G.R. No. 148233 - People vs. Bustinera

Charge and Procedure
On June 17, 1997, appellant Luisito D. Bustinera was indicted for “Qualified Theft” under Article 310, RPC, for allegedly taking a Daewoo Racer GTE Taxi (Plate No. PWH-266) worth ₱303,000.00 belonging to Elias S. Cipriano with grave abuse of confidence.
Appellant was arraigned on March 27, 2000, pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed.

Employment and Taxi Assignment
In 1996, Edwin Cipriano, manager of ESC Transport, hired appellant as a taxi driver and assigned him the Daewoo Racer (PWH-266). Appellant was to drive from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., return the taxi nightly to the garage, remit a daily boundary fee of ₱780.00, and sign the record book and daily trip ticket.
On December 25, 1996, appellant reported for duty and took the taxi but failed to return it that night, claiming he lacked funds for the boundary fee.

Discovery and Recovery of the Taxi
On December 26, 1996, Cipriano inquired at appellant’s home; the taxi was not there and appellant had not returned.
Cipriano reported the missing taxi to Commonwealth Avenue police station.
On January 9, 1997, appellant’s wife informed the garage that the taxi had been abandoned on Regalado Street, Lagro, Quezon City. Cipriano retrieved and recovered the vehicle.

Appellant’s Explanation and Trial Court Findings
Appellant asserted he returned the taxi on January 5, 1997, signing the record book and paying boundary fees in partial installments: ₱2,000 (or ₱2,500 on cross-examination) on December 27, 1996, and an additional ₱2,500 on January 5, 1997 (total ₱4,500), leaving his driver’s license as security for unpaid balance.
He further claimed his wife worked from February 18 to March 26, 1997, as a live-in maid for Cipriano to offset the remaining boundary fee, after which his license was returned.
The Regional Trial Court disbelieved appellant’s version, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, crediting preventive detention.

Whether the trial court erred in concluding, without concrete basis, that appellant had intent to gain when he failed to return the taxi on December 25, 1996.
Whether the conviction for qualified theft was proper, given the nature of the offense and the existence of a special law on carnapping.