ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JEFFREY MACARANAS y FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 226846
June 21, 2017
Facts:
Frank Karim Langaman and his girlfriend Kathlyn Irish Mae Cervantes were at
Meycauayan, Bulacan, in the evening of February 18, 2007, aboard Frank's motorcycle,
a green Honda Wave 125 with Plate No. NQ 8724, registered under the name of
Jacqueline Corpuz Langaman. When they were about to leave the place, two (2) men,
both wearing jackets and bonnets suddenly approached them, followed by a third man
who was earlier standing at a post. One of the three men held Frank by the neck and
shot Frank causing the latter to fall down. The same man pointed his gun at Kathlyn
and demanded that she give him her cellphone. After Kathlyn gave her cellphone, the
same man hit her on the back. Thereafter, Kathlyn pretended to be unconscious and
saw that the men searched the body of Frank for any valuables. While the incident was
taking place, the second man took Frank's motorcycle, while the third man, herein
appellant, just stood to guard them and acted as the look-out. Afterwards, the three
men left together riding Frank's motorcycle. It was then that Kathlyn was able to seek
help and Frank was taken to the hospital.
Frank sustained a gunshot injury and eventually died on the 27 th post-operative day
Thus, an Information was filed against appellant, Richard Lalata and a certain John Doe
charging them of violation of R.A. No. 6539. The RTC, in its decision, found appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and such decision was affirmed
with modification by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the present appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not appellant is guilty of violating RA. 6539
Ruling:
Yes, he is.
There is no arguing that the anti-camapping law is a special law, different from the
crime of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. It particularly addresses
the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using
force upon things. But a careful comparison of this special law with the crimes of
robbery and theft readily reveals their common features and characteristics. However,
the anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles.
Hence a motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with
intent to gain, without the owner's consent, whether the taking was done with or
without the use of force upon things. Without the anti-carnapping law, such unlawful
taking of a motor vehicle would fall within the purview of either theft or robbery which
was certainly the case before the enactment of said statute."
So, essentially, carnapping is the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle and it becomes
qualified or aggravated when, in the course of the commission or on the occasion of the
carnapping, the owner, driver or occupant is killed or raped. Thus, the elements of
carnapping as defined and penalized under R.A. No. 6539, as amended are the
following:
1) That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2) That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
3) That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things; and
4) That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle. 11
Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. No. 6539, as amended, the prosecution
has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the
victim, and more importantly, it must show that the original criminal design of the
culprit was carnapping and that the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof." In this particular case, all
the elements are present as the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution show
that there were two (2) men both wearing jackets and bonnets, together with the
appellant who approached the victim and the witness Kathlyn and employed force and
intimidation upon them and thereafter forcibly took the victim's motorcycle and then
shot the victim on the neck causing his death.
The testimony of Kathlyn satisfies the aforementioned test of credibility. More
importantly, during her time at the witness stand, Kathlyn positively and categorically
identified accused-appellant as one of the three (3) men who committed the crime. It
has long been settled that where the witnesses of the prosecution were not actuated by
ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled
to full faith and credit. Herein, no imputation of improper motive on the part of Kathlyn
was ever made by the accused-appellant, as the latter even testified he was without
knowledge of any grudge Kathlyn might have against him.
