Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 108, Pasay City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

- versus - Crim. Case No/s. R-PSY-17-13882-CR

For: Violation of RA No. 6539 (Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972
ARTURO QUINTO, JR.,
Accused.

x—————————————-x

DECISION

Accused stands charged with the crime of violation of Republic Act

No. 6539 (Anti- Carnapping Act of 1972), allegedly committed in the
following manner:

“That on or about the 8th day of October, 2016, in Pasay City, Metro-
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-mentioned accused, with intent to gain and without the
knowledge and consent of the complainant CAROLINE V. CRAME, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and steal a model
2015 Hyundai Accent hatchback with conduction sticker no. MN-6957,
owned by and belonging to the said complainant, to her damage and
prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

When arraigned, accused assisted by his counsel de officio, entered

a plea of “Not Guilty” to the offense charged.

During the pretrial conference, both counsels stipulated on the

jurisdiction of the court over the case and over the person of the accused
as well as the identity of the accused as the same person charged in the
information. (Order dated June 19, 2017, p 56 of Records.)

In the course of the trial, the testimony of the complainant and the
accused was heard as evidence by the transcript of stenographic notes
dated December 4, 2017. (pp 96-108, and 160-171 of Records,
respectively.)

It was settled that sometime on October 8, 2016 at around 1:00 in

the afternoon, her UBER driver Aruro Quinto Jr. took the complainant’s
2015 Model Hyundai Accent Hatchback with conduction sticker no. MN
6957. The car was taken by the accused at F.B. Harrison St., in Pasay
City and that the complainant herself personally gave her the keys to the
car to be taken out to get passenger within 24 hours from the lapse of 24
hours, however, accused failed to return the car and he himself also
disappeared. Complainant tried to contact him through his cellphone but
to no avail. On October 10, 2016, it was around 10 in the evening when
the complainant turned-off the GPS tracker of the said car so that its
engine will turn off. The complainant still waited for the respondent’s call
but to no avail. On October 11, 2016 her former UBER driver Erick Rivera
informed her that her car was spotted abandoned at J. Victor St., in
Makati City. The complainant seek the help of the Anti-Carnapping Unit
Station of Pasay City which led to the recovery of the said motor vehicle..
The key was not found and was believed that was still in the possession
of the respondent. Even the tablet (Huawei) being used under the UBER
was not found.

When the accused was called to the witness stand to testify it was
admitted that the latter recognized the complainant as his employer and
owner of the Hyundai Accent Hatchback mentioned in this case. He
became the driver of the complainant since year 2017. However, it was
admitted by the accused that on October 8, 2016, the day of the incident,
and while driving the said car, he had stopped in a street near the latter’s
house to eat dinner in a Karinderia. And by the time that he was about to
fetch another passenger, the car does not start anymore. That he waited
for several minutes to an hour but still the car did not start. When asked
if he knew the reason why the car failed to start despite the fact that he
already inserted the key and turned on the engine, he answered “Sa totoo
lang sir, ang alam ko yung sasakyan nila ang may sira. SO minsan
matagal bago siya mag start. Isa pa po naisip ko, kasi nasabi sa akin noon
ng boyfriend niya, naka GPS daw po yun. So the moment the owner will
turn of the GPS, the car will not start. At that time my relation with my
operator is no longer harmonious because of the wrongdoings I did which
I intend to settle. So I decided to just talk inside the car because whatever
I say, and wherever I am, they will be able to hear me and locate my
whereabouts.” (pp 164-165 of the Records)

That he had came to this conclusion since there was an instance

where he was able to test it. That was when the boyfriend of the
complainant message him asking the latter to keep quite and had even
mentioned the title of the song which was being played at that time. After
staying for a time inside the car, the accuse went to his wife to tell that
the car does not work. Afterwards, he went back to the car hoping that it
will start again. But again, nothing happened. That according to the latter,
he decided to push the car to a higher place, along the corner of Pasay
Road, so that it will not be submerged in the flood because of heavy rain.
He went back inside the car and fell asleep for several hours. When he
woke up, he saw that one of the tire of the said car was already flat. That
“at that time, ang naramdaman ko una takot, nerbyos, hiya, dahil
syempre yung sasakyan nasa akin po. Kaya hindi ko pa maipa alam agad
sa boss ko kasi alam ko magagalit sya sa akin.” (p167 of the Records) He
decided to went back to his wife to asked some help but the latter did not
want to. He returned to the place where the car was parked and asked a
vendor to look after it in his behalf while he was looking for help from
some friend. Again, when he returned to the place, he saw that the car
was not there anymore. He was told by the vendor that it was already
taken by the Anti-Carnapping Unit of Pasay City. Afterwards, when he
arrived home, he was told by his wife that his boss texted asking them to
return the key of the said car. It was his wife who returned it since he was
shy and scared to face them. And that he does not have money to pay his
debts to them.

It was further admitted by the accused, during the cross-

examination, that he failed to return the car; that he likewise did not
inform the complainant as to the whereabouts of the car; and that it was
also only on October 11, 2016 that the car was found along J. Victor
Street, Makati City. (pp 169- 170 of the Records)

The Court now resolves.

“Carnapping”, as defined by Republic Act. No. 6539, or the Anti-

Carnapping Act, as amended, is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, xxx (Chua vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79021, May 17, 1993, People vs. Santos, G.R.
No. 127500, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 319; People vs. Calabroso, G.R. No.
126368, September 14, 2000, People vs. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233,
June 8, 2004; People vs. Nocum, G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013, 694
SCRA 284)

That in order to be penalized under the said law, the following

elements should exist, to wit: 1.) That there is an actual taking of the
vehicle; 2.) That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender
himself; 3.) That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof
xxx; and 4.) That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the
vehicle. (People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 172604, August 17, 2010, 628 SCRA
378; People vs. Lagat, G.R. No. 187044, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA
713)

In ascertaining whether or not there is an intent to gain which will

led to the commission of such crime, the same, or the animus lucrandi, as
an element of the crime of carnapping, is an internal act and HENCE
PRESUMED from the unlawful taking of the vehicle. Unlawful taking, or
apoderamiento, is the taking of the vehicle without the consent of the
owner, xxx; and it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose the same.
(People vs. Ellasos, G.R. No. 139323, June 6, 2001, 358 SCRA 516)

The evidence shows that the accused with intent to gain and with a
devious plan in mind pretended to do a routine plight of the car owned by
the complainant; and had took and drive the same beyond and after the
lapse of the period for the return of the car would show that there has
been an unlawful taking of the vehicle. Hence, the presumption of intent
to gain, if not sufficiently controverted, will lie against the accused. Note
that, a criminal prosecution for carnapping need not establish the fact
that complainant therein is the absolute owner of the motor vehicle. What
is material is the existence of evidence which would show that respondent
took the motor vehicle belonging to another. (Chua vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 79021, May 17, 1993, 22 SCRA 85) And a careful perusal of the
testimony of the complainant and the admissions of the accused that he
failed to return the car after the lapse of 24 hours without informing the
complainant and without answering the calls and messages of the same
would mean that his right to possess the vehicle cease to exist from the
lapse of the 24-hour period; and would show malicious intent on his part
when the latter did not even inform nor answers the calls of his employer.
That informing his employer the whereabouts of the car, assuming that
there is really an incident of malfunction, could have at least shown good
faith on his part and could have validly negated any malicious intent to
commit such crime. But again, he admitted that he never did the same.
In fact, he admitted that it was only on October 11, 2016 that the car was
found along J. Victor Street, Makati City, thus contradicting his testimony
during the direct examination. That this time, the burden of proof lies in
the strength of the defense in order to destroy such presumption and not
on the part of the prosecution. And that the defense, after resting its case,
had failed to contradict the presumption of intent to gain which is lodge
in the unlawful taking of the vehicle. All the elements, as mentioned
above, are present to constitute a conviction for the crime of Carnapping,
under Republic Act. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act, as amended.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the accused ARTURO

QUINTO, JR. is hereby CONVICTED of the offense charged beyond
reasonable doubt.

-Insert Improsenment and/or penalty. Judge, medyo d ko pa gamay

masyado pano incorporate yung penalties. sorry-

SO ORDERED.

June 08, 2018, City of Pasay.

GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS
JUDGE