Mere taking of motorcycle = intent to gain

SECOND DIVISION  [ G.R. No. 236519, September 19, 2018 ]  MARK FREDERICK FLORES Y SCHLOBOHM VERSUS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

The Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals Decision[1] dated August 23, 2017 and Resolution[2] dated January 3, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 37889.

Here, the prosecution was able to show, through the evidence presented and the witnesses' testimonies, that all the elements of carnapping were present. The prosecution proved that Hilna Flores (Hilna) owned the motorcycle. The same motorcycle was positively identified by Brian Dexter Flores (Brian), as owned by his mother, Hilna. Hilna owned the lost motorcycle, and petitioner Mark Frederick Flores (Mark), who was not the motorcycle's owner, was positively identified by Brian and Darwin Emperador to have sped away onboard the motorcycle. Aside from his testimony that Brian occasionally allowed him to borrow the subject motorcycle, Mark did not give any other evidence to prove that it was physically impossible for him to have stolen the motorcycle from Brian on the day of the incident. Mark could not even remember where he was on the day of the incident.

Mark's mere taking of the motorcycle without its owner's consent is a presumption of his intent to gain.[3] It does not matter if there was actual gain or not; what is important is the intent.[4] Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.[5]

The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in affirming the conviction of Mark for the crime of Carnapping.

SO ORDERED. (CARPIO, J.,on wellness leave. PERLAS-BERNABE, J., designated Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2592 dated September 5, 2018; REYES, J., JR., J., no part; GESMUNDO, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 20, 2018)

[1] Rollo, pp. 30-38. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.

[2] Id. at 40-41.

[3] See People v. Gulinao, 259 Phil. 400, 407 (1989).

[4] See People v. Bustinera, 475 Phil. 190, 208 (2004), citing Venturina v. Sandiganbayan, 271 Phil. 33,

[5] People v. Donio, G.R. No. 212815, March 1, 2017, 819 SCRA 56, 69, citing People v. Logat, 673 Phil. 351,367(2011).

Popular Posts