REPUBLIC ACT NO.

10883, July 17, 2016

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: cha nRoblesvi rt ual Lawlib rary

Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016”.

Sec. 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: ChanRoblesVirtualawl ibra ry

(a) Body building refers to a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its entire body with a new
body;cra lawlawlib rary

(b) Defacing or tampering with a serial number refers to the altering, changing, erasing, replacing or
scratching of the original factory inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine block or
chassis of any motor vehicle.

Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its engine, engine block or chassis which is
different from that which is listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicle imported into
the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered serial number; c ralawlawl ibra ry

(c) Dismantling refers to the tearing apart, piece-by-piece or part-by-part, of a motor vehicle; cralaw lawlib rary

(d) Identity transfer refers to the act of transferring the engine number, chassis number, body tag number,
plate number, and any other identifying marks of a motor vehicle declared as “total wreck" or is beyond
economic repair by concerned car insurance companies and/or law enforcement agencies after its
involvement in a vehicular accident or other incident and registers the same into another factory-made body
or vehicle unit, of the same classification, type, make or model; c ralawlawli bra ry

(e) Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public
highways, except road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders,
forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways; vehicles which run only on rails or
tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural
purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment
to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power rating; cralawlaw lib rary

(f) Overhauling refers to the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by separating the
motor engine and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle; cralawlaw lib rary

(g) Repainting refers to changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting. There is painting
whenever the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its color registered in the Land Transportation
Office (LTO); cralawlawlib rary

(h) Remodeling refers to the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of the motor
vehicle; c ralawlaw lib rary

(i) Second hand spare parts refer to the parts taken from a carnapped vehicle used in assembling another
vehicle; c ralawlaw lib rary

(j) Total wreck refers to the state or status of a motor vehicle after a vehicular accident or other incident, so
that it is rendered in operational and beyond economic repair due to the extent of damage in its body,
chassis and engine; and

(k) Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates refers to the use or transfer of a vehicle plate issued by the
LTO to a certain vehicle to another vehicle. It is presumed illegally transferred when the motor vehicle plate
does not correspond with that as appearing in the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle to which it
was issued.

Sec. 3. Carnapping; Penalties. – Carnapping is 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.

Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, regardless of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be
punished by imprisonment for not less than twenty (20) years and one (1) day but not more than thirty (30)
years, when the carnapping is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon
things; and by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) years and one (1) day but not more than forty
(40) years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or
force upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment shall be imposed when the owner, driver, or
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the commission of the carnapping.

Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of carnapping is committed by criminal groups,
gangs or syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any person or persons or forced upon things;
or when the owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of
the carnapping shall be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.

Sec. 4. Concealment of Carnapping. – Any person who conceals carnapping shall be punished with
imprisonment of six (6) years up to twelve (12) years and a fine equal to theamount of the acquisition cost
of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or any other part involved in the violation: Provided, That if the
person violating any provision of this Act is a juridical person, the penalty herein provided shall be imposed
on its president, secretary, and/or members of the board of directors or any of its officers and employees
who may have directly participated in the violation.

Any public official or employee who directly commits the unlawful acts defined in this Act or is guilty of gross
negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission of any of the said unlawful acts shall, in
addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding paragraph, be dismissed from the service, and his/her
benefits forfeited and shall be permanently disqualified from holding public office.

Sec. 5. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. – Any person seeking the original registration of a motor
vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registered owner, shall,
within one (1) week after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof from
the registered owner, apply to the Philippine National Police (PNP) for the clearance of the motor vehicle for
registration with the LTO. The PNP shall, upon receipt of the application, verify if the motor vehicle or its
numbered parts are in the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If the motor
vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not in the list, the PNP shall forthwith issue a certificate of clearance.
Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance from the PNP and after verification of the registration of the
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicle engine, engine
block and chassis, the LTO shall register the motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws, rules and
regulations within twenty (20) working days.

Sec. 6. Registration of Motor Vehicle, Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block and Chassis. – Within one (1) year
upon approval of this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof in knock
down condition shall register before the LTO the motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the name
of the possessor or in the name of the real owner who shall be readily available to answer any claim over
the registered motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, engine
blocks and chassis not registered with the LTO shall be considered as a carnapped vehicle, an untaxed
importation or coming from illegal source and shall be confiscated in favor of the government.

Sec. 7. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle, Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis. – The LTO
shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis of all
motor vehicles, specifying therein their type, make, serial numbers and stating therein the names and
addresses of their present and previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries made there on shall
be furnished the PNP and all LTO regional, provincial and city branch offices; Provided, That all LTO regional,
provincial and city offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all registrations of motor vehicles to the
main office and to the PNP: Provided, further, That the original copy of the certificate of registration shall be
given to the registered owner, the second copy shall be retained with the LTO and the third copy shall be
submitted to the PNP. Moreover, it shall be unlawful for any person or employee who willfully encodes in the
registry of motor vehicles a non-existing vehicle or without history, new identity of already existing vehicle
or double/ multiple registration (“KAMBAL”) of vehicle.

Sec. 8. Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance of a Motor Vehicle, Substitution or Replacement of a

Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block or Chassis. – Every sale, transfer, conveyance of a motor vehicle,
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be
registered with the LTO within twenty (20) working days upon purchase/acquisition of a motor vehicle and
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis. A motor vehicle, motor
vehicle engine, engine block or chassis not registered with the LTO shall be presumed as a carnapped
vehicle, an untaxed imported vehicle, or a vehicle proceeding from illegal sources unless proven otherwise
and shall be confiscated in favor of the government.

Sec. 9. Duty of Collector of Customs to Report. – Within seven (7) days after the arrival of an imported
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body, the Collector of Customs of a principal port of
entry where the imported vehicle or parts enumerated above are unloaded shall report the shipment to the
LTO, specifying the make, type and serial numbers, if any, of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine,
engine block, chassis or body, and stating the names and addresses of the owner or consignee thereof. If
the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body does not bear any serial number, the
Collector of Customs concerned shall hold the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or
body until it is numbered by the LTO: Provided, That a PNP clearance shall be required prior to engraving
the engine or chassis number.

Sec. 10. Duty of Importers, Distributors and Sellers of Motor Vehicles to Keep Record of Stocks. – Any
person engaged in the importation, distribution, and buying and selling of motor vehicles, motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks, chassis or body shall keep a permanent record of one’s stocks, stating therein their
type, make and serial numbers, and the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were
acquired and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they are sold, and shall render accurately a
monthly report of his/her transactions in motor vehicles to the LTO.

SEC.11. Duty of Manufacturers of Engine Blocks, Chassis or Body to Cause the Numbering of Engine Blocks,
Chassis or Body Manufactured. – Any person engaged in the manufacture of engine blocks, chassis or body
shall cause the numbering of every engine block, chassis or body manufactured in a convenient and
conspicuous part thereof which the LTO may direct for the purpose of uniformity and identification of the
factory and shall submit to the LTO a monthly report of the manufacture and sale of engine blocks, chassis
or body.

Sec. 12. Clearance and Permit Required for Assembly or Rebuilding of Motor Vehicles. – Any person who
shall undertake to assemble or rebuild or cause the assembly or rebuilding of a motor vehicle shall first
secure a certificate of clearance from the PNP: Provided, That no such permit shall be issued unless the
applicant shall present a statement under oath containing the type, make and serial numbers of the engine,
chassis and body, if any, and the complete list of the spare parts of the motor vehicle to be assembled or
rebuilt together with the names and addresses of the sources thereof.

In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats, motor bancas, water crafts and other
light water vessels, the applicant shall secure a permit from the PNP, which office shall in turn furnish the
LTO pertinent data concerning the motor vehicle engines including their type, make and serial numbers.

Sec. 13. Clearance Required for Shipment of Motor Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks, Chassis
or Body. – The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a report to the PNP within seven (7) days upon
boarding all motor vehicles being boarded the “RORO”, ferry, boat, vessel or ship for interisland and
international shipment. The PPA shall not allow the loading of motor vehicles in all interisland and
international shipping vessels without a motor vehicle clearance from the PNP, except cargo trucks and other
trucks carrying goods. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)-accredited public
utility vehicles (PUV) and other motor vehicles carrying foodstuff and dry goods.

Sec. 14. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis.–
It shall be unlawful for any person to deface or otherwise tamper with the original or registered serial
number of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis.

Sec. 15. Identity Transfer. – It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to cause and/or allow the
sale, registration, and/or transfer into another name, the chassis number, engine number and plate number
of a motor vehicle declared as “total wreck” or beyond economic repair by concerned insurance company,
and/or law enforcement agencies, due to its involvement in a vehicular accident or for some other causes.
The LTO shall cancel the registration of total wreck vehicle as reported by the PNP and/or as declared by the
Insurance Commission.

Sec. 16. Transfer of Vehicle Plate. – It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to transfer or use a
vehicle plate from one vehicle to another without securing the proper authority from the LTO.
Sec. 17. Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts. – It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to buy
and/or sell any second hand spare parts taken from a carnapped vehicle.

Sec. 18. Foreign Nationals. – Foreign nationals convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported
immediately after service of sentence without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration.

Sec. 19. Reward. – Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery of carnapped
vehicles and for the apprehension of the persons charged with carnapping shall be given monetary reward
as the PNP may determine. The PNP shall include in their annual budget the amount necessary to carry out
the purposes of this section. Any information given by informers shall be treated as confidential matter.

Sec. 20. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The PNP together with the Department of Transportation
and Communications, LTO, Philippine Coast Guard, Maritime Industry Authority, Bureau of Customs and
relevant motorists and automotive sectors shall, within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act, after
unanimous approval, promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations to effectively carry out
the provisions of this Act, including the setting up of a coordinated online access and the effective clearance
system mentioned in Section 12 of this Act to expedite motor vehicle data and details verification.

Sec. 21. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act is declared invalid, the remainder of this Act or
any provision not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

Sec. 22. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as the “Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972”,
is hereby repealed. All laws, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby amended or repealed accordingly.

Sec. 23. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazetteor
in two (2) newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes earlier.

Approved: chanroblesvi rt uallawli bra ry

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR. (Sgd.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON

Speaker of the House President of the Senate
of Representatives

This Act was passed by the Senate of the Philippines as Senate Bill No. 2794 on May 23, 2016 and adopted
by the House of Representatives as an amendment to House Bill No. 4544 on May 23, 2016.

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP (Sgd.) OSCAR G. YABES

Secretary General Secretary of the Senate
House of Representatives

Approved:

BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

President of the Philippines

Lapsed into law on JUL 17 2016

Without the signature of the President
In accordance with Article VI, Section
27 (1) at the Constitution
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6539

AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING

Section 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972."

Sec. 2. Definition of terms. The terms "carnapping", "motor vehicle", "defacing or tampering with",
"repainting", "body-building", "remodeling", "dismantling", and "overhauling", as used in this Act, shall
be understood, respectively, to mean

"Carnapping" is 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.

"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public
highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers,
graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run only
on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural
purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by
attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.

"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing, scratching, altering or changing of the
original factory-inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any
motor vehicle. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its motor engine,
engine block or chassis which is different from that which is listed in the records of the Bureau of
Customs for motor vehicles imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be considered to have
a defaced or tampered with serial number.

"Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting. There is repainting whenever
the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as registered in the Land Transportation
Commission.

"Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its entire body with a new
body.

"Remodeling" is the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of the motor
vehicle.

"Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by part, of a motor vehicle.

"Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by separating the
motor engine and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Sec. 3. Registration of motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis. Within one year after the
approval of this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof in knock
down condition shall register with the Land Transportation Commission the motor vehicle engine,
engine block and chassis in his name or in the name of the real owner who shall be readily available to
answer any claim over the registered motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis. Thereafter, all
motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the Land Transportation
Commission shall be considered as untaxed importation or coming from an illegal source or carnapped,
and shall be confiscated in favor of the Government.

All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities are required to register their cars with the
local police without paying any charges.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 4. Permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis. The Land Transportation
Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis of all
motor vehicles, specifying therein their type, make and serial numbers and stating therein the names
and addresses of their present and previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries made
thereon shall be furnished the Philippine Constabulary and all Land Transportation Commission regional,
provincial and city branch offices: Provided, That all Land Transportation Commission regional,
provincial and city branch offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all registration of motor
vehicles to the main office and to the Philippine Constabulary.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 5. Registration of sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine,
engine block or chassis. Every sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle
engine, engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered with the Land Transportation
Commission. Motor vehicles assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the Land Transportation Commission shall not be
issued certificates of registration and shall be considered as untaxed imported motor vehicles or motor
vehicles carnapped or proceeding from illegal sources.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 6. Original Registration of motor vehicles. Any person seeking the original registration of a motor
vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registered owner,
shall within one week after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof
from the registered owner, apply to the Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle for
registration with the Land Transportation Commission. The Philippine Constabulary shall, upon receipt
of the application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the list of carnapped motor
vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not in that list,
the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwith issue a certificate of clearance. Upon presentation of the
certificate of clearance from the Philippine Constabulary and after verification of the registration of the
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicle engines,
engine blocks and chassis, the Land Transportation Commission shall register the motor vehicle in
accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 7. Duty of Collector of Customs to report arrival of imported motor vehicle, etc. The Collector of
Customs of a principal port of entry where an imported motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine
block chassis or body is unloaded, shall, within seven days after the arrival of the imported motor
vehicle or any of its parts enumerated herein, make a report of the shipment to the Land Transportation
Commission, specifying the make, type and serial numbers, if any, of the motor vehicle engine, engine
block and chassis or body, and stating the names and addresses of the owner or consignee thereof. If
the motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body does not bear any serial number, the Collector
of Customs concerned shall hold the motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body until it is
numbered by the Land Transportation Commission.chanrobles virtualaw library
Sec. 8. Duty of importers, distributors and sellers of motor vehicles to keep record of stocks. Any person
engaged in the importation, distribution, and buying and selling of motor vehicles, motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks, chassis or body, shall keep a permanent record of his stocks, stating therein their
type, make and serial numbers, and the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were
acquired and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they were sold, and shall render an
accurate monthly report of his transactions in motor vehicles to the Land Transportation
Commission.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 9. Duty of manufacturers of engine blocks, chassis or body to cause numbering of engine blocks,
chassis or body manufactured. Any person engaged in the manufacture of engine blocks, chassis or body
shall cause the numbering of every engine block, chassis or body manufactured in a convenient and
conspicuous part thereof which the Land Transportation Commission may direct for the purpose of
uniformity and identification of the factory and shall submit to the Land Transportation Commission a
monthly report of the manufacture and sale of engine blocks, chassis or body.chanrobles virtualaw
library

Sec. 10. Clearance and permit required for assembly or rebuilding of motor vehicles. Any person who
shall undertake to assemble or rebuild or cause the assembly or rebuilding of a motor vehicle shall first
secure a certificate of clearance from the Philippine Constabulary: Provided, That no such permit shall
be issued unless the applicant shall present a statement under oath containing the type, make and serial
numbers of the engine, chassis and body, if any, and the complete list of the spare parts of the motor
vehicle to be assembled or rebuilt together with the names and addresses of the sources thereof.

In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats, motor bancas and other light water
vessels, the applicant shall secure a permit from the Philippine Coast Guard, which office shall in turn
furnish the Land Transportation Commission the pertinent data concerning the motor vehicle engines
including their type, make and serial numbers.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 11. Clearance required for shipment of motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks,
chassis or body. Any person who owns or operates inter-island shipping or any water transportation
with launches, boats, vessels or ships shall within seven days submit a report to the Philippine
Constabulary on all motor vehicle, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or bodies transported
by it for the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body to be loaded on board
the launch, boat vessel or ship.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 12. Defacing or tampering with serial numbers of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis. It shall be unlawful for any person to deface or otherwise tamper with the original or registered
serial number of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 13. Penal Provisions. Any person who violates any provisions of this Act shall be punished with
imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than six years and a fine equal in amount to the
acquisition cost of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine or any other part involved in the
violation: Provided, That if the person violating any provision of this Act is a juridical person, the penalty
herein provided shall be imposed on its president or secretary and/or members of the board of directors
or any of its officers and employees who may have directly participated in the violation.
Any government official or employee who directly commits the unlawful acts defined in this Act or is
guilty of gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission of any of the said unlawful
act shall, in addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding paragraph, be dismissed from the service
with prejudice to his reinstatement and with disqualification from voting or being voted for in any
election and from appointment to any public office.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in
Sec. two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment
for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months,
when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things;
and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years,
when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force
upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping.chanrobles
virtualaw library

Sec. 15. Aliens. Aliens convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after
service of sentence without further proceedings by the Deportation Board.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 16. Reward. Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery of carnapped
vehicles and for the conviction of the persons charged with carnapping shall be given as reward so much
reward money as the Philippine Constabulary may fix. The Philippine Constabulary is authorized to
include in its annual budget the amount necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. Any
information given by informers shall be treated as confidential matter.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 17. Separability clause. If any provisions of this Act is declared invalid, the provisions thereof not
affected by such declaration shall remain in force and effect.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 18. Repealing clause. All laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.chanrobles virtualaw library

Sec. 19. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: August 26, 1972

RA 6539, as amended; carnapping.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX BAUTISTA,
AND RICKY BAUTISTA ACCUSED, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016. - The Lawyer's Post.

“x x x.

R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, defines carnapping as 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 against persons, or by using force upon things⁠1. By the amendment in
Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659, Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act now reads:

SEC. 14. Penally for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in
Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be punished by
imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years
and four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or
force upon things, and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not
more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence or intimidation of any
person, or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the
owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

Three amendments have been made to the original Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act: (1) the
penalty of life imprisonment was changed to reclusion perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3) the
change of the phrase “in the commission of the carnapping” to “in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof.” This third amendment clarifies the law’s intent to make the
offense a special complex crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code
on robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Thus, under the last clause of Section 14 of
the Anti-Carnapping Act, 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.” Consequently, where the elements of carnapping are not
proved, the provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act would cease to be applicable and the homicide or
murder (if proven) would be punishable under the Revised Penal Code.⁠2

In the instant case, the Court finds the charge of carnapping unsubstantiated for failure of the
prosecution to prove all its elements. For one, the trial court’s decision itself makes no mention of any
direct evidence indicating the guilt of accused-appellant. Indeed, the CA confirmed the lack of such
direct evidence.⁠3 Both lower courts solely based accused-appellant’s conviction of the special complex
crime onone circumstantial evidence and that is, the fact of his possession of the allegedly carnapped
vehicle.

The Court notes that the prosecution’s evidence only consists of the fact of the victim’s disappearance,
the discovery of his death and the details surrounding accused-appellant’s arrest on rumors that the
vehicle he possessed had been carnapped. Theres is absolutely no evidence supporting the
prosecution’s theory that the victim’s vehicle had been carnapped, much less that the accused-appellant
is the author of the same.

X x x.”

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX
BAUTISTA, AND RICKY BAUTISTA, Accused.

FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

Before us for review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A. G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04812 dated 19
November 2012 which dismissed the appeal of accused-appellant Fabian Urzais y Lanurias and affirmed with
modification the Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City, Branch 27, in Criminal
Case No. 13155 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping with
homicide through the use of unlicensed firearm.

Accused-appellant, together with co-accused Alex Bautista and Ricky Bautista, was charged with Violation of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No.
7659, with homicide through the use of an unlicensed firearm. The accusatory portion of the Information
reads as follows:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry

That on or about the 13th day of November, 2002, or prior thereto, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of
the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating with and abetting one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away, a Isuzu
Highlander car, colored Forest Green, with Plate No. UUT-838 of one MARIO MAGDATO, valued at FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) Philippine Currency, owned by and belonging to said MARIO
MAGDATO, against his will and consent and to his damage and prejudice in the aforestated amount of
P500,000.00, and on the occasion of the carnapping, did assault and use personal violence upon the person
of one MARIO MAGDATO, that is, by shooting the latter with an unlicensed firearm, a Norinco cal. 9mm
Pistol with Serial No. 508432, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on the head which caused his
death.3ChanRoblesVirt ualawli bra ry

At his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial proceeded against him. His two co-
accused remain at large.

The prosecution presented as witnesses Shirley Magdato (Shirley), Senior Police Officer 2 Fernando Figueroa
(SPO2 Figueroa) and Dr. Jun Concepcion (Dr. Concepcion).

Shirley, the widow of the victim, testified mainly regarding her husband's disappearance and discovery of his
death. She narrated that her husband used to drive for hire their Isuzu Highlander with plate number UUT-
838 from Pulilan, Bulacan to the LRT Terminal in Metro Manila. On 12 November 2002, around four o'clock in
the morning, her husband left their house in Pulilan and headed for the terminal at the Pulilan Public Market
to ply his usual route. When her husband did not return home that day, Shirley inquired of his whereabouts
from his friends to no avail. Shirley went to the terminal the following day and the barker there told her that
a person had hired their vehicle to go to Manila. Shirley then asked her neighbors to call her husband's
mobile phone but no one answered. At around 10 o'clock in the morning of 13 November 2002, her
husband's co-members in the drivers' association arrived at their house and thereafter accompanied Shirley
to her husband's supposed location. At the Sta.Rosa police station in Nueva Ecija, Shirley was informed that
her husband had passed away. She then took her husband's body home.4 Shirley retrieved their vehicle on
21 November 2002 from the Cabanatuan City Police Station. She then had it cleaned as it had blood stains
and reeked of a foul odor.5

SPO2 Figueroa of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Cabanatuan City, testified concerning the
circumstances surrounding accused-appellant's arrest. He stated that in November 2002, their office
received a "flash alarm" from the Bulacan PNP about an alleged carnapped Isuzu Highlander in forest green
color. Thereafter, their office was informed that the subject vehicle had been seen in the AGL Subdivision,
Cabanatuan City. Thus, a team conducted surveillance there and a checkpoint had been set up outside its
gate. Around three o'clock in the afternoon of 20 November 2002, a vehicle that fit the description of the
carnapped vehicle appeared. The officers apprehended the vehicle and asked the driver, accused-appellant,
who had been alone, to alight therefrom. When the officers noticed the accused-appellant's waist to be
bulging of something, he was ordered to raise his shirt and a gun was discovered tucked there. The officers
confiscated the unlicensed 9mm Norinco, with magazine and twelve (12) live ammunitions. The officers
confirmed that the engine of the vehicle matched that of the victim's. Found inside the vehicle were two (2)
plates with the marking "UUT-838" and a passport. Said vehicle contained traces of blood on the car seats at
the back and on its flooring. The officers detained accused-appellant and filed a case for illegal possession of
firearm against him. The subject firearm was identified in open court.6

Dr. Concepcion testified about the wounds the victim sustained and the cause of his death. He stated that
the victim sustained one (1) gunshot wound in the head, the entrance of which is at the right temporal area
exiting at the opposite side. The victim also had several abrasions on the right upper eyelid, the tip of the
nose and around the right eye. He also had blisters on his cheek area which could have been caused by a
lighted cigarette.7

Accused-appellant testified in his defense and interposed the defense of denial.

Accused-appellant testified that he had ordered in October 2002 from brothers Alex and Ricky Bautista, an
owner-type jeepney worth P60,000.00 for use in his business. The brothers, however, allegedly delivered
instead a green Isuzu Highlander around half past three o'clock in the afternoon of 13 November 2002. The
brothers told accused-appellant that his P60,000.00 would serve as initial payment with the remaining
undetermined amount to be paid a week after. Accused-appellant agreed to this, amazed that he had been
given a new vehicle at such low price. Accused-appellant then borrowed money from someone to pay the
balance but the brothers never replied to his text messages. On 16 November 2002, his friend Oscar
Angeles advised him to surrender the vehicle as it could be a "hot car." Accused-appellant was initially
hesitant to this idea as he wanted to recover the amount he had paid but he eventually decided to sell the
vehicle. He removed its plate number and placed a "for sale" sign at the back. On 18 November 2002, he
allegedly decided to surrender the vehicle upon advice by a certain Angie. But when he arrived home in the
afternoon of that day, he alleged that he was arrested by Alex Villareal, a member of the Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.8Accused-appellant also testified that he
found out in jail the owner of the vehicle and his unfortunate demise.9 On cross-examination, accused-
appellant admitted that his real name is "Michael Tapayan y Baguio" and that he used the name Fabian
Urzais to secure a second passport in 2001 to be able to return to Taiwan.10
The other defense witness, Oscar Angeles (Angeles), testified that he had known the accused-appellant as
Michael Tapayan when they became neighbors in the AGL subdivision. Accused-appellant also served as his
computer technician. Angeles testified that accused-appellant previously did not own any vehicle until the
latter purchased the Isuzu Highlander for P30,000.00 from the latter's friends in Bulacan. Angeles advised
accused-appellant that the vehicle might have been carnapped due to its very low selling price. Angeles
corroborated accused-appellant's testimony that he did not want to surrender the car at first as he wanted
to recover his payment for it.11

On 18 October 2010, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. The
RTC anchored its ruling on the disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.12 It held that the elements of
carnapping were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through the recovery of the
purportedly carnapped vehicle from the accused-appellant's possession and by his continued possession
thereof even after the lapse of one week from the commission of the crime.13 The dispositive portion of the
RTC Decision reads:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused Fabian Urzais alias Michael Tapayan y
Lanurias GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping as defined and penalized by Republic
Act 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972) as amended by R.A. 7659 with homicide thru the use of unlicensed
firearm. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of forty (40) years of reclusion
perpetua.

In the service of the sentence, accused shall be credited with the full time of his preventive detention if he
agreed voluntarily and in writing to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners
pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Accused is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Mario Magdato the sum of Php50,000.00 as death
indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php672,000.00 as loss of earning capacity.14 ChanRoblesVi rtua lawlib rary

Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 December 2010. 15

On 19 November 2012, the CA rendered the assailed judgment affirming with modification the trial court's
decision. The CA noted the absence of eyewitnesses to the crime yet ruled that sufficient circumstantial
evidence was presented to prove accused-appellant's guilt, solely, accused-appellant's possession of the
allegedly carnapped vehicle.

Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before this Court. In a Resolution16 dated 12 August 2013,
accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) were asked to file their respective
supplemental briefs if they so desired. Accused-appellant filed a Supplemental Brief17 while the OSG
manifested18 that it adopts its Brief19 filed before the CA for the purpose of the instant appeal.

Before the Court, accused-appellant vehemently maintains that there is no direct evidence that he robbed
and murdered the victim; and that the lower courts erred in convicting him based on circumstantial evidence
consisting only of the fact of his possession of the allegedly carnapped vehicle. Accused-appellant decries
the appellate court's error in relying on the disputable presumption created by law under Section 3 (j), Rule
131 of the Rules of Court to conclude that by virtue of his possession of the vehicle, he is considered the
author of both the carnapping of the vehicle and the killing of its owner. Accused-appellant asserts that such
presumption does not hold in the case at bar.

The Court agrees.

Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two (2) things: 1. The fact of the crime, i.e.the
presence of all the elements of the crime for which the accused stands charged; and (2) the fact that the
accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The Court finds the prosecution unable to prove both aspects, thus,
it is left with no option but to acquit on reasonable doubt.

R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, defines carnapping as 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 against persons, or by using force upon things.20 By the amendment in Section 20 of
R.A. No. 7659, Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act now reads:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry

SEC. 14. Penally for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in
Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be punished by
imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and
four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon
things, and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty
years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or force upon
things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant
of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
Three amendments have been made to the original Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act: (1) the penalty of
life imprisonment was changed to reclusion perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the
phrase "in the commission of the carnapping" to "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on
the occasion thereof." This third amendment clarifies the law's intent to make the offense a special complex
crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons. Thus, under the last clause of Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act, 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."
Consequently, where the elements of carnapping are not proved, the provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act
would cease to be applicable and the homicide or murder (if proven) would be punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.21

In the instant case, the Court finds the charge of carnapping unsubstantiated for failure of the prosecution
to prove all its elements. For one, the trial court's decision itself makes no mention of any direct evidence
indicating the guilt of accused-appellant. Indeed, the CA confirmed the lack of such direct evidence.22 Both
lower courts solely based accused-appellant's conviction of the special complex crime on one circumstantial
evidence and that is, the fact of his possession of the allegedly carnapped vehicle.

The Court notes that the prosecution's evidence only consists of the fact of the victim's disappearance, the
discovery of his death and the details surrounding accused-appellant's arrest on rumors that the vehicle he
possessed had been carnapped. Theres is absolutely no evidence supporting the prosecution's theory that
the victim's vehicle had been carnapped, much less that the accused-appellant is the author of the same.

Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted, but for circumstantial evidence
to sustain a conviction, following are the guidelines: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is as
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.23 Decided cases expound that the circumstantial
evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the circumstances
must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rationale except that of
guilt.24

In the case at bar, notably there is only one circumstantial evidence. And this sole circumstantial evidence of
possession of the vehicle does not lead to an inference exclusively consistent with guilt. Fundamentally,
prosecution did not offer any iota of evidence detailing the seizure of the vehicle, much less with accused-
appellant's participation. In fact, there is even a variance concerning how accused-appellant was discovered
to be in possession of the vehicle. The prosecution's uncorroborated evidence says accused-appellant was
apprehended while driving the vehicle at a checkpoint, although the vehicle did not bear any license plates,
while the latter testified he was arrested at home. The following testimony of prosecution witness SPO2
Figueroa on cross-examination raises even more questions:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry

Q: You mentioned the car napping incident, when was that, Mr.
witness?

ATTY. GONZALES:
 Your Honor, I noticed that every time the witness gave his
answer, he is looking at a piece of paper and he is not
testifying on his personal knowledge.

xx
xx

COURT:

The witness is looking at the record for about 5 min. now.

Fiscal, here is another witness who has lapses on the mind.

FISCAL MACARAIG:

I am speechless, Your Honor.

WITNESS:

It was not stated in my affidavit, sir the time of the carnapping

incident.

ATTY. GONZALES:

Your Honor, if he can no longer remember even the simple

matter when this car napping incident happened then he is an
incompetent witness and we are deprive (sic) of the right to
cross examine him. I move that his testimony would be
stricken off from the record.
xx
xx

Q: Mr. Witness, what is the date when you arrested the accused Fabian
Urzais?

A: It was November 20, 2002 at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, sir.

Q: You said earlier that on November 3, 2002 that you met the accused
is that correct, Mr. Witness?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why did you see the accused on November 3, 2002, Mr. Witness?

A: During that time, we conducted a check point at AGL were (sic) the
Highlander was often seen, sir.

Q: So, since on November 3, 2002, you were conducting this check

point at AGL, it is safe to assume that the carnapping incident
happened earlier than November 3, 2002?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Were you present when this vehicle was car napped, Mr. Witness?

A: No, sir.

Q: Since you were not present, you have no personal knowledge about
this car napping incident, right, Mr. Witness?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: No further question, Your Honor.25

Considering the dearth of evidence, the subject vehicle is at best classified as "missing" since the non-return
of the victim and his vehicle on 12 November 2002. Why the check-point had begun before then, as early 3
November 2002, as stated by the prosecution witness raises doubts about the prosecution's version of the
case. Perhaps, the check-point had been set up for another vehicle which had gone missing earlier. In any
event, accused-appellant's crime, if at all, was being in possession of a missing vehicle whose owner had
been found dead. There is perhaps guilt in the acquisition of the vehicle priced so suspiciously below
standard. But how this alone should lead to a conviction for the special complex crime of carnapping with
homicide/murder, affirmed by the appellate court is downright disturbing.

The application of disputable presumption found in Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that a
person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the
whole act, in this case the alleged carnapping and the homicide/murder of its owner, is limited to cases
where such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in
view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.26 In the instant case, accused-appellant set-up a defense
of denial of the charges and adhered to his unrebutted version of the story that the vehicle had been sold to
him by the brothers Alex and Ricky Bautista. Though the explanation is not seamless, once the explanation
is made for the possession, the presumption arising from the unexplained possession may not anymore be
invoked and the burden shifts once more to the prosecution to produce evidence that would render the
defense of the accused improbable. And this burden, the prosecution was unable to discharge. In contrast to
prosecution witness SPO2 Figueroa's confused, apprehensive and uncorroborated testimony accused-
appellant unflinchingly testified as follows:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry

Q: Will you please tell us how you came into possession of this Isuzu
Highlander with plate number UTT 838?

A: That vehicle was brought by Ricky Bautista and Alex Bautista, sir.

xx
xx

Q: Do you know why Alex and Ricky Bautista gave you that Isuzu
Highlander?

A: Actually that was not the vehicle I ordered form (sic) them, I ordered
an owner type jeep worth Php60,000 but on November 13, 2002
they brought that Isuzu Highlander, sir.

Q: Why did you order an owner type jeep from them?

A: Because I planned to install a trolley, cause I have a videoke for rent

business, sir.

xx
xx
Q: What happened upon the arrival of this Alex and Ricky Bautista on
that date and time?

A: I was a little bit surprise (sic) because Alex alighted from an Isuzu
Highlander colored green, sir.

Q: What happened after that?

A: I told them that it was not I ordered from you and my money is only
Php60,000, sir.

Q: What did he told (sic) you?

A: He told me to give them the Php60,000 and they will leave the
vehicle and when I have the money next week I will send text
message to them, sir.

Q: What was your reaction?

A: I was amazed because the vehicle is brand new and the price is low,
sir.

xx
xx

Q: Did you find out anything about the Isuzu highlander that they left to
you?

A: When I could not contact them I went to my friend Oscar Angeles

and told him about the vehicle then he told me that you better
surrender the vehicle because maybe it is a hot car, sir. "Nung hindi
ko na po sila makontak ay nagpunta ako sa kaibigan kong si Oscar
Angeles at sinabi ko po yung problema tungkol sa sasakyan at sinabi
nya sa akin na isurrender na lang at baka hot car yan"27
 xx
xx

Q: Mr. Witness, granting for the sake that what you are saying is true,
immediately on the 16th, according to your testimony, and upon
confirming it to your friend, you then decided to surrender the
vehicle, why did you not do it on the 16th, why did you still have to
wait until you get arrested?

A: Because I was thinking of my Sixty Thousand Pesos (Php60,000.00)

at that time, and on how I can take it back, sir. ("Kasi nanghinayang
po ako sa Sixty Thousand (Php60,000.00) ko nung oras na un ...
pano ko po yun mabawi sabi ko".)

xx
xx

Q: So Mr. Witness, let us simplify this, you have purchased a carnapped

vehicle, your intention is to surrender it but you never did that until
you get caught in possession of the same, so in other words, that is
all that have actually xxx vehicle was found dead, the body was
dumped somewhere within the vicinity of Sta. Rosa, those are the
facts in this case?

A: I only came to know that there was a dead person when I was
already in jail, sir.

Q: What about the other facts that I have mentioned, are they correct
or not?

A: When I gave the downpayment, I do not know yet that it was a hot
car and I came to know it only on the 16th, sir.28
Significantly, accused-appellant's testimony was corroborated by defense witness Angeles who had known
accused-appellant by his real name "Michael Tapayan y Baguio," to wit:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry

Q: Do you know if this Michael Tapayan owns any vehicle sometime in

2002?

A: At first none, sir, he has no vehicle.

Q: What do you mean when you say at first he has no vehicle?

A: Later, sir, I saw him riding in a vehicle.

xx
xx

Q: Did Michael Tapayan tell you how much he bought that vehicle?

A: I remember he told me that he bought that vehicle for Thirty

Thousand (Php30,000.00) Pesos, sir.

Q: What was your reaction when you were told that the vehicle was
purchased for only Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00)?

A: I told him that it's very cheap and also told him that it might be a
carnap (sic) vehicle.

Q: What was the reaction of Michael Tapayan when you told him that?

A: He thought about it and he is of the belief that the person who sold
the vehicle to him will come back and will get the additional
payment, sir.

Q: Aside from this conversation about that vehicle, did you have any
other conversation with Michael Tapayan concerning that vehicle?

A: After a few days, sir, I told him to surrender the said vehicle to the
authorities because the persons who sold it to him did not come
back for additional payment.

Q: What was the reaction of Michael Tapayan to this suggestion?

 A: He told me that he will think about it because he was thinking about
the money that he already gave to them.29
Evidently, the disputable presumption cannot prevail over accused-appellant's explanation for his possession
of the missing vehicle. The possession having been explained, the legal presumption is disputed and thus,
cannot find application in the instant case. To hold otherwise would be a miscarriage of justice as criminal
convictions necessarily require proof of guilt of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and in the
absence of such proof, should not be solely based on legal disputable presumptions.

The carnapping not being duly proved, the killing of the victim may not be treated as an incident of
carnapping. Nonetheless, even under the provisions of homicide and murder under the Revised Penal Code,
the Court finds the guilt of accused-appellant was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

There were no eyewitnesses to the killing of the victim, Mario Magdato. Again, both courts relied only on the
circumstantial evidence of accused-appellant's possession of the missing vehicle for the latter's conviction.
Shirley, the widow, testified that her husband and their vehicle went missing on 12 November 2002. Dr.
Concepcion gave testimony on the cause of death of Mario Magdato and the injuries he had sustained. Most
glaringly, no connection had been established between the victim's gunshot wound which caused his death
and the firearm found in the person of accused-appellant. Only SPO2 Figueroa's testimony gave light on how
allegedly accused-appellant was found to have been in possession of the missing vehicle of the victim. But
even if this uncorroborated testimony was true, it does not link accused-appellant to the carnapping, much
less, the murder or homicide of the victim. And it does not preclude the probability of accused-appellant's
story that he had merely bought the vehicle from the Bautista brothers who have themselves since gone
missing.

The equipoise rule states that where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his
guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
conviction. The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the
constitutional, presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.30

The basis of the acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply means that the evidence of the prosecution was
not sufficient to sustain the guilt of accused-appellant beyond the point of moral certainty. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt, however, is a burden particular to the prosecution and does not apply to exculpatory facts
as may be raised by the defense; the accused is not required to establish matters in mitigation or defense
beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is he required to establish the truth of such matters by a preponderance of
the evidence, or even to a reasonable probability.31

It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction
becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the
accused with moral certainty. Upon the prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the
constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent
man for the rest of his life.32 The constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be
overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable doubt.33

In the final analysis, the circumstances narrated by the prosecution engender doubt rather than moral
certainty on the guilt of accused-appellant. chan robles law

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 19 November 2012 in
C.A. G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04812 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS alias Michael
Tapayan y Baguio is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping with homicide, without
prejudice to investigation for the crime of fencing penalized under Presidential Decree 1612. His immediate
release from confinement is hereby ordered, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibra ry

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin,** and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Peralta, J., on official leave. chan rob lesvirtual lawlib rary

Endnotes:
Stiffer anti-carnapping law
for PNoy’s approval
Published June 12, 2016 11:45am
By XIANNE ARCANGEL, GMA News

A bill increasing the length of imprisonment for carnapping and making it a non-
bailable offense will be sent to Malacañang for President Benigno Aquino III’s
signature.
An enrolled copy of the proposed “New Anti-Carnapping Act” is expected to be
sent to Malacañang soon after the Senate and House of Representatives adopted
the final version of the measure before adjourning sine die last June 6.

The bill, if signed into law, will repeal Republic Act 6539, otherwise known as the
“The Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.”

Under the measure, any person charged with carnapping shall be denied bail
when the evidence of guilt is strong; or when the crime of carnapping is
committed by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or by means of violence or
intimidation of any person or persons or forced upon things; or when the owner,
driver, passenger or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the
course of the carnapping.

Regardless of the value of the motor vehicle taken, a person found guilty of
carnapping shall face a minimum jail sentence of 20 years and one day to 30
years when the carnapping is committed without violence against or
intimidation of persons, or force upon things.

If violence is involved, the period for imprisonment will range from a minimum
of 30 years to one day, to 40 years.

An individual convicted for kidnapping faces life imprisonment if the owner,

driver, or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of
the crime.

Persons who violate the provisions of the proposed law and in furtherance or
concealment of the crime of carnapping shall be punished with imprisonment of
six years up to 12 years and a fine equal to the amount of the acquisition cost of
the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or any other part involved in the
violation.

If the person violating any provision of the measure is a juridical person, the
penalty herein provided shall be imposed on its president, secretary, and or
members of the board of directors or any of its officers and employees who may
have directly participated in the violation.

Public officials or employees found guilty of carnapping or of becoming an

accessory to the crime shall also be dismissed from government service and
permanently disqualified from holding public office.

Should the measure be passed into law, persons registering their motor vehicles
will be required to apply to the Philippine National Police (PNP) for clearance of
the motor vehicle for registration with the Land Transportation Office (LTO).

The PNP shall, upon receipt of the application, verify if the motor vehicle or its
numbered parts are on the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor
vehicle parts. A certificate of clearance will be issued if the motor vehicle or any
of its numbered parts is not on the list.

The LTO shall register the motor vehicle within 20 working days if the person
applying for registration is able to present a certificate of clearance from the PNP
and after verification of the registration of pertinent motor vehicle parts in the
permanent registry.

Every owner or possessor of an unregistered motor vehicle or parts in

knockdown condition shall be required to register before the LTO, within one
year upon the approval of the bill, the motor vehicle engine, engine block and
chassis in the name of the possessor or in the name of the real owner who shall
be readily available to answer any claim over the registered motor vehicle
engine, engine block and chassis.

Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered
with the LTO shall be considered as a carnapped vehicle, an untaxed importation
or coming from illegal source and shall be confiscated in favor of the
government. —ALG, GMA News