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 Revised Penal Code are: (1) that there be takin of personal propert!" (#) that said propert! belon s to another" (3) that the takin be done $ith intent to ain" (%) that the takin be done $itho&t the consent of the o$ner" and (') that the takin be accomplished $itho&t the &se of violence a ainst or intimidation of persons or force &pon thin s(
)3'*

Theft is +&alified $hen an! of the follo$in circ&mstances is present: (1) the theft is committed b! a domestic servant" (#) the theft is committed $ith rave ab&se of confidence" (3) the propert! stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or lar e 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! $as taken on the occasion of fire, earth+&ake, t!phoon, volcanic er&ption, or an! other calamit!, vehic&lar accident or civil dist&rbance(
)3-*

.n the other hand, /ection # of Rep&blic Act 0o( -'31, as amended defines 2carnappin 3 as 2the takin , $ith intent to ain, of a motor vehicle belon in to another $itho&t the latter4s consent, or b! means of violence a ainst or intimidation of persons, or b! &sin force &pon thin s(3 The elements of carnappin are th&s: (1) the takin of a motor vehicle $hich belon s to another" (#) the takin is $itho&t the consent of the o$ner or b! means of violence a ainst or intimidation of persons or b! &sin force &pon thin s" and (3) the takin is done $ith intent to ain(
)35*

Carnappin is essentiall! the robber! or theft of a motori6ed vehicle, the concept of &nla$f&l takin in theft, robber! and carnappin bein the same(
)38* )31*

7n the #000 case of People v. Tan $here the acc&sed took a 8its&bishi 9allant and in the later case of People v. Lobitania $hich involved the takin of a :amaha motori6ed tric!cle, this Co&rt held that the &nla$f&l takin of motor vehicles is no$ covered b! the anti;carnappin la$ and not b! the provisions on +&alified theft or robber!(
)%0* )%1*

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 anticarnapping 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

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$f&l takin of motor vehicles, it e<cepts from its covera e certain vehicles s&ch as roadrollers, trolle!s, street;s$eepers, sprinklers, la$n mo$ers, amphibian tr&cks and cranes if not &sed on p&blic hi h$a!s, vehicles $hich r&n onl! on rails and tracks, and tractors, trailers and tractor en ines of all kinds and &sed e<cl&sivel! for a ric&lt&ral p&rposes( =! implication, the theft or robber! of the fore oin vehicles $o&ld be covered b! Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and the provisions on robber!, respectivel!(
)%3*

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7ntent to ain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, pres&med from the &nla$f&l takin of the motor vehicle( Act&al ain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to ain( The term 2 ain3 is not merel! limited to pec&niar! benefit b&t also incl&des the benefit $hich in an! other sense ma! be derived or e<pected from the act $hich is performed( Th&s, the mere &se of the thin $hich $as taken $itho&t the o$ner?s consent constit&tes ain(
)'1* )'#* )'3* )'%*

7n Villacorta v. Insurance Commission $hich $as reiterated in Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. v. ieldmen!s Insurance Co, Inc (, @&stice Cla&dio Teehankee (later Chief @&stice), interpretin the theft cla&se of an ins&rance polic!, e<plained that, $hen one takes the motor vehicle of another $itho&t the latter?s consent even if the motor vehicle is later returned , there is theft, there bein intent to ain as the &se of the thin &nla$f&ll! taken constit&tes ain:
)''* )'-*

'ssuming, despite the totally inade(uate evidence, that the taking was temporary! and for a )*oy ride+, the ,ourt sustains as the better view that which holds that when a person, either with the ob*ect of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or en*oying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction, en"oyment and pleasure# $ustice Ramon C# %&uino cites in his work 'roi(ard who holds that the use of a thing constitutes gain and Cuello Calon who calls it hurt de uso.+ #$mphasis and underscoring supplied% citation omitted&
[-." [-/"

Th&s, in People v. Panida $hich involved the crime of carnappin and the penalt! imposed $as the indeterminate sentence of 1% !ears and 8 months, as minim&m, to 15 !ears and % months, as ma<im&m, this Co&rt did not appl! the provisions of the Revised Penal Code s&ppletoril! as the anti;carnappin la$ provides for its o$n penalties $hich are distinct and $itho&t reference to the said Code(
)--*

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