1|Page

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Province of Cagayan
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

EDISON U. UTANES, NPS NO. II-02-INV-14G-00301

Complainant,

-versus- For: Carnapping, Falsification,

Forgery, and Use of Falsified
Documents

ABRAHAM V. AURELIO, SR.,

ABRAHAM V. AURELIO, JR.,
RONNIE SORIANO and
REYNANTE VILLANUEVA a.k.a.
“RODMAN VILLANUEVA”,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PRIVATE COMPLAINANT to this HONORABLE OFFICE OF

THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR respectfully states:

1. On April 7, 2015, private complainant received the February

20, 2015 Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
dismissing his complaint for carnapping against respondents
in the above-captioned case for lack of probable cause while
the two (2) other charges for falsification of public documents
or forgery and use of falsified documents were transmitted to
the City Prosecutor’s Office of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan;

2. The dismissal of the complaint for carnapping against

respondents was based on the following reasons and we quote:

(a) “Complainant claims that his vehicle was

carnapped on November 24, 2012. There is
however no showing that he made a report of
his missing vehicle to the police. If it was true
that his vehicle was carnapped, then why did
he not immediately report the same to the
authorities? Moreover, he alleged that on 01
June 2014, he learned that it was respondent
Abraham Aurelio, Sr. who took the vehicle, yet,
2|Page

again, he did not report the carnapping on that

day nor the succeeding days before he filed his
complaint. Clearly, complainant’s behavior
subsequent to the alleged unlawful taking was
definitely not the conduct of a distraught man
whose car was carnapped.”1

(b) “Complainant also alleged that he left his key

inside the vehicle. We are not persuaded. The
normal and natural reaction of a car owner
upon leaving his car is to lock the doors and
take the key with him especially so with the
alarming increase in carnapping incidents. On
the contrary, we believe that the key as well as
the pertinent documents of the vehicle were
voluntarily turned over by complainant to
Abraham Aurelio, Sr. after the latter bought
the same from complainant. Unfortunately
though and despite repeated demands, no deed
of sale was executed in his (Abraham Aurelio,
Sr.’s) favor because complainant and his wife
misled him into believing that they are not the
real owners of the vehicle and that they are
just negotiating the sale on behalf of the
owner.”2

3. By way of this motion, private complainant would assail the

aforementioned Resolution on the basis of the following factual
and legal considerations, re:

(a) For a successful prosecution of carnapping as

defined and penalized under the Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972, the following elements
must concur: (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 vehicle3;

(b) The question of whether or not respondents

should be indicted for the offense of
carnapping in the above-captioned case rests
on the existence or absence of probable cause;

1
Resolution dated February 20, 2015, page 4
2
Ibid.
3
PEOPLE OF THE PHILPIINES vs. RENATO LAGAT y GAWAN, G.R. No. 187044,
September 14, 2011
3|Page

(c) Probable cause has been defined as the

existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief in a reasonable mind,
acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty
of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
Probable cause is a reasonable ground of
presumption that a matter is, or may be, well
founded on such a state of facts in the mind of
the prosecutor as would lead a person of
ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or
entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a
thing is so.4 The term does not mean “actual or
positive cause” nor does it import absolute
certainty. It is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable
cause does not require an inquiry into whether
there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that
the act or omission complained of constitutes
the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial
for the reception of evidence of the prosecution
in support of the charge.5

(d) From the foregoing pronouncements, it is

undeniable that respondents may be held
guilty of the offense of carnapping considering
the existence of relevant facts showing that:

 Respondents, on November 24, 2012,

took private complainant’s Isuzu Elf with
Plate No. PPJ233 without the latter’s
consent or permission;

 The said Isuzu Elf vehicle is a motor

vehicle which may be the subject of the
offense of carnapping;

 The taking of the subject vehicle is

presumed unlawful and with intent to
gain since private complainant, who is
the owner of said vehicle, did not
voluntarily surrender the said vehicle nor
did he give his consent in the taking of
the same;

 Respondent Abraham Aurelio, Sr. even

admitted in his counter-affidavit that he

4
YU vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 410 Phil. 619, 627 (2001)
5
PILAPIL vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 101978, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 349, 360
4|Page

sent his co-respondent Ronie Soriano to

get the subject vehicle from complainant;

 Respondent Reynante Villanueva also

admitted in his affidavit that on
November 24, 2012, he was in the
company of his co-respondents Abraham
Aurelio, Sr., Abraham Aurelio, Jr.,
Ronnie Soriano and Vicmar Lucena; that
they went to Zone Everlasting, Pattao,
Buguey, and went directly in front of the
house of private complainant where the
subject vehicle was parked; that he was
commanded by respondent Abraham
Aurelio, Sr. to operate the subject Isuzu
Elf vehicle with a specific instruction to
bring said vehicle at the latter’s residence
located at Imurung, Baggao, Cagayan;
that it was by respondent Abraham
Aurelio Sr.’s command that respondent
Reynante Villanueva ignited the engine of
the subject vehicle and drove the same
until they have reached the residence of
Abraham Aurelio, Sr. He also admitted
that he was surprised why respondent
Abraham Aurelio, Sr. got the subject
vehicle in the absence of private
complainant who bought the said vehicle
from one Elmer Dela Cruz;

 From the aforesaid admission, it can be

safely deduced that respondent Abraham
Aurelio, Sr. is in possession of the same
vehicle;

 The failure of private complainant to

immediately report to the police
authorities of the fact that respondents
unlawfully took his Isuzu Elf vehicle was
due to the fact that it was only on June
1, 2014 that he was able to confirm that
it was respondent Abraham Aurelio, Sr.
who took his vehicle;

 Such failure to immediately report to the

police authorities does not exculpate the
culprit since it is not an element of the
offense and more importantly, such
failure is excusable under the attending
circumstances;
5|Page

 The defense of respondent Abraham

Aurelio, Sr. that he bought the subject
vehicle should be supported by the
required quantum of proof which is not
availing in this case;

 It must be recalled that during the

confrontation between private
complainant and respondents Abraham
Aurelio, Sr. and Abraham Aurelio, Jr.,
the latter justified their possession of the
subject vehicle by presenting three
separate copies of deed of sale but it was
found out that the same was notarized by
Atty. Carlos Rivera who was, at that time,
not a commissioned notary public;

 Not being a public document, delivery of

the subject vehicle, for purposes of
transferring ownership over the same to
respondent Abraham Aurelio, Sr. and his
son Abraham Aurelio, Jr., is absent;

 Hence, in the absence of delivery of the

subject vehicle, ownership is vested with
the private complainant;

 Since private complainant is the owner of

the subject vehicle, respondents had
therefore no right to take it away from
him without his consent or permission;

 Again, assuming arguendo that

respondent bought the subject vehicle
from private complainant, he cannot, for
purposes of recovering the property from
complainant, take the law into his own
hands. He should have asked the aid of
the proper authorities and/or by
instituting the necessary action for that
purpose; and

 Lastly, the fact that private complainant

left his car key and the pertinent and
relevant documents inside the subject
vehicle do not strengthen the defense of
the respondent. Such matter must be
ventilated in a full blown-trial. That is a
matter of defense to be threshed out in a
judicial forum.
6|Page

4. It is on the cumulative weight of the foregoing factual and legal

considerations that probable cause exists as to warrant the
filing of the proper information in court indicting herein
respondents for the offense of carnapping as defined and
penalized by the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed to this HONORABLE

OFFICE to issue anew a Resolution: (1) Setting aside its 20
February 2015 Resolution which dismissed the case for carnapping
against respondents; (2) Recommending the filing of the proper
Information in court charging herein respondents for the offense of
carnapping as defined and penalized under the Anti-Carnapping Act
of 1972 and (3) Granting such other reliefs just and equitable.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan – April 17, 2015.

ATTY. VICTOR R. SALUD

Counsel for the Private Complainant
Door 11, 2nd Floor, Palatan Bldg.
Maharlika Highway, Carig Sur
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
IBP OR No. 946706- 1/5/15
PTR No. 5496832- 1/5/15
Roll of Attorneys No. 32828
CTC No. 22936823 – 1/2/14
TIN No. 116-096-541
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0013107
salud.victor@yahoo.com

Copy furnished by Registered Mail

due to distance and for lack of office
personnel to effect personal service:

Abraham Aurelio, Sr.

Abraham Aurelio, Jr.
Ronnie Soriano
Reynante Villanueva
All of Imurung, Baggao, Cagayan
7|Page