G.R. No. 82264-66 December 4, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISAGANI GULINAO Y ALZONA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Isagani Gulinao was charged in three separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela for crimes allegedly committed on March 4, 1987: (1) Murder committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm (designated as Illegal Possession of Firearm with Murder under P.D. 1866); (2) Robbery; and (3) Carnapping. The charges stemmed from the shooting death of Samson Chua, the taking of his ring, and the stealing of his car. Gulinao pleaded not guilty to robbery and carnapping, and a not guilty plea was entered for him on the firearm charge after he refused to plead. He moved to quash the firearm Information, arguing a separate case for illegal possession of the same firearm was pending in Manila, but the trial court denied his motion, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
During trial, after the prosecution rested, Gulinao repeatedly refused to present evidence or cooperate with his counsel despite warnings from the court. The trial court thus deemed he had waived his right to present evidence. It subsequently convicted him on all counts, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the firearm/murder charge, and prison terms for robbery and carnapping. Gulinao appealed, raising several errors.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether prosecuting Gulinao for illegal possession of a firearm in Valenzuela, when a case for illegal possession of the same firearm was pending in Manila, constituted double jeopardy; (2) whether the crime committed concerning the ring was robbery or theft; and (3) whether intent to gain was proven for the carnapping charge.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm and Carnapping, but modified the Robbery conviction to Theft. On double jeopardy, the Court upheld the lower courts, ruling no violation existed. The legal logic is that double jeopardy requires identity of offenses. The Manila case involved simple illegal possession on March 5, 1987, while the Valenzuela case involved Murder committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm on March 4, 1987. These are distinct crimes with different elements and dates of commission, occurring in separate jurisdictions. Prosecution for one does not bar prosecution for the other.
Regarding the taking of the ring, the Court agreed with the trial court’s factual finding, based on witness testimony, that it was an afterthought following the killing. The force employed in the murder was not used to gain possession of the ring; thus, the element of violence or intimidation for robbery was absent. The unlawful taking constituted the crime of Theft, not Robbery. For carnapping, the Court ruled intent to gain, being internal, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle. This presumption stood unrebutted due to Gulinao’s failure to present evidence. Consequently, the carnapping conviction was sustained.