Case Digest (G.R. No. 148233)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Luisito D. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 08, 2004, the Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.The appellant, Luisito D. Bustinera, was hired in 1996 as a taxi driver by ESC Transport (managed by Edwin Cipriano) and was assigned to drive a Daewoo Racer GTE with plate no. PWH-266 under a boundary system: he was to use the taxi during the day and return it to the garage at night, remitting a P780 daily boundary fee. On December 25, 1996, appellant took out and drove the taxi but did not return it that night; Cipriano reported the taxi missing to the police on December 26, 1996. On January 9, 1997 the taxi was reportedly abandoned on Regalado Street and recovered by Cipriano.
Appellant acknowledged he failed to return the taxi because he was short of the boundary fee. He asserted that he sent P2,000–P2,500 by his wife on December 27, 1996, and that he himself returned the taxi on January 5, 1997, signed the company record book and paid an additional P2,500 (allegedly totaling P4,500) as partial payment. He further testified that his driver’s license was left with Cipriano until his wife worked off the balance by stay-in service between February 18 and March 26, 1997, after which the license was returned.
An information dated June 17, 1997 charged appellant with qualified theft (Article 310, Revised Penal Code). He pleaded not guilty at arraignment on March 27, 2000; trial occurred and the Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City convicted him on May 17, 2001 of qualified theft and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, crediting four-fifths of preventive imprisonment. Appellant appealed, assigning errors that the trial court erred in finding intent to gain and in convicting him beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft.
The Supreme Court Third Division reviewed the case on appeal. It considered statutory harmony between the Revised Penal Code and the special anti-carnapping law (Rep...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in concluding that appellant had the intent to gain (animus lucrandi) when he failed to return the taxi?
- Was appellant properly convicted of qualified theft, or did Republic Act No. 6539 (the anti‑carnapping law) instead apply, requiring conviction for carnapping and imposition of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)