Case Summary (G.R. No. 148233)
Petitioner
People of the Philippines (Appellee in the trial court).
Respondent
Luisito D. Bustinera (Appellant in the Supreme Court).
Key Dates
• December 25, 1996 – Appellant failed to return the assigned Daewoo Racer taxi.
• January 9, 1997 – Taxi recovered abandoned on Regalado Street, Quezon City.
• March 27, 2000 – Appellant arraigned, pleaded not guilty.
• May 17, 2001 – Regional Trial Court decision convicting appellant of qualified theft.
• June 8, 2004 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution of the Philippines (decision rendered post-1990).
• Revised Penal Code, Articles 308 (theft) and 310 (qualified theft).
• Republic Act No. 6539, as amended (“Anti-Carnapping Law”).
• Republic Act No. 4103, as amended (Indeterminate Sentence Law).
Facts
Appellant was hired in 1996 to drive a Daewoo taxi under a boundary-fee arrangement of ₱780 per day, returning the vehicle each night to the garage. On December 25, 1996, he did not return the taxi, citing insufficient earnings to pay the boundary fee. Owner Cipriano reported the vehicle missing on December 26. On January 9, 1997, the taxi was located abandoned. Appellant claimed he personally returned the taxi on January 5, 1997, and partially paid boundary fees through his wife’s remittances, but failed to produce documentary proof.
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 217, convicted appellant of qualified theft under Article 310, imposing reclusion perpetua. Appellant appealed, assigning errors regarding intent to gain and sufficiency of evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed the entire record.
Issue
Whether the unlawful taking of a Daewoo taxi by an entrusted driver constitutes qualified theft under the Revised Penal Code or falls within the special crime of carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539, and whether the elements—particularly intent to gain—were sufficiently established.
Court’s Ruling on Applicable Law
The Supreme Court held that the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle by a driver entrusted with its use is governed by the Anti-Carnapping Law, not by the qualified-theft provision of the Revised Penal Code. When statutes cover the same subject, they are construed in pari materia; the special anti-carnapping law, being later and more specific to motor vehicles, prevails. Misnomer in the information (qualified theft versus carnapping) is immaterial where factual allegations satisfy the elements of carnapping.
Analysis on Crime Classification
The elements of carnapping under Section 2 of RA 6539 are (1) taking of a motor vehicle belonging to another, (2) without owner’s consent or by violence/intimidation or force, and (3) with intent to gain. Appellant admitted taking the taxi without returning it, contrary to company policy and owner’s demand—thus converting lawful possession into unlawful taking. The information alleged every element of carnapping.
Analysis on Evidence and Intent
Intent to gain is presumed from unlawful taking; actual profit is not required. The use of the vehicle itself constitutes gain. Appellant’s uncorroborated testimony about returning the taxi and paying boundary fees was disbelieved. The RTC’s credibility findings, having assessed witness demeanor and test
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148233)
Facts
- In 1996 Edwin Cipriano, manager of ESC Transport owned by Elias S. Cipriano, hired Luisito D. Bustinera as a taxi driver and assigned him a Daewoo Racer GTE Taxi (Plate No. PWH-266) valued at ₱303,000.00.
- The parties agreed that Bustinera would use the taxi from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily, return it to the garage nightly, remit a boundary fee of ₱780.00 per day, and sign the company’s record book and daily trip ticket upon return.
- On December 25, 1996, appellant reported for duty, drove the taxi, but failed to return it that night, admitting he was short of the boundary fee.
- On December 26, 1996, Cipriano visited appellant’s home, found no taxi, and learned from appellant’s wife that her husband had not arrived. He then reported the missing taxi to the Commonwealth Avenue police.
- On January 9, 1997, appellant’s wife informed the garage that the taxi had been abandoned on Regalado Street, Lagro, Quezon City. Cipriano recovered and repaired the vehicle.
- Appellant did not deny withholding the taxi but claimed:
- He sent ₱2,000.00 (later claimed ₱2,500.00) via his wife on December 27 to partially pay the boundary fee and to request permission to continue using the taxi.
- He returned the taxi on January 5, 1997, signed the record book, paid an additional ₱2,500.00 (total ₱4,500.00) for ten days’ boundary fee, and left his driver’s license with Cipriano.
- Because he could not drive without his license and still owed a balance, his wife worked as a stay-in maid for Cipriano (₱1,300.00/month) from February 18 to March 26, 1997, until his obligation was considered paid and his license was returned.
Procedural History
- June 17, 1997: Information filed in the Regional Trial Court (Q-97-71956), charging qualified theft under Article 310, RPC.
- March 27, 2000: Appellant pleaded not guilty.
- May 17, 2001: RTC, Branch 217, Quezon City, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with credit for preventive detention.
- Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors:
- Erroneous conclusion of intent to gain from failure to return the taxi.
- Erroneous finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for qualified theft.
Issues
- Whether the taking of the taxi, as charged and proven, constitutes qualified theft under Article 310, RPC, or carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539, as amended.
- Whether the tria