Carnapping, definition. – “Section 2 of RA 6539 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 crime of carnapping with homicide is punishable under Section 14 of the said law, as amended by Section 20 of RA 7659. To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and killing was perpetrated “in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.”[1]
Application . “There is no arguing that the anti-carnapping law is a special law, different from the crimes 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 with: unlawful taking, intent to gain, and that personal property belonging to another is taken without the latter’s consent. However, the anti-carnapping 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 violence or intimidation of persons or 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 law.”[2]
Motorized tricycle using public highways. – “Highways are always public., free for the use of every person. There is nothing in the law that requires a license to use a public highway to make the vehicle a “motor vehicle” within the definition given the anti-carnapping law. If a vehicle uses the streets with or without the required license, same comes within the protection of the law, for the severity of the offense is not to be measured by what kind of streets or highway the same is used, but by the very nature of the vehicle itself and the use to which it is devoted. Otherwise, cars using the streets but still unlicensed or unregistered as when they have just been bought from the company, or only on test runs, may be stolen without the penal sanctions of the anti-carnapping statute, but under the provision of the Revised Penal Code, This obviously could not have been the intention of the anti-carnapping law.
Going over the enumerations of excepted vehicle, it would readily be noted that any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are public, not exclusively for public use, comes within the concept of motor vehicle. A tricycle which is not included in the exception, is thus deemed to be that motor vehicle as defined in the law the stealing of which comes within its penal sanction.”[3]
Felonious taking,. – “A felonious taking may be defined as the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of movable property without his privity and consent and without animus revertendi. Thus, an unlawful taking takes place when the owner or juridical possessor does not give his consent to the taking; or, if the consent was given, it was vitiated, or in the case of Roxas, Trinidad and de Vera, where an act of by the receiver soon after the actual transfer of possession constitutes unlawful taking[4]
Unlawful taking. – Unlawful taking, or apoderamineto, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the things, even if has no opportunity to dispose of the same.[5]
Intent to gain. – “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.”[6] (Citations omitted)
“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.[7]
“The application of disputable presumption found in Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act, in this case the alleged carnapping and the homicide/murder of its owner, is limited to cases where such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in independent evidence inconsistent thereto.”[8]
A violation of a special law, such as RA 6539, is not governed by the rules of penalties under the RPC. Thus, in Turalba v. Villegas[9], the accused’s invocation of insanity, which was proven to be not true, was not considered in the imposition of the penalty for Estafa.
While accused convicted the accused of qualified theft instead of carnapping, and the information alleges grave abuse of confidence, the same cannot be appreciated against the accused as the suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 10 of said Code, cannot be invoked when there is a legal impossibility of application, either by express provision or by necessary implication.[10]
Where accused are charged in two separate Information, one for Murder and one for carnapping, and not carnapping in aggravated form, they may only be convicted of the two separate crimes, although the facts showed that they killed the driver of the carnapped vehicle in the commission of the carnapping.[11]
[1] People v. Nocum, et al. G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013; People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004
[2] People v. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, January 21, 2000; cited in People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004
[3] Izon and Milla v. People, G.R. No. L-51370, August 31, 1981
[4] People v. Tan, G.R. no. 135904, January 21, 2000
[5] People v. Ellasos, 358 SCRA 516 (2001) cited in People v., Bustonera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004
[6] People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004
[7] People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004
[8] People v. Geron, 346 Phil. 14, cited in People v. Urzais, et al., G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016
[9] G.R. No. 216453, March 16, 2020
[10] People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 574 (1994) cited in People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004
[11] People v. Paramil, et. Al, G.R. Nos. 128056-57, March 31, 2000