Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Title 10 - Property

Title 10 - Property

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,280 |Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Jun 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERALArticle 293. Who are guilty of robberySection One – Robbery with violence against orintimidation of personsArticle 294. Robbery with violence against orintimidation of personsArticle 295. Robbery with physical injuries,committed in an uninhabited place and by aband, or with the use of firearm on a street,road or alleyArticle 296. Definition of a band and penaltyincurred by the members thereof Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robberycommitted under certain circumstancesArticle 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidationSection Two – Robbery by the use of force uponthingsArticle 299. Robbery in an inhabited house orpublic building or edifice devoted to worshipArticle 300. Robbery in an uninhabited placeand by a bandArticle 301. What is an inhabited house, publicbuilding, or building dedicated to religiousworship and their dependenciesArticle 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place orin a private buildingArticle 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, orfirewood in an uninhabited place or privatebuildingArticle 304. Possession of picklocks or similartoolsArticle 305. False keysChapter Two – BRIGANDAGEArticle 306. Who are brigandsArticle 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigandsChapter Three – THEFTArticle 308. Who are liable for theftArticle 309. PenaltiesArticle 310. Qualified theftArticle 311. Theft of the property of the NationalLibrary and National MuseumChapter Four – USURPATIONArticle 312. Occupation of real property orusurpationof real rights in propertyArticle 313. Altering boundaries or landmarksChapter Five – CULPABLE INSOLVENCYArticle 314. Fraudulent insolvencyChapter Six – SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITSArticle 315. Swindling (Estafa)Article 316. Other forms of swindlingArticle 317. Swindling a minorArticle 318. Other deceitsChapter Seven – CHATTEL MORTGAGEArticle 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgagedPropertyChapter Eight ARSON AND OTHER CRIMESINVOLVING DESTRUCTION (REPEALEDBY PD 1613 and RA 7659)Article 320. Destructive arsonArticle 321. Other forms of arsonArticle 322. Cases of arson not included in thepreceding articlesArticle 323. Arson of property of small valueArticle 324. Crimes involving destructionArticle 325. Burning one’s own property asmeans tocommit arsonArticle 326. Setting fire to property exclusivelyownedby the offenderArticle 326-A. In cases where death resulted as aconsequence of arsonArticle 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arsonChapter Nine – MALICIOUS MISCHIEFArticle 327. Who are liable for maliciousmischief Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief Article 329. Other mischiefsArticle 330. Damage and obstruction to meansof communicationArticle 331. Destroying or damaging statues,publicmonuments or paintingsChapter Ten – EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABLITYIN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTYArticle 333. Persons exempt from criminalliability
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery
Elements of robbery in general:
 There is
belonging toanother 
 There is
unlawful taking
of thatproperty;
 The taking must be
with intent to gain
;and4.There is violence against orintimidation of any person, or force uponanything.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer108
 The property taken must be personal property,for if real property is occupied or real rightis usurped by means of violence against orintimidation of person, the crime isUSURPATION. The phrase “belonging to another” means thatthe property taken does not belong to theoffender. The person from whom theproperty is taken need not be the owner.
Possession of the property issufficient
. The
of personal property is anessential part of the crime of robbery.Where the taking was lawful and theunlawful misappropriation was subsequentto such taking, the crime is ESTAFA orMALVERSATION.
UNLAWFUL TAKING – when complete?
a)as to robbery with violence against orintimidation of persons
from the moment theoffender gains possession
of thething, even if the culprit has had noopportunity to dispose of the sameb)as to robbery with force upon things
the thing must betaken out of the building, or theplace broken into, to consummatethe crime (note: this is purelybased on reyes’s opinion)“Taking” as an element of robbery, meansdepriving the offended party of ownershipof the thing taken with the character of 
Intent to gain is presumed from theunlawful taking of personal property.
Absence of intent to gain will make the takingof personal property GRAVE COERCION if there is violence used. The element of “personal property belonging toanother” and that of “intent to gain” mustconcur. The violence, as an element of robbery, mustbe against the
of the offendedparty, not upon the thing taken.As for intimidation, it need not be threat of bodily harm. It could be a threat of payinga fine or closing the offended party’s shop.
The violence or intimidationmust be present
the taking of personal property is complete. It is notnecessary that violence of intimidationshould be present from the very beginning.
When the violence results in(1) homicide, (2) rape, (3) intentionalmutilation, or (4) any of the seriousphysical injuries under par 1 & 2 of Art 263– the taking of personal property is robberycomplexed with any of those crimes underArt 294, even if the taking was alreadycomplete when the violence was used bythe offender.
Distinctions between effects oemployment of violence against or intimidation of person and those of use of force upon things:
Whenever violence against or intimidationof any person is used, the taking of personal property belonging to anotheris
robbery. If only force uponthings, the taking is robbery
theforce is used either to enter thebuilding or to break doors, wardrobes,chests or any other kind of locked orsealed furniture or receptacle insidethe building or to force them openoutside after taking the same from thebuilding.In robbery with violence against orintimidation of any person, the value of the personal property taken isimmaterial. The penalty depends (a)on the result of the violence used iehomicide, rape, intentional mutilationetc, and (b) on the existence of intimidation only. In robbery with forceupon things, committed in an inhabitedhouse, public building, or edificedevoted to religious worship, thepenalty is based (a) on the value of theproperty taken, and (b) on whether ornot the offenders carry arms. If committed in an uninhabited building,the penalty is based only on the valueof the property taken.
Napolis vs. CAFacts:
Nicanor Napolis, with several co-accused, enteredthe house of the Penaflor spouses by breaking a wall of astore, and forcing the door of the house adjacent to thestore open. Once inside, the accused used violence againstthe husband and initimidation against the wife, enablingthem to get away with P2557 in cash and goods. They wereconvicted of robbery by armed men in an inhabited place.
: The crime is considered a complex one under Art 48,where the penalty for the most serious offence in its maxperiod should be imposed. Otherwise, there will exist anabsurd situation where the concurrence of a graver offenceresults in the reduction of the penalty.
People vs. Biruar
There is no law or jurisprudence which requires thepresentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that ithad been taken away.
People vs. Salas
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer109
Salas was last seen with the victim at 3:00am. At 6:00, thevictim’s body was found in a canal. Her purse, alleged tocontain P2,000 and jewelry were missing. No one witnessedthe robbery, much less the killing. Is the crime committedhomicide or robbery with homicide?
: Robbery with Homicide. In this special complexcrime against property, Homicide is incidental to therobbery, which is the main purpose of thecriminal. The
onus probandi
is to establish: "(a) the takingof personal property with the use of violence orintimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs toanother; (c) the taking is characterized with
; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or byreason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in thegeneric sense, was committed."While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talenswas robbed at the time she was killed, we may concludefrom four circumstances that the robbery occasioned herkilling: (1) Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake.(2) The appellant knew that victim was winning. (3) Thevictim was last seen alive with appellant. (4) The victim'spurse containing her money and earrings were missing fromher body when found.These circumstances logically lead to the inescapableconclusion that appellant should be liable not just ofsimple homicide, but robbery with homicide
People v. Del Rosario, 359 SCRA 166 (2001)
FACTS: Del Rosario stole six pieces ofjewelry belonging to Paragua. He then pawned and soldthe same. Also, on the occasion of the said robbery, DelRosario hit Paraguas niece, Racquel, with a hard object,strangled her and and tied the the latter’s neck of with aCat-V wire which resulted to her death shortly thereafter.Del Rsoario admitted in court that he needed money tomarry his common-law wife. The RTC convicted del Rosarioof the crime of robbery with homicide. Del Rosariocontends that it is essential to prove the intent to rob andthat the intent to rob must come first before the killingtranspired.HELD: Animus lucrandi or intent to gain, is aninternal act which can be established through the overtacts of the offender. Although proof as to motive for thecrime is essential when the evidence of the theft iscircumstantial, the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is theusual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking ofuseful property appertaining to another, unless specialcircumstances reveal a different intent on the part of theperpetrator. ". . . (T)he intent to gain may be presumedfrom the proven unlawful taking." Intent to gain (animuslucrandi) is presumed to be alleged in an informationwhere it is charged that there was unlawful taking(apoderamiento) and appropriation by the offender of thethings subject of the robbery.In this case, it was apparent that the reason whyDel Rosario stole the jewelry of Paragua was because heintended to gain by them. He had already admitted that heneeded money to marry his common-law wife. The courtalso stated that “if gaining through unlawful means wasfarthest from the mind of the accused, why then did hepawn and sell the jewelry he had taken from Paragua…It is immaterial whether the killing transpiredbefore or after the robbery. In the crime of robbery withhomicide, the homicide may precede robbery or may occurafter robbery. What is essential is that there is a nexus, anintimate connection between robbery and the killingwhether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, orwhether both crimes be committed at the same time.
People v. Reyes, 399 SCRA 528 (2003)
FACTS: Cergontes forcibly took the wristwatch ofSolis while Reyes stabbed the latter at the back resulting tohis death. The victim’s gold necklace, one gold ring, all ofan undetermined value, and a wallet containingunspecified amount of cash were also taken from him.Reyes was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide.Appellant now contends that the animus lucrandi was notsufficiently established as the taking of the watch couldhave been a mere afterthought and the real intent of themalefactors was to inflict injuries upon the victim.Moreover, there was no evidence of ownership of thewristwatch, as it may have belonged to the two personswho attacked the victimHELD: The court held that appellants contentionis devoid of merit. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is aninternal act which can be established through the overtacts of the offender. Although proof of motive for thecrime is essential when the evidence of the robbery iscircumstantial, intent to gain or animus lucrandi may bepresumed from the furtive taking of useful propertypertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveala different intent on the part of the perpetrator. Theintent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawfultaking. In the case at bar, the act of taking the victim'swristwatch by one of the accused Cergontes while accused-appellant Reyes poked a knife behind him sufficiently gaverise to the presumption.The detailed narration of how the victim wasforcibly divested of the wristwatch by accused Cergontesand stabbed at the back by accused-appellant cannot betaken lightly on the argument that the attackers owned thewristwatch and they attacked the victim solely on theirdesire to retrieve it. In any event, in robbery by the takingof property through intimidation or violence, it is notnecessary that the person unlawfully divested of thepersonal property be the owner thereof. Article 293 of theRevised Penal Code employs the phrase "belonging toanother" and this has been interpreted to merely requirethat the property taken does not belong to the offender.Actual possession of the property by the persondispossessed thereof suffices. In fact, it has been held thatrobbery may be committed against a bailee or a personwho himself has stolen it. So long as there isapoderamiento of personal property from another againstthe latter's will through violence or intimidation, withanimo de lucro, robbery is the offense imputable to theoffender. If the victim is killed on the occasion or by reasonof the robbery, the offense is converted into the compositecrime of robbery with homicide.
People v. Suela,373 SCRA 163 (2002)
Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, andEdgardo Batocan sporting ski masks, bonnests and gloves,brandishing handguns and knife barged into the room ofDirector Rosas who was watching television together withhis adopted son, Norman and his friend Gabilo. Theythreatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo to give the locationof their money and valuables, which they eventually took.They dragged Gabilo downstairs with them. Upon Nerio’sinstructions, Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which causedthe latter’s death. After the incident, Edgar Suelademanded P20,000.00 from Rosas for an information
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer110

Activity (46)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Marc Eric liked this
shesheguerrero liked this
Guil Vil liked this
15870080 liked this
Abegail Narca liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->