Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Casanas y Cabantac v. People
Casanas y Cabantac v. People
Casanas y Cabantac v. People
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J : p
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated July 28,
2015 and the Resolution 3 dated January 11, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR No. 35835, which affirmed the Decision 4 dated May 15, 2013 of the Regional
Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 269 (RTC-Valenzuela) in Criminal Case No. 874-
V-12 finding petitioner Joshua Casanas y Cabantac, a.k.a. Joshua Geronimo y Lopez
(Casanas) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Carnapping, defined and
penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6539, otherwise known as the "Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972," as amended.
The Facts
For his part, while Casanas admitted that Calderon owned the subject motorcycle,
he denied stealing the same. He averred that he only borrowed the subject motorcycle
on August 18, 2012, but he was unable to return it on that date as he had a drinking
session with his friends. 13 The next day, he was on his way home onboard the subject
motorcycle when policemen blocked his way and forcibly took him to the police station.
Thereat, a police officer purportedly took a knife from his drawer, which led petitioner to
believe that he was being investigated and detained because of the said knife. 14
In a Decision 15 dated May 15, 2013, the RTC-Valenzuela found Casanas guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of fourteen (14) years and eight
(8) months, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum. 16
The RTC-Valenzuela held that the prosecution had established all the elements of
the crime charged, considering that: (a) Calderon allowed petitioner to drive the subject
motorcycle, which was then attached to a sidecar; (b) Casanas did not return the
subject motorcycle within the agreed period; and (c) Casanas continued to use the
same for his personal use, thereby exhibiting his intent to gain. In this regard, the RTC-
Valenzuela ruled that while Casanas's possession of the subject motorcycle was lawful
in the beginning, such possession became unlawful when he failed to return the same to
Calderon in accordance with their agreement. 17
Aggrieved, Casanas appealed 18 to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 19 dated July 28, 2015, the CA affirmed the RTC-Valenzuela ruling
in toto. Aside from upholding the RTC-Valenzuela's findings, the CA likewise pointed out
that initially, Casanas borrowed a tricycle from Calderon; but when he was
apprehended, only the subject motorcycle without the sidecar was recovered from him.
20 In this regard, the CA ruled that such removal of the sidecar from the subject
motorcycle bolsters the conclusion that Casanas indeed intended to appropriate for
himself the subject motorcycle. Further, the CA disregarded Casanas's excuses for
failing to return the subject motorcycle on time, as he did not bother to get in touch with
Calderon either to ask permission for an extended possession of the subject
motorcycle, or for assistance when the police officer apprehended him for being unable
to present the motorcycle's registration papers. 21
Undaunted, Casanas moved for reconsideration 22 but the same was denied in a
Resolution 23 dated January 11, 2016; hence, this petition. 24
The issues for the Court's resolution are whether or not: (a) the RTC-Valenzuela
had jurisdiction over the case; and (b) the CA correctly upheld Casanas's conviction for
the crime of Carnapping.
* On Official Leave.
2. Id. at 30-38. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices
Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
3. Id. at 41-42.
5. Id. at 79.
6. Id.
8. Id. at 31-32.
9. Id. at 54.
12. Id.
18. See Brief for the Appellee dated May 29, 2014; id. at 60-71.
22. See Motion for Reconsideration dated September 7, 2015; id. at 72-76.
27. Heirs of Fernando v. De Belen, 713 Phil. 364, 371 (2013); citations omitted.
29. Id., citing Isip v. People, 552 Phil. 786, 801-802 (2007).
31. Id. at 150, citing Foz, Jr. v. People, 618 Phil. 120, 129-130 (2009).
32. Id. at 151, citing Union Bank of the Philippines v. People , 683 Phil. 108, 116 (2012).
37. See People v. Donio, G.R. No. 212815, March 1, 2017, citing People v. Bernabe, 448 Phil.
269, 280 (2003).
38. See id., citing People v. Lagat, 673 Phil. 351, 367 (2011). See also People v. Bustinera,
475 Phil. 190, 206 (2004), citing People v. Obillo, 411 Phil. 139, 150 (2001).
39. See Sebastian v. Spouses Cruz, G.R. No. 220940, March 20, 2017, citing Spouses Paulino
v. CA, 735 Phil. 448, 459 (2014).