people v bustinera

7/25/2019 People v Bustinera

1/13

lawphil

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G. R. No. 148233 June 8, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,appellee,vs.LUISITO D. BUSTINER,appellant.

D E I S I O N

CRPIO MORLES, J.:

!"o# the $ecision%of the Re&ional T"ial ou"t, '"anch (%), *ue+on it fin$in& appellant -uisito D. 'ustine"a&uilt beon$ "easonable $oubt of ualifie$ theft(fo" the unlawful ta/in& of a Daewoo Race" 0TE Ta1i an$sentencin& hi# to suffe" the penalt of "eclusion pe"petua, he co#es to this ou"t on appeal.

In an info"#ation2$ate$ 3une %), %44), appellant was in$icte$ as follows5

The un$e"si&ne$ accuses -6ISITO D. '6STINER7 of the c"i#e of *ualifie$ Theft, co##itte$ asfollows5

That on o" about the (8th $a of Dece#be" up to the 4 th$a of 3anua", %44), in *ue+onit, Philippines, the sai$ accuse$ bein& then e#ploe$ as one 9of: the ta1i D"ive"s ofElias S. ip"iano, an Ope"ato" of seve"al ta1i cabs with business a$$"ess at co"ne" ;;o##onwealth 7venue, ili#an


2/13

75 That we have to b"in& bac/ the ta1i at ni&ht with the boun$a".

*5 How #uch is ou" boun$a"F

75 P)A.AA, si".

*5 On De!e"#e$ 2%, 1&&', ()( *ou #$)n+ ou -n* -)/

75e, )$.

*5 Now, when eve" hat is that so#ethin& ou #entione$F

75 On the "eco"$ boo/ an$ on the $ail t"ip tic/et, si".

*5 Cou sai$ that ou have to "etu"n ou" ta1i at the en$ of the $a, what is then the p"oce$u"e"eflect hat /in$ of ta1iF

75 Daewoo ta1i, si".

*5 Now $i$ ou "etu"n the ta1i on Dece#be" (8, %44@F

75 I was not able to b"in& bac/ the ta1i because I was sho"t of # boun$a", si".@

The followin& $a, Dece#be" (@, %44@, ip"iano went to appellants house to asce"tain wh the ta1i was not

"etu"ne$.

)

7""ivin& at appellants house, he $i$ not fin$ the ta1i the"e, appellants wife tellin& hi# that he"husban$ ha$ not et a""ive$.-eavin& nothin& to chance, ip"iano went to the o##onwealth 7venue policestation an$ "epo"te$ that his ta1i was #issin&.4

On 3anua" 4, %44), appellants wife went to the &a"a&e of ES T"anspo"t an$ "eveale$ that the ta1i ha$ beenaban$one$ in Re&ala$o St"eet, -a&"o, *ue+on it.%Aip"iano lost no ti#e in "epai"in& to Re&ala$o St"eet whe"ehe "ecove"e$ the ta1i.%%

6pon the othe" han$, while appellant $oes not $en that he $i$ not "etu"n the ta1i on Dece#be" (8, %44@ as hewas sho"t of the boun$a" fee, he clai#s that he $i$ not aban$on the ta1i but actuall "etu"ne$ it on 3anua" 8,%44)G%(an$ that on Dece#be" (), %44@, he &ave the a#ount of P(,AAA.AA %2to his wife who# he inst"ucte$ to"e#it the sa#e to ip"iano as pa#ent of the boun$a" fee%;an$ to tell the latte" that he coul$ not "etu"n the ta1i

as he still ha$ a balance the"eof.

%8

7ppellant, howeve", a$#its that his wife info"#e$ hi# that when she went to the &a"a&e to "e#it the boun$a"fee on the ve" sa#e $a


3/13

7ppellant #aintains thou&h that he "etu"ne$ the ta1i on 3anua" 8, %44) an$ si&ne$ the "eco"$ boo/,%whichwas co#pan p"oce$u"e, to show that he in$ee$ "etu"ne$ it an$ &ave his e#ploe" P(,8AA.AA %4as pa"tialpa#ent fo" the boun$a" fee cove"in& the pe"io$ f"o# Dece#be" (8, %44@ to 3anua" 8, %44).

ontinuin&, appellant clai#s that as he still ha$ a balance in the boun$a" fee, he left his $"ive"s license withip"ianoG(Athat as he coul$ not $"ive, which was the onl wo"/ he ha$ eve" /nown, without his $"ive"s license,an$ with the obli&ation to pa the balance of the boun$a" fee still lin&e"in&, his wife sta"te$ wo"/in& on !eb"ua"

%, %44) as a sta?in #ai$ fo" ip"iano, with a #onthl sala" of P%,2AA.AA,

(%

until Ma"ch (@, %44) whenip"iano tol$ he" that she ha$ wo"/e$ off the balance of his obli&ationG((an$ that with his obli&ation e1tin&uishe$,his $"ive"s license was "etu"ne$ to hi#.(2

'"ushin& asi$e appellants clai# that he "etu"ne$ the ta1i on 3anua" 8, %44) an$ that he ha$ in fact pai$ thetotal a#ount of P;,8AA.AA, the t"ial cou"t foun$ hi# &uilt beon$ "easonable $oubt of ualifie$ theft b Decisionof Ma %), (AA%, the $ispositive po"tion of which is uote$ ve"bati#5

>HERE!ORE, Bu$ent is he"eb "en$e"e$ fin$in& accuse$ &uilt beon$ "easonable $oubt ascha"&e$, an$ he is acco"$in&l sentence$ to suffe" the penalt of Reclusion Perpetuaan$ topa the costs.

In the se"vice of his sentence, accuse$ is o"$e"e$ c"e$ite$ with fou"?fifths hen statutes a"e inpari materia(o" when the "elate to the sa#e pe"son o" thin&, o" to the sa#e class ofpe"sons o" thin&s, o" cove" the sa#e specific o" pa"ticula" subBect #atte",(4o" have the sa#e pu"pose o" obBect,2A

the "ule $ictates that the shoul$ be const"ue$ to&ethe" L interpretare et concordare leges legibus, est optimusinterpretandi modus.2%Eve" statute #ust be so const"ue$ an$ ha"#oni+e$ with othe" statutes as to fo"# aunifo"# sste# of Bu"isp"u$ence,2(as this ou"t e1plaine$ in City of Naga v. Agna,22viz5

. . . >hen statutes a"e inpari materia, the "ule of statuto" const"uction $ictates that the shoul$be const"ue$ to&ethe". This is because enact#ents of the sa#e le&islatu"e on the sa#e subBect#atte" a"e suppose$ to fo"# pa"t of one unifo"# sste#G that late" statutes a"e supple#enta" o"co#pli#enta" to the ea"lie" enact#ents an$ in the passa&e of its acts the le&islatu"e issuppose$ to have in #in$ the e1istin& le&islation on the sa#e subBect an$ to have enacte$ itsnew act with "efe"ence the"eto. Havin& thus in #in$ the p"evious statutes "elatin& to the sa#esubBect #atte", wheneve" the le&islatu"e enacts a new law, it is $ee#e$ to have enacte$ the new


4/13

p"ovision in acco"$ance with the le&islative polic e#bo$ie$ in those p"io" statutes unless the"e isan e1p"ess "epeal of the ol$ an$ the all shoul$ be const"ue$ to&ethe". In !on$u)n+ e" eo( -ue $e-)n+ o e -"e u#e! "-e$ ou( #e !o"5-$e( 6) e ne65$o7))on -n( ) 5o)#e #* $e-on-#e !on$u!)on, #o ou( #e o !on$ue( -ee! "-* #e +)7en o e7e$* 5$o7))on o e-!. Ho6e7e$, 6en e ne6 5$o7))on -n( eo( $e-)n+ o e -"e u#e! !-nno #e $e!on!)e( e o$"e$ - 5$e7-) - ) ) e-e$ e5$e)on o e e+)-)7e 6). . .2;


5/13

notwithstan$in&, appellant #a still be convicte$ of the c"i#e of ca"nappin&. !o" while it is necessa" that thestatuto" $esi&nation be state$ in the info"#ation, a #ista/e in the caption of an in$ict#ent in $esi&natin& theco""ect na#e of the offense is not a fatal $efect as it is not the $esi&nation that is cont"ollin& but the facts alle&e$in the info"#ation which $ete"#ines the "eal natu"e of the c"i#e.;;

In the case at ba", the info"#ation alle&es that appellant, with intent to &ain, too/ the ta1i owne$ b ip"ianowithout the latte"s consent.;8Thus, the in$ict#ent alle&es eve" ele#ent of the c"i#e of ca"nappin&, ;@an$ the

p"osecution p"ove$ the sa#e.

7ppellants appeal is thus be"eft of #e"it.

That appellant b"ou&ht out the ta1i on Dece#be" (8, %44@ an$ $i$ not "etu"n it on the sa#e $a as he wassuppose$ to is a$#itte$.;)

6nlawful ta/in&, o" apoderamiento, is the ta/in& of the #oto" vehicle without the consent of the owne", o" b#eans of violence a&ainst o" inti#i$ation of pe"sons, o" b usin& fo"ce upon thin&sG it is $ee#e$ co#plete f"o#the #o#ent the offen$e" &ains possession of the thin&, even if he has no oppo"tunit to $ispose of the sa#e. ;

>hile the natu"e of appellants possession of the ta1i was initiall lawful as he was hi"e$ as a ta1i $"ive" an$ was

ent"uste$ possession the"eof, his act of not "etu"nin& it to its owne", which is cont"a" to co#pan p"actice an$a&ainst the owne"s consent t"ansfo"#e$ the cha"acte" of the possession into an unlawful one. ;47ppellanthi#self a$#its that he was awa"e that his possession of the ta1i was no lon&e" with ip"ianos consent as thelatte" was al"ea$ $e#an$in& its "etu"n.

*5 7lso ou sai$ that $u"in& ou" $i"ect testi#on that when ou &ave ou" wife the P(,8AA.AA,ou also tol$ he" to &o to the co#pan to as/ the co#pan fo" pe"#ission fo" ou to use the ta1isince ou we"e then still sho"t of the boun$a". 7l"i&ht, afte" tellin& that to ou" wife an$ afte"seein& ou" wife between Dece#be" (), %44@ an$ 3anua" 8, %44), $i$ ou as/ ou" wife whatwas the answe" of the co#pan to that "euest of ou"sF

75 He $i$ not allow #e, si", an$ he even 9&ot: an&" with #e.

*5 So, when $i$ ou lea"n that the co#pan was not a&"eeable to ou" #a/in& use of the ta1icabwithout fi"st "etu"nin& it to the co#panF

75 'efo"e the new ea", si".

*5 >hen ou sai$ new ea", ou we"e "efe""in& to 3anua" %, %44)F

75 Eithe" Dece#be" (4 o" Dece#be" 2A, %44@, si".

*5 So, a"e ou tellin& us that even if ou /new al"ea$ that the co#pan was not a&"eeable toou" #a/in& use of the ta1icab continuall


6/13


7/13

75 I was sho"t fo" ten hile the info"#ation alle&es that the c"i#e was atten$e$ with &"ave abuse of confi$ence, the sa#ecannot be app"eciate$ as the suppleto" effect of the Revise$ Penal o$e to special laws, as p"ovi$e$ in 7"ticle%A of sai$ o$e, cannot be invo/e$ when the"e is a le&al i#possibilit of application, eithe" b e1p"ess p"ovisiono" b necessa" i#plication.@;

Mo"eove", when the penalties un$e" the special law a"e $iffe"ent f"o# an$ a"e without "efe"ence o" "elation tothose un$e" the Revise$ Penal o$e, the"e can be no suppleto" effect of the "ules, fo" the application ofpenalties un$e" the sai$ o$e o" b othe" "elevant statuto" p"ovisions a"e base$ on o" applicable onl to sai$"ules fo" felonies un$e" the o$e.@8

Thus, in People v. Panida@@which involve$ the c"i#e of ca"nappin& an$ the penalt i#pose$ was thein$ete"#inate sentence of %; ea"s an$ #onths, as #ini#u#, to %) ea"s an$ ; #onths, as #a1i#u#, thisou"t $i$ not appl the p"ovisions of the Revise$ Penal o$e suppleto"il as the anti?ca"nappin& law p"ovi$es fo"its own penalties which a"e $istinct an$ without "efe"ence to the sai$ o$e.

The cha"&e bein& si#ple ca"nappin&, the i#posable penalt is i#p"ison#ent fo" not less than %;ea"s an$ #onths an$ not #o"e than %) ea"s an$ ; #onths. Te$e !-n #e no u55eo$*

ee! o e $ue o$ e -55)!-)on o 5en-)e un(e$ e Re7)e( Pen- Co(e o$ #*oe$ $ee7-n -uo$* 5$o7))on #-e( on, o$ -55)!-#e on* o, e $ue o$ eon)eun(e$ e Co(e. :)e ) ) $ue - e 5en-* o 14 *e-$ -n( 8 "on o 1? *e-$ -n(4 "on ) 7)$u-* e=u)7-en o e (u$-)on o e "e()u" 5e$)o( o reclusiontemporal, u! e!n)!- e$" un(e$ e Re7)e( Pen- Co(e ) no +)7en o - 5en-*o$ !-$n-55)n+. Be)(e, e oe$ 5en-)e o$ !-$n-55)n+ -en(e( #* e =u-)*)n+!)$!u"-n!e -e( )n e -6 (o no !o$$e5on( o oe )n e Co(e.The "ules onpenalties in the o$e, the"efo"e, cannot suppleto"il appl to Republic 7ct No. @824 an$ speciallaws of the sa#e fo"#ulation. !o" this "eason, we hol$ that the p"ope" penalt to be i#pose$ oneach of accuse$?appellants is an in$ete"#inate sentence of %; ea"s an$ #onths, as#ini#u#, to %) ea"s an$ ; #onths, as #a1i#u#.@)


8/13

#a1i#u#.

SO ORDERED.

!itug, (andoval)*utierrez,an$Corona,++.,concu".

Foonoe

%Reco"$s at 4A?4;.

(7RT. 2%A. Qualified teft. L The c"i#e of theft shall be punishe$ b the penalties ne1t hi&he" btwo $e&"ees than those "espectivel specifie$ in the ne1t p"ece$in& a"ticle, if co##itte$ b a$o#estic se"vant, o" with &"ave abuse of confi$ence, o" if the p"ope"t stolen is "oo$ 7e)!e,#ail #atte" o" la"&e cattle o" consists of coconuts ta/en f"o# the p"e#ises of a plantation, fishta/en f"o# a fishpon$ o" fishe" o" if p"ope"t is ta/en on the occasion of fi"e, ea"thua/e,tphoon, volcanic e"uption, o" an othe" cala#it, vehicula" acci$ent o" civil $istu"bance.


9/13

(%"d. at (4.

(("d. at 2A.

(2"bid.

(;Reco"$s at 42.

(8-olloat ;A.

(@People v. (alvador, 24 SR7 24;, ;%( e$, +$-(e$, o$;9), -"5)#)-n $u!;, -n( !$-ne ) no ue( on 5u#)!)+6-*, 7e)!e, 6)! $un on* on $-) o$ $-!, -n( $-!o$, $-)e$ -n( $e-!)on

en+)ne o - ;)n( ue( e!u)7e* o$ -+$)!uu$- 5u$5oe.T"aile"s havin& an nu#be"of wheels, when p"opelle$ o" inten$e$ to be p"opelle$ b attach#ent to a #oto" vehicle, shall beclassifie$ as sepa"ate #oto" vehicle with no powe" "atin&.


10/13

;(People v. obitania,2 SR7 ;%), ;2(


11/13

$"ive" of a public se"vice vehicle L a Beepne Lof the c"i#e of theft when he $i$ not "etu"n thesa#e.

8ATSN, Octobe" 4, (AAA at ((?(2.

8%People v. %llasos, supraG People v. *ulinao, %)4 SR7 ));, )A


12/13

the confiscation "eceipt involvin& these pieces of he" ba&&a&e. In the fi"st place, it wasnot the $ut of the p"osecution to p"esent these alle&e$ $ocu#ents on which she "eliesfo" he" $efense. n(, u - )n e !-e o -55e-n :))-", ) ) - ou$!e o5u>>e"en 6* e ne7e$ ou+ o !o"5e e)e$ e 5$oe!uo$ o 5$o(u!e e-o$e-)( (o!u"en 6)! 6e$e -e+e(* )n e 5oe)on o e -e$ o$ e!uo" o)!e 6e$e u! (e!-$-)on -$e on )e. Con$-$* o e$ -$+u"ene$eon, )n!e u! 5)e!e o e7)(en!e 6e$e e=u-* -7-)-#e o #o 5-$)e )ou+ #* u#5oen- duces tecum, no 5$eu"5)on o u55$e)on o e7)(en!e !-n#e ($-6n, -n( ee !on)(e$-)on );e6)e -55* o e e) o -55e-n:))-".S, 7ND !OR OTHER P6RPOSES,J int"o$uce$ th"eea#en$#ents to the anti?ca"nappin& law5


13/13

)APeople v. Panida, 2%A SR7 @@, 44

people v bustinera

Documents