PEOPLE v.

DE LA CRUZ
G.R. No. 83798) March 29, 1990 Melencio-Herrera

SUBJECT MATTER:
Carnapping

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPTS:

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Petitioner(s): The People of the Philippines

Respondent(s): MAIDA TOMIO alias SATO TOSHIO and NAKAJIMA TAGAHIRO alias YAMADA
TAKAO

SUMMARY: De La Cruz, Salvador, and Beloso were involved in the ‘business of buying cars’ and
advertised in the newspapers. Victim Banzon was one of those who responded to their ads, who was
killed on the occasion of the carnapping. SC: All guilty of carnapping w/ homicide.

FACTS:

 The accused De la Cruz, Salvador, and Beloso were involved in the business of ‘buying
cars’ and they advertised the same in the newspapers. The victim, 23-year old Anthony
Banzon, was among those who responded to the advertisement and signified selling his
1983 Ford Telstar. A day before the ‘car deal’, the 3 met at a restaurant to discuss the
deal next day.
 Banzon’mom, Dionisia, received a call from a certain Mike Garcia (who later turns out to
be Beloso) who informed ther that he was the buyer of her son’s car, so when Banzon
got home they both went to Centrum Condominium where Garcia’s office was located, on
board the Telstar. Dionisia then went to SM in a taxi, leaving Anthony in Centrum.
 Garcia aka Beloso discussed the price with Anthony, waiting for De la Cruz to arrive so
they could allegedly make a decision on WON to buy the car. De La Cruz arrived, and left
with Anthony to De la Cruz’s house where Salvador was waiting. De la Cruz shot
Anthony, and afterwards Salvador took the car and the papers, pretended to be Anthony,
and met up with Hernandez, an interested buyer, and his contact and actual buyer
Patrolman de la Rosa. Salvador offered it for P130k, but Pat. De La Rosa became
suspicious because of the low price and insisted that it would be paid the next day.
Salvador insisted that he be paid on the same day because he was very badly in need of
money. When Pat. De la Rosa declined, Salvador left the car behind. The former
reported his suspicions to Sgt. Reynaldo Roldan.
 The police w/ De la Rosa waited for Salvador and who arrived at 8:00 p.m. with Beloso.
They got inside the car. The policemen then approached and asked them to alight.
Beloso started shouting that he was Banzon, the owner, and showed the pertinent
documents of the car, all in the name of
 Banzon. This aroused Pat. De la Rosa’s suspicion for earlier, it was Salvador who
claimed to be Banzon. The two were then brought in for questioning.On the same day,
Suarez, a boarder of De la Cruz, found the boarding house unlocked, with lights on, a
dead man w/ a gunshot wound on the forehead in the kitchen. De La Cruz claimed the
house had been ransacked by someone, but the policeheld De la Cruz for questioning
and it was later found out that the dead body was Banson
 They all pleaded innocent. Beloso and Salvador claimed only to follow instructions of De
la Cruz and were not aware of any carnapping; they were in a regular business
transaction to sell a car with promise of a commission; and they were unaware of the
killing of Banzon. TC found them all guilty of robbery with homicide

LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG

ISSUE/S, HOLDING, AND RATIO:
Are they guilty beyond reasonable doubt for carnapping with homicide?

RULING RATIO:
Yes, Salvador and Beloso’s claim of innocence is inconsistent w/ the fact that they
both posed as Banzon, the former during his negotiations with Pat. De la
Rosa, and the latter when they were approached by the QC anticarnapping
unit. Furthermore, Beloso’s claim that he was Banzon and Salvador’s silence
in the face of such claim, despite his earlier misrepresentation, reveal that
both of them were one in keeping secret the true ownership of the car.

The victim was killed “in the commission of the carnapping”. He was killed in
the house of De la Cruz between 1:30 and 2 p.m. De la Cruz tried to
camouflage the killing by reporting to the police that his place had been
ransacked and a person had been killed.Beloso and Salvador were found
positive for nitrates, indicating that they were within the vicinity when the gun
was fired. The fact that De la Cruz was found negative for powder burns,
although he was identified by Salvador as the trigger man, can only mean
that he knew how to sufficiently protect himself from such burns.

Although the participations of Beloso and Salvador in the killing is not clear
cut, to determine the existence of the crime of carnapping with homicide, it is
enough that a homicide would result by reason or on the occasion of robbery.
Conspiracy having been proven in their shared purpose of carnapping the
vehicle w/ a view to sell it at a low price, all are liable as coprincipals.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is herebyAFFIRMED, with proportionate

costs against accused-appellants Dantes Beloso and Romeo Salvador.
SO ORDERED.

LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG