This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of the crime of theft are: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things.[25] | |||||
|
2015-09-02 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.[41] In Roque v. People,[42] the Court ruled that qualified theft may be committed even when the personal property is in the lawful possession of the accused prior to the commission of the felony. The concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same,[43] the holding in Roque v. People[44] equally applies to carnapping. Henee, in People v. Bustinera,[45] appellant, who was hired as taxi driver, was found guilty of carnapping under R.A. No. 6539 after he failed to return the Daewoo Racer taxi assigned to him by the cab company where he was employed. | |||||
|
2014-10-01 |
CARPIO, ACTING C.J. |
||||
| As for intent to gain, we held in People v. Bustinera:[47] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Anent the fourth element, intent to gain on the part of the petitioner was likewise established. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain.[12] | |||||
|
2012-11-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Bustinera,[8] this Court had the occasion to interpret the "theft clause" of an insurance policy. In this case, the Court explained that when one takes the motor vehicle of another without the latter's consent even if the motor vehicle is later returned, there is theft there being intent to gain as the use of the thing unlawfully taken constitutes gain. | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Litton Mills, Inc. v. Sales,[46] we said that for such presumption to arise, it must be proven that: (a) the property was stolen; (b) it was committed recently; (c) that the stolen property was found in the possession of the accused; and (d) the accused is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily.[47] As mentioned above, all these were proven by the prosecution during trial. Thus, it is presumed that Lagat and Palalay had unlawfully taken Biag's tricycle. In People v. Bustinera,[48] this Court defined "unlawful taking," as follows: Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.[49] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the present case, petitioner is imputed with intent to gain for his alleged failure to explain why Lucia's wooden bench was in his possession. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender. The unlawful taking of another's property gives rise to the presumption that the act was committed with intent to gain. This presumption holds unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.[12] The term "gain" is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain.[13] | |||||