People v.

Bustinera
FACTS:
Sometime in 1996, Edwin Cipriano (Cipriano), who manages ESC Transport, the taxicab
business of his father, hired appellant as a taxi driver and assigned him to drive a Daewoo
Racer with plate number PWH-266. It was agreed that appellant would drive the taxi from 6:00
a.m. to 11:00 p.m, after which he would return it to ESC Transports garage and remit the
boundary fee in the amount of P780.00 per day.
On December 25, 1996, appellant admittedly reported for work and drove the taxi, but he did not
return it on the same day as he was supposed to. The following day, December 26, 1996,
Cipriano went to appellants house to ascertain why the taxi was not returned. Arriving at
appellants house, he did not find the taxi there, appellants wife telling him that her husband had
not yet arrived. Leaving nothing to chance, Cipriano went to the Commonwealth Avenue police
station and reported that his taxi was missing.
On January 9, 1997, appellants wife went to the garage of ESC Transport and revealed that the
taxi had been abandoned in Regalado Street, Lagro, Quezon City. Cipriano lost no time in
repairing to Regalado Street where he recovered the taxi. Upon the other hand, while appellant
does not deny that he did not return the taxi on December 25, 1996 as he was short of the
boundary fee, he claims that he did not abandon the taxi but actually returned it on January 5,
1997; and that on December 27, 1996, he gave the amount of P2,000.00 to his wife whom he
instructed to remit the same to Cipriano as payment of the boundary fee and to tell the latter that
he could not return the taxi as he still had a balance thereof.
Appellant maintains that he returned the taxi on January 5, 1997 and signed the record book,
which was company procedure, to show that he indeed returned it and gave his employer
P2,500.00 as partial payment for the boundary fee covering the period from December 25, 1996
to January 5, 1997. Continuing, appellant claims that as he still had a balance in the boundary
fee, he left his drivers license with Cipriano; that as he could not drive, which was the only work
he had ever known, without his drivers license, and with the obligation to pay the balance of the
boundary fee still lingering, his wife started working on February 18, 1997 as a stay-in maid for
Cipriano, with a monthly salary of P1,300.00, until March 26, 1997 when Cipriano told her that
she had worked off the balance of his obligation; and that with his obligation extinguished, his
drivers license was returned to him.
Brushing aside appellants claim that he returned the taxi on January 5, 1997 and that he had in
fact paid the total amount of P4,500.00, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of qualified theft.
IN SHORT (aka yung feel ko kailangan lang talaga malaman kasi most of the time wali pake si
Sir sa details):
Bustinera drives a taxi of Cipriano, his employer, which he is supposed to return everyday but
he didnt one day (Dec 25) because di niya naabot yung boundary fee of P780 for the day.
Binalik niya daw eventually on Jan 5. Cipriano accused him of qualified theft dahil di nga niya
binalik and wala daw proof na binalik niya talaga ng Jan 5. Sabi ni Cipriano inabandon lang niya
sa street.

ISSUE 1: Which applies? RPC or Anti-Carnapping? Anti-Carnapping.

Appellant was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. However, Article 310 has been modified,
with respect to certain vehicles, by Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwise known as
"AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING.
When statutes are in pari materia or when they relate to the same person or thing, or to the
same class of persons or things, or cover the same specific or particular subject matter, or have
the same purpose or object, the rule dictates that they should be construed together interpretare
et concordare leges legibus, est optimus interpretandi modus. Every statute must be so
construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.
The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code
are: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Theft is qualified when any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed
by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the
property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen
consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken
from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
On the other hand, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended defines carnapping as the
taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. The
elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to
another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is
done with intent to gain.
In the 2000 case of People v. Tan where the accused took a Mitsubishi Gallant and in the later
case of People v. Lobitania which involved the taking of a Yamaha motorized tricycle, this Court
held that the unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the anti-carnapping law and
not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.
It is to be noted, however, that while the anti-carnapping law penalizes the unlawful taking
of motor vehicles, it excepts from its coverage certain vehicles such as roadrollers,
trolleys, street- sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, amphibian trucks and cranes if not
used on public highways, vehicles which run only on rails and tracks, and tractors,
trailers and tractor engines of all kinds and used exclusively for agricultural purposes. By
implication, the theft or robbery of the foregoing vehicles would be covered by Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended and the provisions on robbery, respectively.
From the foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo
sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and not the provisions of qualified theft, which would
apply as the said motor vehicle does not fall within the exceptions mentioned in the anticarnapping law.

The designation in the information of the offense committed by appellant as one for qualified
theft notwithstanding, appellant may still be convicted of the crime of carnapping. For while it is
necessary that the statutory designation be stated in the information, a mistake in the caption of
an indictment in designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal defect as it is not the
designation that is controlling but the facts alleged in the information which determines the real
nature of the crime. (wohoo crimpro! HAHA okay sabaw na)
IN SHORT: Generally youre supposed to harmonize the special law and RPC. In this case,
carnapping applies kasi specific special law siya that covers stolen vehicles. There are a few
vehicles not covered under Carnapping which necessarily means na dapat under RPC pa rin
sila. The taxi in this case, however, does not fall under the exception so Carnapping pa din.
SEE ELEMENTS OF THEFT, QUALIFIED THEFT, AND CARNAPPING ABOVE NA LANG in
case Sir wants to harass us with questions on Crim2 HAHA.
MAIN SPL ISSUE: Violated Anti-Carnapping? YES. (if tamad just read the BOLD)
Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent
of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using
force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
While the nature of appellants possession of the taxi was initially lawful as he was hired
as a taxi driver and was entrusted possession thereof, his act of not returning it to its
owner, which is contrary to company practice and against the owners consent
transformed the character of the possession into an unlawful one. Appellant himself admits
that he was aware that his possession of the taxi was no longer with Ciprianos consent as the
latter was already demanding its return.
Appellant assails the trial courts conclusion that there was intent to gain with the mere taking of
the taxi without the owners consent. He maintains that his reason for failing to return the
taxi was his inability to remit the boundary fee, his earnings that day not having
permitted it; and that there was no intent to gain since the taking of the taxi was not
permanent in character, he having returned it. Appellants position does not persuade.
Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawful taking of
the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to
gain. The term gain is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the
benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is
performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owners consent
constitutes gain.
In Villacorta v. Insurance Commission which was reiterated in Association of Baptists for World
Evangelism, Inc. v. Fieldmens Insurance Co, Inc., Justice Claudio Teehankee (later Chief
Justice), interpreting the theft clause of an insurance policy, explained that, when one takes the
motor vehicle of another without the latters consent even if the motor vehicle is later
returned, there is theft, there being intent to gain as the use of the thing unlawfully taken
constitutes gain.
Besides, the trial court did not believe appellants claim that he in fact returned the taxi on
January 5, 1997. While appellant maintains that he signed on January 5, 1997 the record book

indicating that he returned the taxi on the said date and paid Cipriano the amount of P4,500.00
as partial payment for the boundary fee, appellant did not produce the documentary evidence
alluded to, to substantiate his claim. That such alleged record book is in the possession of
Cipriano did not prevent him from producing it as appellant has the right to have compulsory
process issued to secure the production of evidence on his behalf.
ISSUE 3: Was the penalty given correct? NO.
The trial court having convicted appellant of qualified theft instead of carnapping, it erred in the
imposition of the penalty. When the penalties under the special law are different from and are
without reference or relation to those under the Revised Penal Code, there can be no suppletory
effect of the rules, for the application of penalties under the said Code or by other relevant
statutory provisions are based on or applicable only to said rules for felonies under the Code.
The anti-carnapping law provides for its own penalties which are distinct and without reference
to the said Code.