Case Summary (G.R. No. 134564)
Procedural History
Appellant was charged by information (June 17, 1997) with qualified theft for allegedly taking without consent a Daewoo taxi owned by Elias S. (Edwin) Cipriano. He pled not guilty at arraignment (March 27, 2000). The Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 217) convicted him of qualified theft and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal, considered errors assigned, and recharacterized the offense under the anti-carnapping statute, reversing and setting aside the trial court judgment and imposing the applicable indeterminate penalty under RA 6539.
Facts as Found by the Prosecution
Appellant was hired in 1996 and assigned to the Daewoo taxi under a boundary (quota) system requiring daily remittance of P780 and return of the taxi to the garage at night. Appellant admitted he took the taxi on December 25, 1996 and did not return it that night. The owner/manager reported the taxi missing and later recovered it on January 9, 1997 after learning it had been abandoned on Regalado Street. The prosecution established that appellant had free access to the taxi and that normal company practice required signing the record book and daily trip ticket and remitting the boundary fee upon return.
Appellant’s Version and Defense
Appellant admitted not returning the taxi on December 25 because he lacked funds to remit the boundary fee. He asserted that he gave P2,000 (or P2,500 on cross-examination) to his wife on December 27 to remit as payment and that he actually returned the taxi on January 5, 1997, signing the record book and paying P2,500 (or totaling P4,500) as partial payment for the outstanding boundary fees. He also claimed he left his driver’s license as security and that his wife worked for the owner from February to March 1997 until the balance was purportedly worked off, after which his license was returned.
Trial Court Findings and Sentence
The trial court disbelieved appellant’s claim that he returned the taxi on January 5 and that he had made the alleged payments, citing inconsistencies in amounts claimed and the lack of documentary proof. The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with credit for preventive imprisonment.
Issues on Appeal Presented to the Supreme Court
Appellant assigned two principal errors: (1) that the trial court erred in concluding intent to gain merely from failure to return the taxi; and (2) that the conviction for qualified theft was not supported beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court undertook plenary review as permitted in criminal appeals.
Legal Framework: Theft, Qualified Theft, and Carnapping
- Elements of theft (Article 308 RPC): taking of personal property belonging to another; intent to gain; lack of owner’s consent; and absence of force or intimidation.
- Qualified theft (Article 310 RPC): theft with aggravating circumstances such as grave abuse of confidence or where the property stolen is a motor vehicle.
- RA No. 6539 (anti-carnapping), Section 2: defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without consent or by means of violence/intimidation or force upon things. Section 14 prescribes distinct penalties for carnapping, distinguishing carnapping without violence (imprisonment of 14 years, 8 months to 17 years, 4 months) from carnapping with violence or with more severe results.
Statutory Construction and Relationship of Laws in Pari Materia
The Court applied the principle that statutes in pari materia should be construed together, but where a special law (RA 6539) specifically addresses unlawful taking of motor vehicles and prescribes its own penalties distinct from the Revised Penal Code, the anti-carnapping law governs. Precedent (People v. Tan; People v. Lobitania) was cited to confirm that unlawful taking of motor vehicles is covered by the anti-carnapping law rather than the qualified theft provisions of the RPC when the vehicle does not fall within enumerated exceptions in RA 6539.
Recharacterization of the Offense and Sufficiency of the Information
Although the information charged “qualified theft,” the Court held that misnomer in the statutory designation is not fatal if the facts alleged in the information establish the elements of carnapping. The information alleged takings of a motor vehicle belonging to another without consent and with intent to gain—thus satisfying carnapping elements—and the prosecution proved those facts.
Unlawful Taking, Possession, and Intent to Gain (Animus Lucrandi)
The Court explained that appellant’s initial possession was lawful as an employee driver but that his continued possession against company rules and without owner consent converted it into unlawful possession (apoderamiento), complete from the moment he deprived the owner of control. Intent to gain is an internal act, but it is presumed from the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle; actual permanent deprivation is not required. The Court relied on authorities (e.g., Villacorta and subsequent affirmations) establishing that unauthorized use of another’s motor vehicle constitutes gain because the accused derives utility or benefit from the use.
Credibility, Evidence, and Failure to Produce Documentary Proof
The trial court’s disbelief of appellant’s assert
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 134564)
Procedural History
- Case decided by the Supreme Court, Third Division, G.R. No. 148233, June 08, 2004 (475 PHIL 190).
- Appellant Luisito D. Bustinera was indicted by information dated June 17, 1997 for Qualified Theft.
- Appellant arraigned March 27, 2000 and pleaded not guilty, assisted by counsel de oficio.
- Trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 217, Quezon City, which found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua by Decision of May 17, 2001.
- Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors challenging (1) the finding of intent to gain and (2) conviction for qualified theft.
- Supreme Court reviewed the entire case on appeal, reversed the RTC conviction for qualified theft, found appellant guilty of carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, and imposed an indeterminate sentence of 14 years and 8 months to 17 years and 4 months.
Indictment and Allegations
- Information alleged that on or about December 25 up to January 9, 1997, in Quezon City, appellant, employed as one of the taxi drivers of Elias S. Cipriano (operator of several taxi cabs, business address corner 44 Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman), with free access to the taxi he was driving, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon him by his employer and without the knowledge and consent of the owner, took, stole and carried away a Daewoo Racer GTE Taxi with Plate No. PWH-266 worth P303,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of Elias S. Cipriano.
- The information captioned the offense as Qualified Theft but alleged facts that, if proven, contained the elements of carnapping.
Facts as Established by the Prosecution
- In 1996, Edwin Cipriano, manager of ESC Transport (taxicab business of his father), hired appellant as a taxi driver and assigned him to drive Daewoo Racer with plate PWH-266.
- Company practice: drivers drive from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., then return the taxi to ESC Transport's garage and remit a boundary fee of P780.00 per day; drivers sign a record book and daily trip ticket upon release and return.
- On December 25, 1996, appellant reported for work, took out the Daewoo taxi, and did not return it at the end of the day, admitting he failed to return because he was short of the boundary fee.
- December 26, 1996: Edwin Cipriano went to appellant's house; taxi was not there; appellant's wife said her husband had not yet arrived.
- Cipriano reported the missing taxi to Commonwealth Avenue police station.
- January 9, 1997: appellant's wife informed ESC Transport that the taxi had been abandoned in Regalado Street, Lagro, Quezon City; Cipriano recovered and repaired the taxi.
Appellant’s Testimony and Defense Version
- Appellant admitted he did not return the taxi on December 25, 1996 because he lacked funds to remit the boundary fee.
- Appellant claimed he did not abandon the taxi but returned it on January 5, 1997 and signed the record book in accordance with company procedure.
- Appellant claimed he gave P2,000.00 (later, under cross-examination, claimed P2,500.00) to his wife on December 27, 1996 to remit as payment of the boundary fee and to inform Cipriano he could not yet return the taxi as he still had a balance.
- Appellant claimed he paid a total of P4,500.00 as partial payment covering December 25, 1996 to January 5, 1997, and that he left his driver's license with Cipriano as security; his wife then worked for Cipriano from February 18, 1997 to March 26, 1997, after which appellant's driver's license was returned.
- Appellant asserted he signed the record book on January 5, 1997, but did not produce the record book or receipts; he stated the company kept those records.
Trial Court Findings and Disposition
- RTC disbelieved appellant’s claim that he returned the taxi on January 5, 1997 and had paid P4,500.00; highlighted contradictions as to amounts given to his wife (P2,000 vs. P2,500) and the absence of documentary proof.
- RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua; credited him with four-fifths (4/5) of preventive imprisonment undergone, with a determination regarding disciplinary rules specified.
- RTC's judgment emphasized appellant transformed lawful possession into unlawful by failing to return the taxi and by his conduct.
Assigned Errors on Appeal
- Appellant assigned as errors:
- I. The trial court erred in concluding, without concrete basis, that appellant had intent to gain when he failed to return the taxi.
- II. The trial court erred in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft.
Legal Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the unlawful taking of the Daewoo taxi should be prosecuted as qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code or as carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539, as amended.
- Whether the elements of the applicable offense (theft vs. carnapping) were proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly intent to gain (animus lucrandi).
- Whether the RTC erred in imposing the penalty for qualified theft (reclusion perpetua) rather than the penalty prescribed by the anti-carnapping law.
- Whether the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence (alleged in the information) could be appreciated in the face of a special law with its own penalty structure.
Statutory Provisions and Definitions Cited
- Article 308, Revised Penal Code: elements of theft—(1) taking of personal pro