Bernabe, Khristienne Rian C.

JD 4B

ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JEFFREY MACARANAS y FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. 226846
June 21, 2017

Facts:

Frank Karim Langaman and his girlfriend Kathlyn Irish Mae Cervantes were at
Meycauayan, Bulacan, in the evening of February 18, 2007, aboard Frank's motorcycle,
a green Honda Wave 125 with Plate No. NQ 8724, registered under the name of
Jacqueline Corpuz Langaman. When they were about to leave the place, two (2) men,
both wearing jackets and bonnets suddenly approached them, followed by a third man
who was earlier standing at a post. One of the three men held Frank by the neck and
shot Frank causing the latter to fall down. The same man pointed his gun at Kathlyn
and demanded that she give him her cellphone. After Kathlyn gave her cellphone, the
same man hit her on the back. Thereafter, Kathlyn pretended to be unconscious and
saw that the men searched the body of Frank for any valuables. While the incident was
taking place, the second man took Frank's motorcycle, while the third man, herein
appellant, just stood to guard them and acted as the look-out. Afterwards, the three
men left together riding Frank's motorcycle. It was then that Kathlyn was able to seek
help and Frank was taken to the hospital.

Frank sustained a gunshot injury and eventually died on the 27 th post-operative day
Thus, an Information was filed against appellant, Richard Lalata and a certain John Doe
charging them of violation of R.A. No. 6539. The RTC, in its decision, found appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and such decision was affirmed
with modification by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the present appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not appellant is guilty of violating RA. 6539

Ruling:

Yes, he is.

There is no arguing that the anti-camapping law is a special law, different from the
crime of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. It particularly addresses
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. But a careful comparison of this special law with the crimes of
robbery and theft readily reveals their common features and characteristics. However,
the anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles.
Hence a motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with
intent to gain, without the owner's consent, whether the taking was done with or
without the use of force upon things. Without the anti-carnapping law, such unlawful
taking of a motor vehicle would fall within the purview of either theft or robbery which
was certainly the case before the enactment of said statute."

So, essentially, carnapping is the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle and it becomes
qualified or aggravated when, in the course of the commission or on the occasion of the
carnapping, the owner, driver or occupant is killed or raped.  Thus, the elements of
carnapping as defined and penalized under R.A. No. 6539, as amended are the
following:

1) That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

2) That the vehicle belongs 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 vehicle. 11

Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. No. 6539, as amended, the prosecution
has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the
victim, and more importantly, it must show that the original criminal design of the
culprit was carnapping and that the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof." In this particular case, all
the elements are present as the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution show
that there were two (2) men both wearing jackets and bonnets, together with the
appellant who approached the victim and the witness Kathlyn and employed force and
intimidation upon them and thereafter forcibly took the victim's motorcycle and then
shot the victim on the neck causing his death.

The testimony of Kathlyn satisfies the aforementioned test of credibility. More

importantly, during her time at the witness stand, Kathlyn positively and categorically
identified accused-appellant as one of the three (3) men who committed the crime. It
has long been settled that where the witnesses of the prosecution were not actuated by
ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled
to full faith and credit. Herein, no imputation of improper motive on the part of Kathlyn
was ever made by the accused-appellant, as the latter even testified he was without
knowledge of any grudge Kathlyn might have against him.
ANTI-FENCING LAW

JAIME ONG y ONG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 190475
April 10, 2013

Facts:

Private complainant was the owner of forty-four (44) Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply
Firestone truck tires. Private complainant marked the tires using a piece of chalk before
storing them inside the warehouse owned by his relative Teody Guano. Jose Cabal,
Guano's caretaker of the warehouse, was in charge of the tires. After appellant sold six
(6) tires, thirty-eight (38) tires remained inside the warehouse. On February 17, 1995,
private complainant learned from caretaker Jose Cabal that all thirty-eight (38) truck
tires were stolen from the warehouse, the gate of which was forcibly opened. Private
complainant, together with caretaker Cabal, reported the robbery to the Southern Police
District at Fort Bonifacio.

Pending the police investigation, private complainant canvassed from numerous

business establishments in an attempt to locate the stolen tires and chanced upon
Jong's Marketing, a store selling tires, owned and operated by appellant. Private
complainant inquired if appellant was selling any Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply
Firestone tires, wherein he recognized one of the tires stolen from his warehouse,
based on the chalk marking and the serial number thereon. Private complainant asked
appellant if he had any more of such tires in stock, which was again answered in the
affirmative. Private complainant then left the store and reported the matter to Chief
Inspector Mariano Fegarido of the Southern Police District and they formed a team to
conduct a successful buy-bust operation on appellant's store in Paco, Manila and were
able to confiscate 13 tires, including one initially bought in the buy-bust operation which
were confirmed to be the same tires stolen from private respondent, based on their
serial numbers. For his part, accused Ong solely testified in his defense, alleging that he
had been engaged in the business of buying and selling tires for twenty-four (24) years
and denying that he had any knowledge that he was selling stolen tires in Jong
Marketing. He further averred that a certain Ramon Go (Go) offered to sell thirteen (13)
Firestone truck tires allegedly from Dagat-dagatan, Caloocan City, for ₱3,500 each. Ong
bought all the tires for ₱45,500, for which he was issued a Sales Invoice dated 18
February 1995 and with the letterhead Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise.

The RTC found that the prosecution had sufficiently established that all thirteen (13)
tires found in the possession of Ong constituted a prima facie evidence of fencing. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s findings with modification.
Issue:

Whether or not appellant is guilty of violating PD. 1612

Ruling:

Yes, he is. The Petition has no merit.

Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of P.D. 1612 as the "act of any person who, with
intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft."

The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or
theft has been committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in
the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should have known that the said
article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and (4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for
oneself or for another.

The quantum of evidence necessary in proving that all the elements of fencing are
present.

First, the owner of the tires, private complainant, whose testimony was corroborated by
Jose Cabal - the caretaker of the warehouse where the thirty-eight (38) tires were
stolen. Second, although there was no evidence to link Ong as the perpetrator of the
robbery, he never denied the fact that thirteen (13) tires of Azajar were caught in his
possession. Ong likewise admitted that he bought the said tires from Go of Gold Link in
the total amount of ₱45,500 where he was issued Sales Invoice No. 980. Third, Ong,
who was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the past twenty-four (24) years,
ought to have known the ordinary course of business in purchasing from an unknown
seller. In this case, the validity of the issuance of the receipt given as evidence by
appellant was disputed, and the prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its
address were fictitious.  Ong failed to overcome the evidence presented by the
prosecution and to prove the legitimacy of the transaction. Finally, there was evident
intent to gain for himself, considering that during the buy-bust operation, Ong was
actually caught selling the stolen tires in his store, Jong Marketing.

Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a prima fqcie presumption of
fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or
anything of value, which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a
higher penalty based on the value of the property.

COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

JOSELITO PERALTA Y ZARENO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 221991
August 30, 2017
Facts:

The prosecution alleged that at around 11 o'clock in the evening of November 18, 2008,
a team consisting of PO3 Carvajal, one Police Officer Lavarias, (PO2 Arzadon, and PO3
Salonga responded to a telephone call received by their desk officer-on-duty that there
was a man firing a gun at the back of the PLDT Building in Pantal District, Dagupan
City. Upon arrival thereat, the police officers saw two (2) men walking, later identified
as Peralta and his companion, Calimlim, holding a gun and a knife respectively. Upon
seeing the police officers, the men became uneasy, which prompted the police officers
to swoop in. Upon apprehension, they recovered a caliber .45 pistol with Serial Number
4517488 containing a magazine with five (5) live ammunitions from Peralta and a knife
from Calimlim. The men were then brought to the Region I Medical Center in Dagupan
City, and later, to the community precinct for paraffin and gun powder residue test.
Meanwhile, the pistol and the magazine with live ammunitions were endorsed to the
duty investigator.

In his defense, Peralta denied the accusation against him and presented a different
narration of facts. According to him, he was riding a motorcycle with Calimlim when
they were flagged down by the police officers. While admitting that the latter recovered
a knife from Calimlim, Peralta vigorously denied having a firearm with him, much less
illegally discharging the same pointing out that it was impossible for him to carry a gun
at the time and place of arrest since they were near the barangay hall and the
respective residences of Police Officer Salonga and mediaman Orly Navarro. 

The RTC found Peralta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged finding
that the prosecution had established the existence of the elements of the crime
charged, considering that PO3 Carvajal positively identified him walking at the Pantal
District, Dagupan City carrying a firearm and that he had no license to carry the same,
as per the Certification issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office in Camp Crame,
Quezon City. The CA affirmed Peralta's conviction in toto.

Issue:

Whether or not Peralta is guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866 as
amended by Republic Act No. (RA)8294.
Ruling:

Yes, he is. The petition is without merit.

The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the accused's lack of
license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited
by law. To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that:
(a) the firearm exists; and (b) the accused who owned or possessed it does not have
the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same.

In this case, the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the
aforesaid elements, considering that: (a) the police officers positively identified Peralta
as the one holding a .45 caliber pistol with Serial Number 4517488 with magazine and
live ammunitions, which was seized from him and later on, marked, identified, offered,
and properly admitted as evidence at the trial; and (b) the Certification30 dated August
10, 2011 issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police
which declared that Peralta "is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and
calibre, specifically Caliber .45 Pistol, make (unknown) with Serial Number 4517488 per
verification from the records of this office as of this date."

Records show that upon the police officers' arrival at Pantal District, Dagupan City, they
saw Peralta carrying a pistol, in plain view of everyone. This prompted the police
officers to confront Peralta regarding the pistol, and when the latter was unable to
produce a license for such pistol and/or a permit to carry the same, the former
proceeded to arrest him and seize the pistol from him. Clearly, the police officer
conducted a valid in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest on Peralta, thus, making the
consequent search incidental thereto valid as well. At this point, it is well to emphasize
that the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum punished by
special law and, in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is
sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm, and
that he intended to possess the same, even if such possession was made in good faith
and without criminal intent. Given these, Peralta can no longer question the validity of
his arrest and the admissibility of the items seized from him on account of the search
incidental to such arrest.
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEROFIL OLARTE Y NAMUAG

GR No. 233209
March 11, 2019

Facts:

PO2 Intud  and PO2 Monilar  were members of Task Force "Boy Solo," a team formed in
response to reports that a lone gunman was believed to be responsible for several
robbery incidents at Pabayo and Chavez Streets in Cagayan de Oro City. On July 19,
2014, at around 1:30 P.M., PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar were conducting discreet
monitoring operations in the area. During their watch, they noticed a man walking
towards a branch of LBC Express. His features resembled "Boy Solo" whose image was
shown in closed circuit television (CCTV)  footages of past robberies in the area. As "Boy
Solo" was about to enter the establishment, he pulled out a firearm which prompted
PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar to immediately run towards the suspect. "Boy Solo,"
however, noticed the police officers running towards him so he ran away. "Boy Solo's"
companions – Randy P. Tandoy, Dexter D. Caracho and Rodel B. Rubilla, acting as his
lookouts, also fled from their posts. They all boarded a Cugman Liner, a public utility
jeepney heading towards the Cogon Market. Eventually, accused-appellant was arrested
after a chase by PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar. His three companions were caught in a
follow-up operation. During the arrest, PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar searched accused-
appellant's person and recovered a .25 caliber pistol replica, a fragmentation grenade
with an M204A2 fuse assembly, a flathead screwdriver, and a transparent heat-sealed
plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance believed to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride. The police officers found out that accused-appellant had no license or
permit to possess the M61 hand grenade as well as the .25 caliber pistol, though a
replica.

Accused-appellant boarded, on the other hand, stated that he was handcuffed by two
civilian-dressed persons who suddenly approached after he alighted from the jeepney
he was riding in. Startled, accused-appellant resisted, saying he did nothing wrong. He
was then brought by his captors to Police Station 1-Divisoria where his bag was
confiscated. Afterwards, another person came to the police station with a grenade and
a pistol replica claiming that these were found inside accused-appellant's bag. Accused-
appellant was then forced by the police officers to admit to illegally possessing the
grenade and imitation pistol.

The RTC rendered a joint judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of illegal possession of a hand grenade, for the following reasons: (a) an accused
may be arrested and searched without warrant when he/she is attempting to commit an
offense; and (b) frame-up, denial, and alibi are weak and self-serving defenses which
cannot overcome the affirmative and straightforward allegations of the prosecution's
witnesses. However, it dismissed the case of illegal possession of a .25 caliber pistol
replica against accused-appellant because the Information in Criminal Case No. 2014-
831 was defective. It only alleged that the pistol replica was merely possessed and not
used in the commission of a crime as contemplated in Section 35, Article V of R.A. No.
10591. The CA affirmed such decision by the RTC. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating R.A.
10591

Ruling:

Yes, he was.

Associated with the essential elements of the crime, the term "corpus delicti"  means the
"body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the
crime has been actually committed." Its elements are: (a) that a certain result has been
proved (e.g.,  a man has died); and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for
the act.

In the crime of illegal possession of firearms, the corpus delicti  is the

accused's lack  of license  or permit  to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself
is not prohibited by law. To establish the corpus delicti,  the prosecution has the burden
of proving that the firearm exists and that the accused who owned or possessed it does
not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same. However,
even if the existence of the firearm must be established, the firearm itself need not be
presented as evidence for it may be established by testimony, even without the
presentation of the said firearm.