Theft vs Robbery. – “The crime of theft is akin to the crime of robbery. The only difference is in robbery there is force upon things or violence or intimidation against persons in taking of personal properties. In the crime of theft the taking of the personal property with intent to gain is without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things and the taking shall be without the consent of the owner. In robbery, the taking is against the will of the owner.”[1]
Theft distinguished from Estafa. – “Theft should not be confused with estafa. In general, the two crimes are distinguished by the manner in which the offender in each case acquires possession of the property. The thief takes the item without the owner’s consent. The estafador receives the things and converts it to their own use or benefit. “However, there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property”. The misappropriation constitutes theft if the accused was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing. Whereas, the conversion constitutes embezzlement or estafa if the accused has the juridical possession of the thing.”[2]
x x x The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa.”[3]
Qualified Theft and Money Laundering. – “Under Section 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, qualified theft is one of the unlawful activities from which proceeds could be derived.”[4]
Money laundering different from predicate offense. – Money laundering generally involves a predicate offense. A predicate offense is a crime that is a component of another offense. In money laundering, the predicate offense is usually an unlawful activity that generates proceeds of money or property. In this case, for instance, the predicate offense was qualified theft.
However, the predicate offense in money laundering is distinct from the offense of money laundering, such that the two offenses may be prosecuted in separate criminal actions. This Court takes this occasion to clarify the distinction between the money laundering offense and the unlawful activity from which the proceeds come.[5]
Predicate crimes in Money Laundering are offenses that involve proceeds. – These predicate or related crimes are offenses that involve proceeds—any amount or type of money or property—that can be laundered. Section 3(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act defines proceeds as “an amount derived or realized from an unlawful activity.” In turn, Section 4 of the law only provides that one commits money laundering when they transact the proceeds knowing that this came from an unlawful activity. It does not require that the money launderer should have committed the unlawful activity. It only states that the money launderer should have known that the proceeds came from an unlawful activity. The offense likewise does not require the identity of the persons who commit the unlawful activity; it only requires that the proceeds come from such activity.[6]
Qualified Theft thru Falsification of Commercial Document. – “The falsification of the subject cashier’s check was a necessary means to commit the crime of qualified theft resulting in a complex crime. Hence, we apply Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that, ” x x x where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the more serious crime in its maximum period shall be imposed”[7]
Qualified Theft of large cattle. – P.D. 533 does not supersede the crime of qualified theft of large cattle under Articles 309 and 310 under the Revised Penal Code. It merely modified the penalties provided for qualified theft of large cattle under Article 310 by imposing stiffer penalties thereon under special circumstances. Under Section 8of P.D. 533, any person convicted of cattle rustling shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved, be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.[8]
“The term “cattle” refers to domesticated quadrupeds such as sheep, horses and swine, or to bovine animals such as cows, bulls and steers (Merriam-Webster’s 3rd New Int. Dictionary. The term “large cattle” in article 310 refers to ganado mayor such as mules, distinguished from ganado menor like sheep. Small cattle are known as ganado lanar y cabrio. The terms lanar and cabrio refer to sheep and goats, respectively. (Velasquez, Spanish and English Dictionary, 1967 Edition, pages 124, 354, 421 and 115).
Act No. 2030, which amended articles 503, 508, 512 and 520 of the old Penal Code regarding theft of large cattle, provides that for purposes of that law the term “large cattle” includes “carabaos, horses, mules, asses, and all members of the bovine family”. (Art. 367 of the Revised Penal Code repealed Act No. 2030). 1
According to the dictionary, the word “bovine family” refers to animals related to or resembling oxen or cows. They belong to the genus Bos (Bovidae). While goats may be included in the term “cattle” (Hall vs. Marshall, 27 Pac. 2nd 193, 145 Ore. 221; Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p. 277), or belong to the bovine family, (genus Capra), they cannot be included in the term “large cattle”. To include goats in the term “large cattle” would render meaning less the adjective “large”. The law evidently, has made a distinction between large cattle and small cattle.
As goats cannot be categorized as large cattle, the larceny of two goats valued at P150 is simple theft punishable under article 309[4] of the Revised Penal Code by imprisonment for two months and one day of arresto mayor medium to two years and four months of prision correccional minimum.[9]
Taking of a motor vehicle is now carnapping penalized under RA 6539, as amended – “Theft is qualified when any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.36
On the other hand, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended defines “carnapping” as “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.” The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain.37
Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle,38 the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same.39
In the 2000 case of People v. Tan40 where the accused took a Mitsubishi Gallant and in the later case of People v. Lobitania41which involved the taking of a Yamaha motorized tricycle, this Court held that the unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the anti-carnapping law and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.
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 theft or robbery which was certainly the case before the enactment of said statute.42 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted.)
It is to be noted, however, that while the anti-carnapping law penalizes the unlawful taking of motor vehicles, it excepts from its coverage certain vehicles such as roadrollers, trolleys, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, amphibian trucks and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles which run only on rails and tracks, and tractors, trailers and tractor engines of all kinds and used exclusively for agricultural purposes. By implication, the theft or robbery of the foregoing vehicles would be covered by Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and the provisions on robbery, respectively.43
From the foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and not the provisions of qualified theft which would apply as the said motor vehicle does not fall within the exceptions mentioned in the anti-carnapping law.
The designation in the information of the offense committed by appellant as one for qualified theft notwithstanding, appellant may still be convicted of the crime of carnapping. For while it is necessary that the statutory designation be stated in the information, a mistake in the caption of an indictment in designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal defect as it is not the designation that is controlling but the facts alleged in the information which determines the real nature of the crime.44
In the case at bar, the information alleges that appellant, with intent to gain, took the taxi owned by Cipriano without the latter’s consent.45 Thus, the indictment alleges every element of the crime of carnapping,46 and the prosecution proved the same.[10]
While the nature of appellant’s possession of the taxi was initially lawful as he was hired as a taxi driver and was entrusted possession thereof, his act of not returning it to its owner, which is contrary to company practice and against the owner’s consent transformed the character of the possession into an unlawful one.[11]
[1] Roque v. People, G.R. No. 138954, November 25, 2004
[2] Romorosa v. People, G.R. No. 191039, August 22, 2022, citing Santos v. People, 260 Phil 519 (1990is
[3] Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429, January 29, 1990, citing Aquino, R.C. Vol. III, 1988 ed.., p. 194, also cited in Pideli v. People, G.R. No. 163437, February 13, 2008
[4] Lingad v. People, G.R. no. 224945, October 11, 2022
[5] Lingad v. People, G.R. no. 224945, October 11, 2022
[6] Lingad v. People, G.R. no. 224945, October 11, 2022
[7] People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001
[8] People v. Escarda, et al, G.R. No. 120548, October 26, 2001
[9] People v. Hon Narazeno, G.R. No. L-40037, April 30, 1976
[10] People v. Bustinera, G.R. no. 148233, June 8, 2004
[11] People v. Bustinera, G.R. no. 148233, June 8, 2004