People v.

Bustinera Case Digest

G. R. No. 148233. June 8, 2004

FACTS:

ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as a taxi driver. 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 Transport's 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 owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. On January 9, 1997, Bustinera's
wife went to ESC Transport and revealed that the taxi had been abandoned.
ESC was able to recovered. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of qualified theft.

ISSUE:

Whether the RPC or Anti-Carnapping is applicable in this case.

HELD:

Bustinera 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. 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 fish pond 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 "car
napping" 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 car
napping 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. Car napping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized
vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and car napping being the
same. From the foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful
taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-car napping law and not the provisions of
qualified theft which would apply