SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 116689. April 3, 2000]
NOLI MARQUEZ,
petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BUENA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of court seeking to annul and set aside the decision[1] dated July 29, 1994 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 13277 which partially affirmed the decision[2] dated February 5, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court
of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 19, in Criminal Case No. 19-452, for violation of
Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as the "Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972." The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals
reads:
"WHEREFORE,
we hereby AFFIRM in toto the decision appealed from as regards the
conviction of accused-appellant Noli Marquez, but ACQUIT accused-appellant
Melchor Marquez on reasonable doubt; consequently, the sentence imposed on Noli
Marquez shall stand. Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED."[3]
The factual and procedural antecedents which
gave rise to this petition are as follows.
Petitioner Noli Marquez and his co-accused
Melchor Marquez were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise
known as the "Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972," before the Regional Trial
Court of Cauayan, Isabela Branch 19. The information alleged:
"That on or
about the 10th day of September 1990, in the municipality of Cauayan, Province
of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain
and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal, drive
and bring away one (1) unit motor vehicle, Toyota owner type jeep, bearing
plate No. NHB-952 valued at P90,500.00, belonging to Sergio Gonzalez y dela
Merced, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforementioned
amount of P90,500.00.
CONTRARY TO
LAW."[4]
Upon the arraignment, both accused pleaded
not guilty to the offense charged in the information.[5] After the marking of certain documents during
pre-trial, trial ensued. In the course of the trial, it was ascertained that
private complainant Sergio Gonzales was the owner of a red Toyota Willys
(owner-type) jeep with motor no. 12R-0663422, chasis no. 37620 and plate no.
NHB-952, registered under the name of Alejandro Bernardino Reyes.[6] On September 10, 1990, the said jeep was parked in
front of Gonzales’ grocery store in Cauayan, Isabela, but the following
morning, it was already gone. Gonzales immediately reported the matter to the
PNP, Alicia; PNP, Echague; PNP, Santiago (all in Isabela); and the Constabulary
Highway Patrol Group (CHPG). However, the search for the lost jeep was
initially unsuccessful. On March 19, 1991,[7] a son of Gonzales saw the jeep while it was parked
in front of the Zenith Auto Supply in Cauayan, Isabela. The matter was reported
to the PNP, Cauayan, which immediately responded and brought the jeep to the
police headquarters. Accused Noli Marquez and Melchor Marquez, who were in
possession of the jeep, were invited to the police headquarters for
investigation. At the police headquarters, Gonzales informed the authorities
that the recovered jeep was his, claiming that a reserve tire which he kept in
his bodega was the same as the tires of the recovered jeep[8] and had the same rim as the other tires;[9] the key to the tool box, which remained in his
possession, was shown to be capable of opening the toolbox;[10] and the seat and steering wheel were the same.
Gonzales presented to the trial court a picture of the jeep which was taken
before it was lost on September 10, 1990.[11] Gonzales produced the key to the tool box to the
trial court and showed that it could open the tool box of the recovered jeep.[12] Gonzales also presented to the trial court the spare
tire which he kept in his bodega and showed that it had the same rim,
red lining, width and trade name as the tires of the recovered jeep.[13] The embedded words "6-ply rating" were
also found on all tires.[14] While the color of the recovered jeep was blue,
after scratching a portion of the jeep, it was revealed that the jeep was
painted red, and previously, painted yellow.[15] Gonzales also presented to the trial court a damaged
back seat which allegedly formed part of the recovered jeep and was left in his
bodega before the jeep was stolen.[16] Compared with a picture of the jeep which was taken
before it was stolen, Gonzales testified that the rubberized mudguard cover at
the left tire, the steering wheel, the white rubber lining of the windshield,
the canvass cover of the jeep, and the hole at the two (2) roll bars parallel
to the driver’s place were all the same.[17] Gonzales also attached the spare tire holder which
remained in his possession to the rear side of the recovered jeep and the four
bolts were shown to fit the holes of the spare tire holder.[18]
The prosecution also presented Nelson Lazo,
special identification technician of the PNP Crime Laboratory at Echague,
Isabela, who testified that on April 1, 1991, he received a request from the
Cauayan Police Station for verification of a Toyota owner-type jeep with plate
number BBL 915.[19] He examined the engine and chassis numbers by using
a hydrochloric acid solution, and discovered a welding sign where the chassis
number was located.[20] Upon examination of the engine, Lazo found no signs
of tampering.[21] The Crime Laboratory Report No. PI-004-91 revealed
the following findings:
"Physical and
macro-etching examination conducted on the above-mentioned specimen revealed
the following results:
1.....The engine revealed original number.
2.....There was a welding sign around the portion
where [the] original chassis is located. The replaced chassis number is not the
original number.
CONCLUSION:
The number 327217
is not the original chassis number."[22]
Orencio Orlyn Lelina III, a member of the
PNP, Cauayan, testified that on September 10, 1990, his office received a
carnap report on a Toyota owner-type jeep owned by Sergio Gonzales.[23] They conducted an investigation and flashed an alarm
of the incident to all police stations in the province of Isabela. After
several months, they received information that the jeep was parked in front of
Zenith Auto Supply.[24] They proceeded to the area where the vehicle was
parked and invited the jeep’s possessors, accused Noli Marquez and Melchor
Marquez, to the headquarters for verification. After finding out that the
chassis number of the jeep was tampered, they issued a confiscation receipt for
further investigation and verification,[25] and asked the crime laboratory in Echague and the
LTO for further verification.[26] The jeep was subsequently impounded by the Station
Commander of the PNP, Cauayan for a micro-etching examination of the engine and
chassis at the PNP Crime Laboratory Service in Camp dela Cruz, Echague,
Isabela.
Edwin Pascua, a member of the PNP, Cauayan,
Isabela corroborated Pfc. Lelina's testimony.[27]
At the course of the trial, the trial court
discovered that the jeep had already been released to Sergio Gonzales, thus,
the trial court ordered Gonzales to bring the jeep to the court premises for an
ocular inspection.[28]
In his defense, accused Noli Marquez (herein
petitioner) testified that he started to assemble the jeep in 1989 by buying
the parts piece by piece and finished assembling it in 1990. According to
petitioner, he bought the motor engine from the Bulanadi Auto Supply at
Cauayan, Isabela, as shown by an invoice;[29] the chassis from Ceferino Agni, evidenced by a deed
of sale;[30] the body of the jeep from Dr. Loreto Manzanilla,
evidenced by an affidavit executed by Dr. Manzanilla;[31] the four
(4) tires from a certain Dino in Novaliches, Quezon City;[32] and the driver's seat from a junk dealer.[33] Petitioner used the jeep as a service jeep in his
farm and duck-raising project.[34] He allegedly registered the jeep in January, 1991 at
the LTO, Ilagan.[35] He further claimed that he was told at the LTO to
replace the chassis number with another number because the chassis number was
already eaten by rust.[36] He allegedly waited for a new chassis number which
was later given to him, dropped by a machine shop at Ilagan and ordered the
fabrication of the new chassis number, went home to Delfin Albano and welded
the new number on the chassis.[37] Petitioner presented an official receipt showing the
payment of the registration fees of the jeep. The defense counsel, however,
admitted the lack of a certificate of registration for the jeep and offered
instead a confirmation certificate of the motor engine and the deeds of sale
covering the parts of the jeep.[38] According to petitioner, he was told that the
certificate of registration of the jeep would be given to him when he got the
sticker of the jeep. On cross-examination, petitioner admitted that he never
went to the Philippine Constabulary to secure a certificate of clearance before
he assembled the jeep.[39] He further clarified that he detached a portion of
the old chassis number using an acetylene torch[40] and welded therein the new number using an electric
welding tool.[41] He smoothened the surface of the chassis using an
electric sanding machine.[42] Also, he allegedly bought all the accessories of the
jeep in Manila but lost the receipts to them.[43]
Melchor Marquez,[44] a co-accused, in his defense, testified that the
registration papers are in his name because his father, Noli Marquez, his
co-accused, placed them in his name.[45]
Ceferino Agni, testifying for the accused,
recalled that on January 1, 1989, he made a receipt for the chassis which
petitioner bought from him.[46] However, he did not know the serial number of the
chassis which he sold to petitioner.[47] Neither did he know if there was a chassis number on
the chassis which he sold to petitioner.[48]
Dr. Loreto Manzanilla testified that
sometime in 1990, petitioner asked him to execute an affidavit regarding a
jeep's body that petitioner bought from him in May 1990.[49] When he bought the body of the jeep in 1986, it was
painted yellow but he repainted it red.[50]
On rebuttal, the prosecution presented among
others Emilio Pineda, an LTO Regulation Officer, who testified on the
requirements for the registration of a newly assembled motor vehicle. According
to Pineda, if the chassis number of a motor vehicle sought to be registered is
not visible, they advise the owner to request for a re-stamping of the chassis
number,[51] that is, to cause the stamping of another chassis
number on another portion of the chassis and not on the place where the old
chassis number was embedded.[52] He also testified that the LTO could issue an
official receipt for the payment of the registration of a motor vehicle even if
the registration papers were not complete; that the LTO could assign a plate
number for the motor vehicle even without the certificate of registration;[53] and that if the registrant could not comply with the
requirements for registration, the LTO would not issue a certificate of
registration.[54]
Julio Maluyo, assistant District Station
Officer of LTO, Ilagan, Isabela, testified that they could not issue a
certificate of registration to petitioner because he did not secure a clearance
from the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group (CHPG).[55]
On February 5, 1992, the trial court
rendered a decision finding both accused, Noli Marquez and Melchor Marquez,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping as defined and
penalized under Republic Act No. 6539. The dispositive portion of the said
decision reads:
"WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing considerations, and finding both accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping defined and penalized under Rep.
Act No. 6539, the Court hereby sentences them to suffer an imprisonment of
FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS as minimum to SIXTEEN (16) YEARS and
FOUR (4) MONTHS as maximum.
Costs taxed
against the accused.
SO ORDERED."[56]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court insofar as the conviction of Noli Marquez is
concerned but acquitted Melchor Marquez on reasonable doubt.
Hence, this petition. Petitioner raises the
following errors:[57]
I
THAT THE
RESPONDENT COURT DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THAT IT PRESUMED THE
ACCUSED GUILTY AND NOT INNOCENT;
II
THAT THE
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN MAKING
A CONCLUSION GROUNDED MAINLY ON SPECULATIONS, SURMISES, AND CONJECTURES.
Petitioner contends that the trial court
"...did not anymore appreciate the evidence presented and adduced by the
petitioner becuase (sic) the Court presumed him to be guilty, which is contrary
to the constitutional mandate that an accused is presumed innocent until proven
otherwise and that an accused should be judged on the strength of the evidence
of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense evidence,"
citing the trial court’s ruling that "[t]he only question to be decided in
this case is whether or not it is the same vehicle recovered from the accused
on March 19, 1991. If it is, the accused are presumed to be the thieves in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation (U.S. vs. Unoak,
37 PHIL 835; People vs. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, Dec. 5,
1991; Sec. 3(j), Rule 131, Revised Rules on Evidence)."[58]
Petitioner further asserts that the
documents he presented before the trial court to prove his ownership of the
jeep, particularly, the retail invoice confirming the purchase of the engine,[59] the deed of sale covering the motor chassis,[60] the affidavit executed by Dr. Loreto Manzanilla
stating that he sold a motor vehicle (jeep) body to Melchor Marquez,[61] and the confirmation certificate issued by the LTO
involving the motor engine[62] should have created sufficient doubt to overturn the
presumption relied upon by the trial court.
Finally, in support of his allegation that
the trial court erred in concluding that the jeep found in the possession of
petitioner was that of Sergio Gonzales, petitioner asserts that the engine
mounted on the recovered jeep was not the engine owned by Sergio Gonzales
because the former had Motor No. 4K-518254, while the latter had Motor No.
12R-0663422.[63]
We find no merit in the petition.
This Court has consistently and emphatically
declared that a review of the factual findings of the lower courts is not a
function that is normally undertaken in petitions for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals
are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when said court
affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[64] Thus, our jurisdiction in petitions for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 is limited only to reviewing errors of law. A reevaluation of the
factual issues by this Court is justified only when the findings complained of
are totally devoid of support in the records or that they are so glaringly
erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.
After a careful and thorough scrutiny of the
records of this case, particularly the evidence for the prosecution and the
defense, we find no substantial reason to overturn the findings and conclusions
of the trial court. As aptly observed by the trial court, a distinct similarity
exists between the picture of the jeep taken prior to its loss and the
recovered jeep with the exception of the paint. According to the trial court:
"[t]he most
tell-tale resemblances (sic) are the dents in the rear left fender of the
recovered vehicle and the one appearing in the picture. The Court observed in
the ocular inspection that the plastic fender above the rear left wheel is not
only old but it is also not perfectly round. There are slight dents. These
could not have been capture (sic) in the picture (Exh. F) had the jeep
recovered from the accused been [a] different vehicle. It was further proven
during the trial that the whole right front seat, spare tire holder and the
reserved (sic) tire of the jeep were kept by the complaining witness in his
bodega before the vehicle was stolen. Conspicuously, the vehicle recovered has
no right front seat. The four old holes on the floor where the right front seat
could be installed with bolts coincided with the four holes of the steel legs
of the seat presented by Gonzales, not to mention the fact that the right
upholstered front seat is similar to that of the driver's seat at the left. The
three old holes at the rear of the body exactly fit to the three bolts of the
spare tire holder (Exh J). The reserve tire together with the paint of the rim
where it was mounted is similar to the four tires and rims attached to the
jeep. The key (Exh. G) of the tool box in the possession of Gonzales fits to
the lock of [the] said box. While the accused Noli Marquez demonstrated that he
could open the tool box with his bare hands, the Court observed that to do so,
he must forcibly open it which is not natural for an owner to do. After
scratching the first blue layer of paint at the outer front fender (beside the
engine) Gonzales showed to the Court that the former red color of the jeep come
(sic) out. These similarities cannot be merely coincidental. Furthermore, the
Court observed that the canvass roofing of the jeep is already old. If it is
true, as what Noli Marquez declared that after rebuilding the jeep, he caused
the installation of its canvass roof, then said roof ought to be still new
considering his allegation that the jeep was rebuilt only in January, 1991."[65]
The trial court appropriately rejected
petitioner's assertion that he bought the body of the jeep from Dr. Loreto
Manzanilla and the chassis from Ceferino Agni, after noting that the sketch
(Exh. K) drawn by Dr. Manzanilla of the body of the jeep sold by him did not
resemble the body of the recovered jeep, and the serial number of the chassis
bought from Agni was not specified in the deed of sale.[66] In addition, the trial court rightly pointed out
that the said deed of sale "...directly contradicts the affidavit (Exh. H)
submitted by his son [and co-accused] Melchor Marquez to the LTO [Land
Transportation Office] to support his application for registration wherein he
declared that he bought the chassis with Serial No. 3272171 from CRM Commercial
(See Exh. N)."[67] The trial court further found that "[w]hile the
body [of the jeep] allegedly sold by him [Dr. Manzanilla] was bare, the one
recovered has right and left rear plastic fenders which are already old and
iron pipe roll guards."[68] The trial court denounced what it perceived to be
are an "attempt to mislead the Court" through the documentary
evidence presented by the accused.[69] According to the trial court, "[w]hile they
claim that they purchased the chassis from Ceferino Agni, the number of the
chassis which is 3272171 appears in the invoice submitted by them (Exh. 3) but
the original of said invoice on file with the LTO shows that no chassis was
sold by the CRM Commercial (Exh. Q)."[70] The trial court discarded the confirmation receipt
issued by the LTO and presented by the accused after noting that "...a
comparison of the document submitted by them to the LTO at Ilagan (Exh. Q-1)
shows that what was confirmed is (sic) only the engine with Serial No.
4K-5182504 but not the chassis."[71] Lastly, the trial court properly rejected the
alleged registration of the recovered jeep with the LTO, Ilagan, Isabela as
being "anomalous." The trial court noted that contrary to sections 5,
6 and 10 of Republic Act 6539, no certificate of clearance from the Philippine
Constabulary was secured by the accused before the recovered jeep was
registered; and the complete invoices of the spare parts installed in the jeep
were not submitted by the accused to the LTO.[72] Conceding that a "confirmation certificate of
the motor number"[73] was secured from the LTO, the trial court declared
that "...no such confirmation was secured with respect to the
chassis."[74] Furthermore, the trial court stressed that no
officer of the LTO, Ilagan, Isabela corroborated accused Noli Marquez's
testimony that he was instructed by the examiner of the said office to create a
new chassis number to replace the allegedly illegible old chassis number.[75] Even the person who made the steel plate with the
new chassis number was not presented by the accused in court.[76]
The foregoing disquisition by the trial
court demonstrates the implausibility of petitioner's contention that the
respondent court's conclusion is grounded mainly on speculations, surmises and
conjectures.
In addition to the above factual
considerations, we are guided by the rule that a person in possession of a
stolen article is presumed guilty of having illegally and unlawfully taken the
same unless he can satisfactorily explain his possession thereof.[77] In this case, petitioner was found in possession of
the stolen jeep and his explanation as to how he came to possess the same is
not satisfactory, thus we find no compelling reason to arrive at a different
conclusion.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza,
Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jesus M. Elbinias and concurred in by Associate Justices Lourdes K. Tayo-Jaguros and Bernardo Ll. Salas. Rollo, pp. 48-63.
[2] Penned by Judge Artemio R. Alivia. Rollo, pp. 34-46.
[3] Rollo, p. 62.
[4] RTC Records, p. 52.
[5] Ibid. p. 57.
[6] Exhibit C-1, RTC Records, p. 9; TSN, September 25, 1991, pp. 30-34.
[7] Based on the Confiscation Receipt issued by the Philippine National Police command, Cauayan Police Station, Cauayan, Isabela, RTC Records, p. 6.
[8] TSN, September 25, 1991, p.37; TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 13.
[9] TSN, September 25, 1991, p. 40.
[10] TSN, September 25, 1991, pp. 37-38.
[11] TSN, September 25, 1991, pp. 39-40.
[12] TSN, September 26, 1991, pp. 2-4.
[13] TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 5.
[14] TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 5.
[15] TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 7.
[16] TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 5.
[17] TSN, September 26, 1991, pp. 7-8.
[18] TSN, September 26, 1991, p.8.
[19] TSN, September 25, 1991, p. 9.
[20] TSN, September 25, 1991, pp. 10-11.
[21] TSN, September 25, 1991, pp. 16-17.
[22] Exhibit D-1; RTC Records, p. 15.
[23] TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 23.
[24] TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 24.
[25] TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 25.
[26] TSN, September 26, 1991, p. 29.
[27] TSN, September 26, 1991, p.38.
[28] TSN, October 2, 1991, pp. 41-42.
[29] TSN, October 2, 1991, pp. 12-13.
[30] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 14.
[31] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 15.
[32] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 14.
[33] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 16.
[34] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 17.
[35] TSN, October 2, 1991, p.17.
[36] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 18.
[37] TSN, October 2, 1991, pp. 18-19.
[38] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 20.
[39] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 29.
[40] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 31.
[41] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 31.
[42] TSN, October 2, 1991, p. 31.
[43] TSN, October 2, 1991, p.36.
[44] Melchor Marquez was later acquitted by the Court of Appeals on reasonable doubt.
[45] TSN, October 2, 1991, pp. 43-44.
[46] TSN, October 3, 1991, p. 4.
[47] TSN, October 3, 1991, p. 7.
[48] TSN, October 3, 1991, p. 7.
[49] TSN, October 9, 1991, p. 4.
[50] TSN, October 9, 1991, p. 7.
[51] TSN, October 9, 1991, p. 28.
[52] TSN, October 9, 1991, p. 30.
[53] TSN, October 9, 1991, pp. 31-32.
[54] TSN, October 9, 1991, p. 33.
[55] TSN, October 28, 1991, p. 5.
[56] RTC Record, p. 114; Rollo, p. 35.
[57] Rollo, p. 4.
[58] Ibid. p. 40.
[59] Exhibit Q.
[60] Exhibit 5, RTC Records, p. 26.
[61] Exhibit 4, RTC Records, p. 25.
[62] Exhibit Q-1.
[63] Rollo, pp. 5-6.
[64] Boneng vs. People, 304 SCRA 252, 257 (1999)
[65] Rollo, pp. 40-41.
[66] Ibid. pp. 41-42.
[67] Ibid. p. 42.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Ibid. pp. 42-44.
[73] Ibid. p.44.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Ibid.
[77] People vs. Zafra, 237 SCRA 664, 667 (1994)