otherwise known as the New Anti-Carnap-
ping Act of 2016, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that re-

spondent Richard Gilbuela Layos, be charged with carnapping under Re-
public Act No. 10883 or the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 and that
the attached information be filed in court. Considering the maximum im-
posable penalty, the offence is non-bailable.”

After a careful evaluation of the case, we find the resolution of the

Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City to be in order as there is. O
evidence to justify the reversal and/or modification thereof.

We agree with office a quo that there is probable cause to charge

respondent of the crime of carnapping based on the factual circumstances,
all the elements of the same are present:
 1. That there is actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the vehicles belong to a person other than the offender
himself;
3. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or
that the taking was committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and
4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehi-
cle.

As correctly pointed out by the office a quo, the taking must be without
the consent of the owner. However, there are instances when carnapping
are still committed even if, initially, the taking was lawful. Complainant ini-
tially consented to respondent’s taking and possession of the taxi. Such law-
ful possession became unlawful when respondent received the complainant’s
demand to return the taxi, to wit:

“Respondent merely ignored the letter he received on April

20, 2018, where the return of the vehicle was demanded. Thus, all
the elements of the offence existed on said date because his pos-
session of it was transformed into an unlawful one.”

In the case of People vs. Untalan, G.R. No. 212815, March 01, 2017,
unlawful taking or apoderamiento is the taking of the motor vehicle without
the consent of the owner. It is deemed complete from the moment the of-
fender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose
of the same. Applying the above cited jurisprudence in this case, the pos-
session became unlawful when respondent failed to return the car of the
complainant after demand has been made. Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court provides the presumption that a person found in possession
of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
doer of the whole act.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby

DISMISSED, and the assailed Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
 Manila, Philippines.

For the Secretary of Justice

_____________________
Undersecretary

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Makati City

JOSE GALVEZ MORALES

4626 Aranda St., corner Primo Rivera St.,
Brgy.Tejeros, Makati City

ATTY. JERONIMO B. CUMIGAD

Counsel for Complainant
12th Floor De Leon Centre Building,
1151 M.H. del Pilar cor. Nuestra Señora,
Ermita Manila

L.M. GANGOSO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Responent
Unit 2420 Herrera Towers,
V.A. Rufino cor. Valero St.
Makati City