Facts: Luisito D. Bustinera, while employed as a taxi driver for Elias S. Cipriano’s taxi company, ESC Transport, was entrusted to drive a Daewoo Racer with the agreement to return it daily after his shift, along with the boundary fee payment. On December 25, 1996, Bustinera failed to return the taxi as required and did not reappear until his wife notified the company on January 9, 1997, that the vehicle was abandoned on Regalado Street, Quezon City. Bustinera claimed he returned the taxi on January 5, 1997, and paid part of the boundary fee, even leaving his driver’s license with Cipriano as assurance. The trial court convicted Bustinera of qualified theft with grave abuse of confidence, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. Bustinera appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Was there a concrete basis for concluding that Bustinera had intent to gain by failing to return the taxi?
2. Was the conviction for qualified theft versus carnapping appropriate?
3. Was the application of the penalty for qualified theft correct?
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, finding Bustinera guilty of carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539, as the taking of the motor vehicle falls under this law rather than the provisions of qualified theft in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The facts constituted the elements of carnapping: unlawful taking without consent and with intent to gain. The court held that intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking, and that actual gain is irrelevant. It was decided that the use of the taxi itself, without the owner’s consent, constituted gain. Moreover, the Court found no error in the trial court’s factual findings but corrected the legal conclusion and corresponding penalty. Bustinera was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 14 years and 8 months as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum.
Doctrine:
The crime of theft is qualified when the property stolen is a motor vehicle. However, the taking of motor vehicles is specifically addressed by the anti-carnapping law, Republic Act No. 6539, which defines “carnapping” and prescribes penalties distinct from those for theft under the Revised Penal Code. When a statute addressing a specific matter is in place, it supersedes the general provisions of the Revised Penal Code for theft.
Historical Background:
In both the Revised Penal Code and the special law on carnapping, the Philippine legislature sought to address different forms of theft. The anti-carnapping law was enacted to provide stiffer penalties and specific treatment for the theft of motor vehicles, recognizing the increasing incidence and severity of this crime.
Class Notes:
Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified theft may occur when there is grave abuse of confidence, and the penalty is two degrees higher than that specified for theft. For carnapping, under Republic Act No. 6539, the taking of a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent or through force with intent to gain is punished more severely, reflecting the seriousness of the crime. The Supreme Court in this case interprets the law broadly, ensuring that special laws like the anti-carnapping law are applied in relevant cases to fulfill the legislative intent. The case also serves as a precedent in determining proper characterizations of vehicle-related thefts and applying the correct penal statutes, thus providing guidance for legal practitioners and law enforcement in similar future cases.
Leave a Reply