Santos v. People deemed spurious as there were alterations and deletions.
The Court believed
January 29, 1990 | Theft | Joses
Recit-ready Summary:
Encarnacion Peñalosa entrusted her 1976 Ford Escort to petitioner
Lauro Santos for repair of the carburetor. The work was to cost P300. A
week later, Santos persuaded Peñalosa to have her car painted by him for
P6,500, within a period of two months. After two months have passed,
Peñalosa went to Santos’ repair shop at MacArthur Highway, Malabon, to
retrieve her car. Santos refused to deliver her car unless she paid him
P634.60 for the repairs. Peñalosa left the shop to get the needed payment.
When she returned, she could not find Santos. She went back to the shop
several times thereafter but to no avail. Later on, Peñalosa learned that
Santos had abandoned his shop. Peñalosa, unable to recover her car, filed a
complaint for carnapping against Santos with the Constabulary Highway
Patrol Group in Camp Crame. However, the case was dismissed when
Santos convinced the military authorities that Peñalosa sold the vehicle to
him by showing a Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase in Santos’ favor.
Peñalosa filed an information for estafa against Santos with RTC Quezon
City. The RTC found Santos guilty of estafa but on appeal, the conviction
was affirmed but Santos was held guilty of qualified theft and not estafa.
The issue in this case is whether or not Santos is guilty of qualified
theft. The SC ruled in the negative, Santos is guilty of theft only. The
offense imputed to Santos contained all the essential elements of theft but
cannot be said to be a qualified theft because the object of the crime, which
was the car, was not alleged in the information as a qualifying
circumstance. Neither does Santos can be guilty of estafa since Santos was
entrusted only with the material or physical or de facto possession of the car
and not the juridical possession.
Relevant Issue/s: W/N Santos is guilty of qualified theft? NO, theft only.
Holding: The appellate court erroneously held Santos guilty of qualified
theft because the object of the crime, a car, was not alleged in the
information as a qualifying circumstance. However, he is guilty of theft.
When Peñalosa delivered her car to Santos, she was not issued a receipt by
the latter. Also, there was no proof of the payment of P6,500. Santos cannot
be guilty of qualified theft because the fact that the object of the crime was
a car was not alleged in the information as a qualifying circumstance The
Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase document executed by Santos was
that Peñalosa intended to sell her car to Domingo Corsiga with the
document, but then changed her mind. This document was left in her car
and Santos decided to modify it for his benefit. If he claimed that he already
bought the car from Peñalosa, why would he ask for the cost of the repairs?
It was also seen that Santos was unable to register the car in his name
despite the lapse of two years after his alleged purchase. Since Santos was
entrusted only with the material or physical or de facto possession of the
car, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft. But if the has the
juridical possession, his conversion of the same constitutes estafa.
Doctrine:
THEFT VS ESTAFA - The offense imputed to Santos contains all the
essential elements of theft: (1) that there be a taking of personal property;
(2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with
intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons or force upon things. Misappropriation of
personal property received by the accused with consent of the owner is theft
or carnapping if his possession is physical or de facto, or estafa through
misappropriation if it is legal or de jure. If the accused received the car from
the owner for repair the possession is physical, and thus, misappropriation
thereof is (theft) carnapping.
ARTICLE 308 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by any person
who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property,
shall fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously
damaged the property of another, shall remove or
make use of the fruits or object of the damage
caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or
a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another and without the consent of its
 owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall
gather cereals, or other forest or farm products

ARTICLE 301 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the
penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the
next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave
abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter
or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the
plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on
the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.