G.R. No. 185860; June 5, 2009
ANTONIO ANDRES and RODOLFO DURAN, Petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Antonio Andres and Rodolfo Duran were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (The Anti-Carnapping Act of 1992, as amended) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan. The Information alleged that on or about September 6, 2002, in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, the petitioners, conspiring and mutually helping each other, with intent of gain and without the owner’s consent, took, stole, and carried away one motorized Kawasaki tricycle worth P140,000.00 belonging to Catalino Eugenio. The petitioners pleaded not guilty. After trial, the RTC found them guilty and sentenced them to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months to thirty (30) years imprisonment. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, imposing an indeterminate prison term of seventeen years and four months as minimum to thirty years as maximum. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. The petitioners argued that the CA erred in giving credence to prosecution witnesses, in convicting them despite alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in imposing the penalty of seventeen years and four months to thirty years.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction and imposing the penalty of seventeen years and four months to thirty years imprisonment for carnapping under R.A. No. 6539, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition with respect to the penalty imposed but AFFIRMED the conviction in all other respects.
1. On factual findings and conviction: The Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law, not of fact, unless factual findings are devoid of evidentiary support or based on a misapprehension of facts. The factual findings of the CA, which affirmed the RTC, are conclusive and beyond review. The Court found no palpable error or arbitrariness in the lower courts’ factual findings and thus upheld the conviction.
2. On the penalty imposed: The Court ruled that the lower courts erred in imposing the penalty of seventeen years and four months to thirty years imprisonment. Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539, as amended, provides that carnapping without violence, intimidation, or force is punishable by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months. Carnapping with violence, intimidation, or force is punishable by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years. In this case, the Information did not allege that the carnapping was committed by means of violence, intimidation, or force. Although these circumstances were proven at trial, they cannot be appreciated for penalty purposes because they were not alleged in the Information. Thus, the charge is confined to simple carnapping, punishable by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an offense punishable by a special law, the Court sentenced the petitioners to an indeterminate penalty of fourteen years and eight months as minimum to seventeen years and four months as maximum. The decision and resolution of the CA were affirmed in all other respects.