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 or not appellant is guilty 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 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.