G.R. No. 103299 August 17, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Lope Viente y Mapili, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Lope Viente y Mapili was charged with violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act ( Republic Act No. 6539 ). The information alleged that on or about January 29, 1989, in Manila, the accused, conspiring with two others, by means of force, violence, and intimidation—specifically by poking a gun at the nape of the driver, Narciso Cabatas—took, stole, and carried away an Isuzu passenger jitney valued at P150,000.00 owned by Lucila Crespino. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses Narciso Cabatas (the driver), Lucila Crispino (the owner), and Sgt. Wilfredo Bautista. The defense presented witnesses Jaime Nuay, Jesus Benitua, Romeo Rosales, Nona Nuay, Atty. Elpidio Unto (defense counsel who also testified), and the accused himself. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to thirty (30) years of imprisonment. The accused appealed.
The prosecution’s evidence established that at around 4:00 a.m. on January 29, 1989, driver Narciso Cabatas was plying his route when three men boarded his jeepney. At the corner of Taft Avenue and Malvar Street, one of the men poked a gun at Cabatas’s nape, ordered the other passengers to alight, pulled Cabatas to the front seat, and took control of the vehicle. Cabatas was shoved out of the jeepney. While on the pavement, Cabatas heard one of the men say, “Pareng Lope, patakbuhin mo na ang jeep!” Cabatas reported the incident to the police. During a surveillance operation on March 31, 1989, Cabatas pointed out the accused to CAPCOM officers, who then arrested him. Cabatas later positively identified the accused in a line-up as the person who grabbed the steering wheel. It was also revealed that before the arrest, Atty. Elpidio Unto, accompanied by the accused, visited the owner Lucila Crispino to plead that she not suspect his nephews. While in custody, the accused executed sworn statements without the assistance of counsel.
The defense relied on alibi. Witnesses testified that the accused was at Jaime Nuay’s residence in Manila from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on January 29, 1989, butchering and cooking pigs. The accused testified that he was tortured and forced to execute statements without counsel.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of violating Republic Act No. 6539 (the Anti-Carnapping Act) by disregarding his defenses of denial and alibi and by finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness, Narciso Cabatas, was credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cabatas had a clear view of the accused’s face during the incident and heard him being addressed as “Lope.” The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over positive identification. The alibi was not physically impossible, as the distance between the crime scene (Taft Avenue, Manila) and the alleged location of the accused (Muñoz Street, Malate, Manila) was not considerable. Furthermore, the defense witnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable. The accused’s extrajudicial statements, though obtained without counsel, were not utilized by the prosecution and thus did not prejudice the accused. The Court found no improper motive for Cabatas to falsely testify. The penalty was modified in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum.