People vs. Quinto Jr. Decision Carnapping
People vs. Quinto Jr. Decision Carnapping
People vs. Quinto Jr. Decision Carnapping
x—————————————-x
DECISION
“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.”
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.)
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)
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.
SO ORDERED.
GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS
JUDGE