G.R. No. 174658 February 24, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MARLON DELA CRUZ @ “DAGUL,”* ADRIANO MELECIO, JESSIE REYES @ “PISO,” and JEPOY OBELLO, Appellant.

FACTS

Two Informations were filed against appellant Marlon dela Cruz (dela Cruz), Adriano Melecio (Melecio), Jessie Reyes (Reyes), and Jepoy Obello (Obello) before the RTC of Dagupan City: one for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law ( R.A. No. 6539 ) and another for Robbery with Homicide. Melecio and Obello remained at large. Dela Cruz and Reyes pleaded not guilty; Reyes was later acquitted.
The prosecution evidence established that on June 4, 2001, Teofilo Tamin Sr. was found dead beside his stall in Dagupan City. His motorized tricycle and belt bag containing cash were missing. The autopsy revealed the victim died from intracranial injuries due to mauling, with wounds caused by a hard object and a sharp instrument. The police recovered the sidecar near the crime scene.
Investigation led the police to de la Cruz. His friend, Anna Datlag, testified that on June 4, 2001, de la Cruz arrived in Lupao, Nueva Ecija on a red motorcycle with Melecio. When asked, de la Cruz later told Anna he took the motorcycle from an old man he hit with a stone, while Melecio stabbed the victim, and they took his money. The group proceeded to de la Cruz’s mother’s house in San Quintin, where the motorcycle was later recovered by police. The motorcycle was identified and returned to the victim’s wife.
De la Cruz presented an alibi, claiming he was asleep in Dagupan City on the night of the incident and that Melecio and Obello brought the motorcycle, which they claimed was from their uncle, and later admitted to taking it from an old man they had hit.
The RTC convicted de la Cruz of both charges and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, holding that the carnapping charge did not allege the victim was killed in its course, and deleted unsubstantiated damages.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by appellant were: (1) whether the trial court erred in convicting him without an eyewitness; (2) whether it erred in believing Anna Datlag’s testimony; (3) whether it erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each case; and (4) whether it erred in finding him guilty of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the prosecution proved de la Cruz’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, which constituted an unbroken chain leading to the fair conclusion that he was the author of the crimes. Anna Datlag’s testimony was credible and corroborated by other evidence, including the recovery of the carnapped vehicle from his mother’s house. De la Cruz’s extrajudicial confession to Anna was admissible as a declaration against interest and corroborated by the corpus delicti. His alibi was weak and could not prevail over positive evidence.
Regarding the penalties, the Court affirmed the modification by the Court of Appeals. For carnapping committed with violence or intimidation against persons, the penalty under R.A. No. 6539 is imprisonment for not less than 17 years and 4 months and not more than 30 years. Since the information did not allege that the victim was killed in the course of carnapping, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC was erroneous. For robbery with homicide, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua to death; with no aggravating circumstances alleged, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The award of damages was modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.