Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 148233. June 8, 2004.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
285
CARPIOMORALES, J.:
1
From the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 217,
Quezon City finding appellant Luisito D. 2 Bustinera guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft for the unlawful
taking of a Dae
_______________
286
_______________
287
_______________
288
_______________
9 Ibid.
10 Id., at pp. 910.
11 Id., at p. 10.
12 TSN, October 9, 2000 at p. 8.
13 Ibid. On crossexamination however, appellant later claimed that the
amount he gave was P2,500.00.
14 TSN, October 9, 2000 at p. 18.
15 Id., at p. 8.
16 Id., at p. 21.
17 Id., at p. 20.
18 Id., at p. 9.
19 Ibid.
20 Id., at p. 26.
289
I.
II.
_______________
21 Id., at p. 29.
22 Id., at p. 30.
23 Ibid.
24 Records at p. 93.
25 Rollo at p. 40.
290
_______________
26 People vs. Salvador, 398 SCRA 394, 412 (2003); People vs. Napalit,
396 SCRA 687, 699 (2003); People vs. Galigao, 395 SCRA 195, 204 (2003).
27 Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6539 as amended defines motor vehicle
as follows:
“Motor vehicle” is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power
using the public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, streetsweepers,
sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and
cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracts,
and tractors, trailers and reaction engines of all kinds used exclusively for
agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or
intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as
separate motor vehicle with no power rating. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
291
32
jurisprudence,
33
as this Court explained in City of Naga v.
Agna, viz.:
_______________
292
_______________
36 Id., at p. 364.
37 People v. Napalit, supra at p. 700; People vs. Calabroso, 340 SCRA 332, 342
(2000).
38 People v. Lobitania, 388 SCRA 417, 432 (2002).
39 People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 132788, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 84;
People vs. Sia, 370 SCRA 123, 134 (2001); People vs. Santos, 333 SCRA 319, 334
(2000).
40 323 SCRA 30 (2000).
41 388 SCRA 417 (2002).
293
has been taken, with intent to gain, without the owner’s consent,
whether the taking was done with or without the use of force
upon things. Without the anticarnapping law, such unlawful
taking of a motor vehicle would fall within the purview of either
theft or robbery42which was certainly the case before the enactment
of said statute. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations
omitted.)
_______________
42 People vs. Lobitania, 388 SCRA 417, 432 (2002); People vs. Tan, 323
SCRA 30, 39 (2000).
43 Vide Izon v. People, 107 SCRA 118, 123 (1981) where this Court said
the following:
294
Theft should not be confused with estafa. According to Chief Justice Ramon C.
Aquino in his book on the Revised Penal Code, “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. (Emphasis and italics supplied;
citation omitted)
295
_______________
296
Q: So, when did you learn that the company was not
agreeable to your making use of the taxicab without
first returning it to the company?
A: Before the new year, sir.
Q: When you said new year, you were referring to January
1, 1997?
A: Either December 29 or December 30, 1996, sir.
Q: So, are you telling us that even if you knew
already that the company was not agreeable to
your making use of the taxicab continually (sic)
without returning the same to the company, you
still went ahead and make (sic) use of it and
returned it only on January 5, 1997.
50
A: Yes, sir. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
_______________
297
55
In Villacorta v. Insurance Commission which was
reiterated in Association of Baptists for World
56
Evangelism,
Inc. v. Fieldmen’s Insurance Co., Inc., Justice Claudio
Teehankee (later Chief Justice), interpreting the theft
clause of an insurance policy, explained that, when one
takes the motor vehicle of another without the latter’s
consent even if the motor vehicle is later returned,
there is theft, there being intent to gain as the use of the
thing unlawfully taken constitutes gain:
_______________
In one robbery case, it was held that there must be permanency in the taking, or in the
intent for the asportation, of the stolen property (People v. Kho Choc, CA, 50 O.G. 1667).
In several theft cases, there were divided opinions, one line of cases holding that the
intent of the taking was to permanently deprive the owner thereof (People v. Galang, CA, 43
O.G. 577; People v. Rico, CA, 50 O.G. 3103, cf. People v. Roxas, CAG.R. No. 14953, Oct. 31,
1956). The contrary group of cases argued that there was no need for permanency
in the taking or in its intent, as the mere disturbance of the proprietary rights of
the owner was already apoderamiento (People v. Fernandez, CA, 38 O.G. 985; People v.
Martisano, CA, 48 O.G. 4417).
The second line of cases holding that there need be no intent to permanently
deprive the owner of his property was later adopted by the Supreme Court, in
construing the theft clause in an insurance policy, and ruling that there was criminal
liability for theft even if the car was taken out only for a joyride but without the owner’s
knowledge or consent. (Villacorta v. Insurance Comm., et al., G.R. No. 54171, Oct. 28, 1980,
100 SCRA 467; Ass’n of Baptists for World Evangelism v. Fieldmen’s Ins. Co., Inc., G.R. No.
L28772, Sept. 21, 1983, 124 SCRA 618). (Emphasis supplied)
298
_______________
299
_______________
Just like appellant Williams, she sought to buttress her aforesaid contention by
lamenting the alleged failure of the State to present in the trial court her baggage
declaration and the confiscation receipt involving these pieces of her baggage. In
the first place, it was not the duty of the prosecution to present these alleged
documents on which she relies for her defense. And, just as in the case of
appellant Williams, it is a source of puzzlement why she never sought to
compel either the prosecutors to produce the aforesaid documents which
were allegedly in the possession of the latter or the customs office where
such declarations are on file. Contrary to her argument hereon, since
such pieces of evidence were equally available to both parties if sought
by
300
301
_______________
302
_______________
enteen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when
the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation
of any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the
carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission
of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. (Emphasis and italics
supplied)
69 SECTION 1. Hereinafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an
offense punishable by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the
court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code,
and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is
punished by any other 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 shall not
be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (Emphasis
and italics supplied).
70 People v. Panida, 310 SCRA 66, 99 (1999).
303
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.