8/12/2019 Carnapping vs Theft

1/3

PPVS LUISITO D. BUSTINERA, [G. R. No. 148233. June 8, 2004]

The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the RevisedPenal Code are: (1) that there be takin of personal propert!" (#) that said propert!belons to another" (3) that the takin be done $ith intent to ain" (%) that the takin bedone $itho&t the consent of the o$ner" and (') that the takin be accomplished $itho&tthe &se of violence aainst or intimidation of persons or force &pon thins 3'*

Theft is +&alified $hen an! of the follo$in circ&mstances is present: (1) the theft iscommitted b! a domestic servant" (#) the theft is committed $ith rave ab&se ofconfidence" (3) the propert! stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or lare cattle"(%) the propert! stolen consists of cocon&ts taken from the premises of a plantation" (')the propert! stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fisher!" and (-) the propert! $astaken on the occasion of fire, earth+&ake, t!phoon, volcanic er&ption, or an! othercalamit!, vehic&lar accident or civil dist&rbance 3-*

.n the other hand, /ection # of Rep&blic Act o -'3, as amended defines2carnappin as 2the takin, $ith intent to ain, of a motor vehicle belonin to another$itho&t the latter4s consent, or b! means of violence aainst or intimidation of persons,or b! &sin force &pon thins The elements of carnappin are th&s: (1) the takin of amotor vehicle $hich belons to another" (#) the takin is $itho&t the consent of theo$ner or b! means of violence aainst or intimidation of persons or b! &sin force &ponthins" and (3) the takin is done $ith intent to ain 35*

Carnappin is essentiall! the robber! or theft of a motori6ed vehicle, 38*the conceptof &nla$f&l takin in theft, robber! and carnappin bein the same 3*

7n the #000 case of People v. Tan%0* $here the acc&sed took a its&bishi 9allantand in the later case of People v. Lobitania%1* $hich involved the takin of a amahamotori6ed tric!cle, this Co&rt held that the &nla$f&l takin of motor vehicles is no$covered b! the anti;carnappin la$ and not b! the provisions on +&alified theft orrobber!

There is no arguing that the anti-carnapping law is a special law, different from

the crime of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code . It particularly

addresses 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. But a careful comparison of this special law

with the crimes of robbery and theft readily reveals their common features and

characteristics, to wit: unlawful taking, intent to gain, and that personal property

belonging to another is taken without the latter's consent. However, the anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor

vehicles. Hence a motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it 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 anti-carnapping law,

such unlawful taking of a motor vehicle would fall within the purview of either

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/135904.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/135904.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/142380.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/142380.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/135904.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/142380.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn35

8/12/2019 Carnapping vs Theft

2/3

theft or robbery which was certainly the case before the enactment of said

statute.[!"#$mphasis and underscoring supplied% citations omitted.&

7t is to be noted, ho$ever, that $hile the anti;carnappin la$ penali6es the &nla$f&ltakin of motor vehicles, it e>>>>>>>>>>>>

7ntent to ain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, pres&med from the &nla$f&ltakin of the motor vehicle '1*Act&al ain is irrelevant as the important consideration isthe intent to ain'#*The term 2ain is not merel! limited to pec&niar! benefit b&t alsoincl&des the benefit $hich in an! other sense ma! be derived or e

8/12/2019 Carnapping vs Theft

3/3

0he charge being simple carnapping, the imposable penalty is imprisonment for not

less than 1 years and / months and not more than 1 years and months. There can

be no suppletory effect of the rules for the application of penalties under the

Revised Penal Code or by other relevant statutory provisions based on, or

applicable only to, the rules for felonies under the Code# While it is true that the

penalty of )* years and + months to ) years and * months is virtually e&uivalent

to the duration of the medium period of reclusion temporal, such technical term

under the Revised Penal Code is not given to that penalty for carnapping#

esides, the other penalties for carnapping attended by the &ualifying

circumstances stated in the law do not correspond to those in the Code# 0he rules

on penalties in the ode, therefore, cannot suppletorily apply to 2epublic ct 3o.

4-56 and special laws of the same formulation. 7or this reason, we hold that the

proper penalty to be imposed on each of accused8appellants is an indeterminate

sentence of 1 years and / months, as minimum, to 1 years and months, as

ma9imum. [4"#$mphasis and underscoring supplied% citations omitted&

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/148233.htm#_ftn67