View full case

PEOPLE v. LUISITO D. BUSTINERA

FACTS:

Appellant Luisito D. Bustinera was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft for the unlawful taking of a Daewoo Racer GTE Taxi. On December 25, 1996, appellant, who was employed as a taxi driver by Elias S. Cipriano, took a Daewoo Racer taxi but did not return it on the same day as he was supposed to. Cipriano went to appellant's house the following day but did not find the taxi there. He then reported the missing taxi to the police.

On January 9, 1997, appellant's wife informed Cipriano that the taxi had been abandoned in Regalado Street, Lagro, Quezon City. Cipriano recovered the taxi.

Appellant claims that he returned the taxi on January 5, 1997, and paid a partial amount of the boundary fee, but the trial court found him guilty of qualified theft.

The appellant was convicted of qualified theft for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. However, it was argued that Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, which covers qualified theft, has been modified by Republic Act No. 6539 or the Anti-Carnapping Act.

The appellant claimed that the crime should be considered under the anti-carnapping law instead of qualified theft.

The elements of theft and carnapping were discussed, and it was emphasized that carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle.

Previous cases involving the unlawful taking of motor vehicles were cited, where it was held that such cases are covered by the anti-carnapping law and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.

It was also noted that the anti-carnapping law is a special law separate from the crime of robbery.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the crime committed by the appellant should be considered as qualified theft or carnapping.

  2. Whether the designation of the offense in the information as qualified theft is a fatal defect.

  3. Whether there was intent to gain in the taking of the taxi without the owner's consent.

  4. Whether the appellant returned the taxi on January 5, 1997.

  5. Whether the provisions of the Revised Penal Code can be applied suppletorily to Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972).

  6. Whether the penalty for the crime of carnapping should be an indeterminate sentence.

RULING:

  1. The crime committed by the appellant should be considered as carnapping. The anti-carnapping law specifically addresses the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, whether the taking was done with or without the use of force upon things. The unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is now covered by the anti-carnapping law and not by the provisions on qualified theft. Since the appellant was accused of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, which does not fall within the exceptions mentioned in the anti-carnapping law, the crime committed is carnapping.

  2. The designation of the offense in the information as qualified theft is not a fatal defect. While it is necessary that the statutory designation be stated in the information, a mistake in the caption of an indictment in designating the correct name of the offense is not fatal. The facts alleged in the information determine the real nature of the crime. In this case, the information alleges every element of the crime of carnapping, and the prosecution proved the same.

  3. The Court held that intent to gain or animus lucrandi is presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as long as there is intent to gain. The mere use of the thing taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain. Therefore, the appellant's claim that there was no intent to gain because he returned the taxi is not convincing.

  4. The Court did not believe the appellant's claim that he returned the taxi on January 5, 1997. Appellant failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claim, such as the alleged record book indicating the return of the taxi and payment of the boundary fee. Furthermore, the trial court's findings of fact are accorded the highest degree of respect on appeal, and the appellant failed to show any clear error or misapplication of facts.

  5. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied suppletorily to Republic Act No. 6539. The anti-carnapping law provides for its own penalties which are distinct and without reference to the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the rules on penalties in the Code cannot suppletorily apply to special laws like Republic Act No. 6539.

  6. As for the penalty, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty of 14 years and 8 months, as a minimum, to 17 years and 4 months, as a maximum. Under Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), if the offense is punishable by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The elements of carnapping are: (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.

  • Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle.

  • The anti-carnapping law is a special law that specifically deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles.

  • Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

  • The designation of the offense in the information is not controlling, but the facts alleged in the information determine the real nature of the crime.

  • Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is presumed from the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as long as there is intent to gain.

  • The use of a thing taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain.

  • Findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect on appeal.

  • The provisions of the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied suppletorily to special laws that provide for their own penalties.

  • If the offense is punishable by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same.