This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the absence of an explanation of how one has come into the possession of stolen effects belonging to a person shot, wounded and treacherously killed, he must necessarily be considered the author of the aggression, the death of the person, as well as the robbery committed.[71] This presumption is consonant with Rule 131 (3) (j) of the Rules of Court[72] and validly applies to a case of carnapping for, indeed, the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping is the same and, had it not been for the enactment of the Anti-Carnapping Act, the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle would certainly fall within the purview of either theft or robbery. This presumption extends to cases where such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.[73] Appellant having failed to give a plausible explanation for his possession of the stolen Tamaraw FX, perforce, he is presumed to have taken the vehicle away from the rightful owner or possessor thereof. | |||||