GR 146865; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146865 ; February 18, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. ELGIN LATAYADA (at large), appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that on October 29, 1995, in Claveria, Misamis Oriental, appellant Elgin Latayada hired a motorcycle driven by Pedro Payla. During the ride, appellant asked to stop to relieve himself. Upon returning, he instead stabbed Payla multiple times and fled with the motorcycle. The severely wounded Payla managed to reach a nearby house, where he identified appellant as his assailant to witnesses Vicenta Cordino and Joseph Tion. He was brought to a hospital, where he again identified appellant to his wife, Gina Payla, and later gave an ante-mortem statement to a police officer. Payla died the following day. The stolen motorcycle was later recovered in a cannibalized state. Appellant escaped from detention after the prosecution rested its case and remained at large.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Carnapping with Homicide under Republic Act No. 6539 , as amended. The court found the elements of the crime present, appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery, and imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the accused may be convicted of Carnapping with Homicide based on the evidence presented.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Carnapping with Homicide to Homicide. The Court meticulously examined the elements of Carnapping with Homicide, which requires proof of the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and a homicide committed in the course of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. While the killing of Payla was conclusively proven through his dying declaration and statements constituting part of the res gestae, the evidence for the carnapping itself was insufficient. The prosecution failed to prove the element of intent to gain (animus lucrandi) in the taking of the motorcycle. The evidence did not establish that appellant stole the motorcycle for gain; it merely showed he used it to flee after the stabbing. The taking was incidental to the killing, not a distinct crime of carnapping. Since the Information did not allege any qualifying circumstance for the killing, the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder. The penalty was reduced to an indeterminate prison term, and civil indemnity and damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs. The death penalty could not be imposed due to the lack of a qualifying circumstance.