Brief Facts:

Accused is charged for violation of R.A. No. 6539, otherwise known

as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, for failure to return a motor
vehicle (bus) that was delivered to him by the owner for him to sell.

Legal Opinion:

In People vs. Artemio Garcia (G.R. No. 138470, 1 April 2003), the
Supreme Court enumerated the elements of the crime of
Carnapping which are:

1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the

vehicle;

3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender

himself;

4. That the TAKING IS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER

THEREOF; or that the TAKING WAS COMMITTED BY MEANS OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS, OR BY USING
FORCE UPON THINGS.

The accused cannot be charged for Carnapping.

First, the possession of the accused of the subject motor vehicle is

with the consent of the owner. By giving the accused the authority
to sell the bus, the owner has given the accused material and
juridical possession of the former.

Further, it need not be stated that there was no violence against or

intimidation of persons, or use of force upon things when the
accused obtained possession of subject vehicle, as the owner, in
fact, gave authority to the accused to gain possession of the subject
motor vehicle for the latter to sell.

Hence, accused cannot be charged for Carnapping.