REPUBLIC ACT No.

1379 AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR. Section 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this Act, a "public officer or employee" means any person holding any public office or employment by virtue of an appointment, election or contract, and any person holding any office or employment, by appointment or contract, in any State owned or controlled corporation or enterprise. (b) "Other legitimately acquired property" means any real or personal property, money or securities which the respondent has at any time acquired by inheritance and the income thereof, or by gift inter vivos before his becoming a public officer or employee, or any property (or income thereof) already pertaining to him when he qualified for public office or employment, or the fruits and income of the exclusive property of the respondent's spouse. It shall not include: 1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the name of, or held by, the respondent's spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives, or any other person. 2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but transferred by him to another person or persons on or after the effectivity of this Act. 3. Property donated to the respondent during his incumbency, unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the donation is lawful. Section 2. Filing of petition. Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. The Solicitor General, upon complaint by any taxpayer to the city or provincial fiscal who shall conduct a previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases and shall certify to the Solicitor General that there is reasonable ground to believe that there has been committed a violation of this Act and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, shall file, in the name and on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, in the Court of First Instance of the city or province where said public officer or employee resides or holds office, a petition for a writ commanding said officer or employee to show cause why the property aforesaid, or any part thereof, should not be declared property of the State: Provided, That no such petition shall be filed within one year before any general election or within three months before any special election. The resignation, dismissal or separation of the officer or employee from his office or employment in the Government or in the Government-owned or controlled corporation shall not be a bar to the filing of the petition: Provided, however, That the right to file such petition shall prescribe after four years from the date of the resignation, dismissal or separation or expiration of the term of the office or employee concerned, except as to those who have ceased to hold office within ten years prior to the approval of this Act, in which case the proceedings shall prescribe after four years from the approval hereof. Section 3. The petition. The petition shall contain the following information: (a) The name and address of the respondent. (b) The public officer or employment he holds and such other public offices or employment which he has previously held. (c) The approximate amount of property he has acquired during his incumbency in his past and present offices and employments. (d) A description of said property, or such thereof as has been identified by the Solicitor General. (e) The total amount of his government salary and other proper earnings and incomes from legitimately acquired property, and (f) Such other information as may enable the court to determine whether or not the respondent has unlawfully acquired property during his incumbency. Section 4. Period for the answer. The respondent shall have a period of fifteen days within which to present his answer.

Section 5. Hearing. The Court shall set a date for a hearing, which may be open to the public, and during which the respondent shall be given ample opportunity to explain, to the satisfaction of the court, how he has acquired the property in question. Section 6. Judgment. If the respondent is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court shall declare such property, forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the State: Provided, That no judgment shall be rendered within six months before any general election or within three months before any special election. The Court may, in addition, refer this case to the corresponding Executive Department for administrative or criminal action, or both. Section 7. Appeal. The parties may appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance as provided in the Rules of Court for appeals in civil cases. Section 8. Protection against self-incrimination. Neither the respondent nor any other person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to prosecution; but no individual shall be prosecuted criminally for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and conviction for perjury or false testimony committed in so testifying or from administrative proceedings. Section 9. Immunity. The Solicitor General may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who testifies to the unlawful manner in which the respondent has acquired any of the property in question in cases where such testimony is necessary to prove violations of this Act. Section 10. Effect of record of title. The fact that any real property has been recorded in the Registry of Property or office of the Register of Deeds in the name of the respondent or of any person mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of section one hereof shall not prevent the rendering of the judgment referred to in section six of this Act. Section 11. Laws on prescription. The laws concerning acquisitive prescription and limitation of actions cannot be invoked by, nor shall they benefit the respondent, in respect of any property unlawfully acquired by him. Section 12. Penalties. Any public officer or employee who shall, after the effective date of this Act, transfer or convey any unlawfully acquired property shall be repressed with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine. The same repression shall be imposed upon any person who shall knowingly accept such transfer or conveyance. Section 13. Separability of provisions. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Section 14. Effective date. This Act shall take effect on its approval, and shall apply not only to property thereafter unlawfully acquired but also to property unlawfully acquired before the effective date of this Act. Approved: June 18, 1955 R.A.6539-Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 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 AntiCarnapping 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 accusedappellants 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.[
R.A.3019 Anti-Graft and Corruption practices - Approved: August 17,1970 P.D.46 MAKING IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE, AND FOR PRIVATE PERSONS TO GIVE, GIFTS ON ANY OCCASION, INCLUDING CHRISTMAS -November 10,1972