This is your query of whether Mr.

Derek Ramsay may be charged

of Qualified Theft of Motor Vehicle.
The following are the facts narrated.
On September 23, 2011, Derek Ramsay took possession of the
truck without your consent but asked permission to the City Mayor that
he be allowed to tow the truck away because it was parked inside of
the City Hall compound. Despite demand, Ramsay still refuses to
release the truck. Ramsay claims that the truck owner Anne Curtis
owes him P600, 000.00, because of that he took possession of the
truck to compel Curtis to pay the debt. Ramsay asserted that he
cannot be charged of qualified theft because a.) The truck was taken
with permission of the Mayor, b.) He believes that Curtis owned the
truck; and c.) He cannot profit from the truck because it was not in
running condition.
In my opinion, Ramsay may be held liable for violation of R.A. No.
6539 or An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping.
First, the passage of R.A. 6539, the theft of motor vehicles now
belongs to the genus of offenses punishable under the anti-carnapping
statute except of certain vehicles specified therein since it has been
removed under the Revised Penal Code.
Second, the elements of carnapping are present in this case. The
first element is that there was taking of motor vehicle belonging to
another. It means that the property taken does not belong to the
offender. The second element is that the taking was done without the
owners consent. The third element is that the taking was done with
intent to gain. It is my opinion that had Curtis been the real owner of
the truck, Ramsay would still be liable when he took the truck without
Curtiss consent. Despite that the dump truck was not in running
condition, it is plain and simple that Ramsays possession of the truck
constitutes intent to gain.
All things considered, the criminal prosecution against Mr.
Ramsay will prosper.