376 Phil. 701
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 13, dated 13 January 1993 declaring plaintiff the lawful owner of the subject vehicle, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Intervenor-appellant is declared entitled to the ownership and possession of the vehicle. No costs."[3]
"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered declaring plaintiff the owner, and entitled to the possession of the motor vehicle subject of the order of seizure in this case. The complaint in intervention is dismissed. There is no pronouncement as to costs."[4]
"Plaintiff [herein petitioner] was the insurer of a motor vehicle with the following description, to wit: MAKE AND TYPE: 1987 4-dr Mitsubishi Pajero; MOTOR NO.: BR-5799; CHASSIS NO.: L-04-9GV-0034B; PLATE NO: UV-PJD-347.
"The Pajero, previously registered in the name of one Gerald Brimo, was carnapped on 5 June 1988 at the parking lot of Greenbelt, Makati. Brimo immediately reported the incident to police authorities, prompting anti-carnapping operatives to include the Pajero in its list of carnapped vehicles.
"Lt. Angelito Tan of the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group, in Bacolod City, received information that the Pajero was carnapped.
"Subsequently, Lt. Tan saw a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing plate no. CHG 608 traversing the streets of Bacolod City. Knowing that plate numbers starting with the letter series CHG come from Central Luzon, Lt. Tan became suspicious and traced the origin of said plate number.
"The record further shows that intervenor Eduardo Conde agreed to buy a Mitsubishi Pajero from one Gregorio Elardo thru a broker named Jose Villo. Elardo and Villo brought the vehicle and its pertinent documents to Conde, who had the engine chassis cleaned and stenciled. He found the same to be uniform. He also verified the chassis number and the registration papers of the vehicle with the chief of the LTO, Bacolod. Thereafter, Conde had the vehicle inspected by Capt. Alcantara of the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group of Bacolod.
"Satisfied that everything was in order, on 28 July 1988, a deed of sale of the vehicle was executed in favor of Conde by Elardo.
"On 4 August 1988, while Conde was in Manila, he was informed that the subject vehicle was seized in Bacolod on suspicion that it was the vehicle stolen from Brimo. Apparently, Lt. Tan's investigations into the mysterious Pajero seen in Bacolod led him to apprehend the vehicle.
"Thus, the intervenor left the next day for Bacolod and presented the vehicle's papers to the CHPG. The vehicle's release was ordered after the intervenor signed an undertaking that he would return the vehicle if and when required by the CHPG.
"On the advice of a friend, the intervenor later brought the vehicle's engine and chassis to Manila for macro-etching.
"Thus, on 10 August 1988, upon instructions of Lt. Ganzon of the PC's anti-carnapping unit, two soldiers conducted a macro-etching of the engine and chassis numbers in the following manner: wiping the engine and chassis, stenciling, placing chemicals on the chassis, making a third stencilling, all the while taking pictures of the procedure.
"Subsequently, there were no findings that the engine and chassis were tampered. The results were fed [to] a computer and after verifying that the engine was not carnapped, Lt. Ganzon issued a certification which stated "no record." Thereafter, the engine and chassis were returned to Bacolod.
"Be that as it may, on 12 August 1988, Lt. Tan arrested Gregorio Elardo, from whom intervenor bought this vehicle, on charges of carnapping. Intervenor was informed of the arrest.
"Lt. Tan also informed the intervenor that the motor vehicle clearance given him was irregular because of the spurious documentation presented in support of the application of said clearance, and that the plate no. CHG-608 was assigned to another vehicle owned by a Mr. Layug.
"In addition, Tan informed intervenor that the LTO certificate of registration (No. 1825725) issued to a certain Francisco Esguerra, allegedly the owner of the intervenor's Pajero, was likewise of dubious origin. On its face, it appears that the said certificate was issued by the Angeles City Office of the LTO. Upon proper verification, however, said certificate series was an issuance of the Manila East Office, while the motor vehicle registration receipt was issued for the use of LTO Legaspi.
"Thus, on 28 October 1988, the city court of Bacolod issued a warrant by virtue of which the subject Pajero was again seized and impounded by the Bacolod CHPG for the purpose of macro-etching.
"Intervenor Conde moved to have the warrant quashed. While hearings on the motion to quash were being held, Lt. Tan was designated legal custodian of the vehicle and was instructed not to move nor to use the same.
"Then, on 3 November, 1988, a certain Sgt. Agadulin of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory in Bacolod conducted further macro-etching of the engine and the chassis numbers of the subject vehicle. Present were Lt. Tan, Sgt. Agadulin, and the intervenor.
"After the macro-etching was finished, the intervenor requested [copies] of the stencils, which however were not given him because there was no court order. Intervenor thus secured one but the CHPG still did not release the vehicle.
"It was later learned that the report on the macro-etching stated that there were filings on the chassis number, such that the eighth digit, originally a "3", became a "5".
"In the meantime, plaintiff indemnified Brimo P571,000 for the value of his lost vehicle and was in turn subrogated to all the rights the latter had over the same.
"Subsequently, however, an order for the seizure of personal property was issued by the trial court in Manila, prompting Lt. Tan to recommend shipment of the Pajero to Manila. The sheriff's notice to deliver personal property was forwarded to defendant Bruan as group commander of the CHPG in Camp Crame.
"In addition, plaintiff moved to intervene in the proceedings before the Bacolod City court on the quashal of the search warrant. During the hearing of said motion, plaintiff never informed the city court that it had earlier filed a replevin case covering the subject vehicle and that a seizure order had already been issued therein.
"On 16 March 1989, Conde filed a complaint in intervention before the Manila trial court, alleging that he purchased his Pajero on the strength of a clearance from the CHPG in Bacolod.
"After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered the questioned decision dismissing the complaint in intervention, and declaring plaintiff the lawful owner of the vehicle, and as such entitled to the possession of the same."
"The court a quo made a mistaken appreciation of the burden of proof in civil cases, since the plaintiff, and not the defendant, is the party obliged to prove its affirmative allegation, to wit: that there were signs of filing and tampering [with] the chassis number of the intervenor's vehicle, allegedly the very same Pajero which was originally carnapped in Makati, thus proving the identity of the two disputably different vehicles as one and the same.
"It was not incumbent upon the intervenor at the first instance to prove that there was no filing, because the burden of proof was not on him.
"Apropos to this, we rule that such signs of filing and tampering were not proven by the plaintiff by the required quantum of evidence.
"To prove his theory, the plaintiff relied heavily on the expert testimony of Sgt. Agadulin, a government technician and an expert in the tampering, and insists on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. However, this presumption is merely disputable. x x x
"Thus, the official findings of Agadulin as an expert witness will not hold ground in the face of equally strong, or even stronger, evidence to the contrary.x x x x x x x x x
"True, Conde's vehicle may have had dubious origins, as shown by its accompanying papers, but the same vehicle may not necessarily be the one owned by Brimo. Indeed, the rise in the number of carnapped vehicles over the years is a fact of which present courts take judicial notice, such that one cannot reasonably assume identity of stolen vehicles without thorough investigation.
"There being no identity between Brimo's and Conde's Pajeros, the petition for delivery of the subject Pajero to plaintiff, which is the subrogee of Brimo's rights over the stolen Pajero, must perforce fail."
"I
"x x x [W]hen it manifestly ignored the petitioner-plaintiff's overwhelming evidence that the Pajero in question [was] the same Pajero which was owned by Gerald H. Brimo, petitioner's predecessor in interest"II
"x x x [W]hen it held that the [evidence of] respondent [Conde] (intervenor below) x x x rebutted and overcame the presumption of regularity of official conduct."
"1. Presence of sign of filing and alteration on the 8th digit 5 which appeared to be originally 3.
2. The restored chassis number is L049GV-0034B."[14]
"Q Now will you please tell us what did you find in the engine number when you examined it? A In the engine number I found out the presence of grinding.x x x x x x x x x Q And did you find any superimposition [o]n these numbers? A Yes, sir. It was superimposed with digits 4D56, on the lower portion is BR5791.x x x x x x x x x Q In your examination [of] the number originally stamped on the engine did the numbers align themselves correctly or some numbers appear higher or lower than others? A Yes, sir. Some numbers appear before some numbers. Some numbers appear before other numbers. Q In this vehicle which number is superimposed? A In this vehicle the standard stamping is already numbered on the lower portion. Q When you discovered this physical appearance [if] the numbers which [were] superimposed did it excite your suspicion? A Yes, sir and I found out the presence of grinding. Q Were you able to restore the original number of the engine? A No, sir. Q Now you also [examined] the chassis number of the vehicle? A Yes, sir. Q And you conducted -- I mean what was your findings on the chassis number or what number did you etch? A In the markings I found out the presence of the filing of digit "5". Q Despite the filing of the original were you able to restore the original number? A Yes, sir. Q What was the restored number? A The original digit is "3" (three). Q What was the chassis after the number was restored? A The restored chassis number is LO49GV-0034B."
"(1) | The certification by the LTO chief of Bacolod and his acknowledgment that the signatures on the vehicles' registration papers were his; |
"(2) | Inspections by Capt. Alcantara of the Bacolod CHPG which found nothing irregular with the chassis number and even advised intervenor to proceed with the purchase since it was `okay'; |
"(3) | the macro-etching and stencilling of the engine done in Camp Crame by two soldiers of the CHPG who found no tampering or filing in the chassis or engine numbers; |
"(4) | the admission by Agadulin and Tan that the chassis number of the subject vehicle was `LO4GDV - 0054B', and not 'LO4GPV-0034B', the former belonging to intervenor, the latter to Brimo; |
"(5) | the refusal by both Tan and Agadulin to give the intervenor copies of the stencils upon request, even after the latter took hold of a court order, engendering suspicions as to Agadulin's and Tan's motives; |
"(6) | the prolonged stay of the vehicle (6 days) in CHPG custody before the macro-etching tests were made. Notably, after this period of time, investigators found the presence of markings which nobody saw before; and |
"(7) | the clear showing that the questioned eighth digit in the chassis number as shown by the stenciling after the macro-etching procedure in Bacolod was a "5", which corresponds to intervenor's vehicle (Exhibit "8")." |
"COURT: Q This Capt. Alcantara, what is his relation to the Constabulary Hi[gh]way Group, Constabulary Hi[gh]way Patrol Group (CHPG)? A Your Honor, he used to be a traffic supervisor of Bacolod. But after the uncovering, after the busting of the syndicate in Bacolod we were able to find quite a number of motor vehicles which had clearances issued by him to be vehicles that ha[d] already been apprehended as carnapped and stolen."
"Q. Now let's go to the chassis number, the chassis number which is reflected in your stencil. Kindly go over your report. The chassis number is L049GV-0054B? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you supposedly conducted a macro-etching examination and according to your own conclusion, digit "5" was changed to digit "3", correct? A. Yes, sir."[29]
"ATTY. PARRENO: Q I have noticed the stencils, can you show it to me? Now Mr. Witness [these are] the stencil numbers of the engine and the chassis of the Pajero when you conducted the macro etching examination. Before conducting and macro etching x x x and from your answer a while ago you made mention that before you had that stencil you had cleaned and washed the chassis number? A Both. Q And in your stencil number, the stencil number, the questioned number '3' and number '5', that is the questioned number on the chassis, right? A Yes, sir. Q It reflects herein clearly that the number is '5' and never '3'? A Yes, sir.x x x x x x x x x Q You would agree with me that the number now marked as Exhibit '6' intervenor is uniform? A Yes, sir. Q At least that of the engine number? A Yes, sir. Q So in effect the engine number[s] are uniformly reflected in this piece of document? A Those specifically taken before they [were] marked as exhibits . . . Those specifically taken before the macro etching."[31]
In this case, the appellate court and the intervenor erroneously disregarded the portion preceding the aforequoted testimony. In its entirety, the pertinent testimony of Tan on this point reads:[34]
"Q WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME MR. WITNESS THAT THIS VERY STENCIL SUBMITTED AS EXHIBIT "CC-8" REFLECTS CLEARLY THAT THE DIGIT IS "5"? A. YES SIR.[33] Q And never "3"? A. Yes, sir."
Indubitably, the CA holding -- that the stencils were taken after the macro-etching examination -- was bereft of factual basis. Moreover, it was flatly contradicted by the testimonies of Tan and Agadulin.
"Q. I am showing to you [a] stencil copy which was submitted here yesterday by plaintiff and ask you, two stencil copies marked as Exhibit "CC-8" and Exhibit "CC-9" x x x [refer to] what? A. This is the chassis number. Q. This one, Exhibit "CC-9"? A. Chassis number. Q. Exhibit "CC-8", chassis number? A. Exhibit "CC-9", engine number. Q. What are these stencils for and when were they taken? A. That was taken before the macro etching examination. Q. It can likewise be taken after the macro etching examination? A. It depends upon the competent technician. Q. Are you in a position to state whether the stencil was taken before or after the macro etching examination? A. Yes sir. Q Would you agree with me Mr. Witness that this very stencil submitted as Exhibit "cc-8" reflects clearly that the digit is "5"? A. Yes sir. Q And never "3"? A. Yes, sir."