People v. Gonzales
G.R. No. 230909
June 17, 2019
FACTS:
That on
or about the 7th day of September 2007, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of
the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding and abetting
with one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and
intimidation against person, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and carry away, a Suzuki Motorcycle with side-car,
registered in the name of Nena Cardenas Carlos and driven by her husband
Benjamin Carlos Jr. y Banalagay, against the latter's will and consent and to
his damage and prejudice and, on the occasion of such act of carnapping, the
above-named accused, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously assault and
use personal violence upon the person of the said BENJAMIN CARLOS JR., that is,
by bashing the latter in the back of the head with a piece of rock and
thereafter by repeatedly stabbing the latter nineteen times on various parts of
his body, thereby inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds which caused his
death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellants
are guilty of carnapping with homicide.
HELD:
The
elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under RA 6539, as: amended, are
as follows: 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.
For the
crime to be considered a special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, it
must be proven that the victim was killed "in the course of the commission
of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof." Thus, the prosecution must
not only establish the essential elements of camapping, but it must also show
that such act of camapping was the original criminal intent of the culprit and
that the killing was committed in the course of executing the act of carnapping
or on the occasion thereof. In this case, the prosecution satisfactorily proved
all the elements of the crime. It sufficiently established that the vehicle did
not belong to the accused-appellants. Prosecution witnesses Nena and De Ocampo
testified that the tricycle subject of the carnapping was purchased from Royce
Motors on installment basis and registered in Nena's name. Moreover, it was
shown that the tricycle was forcibly taken from Benjamin with the intent to
gain from such taking.
No comments:
Post a Comment