Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972

From Legal Wiki

(Redirected from Anti-Carnapping Law)
Jump to: navigation, search

The special law that penalizes carnapping is Republic Act No. 6539, also known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, signed into law on 26 August 1972.

Contents

Elements of carnapping

Carnapping is defined 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.[1] 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. The anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles.[2] The elements of the crime of carnapping are:[3]

  • 1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
  • 2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle;
  • 3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
  • 4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

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.[4] 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.[5] 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.[6]

Unlawful taking

As an element common to theft, robbery and carnapping, unlawful taking — its import, intention and concept — should be considered as also common to these crimes.[7] 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 where an act by the receiver soon after the actual transfer of possession constitutes unlawful taking.[8]

When property stolen is found in the possession of a person who is unable to give a satisfactory explanation of his possession thereof, he may be deemed to have committed the crime of theft of said property.[9] The application of this presumption validly applies to a case of carnapping for, indeed, the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping is the same and, had it not been for the enactment of the Anti-Carnapping Act, the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle would certainly fall within the purview of either theft or robbery.[10] See Disputable presumptions.

It involves a motor vehicle

The Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 defines a motor vehicle as any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.[11]

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.[12] Any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are public, not exclusively for private use, comes within the concept of motor vehicle.[13] Highways are always public, free for the use of every person. If a vehicle uses the streets, with or without the required license, it 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 sanction of the anti-carnapping statute, but only as simple robbery punishable under the provision of the Revised Penal Code.[14]

A motorized tricycle, even if not licensed to use a public highway, is a motor vehicle under the provision of the Anti-Carnapping Act.[15]

Penalty for Carnapping

Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by:[16]

  • When the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things - imprisonment for not less than fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and not more than seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. In Mercado vs. People,[17] the accused broke a quarter window of the Isuzu Trooper to gain access to it, thus demonstrating that force was used upon the vehicle. The Supreme Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and imposed an indeterminate prison term of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months to twenty-two (22) years.
  • When the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things - by imprisonment for not less than seventeen (17) years and four (4) months and not more than thirty (30) years.

In People vs. dela Cruz,[18] the accused were charged separately with the crimes of carnapping and murder, which means that they cannot be convicted with qualified carnapping. As none of the qualifying circumstances were alleged in the information, the accused could only be convicted with carnapping under the first clause of R.A. 6539, Section 14, with a penalty of not less than fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and not more than seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum. As to the homicide, the penalty is reclusion temporal, the range of which is from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no modifying circumstance, the accused was sentenced to a prison term of eight (8) years, four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

In People vs. Paramil,[19] the accused were separately charged and convicted with carnapping under the second clause of Section 14, with a penalty of not be more than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposed on each of accused for carnapping is an indeterminate sentence of 17 years and 4 months, as minimum, to 30 years, as maximum. With respect to the crime of murder, since the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not alleged in the information, accused should be held liable only for the crime of homicide defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. However, considering that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing of the victim, the penalty of reclusion temporal provided under said article was imposed in its maximum period. Applying again the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the indeterminate sentence of prision mayor, as minimum, and reclusion temporal in its maximum period, as maximum, was imposed.

Qualified carnapping or aggravated form of carnapping

When the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof - the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.[20] Three amendments were made by Republic Act No. 7659 on Section 14 of R.A. 6539, viz: (1) the change of the penalty of life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the phrase "in the commission of the carnapping" to "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof." The latter makes clear the intention of the law to make the offense a special complex crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. As such, the killing (or the rape) merely qualifies the crime of carnapping which for lack of specific nomenclature may be known as qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form. In short, considering the phraseology of the amended Section 14, the carnapping and the killing (or the rape) may be considered as a single or indivisible crime or a special complex crime which, however, is not covered by Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.[21] Since Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539 uses the words "IS KILLED," no distinction must be made between homicide and murder. Whether it is one or the other which is committed "in the course of carnapping or on the occasion thereof" makes no difference insofar as the penalty is concerned.[22]

However, this should be distinguished from People vs. Pavida, et al.,[23] and similar cases, wherein the accused were charged with two separate informations with "Simple Carnapping" and "Murder", and convicted of these two separate crimes, and not "Carnapping in the Aggravated Form," although the facts showed that the accused-appellants killed the driver of the carnapped vehicle in the commission of the carnapping.

In the 2001 case of People vs. Sia,[24] which involves the death of the driver, the Supreme Court applied Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, relating to the application of indivisible penalties when there neither mitigating or aggravating penalty. The lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.

Separate crimes of carnapping and robbery with homicide

Carnapping does not necessarily absorb robbery with homicide. Carnapping refers specifically to the taking of a motor vehicle. It does not cover the taking of cash or personal property which is not a motor vehicle. The taking of the tricycle constitutes a violation of the anti-carnapping law, while the taking of the cash by hitting him with a stone and stabbing him in the chest constitutes the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.[25]


References

  1. ↑ Republic Act No. 6539, Sec. 2
  2. ↑ People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000
  3. ↑ People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 172604, 17 August 2010
  4. ↑ Republic Act No. 6539, Sec. 2
  5. ↑ People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000
  6. ↑ People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000
  7. ↑ People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000
  8. ↑ People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000
  9. ↑ People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, 21 November 2001
  10. ↑ People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, 21 November 2001
  11. ↑ Republic Act No. 6539, Sec. 2
  12. ↑ Izon vs. People, G.R. No. L-51370, 31 August 1981
  13. ↑ Izon vs. People, G.R. No. L-51370, 31 August 1981
  14. ↑ Izon vs. People, G.R. No. L-51370, 31 August 1981
  15. ↑ Izon vs. People, G.R. No. L-51370, 31 August 1981
  16. ↑ Republic Act No. 6539, Sec. 14
  17. ↑ G.R. No. 149375, 26 November 2002
  18. ↑ G.R. Nos. 141162-63, 11 July 2002
  19. ↑ G.R. Nos. 128056-57, 31 March 2000
  20. ↑ Republic Act No. 6539, Sec. 14, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which took effect on 31 December 1993
  21. ↑ People vs. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 and G.R. No. 119407, 7 July 1997
  22. ↑ People vs. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 and G.R. No. 119407, 7 July 1997
  23. ↑ G.R. Nos. 127125 & 138952, 6 July 1999
  24. ↑ G.R. No. 137457, 21 November 2001
  25. ↑ People vs. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174658, 24 February 2009
Retrieved from "http://wiki.lawcenter.ph/index.php?title=Anti-Carnapping_Act_of_1972"
Personal tools