People v. Gonzales

 

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