G.R. No. 212815. March 1, 2017.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ENRILE DONIO y UNTALAN, accused-appellant.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Information; While it is

necessary that the statutory designation be stated in the
information, a mistake in the caption of an indictment in
designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal defect as it
is not the designation that is controlling but the facts alleged in the
information which determines the real nature of the crime.—While
it is necessary that the statutory designation be stated in the
information, a mistake in the caption of an indictment in
designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal defect as
it is not the designation that is controlling but the facts alleged in
the information which determines the real nature of the crime.
Recently, it was held that failure to designate the offense by the
statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or
an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the
information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts
constituting the crime charged. The recital of the ultimate facts
and circumstances in the complaint or information determines the
character of the crime and not the caption or preamble of the
information or the specification of the provision of the law alleged
to have been violated. In the case at bar, the acts alleged to have
been committed by Donio are averred in the Information, and the
same described the acts defined and penalized under Sections 2
and 14 of R.A. 6539, as amended.
Criminal Law; Carnapping; Elements of.—The elements of
carnapping as defined and penalized under the 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.

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.
  
 
57

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 57

People vs. Donio

  Same; Same; Carnapping with Homicide; Special Complex

Crimes; To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with
homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of
carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the
culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.—Under
the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. 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 other words, to prove the special complex crime of
carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the
essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original
criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in
the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof.
Same; Same; Unlawful Taking; Unlawful taking is deemed
complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the
thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
—“Unlawful taking” or apoderamiento is the taking of the motor
vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.
It is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of
the same. Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides the
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.
Same; Same; The presumption that a person found in
possession of the personal effects belonging to the person robbed
and killed is considered the author of the aggression, the death of
the person, as well as the robbery committed, has been invariably
limited to cases where such possession is either unexplained or
that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in view of
independent evidence inconsistent thereto.—The presumption that
a person found in possession of the personal effects belonging to
the person robbed and killed is considered the author of the
aggression, the death of the person, as well as the robbery
committed, has been invariably limited to cases where such
possession is either unexplained or that the

 
 
58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio

proffered explanation is rendered implausible in view of

independent evidence inconsistent thereto. The said principle may
be applied in this case as the concept of unlawful taking in theft,
robbery and carnapping being the same. Here, Donio failed to
produce the vehicle’s papers at the checkpoint. He impersonated
the victim before the police officers when his identity was asked,
and left under the guise of getting the said documents. It was also
established that he and the others were strangers to Rodrigo.
Donio’s unexplained possession, coupled with the circumstances
proven in the trial, therefore, raises the presumption that he was
one of the perpetrators responsible for the unlawful taking of the
vehicle and Raul’s death.
Same; Same; Intent to Gain; The mere use of the thing which
was taken without the owner’s consent constitutes gain.—Intent to
gain or animus lucrandi, which is an internal act, is presumed
from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is
irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain.
The term “gain” is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also
includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or
expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of
the thing which was taken without the owner’s consent
constitutes gain. Donio’s intent to gain from the carnapped
tricycle was proven as he and his companions were using it as
means of transportation when they were confronted by the
Concepcion police officers.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Requisites
of   a Circumstantial Evidence.—The lack or absence of direct
evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused
can no longer be proved by any other evidence. Circumstantial,
indirect or presumptive evidence, if sufficient, can replace direct
evidence as provided by Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court,
which, to warrant the conviction of an accused, requires that: (a)
there is more than one (1) circumstance; (b) the facts from which
the inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the
combination of all these circumstances results in a moral
certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the one
who committed the crime. Hence, to justify a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must
be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the accused.

 
 
59

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 59

People vs. Donio

Criminal Law; Carnapping with Homicide; Rigor Mortis;

Words and Phrases; Rigor mortis, which consists in the stiffening
of the muscular tissues and joints of the body setting in at a
greater or less interval after death, may be utilized to approximate
the length of time the body has been dead.—The victim’s lifeless
body was found sprawled with multiple stab wounds and was
noted in a state of rigor mortis. Rigor mortis, which consists in the
stiffening of the muscular tissues and joints of the body setting in
at a greater or less interval after death, may be utilized to
approximate the length of time the body has been dead. In
temperate countries, it usually appears three to six hours after
death but in warmer countries, it may develop earlier. In tropical
countries, the usual duration of rigor mortis is twenty-four to
forty-eight hours during cold weather and eighteen to thirty-six
hours during summer. When rigor mortis sets in early, it passes
off quickly and vice versa.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Flight; Donio’s flight is an
indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind.—When Donio was
brought to the police station, he asked permission from the
officers to get the registration papers but never returned.
Undoubtedly, Donio’s flight is an indication of his guilt or of a
guilty mind. Indeed, the wicked man flees though no man
pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.
Same; Same; Witnesses; From its vantage point, the trial court
is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.—
This Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s evaluation of
the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in
directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From
its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to
determine the truthfulness of witnesses. The factual findings of
the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more
weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court,
absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support
in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to
constitute grave abuse of discretion. In the case at bar, the RTC,
as affirmed by the CA, gave credence to the testimony of the
prosecution witness. Records are bereft of evidence which showed
ill will or malicious intent on the part of SPO4 Taberdo. In
absence of evidence to the contrary, this Court finds that the RTC
and the CA did not err in the findings of facts and the credibility
of the witnesses.

 
 
60

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio

Criminal Law; Alibi; For the alibi to prosper, the accused

must establish the following: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at
the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically
impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.
—No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi
is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and
difficult to disprove, and for which reason, it is generally rejected.
For the alibi to prosper, the accused must establish the following:
(1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was
committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at
the scene at the time of its commission. It must be supported by
credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and if not, is
fatal to the accused. When he was confronted with his
inconsistency, Donio clarified that he was in Capas, Tarlac and
was fetched by his wife in the evening to attend to his sick child.
We note, however, the proximity of the area of Donio’s residence
with the Barangay Dapdap and Sta. Lucia Resettlement area
where the victim was found dead. To buttress his defense of alibi,
Donio could have presented the testimony of a fellow plantation
worker or any disinterested witness who could have substantiated
the same. Aside from his bare allegations, he failed to present
convincing evidence of the physical impossibility for him to be at
the scene at the time of carnapping. Similarly, this Court is
unconvinced of his insistence that he was tortured in view of lack
of any evidence to validate the same. Thus, the uncorroborated
alibi and denial of Donio must be brushed aside in light of the fact
that the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained
his identity. It is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails
over negative testimony.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

 
 
61
 VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 61
People vs. Donio

PERALTA, J.:
 
This is an appeal from the November 4, 2013 Decision1
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
05418, which affirmed the Decision2 dated January 24,
2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, Angeles
City in Criminal Case No. 04-594.
The facts are as follows:
Accused-appellant Enrile Donio y Untalan (Donio) was
charged with violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539,
otherwise known as Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659. Co-accused Val Paulino
(Paulino) and one @ Ryan (Ryan), both remains at-large,
were similarly charged. The accusatory portion of the
Information reads:

That on or about the 26th day of November 2003, in the

Municipality of Mabalacat, Province of Pampanga, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually
helping one another, with intent of gain and without the
knowledge and consent of the owner, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away with them
one (1) Honda TMX 155 tricycle, colored black and with Body
[No.] 817, valued at Ninety-Six Thousand ([P]96,000.00) Pesos,
Philippine Currency, and on the occasion thereof, Raul L. Layug,
being the driver and owner of the said Honda TMX 155 tricycle,
was killed with the use of a mini jungle bolo.
Contrary to law.3

_______________

1   Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate

Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; Rollo,
pp. 2-12.
2   Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Angelica T. Paras-Quiambao, CA
Rollo, pp. 42-61.
3  Id., at p. 42.

 
 
62

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio
 Pending Donio’s arraignment, PO1 Ernessito N.
Bansagan and the National Bureau of Investigation,
Central Luzon Regional Office submitted the returns on
the Warrant of Arrest against Ryan and Paulino,
respectively, stating that the said persons could not be
located at the given addresses, and requested for alias
warrants against them. The trial court issued the Alias
Warrant of Arrest against accused Ryan on September 4,
2004 and against Paulino on November 4, 2004.4
At his arraignment, Donio, assisted by his counsel de
oficio, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. During the
pretrial conference, it was stipulated that Donio is the
same person whose name appears in the Information and
was arraigned before that court.
Thereafter, the trial on the merits ensued.
On November 26, 2003, six police officers of the
Concepcion Police Station, Tarlac City, headed by SPO4
Leodegario Taberdo (SPO4 Taberdo), conducted a
checkpoint along the junction of MacArthur Highway in
relation to the campaign of the Philippine National Police
against hijacking, carnapping, and kidnapping, hailing
cargo trucks and closed vans, and issuing cards to
southbound vehicles.5
At 2:30 in the morning on November 26, 2003, a
speeding tricycle abruptly stopped a few meters from the
checkpoint and caught the attention of the police officers.
SPO4 Taberdo and two others approached the vehicle. The
driver, later identified as Donio, was noticeably agitated
while repeatedly kicking the starter of the tricycle. When
asked for his identity, he introduced himself as Raul Layug
(Raul) and then handed to SPO4 Taberdo a temporary
license bearing the said name. The police officers asked the
driver and his companions, co-accused Paulino and Ryan,
to bring the vehicle, a Honda TMX 155

_______________

4  Id., at p. 43.
5  Id., at p. 46.

 
 

63

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 63

People vs. Donio

tricycle with Body No. 817, to the checkpoint when they

failed to produce its certificate of registration and the
official receipt.6
 Upon visual search of the vehicle, they discovered a
bloodstained mini jungle bolo inside. They seized the
tricycle and the bolo, and then brought the three to the
police station. At 9 o’clock in the morning, Donio asked
permission to leave in order to get the registration papers.
The officers allowed him, however, he did not return.7
Meanwhile, around 6:30 in morning of the same date,
Rodrigo Layug (Rodrigo) was searching for his brother
Raul, the victim, who has not returned home since last
night. Raul was the driver of Rodrigo’s Honda TMX 155
tricycle with Body
No. 817. Rodrigo met with his tricycle driver cousin from
Mawaque to ask him if he saw his brother. His cousin
accompanied him to Barangay Madapdap where they found
the remains of Raul. Words spread about his death.
Thereafter, a tricycle driver informed them that he saw a
vehicle similar to Rodrigo’s at the Concepcion Police
Station. Rodolfo, Raul and Rodrigo’s other brother, went to
the station where he learned that Paulino and Ryan were
released.8
Sometime in December 2003, the brothers returned to
the station upon learning that Donio was apprehended. On
December 7, 2003, the Chief of Police summoned SPO4
Taberdo to identify the driver who asked permission to
retrieve the registration papers but did not return at the
Concepcion Police Station. Upon seeing Donio, the
disgruntled SPO4 Taberdo asked him, “Why did you do
that?” He was referring to the incident when Donio did not
return. It was also that same day that he learned Donio’s
real identity.9

_______________

6  Id.
7  Id.
8  Id., at p. 45.
9  Id., at p. 46.

 
 

64

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio

Dr. Reynaldo C. Dizon (Dr. Dizon) conducted the post-

mortem examination of Raul’s body and determined that he
sustained stab wounds caused by a sharp instrument.
Defense’s sole witness, Donio, a 35-year-old grass cutter
and a resident of Madapdap, Mabalacat, Pampanga, denied
the accusations. As a sugarcane plantation worker, he has
a long palang for harvesting and cutting. It was not similar
to the sharp and pointed mini jungle bolo. As a stay-in
plantation worker, he does not leave the workplace for six
months. His wife visits him instead.
On November 24, 2003, he was harvesting sugarcane in
Capas, Tarlac. However, from the evening of November 25,
2003 until the next day, he was at home after his wife
fetched him to tend to their sick child. He first learned of
the carnapping charge when the police officers came to his
house looking for a certain Val Paulino. He was taken to
the municipal hall where he was investigated and detained
for five days. Three officers beat and electrocuted him for
three hours forcing him to admit the crime.10
The RTC convicted Donio of the crime of carnapping
with homicide. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused ENRILE U.

DONIO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Carnapping as defined in Section 2 and penalized under Section
14 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, with credit of his preventive imprisonment.
Accused ENRILE U. DONIO is further ordered to pay the heirs
of the victim Raul L. Layug the following amounts: Fifty thousand
pesos ([P]50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Twenty-five thousand
pesos ([P]25,000.00) as actual damages.
No costs.

_______________

10  Id., at p. 49.

 
 
65

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 65

People vs. Donio

SO ORDERED.11

 
The trial court ruled that the prosecution established all
the elements of the crime. Donio failed to substantiate his
presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of
the offense or the physical impossibility of his presence at
the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of
the incident.12 Under the Rules, SPO4 Taberdo’s action as
police officer enjoys the presumption of regularity. In the
absence of evidence showing that he was motivated by bad
faith or ill will to testify against Donio, SPO4 Taberdo’s
categorical identification of the accused stands.13
In a Decision dated November 4, 2013, the CA denied
Donio’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC. The
CA found his averment that he was taken from his house,
tortured and made to sign a blank sheet of paper as highly
implausible. His sworn affidavit was replete with details
which were unlikely the product of creative imagination of
the police. There was no proof that the police singled him
out, or was impelled by an evil or ulterior motive. The said
affidavit was voluntarily and freely executed with the
assistance of counsel.14 The fallo of the decision states:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.15

 
Hence, the instant appeal was instituted.
In its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Supplemental
Brief,16 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) informed
this

_______________

11  Id., at p. 61.
12  Id., at p. 56.
13  Id., at p. 57.
14  Rollo, p. 8.
15  Id., at p. 12. (Emphasis in the original)
16  Id., at pp. 22-24.

 
 

66

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio

Court that it opted not to file a supplemental brief for the

same would only be a repetition of the raised arguments
considering that all relevant matters regarding Donio’s
guilt for the crime of carnapping with homicide were
extensively argued and discussed in the People’s Brief17
dated July 9, 2013.
Likewise, Donio, through the Public Attorney’s Office,
manifested his intention not to file a supplemental brief
and prayed that the case be deemed submitted for
decision.18
 In essence, the issue to be resolved by this Court in this
appeal is whether the prosecution has successfully proven
beyond reasonable doubt that Donio is guilty of the crime of
carnapping with homicide.
After a judicious review of the records and the
submissions of the parties, this Court finds no cogent
reason to reverse Donio’s conviction.
At the outset, the CA noted that the prosecution should
have filed an Information for the special complex crime of
qualified carnapping in aggravated form.19 While it is
necessary that the statutory designation be stated in the
information, a mistake in the caption of an indictment in
designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal
defect as it is not the designation that is controlling but the
facts alleged in the information which determines the real
nature of the crime.20 Recently, it was held that failure to
designate the offense by the statute or to mention the
specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous
specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the
information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the
facts constituting the crime charged.21 The recital of the
ultimate facts and

_______________

17  CA Rollo, pp. 71-91.

18  Rollo, pp. 27-28.
19  Id., at pp. 22-24.
20  People v. Bali-balita, 394 Phil. 790, 814; 340 SCRA 450, 469 (2000).
21  People v. Padit, G.R. No. 202978, February 1, 2016, 782 SCRA 562.

 
 
67

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 67

People vs. Donio

circumstances in the complaint or information determines

the character of the crime and not the caption or preamble
of the information or the specification of the provision of
the law alleged to have been violated.22 In the case at bar,
the acts alleged to have been committed by Donio are
averred in the Information, and the same described the
acts defined and penalized under Sections 2 and 14 of R.A.
6539, as amended.
The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized
under the 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.23

 
Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. 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.”24
In other words, to prove the special complex crime of
carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of
the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was
the original criminal design of the culprit and

_______________

22  Id.
23   People v. Garcia, Jr., 448 Phil. 269, 280; 400 SCRA 229, 236-237
(2003).
24  People v. Urzais, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016, 789 SCRA 386.

 
 
68

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio

the killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission

of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.25
Records show that all the elements of carnapping in the
instant case are present and proven during the trial.
The tricycle was definitely ascertained to belong to
Rodrigo, as evidenced by a Deed of Conditional Sale in his
favor.26 Donio was found driving the vehicle in the early
morning of November 26, 2003, the same day Rodrigo was
looking for his missing brother Raul. Also, SPO4 Taberdo
positively identified Donio as the driver he flagged down at
the checkpoint in his testimony, viz.:

x x x x
Q – On or about that time 2:45 early in the morning of November
26, 2003, could you recall if there was any unusual incident
 that required your attention as Police Officers manning the
check-point?
A – Yes, sir.
Q – What is that incident?
A – During that time, we are issuing pass card among vehicles
going to South when suddenly a speeding tricycle approaching
our PCP its engine suddenly stop.
Q – Who was driving the tricycle when the engine suddenly
stop[s]?
A – The one who gave me the Driver’s License was Raul Layug.
Q – If this person who gave his license as Raul Layug is here
present today, will you be able to identify him?
A – Yes, sir.
Q – Will you please look around the premises of the Court and
point to him.

_______________

26  CA Rollo, p. 44.

25  People v. Aquino, 724 Phil. 739, 757; 714 SCRA 107, 129 (2014).

 
 

69

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 69

People vs. Donio

A – This one, sir. We came to know later on that his real name is
Enrile Donio.
INTERPRETER:
 Witness pointed to accused Enrile Donio.
x x x27

 
“Unlawful taking” or apoderamiento is the taking of the
motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things. It is deemed complete from the
moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if
he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.28 Section 3(j),
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides the 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.
The presumption that a person found in possession of
the personal effects belonging to the person robbed and
killed is considered the author of the aggression, the death
of the person, as well as the robbery committed, has been
invariably limited to cases where such possession is either
unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered
implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent
thereto.29 The said principle may be applied in this case as
the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and
carnapping being the same.30 Here, Donio failed to produce
the vehicle’s papers at the checkpoint. He impersonated the
victim before the police officers when his identity was
asked, and left under the guise of getting the said
documents. It was also established that he

_______________

27  TSN, May 11, 2006, pp. 8-9.

28  People v. Lagat, 673 Phil. 351, 367; 657 SCRA 713, 728 (2011).
29   People v. Geron, 346 Phil. 14, 25; 281 SCRA 36, 47-48 (1997).
(Emphasis supplied)
30  People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 284.

 
 

70

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio

and the others were strangers to Rodrigo. Donio’s

unexplained possession, coupled with the circumstances
proven in the trial, therefore, raises the presumption that
he was one of the perpetrators responsible for the unlawful
taking of the vehicle and Raul’s death.
Intent to gain or animus lucrandi, which is an internal
act, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor
vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important
consideration is the intent to gain. The term “gain” is not
merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the
benefit which in any other sense may be derived or
expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere
use of the thing which was taken without the owner’s
consent constitutes gain.31 Donio’s intent to gain from the
carnapped tricycle was proven as he and his companions
were using it as means of transportation when they were
confronted by the Concepcion police officers.
Having established that the elements of carnapping are
present in the instant case, We now discuss the argument
that the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution are insufficient to convict Donio of the crime of
carnapping with homicide.
He alleges that while it is true that criminal conviction
may be predicated on a series of circumstantial evidence,
the same must be convincing, plausible and credible. It
cannot be discounted that SPO4 Taberdo testified only on
the circumstances after the alleged carnapping. He failed
to establish his alleged participation prior to or during the
actual taking of the vehicle. The facts established by SPO4
Taberdo’s testimony — the Concepcion police operatives
caught him in possession of the stolen tricycle on November
26, 2003; the tricycle was registered under the name of
Rodrigo; and he was in possession of Raul’s license — are
insufficient bases and do not lead to an inference
exclusively consistent with his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

_______________

31  Id.

 
 

71

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 71

People vs. Donio

Such contention fails scrutiny. The lack or absence of

direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of
the accused can no longer be proved by any other evidence.
Circumstantial, indirect or presumptive evidence, if
sufficient, can replace direct evidence as provided by
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, which, to warrant
the conviction of an accused, requires that: (a) there is
more than one (1) circumstance; (b) the facts from which
the inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the
combination of all these circumstances results in a moral
certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is
the one who committed the crime.32 Hence, to justify a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the
combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a
way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
accused.33
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds
that the confluence of the following pieces of circumstantial
evidence, consistent with one another, establishes Donio’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt:
First, Donio was driving the tricycle when he, Paulino
and Ryan were accosted during a checkpoint at the junction
of the MacArthur Highway by elements of the Concepcion
Police Station at around 2:30 in the morning on November
26, 2003;
Second, his possession of the vehicle was not fully
explained as he failed to produce its registration papers;
 Third, he was in possession of the victim’s temporary
license. He even presented it and introduced himself as
Raul to the police;
Fourth, a bloodstained mini jungle bolo was found inside
the tricycle;

_______________

32  People v. Bañez, G.R. No. 198057, September 21, 2015, 771 SCRA
151.
33  Supra note 28.

 
 

72

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio

Fifth, Rodrigo ascertained that Raul was the driver of

his tricycle, and that he was looking for him on the same
day that Donio and the others were flagged down;
Sixth, Raul was last seen driving the tricycle at 10:00 in
the evening on November 25, 2003 when he passed by at
the Mawaque Terminal at the corner of MacArthur
Highway and Mawaque Road;34
Seventh, the Bantay Bayan of Madapdap Resettlement
found Raul’s body at around 6:30 in the morning on
November 26, 2003 at a vacant lot towards the road to Sta.
Lucia Resettlement corner Barangay Dapdap;
Eighth, Raul sustained multiple stab wounds caused by
a sharp instrument as depicted in the post-mortem
examination sketch by Dr. Dizon and reflected in the
Certificate of Death, which states:

17. CAUSES OF DEATH:

I. Immediate Cause: Cardiorespiratory arrest
Antecedent Cause: Hemo-pneumothorax L
Underlying Cause: Penetrating Stab Wounds, Multiple.35

 
Ninth, Donio was subsequently apprehended and SPO4
Taberdo positively identified him as the driver they flagged
down at the checkpoint.36
Likewise, the victim’s lifeless body was found sprawled
with multiple stab wounds and was noted in a state of rigor
mortis. Rigor mortis, which consists in the stiffening of the
muscular tissues and joints of the body setting in at a
greater or less interval after death, may be utilized to
approximate the length of time the body has been dead. In
temperate coun-

_______________

34   Records, p. 11, Advance Information Report, Mabalacat Municipal

Police Station.
35  CA Rollo, p. 52.
36  Id., at pp. 53-54.

 
 

73

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 73

People vs. Donio

tries, it usually appears three to six hours after death but

in warmer countries, it may develop earlier. In tropical
countries, the usual duration of rigor mortis is twenty-four
to forty-eight hours during cold weather and eighteen to
thirty-six hours during summer. When rigor mortis sets in
early, it passes off quickly and vice versa.37
From the foregoing, it was established that Raul was
last seen driving the tricycle at 10:00 in the evening on
November 25, 2003, and that his body was discovered at
6:30 in the morning the next day. Considering the condition
of the body upon discovery, he could have been killed
between 10:00 in the evening and 3:30 in the morning on
the next day. Donio and his companions were hailed at the
checkpoint at around 2:3038 in the morning on November
26, 2003 aboard the missing tricycle. Taking into account
the distance of the Mawaque Terminal area or of the
vacant lot near Barangay Dapdap from the junction of the
Mac Arthur Highway in Concepcion, Tarlac and the time
they were hailed at the checkpoint, it can be logically
concluded that Donio and the others were in contact with
Raul during the approximate period of the latter’s time of
death. Also, it was during that period that they gained
possession of the vehicle. Thus, the only rational conclusion
that can be drawn from the totality of the foregoing facts
and circumstances is that Donio and his companions, to the
exclusion of others, are guilty of carnapping the tricycle
and of killing Raul in the course thereof.
Moreover, when Donio was brought to the police station,
he asked permission from the officers to get the
registration papers but never returned. Undoubtedly,
Donio’s flight is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty
mind. Indeed, the wicked
_______________

37  People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 92600, January 18, 1993, 217 SCRA 103,
119, citing Solis, Legal Medicine, p. 127, [1987 ed.] (underscoring
supplied).
38  2:45 in other parts of Records.

 
 
74

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio

man flees though no man pursueth, but the righteous are

as bold as a lion.39
This Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s
evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its
unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a
witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial
court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness
of witnesses.40 The factual findings of the appellate court
generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when
said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any
showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in
the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to
constitute grave abuse of discretion.41 In the case at bar,
the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, gave credence to the
testimony of the prosecution witness. Records are bereft of
evidence which showed ill will or malicious intent on the
part of SPO4 Taberdo. In absence of evidence to the
contrary, this Court finds that the RTC and the CA did not
err in the findings of facts and the credibility of the
witnesses.
As for Donio’s defense of alibi, he argues that it must
not be looked with disfavor, as there are instances when
the accused may really have no other defense but denial
and alibi which, if established to be truth, may tilt the
scales of justice in his favor, especially when the
prosecution evidence is inherently weak. He insists that he
was tortured and subjected to harsh treatment during
arrest. He insinuates that the police arrested the first
person they suspected without conducting any in-depth
investigation.
Donio maintained that he first learned of the carnapping
charge when the police came to his house in Madapdap,
Ma-

_______________
 39  People v. Dela Cruz, 459 Phil. 130, 137; 412 SCRA 503 (2003).
40  People v. Abat, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 557, 564.
41  Corpuz v. People, 734 Phil. 353, 391; 724 SCRA 1, 29 (2014).

 
 
75

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 75

People vs. Donio

balacat, Pampanga on December 6, 2003. However, he also

alleged that as a stay-in sugarcane plantation worker in
Capas, Tarlac with a six-month work period ending in
January, he never left the workplace and that his wife
visited him instead. Donio testified during direct and cross-
examination as follows:

x x x x
ATTY. LOPEZ
Q: Mr. Witness, prior to your incarceration at the Angeles District
Jail, where were you residing?
A: Madapdap, Mabalacat, Pampanga, sir.
Q: On November 25, 2003 at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening
to November 26, 2003, do you remember where [you were] on
the said dates?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where were you, Mr. Witness?
A: At home, sir.
Q: Who were your companions there?
A: My family, sir, my wife and child.
x x x x42
PROS. HABAN
Q: Where are you working again?
A: Capas.
x x x
Q: How about on November 27, 2003, where were you then?
A: At work.
Q: How about on November 25 and 26?
A: At work.
Q: During the whole day?
A: Stay-in.

_______________

42  TSN, September 24, 2009, p. 6.

 
 

76
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Donio

Q: So you never left work?

A: No, sir.
Q: Never, not even Saturday and Sunday?
A: No, sir.
Q: The whole year of 2003 you never left work?
A: We stayed there for six (6) months.
Q: When is the end of six months period?
A: January.
x x x43

 
No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than
that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to
contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason, it is
generally rejected. For the alibi to prosper, the accused
must establish the following: (1) he was not at the locus
delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time
of its commission.44 It must be supported by credible
corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and if not, is
fatal to the accused.45
When he was confronted with his inconsistency, Donio
clarified that he was in Capas, Tarlac and was fetched by
his wife in the evening to attend to his sick child. We note,
however, the proximity of the area of Donio’s residence
with the Barangay Dapdap and Sta. Lucia Resettlement
area where the victim was found dead. To buttress his
defense of alibi, Donio could have presented the testimony
of a fellow plantation worker or any disinterested witness
who could have substantiated the same. Aside from his
bare allegations, he failed to present convincing evidence of
the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene at the
time of carnapping. Simi-

_______________

43  TSN, August 3, 2010, pp. 3 and 5.

44  People v. Regaspi, G.R. No. 198309, September 7, 2015, 769 SCRA
287.
45  People v. Mallari, 707 Phil. 267, 281; 694 SCRA 284, 298 (2013).

 
 

77

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 77

 People vs. Donio

larly, this Court is unconvinced of his insistence that he

was tortured in view of lack of any evidence to validate the
same. Thus, the uncorroborated alibi and denial of Donio
must be brushed aside in light of the fact that the
prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained his
identity. It is only axiomatic that positive testimony
prevails over negative testimony.46
In sum, the prosecution established through sufficient
circumstantial evidence that the accused was indeed one of
the perpetrators of the crime of carnapping with homicide.
As to the imposable penalty, Section 14 of RA No. 6539,
as amended, provides that:

Sec. 14. Penalty 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 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 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.47

 
The RTC is correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua considering that there was no alleged and proven
aggravating circumstance. However, in line with the recent

_______________

46  People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA
687, 704.
47  Emphasis supplied.

 
 
78

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Donio
jurisprudence,48 in cases of special complex crimes like
carnapping with homicide, among others, where the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the amounts of
civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages
are pegged at P75,000.00 each. This Court orders Donio to
pay P50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the award
of P25,000.00 as actual damages. Also, Donio is ordered to
pay the heirs of Raul interest on all damages awarded at
the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date
of finality of the Decision.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 4, 2013 of
the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05418,
finding accused-appellant Enrile Donio y Untalan guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Carnapping with
homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties, is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: accused-
appellant Donio is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Raul L.
Layug the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as temperate
damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date
of finality of the Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Acting CJ., Chairperson) and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur.
Del Castillo** and Leonen, JJ., On Official Leave.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.—“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. (People vs. Lagat, 657 SCRA 713 [2011])

_______________

48  People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
** Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H.
Jardeleza per Raffle dated September 1, 2014.

 
 

79

VOL. 819, MARCH 1, 2017 79

People vs. Donio
 “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.
(Id.)
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.