People v. Ellasos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 2, 1992, Miguel de Belen was driving his tricycle. He was last seen by his brother, Fernando, at a Caltex Station with accused Carlo Ellasos driving and accused Sonny Obillo in the sidecar. Three hours later, Fernando saw the tricycle again, driven by Ellasos and Obillo, but without Miguel. When confronted, Ellasos claimed Miguel was left behind in Malasin. The following morning, Miguel's body was found in Tayabo with a gunshot wound to the head. The tricycle was later recovered damaged in a culvert. Ellasos and Obillo were apprehended at the Iglesia ni Cristo chapel in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, found sleeping and in possession of a .38 caliber revolver and a tricycle wheel. Procedural History: Accused Carlo Ellasos and Sonny Obillo were charged with Carnapping with Homicide under R.A. 6539. Ellasos escaped before arraignment and was tried separately. Obillo pleaded not guilty and underwent trial. The RTC of San Jose City, Branch 39, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Carnapping with Homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The Petition: Only Sonny Obillo appealed the decision. He argued that the element of intent to gain was not proven, that the taking of the tricycle wheel was an afterthought, and that he did not conspire with Ellasos.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime of Carnapping with Homicide was committed. Whether Sonny Obillo conspired with Carlo Ellasos. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Sonny Obillo.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Sonny Obillo for Carnapping with Homicide, but modified the penalty and damages awarded. The judgment convicting Carlo Ellasos was set aside to be tried separately. Obillo was sentenced to Life Imprisonment and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Miguel de Belen. The award for funeral expenses was reduced, and awards for tricycle damages and exemplary damages were deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the crime of Carnapping with Homicide was committed: The Court held that Republic Act No. 6539 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. Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle. In this case, the unlawful taking was established by the fact that Miguel de Belen was last seen with the accused, and three hours later, the accused were seen with the tricycle without the owner. The subsequent discovery of the victim's body and the possession of a part of the tricycle by the accused, without satisfactory explanation, raised the presumption that they authored the carnapping and the killing. The Court reiterated the principle that the unlawful taking of the tricycle was completed from the moment the offender gained possession, even if only a part was ultimately appropriated. On the issue of whether Sonny Obillo conspired with Carlo Ellasos: The Court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer conspiracy between Obillo and Ellasos. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 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, indicating a joint purpose and concerted action. The circumstances presented, including their presence together during the unlawful taking, their possession of the tricycle without the owner, their false statements regarding the victim's whereabouts, and their apprehension together with a weapon and a tricycle wheel, all pointed to a unified purpose and concerted action in committing the crime. On the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Sonny Obillo: The Court held that the evidence presented established an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing to Obillo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of Fernando de Belen, who saw Ellasos and Obillo riding the tricycle without the victim, and Edgardo Galletes, who saw them together at the Iglesia ni Cristo compound, contradicted Obillo's defense of falling asleep. The Court emphasized that in the absence of an explanation for the possession of stolen effects belonging to a person who was killed, the possessor must be considered the author of the aggression, death, and robbery. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence was consistent with Obillo's guilt and inconsistent with any other hypothesis, thus satisfying the requisites for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Main Doctrine
The unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, coupled with the death of its owner on the occasion thereof, constitutes Carnapping with Homicide. Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. Possession of stolen effects belonging to a person who was killed and treacherously attacked raises the presumption that the possessor is the author of the aggression and death, and the robbery committed.