G.R. No. 187044 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RENATO LAGAT Y GAWAN A.K.A. RENAT GAWAN AND JAMES PALALAY Y VILLAROSA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE in the light of the foregoing considerations the Court finds the accused Renato Lagat y Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of qualified carnapping and hereby sentences each of them to the penalty of reclusion perpetua . They are also ORDERED TO PAY Florida Biag the sum of Twelve thousand three hundred pesos (P12,300.00) as actual damages plus Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for death indemnity and another Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for moral damages. [30] After evaluating the evidence the prosecution presented, the RTC agreed with the accused that their rights were violated during their custodial investigation as they had no counsel to assist them. Thus, whatever admissions they had made, whether voluntarily or not, could not be used against them and were inadmissible in evidence. [31] However, the RTC held that despite the absence of an eyewitness, the prosecution was able to establish enough circumstantial evidence to prove that Lagat and Palalay committed the crime, to wit: The accused were caught by the Alicia PNP in possession of Biag's tricycle, loaded with stolen palay ; The accused ran immediately when they saw the Alicia PNP approaching them; The Alicia PNP found bloodstains on the tricycle and Biag's wallet with documents to prove that Biag owned the tricycle; The Alicia PNP contacted the PNP of Santiago City to inquire about a Jose Biag, and this was how the barangay officials of Santiago City and Florida found out that Biag's tricycle was with the Alicia PNP; Biag left early morning on April 12, 2005 and never returned home; The accused themselves led the Alicia PNP and Barangay Captain Dulay and Rumbaoa to where they dumped Biag's body. [32] The RTC convicted Lagat and Palalay of the crime of carnapping, qualified by the killing of Biag, which, according to the RTC, appeared to have been done in the course of the carnapping. [33] Lagat and Palalay asked the RTC to reconsider its Decision on the grounds that it erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and in relying on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. [34] On May 29, 2007, the RTC denied [35] this motion, holding that the testimonies of the witnesses were credible and supported by the attending facts and circumstances, and that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict the accused. Lagat and Palalay went [36] to the Court of Appeals, asserting that their guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. [37] They averred that circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient for a judgment of conviction, "must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with innocence," [38] which was allegedly not the case in their situation. They elaborated on why the circumstantial evidence the RTC enumerated could not be taken against them: The accused's possession of the tricycle cannot prove that they killed its owner; Their act of fleeing may be due to the stolen palay (whi