G.R. No. 148233 – 475 Phil. 190 – 431 SCRA 284 – Criminal Law – Book II – Crimes Against Property; Special Penal Laws – Carnapping – Elements; Intent to Gain
Luisito Bustinera was a taxi driver for ESC Transport. His duty starts at 6:00am and ends at 11:00pm. On 25 December 1996, he failed to return the taxi he was driving. The owner then demanded its return but Bustinera failed to return the taxi upon demand. The owner later found the taxi abandoned in Quezon City on 7 January 1997. Thereafter, the owner filed a qualified theft case against Bustinera.
In his defense, Bustinera admitted to have failed to return the taxi on 25 December 1996 as scheduled. He explained that he cannot complete the daily remittance. He was only able to return the taxi on 5 January 1997. He has no intent to gain because he returned the taxi.
The trial court convicted him of qualified theft and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction is proper.
HELD: No. Bustinera should be convicted of carnapping.
Carnapping is the proper offense because the thing stolen is a motor vehicle.
Bustinera’s explanation that he returned the vehicle is not tenable. He did not present any evidence to corroborate his testimony.
Besides, even assuming that Bustinera did return the vehicle, the same is not a defense in carnapping. The crime was already consummated. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term “gain” is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner’s consent constitutes gain.
