G.R. No. 110079 October 19, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO ZAFRA y CARIAN, FELICIANO BRAGANZA y AGLIBOT, CRESENCIO VELASCO y TADUHAN, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Francisco Zafra, Feliciano Braganza, and Cresencio Velasco, along with others at large, were charged with carnapping. The information alleged that on or about November 21, 1991, in Alabang, Muntinlupa, they conspired to take, without consent, an Isuzu passenger jitney valued at P250,000.00 owned by Efren Cardinal and driven by Candido Diongco. In the commission of the crime, they killed Diongco. The accused were apprehended while driving and in control of the jitney. Only Zafra, Braganza, and Velasco were arraigned and tried. The trial court found them guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment, with indemnity and damages. They appealed.
On November 21, 1991, at 10:30 p.m., appellant Francisco Zafra was driving the passenger jeep (Plate No. DHK-382) along Turbina, Calamba, heading towards Batangas, with appellants Feliciano Braganza, Cresencio Velasco, and three other unidentified male companions on board. The jeep was stopped by police officers SPO1 Reynaldo Siman and PO3 Mario Villa in Calamba because it had no lights and was being driven erratically. When asked, Zafra said they were going to Batangas. As the police approached to search the unlighted vehicle, the three unidentified companions ran away. The jeep and the appellants were taken into custody. During investigation by SPO3 Rolando Alcalde that same evening, the appellants revealed they had killed the jeepney driver and threw his body in Barangay Real, Calamba. On November 24, 1991, police officers and civilian agents, accompanied by the appellants, went to Barangay Real and found the body of Candido Diongco on a grassy portion near the end of the South Expressway. The jeep was released to the owner’s wife on November 27, 1991.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding conspiracy among the accused.
3. Whether accused-appellants Braganza and Velasco should be acquitted due to alleged lack of identification by an arresting officer.
4. Whether the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna had jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

1. No. The conviction based on circumstantial evidence was proper. The accused were caught in possession of the stolen jeepney and failed to give any satisfactory explanation for such possession. Under established jurisprudence, a person in possession of a stolen article is presumed guilty of having illegally taken it unless he can satisfactorily explain his possession. Furthermore, the body of the victim, Candido Diongco, was found at the exact location indicated by the appellants during their investigation. This fact, coupled with their possession of the stolen vehicle, constitutes strong and indisputable evidence that they were the perpetrators of both the killing and the carnapping.
2. No. The trial court correctly found conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to do so. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused and does not require direct evidence. The fact that the appellants were together and in joint possession of the stolen jeepney when apprehended is strong evidence of conspiracy among them.
3. No. The claim of lack of identification is misleading. While arresting officer SPO4 Ricardo Maximo testified he could not point out who among the accused in court was Braganza or Velasco, the investigating officer, SPO3 Rolando Alcalde, positively identified all three appellants in court by name.
4. No. The Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna had jurisdiction. Under Paragraph (b), Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, when an offense is committed in a vehicle during its trip, the criminal action may be instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or province through which the vehicle passed during the trip. Since the appellants were apprehended in Calamba while in the carnapped jeepney, the information was validly filed there.
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the appealed decision with MODIFICATION regarding the penalty. Applying Republic Act No. 7659 (which amended the Anti-Carnapping Act), the penalty for carnapping where the driver is killed consists of two indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua and death. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is applied. Thus, the sentence of life imprisonment is modified to reclusion perpetua. The decision is affirmed in all other respects.