Republic Act No.

10883
An Act Providing for a New Anti-Carnapping Law of the Philippines
17 July 2016

• This Act repeals Republic Act No. 6539 also known as the “Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972” (Section 22, See
Annex A)

CARNAPPING
➢ the taking 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
➢ with intent to gain

NOTE: The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the anti-carnapping law, and not by the
provisions on qualified theft or robbery. (People vs. Lobitania, G.R. No. 142380, September 5, 2002)

DEFINITION OF TERMS (Section 2)

Motor vehicle
- Any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways
- EXCEPT: road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders,
forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways; vehicles which run only on
rails or tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for
agricultural purposes.
o Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by
attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no
power rating

NOTE:

While the anti-carnapping law penalizes the unlawful taking of motor vehicles, it excepts from its
coverage certain vehicles. By implication, the theft or robbery of the foregoing vehicles would be covered
by Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and the provisions on robbery, respectively. (People
vs. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004)

Defacing or tampering with a serial number

- the altering, changing, erasing, replacing or scratching of the original factory inscribed serial
number on the motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle.
o Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its engine, engine block
or chassis which is different from that which is listed in the records of the Bureau of
Customs for motor vehicle imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be
considered to have a defaced or tampered serial number

Dismantling
- the tearing apart, piece-by-piece or part-by-part, of a motor vehicle

1
Overhauling
- the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by separating the motor engine
and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle

Repainting
- changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting. There is painting whenever the new
color of a motor vehicle is different from its color registered in the LTO

Remodeling
- the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle

Second hand spare parts

- the parts taken from a carnapped vehicle used in assembling another vehicle

Total wreck
- the state or status of a motor vehicle after a vehicular accident or other incident, so that it is
rendered inoperational and beyond economic repair due to the extent of damage in its body,
chassis and engine

Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates

- the use or transfer of a vehicle plate issued by the LTO to a certain vehicle to another vehicle.
o It is presumed illegally transferred when the motor vehicle plate does not correspond
with that as appearing in the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle to which it
was issued.

Identity transfer
- the act of transferring the engine number, chassis number, body tag number, plate number, and
any other identifying marks of a motor vehicle declared as “total wreck” or is beyond economic
repair and registers the same into another factory-made body or vehicle unit, of the same
classification, type, make or model
o Declaration is made by car insurance companies and/or law enforcement agencies after
its involvement in a vehicular accident or other incident

2
PENALTIES (Section 3)

Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, regardless of the value of the motor vehicle
taken, be punished by:

Without violence against or Imprisonment for not less than 20

intimidation of persons, or years and 1 day but not more than
force upon things 30 years

With violence against or Imprisonment for not less than 30

intimidation of persons, or years and 1 day but not more than
force upon things 40 years

When the owner, driver, or

occupant of the carnapped
motor vehicle is killed or raped Life Imprisonment
in the commission of the
carnapping

NOTE:

The use of the words IS KILLED refers only to the consummated felony of either murder or
homicide. If attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed in the course of the commission
of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof, then it must be deemed to fall under the clause when the
carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person. (People vs. Mejia,
G.R. Nos. 118940-41. July 7, 1997)

Where the elements of carnapping are not proved, the provisions of the Anti -Carnapping Act
would cease to be applicable and the homicide or murder (if proven) would be punishable und er the
Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Ursaiz, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016)

The killing (or the rape) qualifies the crime of carnapping which, for lack of specific nomenclature,
may be known as qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form…may be considered as
a single or indivisible crime or a special complex crime which, however, is not covered by Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41. July 7, 1997)

When the penalties under the special law are different from and are without reference or relation
to those under the Revised Penal Code, there can be no suppletory effect of the rules, for the application
of penalties under the said Code or by other relevant statutory provisions are based on or appli cable only
to said rules for felonies under the Code. (People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004)

Foreign nationals convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after
service of sentence without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration. (Section 18)

3
 Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery of carnapped vehicles and
for the apprehension of the persons charged with carnapping shall be given monetary reward as the PNP
may determine…Any information given by informers shall be treated as confidential matter. (Section 19)

WHEN MAY BAIL BE DENIED? (Section 3)

When evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be denied to any person charged with carnapping or when
the crime of carnapping is committed:

a. by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or

b. by means of violence or intimidation of any person or persons or forced upon things ; or
c. when the owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the
course of the carnapping

NOTE:

No person charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution (Section 7, Administrative Circular No. 12-94, August 16, 1994)

REGISTRATION

Original Registration of Motor Vehicles (Section 5)

Any person seeking the original registration of a motor vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is
newly assembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registered owner, shall, within one (1) week after the
completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof from the registered owner, apply
to the Philippine National Police (PNP) for the clearance of the motor vehicle for registration with the LTO.
The PNP shall, upon receipt of the application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the
list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered
parts is not in the list, the PNP shall forthwith issue a certificate of clearance. Upon presentation of the
certificate of clearance from the PNP and after verification of the registration of the motor vehicle engine,
engine block and chassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis, the
LTO shall register the motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations within twenty
(20) working days.

Registration of Motor Vehicle, Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block and Chassis (Section 6)

Within one (1) year upon approval of this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor
vehicle or parts thereof in knock down condition shall register before the LTO the motor vehicle engine,
engine block and chassis in the name of the possessor or in the name of the real owner who shall be
readily available to answer any claim over the registered motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis.
o Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the
LTO shall be considered as a carnapped vehicle, an untaxed importation or coming from
illegal source and shall be confiscated in favor of the government.

4
Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle, Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis (Section 7)

The LTO shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks
and chassis of all motor vehicles, specifying therein their type, make, serial numbers and stating therein
the names and addresses of their present and previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries
made thereon shall be furnished the PNP and all LTO regional, provincial and city branch offices:
o Provided, that all LTO regional, provincial and city offices are likewise obliged to furnish
copies of all registrations of motor vehicles to the main office and to the PNP:
o Provided, Further, That the original copy of the certificate of registration shall be given to
the registered owner, the second copy shall be retained with the LTO and the third copy
shall be submitted to the PNP.
o Moreover, it shall be unlawful for any person or employee who willfully encodes in the
registry of motor vehicles a non-existing vehicle or without history, new identity of
already existing vehicle or double/multiple registration (“KAMBAL”) of vehicle.

Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance of a Motor Vehicle, Substitution or Replacement of a Motor

Vehicle Engine, Engine Block or Chassis (Section 8)

Every sale, transfer, conveyance of a motor vehicle, substitution or replacement of a motor

vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered with the LTO within twenty
(20) working days upon purchase/acquisition of a motor vehicle and substitution or replacement of a
motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis.
o A motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis not registered with the
LTO shall be presumed as a carnapped vehicle, an untaxed imported vehicle, or a vehicle
proceeding from illegal sources unless proven otherwise and shall be confiscated in favor
of the government.

OTHER PUNISHABLE ACTS

Concealment of Carnapping (Section 4)

- Any person who conceals carnapping shall be punished with imprisonment of six (6) years up to
twelve (12) years and a fine equal to the amount of the acquisition cost of the motor vehicle,
motor vehicle engine, or any other part involved in the violation
o Provided, that if the person violating any provision of this Act is a juridical person, the
penalty herein provided shall be imposed on its president, secretary, and/or members of
the board of directors or any of its officers and employees who may have directly
participated in the violation.
o Any public official or employee who directly commits the unlawful acts defined in this Act
or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission of any
of the said unlawful acts shall, in addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding
paragraph, be dismissed from the service, and his/her benefits forfeited and shall be
permanently disqualified from holding public office.

5
Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis
(Section 14)
- It shall be unlawful for any person to deface or otherwise tamper with the original or registered
serial number of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis.

Identity Transfer (Section 15)

- It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to cause and/or allow the sale, registration,
and/or transfer into another name, the chassis number, engine number and plate number of a
motor vehicle declared as “total wreck” or beyond economic repair by concerned insurance
company, and/or law enforcement agencies, due to its involveme nt in a vehicular accident or for
some other causes. The LTO shall cancel the registration of total wreck vehicle as reported by the
PNP and/or as declared by the Insurance Commission.

Transfer of Vehicle Plate (Section 16)

- It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to transfer or use a vehicle plate from one
vehicle to another without securing the proper authority from the LTO.

Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts (Section 17)

- It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to buy and/or sell any second hand spare parts
taken from a carnapped vehicle.

CASES

G.R. No. 139323. June 6, 2001

PEOPLE vs. ELLASOS

Facts:

On April 2, 1992, in the City of San Jose, Republic of the Philippines, the said accused, conspiring
together and mutually helping one another, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away a motor tricycle
with Plate No. CV-1275 owned by and belonging to Miguel de Belen, against the will of the latter; that on
the occasion thereof and for the purposes of enabling them to take and carry away the motor tricycle
above mentioned, the accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, with evident premeditation, and taking
advantage of their superior strength and with intent to kill, treacherously attack, assault and shoot the
aforesaid Miguel de Belen with an unlicensed firearm, thereby inflicting wounds upon the latter which
caused his instantaneous death. That as a consequence of the death of said Miguel de Belen, his heirs
sustained actual compensatory and moral damages.

Defense of the Accused:

Accused-appellant contends that the essential element of intent to gain was not proven by the
prosecution; that had the purpose of the accused been to appropriate the tricycle, they could have taken
the said vehicle to a place where it could not be easily found; that the taking of the wheel of the tricycle
can. under the circumstances, be conclusively presumed to be a mere afterthought, and if in deed a crime
has been committed it can only be theft of the wheel of the tricycle.

6
Held:

The chain of proven circumstances leads to the logical conclusion that the tricycle was unlawfully
taken by the two accused from its owner, Miguel de Belen, and the latter was killed on the occasion
thereof. Miguel was last seen with the two accused; three hours later, the two were again spotted riding
the tricycle without Miguel. The following morning, the two accused were found in possession of a wheel
of the tricycle.

Such possession, which remained without any satisfactory explanation, raises the presumption
that the two accused authored the carnapping. This presumption remains unrebutted.

That only the wheel was found in possession of the accused and was intended to be appropriated
by the latter is of no moment. The unlawful taking of the tricycle from the owner was already completed.
Besides, the accused may be held liable for the unlawful taking of the whole vehicle even if only a part
thereof is ultimately taken and/or appropriated while the rest of it is abandoned.

The crime was committed before the effectivity of R.A. 7659. Therefore, we have to apply the
original provision prescribing the penalty of "life imprisonment to death" where the "owner, driver o r
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping"

Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of the crime of carnapping, is an internal act and
hence presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle. Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking
of the vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same

--o--

G.R. No. 130594. July 5, 2000

PEOPLE vs SIRAD

Facts:

George Lozano, the victim in this case, made a living by delivering bread around General Santos
City using a red Kawasaki motorcycle owned by his employer Aniceto Dela. In the morning of February 4,
1992, he left his house early at around 5:00 a.m. to get bread from the bakery of Aniceto Dela. He returned
to his house two hours later and after taking his breakfast, left again at past 7:00 A.M. proceeding towards
Barangay Sinawal.

At about 9:00 a.m. Martillano Lozano was picking cotton at a cotton farm in Sitio Cabuay
(Cabuway), Barangay Sinawal, General Santos City when he saw his cousin George Lozano pass by riding
his red Kawasaki motorcycle with the bread box attached at its side. At around 12:00 noon he again saw
the red motorcycle pass by, but this time it was not George who was riding the motorcycle but three men
and the bread box was no longer attached to the motorcycle. Rita Pino, a co-worker of Martillano Lozano
at the cotton farm also saw the red Kawasaki motorcycle pass by the cotton farm at aroun d noon of

7
February 4, 1992, driven by accused-appellant Akmad Sirad with the other accused-appellants Orlie Sultan
and Salik Amino riding at the back.

At around 10:00 in the evening the group of Martillano Lozano found the body of George Lozano
at the ranch of Bernardino Lozano, approximately three meters away from the road going to Barangay
Sinawal

Accused-appellants argued raise the issue of the illegality of their identification by the
prosecutions witnesses at a police line-up. According to accused-appellants, the identification was in
violation of their constitutional right to counsel because there was no counsel present at the time. Further,
they alleged that their investigation shifted from investigatory to accusatory for they were considered as
primary suspects

Held:

During the commission of the crime, which was on February 4, 1992, there was no crime
denominated as carnapping with homicide. The proper denomination for the crime is carnapping as
defined and penalized under of Republic Act No. 6539, Sections 2 and 14. Under Republic Act No. 6539,
Section 14, the penalty for carnapping in case the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor
vehicle is killed in the course of the commission of the carnapping shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
Considering that at the time of the commission of the crime the death penalty was suspended, accused
are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

--o--

G.R. Nos. 118940-41. July 7, 1997

PEOPLE vs MEJIA

Facts:

In the evening of 10 March 1994, along the expressway at Barangay Ventinilla, Sta. Barbara,
Pangasinan, several persons on board a passenger jeepney driven by Teofilo Landingin attacked the latter
and a passenger, Virgilio Catugas, thereby inflicting upon them multiple stab wounds. Landingin was
pulled out from his seat and dumped on the shoulder of the road. One of the attackers took the wheel of
the jeepney and drove away. Catugas was thrown out to the middle of the road when the jeepney started
to move away. Landingin died as a consequence of the injuries he sustained. Catugas survived.

Despite service on them of subpoenas requiring submission of counter-affidavits, accused Mejia,

Benito, Paraan, and Fabito did not submit their counter-affidavits., Judge Lilia C. Espanol issued an order
declaring the accused "to have waived their right to be heard in preliminary investigation"; finding a prima
facie case against the accused; recommending that they be charged with and prosecuted for the crimes
of murder, frustrated murder, and violation of R.A. No. 6539, as amended; and ordering that the records
of the cases be forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

8
 Held to account for the above acts were Gregorio Mejia, Edwin Benito, Pedro Paraan, Joseph
Fabito, Romulo Calimquim, one alias Dennis, Alex Mamaril, one alias Mondragon, and another
unidentified person. Mejia and Benito were taken into police custody a few hours after the incident;
Paraan, the following day; and Fabito, five days after. Calimquim was found dead three days after the
incident in question, while the others have remained at large. Three separate criminal complaints for
murder, frustrated murder, and violation of R.A. No. 6539 (Anti Carnapping Act of 1992, as ame nded)
were filed against them

Held:

The accused admitted to having flagged down and boarded Landingin's jeepney that fateful
evening of 10 March 1994, but denied having committed the crimes. They claimed that it was Romulo
Calimquim and his companions who killed Landingin, stabbed Catugas, and drove away the jeepney.

The latter makes clear the intention of the law to make the offense a special complex crime, by
way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons. As such, the killing (or the rape) merely qualifies the crime of
carnapping which for lack of specific nomenclature may be known as qualified carnapping or carnapping
in an aggravated form . In short, considering the phraseology of the amended Section 14, the carnapping
and the killing (or the rape) may be considered as a single or indivisible crime or a special complex crime
which, however, is not covered by Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

It follows then that the killing of the driver, Teofilo Landingin — whether it be homicide or murder
— cannot be treated as a separate offense, but should only be considered to qualify the crime of
carnapping.

If attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed "in the course of the commission of
the carnapping or on the occasion thereof," then it must be deemed to fall under the clause (of Section
14) "when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person."

The evidence adduced by the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the
carnapping of Teofilo Landingin's passenger jeepney, which is a motor vehicle under the definition in
Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539. The passenger jeepney was taken, with intent of gain, from Landingin by means
of violence against him which caused his death and against a passenger, Virgilio Catugas, who suffered
physical injuries.

Unfortunately, the CASTILLO court relied heavily on the entries in the police blotters of the police
stations of Sual and Sta. Barbara. The silence of the entries on what the appellants had declared in court
is not conclusive evidence that they did not report the incident to the police authorities. They had no
participation in the preparation of the entries. Entries in the police blotters should not be given undue
significance or probative value, for they are normally incomplete and inaccurate sometimes from either
partial suggestion of for want of suggestion or inquiries.

As to the alleged participation of the appellants in the commission of the crimes, the prosecution
had to rely solely on the testimony of Virgilio Catugas. The totality of his testimony in the cases before the
LARON court leaves much to be desired. The prosecutor who conducted the di rect examination was
unable to propound sensible questions to elicit clear answers bound to reconstruct faithfully the events
surrounding the commission of the alleged crimes.

9
 Accused-appellants Gregorio Mejia, Edwin Benito, Pedro Paraan, and Joseph Fabito are
ACQUITTED on the ground that their guilt therefor has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt or with
moral certainty. Their immediate release from detention is hereby ordered, unless other lawful and valid
grounds for their further detention exist.

--o--

G.R. No. 135904. January 21, 2000

PEOPLE vs TAN

Facts:

Philip See is the registered owner of a 1987 Mitsubishi Gallant four-door valued at P420,000.00,
bearing plate no. CGS-723, colored blue. Sometime in March 1992, accused Alvin Tan was introduced to
Philip by Alvin's fiancee, one Vienna Yu, and from then on, Philip and Alvin became friends and started to
see each other on several occasions thereafter.

On November 7, 1992, about 9:30 a.m., Philip together with his wife Ruby See and Robert Chua
(a neighbor) was at his place of residence when Alvin arrived thereat. He made it known to Philip that he
was intending to buy Philip's aforesaid car and that he wanted to test-drive it. On account of their
friendship and believing Alvin's assurance that he would return the car after he shall have test-driven it,
Philip granted Alvin's request xxx. On thus getting hold of the car, Alvin sped away and never returned. In
vain, Philip waited for Alvin to show up and return the car; Alvin simply did not show up, much less cause
the return of the car.

One of Alvin's employees, however, advised Philip to the effect that the car was parked and
hidden right behind Alvin's warehouse. The location of the warehouse having been given to him, Philip
went to the place and at a distance of some five feet, he saw the vehicle parked at the rear end of the
warehouse. To his shock and surprise, he saw that parts of the car, like the bumper, a door, and several
interior accessories, had been dismantled and were already missing. Worse, several pieces of wood were
piled on top of the car as if purposely hide and conceal it from view.

Philip was informed by the PNP's Highway Patrol Group (HPG) that somebody had applied for a
clearance to sell the car and that the applicant was made to appear as one Philip See

Held:

Even solely from this testimony, this Court finds that there was no unlawful taking. A felonious
taking may be defined as the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of movable property
without his privity and consent and without animus revertendi. Thus, an unlawful taking takes place when
the owner or juridical possessor does not give his consent to the taking; or, if the consent was given, it
was vitiated.

10
 In the last scenario, the receivers act could be considered as having been executed without the
consent of the giver. SEEs testimony clearly evinced his assent to TANs taking of the car not only at the
time he yielded the physical possession thereof for the alleged test-driving but even thereafter, for he
neither withheld his consent nor withdrew the same during the seven-month period the car was with
TAN. At the very least, SEE tolerated TAN's possession of the car.

A contrary conclusion inspires only disbelief. For if the car was truly carnapped, why did SEE wait
for seven months before he reported the same? Further, TAN’s alleged refusal to meet SEE despite his
repeated attempts to do so should have sufficiently alerted him of the formers supposed malevolent
intent, yet he still did not report the taking. Even if he failed to report the taking, months after the alleged
test-driving, he had allegedly seen his car in the initial stages of dismemberment on 19 May 1993 yet,
again, he did not report the carnapping on that day nor on the next, but much later on 7 June 1993 or
almost a month thereafter.

--o--

G.R. No. 142380. September 5, 2002

PEOPLE vs LOBITANIA

Facts:

That on or about December 6, 1998, in the City or Urdaneta and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused SPO1 Danilo Lobitania with grave abuse of authority being a member of the
Navotas PNP-NPD Command, Navotas, Metro Manila, together with three still unidentified companions,
armed with firearms by means of force and intimidation with intent to gain, conspiring with one another,
did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take, steal and carry away one Yamaha motorized
tricycle with Plate No. 2N-7910 owned by David Sarto and driven at the time by Alexander de Guzman
against the latter’s will and without his consent and on the occasion of the carnapping or by reason
thereof, accused with intent to kill, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength conspiring with
one another, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously box, hogtie, shoot and push out of
the moving tricycle which caused the instantaneous death of said Alexander de Guzman, to the damage
and prejudice of his heirs.
The trial court rendered a decision finding accused-appellant of the crime of aggravated carnapping with
murder.

Held:

The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the anti -carnapping law, and not by the
provisions on qualified theft or robbery.

After a thorough review of the records, we find that the prosecution was able to prove that
accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Based on the facts proven, the offense committed by
accused-appellant is the special complex crime of qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated
form under Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1992, as amended by Section
20 of Republic Act No. 7659, the Death Penalty Law, which took effect on 31 December 1993.

11
 In Section 2 of R. A. 6536 as amended, defines the crime of carnapping 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. It becomes qualified when in the course
of the commission or on occasion of the carnapping, the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
vehicle is killed or raped. When the carnapping is qualified, the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua
to death.

In the case at bar, all the elements were duly proven by the prosecution. Based on the testimony
of Sanchez, accused-appellant and his companions shot the driver of the tricycle, abandoned him and took
possession of the vehicle. The testimony of Sanchez that the driver was unknown to the group clearly
establishes the fact that the motive of accused-appellant was to steal the tricycle and that the killing of
the driver was incidental thereto.

--o--

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

PEOPLE vs BUSTINERA

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.

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

12
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

--o--

G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016

PEOPLE vs URZAIS

Facts:

Accused-appellant, together with co-accused Alex Bautista and Ricky Bautista, was charged with
Violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539, otherwise known as the Anti -Carnapping Act of 1972, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659, with homicide through the use of an unlicensed firearm.

November 13, 2002 in Cabanatuan City the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with
and abetting one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away, a Isuzu Highlander with Plate
No. UUT-838 car, colored Forest Green owned by and belonging to said MARIO MAGDATO, against his
will and consent and to his damage and prejudice in the aforestated amount of P500,000.00, and on the
occasion of the carnapping, did assault and use personal violence upon the person of one MARIO
MAGDATO, that is, by shooting the latter with an unlicensed firearm, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot
wound on the head which caused his death.

SPO2 Figueroa of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Cabanatuan City, testified concerning the
circumstances surrounding accused-appellant's arrest. He stated that in November 2002, their office
received a "flash alarm" from the Bulacan PNP about an alleged carnapped Isuzu Highlander in forest
green color. Thereafter, their office was informed that the subject vehicle had been seen in the AGL
Subdivision, Cabanatuan City. Thus, a team conducted surveillance there and a checkpoint had been set
up outside its gate. Around three o'clock in the afternoon of 20 November 2002, a vehicle that fit the
description of the carnapped vehicle appeared. The officers apprehended the vehicle and asked the driver,
accused-appellant, who had been alone, to alight therefrom. When the officers noticed the accused
appellant’s waist to be bulging of something, he was ordered to raise his shirt and a gun was discovered
tucked there. The officers confiscated the unlicensed 9mm Norinco, with magazine and twelve (12) live
ammunitions. The officers confirmed that the engine of the vehicle matched that of the victim's.

13
 Accused-appellant testified that he had ordered in October 2002 from brothers Alex and Ricky
Bautista, an owner-type jeepney worth P60,000.00 for use in his business. The brothers, however,
allegedly delivered instead a green Isuzu Highlander around half past three o'clock in the afternoon of 13
November 2002. The brothers told accused-appellant that his P60,000.00 would serve as initial payment
with the remaining undetermined amount to be paid a week after. Accused-appellant agreed to this,
amazed that he had been given a new vehicle at such low price. Accused-appellant then borrowed money
from someone to pay the balance but the brothers never replied to his text messages. On 16 November
2002, his friend Oscar Angeles advised him to surrender the vehicle as it cou ld be a "hot car."
Accusedappellant was initially hesitant to this idea as he wanted to recover the amount he had paid but
he eventually decided to sell the vehicle. He removed its plate number and placed a "for sale" sign at the
back.

On 18 November 2002, he allegedly decided to surrender the vehicle upon advice by a certain
Angie. But when he arrived home in the afternoon of that day, he alleged that he was arrested by Alex
Villareal, a member of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.
Accused-appellant also testified that he found out in jail the owner of the vehicle and his unfortunate
demise.On cross-examination, accused-appellant admitted that his real name is "Michael Tapayan y
Baguio" and that he used the name Fabian Urzais to secure a second passport in 2001 to be able to return
to Taiwan.

Held:

In the instant case, the Court finds the charge of carnapping unsubstantiated for failure of the
prosecution to prove all its elements. For one, the trial court's decision itself makes no mention of any
direct evidence indicating the guilt of accused-appellant. Indeed, the CA confirmed the lack of such direct
evidence.22 Both lower courts solely based accused-appellant's conviction of the special complex crime
on one circumstantial evidence and that is, the fact of his possession of the allegedly carnapped vehicle.

The Court notes that the prosecution's evidence only consists of the fact of the victim's
disappearance, the discovery of his death and the details surrounding accused -appellant's arrest on
rumors that the vehicle he possessed had been carnapped. There’s i s absolutely no evidence supporting
the prosecution's theory that the victim's vehicle had been carnapped, much less that the
accusedappellant is the author of the same.

Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted, but for circumstantial
evidence to sustain a conviction, following are the guidelines: (1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
circumstances is as such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Decided cases expound
that the circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to
one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person. All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every
other rationale except that of guilt.

In the case at bar, notably there is only one circumstantial evidence. And this sole circumstantial
evidence of possession of the vehicle does not lead to an inference exclusively consistent with guilt.
Fundamentally, prosecution did not offer any iota of evidence detailing the seizure of the vehicle, much

14
less with accused-appellant's participation. In fact, there is even a variance concerning how accused
appellant was discovered to be in possession of the vehicle.

--o--

G.R. No. 163437, 13 February 2008

PIDELI vs PEOPLE

Facts:

Placido Cancio (Placido) and Wilson Pideli (Wilson) were partners and subcontractors in a rip
rapping and spillway project at Benguet. Petitioner Ernesto Pideli extended his credit limit with the Mt.
Trail Farm Supply and Hardware (MTFSH) to Placido and Wilson for their purchase of construction
materials. After the release of the final payment to Wilson and Placido, they calculated their expenses and
realized a net income of P130, 000.00. This was fully entrusted to the custody of Pideli for the settlement
of their account with MTFHS. Pideli was instructed that the balance should be delivered to Wilson and
Placido. The two, however, did not anymore receive anything from Pideli. They were informed that
nothing was left from the proceeds after the settlement of their account. A criminal complaint was filed
against him and the Regional Trial Court found Pideli guilty of the crime of theft. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Held:

Petition DISMISSED.

The elements of theft are as follows:

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.

There is, here, a confluence of the elements of theft. Petitioner received the final payment due the
partners Placido and Wilson under the pretext of paying off their obligation with the MTFSH. Under the
terms of their agreement, petitioner was to account for the remaining balance of the said funds and give
each of the partners their respective shares. He, however, failed to give private complainant Placi do what
was due him under the construction contract.

In an effort to exculpate himself, petitioner posits that he cannot be held liable for theft of the
unaccounted funds. The monies subject matter of the complaint pertain to the partnership. As an agent
of partner Wilson, intent to gain cannot be imputed against petitioner.

Although there is misappropriation of funds here, petitioner was correctly found guilty of theft. As
early as U.S. v. De Vera, the Court has consistently ruled that not all misappropriation is estafa.

15
 The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the
accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may be theft even
if the accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or physical
(natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he
has the juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa.

RELATED LAWS

Republic Act No. 6539: Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (Repealed)

Republic Act No. 7659: An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes
- Introduced three amendments to Republic Act No. 6539: (1) the change of the penalty of life
imprisonment to reclusion perpetua to death, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the
phrase in the commission of the carnapping to in the course of the commission of the carnapping
or on the occasion thereof

Republic Act No. 9346: An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines
- In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of
the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

Article 293-305: Robbery

- Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of
robbery.

Article 310: Qualified Theft

- The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those
respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with
grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle
or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

Presidential Decree No. 1612: Anti-Fencing Law of 1979

- is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner
deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him,
to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

16
OTHER INFORMATION REGARDING RA 10883

Section 9. Duty of Collector of Customs to Report.

Within seven (7) days after the arrival of an imported vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block,
chassis or body, the Collector of Customs of a principal port of entry where the imported vehicle or parts
enumerated above are unloaded shall report the shipment to the LTO, specifying the make, type and serial
numbers, if any, of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body, and stating the
names and addresses of the owner or consignee thereof. If the motor vehicle, m otor vehicle engine,
engine block, chassis or body does not bear any serial number, the Collector of Customs concerned shall
hold the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body until it is numbered by the
LTO: Provided, that a PNP clearance shall be required prior to engraving the engine or chassis number.

Section 10. Duty of Importers, Distributors and Sellers of Motor Vehicles to Keep Record of Stocks.

Any person engaged in the importation, distribution, and buying and selling of motor vehicles,
motor vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or body shall keep a permanent record of one’s stocks,
stating therein their type, make and serial numbers, and the names and addresses of the persons from
whom they were acquired and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they are sold, and shall
render accurately a monthly report of his/her transactions in motor vehicles to the LTO.

Section 11. Duty of Manufacturers of Engine Blocks, Chassis or Body to Cause the Numbering of Engine
Blocks, Chassis or Body Manufactured.

Any person engaged in the manufacture of engine blocks, chassis or body shall cause the
numbering of every engine block, chassis or body manufactured in a convenient and conspicuous part
thereof which the LTO may direct for the purpose of uniformity and identification of the factory and shall
submit to the LTO a monthly report of the manufacture and sale of engine blocks, chassis or body.

Section 12. Clearance and Permit Required for Assembly or Rebuilding of Motor Vehicles.

Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild or cause the assembly or rebuilding of a
motor vehicle shall first secure a certificate of clearance from the PNP: Provided, That no such permit shall
be issued unless the applicant shall present a statement under oath containing the type, make and serial
numbers of the engine, chassis and body, if any, and the complete list of the spare parts of the motor
vehicle to be assembled or rebuilt together with the names and addresses of the sources the reof.

In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats, motor bancas, water crafts
and other light water vessels, the applicant shall secure a permit from the PNP, which office shall in turn
furnish the LTO pertinent data concerning the motor vehicle engines including their type, make and serial
numbers.

17
Section 13. Clearance Required for Shipment of Motor Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks,
Chassis or Body.

The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a report to the PNP within seven (7) days upon
boarding all motor vehicles being boarded the “RORO”, ferry, boat, vessel or ship for interisland and
international shipment. The PPA shall not allow the loading of motor vehicles in all interisland and
international shipping vessels without a motor vehicle clearance from the PNP, except cargo trucks and
other trucks carrying goods, Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) -accredited
public utility vehicles (PUV) and other motor vehicles carrying foodstuff and dry goods.

18

COMPARATIVE TABLE
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. 6359) and New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (R.A. 10883)
R.A. 6539
Short title: “Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.”
Definition of Terms
"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is
the erasing, scratching, altering or changing of
the original factory-inscribed serial number on
the motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis
of any motor vehicle. Whenever any motor
vehicle is found to have a serial number on its
motor engine, engine block or chassis which is
different from that which is listed in the records
of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicles
imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle
shall be considered to have a defaced or
tampered with serial number.
Section 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person
who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is
defined in Section two of this Act, shall,
irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken,
be punished by imprisonment for not less than
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and not
more than seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months, when the carnapping is committed
without violence or intimidation of persons, or
force upon things; and by imprisonment for not
less than seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months and not more than thirty (30) years,
when the carnapping is committed by means of
violence against or intimidation of any person, or
force upon things; and the penalty of life
imprisonment to death shall be imposed when
the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the
carnapping.
ANNEX A
R.A. 10883
“New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016”
Added Terms
(d) Identity transfer
(i) Second hand spare parts
(j) Total wreck
(k) Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates
Sec. 3 (separate provision for the definition of
“Carnapping”
New Penalties
Sec. 3:
Not less that twenty (20) years and one (1) day
but not more than thirty (30) years, if committed
without violence against or intimidation of
persons, or force upon things;
Not less that twenty (30) years and one (1) day
but not more than thirty (40) years, if committed
with violence against or intimidation of persons,
or force upon things;
Life imprisonment, when owner, driver, or
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed
or raped in the commission of the carnapping
Bail denied when the evidence of guilt is strong
For persons charged with carnapping or when the
crime of carnapping is committed by criminal
groups, gangs, or syndicates or by means of
violence or intimidation of any person/s or force
19

Section 4. Permanent registry of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis. The Land
Transportation Commission shall keep a
permanent registry of motor vehicle engines,
engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles,
specifying therein their type, make and serial
numbers and stating therein the names and
addresses of their present and previous owners.
Copies of the registry and of all entries made
thereon shall be furnished the Philippine
Constabulary and all Land Transportation
Commission regional, provincial and city branch
offices: Provided, That all Land Transportation
Commission regional, provincial and city branch
offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all
registration of motor vehicles to the main office
and to the Philippine Constabulary.
Section 5. Registration of sale, transfer,
conveyance, substitution or replacement of a
motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis.
Every sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or
replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be
registered with the Land Transportation
Commission. Motor vehicles assembled and
rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor
vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not
registered with the Land Transportation
Commission shall not be issued certificates of
registration and shall be considered as untaxed
imported motor vehicles or motor vehicles
carnapped or proceeding from illegal sources.
upon things; or when owner, driver, passenger or
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed
or raped in the course of the carnapping
New Offense:
Sec. 4. Concealment of Carnapping
Penalty:
Six (6) years up to twelve (12) years, and a fine
equal to the amount of the acquisition cost of the
motor vehicle, engine or any other part involved
in the violation
Sec. 7. Permanent registry of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis.
Additional Clause
Provided further, That the original copy of the
certificate of registration shall be given to the
registered owner, the second copy shall be
retained with the LTO and the third copy shall be
submitted to the PNP. Moreover, it shall be
unlawful for any person or employee who
willfully encodes in the registry of motor vehicles
a non-existing vehicle or without history, new
identity of already existing vehicle or
double/multiple registration (“KAMBAL”) of
vehicle.
Sec. 8. Registration of sale, transfer, conveyance,
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle
engine, engine block or chassis. Every sale,
transfer, conveyance, substitution or
replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be
registered with the Land Transportation Office
within twenty (20) working days upon
purchase/acquisition of a motor vehicle and
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle
engine, engine block or chassis. A motor vehicle,
motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis
not registered with the LTO shall be presumed
as a carnapped vehicle, an untaxed imported
vehicle, or a vehicle proceeding from illegal
sources unless proven otherwise and shall be
confiscated in favor of the government.
20
Section 7. Duty of Collector of Customs to report
arrival of imported motor vehicle, etc.
Section 12. Defacing or tampering with serial
numbers of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks
and chassis. It shall be unlawful for any person to
deface or otherwise tamper with the original or
registered serial number of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis.
Sec. 9
Additional clause:
Provided, That a PNP clearance shall be required
prior to engraving the engine or chassis number.
Defacing or tampering with serial numbers of
motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis. (Sec. 14)
Identity Transfer (Sec. 15)
Transfer of Vehicle Plate (Sec. 16)
Sale of Secondhand Spare Parts (Sec. 17)
Foreign Nationals, Deportation (Sec. 18)
21