People vs. Ellasos

In cases of carnapping with homicide under Section 14 of the original Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act), the proper penalty is life imprisonment to death, not reclusion perpetua; life imprisonment (imposed for offenses under special laws) is distinct from reclusion perpetua (imposed under the Revised Penal Code) in that the latter carries accessory penalties and has a definite duration, whereas the former does not. Furthermore, possession by an accused of property (a tricycle wheel) taken during a recent wrongful act (carnapping and homicide), without satisfactory explanation, raises the disputable presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(j) of the Rules of Court that he is the taker and doer of the whole act.

The case arose from the killing of Miguel de Belen, a tricycle driver and registered owner of the vehicle, and the taking of his motor tricycle on the night of April 2, 1992, in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija. The accused, Carlo Ellasos and Sonny Obillo, were apprehended the following morning at the Iglesia ni Cristo compound in Muoz, Nueva Ecija, in possession of a firearm and a wheel of the stolen tricycle, respectively. The victim's body was later found tied to a tree in Tayabo, San Jose City, with a fatal gunshot wound to the head.

• On April 2, 1992, at approximately 9:00 p.m., victim Miguel de Belen was last seen by his brother, Fernando de Belen, at a Caltex Station in San Jose City; Miguel was seated in the sidecar of his tricycle with accused Sonny Obillo, while accused Carlo Ellasos was driving.
• At around midnight of the same day, Fernando and another brother, Leonardo, saw Ellasos and Obillo riding the victim's tricycle without Miguel; when confronted at Tierra Hotel, Ellasos falsely claimed that Miguel was left behind in Malasin drinking with his father, a statement which Obillo, who was awake, did not correct.
• The brothers proceeded to Malasin but failed to find Miguel; the following morning, they reported his disappearance to the police and were informed that a cadaver had been recovered in Tayabo, which was identified as Miguel de Belen, dead from a gunshot wound to the head and tied to a tree.
• At approximately 3:00 a.m. on April 3, 1992, caretaker Edgardo Galletes saw the two accused arrive on foot at the Iglesia ni Cristo chapel in Muoz, Nueva Ecija, drunk and reeking of liquor; he noticed Ellasos possessed a .38 caliber revolver and Obillo carried a wheel of the tricycle.
• The accused were apprehended by security guards and turned over to the police, who recovered the firearm and the tricycle wheel; the damaged tricycle was later found abandoned in a culvert.
• Dr. Raul Agliam's autopsy revealed the victim died of irreversible shock due to a gunshot wound with powder burns, indicating the firearm was fired at close range, and noted abrasions consistent with being tied by a rope around the neck.
• Accused-appellant Sonny Obillo testified in his defense that he was drunk, fell asleep inside the tricycle while waiting for Ellasos and the victim, and woke up at the Iglesia ni Cristo compound where Ellasos allegedly admitted to killing the driver; he denied any participation in the killing or carnapping.

• The trial court gravely erred in holding that the crime of Carnapping with Homicide was committed because the essential element of intent to gain was not proven; the taking of the tricycle wheel was merely an afterthought, constituting only theft of the wheel, not the entire vehicle.
• The trial court gravely erred in holding that accused-appellant conspired with Carlo Ellasos, as there was no direct evidence of an agreement and no proof that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy; mere presence and association with Ellasos were insufficient to establish conspiracy.
• The trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant despite the insufficiency of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, arguing that the prosecution failed to rebut his defense of denial and intoxication.

• Intent to gain, being an internal act, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle; the unlawful taking was complete from the moment the accused gained possession of the tricycle, regardless of whether they later abandoned it or only appropriated a part (the wheel).
• Conspiracy is sufficiently established by the chain of circumstantial evidence showing the accused acted in concert: they were seen together with the victim before the crime, they were seen driving the stolen vehicle without the victim, they gave a false excuse for the victim's absence, and they were found in possession of the stolen wheel and the murder weapon.
• The combination of circumstances constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that both accused are guilty of carnapping with homicide.

• Procedural: Whether the trial court gravely erred in rendering a judgment of conviction against Carlo Ellasos despite having previously ordered a separate trial for him which had not yet taken place.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the element of intent to gain in carnapping was proven by the prosecution. Whether conspiracy between Sonny Obillo and Carlo Ellasos was sufficiently established by circumstantial evidence. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for Carnapping with Homicide. Whether the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• Procedural: The trial court gravely erred in convicting Carlo Ellasos. Having ordered a separate trial for Ellasos to be conducted in Muntinlupa, which had not yet taken place, the court could not validly render a judgment against him. The judgment convicting Ellasos is set aside, and the records are ordered forwarded to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Muntinlupa for the continuation of his trial with dispatch.
• Substantive: Intent to Gain: The element of intent to gain (animus lucrandi) is an internal act presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle. Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. The fact that only the wheel was found in Obillo's possession and the rest of the tricycle was abandoned does not negate the unlawful taking of the entire vehicle; the accused remain liable for the carnapping of the whole tricycle. Conspiracy: Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, indicative of a joint purpose and concerted action. The circumstantial evidence—riding together with the victim, driving the stolen vehicle, giving false information about the victim's whereabouts, and possession of the stolen wheel and murder weapon—establishes a community of criminal design. Sufficiency of Evidence: A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld when there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The unbroken chain of proven circumstances here points to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. Penalty: The crime was committed on April 2, 1992, before the effectivity of R.A. 7659 (December 31, 1993). Therefore, the original provision of Section 14 of R.A. 6539 applies, imposing the penalty of life imprisonment to death when the owner or driver is killed. The trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua, which is distinct from life imprisonment; the latter is imposed for offenses under special laws and does not carry the accessory penalties of the former. Damages: The award for funeral expenses is reduced to P15,000.00, the amount supported by receipts. The award of P6,500.00 for damages to the tricycle is deleted because the receipts were not formally offered in evidence. The award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages is deleted because no aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime.

• Presumption of Guilt from Possession of Stolen Property — Under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, the thing possessed is presumed to be owned by him. Applied to hold that Obillo's possession of the tricycle wheel, without satisfactory explanation, raised the presumption that he participated in the carnapping and homicide.
• Circumstantial Evidence — For conviction based on circumstantial evidence to stand, (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived must be proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances must produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, constituting an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person.
• Conspiracy — Defined under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code as the agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony. It need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.
• Intent to Gain (Animus Lucrandi) in Carnapping — As an element of carnapping under R.A. 6539, intent to gain is an internal act presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle.
• Unlawful Taking (Apoderamiento) — The taking of the vehicle without the owner's consent, deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession, even if the vehicle is later abandoned or only parts are appropriated.
• Distinction Between Life Imprisonment and Reclusion Perpetua — Life imprisonment is imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws (like R.A. 6539) and does not carry accessory penalties; reclusion perpetua is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, carries accessory penalties under Article 40 of the RPC, and has a definite duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.

• "Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of the crime of carnapping, is an internal act and hence presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle."
• "The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his right of possession were complete as to the entire car; and the fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly to abandon the machine in no wise limits their criminal responsibility to the particular parts of the car that were appropriated..."
• "Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments."
• "Unlike life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua carries with it accessory penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code and has a definite extent and duration."
• "Life imprisonment is invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed in accordance with the Revised Penal Code."

• People v. Gulinao (179 SCRA 774) — Cited for the principle that intent to gain in carnapping is presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle.
• People v. Carpio (54 Phil 48) — Applied to hold that the accused is liable for the theft of the entire automobile even if only parts (tires) were appropriated and the rest abandoned.
• People v. Zafra (237 SCRA 664) — Cited for the presumption that possession of stolen property without satisfactory explanation indicates authorship of the crime.
• People v. Tiozon (198 SCRA 368) — Cited for the requisites of circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction.
• People v. Prado (254 SCRA 531) — Cited for the rule that in the absence of an explanation of how one came into possession of stolen effects belonging to a person killed, he must be considered the author of the aggression and death.
• People v. Kulais (292 SCRA 551) — Cited for the distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua.
• People v. Cabansay (G.R. No. 138646) — Cited regarding the requirement of receipts for funeral expenses and the imposition of exemplary damages only when aggravating circumstances are present.

• Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act), Section 2 — Defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.
• Republic Act No. 6539, Section 14 — Prescribes the penalty for carnapping; the original provision imposes life imprisonment to death when the owner, driver, or occupant is killed in the commission of the carnapping.
• Republic Act No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law), Section 20 — Amended Section 14 of R.A. 6539 to impose reclusion perpetua to death when the owner, driver, or occupant is killed; not applied because the crime preceded its effectivity.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 8 — Defines conspiracy as the agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony.
• Revised Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(j) — Disputable 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.
• Revised Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 34 — Provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
• New Civil Code, Article 2230 — Allows exemplary damages as part of civil liability in criminal offenses when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.