View full case

PEOPLE v. CARLO ELLASOS Y MAURICIO

FACTS:

The case of People v. Obillo is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose City in Criminal Case No. SJC-64 (92). The accused, Sonny Obillo and Carlo Ellasos alias Rommel Reyes, were charged with the crime of Carnapping with Homicide. The trial proceeded against Sonny Obillo as his co-accused, Carlo Ellasos, had escaped from jail before arraignment. Four years later, Ellasos was arrested and subsequently pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial court later ordered the separation of the trial of the case against the two accused and transferred the case against Ellasos to the RTC of Muntinlupa. During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including police officers who apprehended the accused as well as the caretaker of the Iglesia ni Cristo chapel where the accused were found.

The deceased Miguel de Belen was the elder brother of Fernando de Belen. On April 2, 1992, at around 9:00 PM, Fernando saw the tricycle of his brother refueling at a Caltex Station. Sonny Obillo and Ellasos were inside the tricycle, with Miguel seated beside Obillo and Ellasos driving. Fernando followed the tricycle driven by Ellasos and Obillo until they picked up a passenger at City Plaza. They then confronted Ellasos and Obillo about the whereabouts of Miguel, to which Ellasos claimed that Miguel was left behind in Malasin. Fernando and his brother followed Ellasos and Obillo to Malasin but could not find Miguel. The next morning, they reported Miguel's disappearance to the police. Later on, a cadaver was found tied to a tree in Tayabo, and it was confirmed to be Miguel's. The tricycle of Miguel was also found damaged. Dr. Raul Agliam conducted an autopsy on Miguel's body and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound to the left temporal region. Sonny Obillo, one of the accused, testified that he had been drinking with Rommel Reyes and others on the night of April 2, 1992, and claimed that Rommel Reyes ordered the tricycle driver to get down and threatened him with a gun. Obillo stated that Reyes drove the tricycle, and they ended up in Tayabo where Reyes left to go somewhere, leaving Obillo asleep inside the tricycle.

The accused claimed that they fell asleep inside a tricycle after getting drunk. When they woke up, they were already at the Iglesia Ni Cristo in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, where they were confronted by security guards with guns. The tricycle driver had already left them behind. They were brought inside the compound where they met a Minister who asked about the whereabouts of the tricycle driver. Rommel Reyes confessed that he killed the driver, shocking the accused. The Minister brought policemen from Muñoz Police Station and they were transported to the Muñoz Municipal jail. Both accused claimed that they were manhandled by the policemen during the process. They were later transferred to the San Jose City jail where they claimed they were again mistreated. During the investigation, the accused claimed they were not informed of their constitutional rights and were not given a lawyer to assist them. Rommel Reyes confessed to the killing of the tricycle driver but the accused denied any involvement.

After trial, both accused were found guilty of Carnapping with Homicide and were sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. The court also ordered them to pay damages to the heirs of the victim. Only Sonny Obillo filed an appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him, holding that he conspired with Carlo Ellasos, and in finding the crime of Carnapping with Homicide was committed. It should be noted that the trial judge erred in rendering a judgment of conviction against both accused despite ordering a separate trial for them and transferring the trial of Carlo Ellasos to the RTC of Muntinlupa.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the crime of carnapping with homicide was committed

  2. Whether there was conspiracy between the accused-appellant Sonny Obillo and Carlo Ellasos alias Rommel Reyes

  3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict accused-appellant Sonny Obillo

  4. Whether the accused-appellant can only be held liable for theft of the wheel of the tricycle

  5. Whether there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused conspired with another person in the killing of the victim

  6. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence.

  7. Whether the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, and nighttime were correctly appreciated.

  8. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of carnapping with homicide.

  9. Whether the trial court erred in awarding indemnification for funeral expenses and damages sustained by the recovered tricycle.

  10. Whether the trial court erred in awarding exemplary damages.

RULING:

  1. The court held that the crime of carnapping with homicide was committed. Based on the circumstances presented, including the last sighting of the victim with the two accused, the subsequent possession of the tricycle's wheel by the accused, and the discovery of the victim's lifeless body with a gunshot wound, it was concluded that the tricycle was unlawfully taken and the victim was killed in the process.

  2. The court found that there was conspiracy between accused-appellant Sonny Obillo and Carlo Ellasos alias Rommel Reyes. The possession of the tricycle's wheel by both accused, their presence together during the last sighting of the victim, and their inconsistent and unexplained statements regarding the victim's whereabouts all indicate their joint participation in the crime.

  3. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convict accused-appellant Sonny Obillo. The possession of the tricycle's wheel and the circumstances pointing to his involvement in the crime were not adequately rebutted by the accused. The presumption that the accused authored the carnapping was not overcome, thus warranting his conviction.

  4. The accused-appellant can be held liable for the unlawful taking of the whole vehicle even if only a part thereof is ultimately taken and/or appropriated while the rest of it is abandoned. The act of asportation was committed with intent to profit, effectively depriving the owner of the possession of the entire tricycle. The accused cannot escape criminal liability by claiming that he only took the wheel, as the unlawful taking of the tricycle from the owner was already completed.

  5. Conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. The circumstances provided by the prosecution, such as the accused being seen together, riding the tricycle, providing false information about the victim's whereabouts, and later being found with the tricycle and a gun, support the inference of conspiracy. The accused's contention that he merely fell asleep and woke up in front of the guards is not given weight in light of the positive testimonies of witnesses contradicting his claims.

  6. The trial court did not err in convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances proven in the case, when taken as a whole, constitute an unbroken chain that leads to the reasonable conclusion that the accused are guilty. The requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence have been satisfied.

  7. The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, and nighttime were not proven and therefore cannot be appreciated. To establish evident premeditation, there must be evidence showing a period sufficient for reflection and outward acts showing the intent to kill. Abuse of superior strength must show that the aggressors used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim. Nighttime as an aggravating circumstance must have been intentionally sought to facilitate the crime's success or prevent recognition of the offender.

  8. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was erroneous. Unlike life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua carries with it accessory penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code and has a definite extent and duration. Life imprisonment is the correct penalty for serious offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed in accordance with the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the accused is convicted of carnapping with homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.

  9. The award for funeral expenses is reduced to P15,000.00 as only this amount is supported by evidence presented by the prosecution. Claims for indemnification must be supported by documents such as receipts and must appear to be expended in connection with the death of the victim. Thus, the award for damages sustained by the recovered tricycle has no factual basis and should be deleted.

  10. Exemplary damages should be deleted since no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Carnapping is defined as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

  • Intent to gain, an essential element of the crime of carnapping, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle.

  • Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the vehicle without the consent of the owner, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. It is complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the vehicle, even if there is no opportunity to dispose of it.

  • Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it.

  • In criminal cases, the prosecution carries the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused's possession of the stolen goods raises a presumption that he is the author of the crime, which can be overcome by presenting sufficient contrary evidence.

  • The offense of larceny comprises the entire stolen property, even if only a part is ultimately taken or appropriated while the rest is abandoned.

  • Conspiracy can be proven through circumstantial evidence, and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.

  • In convicting based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proven must constitute an unbroken chain that leads to one reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person, to the exclusion of all others.

  • To establish evident premeditation, there must be a period for reflection and outward acts showing the intent to kill.

  • Abuse of superior strength is appreciated when the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim.

  • Nighttime as an aggravating circumstance must be sought in order to facilitate the crime's success or prevent recognition of the offender.

  • Life imprisonment is not synonymous with reclusion perpetua. Life imprisonment is imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under the Revised Penal Code.

  • Claims for indemnification must be supported by documents such as receipts and must appear to be expended in connection with the death of the victim.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded only if aggravated circumstances attended the commission of the crime.