This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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: 1. There is personal
property belonging toanother ; 2. There is unlawful taking of thatproperty; 3. The taking must be with intent to gain ;and4.There is violence against orintimidation of any person, or force uponanything. 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 unlawful taking 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 o 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 o 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
permanency . 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 person 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. GENERAL RULE: The violence or intimidationmust be present before the taking of personal property is complete. It is notnecessary that violence of intimidationshould be present from the very beginning. EXCEPTION: 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 already
complete when the violence was used bythe offender. Distinctions between effects of employment 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 always robbery. If only force uponthings, the taking is robbery only
and (b) on the existence of intimidation only. At 6:00. They wereconvicted of robbery by armed men in an inhabited place. and (b) on whether ornot the offenders carry arms. Held : The crime is considered a complex one under Art 48. committed in an inhabitedhouse. Otherwise. People vs. the accused used violence againstthe husband and initimidation against the wife. Her purse. which is the main purpose of thecriminal. (c) the taking is characterized with animuslucrandi . Once inside. Napolis vs. People vs. much less the killing. thepenalty is based (a) on the value of theproperty taken. No one witnessedthe robbery. with several co-accused. thevictim’s body was found in a canal. wardrobes. intentional mutilationetc. In this special complexcrime against property.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 forceupon things.where the penalty for the most serious offence in its maxperiod should be imposed. the value of the personal property taken isimmaterial. Biruar There is no law or jurisprudence which requires thepresentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that ithad been taken away. Homicide is incidental to therobbery. public building.In robbery with violence against orintimidation of any person. enteredthe house of the Penaflor spouses by breaking a wall of astore.000 and jewelry were missing. enablingthem to get away with P2557 in cash and goods. Is the crime committedhomicide or robbery with homicide? HELD : Robbery with Homicide. Salas Salas was last seen with the victim at 3:00am. there will exist anabsurd situation where the concurrence of a graver offenceresults in the reduction of the penalty. rape. or edificedevoted to religious worship. The onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the takingof personal property with the use of violence orintimidation against a person.theforce is used either to enter thebuilding or to break doors. and forcing the door of the house adjacent to thestore open.the penalty is based only on the valueof the property taken. (b) the property belongs toanother. If committed in an uninhabited building. The penalty depends (a)on the result of the violence used iehomicide. alleged tocontain P2. CAFacts: Nicanor Napolis.
strangled her and and tied the the latter’s neck of with aCat-V wire which resulted to her death shortly thereafter.. DelRosario hit Paraguas niece." 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. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or byreason thereof. In the crime of robbery withhomicide. which is used in thegeneric sense."While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talenswas robbed at the time she was killed. Racquel. 399 SCRA 528 (2003) FACTS: Cergontes forcibly took the wristwatch ofSolis while Reyes stabbed the latter at the back resulting tohis death. the homicide may precede robbery or may occurafter robbery. we may concludefrom four circumstances that the robbery occasioned herkilling: (1) Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake. Del Rosario. one gold ring. the crime of homicide. The victim’s gold necklace. What is essential is that there is a nexus. Although proof as to motive for thecrime is essential when the evidence of the theft iscircumstantial. ". People v.Del Rsoario admitted in court that he needed money tomarry his common-law wife. 359 SCRA 166 (2001) FACTS: Del Rosario stole six pieces ofjewelry belonging to Paragua. orwhether both crimes be committed at the same time. was committed. anintimate connection between robbery and the killing whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former. Reyes. (T)he intent to gain may be presumedfrom the proven unlawful taking. He then pawned and soldthe same. The courtalso stated that “if gaining through unlawful means wasfarthest from the mind of the accused. on the occasion of the said robbery. is aninternal act which can be established through the overtacts of the offender. (3) Thevictim was last seen alive with appellant.(2) The appellant knew that victim was winning. Also. with a hard object. 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. all ofan undetermined value. why then did hepawn and sell the jewelry he had taken from Paragua…It is immaterial whether the killing transpiredbefore or after the robbery. and a wallet containingunspecified amount of cash were also taken from him. .These circumstances logically lead to the inescapableconclusion that appellant should be liable not just ofsimple homicide. (4) The victim'spurse containing her money and earrings were missing fromher body when found. He had already admitted that heneeded money to marry his common-law wife. unless specialcircumstances reveal a different intent on the part of theperpetrator.Reyes was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is theusual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking ofuseful property appertaining to another.In this case. The RTC convicted del Rosarioof the crime of robbery with homicide. . but robbery with homicide People v.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 . it was apparent that the reason whyDel Rosario stole the jewelry of Paragua was because heintended to gain by them.
00 from Rosas for an information regarding the robbery.They dragged Gabilo downstairs with them.brandishing handguns and knife barged into the room ofDirector Rosas who was watching television together withhis adopted son. Edgar Suelademanded P20. Theythreatened Rosas.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. unless special circumstances reveala different intent on the part of the perpetrator. In the case at bar.themalefactors was to inflict injuries upon the victim. which they eventually took. there was no evidence of ownership of thewristwatch. Theintent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawfultaking. Although proof of motive for thecrime is essential when the evidence of the robbery iscircumstantial. bonnests and gloves. If the victim is killed on the occasion or by reasonof the robbery. Suela. in the case at bar. intent to gain or animus lucrandi may bepresumed from the furtive taking of useful propertypertaining to another. withanimo de lucro. The RTC found Edgar Suela guiltyof robbery for demanding P200.HELD: With respect to the charge of robbery fordemanding P200. it has been held thatrobbery may be committed against a bailee or a personwho himself has stolen it. 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.000 as payment for information on therobbery-slay case. Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which causedthe latter’s death. Norman and his friend Gabilo. People v. 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. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is aninternal act which can be established through the overtacts of the offender. the Court held that Edgar Suela shouldbe acquitted. the prosecution failed toprove that appellant. as it may have belonged to the two personswho attacked the victimHELD: The court held that appellants contentionis devoid of merit. In fact. 1 to 4 of Article 294 (Revised Penal Code)"Unfortunately.373 SCRA 163 (2002) FACTS: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela. Norman and Gabilo to give the locationof their money and valuables. the offense is converted into the compositecrime of robbery with homicide. it is notnecessary that the person unlawfully divested of thepersonal property be the owner thereof. The OSG explained: "Simple robbery iscommitted by means of violence against or intimidation ofpersons as distinguished from the use of force upon things. So long as there isapoderamiento of personal property from another againstthe latter's will through violence or intimidation.Actual possession of the property by the persondispossessed thereof suffices.000. Upon Nerio’sinstructions.000 as payment forinformation on the robbery-slay case. andEdgardo Batocan sporting ski masks. After the incident.Moreover. Edgar Suela employed force orintimidation on private complainant Rosas by instilling fearin his mind so as to compel the latter to cough out . in robbery by the takingof property through intimidation or violence. robbery is the offense imputable to theoffender.but the extent of the violence or intimidation does not fallunder pars.
As such.00 in exchange forinformation regarding the identity and whereabouts ofthose who robbed him and killed his friend.any of the physical injuries resulting in theloss of the use of speech or the power tohear or to smell. Robbery with violenceagainst or intimidation of persons Acts punished:1.000.). or a leg or the loss of the use of any such member or incapacityfor the work in which the injured person istheretofore habitually engaged is inflicted.hence.00. or if theoffender employs intimidation only.7. ahand. appellant Edgar Suela should be acquitted of thatcharge. Thus.When by reason of on occasion of suchrobbery.If the violence or intimidation employed inthe commission of the robbery is carried toa degree unnecessary for the commissionof the crime. imbecility. what was established wasthat he had agreed to give the P200. what is clear was that the giving of themoney was done not out of fear but because it was achoice private complainant opted because he wanted toget the information being offered to him for theconsideration of P200. Instead. an arm.When the robbery is accompanied by rapeor intentional mutilation or arson. theoffender shall have inflicted upon anyperson not responsible for the commissionof the robbery any of the physical injuriesin consequence of which the person injuredbecomes deformed or loses any othermember of his body or loses the suethereof or becomes ill or incapacitated forthe performance of the work in which he ishabitually engaged for more than 90 daysor the person injured becomes ill orincapacitated for labor for more than 30days.when the homicide was not committed “onthe occasion” or “by reason” of therobbery. any of the physical injuriesresulting in insanity. Edgar is still guilty as principal of thecomplex crime of robber with homicide for robbing thehouse of Rosas and for Gabil’o death.Where the original design . a foot.When by reason or on occasion of robbery. There was noshowing that appellant Edgar Suela had exertedintimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to givethe money.5. or the loss of an eye. impotencyor blindness is inflicted.theamount of P200. The crime defined in this article is a specialcomplex crime .00.When by reason or on occasion of therobbery (taking of personal propertybelonging to another with intent to gain). Art 48 no longerapplies. Instead. Article 294.000.“on the occasion” = “in the course of”“by reason” = “because of” Robbery with homicide Robbery and homicide are separate offences .If the violence employed by the offenderdoes not cause any of the serious physicalinjuries defined in Article 263. the money wasdelivered not due to fear but for the purpose of possiblyhaving a lead in solving the case and to possibly bring theculprit to justice (ibid. In fact.the crime of homicide is committed.000. the elements of simplerobbery have not been established in the instant case.When in the course of its execution.3.4.2. 6." However.
The treachery which attendedthe commission of the crime must beconsidered not qualifying but merely as ageneric aggravating circumstance. modes orpersons intervening in the commission of the crime. Otherwise.Killing a person to escape after the commissionof robbery is robbery with homicide. The crime is robbery with homicide. where the victim washiding. without reference to or distinction asto circumstances. one of the accused climbed ona table and fired at the ceiling. modes or persons intervening inthe commission of the crime.Homicide may precede robbery or may occurafter robbery. and homicide is perpetrated byreason or on the occasion of theconsummation of the former. The shots caused the victim’s death. People vs. Calixtro When death results. if theaccessory had no knowledge of thehomicide. .It is immaterial that the death of a person supervened by mere accident . theperson killed need not be the personrobbed. the crimecommitted is robbery with homicide. Thus. “By reason or on occasion of” means it is onlythe result obtained. even if themotive of the offenders was that of robberyas well as vengeance. People vs. causes. regardless of the circumstances. There is still robbery with homicide evenif the person killed is another robberor an innocent bystander. Held : It is immaterial that death supervened by mereaccident.An intent to take personal property belongingto another with intent to gain must precedethe killing. An accessory to robbery with homicide musthave knowledge and complicity as to thehomicide as well in order to be chargedwith the same offence. providedthat the homicide be produced by reasonor on the occasion of the robbery. the crime is still robbery withhomicide. There is no such crime as robbery withmurder .comprehendsrobbery. that has to be taken intoconsideration. MangulabnanFacts : During the robbery. he may only be charged withrobbery.
Hetook Nely's money. a worker at a nearby construction project. Rapes. the offenses should be viewed as separateand distinct. He had sexual intercoursewith her. People vs. regardless of the fact that 3 persons were killedin the commission of the crime. As such. In robbery. People vs. If the intention of the accused was torob but rape was also committed even before theasportation the crime is robbery with rape. He wasin black T-shirt but was no longer wearing pants orunderwear. wanton robbery for personalgain and other forms of cruelties are condemned and theirperpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstancesof ignominy and deliberately augmenting unnecessarywrongs. He spread her thighs apart against her willand inserted his organ into hers. all thosewho took part as principals in the commission of the crimeare also guilty as principals in the special complex crime ofrobbery with homicide although they did not actually takepart in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that theyendeavored to prevent the homicide. all homicidesand murders are merged in the composite. raised her pair of brassieres aboveher breasts and pulled her to the edge of the king-sizewooden bed. To be liable for the special complex crime ofrobbery with rape the intent to take personal property ofanother must . Tapales When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission ofrobbery. Quinones There is no such crime as robbery with multiple homicide. But if theoriginal plan was to rape but the accused after committingthe rape also committed robbery when the opportunitypresented itself. After satisfying his lust. Thenforcibly tore her nightie.People vs. should rape be considered an aggravatingcircumstance? YES. thesingle indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua should beimposed only once even if multiple killings accompaniedthe robbery. Pecato Whenever a homicide has been committed as aconsequence of or on the occasion of a robbery.There is only the special complex crime of robbery withhomicide. Faigano then put on hisshort pants and ordered Nely to bring out her money. Faigano Nely was suddenly roused from her sleep by CarmeloFaigano. Poeple vs. He poked a 29-inch balisong at her neck and threatened to kill her and the children beside her. her husband's wristwatch and two rings.TC found him guilty of the special complex crime ofrobbery with rape HELD : SC found him guilty of the separate crimes ofrobbery and rape.
precede the rape. Under the circumstances,SC is convinced that when Faigano entered the victim'shouse he only had in mind sexual gratification. The takingof the cash and pieces of jewelry against Nely's will appearsto be an afterthought. People v. Reyes, 427 SCRA 28 (2004) FACTS: Dr. Aurora Lagrada, a spinster of about70 years old, lived alone in her 2-storey house. Reyes’house was about 4-5 meters away from the doctor's house.Reyes was able to gain entry into the house of Lagradawithout the latter knowing. Armed with a bolo, Reyes stoleone Rolex wristwatch, 1 gold bracelet, 1 gold ring withbirthstone of Jade, 1 Pass Book from Lagrada. On theoccasion of the said robbery, Reyes stabbed Lagradaseveral times in the different parts of her body directlycausing her death. The trial court convicted Reyes ofrobbery with homicide.HELD: To sustain a conviction of the accused forrobbery with homicide, the prosecution is burdened toprove the essential elements of the crime. The accusedmust be shown to have the principal purpose of committingrobbery, the homicide being committed either by reasonof or on occasion of the robbery. The homicide mayprecede robbery or may occur thereafter. What is essentialis that there is a nexus, an intrinsic connection betweenthe robbery and the killing. The latter may be done prior toor subsequent to the former. However, the intent tocommit robbery must precede the taking of the victim'slife. Furthermore, the constituted crimes of robbery andhomicide must be consummated.A homicide is considered as having beencommitted on the occasion or by reason of the robberywhen the motive of the offender in killing the victim is todeprive the latter of his property, to eliminate an obstacleto the crime, to protect his possession of the loot, toeliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended orto insure his escape from the scene of the crime.Appellant stated that he barged into the house ofthe victim to rob her, and that he stabbed the victim whenshe was about to shout and because he was drunk. Theappellant then took the victim's money and personalbelongings and fled from the scene of the crime. The trialcourt correctly convicted the appellant of robbery withhomicide.
FACTS: Catapang and Hernandez dragged 72 year-old Natividad Mendoza, in the direction of a forested areawhere there were also mango and coconut trees. The twotook the money and jewelry of Natividad while she waslying on the ground. Thereafter, Catapang and Hernandezstrangled Natividad to death with the use of a white ropemade of buri/vine string.HELD: The Court held that appellant is guilty ofrobbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 ofthe Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.7659.The court further held that, in robbery withhomicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor isto commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on theoccasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commitrobbery must precede the taking of human life. Thehomicide may take place before, during or after therobbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference ordistinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes orpersons intervening in the commission of the crime that hasto be taken into consideration. There is no such felony ofrobbery with homicide through reckless imprudence orsimple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime,namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.
People v. Milliam, 324 SCRA 155 (2000) FACTS: Demarayo, a member of the 15th InfantryBattalion, Philippine Army, was leisurely pacing alongQuezon Street, Iloilo City, when Roberto and Ricky bothsurnamed Martin blocked his path. Without any provocationcoming from the soldier, Ricky drew his firearm and firedat Demarayo, hitting the latter’s left hand. A brief struggleamong the three (3) men ensued which caused the victimto fall down. As Roberto pulled away he warded offDemarayo by kicking him on the waist. While the victimwas sprawled on the ground Roberto aimed his rifle atDemarayo's chest and pulled the trigger. Roberto firedanother shot hitting Demarayo on the same spot. After thebrutal slaying, the assailants nonchalantly walked awaywith Demarayo's M-16. The lower court ruled that the crimecommitted was Robbery with Homicide.HELD: In People v. Salazar, accused-appellantsstabbed a security guard and thereafter took away his gun.It was ruled that since the prosecution failed to establishthat the homicide was committed by reason or on theoccasion of stealing the security guard's firearm, both ofthem could only be convicted of the separate crimes ofHomicide and Theft.The records are bereft of any evidence to provethat the asportation of Demarayo's service firearm was theprime motive of accused-appellants. Although it may betrue that they were seen grabbing the gun from the victimas the latter was lying prone on the ground, it could bepossible that it was done to prevent him from retaliating ashe was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshotwound. The taking of the gun might have been anafterthought and not the real purpose of the crime. It cantherefore be seen that the prosecution failed to establishconvincingly that the homicide was committed for thepurpose or on the occasion of robbing the victim. As such,accused-appellants should properly be convicted of theseparate offenses of Homicide and Theft, which were bothduly proved. People v. Ranis, 389 SCRA 45 (2002) FACTS: While Marivic and Ben with their babywere watching television in their bedroom, Murphy andSabiyon, both armed with bladed weapons, suddenlyentered their unlocked bedroom. Murphy poked a knife ather neck while Ernesto straddled on top of Ben who wasthen lying in bed. Murphy asked for the proceeds of theland Ben sold and some jewelry but Marivic told him thatthey only had P2,000 in their possession. Murphy then tookthe P2,000 and several pieces of luxury watches andjewelry. After taking the money and jewelry, both accusedtied her hands and those of Ben with electric cord and thenthey went out of the house, taking Ben with them. Thebody of Ben was later found lying about five to ten metersfrom the house with a cloth in the mouth, blood stains onthe body, and hack wounds on his right nape and mouth.Ben was brought to the hospital but he was proclaimeddead on arrival.HELD: In charging robbery with homicide, theonus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personalproperty with the use of violence or intimidation against aperson; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the takingis characterized by animus lucrandi; (d) on the occasion ofthe robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide,which is used in the generic sense, has been committed. Inthis case, Marivic Rodelas positively identified appellantsErnesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy as the two persons whoentered her bedroom. Using sharp, bladed weapons,appellants demanded and took money, watches, andjewelry belonging to the victim, Ben Hernandez.Thereafter, Hernandez was found stabbed to death. TheCourt ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery withhomicide.
People v. Gonzales, 382 SCRA 694 (2002) FACTS: Nicanor Suralta was having drinks withhis visitors in their house when two armed men, onecarrying a gun and the other a knife, suddenly entered thehouse through the kitchen door. The one carrying a gun hada bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed, whilethe other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his facecovered with a handkerchief. The knife-wielder heldChona, the third child of the Suralta spouses, andannounced a holdup. All persons in the house were orderedto go inside the bedroom, about 2 meters away from thesala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun andmoney from Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun,but asked his wife, Carolita, to give money to theholduppers. Carolita gave P2,100.00, which was intendedto be deposited in the bank, to the knifewielder, whoplaced it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder ransackedthe cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325.00,which was intended for the school expenses of the Suraltachildren. In addition, he took the family's Sanyo cassetterecorder and some clothes. The holduppers also divestedone of the guests of his Seiko diver's wristwatch and thenleft. As the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rangout. Nicanor was heard moaning. Nicanor eventually died.HELD: After reviewing the records of this case,the court ruled that the prosecution evidence establishesthe guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Aconviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of thefollowing elements: (a) the taking of personal propertywith violence or intimidation against persons or with forceupon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c)the taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reasonthereof, homicide in its generic sense is committed. Theoffense becomes the special complex crime of robbery withhomicide under Art. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if thevictim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.All elements are present in the case at bar. People v. Torres, 359 SCRA 761 (2001) FACTS:Vicente Galanao, his sons Julian andMacky and Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with theiremployer, Boloy , to buy copra and abaca. They were onboard a truck driven by Boloy. On the way, they werestopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the road.Torres approached the left side of the truck, went up thetruck, and shot Boloy once. After shooting, two personsarmed with guns appeared from nowhere and approachedthe back of the truck and told them to lie face downward.The two persons came from the portion where bamboosgrew by the side of the road. Afterwards the men rantowards the mountainside with the victims bag containingP500,000.00, the victims necklace, ring and his wristwatch.HELD: Robbery with homicide is a specialcomplex crime against property. Homicide is incidental tothe robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. Incharging robbery with homicide, the onus probandi is toestablish: xxx… xxx… (d) on the occasion of the robbery orby reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used inthe generic sense, was committed. The phrase "by reason"covers homicide committed before or after the taking ofpersonal property of another, as long as the motive of theoffender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprivethe victim of his personal property which is sought to beaccomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or inkilling a person after the robbery to do away with a witnessor to defend the possession of the stolen property. Thus, itmatters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking ofthe personal properties of the victim. What is
UCPB sent security escort Gargaceran. They then killedCastillo and Usigan.In People v. As the robberyresulted in the killing of the security guard Gargaceran. The two repliedin the negative. and the homicide. Maxion. onoccasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. Consajero then asked Castillo and Usiganto accompany them to a nearby store. for the killing ofModesto Castillo. The taking of theproperty should not be merely an afterthought which . to pick up the cash deposit of thesupermarket amounting to P1. People v. a CAFGU member and Malapit.essential inrobbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation andintimate connection between robbery and killing. for the unlawful taking of the Briggsand Straton engine of the motorized banca. Theft. theoffense committed by the malefactors is indubitably thespecial complex crime of robbery with homicide. or must be perpetrated with aview to consummate the robbery.Himor attempted to run with the bag towards the bank but HELD: There is no question that the original andprincipal intention of the two armed men was to get themoney of Hi-Top Supermarket. Maxion shot Gargaceran at close rangehitting him on the chest eventually causing his death. Consejero. and 3. It is necessarythat there must have been an intent on the part of theoffenders to commit robbery from the outset and. whether the latter be prior or subsequentto the former or whether both crime be committed at thesame time. the Court had occasion torule that in robbery with homicide. musthave a direct relation to. he called the bank to sendhis security escort. asked Castillo and Usigan if they were the onesexacting quota from the Barangay captain. Murder.even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery. After issuing thedeposit slip. armed with anM-14. Both ofthem aimed their guns at Gargaceran. whetherboth crimes be committed at the same time.464. the killing must havebeen directly connected with the robbery. People v. Maxion and another man suddenlyemerged and walked towards them. Twenty meters away lay thedead body of Usigan. andshortly thereafter. 2.While Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the streetgoing back to the bank.75. walked across the street towards theHi-Top Supermarket. an intimate connection between robberyand the killing. a teller at the United CoconutPlanters Bank (UCPB). Thereafter. they took the Briggs andStraton engine of the motorized banca ridden by Castilloand Usigan which is owned by Israel. 361 SCRA 414 (2001) FACTS:Himor.but three separate offenses: 1. Maxion was in front ofGargaceran while the second stayed behind him. Thereafter. Amania. Castillo was foundlying on the ground. face down. Theoriginal design must have been robbery. Inrobbery with homicide. what is essential is that there be "adirect relation.644. 352 SCRA 276 (2001) FACTS: While they were fishing. they shoutedto release the bag containing the money. for the death of DionisioUsigan. he placed the money inside a duffle bag andpadlocked the bag. This is evident from thetestimony of teller Himor that as soon as the two menstopped him from running towards the bank. AccusedConsajero. The Courtruled that all elements of robbery with homicide arepresent in this case. who sustained thirty-one stab andhack wounds on the different parts of his body. The man behindGargaceran immediately took Gargaceran's handgun. Homicide.HELD: The criminal acts of accused-appellantconstitute not a complex crime of robbery with homicide. drenched in his own bloodwith hands tied at the back.
but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmedFranco by the waist. 331 SCRA 95 FACTS: Carlos Deveza. Taken in its entirety. Pitying the victim.Wilfredo Dazo heard the gunshot prompting him to dart hiseyes toward the direction of the gunfire where he sawDeveza stooping and about to fall. one bullet hitting Dazo on the right jaw. theovert acts of accused-appellant Legaspi prove that the lonemotive for the killing of Deveza and the shooting of Dazowas for the purpose of consummating and ensuring thesuccess of the robbery. it does not appear that theprimary purpose of accused-appellant in accosting the twodeceased was to rob the engine of the motorized banca. and brother Romeo were eating dinner inRenato's house. Deveza fell on the pavement. Jose poked Renato with a bladed weapon whileEddie ordered Adelina to take out their money andvaluables. People v. accused-appellant.Immediately. After dinner. Efren . People v. Dazo and Franco wrestledcausing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing Legaspi totake an aim and shoot at Dazo twice. brothers Jose and Eddie Temanel entered thehouse. Legaspi. Legaspi.From all indications. erstwhile member of thePNP arrived at the Cartimar Plaza Market to fetch his wife left to make a phone call.Dazo hid behind a post and waited in ambush for Legaspiand the latter’s companion. Later. Temanel. 341 SCRA 319 (2000) FACTS: Renato Sucilan.Adelina put the valuables in an empty milk can and placedthe same outside the door. a stone washurled into Renato's house hitting the petromax lamp. Dazointended to seize and stop Legaspi who was then holding agun. and the taking of the subject engine wasmerely an afterthought that arouse subsequent to thekilling of the victims. Terrified. his wife Adelina. a CAFGU member. Thus. The gunmanthen picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casuallywalked away from the scene of the crime.was primarily interested in taking the life of the twodeceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from theBarangay captain.In the present case. Carlos alighted from theTamaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle withboth arms resting on the vehicle's window. At the height of thestruggle between Dazo and Franco.While conversing with other tricycle drivers.HELD: Obviously. and held a knife against her. the killing of Carlos Deveza andthe shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reasonof or on the occasion of the robbery. Franco. shots were fired byLegaspi. the shooting of Dazo wasdone in order to defend the possession of the stolenproperty. the physicalinjuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in thecrime of robbery with homicide.Accused-appellant's argument that the element of "taking"was not proved is thus unavailing in the face of Tulod'stestimony. cohorts of the Temanels entered the hut.arosesubsequent to the killing. Romeo went home to hisown hut situated five meters away.Osis grabbed Liezl.daughter Liezl. Suddenly. Thereafter.In the final analysis. Adelina prepared for bedwhile Renato played with Liezl. In so doing. It was therefore an act which tended to insurethe successful termination of the robbery and secure to therobber the possession and enjoyment of the goods taken. level and poke a gun wrapped in apiece of cloth or towel at the latter’s nape and eventuallypull the trigger. comingfrom the front of the vehicle position himself 2½ metersaway from Deveza.
In the case at bar. all of which clearly belonged to the Sucilans. Cruz. all of them shall be held liable forrobbery with homicide in the absence of proof that theyprevented the killing. The intruders tied thecouple. Her sister Romualdaalso had a store. . Thinking that he will be assaulted by Laura. The fact that itwas Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants. Thereafter.Temanel.The properties were violently taken and intent to gain canbe presumed from the unlawful taking. Eddie andJose Temanel. money and othervaluables. dead with several stabwounds in the neck and his intestines exposed.Where homicide is perpetrated with a view torob.00 in cash. While seated on the sofa. The special complex crime ofrobbery with homicide is primarily a crime againstproperty.HELD: All the elements of robbery with homicideconcur in this case. Accused Nelson was Maria's store helper. The RTC convicted Cruz of two (2) counts ofmurder and one (1) count of theft.there are two distinct offenses. and sat on a sofa nearthe kitchen.entered the house of the Robleses. who was high on drugs. if all accused take part in a robberyresulting in death. operated a passenger jeepney andengaged in the buy and sale of palay. rice.HELD: The Court held that the argument of theAppellant is without merit. Here. who wasoutside the hut. who stabbed Romeo is of no moment. His primary purpose was to kill Lauraand her 5-year old daughter. Navales. homicide being a mereincident of the robbery with the latter being the mainpurpose and object of the criminal (People vs. got hold of a pointed object andstabbed to death Laura Robles and her 5-year old daughter. the former stepped out of the house and wasshocked to find his brother. he ransacked the cabinet of the Roblesestaking away a Minolta camera. Romeo Sucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of therobbery. 380 SCRA 13 (2002) FACTS: Donato Cruz. Romeo. took the can. as well as an undetermined amount ofUS dollars. Laura sawrespondent and she became hysterical and startedshouting. the evidence onrecord shows that appellant stole the camera and cash onlyas an afterthought. the killing wascommitted in the course of the robbery.She had a store. Zuela. Mendoza . and not against persons. In addition. In People v. People v. after he panicked.Hence.Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda in herstore during palay season. People v.000. 266SCRA 569 [1997 ]). Appellant argues thathe should have been charged with the crime of robberywith homicide. Lara. the prosecution was correct when it did not chargeappellant with the special complex crime of robbery withhomicide. a radio. But if robberywas an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide. The properties taken consisted ofpieces of jewelry. a wedding ring andP8. Cruzwent inside the house. When Renato and Adelina were able to freethemselves. The piecesof jewelry he usually wore. were no longer on his body.Lara. 323 SCRA 589 (2000) FACTS: Maria Abendaño was engaged in business. the offense is robbery with homicide.
the homicidesor murders and physical injuries.Orlando Dinamling entered their house and poked a longgun at Marilyn's forehead. whowere then lying prostrate on the ground. Tito took Maria's money anddivided it. After a while. The trialcourt's ruled that Orlando and Fenando Dinamling. irrespective of theirnumbers. while Tito approached the right frontside of the jeepney. Tito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepneyof Maria and upon reaching an uninhabited place. from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense.00) pesos from the loot. Outside.HELD: The crime committed is the specialcomplex crime of robbery with homicide defined andpenalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. . The trial court's denomination of the offense as"robbery with double homicide" is erroneous. He also shot Mariaat the neck when the latter shouted.robbery with one killing would be treated in the same waythat robbery with multiple killings would be. embracing not only the act whichresults in death but also all other acts producing anythingshort of death. 379 SCRA 107 (2002) FACTS:Marilyn Pajarillo was in their houselying down in bed with her 2-year old daughter. People v. Nelson went to the left frontside of the jeepney.. Rogelio was then in thepatio. The three accusedwere friends. Thetrial court correctly considered the crime as robbery withhomicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as chargedin the information. Dinamling. It is settledthat regardless of the number of homicides committed. This would preclude an anomalous situationwhere.000. The boy stood up andsaid.Rogelio and Deogaracias were shot to death. Stated differently. drinking gin with Marilyn'shusband Charlie Pajarillo and Deogracias Acosta. Maximopoked a gun at the driver and shot him." To avoid being identified by the boy.one dozen cans of sardines and one pack of Juicy Fruitchewing gum. Marilyn merely sat down. The number of persons killed is immaterial anddoes not increase the penalty prescribed by Article 294 ofthe Revised Penal Code.500. committed on the occasion or by reason of therobbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery withhomicide. Seatedbeside her was 11-year old Rosemarie Malalay. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) isused in its generic sense.00 in cashrepresenting her sales. Suddenly. each accused receiving about seven thousand(P7. thecrime should still be denominated as robbery withhomicide. who waswaiting for her father Rogelio. ordered her to lie prone on theground. with a shortfirearm. "You will see I will tell my father that you killed mymother. Nelson and Titoalighted from the jeepney. Fernando Dinamling and Linnampoked guns at the heads of Rogelio and Deogracias. in the process stepping on the sleepingJohn-John who was then awakened. Tito told Maximo to kill the boy. Maximo.The other accused MaximoVelarde was known to Romualda because she met him at abirthday party held at Maria's house. entered their sari-sari store.The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of therobbery is only appreciated as an aggravatingcircumstance. two (rims of Champion cigarettes. Maximo then took hold of the boy'shair and slashed his neck.Maximo. Dinamman. outside the house. Tito and Nelson conceived the planto hold-up Maria while drinking in front of Romualda's storebecause Maximo needed money for his fare to Manila. Neither is the nature of the offense alteredby the number of killings in connection with the robbery. searched theirbelongings and took more or less P1.Diinamman and Linnam are guilty of "robbery with doublehomicide"HELD: Accused-appellants' crime is robbery withhomicide.
People v. Daniela, 401 SCRA 519 (2002) FACTS: Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis came tothe house of Ronito and his common-law wife, Maria Fe toborrow money. Manuel, Jose, and Ronito then had adrinking spree. Later, Manuel armed with a .38 caliber gun,entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe and poked thesaid gun on Maria Fe. Jose, armed with a knife followedManuel to the bedroom. Upon Manuel’s order Jose tied thehands of Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape on hermouth. Jose also tied the hands of Marife’s cousin, Leo. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace,rings and earrings. Manuel demanded that she give themher money but Maria Fe told them that she had used hermoney to pay her partners in the fish vending business.Manuel and Jose did not believe Maria Fe and ransackedthe room but failed to find money. Manuel then threatenedto explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill MariaFe, her family and their househelps if she refused tosurrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the moneyfrom her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel andJose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronitowith it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, coveredRonito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbedthe latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito ondifferent parts of his body. Manuel hit Ronito with the buttof his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took thelatter's wristwatch and ring. Manuel then raped Julifer, ahousehelp of Marife.HELD: The law does not require that the solemotive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicideby reason or on the occasion thereof. In People vs. Tidula,et al., this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intendsto kill and rob another, it does not preclude his convictionfor the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In People v. Damaso, the Court held that the fact that theintent of the felons was tempered with a desire also toavenge grievances against the victim killed, does notnegate the conviction of the accused and punishment forrobbery with homicide.A conviction for robbery with homicide is propereven if the homicide is committed before, during or afterthe commission of the robbery. The homicide may becommitted by the actor at the spur of the moment or bymere accident. Even if two or more persons are killed and awoman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted onanother, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there isonly one special complex crime of robbery with homicide.What is primordial is the result obtained without referenceor distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes orpersons intervening in the commission of the crime.Robbery with homicide is committed even if thevictim of the robbery is different from the victim ofhomicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reasonor on the occasion of the robbery. It is not even necessarythat the victim of the robbery is the very person themalefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of thespecial complex crime, the robbery itself must be provedas conclusively as any other element of the crime. It maybe true that the original intent of appellant Manuel was toborrow again money from Ronito and Maria Fe but later onconspired with Jose and robbed the couple of their moneyand pieces of jewelry, and on the occasion thereof, killedRonito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of robberywith homicide. People v. Napalit, 396 SCRA 687 (2003)
FACTS:A group of more than six armed menincluding Napalit barged into the Tondo General Hospital.One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guardand announced a hold-up. Simultaneously, Napalit pointeda gun at, and grabbed the firearm of, another securityguard. Four members of the group then entered thecashier's office of the hospital and ordered the employeesto lie down on the floor. One of them pointed a gun at thecashier, Alonzo, and ordered him to open the vault. BeforeAlonzo could do as instructed, he was searched for
weapons in the course of which his wallet containingP450.00 in cash was taken. Alonzo then opened the vaultwhich the four emptied of P1,010,274.90 in cash. While thefour malefactors were at the cashier's office, anothersecurity guard, Gomez, who was manning the hospital gatewas disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside thehospital premises, and shot twice by one of the armedmen. The four armed men who emptied the vault thenrushed out of the hospital and one of them also shot Gomezwho had by then collapsed on the ground. Two of themheaded toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castorwhich was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in frontof the hospital. One of the duo ordered the passenger atthe front seat to get off the vehicle. The other, afterforcing Castor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fledwith his companion. The RTC found Napalit guilty ofrobbery with homicide and violation of R. A. 6539 (theAnti-Carnapping Act), respectively. Napalit argues thatassuming that he had indeed participated in the incident,he should only be held liable for robbery and not for thespecial complex crime of robbery with homicide.HELD: In a long line of cases, the Court has ruledthat whenever homicide is committed as a consequence oron the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part asprincipals in the robbery will also be held guilty asprincipals in the special complex crime of robbery withhomicide although they did not take part in the homicide,unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to preventthe homicide. (People v. Lago, 358 SCRA 550 (2001),People v. Liad, 355 SCRA 11 (2001), People v. Pedroso, 336SCRA 163) People v. Lara (2006) The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals thatappellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide inCriminal Case No. 97-13706. There is nothing in therecords that would show that the principal purpose ofappellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun (Serial No.9600942). It must be emphasized that when the victim andappellant met and had a heated argument, the absence ofthe intent to rob on the part of the appellant wasapparent. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim.Appellant’s act of taking the shotgun was not for thepurpose of robbing the victim, but to protect
himself fromthe victim. No one would in one’s right mind just leave afirearm lying around after being in a heated argument withanother person. Having failed to establish thatappellant’s original criminal design was robbery, appellantcould only be convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or homicide, as the case may be, and theft . Robbery with rape Like in robbery with homicide, the offendermust have the intent to take the personalproperty belonging to another with intentto gain, and such intent must precede therape. There is no such crime as robbery withattempted rape. It must beconsummated. Otherwise, they areseparate offences.When the taking of personal property of awoman is an independent act followingdefendant’s failure to consummate therape, there are two distinct crimescommitted: attempted rape and theft.Additional rapes committed on the sameoccasion of robbery will not increase thepenalty. All acts of rape on that occasionbeing integrated in one composite crime.When the taking of property after the rape isnot with intent to gain, there is neithertheft nor robbery committed. The civil liability for rape in robbery with rapehas been set at P50,000.When rape and homicide co-exist in thecommission of robbery, the crime isrobbery with homicide and rape under par1 of Art 294, the rape to be considered asan aggravating circumstance only. (note:this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal, Pp vsBasca, and Pp vs Villa. but i disagree withthis ruling based on moral grounds and lack of legal basis. how could rape bemerely an aggravating circumstance?) People vs. Patola Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art294 par 2, not under RPC 335 on qualified rape. People vs. DinolaFacts: Dinola saw victim Marilyn’s watch after he hadraped her. She refused to give him the watch so he took ifforcibly from her and left. Dinola was convicted of robberywith rape. Held : The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as2 separate offences. If the original design was to commitrape but the accused after committing rape also committedrobbery (more of an afterthought, even accidental)because the opportunity presented itself, the criminal actshould be viewed as 2 distinct offences. If the intention ofthe accused was to commit robbery but rape was alsocommitted even before the robbery, the crime of robberywith rape was committed.
A. Fabon. 328 SCRA 302 (2000) FACTS:Locsin Fabon. alias "Loklok. Pedro. 7659. becausetheir intent determines the offense they committed. . People v. Eventually they stole from the Gabertanspouses cash in the amount of P5. the rape to beconsidered as an aggravating circumstance. it is imperativethat the robbery itself must be conclusively .00. penalized under Article 294.Valdez. 383 SCRA 43 (2002) FACTS: Appellant Domingo Temporal. Lascuna. RTC found appellant guilty of robberywith multiple rape. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa whileManiquez raped househelp Mary Ann. . weakening andinjuring him. robberywith rape.000.People vs MorenoFacts: Accused Moreno."When the special complex crime of robbery with homicideis accompanied by another offense like rape or intentionalmutilation.00.In the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Theproper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated byrape. the trueintent of the accused must first be determined. They assaulted andclubbed Valentin with their weapons.HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellantof robbery with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape. Moreno wasconvicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez. HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated thecrime committed as "robbery with homicide and rape. number 1of the RPC. Ruling was correct. it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of theRevised Penal Code which applies. Held : Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty ofrobbery only.350. . The Courtcited the case of People vs. armed with a piece of bamboo. and 2 chickens. as amended by R. Fabon raped Lasquite. Thereafter. 2x2piece of wood. Tosustain a conviction for robbery with rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commissionof robbery. the four accused took turns inraping Carla outside the house where she was forcibly laidon the cogon grass. such additional offense is treated as anaggravating circumstance which would result in theimposition of the maximum penalty of death. The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery withHomicide and Rape. where it was heldthat “We agree with the Solicitor General's observationthat the crime committed was erroneously designated asrobbery with homicide. rape and physical injuries. 9 turkeys. whileRivera guarded Valentin. Bonifacia Lasquite and forciblytook the victim’s money amounting to P25. Deloria and Maniquez robbed theMohnani spouses. 1 ladies goldSeiko watch." enteredthe home of 64 year-old. ipil-ipil posts and bolo. Thereafter. Domingo. and Rivera went to the house of Spouses Valentinand Clara Gabertan. On theoccasion of the robbery.Fabon strangled and stabbed Lasquite with a knife resulting C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer117 to her death. People v.
They first demanded guns.HELD: Once conspiracy is established betweentwo accused in the commission of the crime of robbery.moneys and animals from Valentin Gabertan. MARITES told him to gether bag if he needed money. but ROGELIO replied "I do notneed money.Corpuz. (3) the taking is donewith animo lucrandi.succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolitowhile the others just stood outside the door and didnothing to prevent Soriano. Soriano. Soriano alias "Merto". all thosewho took part therein are liable as principals of the crimeof robbery with rape. Ramos and Soriano enteredthe house of Mrs. theoffender must have the intent to take the personalproperty of another under circumstances that makes thetaking one of robbery. These actsclearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexualgratification. Tosupport a conviction therefor. In the course of the robbery. Verceles. a watch and money from complainants throughviolence. The contemporaneous acts of appellant and hisco-accused stress the fact that they were initiallymotivated by animus lucrandi. assorted jewelries. Robbery with rape occurs when thefollowing elements are present: (1) personal property istaken with violence or intimidation against persons.V.unless any of them proves that he endeavored to preventthe other from committing the rape. the latter did not take it and instead replied. the robbery shouldbe viewed as a separate and distinct crime. and then he ran ..A painstaking assessment of the evidence in thiscase convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separateoffenses of rape and theft. all the foregoing elements arepresent. (2) theproperty taken belongs to another. hesnatched the victim's shoulder bag. This intent was further established by thefact that when MARITES offered to give her ring toROGELIO." Again. Immediately after ROGELIO puthis arms around MARITES and directed the knife at herneck. People v. or on the occasion of a robbery. which was then on herright foot. "That will come later on because I willgive it back to you but you have to follow me first.they would be both equally culpable for the rapecommitted by one of them on the occasion of the robbery. Once inside. itwas only when they entered the house and saw his wifewhen they thought of raping her. proof of the rape alone isnot sufficient.In the case at bar. If the original plan was to commit rape. they took away 1 coloredT. but theaccused after committing the rape also committed robberywhen the opportunity presented itself. Moreno. and (4) the robbery is accompanied byrape. 1 VHS. 374 SCRA 667 (2002) The special complex crime of robbery with rapedefined in Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article294 of the Revised Penal Code. Apparently. 388 SCRA 515 (2002) FACTS:Accused Verceles alias "Baldog". People v.when ROGELIO removed his pants. and such intent must precede therape. The rule in thisjurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as aconsequence.The prosecution likewiseestablished that appellant and his co-accused tookchickens. as amended. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying thegrills of the window. Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt ofthe crime of Robbery with Rape punished under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.established. to be liable for such crime." After giving vent to his lustful desire." In other words. 1 alarm clock and 1 radiocassettes. and not the special complexcrime of robbery with rape. he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABCCommercial Complex and removed her clothes. employs theclause "when the robbery shall have been accompaniedwith rape. although not all of them took part inthe rape."Mamaya na iyan".
349 SCRA 547 (2001) FACTS: Seguis a. covers casesof multiple rapes. Lolong. so long as the rapes accompanied therobbery. convictingthem of one count of rape each because there was noshowing that they conspired or assisted each other incommitting those rapes is affirmed. People v.bracelet and cash though Juliet can not pinpoint whospecifically did it among the many accused.k. It does not matter too whether the rape occurredbefore. They will still be held accountable forwhatever unlawful acts they may have committed.k. needless to say. r Canico. Gibertas. ifany. making other rapes in excess of that number asseparate. In a criminal action forrobbery with rape. Hence. independent offense or offenses. in addition to the crime of rape. The prosecution must be able todemonstrate the level of their participation with legal andmoral certainty. those who were charged should beacquitted.Still and all. it is imperative that the robbery itselfmust be conclusively established. the takingof personal property was not the original evil plan ofROGELIO. 353 SCRA 126 (2001) . People v. Proof of the rape aloneis not sufficient to support a conviction for the crime ofrobbery with rape. at least for the robbery. Otherwise. Accused-appellant may thus be held liable forsimple theft only. Clearly then. and a certain John Doe took turns in raping JulietMagamayo at the house of his friend where she stayed for the night. This is primarily due to the fact that thejuridical concept of this crime does not limit theconsummation of rape against one single victim or to onesingle act. 294.away. integrated whole that isrobbery with rape.The lower court's finding of the accused’non-participation in the robbery does not mean that they aretotally guiltless." The said provision.Dodong. and forwhich acts they were charged. this does not change the nature ofthe felony. the constitutive element ofviolence or intimidation against persons in robbery was notpresent at the time of the snatching of the shoulder bag ofMARITES. the lattermay still be convicted for the rape. a special complex crime punishable underArt. It is essentially a crime against property. Estebe a.a. The trial court’s rulingthat the appellants had carnal knowledge of the privatecomplainant by using force and intimidation. It was for the purpose ofaccomplishing his lustful desire. delaCruz. it cannot beconsidered for the purpose of classifying the crime asrobbery. All the rapesare merged in the composite. Junior. par. Seguis. just as the fact that itwas the accused who committed it be proved beyondreasonable doubt.a. including the existence of a conspiracy. during.a. Adriano guilty beyond reasonabledoubt as principal of the crime of simple rape under Article335 of the Revised Penal CodeHELD: It is to be noted that the accused in thiscase were originally indicted for the felony of robbery withmultiple rape.k. One of the said accused took her gold ring. or after the robbery. Tosustain a conviction. The RTC findseach of the accused. Gano.Significantly. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and which iscommitted "when the robbery shall have been accompaniedby rape. The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIOagainst the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact ofthe taking of the bag. It was an afterthought following the rape. where the prosecution failed to provethe robo or the participation of the accused in it. Doquila a.
Regala this Court spoke with finality on the matter —It should be noted that there is no law providingthat the additional rape/s or homicide/s should beconsidered as aggravating circumstance. andaccordingly.It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in. Regala. The questionthat needs to be resolved is whether the “multiplicity ofhomicides” could be appreciated as an aggravatingcircumstance. appellant and his two companionscounted the money which they took from the "aparador.Appellant and his companions then ran away with P3.This case is singular in its barbarity andnauseating in the manner with which the accused. Nerissa Tagala. Notwithstanding the viciousnesswith which he perpetrated the offense. However. However. while in other cases it ruled that the“multiplicity of rapes/homicides” committed could beappreciated as an aggravating circumstance. People v. A penal law is liberally construed in favor ofthe offender and no person should be brought within itsterms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. Requisites of robbery under 2nd . whenappellant Armando Regala and his two other companionsentered the former's house. Gano is guilty of Robbery with Homicide. 329 SCRA 707 (2000 )FACTS: Sixteen-year old. should not be appreciated as aggravatingcircumstances. bolo inhand.HELD: It should be noted that there is no lawproviding that the additional rape/s or homicide/s shouldbe considered as aggravating circumstance. Regala and his companionsentered the house through the kitchen by removing thepieces of wood under the stove. the remedy lies with thelegislature. robberywith one rape would be on the same level as robbery withmultiple rapes. Regala went to the roomof Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun onthem. Regala.Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) personsby reason or on the occasion of the robbery. A penal law is liberally construed in favor ofthe offender and no person should be brought within itsterms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. The enumerationof aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of theRevised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to theenumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regardingmitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph(paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances. But in Peoplev. the remedy lies with thelegislature.the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of therobbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" wherefrom the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. the two (2) other killings contrary to the rulingof the trial court. one after the other. After the rape. Nerissa and her grandmotherwere hogtied by appellant and his companions. robberywith one rape would be on the same level as robbery withmultiple rapes.000 incash. this ticklish issue has beenthe subject of conflicting views by this Court when it heldin some cases that the additional rapes/homicidescommitted on the occasion of robbery would not increasethe penalty. butchered his preys. For sometime.It is true that the additional rapes (or killings inthe case of multiple homicide on the occasion of therobbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" wherefrom the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches.Nerissa was raped by twice by Regala in bed and in thekitchen. and hergrandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping. Thereafter. Theenumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to theenumeration in Article 13 of the same code regardingmitigating circumstances where there is a specificparagraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogouscircumstances. we are constrainedto apply the principle laid down in People v.
in threats. theintimidation is conditional .case of par 4Art 294:1)that any of thephysical injuries defined in par 3 & 4 Art263 was inflicted in the course of therobbery. theremust be acts done by the accused which. In robbery with intimidation. the intimidation is actual and immediate . Difference between threats toextort money and robbery thruintimidation: o In robbery. Intimidation exists when the actsexecuted or words uttered by the ofenderare capable of producing fear in the personthreatened. It may enter atany time before the owner is finallydeprived of his property . Robbery with violence or intimidation Violence or intimidation need not bepresent before or at the exact moment when the object is taken. inspire fear in the person againstwhom they are directed.either by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances under which they areexecuted. and2)that any of them was inflicted upon any person not responsible for the commission of therobbery.
there isviolence used by the offender. In grave coercion.or future . Difference between robbery withviolence and grave coercion: o In both crimes. in threats. o In robbery. o In robbery. the intimidation isdirected only to the person of thevictim. in robbery. honor or propertyof the offended party or that of hisfamily. no such requirement in gravecoercion. Difference between robbery and bribery: o . the gain of theculprit is immediate . o In threats. o In robbery. the intimidation mayrefer to the person. the intentis to compel another to do somethingagainst his will. there is intent togain. thegain is not immediate. the intimidation is personal . it may be thru anintermediary . in threats.
street car. o In robbery.Art 295 does not apply to robbery withhomicide. or with the use of firearm on a street. Article 295. (note: the circumstances and applicability of Art 295 are very specific so please note them.The other members of the band committedan assault. or in any manner taking thepassengers thereof by surprise in therespective conveyances.In an uninhabited place.3. committed in an uninhabitedplace and by a band.Any of these qualifying circumstances must bealleged in the information and provedduring the trial. the hostages suffered physicalinjuries.highway or alley.He was present at the commission of arobbery by that band.On a street. butdeliberately.3. 2.By entering the passengers’ compartmentsin a train.By a band. the victim isdeprived of his money or property byforce or intimidation.4. Sevilla Facts : The accused detained several persons as hostages ina store they robbed. The detention of the victims was a necessarymeans to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery. road. Inthe ensuing gunfight. it is briberywhen the victim has committed a crimeand gives money or gift to avoid arrestor prosecution. highway or alley.He did not attempt to prevent the assault. One of the hostages eventually had to have herleg amputated. He was a member of the band. The police launched an offensive.2. The intimidation with the use of firearmqualifies only robbery on a street. or5.) People vs. and theintimidation is made with the use of firearms. Article 296. the offender shall be punished bythe maximum periods of the properpenalties prescribed in Article 294. Definition of a band andpenalty incurred by the members thereof Requisites for liability for the acts of the othermembers of the band:1. or airship.4.motor vehicle. or robberywith serious physical injuries under par 1 of Art 263. or robbery with rape. Should the crime of serious illegaldetention be prosecuted as a separate offence? Held : NO. heparts with his money or propertyvoluntarily. road.By attacking a moving train. Robbery with physicalinjuries. in bribery. The accused were convicted of the complexcrime of robbery with serious physical injuries and seriousillegal detention.It is robbery when the victimdid not commit a crime.The victims were not held as a security to facilitate theirescape or to insure their security against the police. road or alley Robbery with violence against or intimidationof person is qualified if it is committed:1. . as a means of extortion of the amount asked.
There is no crime as “robbery withhomicide in band.even if less than 4 armed men.” . When there was conspiracy for robberyonly but homicide was also committed onthe occasion thereof. Proof of conspiracy is not essential tohold a member of the band liable forrobbery with homicide actually committedby the other members of the band. It is only whenthe robbery is in band that all thosepresent in the commission of therobbery may be punished for any of the assaults which any of its membersmight commit. are liablefor the special complex crime of robberywith homicide. Whenever homicide is committed as aconsequence of or on the occasion of arobbery. theone who did not participate in the killing isliable for robbery only. who was not present at thecommission of the robbery. But when there is conspiracy to commithomicide and robbery. a principalby inducement. When the robbery was not by a bandand homicide was not determined by theaccused when they plotted the crime. but only for robbery in band. who did not go with theband at the place of the commission of therobbery.When the robbery was not committedby a band. all the conspirators.there being no evidence that he gaveinstructions to kill the victim or intendedthat this should be done. all members of theband are liable for robbery with homicide. if theagreement was only to commit robbery. is not liable for robbery withhomicide.” Thus. Art 296 is not applicable to principal byinducement. the robber who did not take partin the assault by another is not liable forthat assault. The article speaks of more than 3 armedmalefactors who “takes part in thecommission of the robbery” and member of a band “who is present at the commissionof a robbery by a band. all those who took part in thecommission of the robbery are also guiltyas principals in the crime of homicideunless it appears that they endeavored toprevent the homicide.
People vs. It includes multiple homicides. parricide. 3. rape. 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. 4. impotence. Art 296 inrelation to par 3.The circumstanceof band becomes an ordinaryaggravating circumstance to robberywith homicide. since Apduhan was convictedof robbery with homicide under par 1 Art 294. 4. Hence. blindnessand insanity occurred by reason or on the occasion ofaccompanying robbery. The members of the band liable for theassault must be present at the commissionof the robbery. The penalty is the same. imbecility. In robbery by a band.the use of an unlicensed firearm should not have beenconsidered as a special aggravating circumstance. Attempted and frustratedrobbery committed under certaincircumstances “Homicide” here is used in a genericsense. 5 of Art294 does not include cases where homicide. etc. (2) RPC 295 is explicitly limited toscope to pars. “Unless the homicide committed shalldeserve a higher penalty under the Code”may be illustrated as follows: In anattempted or frustrated robbery. Article 297. SC believes that: (1) Art296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Art295 on robbery in band. whether therobbery is attempted or frustrated.murder. . unless the others attempted to preventthe assault. Apduhan Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and wassentenced to death because the court considered the useof unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstanceunder Art 296. infanticide. the killingof the victim is qualified by treachery orrelationship. and (3) par 3. The proper penalty formurder or parricide shall be imposedbecause it is more severe. SC rejected this.intentional mutilation. 5 of Art 294. 4. all are liable forany assault committed by the band. not necessarily at thecommission of the assault. Thus.
not governed by Art 48. When the offended party is underobligation to sign.2.This is also a special complex crime .Offender has intent to defraud another. the penalty imposed shall bethose under Art 297.Offender compels him to sign. thecrime is robbery with homicide. Article 298. Robbery in an inhabitedhouse or public building or edificedevoted to worship . If the violence used resulted in thedeath of the person to be defrauded. If the execution of deeds by means of violence is only in the attempted orfrustrated stage and the violence usedresulted in the death of the person to bedefrauded. there is norobbery. execute or deliver thedocument under the law. ordeliver any public instrument or document. execute. But there will be COERCION if violence is used in compelling the offendedparty to sign or deliver the document. Execution of deeds by meansof violence or intimidation Elements:1. This article applies even if thedocument signed.3.thus. executed or delivered isa private or commercial document. Article 299. Art 298 is not applicable if thedocument is void.The compulsion is by means of violence orintimidation.
ord.b. or edifice devoted to religiousworship.In the latter case.Offender is inside a dwelling house. ship or vesselconstituting the dwelling of one or morepersons even though the inhabitantsthereof are temporarily absent therefromwhen the robbery is committed. Subdivision (a) There must be evidence or the facts must showthat the accused entered the dwellinghouse or building by any of the meansenumerated in subdiv (a). offender tookpersonal property belonging to anotherwith intent to gain.In entering the building.Elements under subdivision (a):1. publicbuilding.public building or edifice devoted toreligious worship.thus.Once inside the building.Offender takes personal property belongingto another. picklocks or similartools.“Inhabited house” = any shelter. orb. The entrance was effected by any of thefollowing means:a. roof or floor.Offender entered an inhabited house. under anyof the following circumstances:a. wardrobes.c.3.Any of the 4 means described in subdiv (a)must be resorted to by the offender to enter a house or building. or any other kind of locked orsealed furniture or receptacle. The whole body of the culprit must be insidethe building to constitute entering.chests. The genuine key must be stolen.Through an opening not intended forentrance or egress. 2. with intent to gain.By taking such furniture or objectsaway to be broken or forced openoutside the place of the robbery. orbreaking any door or window. not to get out. The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise authority must be toenter the building. entering an automobile does not fallunder this article. The term “door” in par 1 subdiv (b) refers onlyto “doors. it becomes robbery withintimidation of person. lids or opening sheets” of furniture or other portable receptacles .By breaking any wall. “Public building” = every building owned bythe govt or belonging to a private personbut used or rented by the govt.By using any fictitious name orpretending the exercise of publicauthority. the offender musthave an intention to take personalproperty. althoughtemporarily unoccupied by the same. not taken byforce or with intimidation from the owner.Elements under subdivision (b):1.2. regardless of the circumstancesunder which he entered it. The place entered must be a house or building.By the breaking of doors. Subdivision (b) Entrance into the building by any of the meansin subdiv (a) is not required in robberyunder subdiv (b).By using false keys.It is only THEFT when the false key is used toopen wardrobe or locked receptacle ordrawer or inside door.
They were convicted by robbery withhomicide. or edificedevoted to religious worship must belocated in an uninhabited place. not robbery. Held : The killing of the police officer was not by reason oron the occasion of the robbery. People vs. Article 300. Jaranilla Facts : Accused took 6 fighting cocks from a coop locatedin Babylon’s backyard. in order to bequalified. The weapon carried by the offender must nothave been used to intimidate a person. Robbery in an uninhabitedplace and by a band Robbery in an inhabited house. notto inside doors of house or building. public building.They were intercepted by a police officer who was shot byone of the accused. it is sufficient to remove theoffence from Art 299 and place it within thepurview of Art 294. The 2qualifications must concur.A person who opens by force a certain lockedor sealed receptacle which has been confided in his custody and takes themoney contained therein is guilty of ESTAFA. public buildingor edifice devoted to religious worship isqualified when committed by a band AND in an uninhabited place.Robbery with force upon things . The door of the coop was broken.. hence only the person whoshot such officer should be liable for the killing. must be committed in anuninhabited place AND by a band. The inhabited house. The liability for carrying arms while robbing aninhabited house is extended to each of theoffenders who take part in the robbery.even if some of them do not carry arms. forthe reason that once the circumstance of intimidation enters in the commission of the crime. whilerobbery with violence against or intimidation of persons .A person who carries away a sealed box orreceptacle for the purpose of breaking thesame and taking out its contents outsidethe place of robbery is guilty of consummated robbery even though hedoes not succeed in opening the box.
and (3) must form part of the whole .not a public building. (2) must havean interior entrance connected therewith. or outside door orwindow was broken.2.A wall. Article 301. Robbery in an uninhabitedplace or in a private building Elements:1.A closed or sealed receptacle wasremoved. the robbery should beconsidered as having been perpetrated inan uninhabited place under Art 302. “building” = includes any kindof structure used for storage orsafekeeping of personal property. Article 302. picklocks or othersimilar tools. chest. or not an edificedevoted to religious worship.Offender entered an uninhabited place or abuilding which was not a dwelling house. roof.Orchards or other lands used for cultivation orproduction are not included in the term“dependencies”.A door.b.public building. or building dedicated toreligious worship and their dependencies 3 requisites for “dependencies”: (1) must be contiguous to the building.Offender took therefrom personal propertybelonging to another with intent to gain. such asfreight car and warehouse. ore.must be committedin an uninhabited place OR by a band. wardrobe. otherwise. even if the same be brokenopen else 3.c.The entrance was effected through anopening not intended for entrance oregress.d. . “uninhabited place” =uninhabited building The information must allegethat the store was used and occupied as adwelling.Any of the following circumstances waspresent:a. or any sealedor closed furniture or receptacle wasbroken. What is an inhabited house.The entrance was effected through theuse of false keys. floor.
it is only THEFT. because the place isuninhabited. fruits orfirewood are taken in robbery with forceupon things. Article 303. Thus. “cereal” = palay or other seedlings The palay must be kept by the owner as“seedling” or taken for that purpose by therobbers. If the store is used as a dwelling of 1 or more persons. . If the store was not actuallyoccupied at the time the robbery tookplace and was not used as a dwelling. having an interiorentrance connected therewith. orfirewood in an uninhabited place orprivate building Penalty is one degree lower if cereals. The receptacle must be“closed” or “sealed”. If the store is located on theground floor of the house belonging to theowner of the store. therobbery committed therein is punishedunder Art 302. if a personopened without breaking a closed but notlocked chest and took personal propertytherefrom.The use of fictitious name orpretending the exercise of public authorityis not a means of entering the buildingunder this article. it is a dependency of an inhabited house and therobbery committed therein is punishedunder the last par of Art 299. fruits. sincethe owner lived in a separate house. Penalty is based only on valueof property taken. Robbery of cereals. the robberycommitted therein would be considered ascommitted in an inhabited house under Art299.
trolley cars. False keys False keys include the following:1.Article 304."Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of thewhole engine of a motor vehicle by separating themotor engine and its parts from the body of themotor vehicle. scratching. . fork-lifts. when propelled or intended to be propelledby attachment to a motor vehicle. Trailers having any number of wheels.2."Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicleby means of painting. but excepting road rollers. lawn mowers."Dismantling" is the tearing apart.graders. engineblock or chassis which is different from that which islisted in the records of the Bureau of Customs formotor vehicles imported into the Philippines."Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motorvehicle in order to replace its entire body with a newbody.Genuine keys stolen from the owner. bulldozers. Whenever any motor vehicle is found tohave a serial number on its motor engine.2. or by means of violence against orintimidation of persons.Offender does not have lawful cause forsuch possession. There is repainting wheneverthe new color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as registered in the Land TransportationCommission.Tools mentioned in Article 304. engine block or chassis of any motorvehicle. —"Carnapping" is the taking. shall be classifiedas separate motor vehicle with no power rating. vehicles. Carnapping R. amphibian trucks."Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is theerasing."Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by anypower other than muscular power using the publichighways. with intent to gain.3. of a motor vehicle. piece by piece orpart by part. trailers andtraction engines of all kinds used exclusively foragricultural purposes.A. altering or changing of theoriginal factory-inscribed serial number on the motorvehicle engine.street-sweepers. Possession of picklocks orsimilar tools Elements:1.Offender has in his possession picklocks orsimilar tools. 6539Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 SECTION 2.Such picklock or similar tools are especiallyadopted to the commission of robbery. and cranes if not used on public highways. Article 305. Definition of Terms. or by using force uponthings. sprinklers. SECTION 3.Any key other than those intended by theowner for use in the lock forcibly openedby the offender. which runonly on rails or tracks."Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes inthe shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle. of amotor vehicle belonging to another without thelatter's consent. and tractors.3. thatmotor vehicle shall be considered to have a defacedor tampered with serial number.
Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance from the PhilippineConstabulary and after verification of the registrationof the motor vehicle engine. Registration of Sale. — Everysale. engine blocks andchassis not registered with the Land TransportationCommission shall not be issued certificates of registration and shall be considered as untaxedimported motor vehicles or motor vehiclescarnapped or proceeding from illegal sources. substitution orreplacement of a motor vehicle engine.Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine. Thereafter. — The Land Transportation Commission shall keep a permanentregistry of motor vehicle engines. the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwithissue a certificate of clearance. SECTION 5. engine block and chassis in his name or inthe name of the real owner who shall be readilyavailable to answer any claim over the registeredmotor vehicle engine. SECTION 4. engine block or chassis. every owner or possessor of unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof in knockdown condition shall register with the Land Transportation Commission the motor vehicleengine.All owners of motor vehicles in all cities andmunicipalities are required to register their cars withthe local police without paying any charges. engine blockor chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered withthe Land Transportation Commission. If themotor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not inthat list. engine block andchassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicleengines. transfer. shall within one week after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisitionthereof from the registered owner. whether that motor vehicle is newlyassembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registeredowner. all motor vehicle engines. provincial and city branchoffices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of allregistration of motor vehicles to the main office andto the Philippine Constabulary. conveyance. Engine Block or Chassis. Engine Blocks and Chassis. SECTION 6. engine blocksand chassis not registered with the Land Transportation Commission shall be considered asuntaxed importation or coming from an illegal sourceor carnapped. specifying therein theirtype. Motor vehiclesassembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacementwith motor vehicle engines. and shall be confiscated in favor of theGovernment. That all Land TransportationCommission regional. apply to thePhilippine Constabulary for clearance of the motorvehicle for registration with the Land TransportationCommission. make and serial numbers and stating thereinthe names and addresses of their present andprevious owners. engine blocks andchassis of all motor vehicles.— Any person seeking the original registration of amotor vehicle. Copies of the registry and of allentries made thereon shall be furnished thePhilippine Constabulary and all Land TransportationCommission regional. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. Permanent Registry of Motor VehicleEngines. The Philippine Constabulary shall. — Within one year afterthe approval of this Act. verify if the motor vehicleor its numbered parts are in the list of carnappedmotor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. uponreceipt of the application.Engine Block and Chassis.Conveyance. Transfer. Substitution or Replacement of a MotorVehicle Engine. provincial and city branchoffices: Provided. .
Izon vs. Penalty for Carnapping. Definition of Terms. People A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle. as this term isdefined in Section two of this Act. which is defined asany vehicle propelled by any power other than muscularpower using public highways. — It shall refer to all bodies of water. — The followingterms shall mean and be understood. or force upon things. when the carnapping is committed bymeans of violence against or intimidation of anyperson. Public highways are thosefree for the use of every person. SECTION 14. 532Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974SECTION 2. . thus not limited to anational road connecting various towns.engine blocks and chassis. with intent to gain of a motor vehicle whichbelonged to another. Aliens. the Land Transportation Commission shall register the motorvehicle in accordance with existing laws. rules andregulations. driver or occupant of the carnapped motorvehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping.D. — Any personwho is found guilty of carnapping. and the penalty of lifeimprisonment to death shall be imposed when theowner. when the carnapping is committedwithout violence or intimidation of persons. seas. and by imprisonment for not less thanseventeen years and four months and not more thanthirty years. shall.Philippine Waters. or forceupon things. such as but not limited to.bays around. without the latter’s consent or bymeans of violence against or intimidation of persons. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer125 Highway Robbery P. People vs. gulfs. — Aliens convicted under theprovisions of this Act shall be deported immediatelyafter service of sentence without further proceedingsby the Deportation Board. or byusing force upon things. as follows:a. SECTION 15. be punished byimprisonment for not less than fourteen years andeight months and not more than seventeen yearsand four months. irrespectiveof the value of motor vehicle taken. Dela Cruz The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed whenthere is taking.
highway and bridges or otherparts thereof. the penalty of reclusion perpetua shallbe imposed. orlocomotives or trains for the movement orcirculation of persons or transportation of goods.irrespective of its depth.articles. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion. the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. Penalties. and all other waters belonging to thePhilippines by historic or legal title. Itshall include all kinds and types of vessels orboats used in fishing. or the taking away of theproperty of another by means of violenceagainst or intimidation of person or force uponthings of other unlawful means. If rape. committed by any person. thepenalty of reclusion temporal in its medium andmaximum periods shall be imposed. or vehicles. The offendersshall be considered as pirates and punished ashereinafter provided.irrespective of the value thereof. If physical injuries or other crimesare committed during or on the occasion of thecommission of robbery or brigandage.Vessel. — Any person who commitspiracy or highway robbery/brigandage as hereindefined. d.and other submarine areas over which thePhilippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. the insular shelves.Philippine Highway. or murder . — Any vessel or watercraft used fortransport of passengers and cargo from oneplace to another through Philippine Waters. SECTION 3. equipment. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period shallbe imposed. or when the offenders abandoned thevictims without means of saving themselves. or railway or railroad within thePhilippines used by persons. Piracy. by means of violence against or intimidation of persons orforce upon things.street. murder or homicide iscommitted as a result or on the occasion of piracy. orwhen the seizure is accomplished by firing uponor boarding a vessel. breadth.c.shall be considered as piracy. the sea-bed. passage. — It shall refer to any road. shall. — Any attack upon or seizure of anyvessel.e. or property or both.Highway Robbery/Brigandage. upon conviction by competent courtbe punished by:Piracy. If physical injuries or other crimes arecommitted as a result or on the occasionthereof. or the taking away of the whole or partthereof or its cargo. in Philippine waters.b. — The penalty of reclusion tempora l in itsmedium and maximum periods shall beimposed. length ordimension. extortion or otherunlawful purposes. committed byany person on any Philippine Highway.Highway Robbery/Brigandage. or the personalbelongings of its complement or passengers. — The seizure of any person for ransom. includingterritorial sea.between and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago.including a passenger or member of thecomplement of said vessel.
It shall be presumed that any person who does anyof the acts provided in this Section has performedthem knowingly.They were able to extort P7000 in cash and P100. shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished inaccordance with the Rules prescribed by the RevisedPenal Code. In this case. SECTION 4. Aiding pirates or highwayrobbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highwayrobbery/brigandage. or rape is committed as a result or onthe occasion thereof. Cattle Rustling PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. Puno Accused held up Mrs Sarmiento in her car at gunpoint. They were convicted of robbery withhomicide although they were charged with highwayrobbery. What was the crime committed? Held : Robbery with homicide. such as giving theminformation about the movement of police or otherpeace officers of the government. not highway robbery.Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accusedwere organised for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately . the only woman. — Any person who knowinglyand in any manner aids or protects pirates orhighway robbers/brigands. or acquires orreceives property taken by such pirates or brigandsor in any manner derives any benefit therefrom. orany person who directly or indirectly abets thecommission of piracy or highway robbery orbrigandage. People vs. of any of the above-mentioned animalswhether or not for profit or gain. or .orhomicide.Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at atalahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbedon after the other. unless the contrary is proven. 533THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974 What is cattle rustling? Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means.000 incheck. Was highway robbery committed? NO. without the consent of theowner/raiser. the penalty of death shallbe imposed. People vs. PulusanFacts : Accused held up a passenger jeep along theMcArthur highway. Of the 6 passengers. We shouldnot adopt the literal interpretation that all types of takingof property as long as committed in a highway would becovered by PD 532. there was no proof that the4 accused previously attempted to commit armedrobberies.method or scheme.
thepenalty of .exhibit the documents prescribed in the precedingsections. or other domesticatedmember of the bovine family. partnership. Itincludes the killing of large cattle. be punished by prision mayor in itsmaximum period to reclusion temporal in its mediumperiod if the offense is committed without violenceagainst or intimidation of persons or force uponthings. Any person. Before issuance of the permit hereinprescribed. register the same withthe office of the city/municipal treasurer where suchlarge cattle are raised. Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle. mule. from one province to another shallsecure a permit for such purpose from the ProvincialCommander of the province where the large cattle isregistered. corporation orentity desiring to ship or transport large cattle.and such other documents or records as may benecessary. horse. partnership. control or custody of largecattle shall.carabao. upon demand by competent authorities. a certification fromthe Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that suchlarge cattle. The permit shall only be valid in suchprovince. Shipment of large cattle. Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle. corporation orentity shall engage in the business of buy and sell of large cattle without first securing a permit for thesaid purpose from the Provincial Commander of theprovince where it shall conduct such business andthe city/municipal treasurer of the place of residenceof such person.employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged inthe raising of large cattle or other persons in lawfulpossession of such large cattle. the Provincial Commander shall requirethe submission of the certificate of ownership asprescribed in Section 3 hereof.Large cattle . its hides or meatfrom one city/municipality to another within thesame province may be done upon securing permitfrom the city/municipal treasurer of the place of origin. — Every personhaving in his possession. control or custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling. itshides.whethercommitted with or without violence against orintimidation of any person or force upon things. or meat. Penalties Imposed Any person convicted of cattle rustling as hereindefined shall. Presumption of Cattle Rustling . No person. Owner/raiser.Duty of the owner/raiser before the large cattle belonging to him shallattain the age of six months. ass. association.shall include the herdsman.If the offense is committed with violence against orintimidation of persons or force upon things. association. corporationor entity. partnership. Failure to exhibit the required documentsshall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle inhis possession. hides or meat are free from any disease. irrespective of the value of the largecattle involved.as herein used shall include the cow. association. or taking its meator hide without the consent of the owner/raiser. caretaker.
be disqualified from voting or being votedupon in any election/referendum and from holdingany public office or employment. When Pajunarinquired abt his cow. is the essence cattle rustling. Ordonio denied seeing it. arrived at the Taer’shourse at 2am with 2 male carabaos. The cowwas eventually found in Ordonio’s possession. theowners of the carabaos. takespart subsequent to its commission by profiting himself bythe effects of the crime. he shall be deportedimmediately upon the completion of the service of his sentence without further proceedings.having knowledge of the commission of the crime. CAFacts : Co-accused Manocatcat.If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result oron the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling. knowing that the property does not belong to him.the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall beimposed. BRIGANDAGE . he shall.methods or schemes.When the offender is a government official oremployee. Ordonio vs.When the offender is an alien. when he knew fully wellthat it belonged to Pajunar. in addition to the foregoingpenalty. 10 days later. Taer vs. such that Pajunar had to enlist the aidof the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow. Held : The law reads “taking away by any means.” Ordonio’s stubborn insistence thatthe calf belonged to his brother. What was Taer’s participation in the crime? Held : Taer was an accessory because he employed thecarabaos in his farm. arrived at Taer’s house to retrievethe carabaos. An accessory is someone who. withouthaving participated as a principal or an accomplice. CAFacts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar.reclusion temporal in its maximum periodto reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.The perpetrator’s intent to gain is then inferred from hisdeliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the properperson. Manocatcat askedTaer to tend the carabaos for him. but Ordonioclaimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him byhis brother Agustin.
or (3) any other purposeto be attained by means of force andviolence. (2) to kidnappersons for the purpose of extortion orobtaining ransom. . The purpose of the band must be (1) to commitrobbery in the highway.To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom.It must be a band of robbers . the penalty shall be imposedin the max period.2. Article 306.If any of the arms carried by any of a group of persons be an unlicensed firearm . Thus.To attain by means of force andviolence any other purpose. orc. To contrast. The purpose is any of the following:a. or for any other C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer127 purpose to be attained by means of force andviolence. the purpose of the offenders isonly to commit robbery. Who are brigands Elements of brigandage:1. and in caseof conviction.To commit robbery in the highway. a band of dissidents or oppositionists will not qualify.They formed a band of robbers. In case of robbery by a band .b.a crime committed by more than 3 armedpersons who form a band of robbers for thepurpose of committing robbery in the highwayor kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom. The arms carried by the members of the bandof robbers may be any deadly weapon.There are least four armed persons. not necessarily inthe highway. is shallbe presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands .3.
butonly robbery in band. the mere formation of a band for any of the purposes mentioned in thelaw is sufficient. but withoutviolence against or intimidation of personsnor force upon things.In brigandage.3. THEFT committed by any person who.“highway” = includes city streets as well asroads outside the cities.b. orc. It shall be presumed that the personperforming any of the acts provided in thisarticle has performed them knowingly .There is a band of brigands.Those who with intent to gain.shall take personal property of another withoutthe latter’s consent.Those . take personalproperty of another without the latter’sconsent.Offender knows the band to be of brigands. as a mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable . Article 308.He acquires or receives the propertytaken by such brigands.Offender does any of the following acts:a. Article 307.He gives them information of themovements of the police or otherpeace officers of the government. the offence is not brigandage.He in any manner aids. with intent togain but without violence against orintimidation of persons nor force upon things. it isnecessary to prove that the band actually committed robbery.2. Aiding and abetting a bandof brigands Elements:1.2. abets orprotects such band of brigands. in robbery in band.If the agreement among more than 3 armedmen was to commit only a particular robbery .The only things to prove are: b)that there is anorganisation of more than 3 armedpersons forming a band of robbersc)that the purpose of the band is any of those enumerated inArt 306d)that they went uponthe highway or roamed upon thecountry for that purposee)that the accused is amember of such band. Who are liable for theft Persons liable:1.unless contrary is proven.
The property taken belongs to another. .Those who.The taking was done with intent to gain.3. . It is not anindispensable element of theft that thethief carry.2. more or less far away.3. the thingtaken by him from its owner. removeor make use of the fruits or objects of thedamage caused by them.The taking is accomplished without the useof violence against or intimidation of persons of force upon things. the Court held that asportation is complete from the moment the offender had fullpossession of the thing.who having found lost property. As of 2007. failsto deliver the same to the local authoritiesor to its owner. theft is consummated whenthe culprits were able to take possession of the thing taken by them. cereals or otherforest or farm products.Elements:1.4.The taking was done without the consent of the owner. hunt or fish upon thesame or gather fruits.4. without theconsent of its owner. after having maliciouslydamaged the property of another.Those who enter an enclosed estate or afield where trespass is forbidden or whichbelongs to another and. even if he didnot have an opportunity to dispose of the same. 5. thus. “taking” ≠ taking away or carrying away .There is taking of personal property.
or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment . Rey subsequentlyappropriated it rolex watch with intent togain and without consent of Tina. and received by. But if the accused received the thingfrom another person in trust or oncommission. but an act done soon thereafter by theoffender which may result in unlawfultaking or asportation.animus lucandi = intent to gain The taking in theft must have thecharacter of permanency. thearticle is deemed to have been taken also. The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after the transfer of physicalpossession (not juridical possession) of the thing to the offender.Illustration: Tina gave Rey her rolex watchfor the purpose of having it examined sinceRey has a pawnshop. theoffender must have the intention of makinghimself the owner of the thing taken. The actualtransfer of possession may not always andby itself constitute the unlawful taking. Thus. – This is THEFT. the offender . or for administration. In such case. although in the beginning. it was in fact given to.
the juridical possession of the thing is transferred to the offender.) Intent to gain is presumed from theunlawful taking of personal propertybelonging to another. (note: thus. There is theft even if accused did nottake them for his own use. For robbery to exist. It is not necessary that there was realor actual gain on the part of the offender. When goods were lost at the sametime.. the crimeis ESTAFA. and on the sameoccasion . in the same place. he wasthen actuated by the desire or intent togain.It is enough that on taking them. it is necessarythat there should be a taking against thewill of the owner . for theft. the distinction between juridical and mere physical possession isimportant. because under thosetransactions. It is not robbery when violence is for areason entirely foreign to the fact of taking. it suffices that consent on the part of the owner is lacking .and later misappropriated or converted thething to the prejudice of another.
twenty-three (23) . The presumption regarding possessionof stolen property does not exclusivelyrefer to actual physical possession thereof but may include prior unexplained possession . He was convicted of illegalpossession and robbery. Owner wantedto claim it back but Santos could not be found. Gulinao Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. Convictedof estafa in RTC then CA convicted him of qualified theft. CA. Intent to gain is inferred fromdeliberate failure to deliver the lostproperty to the proper person. the person in possession of partof the missing property is presumed to bethe thief of the entire property. In any case. Violence used in killing Dr Chua had nobearing on the taking of the ring. the property must berecently stolen. Thus. Finder of hidden treasure whomisappropriated the share pertaining tothe owner of the property is guilty of theftas regards that share. not estafa as the latterrequires that the offender has juridical possession of thething and then it is converted for his own personal use. a14-inch colored TV. not robbery. People Penalosa gave car to Santos to be repaired.Not qualified theft as the fact that the car was taken wasnot alleged in the information therefore it can only be seenas an aggravating circumstance. an electric fan. Santos vs. if it was stolen along time ago .SC rule that he is guilty of THEFT. the presumption will not lie. for thepresumption to work. The taking of the ring was just an afterthought . Gulinao went back to getDr Chua’s diamond ring.. 389 SCRA 749 (2002) FACTS: Lucas was convicted by the RTC togetherwith Wilfredo Navarro for stealing one stereo component. SC ruled that he is guilty ofTHEFT. People vs. Lucas v.
refers to the fact that the crime has beenactually committed. one (1) box of car toys.HELD: To sustain a conviction for theft.000. four (4)pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls. cash of P20. Corpus delicti means the “body or substance of the crime.Dino and Empelis rulings. (2) the act of taking the personal property ofanother must be done without the use of violence againstor intimidation of persons nor force upon things.00 andjewelry worth P10.000. namely: (1) that the property was lost by theowner. thefollowing elements must be present: (1) personal propertyof another person must be taken without the latter'sconsent. valued at P100. there is no language inArticle 308 that expressly or impliedly . corpus delicti has twoelements. People (2007) The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not beendesigned in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao. these two elements were established. In thecase before us.Navarro and one Lovena escaped on board a tricycle. Lucas.To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not anelement of the corpus delicti in theft. This is clutching at straws. People (2007) The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable forthe charges on the ground that he was not caught inpossession of the missing funds. After the robbery. The said robbery took placewhen Luisito was at work. Gan v. Appellant are guilty oftheft. and. (3)there must be an intention to gain from the taking ofanother person's personal property. and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer129 pieces of cassette tapes. in itsprimary sense. Theamounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner tookthem without authority to do so Valenzuela v. Again.00 allbelonging to Luisito Tuazon.00.” In theft.000. and.
shorting or shunting wire. make or cause to be made anyconnection with overhead lines. the Manila Electric Company or thePhilippine Long Distance TelephoneCompany. (b). or (3) the circumstances orcauses that impelled the culprit to committhe crime. Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines andMaterials (§3)Cut.there is no crime of frustrated theft.allows that the “freedisposition of the items stolen” is in any way determinativeof whether the crime of theft has been produced. slice. loopconnection or any other device whichinterferes with the proper or accurateregistry or metering of electric current orotherwise results in its diversion in amanner whereby electricity is stolen orwasted. split. electric and/or telephonewires. or other electric service wires.(d)Damage or destroy an electric meter. jumper.without previous authority or consent of theprivate electric utility or rural electriccooperative concerned. ELECTRICAL ORTELEPHONE CONNECTIONS. saw.(b)Tap. separate. smelt.tampers and/or uses tampered water orelectrical meters or jumpers or otherdevices whereby water or electricity isstolen. and(e)Knowingly use or receive the direct benefitof electric service obtained through any of the acts mentioned in subsections (a). Penalties The basis of the penalty in theft is (1) the valueof the thing stolen and in some cases (2)the value and also the nature of theproperty taken.AND OTHER ACTS Who are punishable? -. TheCourt thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code.(c)Tamper. electrical or telephoneconnection without previous authority fromthe Metropolitan Waterworks and SewerageSystem.(c). THE USE OFTAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL METERS. .If there is no available evidence to prove thevalue of the stolen property or that theprosecution failed to prove it.equipment. wire or conduit or allow any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as tointerfere with the proper or accuratemetering of electric current. Illegal Water. current reversingtransformer. electrical and/or telephonewires. or remove any electric power transmissionline/material or meter from a tower. make or cause to be made anyconnection to the existing electric servicefacilities of any duly registered consumerwithout the latter's or the electric utility'sconsent or authority. steals or pilfers water and/or electricmeters or water. 401 March 1.knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered waterand/or electrical meters as well as stolen orpilfered water. 1974PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZEDINSTALLATION OF WATER. and (d) above.any person who:installs any water. orany other installation or place of installationor any other place or site where it may berightfully or lawfully stored. 7832Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994Acts punishable Illegal Use of Electricity (§2)(a)Tap. Article 309.A. pole. severe. R. servicedrops. install or use a tampered electricalmeter. as the case may be. the courtshould impose the minimum penaltycorresponding to theft. Electricor Telephone Connections PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. Theft of Electricity.
jumper. not engaged in the .deposited. and/or loop connection or anyother similar device. carry. ship or move from one place toanother. inventoried. The presence in any part of the building or itspremises which is subject to the control of theconsumer or on the electric meter.without the consent of the owner. andLoad. or its meteringaccessories. Presumptions For illegal use of electricity: The presence of any of the following circumstancesshall constitute prima facie evidence of illegaluse of electricity by the person benefitedthereby . Take. and The acceptance of money and/or other valuableconsideration by any officer of employee of theelectric utility concerned or the making of suchan offer to any such officer or employee for notreporting the presence of any of thecircumstances enumerated above. whether or not the act is donefor profit or gain. any other installation or placeof installation. The existence of any wiring connection which affectsthe normal operation or registration of theelectric meter. carry away or remove or transfer. pole. broken. air or sea. Thediscovery of any of the foregoing circumstances. any electric powertransmission line/material or meter from atower. as thecase may be.disconnection. altered or tamperedmeter recording chart or graph. or at the back or any otherpart of said meter. kept. The mutilation. or fake seal onthe meter. The presence of a tampered.situated or located without the consent of the owner. or mutilated.deposited. anyelectrical power transmission line/material. any electricpower transmission line/material or meterwithout the consent of the owner. without first securing aclearance/permit for the said purpose fromits owner or the National Power Corporation(NPC) or its regional office concerned.Store. custody or control. must be personally witnessed and attestedto by an officer of the law or a dulyauthorized representative of the EnergyRegulatory Board (ERB). possess or otherwise keep in hispremises. and accessories. whetheror not the act is done for profit or gain. andthe lifting of any temporary restraining order orinjunction which may have been issuedagainst a private electric utility or ruralelectric cooperativeCircumstances: The presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of the electric meter. alteration. graph. situated or located. stocked. shorting and/orshunting wire. or computerizedchart. whetheror not the act is done for profit or gain. natural or juridical. bypassing or tampering of instruments. and shall be the basis for:the immediate disconnection by the electricutility to such person after due notice. or attempt to destroy. anyintegral accessory of the metering device boxwhich encases an electric meter. with orwithout the use of a motor vehicle or othermeans of conveyance. transformers. For theft of electric power transmission lines andmaterials The possession or custody of electric powertransmission line/material by any person. reconnection. The destruction of. or log. kept. or any place or site where itmay be rightfully or lawfully stored.the holding of a preliminary investigation by theprosecutor and the subsequent filing incourt of the pertinent information.in order to constitute prima facie evidence. The presence inside the electric meter of salt. whether by land.stocked.whether or not the act is done for profit orgain. of a currentreversing transformer. inventoried. sugarand other elements that could result in theinaccurate registration of the meter's internalparts to prevent its accurate registration of consumption of electricity.
officer or employee of thewater utility concerned. bulkhead. 8. or otherwise result in its diversionin a manner whereby water is stolen or wasted. machinery buildings. install or use tampered water meters. orthe supply.works. Tamper. service. tampering. lock. shortening of vane wheels and other devices to steal water orinterfere with accurate registry or metering of water usage.wire benchmark. Illegal Fishing .Penalties:imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years anda fine not exceeding double the amount of thevalue of the water stolen or the value of thedamaged facilitiesIf the offender is assisted in the commission of thecrime by a plumber. and interfere with the survey. pipes.Use or receive the direct benefit of water servicewith knowledge that diversion. whether public orprivate.raceway. including the prevention of. conduit. RA 8041An Act to Address the National Water Crisisand For Other Purposes Sec.or interference with any authorized personengaged in the discharge of duties connectedtherewith. the said employee.officer or plumber shall be punished byimprisonment of two (2) years to six (6) years • If the water is stolen for profit or resale.It is hereby declared unlawfulfor any person to:Destroy. measurement. reservoir. .transmission or distribution of electric power.appliance. watermains. damage or interfere with any canal. monument. andtherefore such line/material may be confiscated fromthe person in possession. aqueduct. water distribution pipes. main lines.Prevent.magnets.andKnowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the above. sticks. orillegal connection existed at the time of thatuse. or that the use or receipt was otherwisewithout the authorization of the water utility. or inthe manufacture of such electric power transmissionline/material shall be prima facie evidence that suchline/material is the fruit of the offense of theft of electric power transmission lines and materials. gate. or cause to be made any connection withwater lines without prior authority or consentfrom the water utility concerned. or other works. obstruct. reversing water meters. pier. theoffender shall be punished imprisonment fromsix (6) to twelve (12) years. make. Anti-Pilferage. pipes andrelated or ancillary facilities. orregulation thereof.transformation. conveyance. ditch.dam. or property of any water utility entity. and construction of access road andwater mains and distribution network and any C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer131 related works of the utility entity. control or custody thereof. inlet.Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters.Do any malicious act which shall injuriously affect thequantity or quality of the water or sewage flowof any waterworks and/or sewerage system.Steal or pilfer water meters.Steal water for profit or resale. Tap. crib.
disable orrender unconscious fish or fishery species The Department. And For OtherPurposesWhat acts are punishable? 1. subject to safeguards andconditions deemed necessary and endorsement fromthe concerned LGUs. explosives. occupation orlivelihood purposes may be allowed. breeding fish in Philippine waterswithout a license Discovery of any person in an area where he hasno permit or registration papers for a fishing vesselshall constitute a prima facie presumption that theperson and/or vessel is engaged in unauthorizedfishing: BUT. stupefy.3.Management And Conservation Of TheFisheries And Aquatic Resources. which will kill. Fishing Through Explosives. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in OtherUnauthorized Fisheries Activities(a) exploiting.REPUBLIC ACT NO.educational or scientific purposes only. the use of electricity.take or gather fish or fishery species: The use of poisonous or noxious substances toeradicate predators in fishponds in accordance withaccepted scientific practices and without causingadverse environmental impact in neighboring watersand grounds shall not be construed as illegal fishing. and/or Electricity (a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of electricity. may allow. poisonous or noxious substances to catch. Poaching in Philippine Waters(a) foreign person fishing or operating a fishingvessel in Philippine waters The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippinewaters shall constitute a prima facie evidence thatthe vessel is engaged in fishing in Philippine waters. noxious or poisonoussubstance such as sodium cyanide in the Philippinefishery areas. fishing for daily food sustenance or forleisure which is not for commercial. Noxious orPoisonous Substance. for research.(b) fishing by commercial fishing vessels in fisherymanagement areas declared as over exploited(c) engaging in any commercial fishing activity inmunicipal waters when not listed in the registry of municipal fisherfolk2. IntegratingAll Laws Pertinent Thereto.(b) dealing in fish illegally caught . 8550An Act Providing For The Development.
noxious or poisonoussubstances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing Penalty is without prejudice to the filing of separate criminal cases when the use of the sameresult to physical injury or loss of human life.operator.(c) Mere possession of explosive. The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caughtor killed with the use of explosive.The discovery of explosives or equipment forelectro-fishing in any fishing vessel or in thepossession of any fishworker shall constitute primafacie evidence. that the same was used for fishing inviolation of this Code.5. noxious orpoisonous substances or by electricity shallconstitute prima facie evidence that the fisherfolk. The confiscated corals shall either be returned tothe sea or donated to schools and museums for educational or scientific purposes or disposedthrough other means. Use of Fine Mesh Net (a) fishing using nets with mesh smaller than thatwhich may be fixed by the Department Prohibition shall not apply to the gathering of fryand such species which by their nature are small butalready mature to be identified in the implementingrules and regulations by the Department. Ban on Muro-Ami .4. noxious orpoisonous substances or electrofishing devices forillegal fishing(d) Actual use of explosives. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation(a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and semi-precious corals. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters andBays and Other Fishery Management Areas(a) fishing in municipal waters and in all bays as wellas other fishery management areas using activefishing gears6. boat official or fishworker is fishing with theuse thereof. whether raw or in processed form.7.except for scientific or research purposes.
Fishing or Taking of Rare.seagrass beds. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season11. Exportation of Breeders.other physical or mechanical acts to pound the coralreefs and other habitat to entrap. selling or exporting white sand. Eggs or Fry15. Violation of Catch Ceilings 17. silica. and other fishery marine life habitatas may be determined by the Department(b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation. Illegal Use of Superlights (a) fishing with the use of superlights in municipalwaters or in violation of the rules and regulationswhich may be promulgated by the Department onthe use of superlights outside municipal waters9.pebbles and other substances which make up anymarine habitat8. catching of sabalo and otherbreeders/spawners for local breeding purposes orscientific or research purposes may be allowedsubject to guidelines to be promulgated by theDepartment. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders /Spawners However. andsuch similar gear and methods that require diving.14.. Importation or Exportation of Fish or FisherySpecies16. Other Methods and GearDestructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat(a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs. . Threatened or Endangered Species13. Conversion of Mangroves (a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for anyother purposes10. Refuge andSanctuaries12. Fishing in Fishery Reserves . gather or catch fishand other fishery species(c) gathering. Spawners.
or6.it is not necessary to prove grave abuse of confidence.The property stolen is fish taken from afishpond or fishery. mailmatter. orcivil disturbance. Other violationsFailure to Comply with Minimum SafetyStandardsFailure to Conduct a Yearly Report on allFishponds. by reason of dependence. vehicular accident.5.Aquatic Pollution 18.The property stolen is a motor vehicle. rebuttable bycompetent evidence. Petitionersquestion the legality of the presumption.4.earthquake. Qualified theft Theft is qualified if:1. CA Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that testedpositive for sodium cyanide.Fish Pens and Fish Cages without alicense/permit19. typhoon.which creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when anyfish taken is positive for poisonous substances. The accused were convictedfor illegal fishing using poisonous substances under PD 703. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of anadromous.Committed with grave abuse of confidence.The property stolen consists of coconutstaken from the premises of a plantation.Penalties for qualified theft are now nextHIGHER BY 2 DEGREES. There must be allegation in the informationand proof of a relation. Article 310. Lake or BayConstruction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps.If property is taken on the occasion of fire. Fish Pens and Fish CagesGathering and Marketing of Shell Fish which issexually mature or below the minimum sizeor above the maximum quantitiesprescribed for the particular speciesObstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb of Tide in any Stream. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators EmployingUnlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew20. or large cattle. guardianship or vigilance .Committed by a domestic servant. Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. Obstruction to Fishery Law EnforcementOfficer Hizon vs. River. SC held that thepresumption is only prima facie hence. catadromous and other migratoryspecies. orany other calamity. but not limited to rivermouths and estuaries within a distance determinedby the concerned FARMCs21.3.2. The abuse of confidence must be grave . volcanic eruption. in areas including.
The truck. and withintent to deprive the true owner of the possessionthereof. The grave abuse of confidence need not bepremeditated. People vs. Theystole a truck and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from thecompany. IAC 4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from aplantation. Its presence in thecommission of theft is sufficient. SCheld that they are guilty only of FRUSTRATED QUALIFIEDTHEFT as they were not able to carry away the coconutsfrom the plantation that is the gravamen of the offenceunder Art 310. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer133 The confidence gravely abused must be thatexisting between offended party and theoffender . however. and since he effectively deprived thetrue owner of the possession of the entire automobile. The fact thatthe accused stripped the car of its tires and abandoned themachine in a distant part of the city did not make theappellant any less liable ..between the accused and the offendedparty. that has created a high degree of confidence between them. theoffense of larceny comprised the whole car. They were convicted of qualified theft. CañalesFacts: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. They dropped the coconuts after being seen bythe owner. Neither will it diminish the criminalresponsibility of appellant. which theaccused abused. Was there qualified theft as tothe recovered truck? Held: The recovery of the stolen motor vehicle does notmean that the crime of qualified theft was notconsummated. The act of asportation in this case wasundoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thiefto profit by the act. They were tasked to deliver the prawns to thepier using the truck. animo lucrandi . Carpio : The gistof the offense of larceny consists in the furtive takingand asportation of property. In People v. wassubsequently recovered. Empelis vs.
The trial court found him guilty beyondreasonable doubt of qualified theft. The trial court found himguilty of qualified theft. 1992 forstamping only on April 21.1996. Azkcon has a businessarrangement with Power Construction Supply Company(Power Construction) whereby Azkcon buys cold rolledsheets from the latter. or have the same purpose or object. 6539. or cover the same specific or particularsubject matter. However.HELD: The trial court correctly found thatappellant was a trusted employee of Azkcon.m. It was agreed that appellant would drive thetaxi from 6:00 a. 51111) dated March 23. People v. Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transportand revealed that the taxi had been abandoned.m. he served as team leader at the cutting departmentunder the supervision of the Material Comptroller who kepttrack of all the materials coming in and going out of thecompany’s plant in Kalookan City.HELD: Bustinera was convicted of qualified theftunder Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. ESC wasable to recovered. 1997. He was in-charge of overseeing the cutting of the materials at PowerConstruction and ensuring their delivery to Azkcon.. and (5) the taking wasaccomplished without violence or intimidation against theperson or force upon things. (2) the property belongs to another. These cold rolled sheets are alsocut by Power Construction for a fee and Azkcon convertsthem into drums or containers. or to the same class ofpersons or things. as amended. appellant admittedly reported for work and drovethe taxi. therule dictates that they should be construed togetherThe elements of the crime of theft as providedfor in . otherwiseknown as "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZINGCARNAPPING. OnJanuary 9."When statutes are in pari materia or when theyrelate to the same person or thing.00 per day. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. he succeeded in withdrawing from the saidsupplier the cold rolled sheets. Bago’s job was to go toPower Construction’s establishment in Quezon City tooversee the cutting of the cold rolled sheets and ensuretheir delivery to Azkcon using the trucks sent by Hilo.Clearly. to 11:00 p.for the larceny of the automobile. 1992 could not be found in thepremises of Azkcon and there was no evidence that hedelivered them on said date or on any other daythereafter.000. but he did not return it on the same day as he wassupposed to. by Republic Act No.The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon hisright of possession were complete as to the entire car. all the elements of theft wereestablished. From 1991 to1992. Inexplicably.00. On December 25. (3) thetaking was without the consent of the owner. as amendedfor the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. Reynaldo Bago (2000) FACTS: Reynaldo Bago was an employee ofAzkcon Metal Industries from 1988-1992.Article 310 has been modified. appellant presented the thirdreceipt (Invoice No. andthe fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly toabandon the machine in no wise limits their criminalresponsibility to the particular parts of the car that wereappropriate and subsequently used by the appellant uponhis own car. The materials he took fromthe supplier on March 23. to wit: (1) there was a taking of personalproperty. As the theft was committedwith grave abuse of confidence. Bagowas discovered to have participated in the theft ofmaterials worth P192. People v. Luisito Bustinera (2004) FACTS: ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as ataxi driver. 1992. (4) the takingwas done with intent to gain. Due tothis trust. with respect to certainvehicles. after which he wouldreturn it to ESC Transport's garage and remit the boundaryfee in the amount of P780. appellant is guilty ofqualified theft. The reasonable conclusionis that he asported the materials.
(2) that said propertybelongs to another. since appellant is being accused of the unlawfultaking of a Daewoo sedan. or by means of violenceagainst or intimidation of persons. that he hadaccess to the electrical supplies of said company. (2) the theft is committed with graveabuse of confidence. (2) the takingis without the consent of the owner or by means ofviolence against or intimidation of persons or by using forceupon things. or by using force uponthings. which were generally used for theinstallation of transformers and power lines. and (5) that the taking be accomplished withoutthe use of violence against or intimidation of persons orforce upon things. (DLPC). (5) the property stolen is fish taken from afishpond or fishery. volcanic eruption. and thatwith grave abuse of confidence. Heinitiated a covert operation to discover the method and tocapture one of the culprits. withintent to gain. .robbery and carnapping being the same. and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. it is the anti-carnapping law andnot the provisions of qualified theft which would apply. and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire. (4) that the taking be done without the consent ofthe owner.6539.On the other hand." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the takingof a motor vehicle which belongs to another.cut-out and wires. anchors itself on thebare denial of petitioner of the specific acts imputed bythe prosecution against him. including lightning arresters. Section 2 of Republic Act No. thegroup was brought down and Jonathan Cariaga was chargedand found guilty of qualified by grave abuse of confidenceHELD: The defense. pilferage or theft of company property.Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of amotorized vehicle. From theforegoing. (4) the propertystolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of aplantation. typhoon. Certainly.whose duty was to devise means to prevent losses due towaste. of a motor vehicle belonging to anotherwithout the latter's consent. verily. The prosecution establishedthat petitioner who was permanently assigned as driver ofTruck "S143" had charge of all the DLPC equipment andsupplies kept in his vehicle. orany other calamity. this negativeassertion cannot prevail over the unimpeached testimonyof the prosecution witness describing in sufficient detailthe active participation of petitioner in the commission ofthe crime charged. earthquake. He receivedreports that some private electricians were engaged in theclandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. Court of Appeals (2001) FACTS: "Luis Miguel Aboitiz was the SystemsAnalyst of the Davao Light & Power Company.Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) thatthere be taking of personal property. (3) that the taking be done with intentto gain. he stole electricalmaterials belonging to DLPC. Cariaga v. While the merecircumstance that the petitioner is an employee or laborerof DLPC does not suffice to create the relation ofconfidence and intimacy that the law requires to designatethe crime as qualified theft. andspecifically stored therein for emergency operations atnight when the stockroom is closed. vehicular accident or civil disturbance. mail matter or large cattle. We note that the information allegedthat petitioner was an employee of DLPC. as amended defines "carnapping" as "the taking. (3) the property stolen is either amotor vehicle.Theft is qualified when any of the followingcircumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by adomestic servant. Jonathan D. the concept of unlawful taking in theft. Using an undercover agent. it has been held that access tothe place where the taking took place or access to thestolen items changes the complexion of the crimecommitted to that of qualified theft. Inc.
thefelony of qualified theft would be committed. The trial courtcorrectly convicted appellant of Qualified Theft on thebasis of circumstantial evidence.As such. Sison facilitated the crediting of two (2)fictitious remittances in the amounts of P3. beginning withPeople v.000. Asuncion Roque v People (2004) FACTS: Asuncion Roque was a teller of the BasaAir Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. He was charged and found guilty of qualified theft.000. People (2006) .00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch.000.250. Roque argued that sincethe money was lawfully received by her and latermisappropriated she was guilty only of estafa.000. Locson this Court considered deposits received bya teller in behalf of a bank as being only in the materialpossession of the teller. the integrity of telegraphic fund transfersand account names of bank clients. and it was this trust andconfidence which he exploited to enrich himself to thedamage and prejudice of PCIB in the amount ofP6. Appellant could not havecommitted the crime had he not been holding the positionof Luneta Branch Operation Officer which gave him notonly sole access to the bank vault but also control of theaccess of all bank employees in that branch.HELD: In the present case. This interpretation applies withequal force to money received by a bank teller at thebeginning of a business day for the purpose of servicingwithdrawals. since the teller occupies a position ofconfidence.00. what is involved is thepossession of money in the capacity of a bank teller.000.00 in favor of Solid Realty DevelopmentCorporation. The management of thePCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as itsLuneta Branch Operation Officer. Further. InPeople v. the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank(PCIB).00 from the PCIB LunetaBranch. (BABSLA). to confidential and highly delicatecomputerized security systems designed to safeguard.000.HELD: The appeal has no merit. Such is only material possession.000. thecombination of all the incriminating facts proven by theprosecution and the logical inferences derived therefromleave no doubt in Our mind that appellant.People v Ruben Sison (2000) FACTS: Ruben Sison first joined the AuditingDepartment of the Philippine Commercial InternationalBank (PCIB) in December 1977. Unable to return the money.00 andP4. she was chargedwith qualified theft and covicted. is qualified theft.000. except theBranch Manager. if the teller appropriates the money forpersonal gain then the felony committed is theft and notestafa. He wasthe primary control officer directly responsible for the dayto day operations of the branch. and the bank places money in the teller'spossession due to the confidence reposed on the teller. In line with thereasoning of the Court in several cases. with graveabuse of confidence. Astudillo v. and then laterthe withdrawal of P6.The crime perpetuated by appellant against hisemployer. he was assigned to different branches until his lastdetail at the PCIB Luneta Branch in February 1991. De Vera. Shewas found to have taken money from several of thedepositors. conceived and accomplished the theftof P6. an equally fictitious account.among others. Juridicalpossession remains with the bank. Ultimately.755. including custody of thecash vault. He rose from the ranks andwas promoted to the position of Assistant Manager andconcurrently held the position of Branch Operation Officer.
D. gathers. The same penalty plus cancellation of his licenseagreement. lessee. firm. collected or removed. firm.or from private lands. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favorof the government of the timber or forest products tocut.D.preparation and issuance of invoices. forestreserves and other kinds of public forests. equipment. gathering and/or collectingtimber or other products without license. Any person. While they had accessto the merchandise. 705The Forestry Reform Code (as amended)SECTION 68. they shall.or timber from alienable and disposable public lands. partnership or association. be deported without further proceedings onthe part of the Commission on Immigration andDeportation. in addition tothe penalty herein prescribed. or other forestproducts. lease. and if such guilty officer or officers are aliens. of thecorporation. rules andregulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualifiedtheft as defined and penalized under Articles 308. as the case may be. whetherunder license or lease. in addition to thepenalty. That if the offender is a corporation. or from any privately ownedforest lands in violation of existing laws. who directly or indirectly cuts. they had no access to the cashier’sbooth or to the cash payments subject of the offense. license or permit and perpetualdisqualification from acquiring any such privilegeshall be imposed upon any licensee. They merely assistedcustomers in making a purchase and in demonstrating themerchandise to prospective buyers. They had no hand in the safekeeping. whether natural or juridical. collect. either from any of the public forest. and themachinery. partnershipor association. lease. P. Provided.309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. 330PenalizingTimber Smuggling orIllegal Cutting of LogsSECTION 1. license or permit. Illegal Logging P. Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer135 payments. shall beguilty of qualified theft as defined and punishedunder Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC.removes. gathered. he or they shall bedeported without further proceedings on the part of the Commissioned of Immigration and Deportation. the officers who ordered the cutting. . or removetimber or other forest products from any forest land. Cutting. — Anyperson who shall cut. Theelement of grave abuse of confidence requires thatthere be a relation of independence. and if suchofficers are aliens.Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees ofWestern does not suffice to create the relation ofconfidence and intimacy that the law requires. association orcorporation. gather. implements and tools usedtherein. Provided.gathering or collecting shall be liable. the penalty shall be imposed upon theguilty officer or officers. or smuggles timber. without any authority under alicense agreement. and the forfeiture of his improvements in thearea. That in the case of partnership. guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and Western.
Mustang Lumber Inc vs. associationcorporation or partnership or other organizationwho/which commits the act of fencing.possess. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second HandArticles is required All stores. with intent togain for himself or for another. shall buy. thepenalty provided in this paragraph shall beimposed in its maximum period. object. orshall buy and sell.establishment or entity is located. article. without prejudice towhatever civil action the latter may bring against theoffender.000 pesosbut not exceeding 22. sell or dispose of. conceal. keep. item. establishments or entities dealing in thebuy and sell of any good. oranything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. CA Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber isactually processed forest raw materials or just processedtimber. secure thenecessary clearance or permit from the stationcommander of the Integrated National Police inthe town or city where such store. or in any other manner deal in anyarticle. Fencing PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. but the totalpenalty which may be imposed shall not exceedtwenty years. lumber is necessarily included intimber as the law makes no distinction . firm. to have beenderived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery ortheft. if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum. Presumption of Fencing. Therefore. object of anything of value obtained from an unlicenseddealer or supplier thereof. In such cases. acquire."Fence" includes any person. article. object or anything of value which heknows.000 pesos. the penalty shall betermed reclusion temporal and the accessorypenalty pertaining thereto provided in theRevised Penal Code shall also be imposed. item. item.orpermittee who cuts timber from the licensed orleased area of another. . shall before offeringthe same for sale to the public.000 pesos. if the value of the property involved is more than 12. or should be known to him. receive. Mere possession of any good. 1612ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979What is fencing? “Fencing" is the act of any person who. Penalties imposed Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished ashereunder indicated: a. adding one yearfor each additional 10. The penalty of prision mayor.
c.The penalty of arresto mayor in its mediumperiod. if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6. Theft of the property of theNational Library and National Museum Theft of the property onNational Library and Museum has a fixedpenalty regardless of its value. Article 312.000 pesos. Article 311. if such value does not exceed 5 pesos. . if such value is over five (5) pesos butnot exceeding 50 pesos.The penalty of prision correccional in itsminimum and medium periods.The penalty of arresto mayor in its mediumperiod to prision correccional in its minimumperiod.000 pesos. usurps any real rights inproperty 2. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimumperiod.Elements:1.The penalty of prision correccional in itsmedium and maximum periods. if the value of the property involved isover 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.That the offender a.b. That the real property or real right belongsto another 3.e. Occupation of real propertyor usurpation of real rights in property Acts punishable:1.Usurping any real rights in propertybelonging to another by means of violenceagainst or intimidation of persons.000pesos but not exceeding 12.2. if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesosbut not exceeding 6.Taking possession of any real propertybelonging to another by means of violenceagainst or intimidation of persons. takes possession of any real property or b.d. f.
the crime is: grave coercionUsurpation of Real Right.That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying real property or usurping realrights in property 4. . only CIVIL LIABILITY existsViolence or intimidation must be DURING theoccupation or usurpation. who had lost a case in a cadastralproceeding. The refusal (violent or not) of theaccused to comply with writ of execution is aDISTINCT OFFENSE: contempt of court underthe Rules of Court. but accused threatenedadministrator he would "kill anyone who woulddrive me away" or chased administrator awaywith bolo. and when the administrator of suchland told him to leave. example:Accused.If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of strategy or stealth) .Article 312 does NOT apply in case of opendefiance of a writ of execution issued in aforcible entry caseReason: Accused did not secure thepossession of the land by means of violence orintimidation. That there is intent to gain . took possession of the landadjudicated in favor of the offended party andharvested the palay. The real property or real right must belong toanother If defendant who took possession of theland using violence or intimidation has shownhe is owner of the land in question andcomplainant was a mere possessor.Art 312 DOES NOT apply when the violenceor intimidation only took place SUBSEQUENT tothe entry into propertyExample: if accused ALREADY OCCUPPIEDthe land. by means of threats andintimidation.If at all. itonly provides for a fine. Art 312DOES NOT apply.Criminal Action for occupation of real propertyNOT A BAR for civil action for forcible entryReason: Causes of action are different!Article 312 does NOT provide for a penalty.
He was thus forcedto seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine NationalPolice. Altering boundaries orlandmarks Elements:1. Article 313. The requisites of usurpation are that the accused tookpossession of another's real property or usurped real rightsin another's property.Thus. theCourt stated that the elements of the offense are (1)occupation of another's real properly or usurpation of a realright belonging to another person.More explicitly. (2) violence orintimidation should be employed in possessing the realproperty or in usurping the real right. . In the trial court. and (3) the accusedshould be animated by the intent to gain. not to the occupant or usurper. Cubelo.That there be boundary marks ormonuments of towns. but to some thirdperson. defendants asserted a calim overthe land despite the fact that a prior judicial decisiondeclared the Del Montes as the rightful owners. violence and intimidation. or any other marks intended todesignate the boundaries of the same 2. that the possession or usurpation wascommitted with violence or intimidation and that theaccused had animo lucrandi. in Castrodes vs.Resultantly.HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation. defendants were found guilty of usurpation ofreal property.together with their other close relatives appeared on theproperty of Francisco and Bienvenido Del Monte. thedecision rendered by the trial court convicting her of thecrime of usurpation of real property was not based on"speculations.Distinguished from theft or robbery: UsurpationTheft/robbery C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer137 There is intent to gainOccupation or usurpationThere is taking orasportationReal property or realrightPersonal property taken Conchita Quinao v People (2000) FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao. claimingthat the same is their inheritance from their ascendantsfurther they gathered coconuts and made them into copra. Whilethere. surmises and conjectures" but clearly on theevidence on record and in accordance with the applicablelaw. Bienvenido Del Monte was forcibly driven out by theaccused from their landholding and was threatened that heshould not return lest harm befall him. provinces." the proofmust show that the real property occupied or usurpedbelongs. and that the possession of the usurper wasobtained by means of intimidation or violence done to theperson ousted of possession of the property.usurped and took possession of the landholding. orestates.IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physicalinjuries inflicted as a result of the acts of violence. with the use of force. In order to sustain aconviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales.
destruction of stone monumentb. isrequiredConcealment of property not sufficient if thedebtor-accused has some other property withwhich to satisfy his obligation. Judgment was renderedagainst him and execution issued. That the offender is a debtor 2. The mere alteration of the boundary marksor monuments intended to designate theboundaries of towns. It only makes the penalty higherReal property may be involved"Absond".Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of theoffenderExample: Wife of accused helped preparedocuments to .Includes:a. real property may be thesubject of fraudulent insolvency. Fraudulent Insolvency Elements: 1. Hence. He absconds with his property 4. He ownedseveral parcels of real property which hetransferred to another to place them beyondthe reach of his creditors.The offender alters said boundary marksIntent to gain NOT necessary. Obligation is due and payable 3.Actual prejudice. provinces. There is prejudice to his creditors Illustration of Fraudulent Insolvency:Defendant became indebted to severalmerchants in Cebu.Being a merchant is not an element of thisoffense."Alter": General and indefinite meaning. The considerations inthe deed of sale were all fictitious.removing a fence Article 314.taking it to another place orc. not intention alone.does not require that the debtorshould depart and physically conceal hisproperty. or estate ispunishable.
Powers of Minister of Labor and Employment(now Secretary of DOLE) The Minister of Labor and Employment orhis duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of suchnon-license or non-holder of authority if afterinvestigation it is determined that his activitiesconstitute a danger to national security and publicorder or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. Any recruitment activities. since it was the creditors of herhusband (not HER creditors) who weredefrauded. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed inlarge scale if committed against three (3) ormore persons individually or as a group. including theprohibited practices enumerated under Article34 of the Labor Code. 2018Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic SabotageActs punishable 1. Swindling (Estafa) P. Suchparticipation does NOT prove her complicity inthe fraud.Distinguished from Insolvency Law:Insolvency Law: requires that the criminalact be committed AFTER the institution of insolvency proceedings Fraudulent insolvency: no need fordefendant to be adjudged bankrupt orinsolvent. The Minister shall . to be undertaken bynon-licensees or non-holders of authorityshall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. The Ministryof Labor and Employment or any lawenforcement officers may initiate complaintsunder this Article. enterprise orscheme. Article 315.D. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall beconsidered an offense involving economicsabotage and shall be penalized in accordancewith Article 39 of the Labor Code Illegal recruitment is deemed committedby a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/orconfederating with one another in carrying outany unlawful or illegal transaction.abscond with his property. 2.
since amount of the damage is the basis of thepenalty.* intent of defrauding another is always anelement* no estafa through negligence -Estafa through Abuse of ConfidenceI.through fraudulent meansElements of Estafa IN GENERAL: 1. itshould be capable of pecuniary estimation. DECEIT is NOT an essentialrequisite of estafa with abuse of confidence* As to second general element of DAMAGE. without having been licensed orauthorized to do so. Three general ways of committing Estafa:1. Paragraph 1 (a):Estafa with unfaithfulness byaltering the substance. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused toa.the offended party orb. That the accused defrauded another by a.with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence2. abuse of confidence or b. establishment and entities found to beengaged in the recruitment of workers for overseasemployment. by means of deceit 2.order the search of theoffice or premises and seizure of documentsparaphernalia.or quality of anything of value .third person* As seen above. Article 315. quantity. properties and other implements usedin illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies.by means of false pretenses or fraudulentacts3.
Paragraph 1 (b):misappropriating or convertingmoney.under any obligation involvingduty to return the very same thing 2.That the offender has an onerousobligation to deliver something of value2.That he alters its substance.opium) II. or other personalproperty be received by the offender ina. NO ESTAFA even if there was alteration Ratio: there was nodamage to talk about • When there is no agreement as to thequality of the thing to be delivered. goods. goods. orother personal property Elements:1.on commissionc.for administrationd. Estafamay arise even if the thing to be deliveredis not subject of lawful commerce (ex. or other personalproperty OR denying havingreceived such money. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer139 delivery of a thing unacceptable to thecomplainant is NOT estafa.That money.That damage or prejudice is caused byanother • There must be an onerous obligationIf the thing delivered had not yet been fullypaid or just partially paid. quantity. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of such property by the offender OR (b) denial . • Even though such obligation be based onan immoral or illegal consideration.Elements:1. goods.trust (Trust Receipts Law)b. orquality3.Article 315.
in accordance with the termsand conditions specified in the trust receipt. or2. who owns or holds absolute title orsecurity interests over certain specified goods. releases the same to thepossession of the entrustee upon the latter'sexecution and delivery to the entruster of a signeddocument called a "trust receipt" wherein theentrustee binds himself to hold the designatedgoods.1973PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUSTRECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS"Trust Receipt" -.documents or instruments. documentsor instruments themselves if they are unsold or nototherwise disposed of. or forother purposes substantially equivalent to any of thefollowing:1. 115 January 29.a)to sell the goods or procure their sale.What constitutes a trust receipt transaction?A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by andbetween a person referred to as the entruster . or b) to manufacture or process the goods withthe purpose of ultimate sale: Provided . andanother person referred to as entrustee . the entruster shall retain itstitle over the goods whether in its original orprocessed form until the entrustee hascomplied fully with his obligation under thetrust receipt. documents or instruments in trust for theentruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of thegoods. wherebythe entruster.There is prejudice to another4.shall refer to the written orprinted document signed by the entrustee in favor of the entruster containing terms and conditionssubstantially complying with the provisions of thisDecree.of such receipt3. orc) to load. in the case of goods delivered undertrust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before itsultimate sale. documents or instruments with the obligationto turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof tothe extent of the amount owing to the entruster or asappears in the trust receipt or the goods. ship or tranship orotherwise deal with them in a mannerpreliminary or necessary to their sale. That. unload. In the case of goods or documents .Demand was made by the offended to theoffender PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. In the case of instruments . No further formality of execution orauthentication shall be necessary to the validity of atrust receipt.
documents orinstruments. ord)to effect their presentation. orc)to effect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to adepository or register.general property rights in such goods. orb)to deliver them to a principal. Of Justice said thatsince PBM would not be selling the equipment but wouldjust be using them. Allied Banking v. Challenged the validityof the law saying that a violation of PD 115 is NOT estafaand that the law violates non-imprisonment for debtsclause of the Constitution.HELD: PD 115 applies to ALL trust receipt transactions.documents or instruments for profit who.converting or denyinghaving received money. Any violation ofthe TRA is punished (Geof's notes in Comm: wrong SCdecision! ) Lee vs. has. or throughabandonment ornegligence. does notconstitute a trust receipt transaction. there was no violation of PD 115. Ordonez PBM got equipment from bank and executed trust receiptagreement (TRA) -. .acknowledged bank's ownership ofequipment and PBM's obligation to turn over the proceedsof the sale of said equipments.. documents or instrumentsby a person in the business of selling goods. at theoutset of the transaction.collection or renewal NOTE : The sale of goods. the fact that the goods were just to be used byPBM and not to be sold is of no importance. Rodil Lee executed TRA for the purchase of materials butmisappropriated the value of the goods for personal use. retaining title or other interest as security forthe payment of the purchase price. permittingany other person to takethe public funds orproperty • Private individual allegedly inconspiracy with public officer in aprosecution of the latter for malversation.Charged with estafa under PD 115. Both are continuing offenses The funds or propertyare always privateInvolves public funds orproperty The offender is a privateindividual or a publicofficer who is notaccountable for publicfunds or propertyOffender is usually apublic officer who isaccountable for publicfunds or property The crime is committedby misappropriating. as against the buyer. Sec.a)to sell or procure their sale orexchange.may still be held liable for Estafa even if the public officer was acquitted.goods or other personalproperty The crime is committedby appropriating. takingor misappropriating orconsenting.Therefore. or who sells the same to the buyer oncredit.
Saddul did not convertit for personal use.business or imaginarytransactions3. orfraudulent means.The offended party must have relied onthe false pretense. That the document so written creates aliability of. or causes damage to theoffended party or any third person • The paper with the signature in blank MUSTBE DELIVERED by the offended party to theoffender (otherwise.qualificationsd. par 1.using fictitious name2.Article 315. Failure to deliver the proceeds did notcause damage to AMPI. III. as it was not the owner of theparts.3. 20% of theproceeds from sale would go to AMPI. Saddul v.That above the signature. fraudulent act orfraudulent means.propertye.That the paper with the signature of theoffended party be in blank2. he was inducedto part with his money or property becauseof the false pretense. fraudulent act orfraudulent means must be made orexecuted prior to or simultaneously withthe commission of the fraud.creditf. (a) Three ways of committing estafa under thisprovision:1. IV.influencec.• Misappropriation of firearmsreceived by a policeman is Estafa.falsely pretending to possessa.other similar deceits • .agencyg. fraudulent act.There must be a false pretense.2. Also.HELD: NOT guilty of estafa.Such false pretense.It is malversation.fraudulent act or fraudulent means. if it is involved in thecommission of a crime. crime is falsification of instrument) -Estafa by DeceitElements of Estafa by means of deceit:1.4. the offended partysuffered damage.Article 315. that is. if it isnot involved in the commission of a crime.That the offended party should havedelivered it to the offender3. Saddul did not receive theparts from AMPI in trust (received it from another partywhich was the owner of the parts). (c): estafa bytaking undue advantage of thesignature of the offended party inblank Elements:1. par 2. a document iswritten by offender without authority to doso 4.powerb.As a result thereof. CA Saddul was authorized to sell some car parts. AMPI did not demand return of the parts.
using the name of that person. B changed thestone with one of lower quality. but payme to find the gold under your house"trick. orweight of anything pertaining tohis art or business • Example: A gives B. a jeweler.Article 315.redeemed the jewelry • Pretending to possess power: "pretend tobe a magician who can find gold. • Pretending to possess influence: I haveconnections in Malacañang so pay me if you wanna get your documents approved"trick • Estafa by means of deceit vs. • Manipulation of Scale: violation of RevisedAdministrative Code VI. Paragraph 2 (b): byaltering quality. fineness. But it istransferred through deceit.Article 315. a diamondto be made into a ring. V. Paragraph 2 (c):pretending to have bribed anyGovernment employee • Person would ask money from another forthe alleged purpose of bribing agovernment employee but just pocketedthe money after • "without prejudice to an action forcalumny" : the offender may also becharged with defamation which thegovernment employee allegedly bribedmay deem proper to bring against theoffender .fictitious name: when a person found apawnshop ticket in the name of anotherand. theft: juridical/ legal possession is still transferred C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer142 to offender in case of estafa.
it isin payment of a pre existing obligation When the check is issued by aguarantor. refreshment. • Prima facie evidence of deceit: failure of the drawer of the check to deposit theamount necessary to cover his checkwithin three days from receipt of noticefrom the bank and/or the payee or holderthat said check has been dishonored forlack or insufficiency of funds otherwise.That such postdating or issuing was donewhen:a. orissued a check in payment of an obligation2.Article 315. etc Three ways of committing estafa under the thisprovision:1.By obtaining credit at any of saidestablishments by the use of falsepretenses3. Paragraph 2 (e):Estafa by obtaining food oraccommodation at a hotel. withoutpaying therefor.By abandoning or surreptitiously removingany part of his baggage from any of saidestablishments after obtaining credit. if drawer is able tofund within 3 days from notice of dishonoring. not liable for estafa VIII.funds deposited were notsufficient • check must be genuine and not falsified. oraccommodation at a hotel. or accommodation therein. not 2(d) (example: signing a checkwith a fictitious name and falselypretending said check could be encashed) • the issuance of a check is NOT for a preexisting obligation. IX. When check is issued insubstitution of a promissory note. it is estafa under paragraph2(a).Article 315.otherwise.VII. food. or hisfunds were not sufficient to coverthe amount Elements:1.2. etc. Article 315. with intent to defraud theproprietor or manager thereof. Paragraph 2 (d):postdating a check in payment of an obligation when the offenderhad no funds in the bank. Paragraph 3 (a):Estafa by inducing another to signany document . It MUST be for anobligation contracted at the time of theissuance or delivery of the check.refreshment. there is no Estafa because itis not in payment of an obligation.That the offender postdated a check.By obtaining food.without paying therefor.offender had no funds orb.
That there be court record. office files.That the offended party personally signedthe document4. .That prejudice be caused • There must be inducement: if the offended party waswilling to sign although there wasdeceit as to the character or contentsof the document (because the contentsare different from those which theoffended party told the accused to C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer143 state in the document) crime isfalsification • accused should make statements tendingto mislead the complainant as to thecharacter of the document executed byhim.600 which came into hispossession when he offered to collect thedeposit is guilty of estafa. concealing.That the offender had intent to defraudanother • If no intent to defraud. Paragraph 3 (c): Estafaby removing. ordestroying documents Elements:1.That deceit be employed to make him signthe document3. X.2.documents or any other papers2. Paragraph 3 (b):Estafa by resorting to somefraudulent practice to insuresuccess in gamblingXI.Article 315. concealed ordestroyed any of them3.That the offender induced the offendedparty to sign a document. Concealing document : A person whoconcealed a document evidencing adeposit of P2. the act of destroying court record will be maliciousmischief • Examples: 1.Article 315.That the offender removed.Elements:1.
there is no estafa.However. • There CAN be a complex crime of theft andestafa. Hence. • If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence. when the former is a necessarymeans to commit the latter. using a fictitious name. does not commit . withoutmaking a new promissory note is estafabecause by destroying the old one. Estafa under par. C. took the pawnshop tickets withoutthe consent of A (Theft). theoffended party was dispossessed of theevidence of a debt. but who effects fullsettlement of the loan within the periodagreed upon. there was a dissenting opinionwhich stated that such PN is void and of novalue. • A private person who procures a loan bymeans of deceit through a falsified publicdocument of mortgage. 3 (c)Infidelity in thecustody of documents Manner of committing offenses is the same The offender is a privateindividual or even apublic officer who is not The offender is a publicofficer who is officiallyentrusted with theofficially entrusted withthe documentsdocument There is intent to defraudIntent to defraud not anelement in this crime Final Notes on Estafa: • The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa with abuse of confidence under aninformation alleging estafa by means of deceit. hence it cannot be the subject of estafa. by the maker thereof. Destroying documents : Destruction of a PNgiven back to the maker to be replacedwith a new one to renew the loan. By redeeming the jewels by means of the tickets. with intentto gain.2. • In a very old case. • The basis of the penalty for estafa is theamount or value of the propertymisappropriated BEFORE the institution of the criminal action. There is only civil liability. partial paymentmade subsequent to the commission of estafa does not reduce the amountmisappropriated which is the basis of thepenalty. C alsocommitted estafa. it was ruled that the actof destroying a PN. even if thereis damage. given to cover losses ingambling. is Estafa.
Temporary prejudice Celino vs.the crime of Estafa. People Heng deposited two checks worth P18.Disturbance in property rights3. Heng wasfinally caught trying to withdraw again. CA Accused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of adwarf. Lastly. People vs. Abujuela NOT aware of the fraudulentplans of Balo. Balo borrowed Abujuela's passbook and made itappear that certain deposits were made. The crime committed is onlyfalsification of public document. • "Prejudice" consists in:1. People Balo offered financial assistance to Abujuela by virtue ofsome insurance proceeds that Balo would receive from his father. The drawee bankssubsequently dishonored deposited checks. CA . Ong Ong deposits checks then withdraws from the depositedaccounts on the same day without waiting for the required5-day clearance period for checks. Diayco questioned the withdrawals. Ong did not employ deceit inwithdrawing the money as the bank waived the 5-dayclearance period for its preferred customers where Ongwas one of those. Ong had no knowledge of lackof funds. there being no disturbance of proprietary rights and no person defraudedthereby.060 each issued by acertain Dyaico.HELD: GUILTY of estafa by false pretense.The offended party being deprived of hismoney or property as a result of the fraud2. Attempted estafa correct as he was caughttrying to withdraw. Then he withdrew several times from theaccount. Llamado vs. Koh Tieng Heng vs. Abujuela charged as accomplice to estafathrough falsification of commercial documentsHELD: NOT guilty.HELD: Possession and utterance of a falsified check givesrise to the presumption that the possessor is the forger ofthe check. discrepancies were found between the ledgerand the account. havingpretended to have special powers and fooled the extremelystupid victim. checks not issued in payment of an obligation asrequired by the RPC.HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. They were able to make the victim allow them todig in the victim's backyard and extort some funds from himwith the promise that it would grow into a big amount. When the accountwas closed. Knowledge of criminal intent is essential tobe an accomplice in estafa. Abujuela vs.
After 2 demand letters were ignored.Gaw delivered to accused the amount of P180. thetrial court rendered judgment convicting the accused ofviolation of Batas Pambansa No. But then.e. if not a mode of payment. a secretary in petitioner'soffice. that it will be repaid plus interests and ashare in the profits of the corporation. he made himselfprone to being charged with violation of BP 22. It becameincumbent upon him to prove his defenses. and bring about havoc intrade and in banking communities. only ifthe project became successful. Gaw was also notified by thebank that his current account was debited because of thedishonor of the said check. the secretary of the accused inthe corporation.000. if any.000 paid by customers of theUnits Optical. So. But to determinethe reason for which checks are issued. i. 22. the statute itselfcreates a prima facie presumption. As Treasurer ofthe corporation who signed the check in his capacity as anofficer of the corporation. that the drawerhad knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or creditwith the bank at the time of the issuance and on thecheck's presentment for payment. Gaw depositedthe check in his current account.. lack of involvement in thenegotiation for the transaction is not a defense. Upondelivery of the money. His claimthat he signed the check in blank which allegedly iscommon business practice. accused Ricardo Llamado andJacinto Pascual signed a postdated Philippine TrustCompany Check in the presence of Gaw. knowledge involves astate of mind difficult to establish.which Gaw handed to Aida Tan.HELD: Llamado denies knowledge of the issuance of thecheck without sufficient funds and involvement in thetransaction with Gaw. or the terms andconditions for their issuance.”Lu Hayco deposited P139. In fact. is hardly a defense. acriminal complaint for .The check was issued for an actual valuable consideration. However. if this were true. not in the company's banks but in his ownpersonal accounts. it is common practice in commercial transactions torequire debtors to issue checks on which creditors mustrely as guarantee of payment.True.the check need not have been issued because a receipt andtheir written agreement would have sufficed. Llamado failed to rebutthe presumption by paying the amount of the check withinfive (5) banking days from notice of the dishonor. or as evidence ofindebtedness. Lu Hayco vs. withthe assurance of Aida Tan. CA Lu Hayco had a special power of attorney from Lu ChiongSun to manage the Units Optical Supply Company. TheSPOA also authorized Lu Hayco “To deposit and withdrawfunds in the name of the company. After trial on the merits. If as heclaims. he signed the check in blank.00. Thus. which the drawee bankdishonored later informed Gaw that said check becausepayment was stopped. and that the check was drawnagainst insufficient funds. what the lawpunishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not thepurpose for which it was issued nor the terms andconditions relating to its issuance. Llamado admits that Gaw made aninvestment in said amount with Pan-Asia FinanceCorporation. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum . Llamado contends that the money which Gawgave the corporation was intended for investment whichthey agreed will be returned to Gaw with interests. will greatly erode the faiththe public reposes in the stability and commercial value ofchecks as currency substitutes.
Throughout the trial.” C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer145 In the case at bar. This fact. and is positive enough under rule of law toproduce one of the elements constituting the offense. CA Salcedo was the local branch manager of ManhattanGuaranty Company. At least. v. though only temporary. thetypewriter was seized by the police. In U.HELD: The disturbance in property rights caused bymisappropriation. the first case of estafa was dismissed but many more ensued (as many as 75counts. 117).estafa thru falsification of a publicdocument was filed against Lu Hayco. among others. Salcedo vs. McCullough & Co. he was convicted. LuChiong Sun and Units Optical could not dispose of the saidamounts. which is sufficient toconstitute conversion in the context of Art. this could be considered as a temporaryprejudice suffered by Lu Chiong Sun. Lu Haycoargues. Because of said act.S. is itself sufficientto constitute injury within the meaning of Art. Inc. Goyenechea (8 Phil. to theAmerican Loan Company. which was engagedin the business of property insurance. was placed in adoubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. [TheSC] held that: “McCullough & Co. by itself. always constitutes real and actualdamage. and taken into court. 315(l -b) ofthe RPC.To make a very long story short. that there is no estafa since theelement of misappropriation or conversion was not proven. and withoutit being necessary to deal with any other considerations ofmaterial fact herein. there was a disturbance in the propertyrights of Lu Chiong Sun. thecrime of estafa . at least suffereddisturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter andin the possession thereof. the defendantpledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough & Co. Said company hadbeen suspended from operating and eventually closed bythe Insurance Commissioner since February 21. 315 (1-b) of theRPC. I think). at Iligan City. 1968. While the funds received by LuHayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts. Eventually.Salcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order buthe deliberately concealed the same from complainantPonce when he .
or by means ofother similar deceits. and that as result thereof. Eventually. which they did. he had knowledge that hiscompany was no longer authorized to conduct insurancebusiness. the offendedparty suffered damage. Remullo. The deliberateconcealment by Salcedo of the fact that his company wasno longer authorized to engage in the business of insurancewhen he signed and issued the fire insurance policy andcollected the premium payment constitutes falserepresentations or false pretenses.000 for each applicant. and collectedPl. the following requisites must concur: • that the accused made false pretenses orfraudulent representations as to his power. 383 SCRA 93 (2002) FACTS: Quinsaat. influence. 2(a) of Art. Cadacio. therecruitment agency where Remullo allegedly worked. Remullo told them to fill up applicationforms and to go to the office of Jamila and Co.Remullo also required each applicant to submit apassport. or falsely pretending topossess power. property. 1968 a P50. and Mejia went toappellant's house sometime in March 1993.HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of ManhattanGuarantee. Their passportswere cancelled and their boarding passes marked"offloaded". When he signed and issued the policy andcollected the premium thereof. an immigration officerat the airport told the victims they lacked arequirement imposed by the POEA. pictures.qualifications. At the timeof their supposed departure.000 fireinsurance policy unto the complainant.issued on March 18. whereRemullo told them she was recruiting factory workersfor Malaysia. Evelyn Landrito. credit. vice president andgeneral manager of Jamila later certified thatappellant was not authorized to receive payments onbehalf of Jamila. People v. credit.All these requisites are present in this case. and clearance from the NBI. the City Court of IliganCity convicted Salcedo of estafa .. upon which thecomplainant relied when he paid the premium.agency. By means of any of the following false pretenses orfraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously withthe commission of the fraud:(a) By using a fictitious name. business or imaginary transactions. 315 of the RPC which provides that:“2. qualifications. agency. . This knowledge makes him liable under paragraph2(a) of Art.”To secure a conviction for estafa under par.80 as premium.095.315 of the RPC. business orimaginary • that such false premises or fraudulentrepresentations constitute the very cause whichinduced the offended party to part with his money orproperty. influence. property. Noreceipts were issued for said payments. andthen to undergo a medical examination ‘The threewere then asked by Remullo to pay a placement feeof P15.
Robert Crisanto Lee was thecorporation's sales manager from early 90's to 1994.00. No clearer cases ofestafa could be imagined than those for which appellantshould be held criminally responsible.672. goods or other personal propertyis received by the offender in trust. Atoz thus notifiedOcean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was no longer connectedwith the corporation. Through conversion or misappropriation Crisanto Lee v. or to return the same.private complainants each parted with their hard-earnedmoney. Atoz audited some of the accounts handled by him. as no jobs await them abroad. who then appropriated the money for her ownuse and benefit. brought to theairport with their passports and tickets. or denial on his part of such receipt. By virtue of appellant's false representations. so that it was upon the latter's instructions that OceanFeed Mills addressed its payments through telegraphictransfers to either "Atoz Trading and/or Robert Lee" or"Robert Lee". Itwas then that Atoz discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaidaccount in the amount of P318. Misappropriation orconversion may be proved by the prosecution by directevidence or by circumstantial . but with promises to be booked in aplane flight on another day.HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence areas follows: a) that money. he was able to bringin Ocean Feed Mills as a client. months.HELD: In this case. or under any other obligation involvingthe duty to make delivery of. In a classic rigmarole. Ocean Feed Mills informed Atoz that they havealready fully settled their accounts and even madeoverpayments. Having "personally found"Ocean Feed Mills. or on commission. People (2005) FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in thetrading of animal feeds. To"misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use orbenefit. In thecourse of Lee's employment therewith.The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as usedin the aforequoted law connote an act of using or disposingof another's property as if it were one's own or of devotingit to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. only to beoffloaded that day. Each complainant paid P15. but failed utterly to provide overseas jobplacements to the complainants. and advised it to verify its accounts. Atoz filed several cases of estafa againstLee. even years. Transactionsbetween the two companies were then coursed throughLee. The recruits wait in vain forweeks.complainants were provided defective visas. b) thatthere be misappropriation or conversion of such money orproperty by the offender. appellant clearly defraudedprivate complainants by deceiving them into believing thatshe had the power and authority to send them on jobsabroad. orfor administration. only to realize they weregypped.When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in1994. not only the conversion to one's personaladvantage but also every attempt to dispose of theproperty of another without a right.Promptly preparing a certification and summary ofpayments.000 as recruitment feeto appellant. c) that such misappropriation or conversion ordenial is to the prejudice of another. and the trial court found him guilty. he handled said account.
Resultantly Aurora/Uni-Group failed to produce the 700 dozens of ladies jeansresulting in a suit against them. Jorge Salazar. the SCreversed and held he was innocent. or denial on his part of such receipt.00 was transmitted by Skiva as advancepayment. It was also Mr. failure toaccount upon demand.A. and Mrs. is the Vice-President and Treasurer of Uni-Group and a consultant ofAurora. Mr.300.In December 1985. In a prosecution for estafa. the accused may be convicted of thefelony under Article 315. and (d) there is demand by theoffended party to the offender.We reiterate that the contract between Skiva andAurora was one of sale. People (2004) FACTS: Skiva International. Indeed.00 (then equivalent to P850. Aurora Manufacturing & Development Corporation(“Aurora”) and Uni-Group Inc.00 at theexchange rate of P20. a Purchase Contract was issued byOlivier to Uni-Group wherein Uni-Group was to supply 700dozens of Ladies Jeans payable by means of a letter ofcredit at sight.On January 7. Inc.370.Mr.Jorge Salazar and Mr. His conviction was upheld even by the SupremeCourt. (b) that there bemisappropriation or conversion of such money or propertyby the offender.59 to US$1. Asrequested. Werner Lettmayr. Jorge Salazar v. thebalance was later found missing. or for administration. After the perfection of the contractof sale. Olivier (Philippines)Inc. Skiva remitted the funds byway of telegraphic transfer from its bank in New York. $41. However.Werner Lettmayr is the President of both Aurora and Uni-Group while the petitioner. to the joint account of Mr.evidence. 1(b) of theRevised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money. However in this Motion for Reconsideration.demand is not necessary where there is evidence ofmisappropriation or conversion. Skiva informed Olivier that itneeds ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January1986. Jorge Salazar withdrew money from thedollar account converted it into pesos and purchased clothfor the manufacture of 300 dozens of ladies jeans. Thebalance was allegedly returned by him. Salazar was charged andconvicted. requested Skiva for advance payment in order toprocure the raw materials needed for the 700-dozen ladies’jeans. and Mrs. in turn.00) as Aurora/Uni-Groupdid not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials tomanufacture the jeans.HELD: We find merit in the new motion.is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.goods or other personal property is received by theoffender in trust or on commission. Lettmayr who suggested that theadvance payment be made to the joint account of himselfand his wife. the parties agreed that Skivawill advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount ofUS$41.300. Werner Lettmayr at CitibankN. (“Uni-Group”) are domesticcorporations which supply finished clothes to Skiva. However. representing Aurora/Uni-Group. Olivier. Mr. there was delay in theperformance of contract on the part of . Thus. par. contacted Aurora and Uni-Group tosupply the jeans. together with petitioner and his wife.or under any other obligation involving the duty to makedelivery of or to return the same. for funds or property held in trust. paragraph 1(b) of the RevisedPenal Code if the prosecution proved misappropriation orconversion by the accused of the money or propertysubject of the Information. It was also agreed that the amountadvanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its orderof 700 dozens of ladies jeans. (c)that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to theprejudice of another. Despite the payment. Theelements of estafa under Article 315. theIsrael Discount Bank. 1986. is a New York-based corporation which imports clothes from thePhilippines through its buying agent.Demand is not an element of the felony or acondition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaintfor estafa.
" It must be pointed out that the law onagency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by anagent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of anexpress agreement to the contrary between the agent andthe principal.Skiva has no cause to complain that petitioner committedestafa. both within 30 days from receipt of the items. Calapan Branch.00 inthe vault of Metrobank. the element of juridical possession beingabsent.Petitioner and the OSG contend that under these facts. not a criminal suit.Aurora/Uni-Group. People. in fact. In Abeto vs. severalinvestigations were carried out. Byoral agreement of the parties.which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation toQuilatan.HELD: Serona did not ipso facto commit thecrime of estafa through conversion or misappropriation bydelivering the jewelry to a sub-agent for sale oncommission basis. it cannot be said that Serona 's act ofentrusting the jewelry to Labrador is characterized byabuse of confidence because such an act was notproscribed and is. 1 (b) of the Revised PenalCode. thereby committing conversion and a clearbreach of trust. goods. ” In fine. or any other . petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime ofestafa under Article 315. legally sanctioned. Quilatan filed a complaint withthe prosecutor and Serona was charged with estafa. Cristeta Chua Burce v Court of Appeals (2000) FACTS: After finding a shortage of P150. She was found guilty ofestafa by the trial court. the obligation to returnthe advance payment ensues but this obligation is civiland not of criminal nature. Quilatan required her toexecute an acknowledgment receipt indicating theiragreement and the total amount due. We agree.When the money. Thetrial court found her guilty. we held that “ anadvance payment is subject to the disposal of thevendee. the remedy of Skivaagainst Aurora/Uni-Group for breaching its contract is acivil. Thus. Virgie Serona v Court of Appeals (2002) FACTS: Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces ofjewelry to Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis.Serona was not able to collect payment from Labrador.HELD: Petitioner herein being a mere cashcustodian had no juridical possession over the missingfunds. petitioner shall remitpayment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold toQuilatan. In the case at bar.Neither does it appear that Serona was verbally forbiddenby Quilatan from passing on the jewelry to another personbefore the acknowledgment receipt was executed or at any C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer147 other time. all of them concluded thatthe person primarily responsible was the bank’s CashCustodian. Cristeta Chua-Burce. If the transaction fails. No. Serona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to oneMarichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission basis.000. After demand. We are unable to agree with the lowercourts' conclusion that this fact alone is sufficient groundfor holding that petitioner disposed of the jewelry "as if itwere hers.Upon petitioner's failure to pay. the appointment ofLabrador as petitioner's sub-agent was not expresslyprohibited by Quilatan in the acknowledgement receipt. Hence. Unknown toQuilatan.
and twodocuments signed by the Reichl spouses where theyadmitted that they promised to secure Austrian touristvisas for private complainants and that they wouldreturn all the expenses incurred by them if they are notable to leave by March 24. 28 a travelling sales agent misappropriated orfailed to return to his principal the proceeds of things orgoods he was commissioned or authorized to sell. as against his own principal. Juridical possession means a possession whichgives the transferee a right over the thing which thetransferee may set up even against the owner. and not qualified theft. as when theprincipal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made.however. spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl. a certificationfrom the Philippine Overseas EmploymentAdministration (POEA) that Karl Reichl and YolandaGutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities wereneither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruitworkers for overseas employment.personalproperty is received by the offender from the offendedparty (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) foradministration. the receiving tellerof a bank who misappropriated money received by him forthe bank. with grave abuse ofconfidence.fraudulent acts or means People v Francisco Hernandez (2002) FACTS: Eight (8) informations for syndicatedand large scale illegal recruitment and eight (8)informations for estafa were filed against accused-appellants.petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarilyresponsible for the cash-in-vault.both being mere bank employees. on theother hand. old). the receiving teller of a bankmisappropriated the money received by him for the bank. in support of its theory thatappellant only had the material possession of themerchandise he was selling for his principal. Court ofAppeals.The evidence for the prosecution consisted ofthe testimonies of private complainants.the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the fundsreceived. we explained the distinction betweenpossession of a bank teller and an agent for purposes ofdetermining criminal liability —"The case cited by the Court of Appeals (Peoplevs. [N]ew Civil Code. removed the money and appropriated it to hisown use without the consent of the bank. and thepossession of the defendant was the possession of thebank. An agent. When the defendant. Her possession of thecash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller. In said case.We explained in Locson that —"The money was in the possession of thedefendant as receiving teller of the bank. In theGuzman case. found liable for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) ofthe Revised Penal Code. autonomous. 1993."In the subsequent case of Guzman v.an independent. Locson. can even assert. 3 and where KarlReichl pledged to refund to private complainants thetotal sum of . 325).and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault(Article 1915.He was found liable for qualified theft on the theory thatthe possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. right to retain money orgoods received in consequence of the agency. and an agent who receives theproceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him inagency by his principal. there was thetaking or apoderamiento contemplated in the definition ofthe crime of theft." Through false pretenses. 57 Phil. Locson. Article 1730. In the former case. the receipts for thepayment made by private complainants. was held guilty of qualified theft on the theorythat the possession of the teller is the possession of thebank. In this case. and has no independent right or title to retain orpossess the same as against the bank. There is an essential distinction between thepossession by a receiving teller of funds received from thirdpersons paid to the bank. the offender acquires both material orphysical possession and juridical possession of the thingreceived. is not in point.In People v. payment bythird persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself. or theirproceeds. He was.
Honesta reported the incident to the National Bureauof Investigation (NBI) which.Orosco brought five more cans which Honesta boughtand eventually sold to Lawas. 1989. they would buy thesecans from her at P2.500. May 21. paragraph 2 of theRevised Penal Code is committed by any person whodefrauds another by using a fictitious name."Mr.a. "Rey. The following day. She borrowed the money from a Jose Bicharaat 10% interest on the advice of Erquiaga who lent herP5. fraudulent act or fraudulent means of theaccused-appellant and as a result thereof. Itis by this representation that they induced privatecomplainants to pay a placement fee of P150. or by means of similar deceits executedprior to or simultaneously with the commission of thefraud. a. andOrosco vanished. 315 (2) of the RevisedPenal Code provided the elements of estafa arepresent.property. was filed against Roberto Erquiaga.They persuaded Honesta to purchase cans of a marinepreservative which. Her daughterand she met Dayandante and a certain Lawas (RodolfoSevilla) at the Aristocrat Hotel. Guerrerro. Roberto Erquiaga vs Court of Appeals ( 2001) FACTS: Honesta Bal is a businesswoman whoowned a bookstore. agency. influence. qualifications. He toldHonesta that the company he represented wasinterested in purchasing her property.924.Estafa under Article 315." who sold said marinepreservative. Dayandante. credit. paragraph 2 (a) of the RevisedPenal Code.000 each. business or imaginarytransactions.388. a. the offendedparty suffered damages. Pastor Lawas and Manuel Dayandante. Sometime in May 1989. or "con . she wascontacted by Manuel Dayandante @ Manny Cruz whooffered to buy her land in Pili. Encouraged by the huge profits from herprevious transactions. could be bought for P1." was introduced to Honesta to ascertainwhether the cans of marine preservative were genuineor not. In turn. Erquiaga.The following day.500 eachfrom a certain peddler.P1. May 20. Lawas. Thedefense interposed denial and alibi. GlennOrosco.HELD: SC upheld the trial court stating that.00 as deposit or earnest money and whopromised to shoulder the 10% interest of her loan. 1989 GlennOrosco.Such act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2)of the Revised Penal Code.a. she purchased all 215 cans forP322. They said they workedas field purchasing representative and field purchasinghead. Realizing that she was conned. Soonafter the payment. beconvicted of estafa under Art. in addition. upon examination of thecontents of the cans. Honesta purchased a can which she soldto Dayandante for P1.It has been proved in this case that accused-appellantsrepresented themselves to private complainants tohave the capacity to send domestic helpers to Italy.the prosecution also proved the guilt of accused-appellants for the crime of estafa. an Information forEstafa under Article 315.00. of the Taiwanese Marine Products.although they did not have any authority or license.000.k. A person who isconvicted of illegal recruitment may. respectively.900.HELD: That petitioners had conspired witheach other must be viewed not in isolation from but inrelation to an alleged plot. appeared at Honesta's store and introducedhimself as an agent.00 representing the amountsthey paid for the processing of their papers. a sting. It was during thistransaction that petitioner Roberto Erquiaga. The trial courtconvicted accused-appellants of one (1) count of illegalrecruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa.On December 4. The offended party must have relied on the falsepretense. discovered that these werenothing more than starch.000. or falselypretends to possess power. Orosco delivered 215 cans toHonesta.k.On May 24. Camarines Sur.
That there must be a false pretense. They used aliases. All these payments were accompanied by awritten receipt. 148371. however.000.000.’ Ramos statedshe could help in the processing of passport. No. Elsa Jose v People [G. Ramos told del Rosario that shewas a ‘professional travel agent’ and would assist herin going to Japan.00 stating that part of the money would beused to expedite the release of the visa.000. That as a result thereof. whethersuch a well-planned confidence operation resulted inthe consummated crime of estafa. visa andround trip ticket.000. by false or misleading allegations. Bautista to theoffice of Elsa Ramos. Ramos asked for anotherP57. on the one hand. as the former had ‘severalconnection(s) at the Japanese Embassy.00 at a later date. fraudulentact.000.The elements of estafa or swindling underparagraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised PenalCode 18 are the following:1.Erquiaga misrepresented himself as a"verifier" of the contents of the cans. she was not a travel agent.00 was in payment of the roundtrip ticket.] FACTS: 24 November 1994.R.Guerrero".000. DelRosario thereafter filed a case for estafa againstRamos. .fraudulent act or fraudulent means. the offendedparty suffered damage. Petitioner Oroscomisrepresented himself as a seller of marinepreservative. or fraudulent means. fraudulent act. Further. he was induced to part with his moneyor property because of the false pretense. or byconcealment of that which should have been disclosed)which deceives or is intended to deceive another sothat he shall act upon it to his legal injury.Indeed. Del Rosario kept followingup her papers with Ramos who insisted on her priorassurances that the visa would soon be released. the RTC found her guilty as did the Court ofAppeals.Ramos assured them that the visa would be obtainedsoon and the P17. who couldassist in processing private respondent’s travel papers.2.Del Rosario gave P30. That such false pretense. as well as a round-trip ticket to and a visa for Japan.4. that is. Neither wasshe licensed to engage in the business of travel agency. On the other hand is the testimony ofpetitioner denying she ever made suchmisrepresentation.HELD: Deceit refers to a “falserepresentation of a matter of fact (whether by wordsor conduct. private respondent has shown hergullibility and perhaps even foolishness in believingpetitioner and in consequently parting with herP104. They asked Ramos whether shewas a travel agent. He encouragedHonesta to borrow money. Regie Ramos delRosario went with her aunt Yolanda B.operation"known as "negosyo" of their group. Thereafter.3.00 ‘as initialpayment and another P17.The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubtthat the accused made false pretenses as to herqualifications and the transactions she had purportedlyentered into as a professional travel agent.”On record are. must beestablished by the prosecution beyond reasonabledoubt. and then petitioners disappeared from thescene after taking the money from her. fraudulent actor fraudulent means must be made or executed prior toor simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. or fraudulentmeans. August 12. the pieces ofevidence submitted by the People of the Philippinesestablishing how petitioner held herself out as aprofessional travel agent who could process and obtainfor private respondent a passport. They wereassured that she would be able to leave for Japan withher mother. This charadeconvinced the latter and her family to part with theirP104. Erquiaga as "Mr.2004.Undisputedly. and Orosco as "Rey". That the offended party must have reliedon the false pretense. Further. Honesta fell for thesemisrepresentations and the lure of profits offered bypetitioners made her borrow money upon theirinducement.
Falsepretense is any deceitful practice or device by whichanother is led to part with the property in the thingtaken. Eliza Pablo v People (2004] FACTS: The complainant Evangeline Bateswas approached by Eliza Pablo and Felomina Jacobeand Victoria Roberto Bates.HELD: Deceit is defined as the falserepresentation of a matter of fact. whether by wordsor conduct. constitute the crime of Estafa.000.Evangeline gave more than P330. notwithstanding due notice to her of suchdishonor of said check. she agreed.Even if the land exists. Evangeline found out that instead ofpaying for the back taxes and validation of theproperty.000.500 squaremeters of the subject land.000.The failure of petitioners and accused Roberto in notpaying the back taxes and in misappropriating the money totheir own personal use. or byconcealment of that which should have been disclosedwhich deceives or is intended to deceive another sothat he shall act upon it to his legal injury. the crime of Estafa is committedwhen petitioners and accused Roberto convincedcomplainant to part with her money on the basis of theirassurance that they will pay the back taxes due on the landso as to secure a title over the land and a portion thereoftitled in the name of complainant. and once the titleis validated she will be assigned a 2. It has been established C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer149 with moral certainty that she intentionally committed acrime in violation of the law enacted precisely toprotect not only the wary and the wily. diamondfrom Pacita Del Rosario. Evangeline demanded the return of hermoney and the three accused executed their respectivepromissory notes.00. The three convinced her tocontribute P330.Others more sensible might not have done soin a similar situation. by false or misleading allegations. Because Eliza is her townmate andsince Victoria assured her that her son is married to adaughter of Pulmano. Eliza introduced Victoriaand Felomina to her.00. The check was dishonored andpayment thereof refused for the reason "ACCOUNTCLOSED". the three accused divided the money amongthemselves.500square meterportion of the land.Subsequently.000. But such naivete cannot absolvepetitioner of criminal liability. but more so thegullible and the guileless.The deceit or false pretense employed bypetitioners is the fact that they assured complainantthat the amount of P330. Bouncing Checks BP 22 People v Grace Flores (2002) FACTS: Grace Flores issued a check inpayment of one (1) man's ring with a 5. orthe total amount of P332. because the threeaccused represented to her that they needed expensesin following up the papers of the land.8 ct. failed and refused to depositthe .00 delivered to them andaccused Victoria by Evangeline was to pay the backtaxes of a certain parcel of land so that a title may besecured and complainant will be given 2. Failing to pay.00 as her share in the payment ofthe back taxes due on a parcel of land owned by thelate Pulmano Molintas in Baguio City. Evangeline filed acriminal complaint against them.
Sia. (2) that at the time of the issuance of thecheck.00to Pacita G. Del Rosario.When the checks fell due. the date the obligation was entered into. People v Alexander Dinglasan (2002) FACTS: Alexander Dinglasan was the ownerand operator of Alexander Transport.00 transportation farewhich accused-appellant received from complainant. In other words. 029014 was issued. 029014 was allegedly postdated byappellant.The fraudulent intent of accused-appellanthad been proven to exist at the time of the issuance ofthe check.no obligation was contracted on July 30. 11 The check was issued aspayment for a ring and the P250. Thetrial court convicted Dinglasan. It is thus clear that she obtained theamounts of P662.P 22 were filed. Hence. the prosecution'sevidence clearly and categorically shows that there wasno transaction between the parties on July 30. but his calls were unanswered. (3)knowledge on the part of the offender of suchcircumstances. is amaterial ingredient of the offense. In the present case. 1992. withthe assistance of a lawyer. there was no . The situation obtains similarly regardingCheck No. Asalready stated. while privatecomplainant Charles Q. Sia deposited them. In reality. He vehementlyinsisted that his refusal to pay Sia was primarily due tothe poor quality of the tires sold him by the latter. 558574. it must be proved as alleged. forwhich Check No. 315. 1994. and (4) damage to the complainant. Dinglasanissued three checks as payment for tire purchases. and (3) that the payee has beendefrauded. beingthe very date the check was issued or postdated. then sent appellant ademand letter. Cases for Estafaand violation of B.Accused-appellant admitted that she issued PCIB CheckNo. dishonored these forinsufficiency of funds. 1994.00 and P250.for which Check No.HELD: Dinglasan was charged and convictedof estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised PenalCode. In otherwords. Sia is the owner of SchanikaEnterprises engaged in retailing nylon tires. 13 finally prompting himto hale appellant to court.necessary amount of said check. The RTC foundFlores guilty. for P662. 10These elements are present in this case. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code andamended by Republic Act No. Banco de Oro.HELD: The elements of estafa. the offender had no funds in the bank or thefunds deposited were insufficient to cover the amountof the check.250. but thedrawee bank. 4885.00 through deceit. accused-appellant hadno funds sufficient to cover the check she issued tocomplainant. 029020.(2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check. not onlymust said date be specifically and particularly allegedin the information. are: (1) that theoffender postdated or issued a check in payment of anobligation contracted at the time of the postdating orissuance.The first element of the offense requires that thedishonored check must have been postdated or issuedat the time the obligation was contracted. the account was closed on the verydate of the postdated check issued to complainant. He then tried to call Dinglasanseveral times. par. as definedunder Art. All he got were promises that appellantwould pay the amounts due. however. dated October 20.000. Dinglasan vigorously deniedany intent to deceive or defraud Sia. Again. She misrepresented to complainant that shewas financially stable and that her business wasflourishing. 22 The elements of the offense are: (1)postdating or issuing a check in payment of anobligation contracted at the time the check was issued.
Deceit. negotiability is not the gravamenof the crime of estafa through bouncing checks. a check issued in payment of a pre-existingobligation does not constitute estafa even if there is nofund in the bank to cover the amount of the check. Thesame restriction is produced when a check is crossed:only the payee named in the check may deposit it in hisbank account. Yet. should be theefficient cause of defraudation. to constitute estafa.Appellant posits that this condition strips thesubject check the character of negotiability. the first element of the offense was neithercorrectly alleged nor proven by the prosecution. the NOW check is drawn against thesavings. and not the "check" contemplated inCriminal Law. There must beconcomitance: the issuance of a check should be themeans to obtain money or property from the payee.Evidently.The fact that a NOW check shall be payableonly to a specific person. When . 1994 for whichappellant allegedly postdated another check. 1989drawn against the Security Bank .To be sure. appellant cannot be charged much less foundguilty of estafa with respect to Checks Nos.Hence." Appellant quotes the restriction written on theface of a NOW check:"NOW" shall be payable only to a specificperson. Only the payee canencash this "NOW" with the drawee bank or deposit it inhis account with the drawee bank or with any otherbank.000each) to Fedcor Trading Corp represented by FedericoSantander on August 31.We disagree. 1989 and September 30. It must have beencommitted either prior or simultaneous with thedefraudation complained of.it is payable only to a specific person or the "payee"and is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to"CASH. of appellant. Manuel Nagrampa v People (2002) FACTS: Nagrampa issued 2 checks (Php75.obligationcontracted by the parties on July 24.Hence. Second. we held that they arenegotiable instruments. It is not valid when madepayable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when [i]ndorsed bythe payee to another person. the same was dishonored for thereason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and after having beennotified by such dishonor said accused failed andrefused to redeem said check despite repeateddemands.HELD: Appellant avers that the subjectcheck does not fall within the meaning of Section 185of the Negotiable Instruments Law which defines a"check" as a "bill of exchange drawn on a bank payableon demand. 029014 and029020. It isthe fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuinga worthless check that is penalized. itis not a negotiable instrument under the NegotiableInstruments Law. Hence. If a third person accepts a cross checkand pays cash for its value despite the warning of thecrossing. together with herdaughter. natural or juridical. issued Jules Alabastro a check forrediscounting.Section X223 of the Manual of Regulations forBanks defines Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW)Accounts as interest-bearing deposit accounts thatcombine the payable on demand feature of checks andthe investment feature of savings accounts." First.However. he cannot be considered in good faith andthus not a holder in due course. He was allegedly lured to part with hismoney due to their seeming honest representationsthat the check was good and would never bounce. when the check was presented to the draweebank for encashment. and not valid when madepayable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when indorsed bythe payee to another person. The purpose of thecrossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed bythe rightful payee only. is inconsequential. despite the restriction onthe negotiability of cross checks. People v Aloma Reyes (2005) FACTS: Aloma Reyes. not the current account.
and not in payment of a pre-existingobligation. Despite notice of dishonorthereof. Thetransaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses. thatis by postdating a check or issuing a check in paymentof an obligation when the offender had no funds in thebank.said checkswere presented to the bank for payment. The offendermust be able to obtain money or property from theoffended party because of the issuance of the check. Sheclaimed that she was the industrial partner as she didall the legwork in getting the projects.Petitioner appealed the decision to the Courtof Appeals. 18082.HELD: We find the appeal meritorious. it should be either prior to. the Court of Appealsissued on 19 May 1998 a resolution 18 ordering thereturn of the entire records of the case to the trialcourt for the latter to decide the estafa case againstpetitioner. orthe person to whom the check was delivered would nothave parted with his money or property had there beenno check issued to him. appellant failed to makegood the checks.000.The trial court found Nagrampa guilty of two counts ofviolation of the Bouncing Checks Law and sentencinghim to suffer imprisonment for two years and payFEDCOR P150.No. as such. Settled is the rule that. Upon noticing that the 30 September 1993Decision of the trial court did not resolve the issue ofpetitioner's liability for estafa. or his funds deposited therein were not sufficientto cover the amount of the check. was one for a loan of money to be used byappellant in her business and she issued checks toguarantee the payment of the loan. they were alldishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn againstinsufficient funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED. Nagrampa failed and refused to redeem ormake good said checks.The trial court found appellant guilty beyondreasonable doubt of estafa committed by means offalse pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to orsimultaneously with the commission of the fraud.in our view. to constituteestafa. the samewere dishonored for the reason that the drawer did nothave any funds therein. They thenshared in the profits after deducting all themiscellaneous expenses. the checkshould have been issued as an inducement for thesurrender by the party deceived of his money orproperty. People v. The appeal was docketed as CA-G. the act of fraud. She issued postdated checks as proof that theAbagat spouses had invested their money with her.HELD: We l sustain the conviction for thecrime of estafa. Cuyugan issued to NormaAbagat several checks in payment of supplies shewanted to buy for the Philippine Armed Forces. CR. the act of postdating or issuing a check inpayment of an obligation must be the efficient cause ofdefraudation and. But such obligation is civil incharacter and in the absence of fraud. 2 cases were filed against him. Cuygan C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer151 claimed that the Abagat spousesand she were partnersin obtaining construction projects with the PhilippineArmy. which constrained the Abagat spousesto file a complaint for estafa against Cuyugan. As such.Despite repeated demands. Whenthe checks were presented for payment. no criminalliability under the Revised Penal Code arises from themere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee ofrepayment.R. Rica Cuyugan (2002) FACTS: Rica G.or simultaneous with. Pio TImbal v Court of Appeals (2001) . Stated otherwise. she hasthe obligation to make good the payment of the moneyborrowed by her.
Nothing else wasshown nor reflected in the appealed decision that couldindicate any overt act on the part of petitioner thatwould even remotely suggest that he had a hand indealing with Bigornia. complainantdeposited the check on August 9. 4885. as well as that of the appellate court.Moreover. In payment. His money.FACTS: A husband was held by the court aquo accountable for estafa through false pretense onaccount of a check issued by his wife. People v. he wanted a bigger antenna. Complainantagreed and issued a check for P100. On the same day. In exchange.Holzer informed complainant that newequipment had arrived in Manila.Otherwise. 1995. Four days later.716.2. The husband. appellant purchasedfrom Chua various fabrics and textile . The decision ofthe trial court. Judy I. Before the due date. Bigorniadelivered hog meat to the spouses Timbal at their stalllocated at the Farmer's Market.was not enough to secure the release of the equipmentfrom the Bureau of Customs. knowledge of the drawer that he has nofunds in the bank or that the funds depositedby him are not sufficient.00. People v. 1983. Forster was not satisfied with thesatellite antenna installed and the equipment whichcame with it which he thought were second-hand. 1995. the following are no longerelements of estafa:1. For this reason. Pio Timbalcontended that he had no active participation in thebusiness of his wife and claimed that when the checkwas issued by his wife he was manning his ownrestaurant.complainant filed a complaint for estafaHELD: In view of the amendment of Art. it was dishonoredon the ground that the account was closed. When the latter presented thecheck to the bank for encashment. however. he askedcomplainant to lend him P100. accused-appellantagain asked the latter not to deposit the check becausethe money from Switzerland to cover the check had notyet arrived.00. failure to inform the payee of suchcircumstance 18The drawer of the dishonored check is giventhree days from receipt of the notice of dishonor todeposit the amount necessary to cover the check.000. a businessengaged in selling and installing satellite antennasystem. MaritessTimbal issued in favor of Bigornia a check forP80. They installed a system in the house ofBernhard Forster. For the threeyears approximately she transacted business with Chua.000. however. Ojeda (2004) FACTS: Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics(telas) from complainant Ruby Chua. a prima facie presumption of deceit willarise which must then be overcome by the accused. by an act orseries of acts.A.Pio Timbal was present whenthe check was issued and handed over by his wifeMaritess to Bigornia. Timbal’s mere presence at thescene of a crime would not by itself establishconspiracy. the check was dishonored for having beendrawn against insufficient funds. On November 5. participated in the commission of fraudto the damage of the complainant. accused-appellantHolzer asked the complainant not to deposit the checkon August 1. Ernst Holzer (2000) FACTS: Ernst Holzer et al were the owners ofMGF ELECTRONICS SATELLITE SUPPLY. the latter issued a postdated check.Despite the request.would reveal that the main basis used in convictingpetitioner was the fact of his presence at the time ofthe issuance of the check by his wife. the used equipmentwould be replaced and another antenna would begiven.00 to accused-appellant Holzer.appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabricsshe bought. absent any evidence that he. No.HELD: The petition has merit.315(2)(d) by R. He was assuredby accusedappellant Holzer that should newequipment arrive from abroad. As to beexpected.
Inthis case. The trial court also convictedappellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncingchecks. Actus non facitreum.although this case involved falsification of publicdocuments and estafa:"Ordinarily.The prosecution failed to prove deceit in thiscase. as complainant herself categorically stated.the act must. evil intent must unite with anunlawful act for there to be a crime. to constitute a crime.It must be noted that our Revised Penal Codewas enacted to penalize unlawful acts accompanied byevil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. the debtor not only made arrangements forpayment. Complainantwent to Dimalanta’s house where the latter purchasedtwelve pairs of jewelry. as amended by RA 4885. As we held in Tabuena vs.materials worthP228.appellant would not have exerted extraordinary effortto pay the complainant. Hadher intention been tainted with malice and deceit. intelligenceand intent which together make up the "criminal mind"behind the "criminal act. Goodfaith may be demonstrated. The prima facie presumption of deceit wassuccessfully rebutted by appellant's evidence of goodfaith.306 for which she issued 22 postdated checksbearing different dates and amounts. (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check. by a debtor'soffer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor.and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of theperson doing the act is innocent or if there is nowrongful purpose." Thus. It adheres to the view that criminal intent inembezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as tothe legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into. People v. (3) damage to the payee thereof.HELD: Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 ofthe RPC. nisi mens sit rea. beaccompanied by a criminal intent. 20 the elements ofestafa are: (1) a check is postdated or issued inpayment of an obligation contracted at the time it isissued. Actus non facitreum. Abarca on the telephone toexpress her desire to purchase jewelry. for instance. Deceit anddamage are essential elements of the offense and mustbe established by satisfactory proof to warrantconviction.The accused may thus prove that he acted ingood faith and that he had no intention to convert themoney or goods for his personal benefit. No crime is committed if themind of the person performing the act complained of isinnocent. generally and in most cases. However. Demandswere allegedly made to make good the dishonoredchecks. given her own business andfinancial reverses. the drawer of the dishonored check isgiven three days from receipt of the notice of dishonorto cover the amount of the check. The trial courtconvicted appellant of the crime of estafa as definedand penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 ofthe Revised Penal Code (RPC). There is a concurrence of freedom. There can be no crime whenthe criminal mind is wanting. We areconvinced that appellant was able to prove the absenceof criminal intent in her transactions with Chua. nisi mens sit rea. a defense in estafa by postdating a check. calledup complainant Elvira D. In payment thereof. appellantissued twelve postdated checks with the representationthat the same will be . Pacana.the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount ofthe dishonored checks.The 22 checks were all dishonored. Dimalanta (2004) FACTS: Josefina Dimalanta who was thenemployed at the Caloocan City Engineer's Office. Sandiganbayan:XXXThe rule was reiterated in People v. to no avail. Estafa and BP 22 charges werethereafter filed against Ojeda. Thus. and sentenced her toreclusion perpetua."American jurisprudence echoes the sameprinciple. the court a quo held her guilty ofonly 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued. Theprincipal consideration is the existence of maliciousintent. Otherwise a primafacie presumption of deceit arises.
This may be manifestedby appellant's act of offering to make arrangementswith complainant as to the manner of payment. albeit only to the extent ofP25. the prosecution failed to establishbeyond a shadow of a doubt that appellant employeddeceit. theremaining eleven checks were all returned unpaid sincethe account was closed. That the person who makes or draws and issuesthe check knows at the time of issue .sufficiently funded on theirrespective maturity dates. Its evidence was overcome by the defense'sproof that the pieces of jewelry were not purchased byappellant for her own use. That a person makes or draws and issues any check 2.The first check issued by Dimalanta washonored and paid by the drawee bank. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value 3. On demand Dimalanta failed tomake good on the checks.00. The trial court convictedDimalanta of Estafa. BP 22An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing andIssuance of a Check Without Sufficient Fundsor Credit and For Other Purposes Section 1 BP 22 may be violated in TWO waysElements of the offense defined in the firstparagraph of Section 1: 1.000. However.We find that appellant acted in good faithduring the transaction. The falsepretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior toor simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check.In the case at bar. she exerted best efforts to make good thevalue of the check. After the first check wasdishonored.HELD: Damage and deceit are essentialelements of the offense and must be established withsatisfactory proof to warrant conviction. rather the same weremerely given to her for resale. Good faith is a defense to a charge ofEstafa by postdating a check.
is subsequently dishonored by thedrawee bank for insufficiency of funds orcredit. That a person has sufficient funds in or creditwith the drawee bank when he makes or drawsand issues a check 2. would have been dishonored forthe same reason had not the drawer. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or tomaintain a credit to cover the full amount of thecheck if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon 3. ordered the bankto stop paymentElements of the offense defined in the secondparagraph of Section 1: 1. or b. notthe payment of the obligation.that hedoes not have sufficient funds in or credit withthe drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment4.That the check is dishonored by the draweebank C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer153 • Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check.That the checka. without any valid reason . The law has madethe mere act of issuing a bum check a malumprohibitum .
and it appeared that the drawer knew atthe time that the check was issued that he had nosufficient funds in the bank. NOVIOLATION OF BP 22!Even if the check would have been dishonored forinsufficiency of funds had he not ordered the bank tostop payment. the mere fact of postdating orissuing a check when the drawer had no orinsufficient funds in the bank makessomeone liable under Article 315 par 2(d) of estafa. • BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn bya corporation. • The check may be drawn and issued to "applyon account of for value": BP 22 does not make adistinction as to whether the bad check is issuedin payment of an obligation or to merelyguarantee an obligation • Illustration for Section 1. Also. Estafa under Article 315 par 2(d): 1. so the drawer ordered the bank to stoppayment. BP 22. element of DAMAGEis NOT REQUIRED in BP 222. In this case. element 4: There was a mistake in naming the payee of thecheck. there was a VALID reason (wrongpayee) for ordering the bank to stop payment. 1 st paragraph requiresknowledge of insufficient funds. par 1. BP 22 does NOTrequire such element.Unlike estafa.• BP 22 vs. 3.Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa hasDECEIT as an element. or entity: the person/swho ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of such drawer Section 2 Section establishes a prima facie evidence of "knowledge of insufficiency ": when payment of thecheck is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds / credit when the check ispresented within . company.
HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction! Violation of BP22 AND estafa are transitory crimes. if such be thefact.Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOTimportant as law does not distinguish-. 1 countof violation of BP 22. then dishonored. crime against poperty and is mala in se.HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction. it should state in the notice that therewere no sufficient funds in or credit with it forthe payment in full of the check.in case where drawee refuses to pay the checkto the holder: Write. Checks were used to payfor the purchase made in Sta. Nitafan .90 days from the date of suchcheckException:a. not for pre-existingobligations. Dacuycuy Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored.HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses. People vs. BP 22:deceit and damage not required because mere issuancegives presumption of guilt.Introduction in evidence of any unpaid anddishonored check with the drawer's refusal to payindicated thereon or attached thereto is prima facieevidence of:1. Case was filed in Pampangabut was dismissed. as the court had no jurisdiction on thecase. Checks were issuedNOT to pay for an obligation but just to guaranteepayment.in case drawee bank received an order to stoppayment. print. Check was forwarded in BPIPampanga. Gorospe Parulan paid check in Bulacan.the fact that the check was properly dishonoredfor the reason indicated thereto Nievas vs. Deceit happened inPampanga where it was uttered/delivered while thedamage was done in Bulacan where it was issued.2. or stamp on the check or to beattached thereto the reason for dishonoring. People vs. Mesa.the due presentment to the drawee for paymentand the dishonor thereof. can be for a pre-existing debt.included as long asit was an issued check that subsequently bounced.makes arrangements for payment in full by thedrawee of such check within 5 banking daysafter receiving notice that such check has notbeen paid by the drawee Section 3 Section 3 requires the drawee1.crime against public order and is mala prohibitum. Checks later dishonored. Hewas charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC.the making or issuance of the check2. and3. Que vs.when the maker or drawer pays the holderthereof of the amount due thereon orb. Nievas invokes double jeopardy. People Que issued checks in Quezon City.Estafa needs deceit and damage.
Accusedconvicted under BP22. Accusedissued 48 postdated checks for the balance. notice only given to the employer which is notsufficient as law requires personal notice. Sycip vs. dueto the defects and incomplete features of the unit. Elements: . Also. Paragraph 1: By conveying. Presumption in law is rebuttable bycontrary evidence. PD957 that governs sales of townhouses allows thebuyer to suspend payments until the developer hascomplied with its obligations to properly furnish the unit.Lim issued a memorandum check that was subsequentlydishonored. CA Idos and Alarilla had a partnership that was terminatedwith each entitled to P1. Lim lacked actual knowledge of theinsufficiency of funds.HELD: Accused not guilty. Idos vs.HELD: Not guilty as the check was NOT issued for a debtbut as a collateral or evidence of the other partners share. 2 nd element of BP22 (knowledgeby the issuer of the check that he does not have sufficientfunds) not proven. The bank then advised accused tojust close the account in order to save on hefty bankcharges upon every stop order.1 was dishonored. Checkwhich she signed as issuer was dishonored. Other forms of swindling I.8M each. Memorandum check isNOT a PN.pretending to be the owner of thesame. encumbering. ormortgaging any real property. accusedsuspended payments. Convicted forviolating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledgeof the insufficiency of funds when check is issued. It is here that 6 checkswere presented by FRC but were dishonored.Other statutes can be used as a valid defense under BP22. However.HELD: Memorandum Check (one used as evidence for adebt) falls within coverage of BP 22. Proven that there was sufficient funds inthe account and that it was closed not for insufficiency butupon the banks advice to save on charges. no notice of the dishonor wasgiven to her. Lim Lao vs.CAB. Article 316. Idos issued 4 postdatedchecks .BP22 and PD957 must be construed together in order toharmonize their application. FRC however continued to presentthe checks for payment thus always forcing him to issuestop order payments. CA Lim was an officer in a company where she signed checks.selling. CA Accused here bought a townhouse unit from FRC.HELD: NOT guilty.while it was her superior who filled the blanks.
A will still be liable . That the offender should have executed acts of ownership (selling. That the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he isthe owner thereof 3.a third personExample:A sold a parcel of land to B. That the act be made to the prejudice of a. leasing.encumbering. there was nopretension even if his ownership isdefective and later compelled to return theproperty to the person found to be the trueowner of the property. representing to thelatter that he (A) was still the owner thereof. That the thing be real property .1. The thing disposed of must be real propertyIf property is chattel: ESTAFA! There must be EXISTING real propertyIf accused sold non-existent land. such as aparcel of land or a building 2. A sold thesame parcel of land to C. or mortgaging the realproperty) 4. second purchaser. Consequence:B lost the property due to non-registration inhis favor.the owner orb. Wherethe accused CLAIMS to be the owner. the firstpurchaser. Atthe time he sold the land to C. Later.A sold a parcel of land to B. there is violation of Art316 par 1. A was no longerthe owner of the property. while deceit was practiced againstC. damage fell on B. he isguilty of estafa by means of false pretenses. Hence.Even if the deceit is practiced against thesecond purchaser and the damage is incurredby the first purchaser. A soldthe same parcel of land to C. especiallyif he has a Certificate of Title. representing tothe latter that he (A) was the owner thereof. Cregistered the sale in his favor. Later.Deceit consisting in false pretenseArticle 316 only penalizes only those whoPRETEND to be the owner of property.
Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient. although suchencumbrance be not recorded.Paragraph 2: By disposing of realproperty as free fromencumbrance.misrepresenting that the property is free fromencumbrance. mortgaged it again. whether theencumbrance be recorded or not."Shall dispose of the same"The act constituting the offense is theDISPOSING of the real property FALSELYREPRESENTING that it is free fromencumbrance. 3."Encumbrance": every right or interest inthe land existing in favor of third persons • Mortgage • Ordinary lease • Attachment • Lien of a judgment . Later. That there must be express representationby the offender that the real property isfree from encumbrance4."Shall dispose": includes encumbering ormortgaging. Art 315 par 2(a)Art 316 par 1: the offender exercises acts of ownership over the property as part of thefalse representation. Art315 par 2(a) does not need this circumstance.underArt 316 par 1 if B files a crim case. this time toC. A. II.But if C knew that the property had alreadybeen mortgaged to B. Elements:1.That the offender knew that the realproperty was encumbered. fineprescribed is based on the damage caused C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer155 Art 316 par 1 vs.That the act of disposing real property bemade to the damage of anotherExample:A mortgaged his property to B. asthere is neither deceit nor fraud. There must be actual damage.That the thing disposed be real property2. On the other hand. C cannot complain. In fact.
• Execution sale The offended party must have been deceived."To the prejudice of possessor or third person"Example: A pledged his watch to B.Offender owner of personal propertyIf third person and his purpose in taking it isto return it to the owner.that is.)Real property may be registered under anysystem of registrationThis paragraph applies whether theproperty is registered under the Spanishsystem or under the Land Registration Act. he would not have granted the loan hadhe known that the property was alreadyencumbered.When the loan HAD ALREADY BEENGRANTED when defendant later offered theproperty as security for the payment of theloan."Wrongful taking"If owner takes the thing from a baileethrough (1) VIOLENCE. III.Paragraph 3: By wrongful takingby the owner of his personalproperty from its lawful possessor Elements:1.That the offender is owner of personalproperty2. it being the obligation of a finder to give the thing to the owner or to theauthorities.That the personal property is in the lawfulpossession of another3.Note: not theft an owner cannot be heldguilty of theft of his own property. hisdorm mate to secure a . and (2) WITH INTENT TOGAIN/ CHARGE THE BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE thecrime is ROBBERY. accusedwere acquitted. accusedasked offended party to give him the watch. pretending to redeem watch.That the offender wrongfully takes it fromits lawful possessor.In lawful possession of anotherFinder of a lost thing is NOT a lawfulpossessor. since theencumbrances were NOT registered. crime is GRAVE COERCIONIf owner took the thing (1) without consentand knowledge of possessor and (2) latercharged possessor of the value of the property.4. par 2 is NOT applicableConflicting jurisprudence: " Although such encumbrance be not recorded " Notwithstanding this phrase. Thing disposed must be REAL propertyIf the thing encumbered and disposed ispersonal property.If owner takes the thing from a baileethrough (1) VIOLENCE and (2) WITHOUTINTENT TO GAIN.Once getting hold of his watch. he ran awaywithout paying the loan.crime is ESTAFA. Article 319 applies(punishing one who sells or pledges personalproperty already subject to encumbrance. the crime is THEFT. some casesheld that the encumbrance must be legallyconstituted! In these cases. Article 316.That prejudice is caused to the possessoror third personExample: Accused pawned his watch to complainant.Later.
Onenight. or encumbering realproperty or properties with whichthe offender guaranteed thefulfillment of his obligation assurety Elements:1.That the offender is a surety in a bondgiven in a criminal or civil action. or.Damage to anotherExample:A person who simulates (consideration isfictitious) a conveyance to another for thepurpose of defrauding a creditor.That he induces such minor to:a. Malicious failure to return thecompensation wrongfully received (fraud) There must be fraud in this crime. IV. VI.That the offender takes advantage of theinexperience or emotions or feelings of aminor. orc.Fictitious contract2. A took the watch from the drawer of Bwithout B's consent and knowledge and used itfor the night.That such sale. Swindling a minor Elements:1. in any othermanner encumbers said real property4. 2.to give release. mortgage or encumbranceisa. V.assume an obligationb.By executing any fictitiouscontract to the prejudice of another Elements:1. otherwise.without express authority from thecourtb. mortgages.Compensation wrongfully received(accepting compensation for service notrendered nor performed) 2.Paragraph 6: By selling. THEREWAS NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO B.By accepting any compensation forservices not rendered or for labornot performed Elements:1.made before the cancellation of hisbond. Article 317.to execute a .mortgaging. orc. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of suchobligation with his real property/properties3.Note: The example above may become a crimeof fraudulent insolvency (Art 314) if theconveyance is real and made for aconsideration .made before being relieved from theobligation contracted by him • There must be damage causedunder this article. A returned later and was about toput back the watch in the drawer when Bsurprised A (Bulaga!!!)Is A liable under 316.2. itwill only be a case of solutio indebiti under theCivil Code.loan of P3000. par 3? NO.That he sells.
CA Villaflor borrowed P1.some loan of moneyb.000.HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure theveracity of the documents. or of funds solicited bycorporations/associations from the general public. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer157 Note: Only personal property. Villaflor vs.For profit or gain3. cooperative.1. DAMAGEshould always be present. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1689 Increasing The Penalty For Certain Forms Of Swindling Or EstafaAny person or persons who shall commit estafa orother forms of swindling as defined RPC 315 and 316shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if theswindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with theintention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act. "samahang nayon(s)". or members of rural banks. Other deceits Elements:A. the penalty imposable shall be reclusiontemporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of thefraud exceeds 100.by any other deceit not mentioned in theproceeding articlesB. since a minorcan not convey real property Article 318.000 pesos.HELD: Gulty of Estafa as there was deceit – he representedself as the owner of the car and failed to reveal that thecar was already mortgaged.other personal property4. He was negligent as heapproved the vouchers that had mistakes which weredetectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor.That the consideration isa.By interpreting dreams. Veloso vs. He was convicted of Estafa.When not committed by a syndicate as abovedefined. Villaflor was convicted of Estafa. orfarmers association. in turn he offered his car ascollateral (Chattel mortgage instituted). and thedefraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders. making forecasts.credit.transfer of anyproperty right3.That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor. orc.telling fortunes.By defrauding or damaging another2. Villaflor failed topay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the carwas already repossessed. CA District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that led tothe disbursement of 23 checks for a project that wasanomalous. enterprise or scheme.1.Damage to othersNote: As in other cases of estafa. . or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any othersimilar manner2.transaction.
noted on the record thereof in theoffice of the register of deedsChattel mortgage must be valid and subsistingIt is essential that the chattel mortgage bevalid and subsisting. Estafa (316. No violation of Article 319 if the removalwas justified. there can be noviolation of Article 319 anymore since themortgage as a basis of relief has already beenabandoned by the suit for collection.That the removal is permanent5.Filing a civil action for collection.writtenii. it is VOID andCANNOT be a basis for criminal prosecutionunder Art 319.Persons LiableEven third persons who removed theproperty to another province or city are liablebecause the offender is "ANY PERSON whoshall knowingly remove…" The removal of the mortgaged property mustbe coupled with INTENT TO DEFRAUD.House (generally considered as immovable)may be a subject of chattel mortgage byagreement of the partiesArticle 319 par 2 also contemplates a secondmortgage.Article 319.even if buyer is .1.That he removes such mortgaged personalproperty to any province or city other thanthe one in which it was located at the timeof the execution of the mortgage4. sale orpledge of mortgagedproperty Mortgaged property is sold in disposed of in bothcasesReal propertyPersonal propertyProperty must be sold asfree and unencumberedProperty sold withoutconsent of themortgagee in writing.1. Removal. sale or pledge of mortgaged property Elements:2 Acts punishable:A.That personal property is validlymortgaged under the Chattel MortgageLaw2.That there is no written consent of themortgage or his executors. administratorsor assigns to such removalB.That the offender knows that such propertyis so mortgaged3.That personal property is already pledgedunder the Chattel Mortgage Law2. who is the mortgagor of such property. (based on aCA case)If the mortgagee elected to file a suit forcollection (not foreclosure). relieves theaccused of criminal responsibility.That the offender. not forforeclosure of chattel mortgage.Damage to the mortgagee is not essential.at the back of the mortgage andiii. If the chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of good faith and/or is not registered . sells or pledges the same orany part thereof 3. disposingencumbered property)Removal. Such sale/pledge is without the consent of the mortgagee which isi.
or any edifice devoted to culture. as amended byRepublic Act No. vessel orwatercraft. SECTION 2. 7659. Destructive arson. inflammable or combustiblematerials are stored. or conveyance for transportation of persons or property. 1613 . whether public or private. 1613Amending the Law on ArsonSECTION 1. 2. — Any person who burns or setsfire to the property of another shall be punished byPrision Mayor.Any ammunition factory and other establishmentwhere explosives. Other cases of arson. airplane or any aircraft. Arson.4. under Section 1 of PresidentialDecree No. under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code.D.3. museum. judicial. The same penalty shall be imposed when a personsets fire to his own property under circumstanceswhich expose to danger the life or property of another. administrative or otherofficial . under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. Destructive Arson. 1.Any archive. P. 1613 .Any church or place of worship or other buildingwhere people usually assemble.Any train. education orsocial services. 3.2.Any building where evidence is kept for use inany legislative. Arson.5. Arson (repealed oramended by PD 1613 and PD 1744) Kinds of arson.informedthat property ismortgagedPurpose of law: toprotect the purchaserPurpose of law: toprotect the mortgagee Articles 320 to 326-B. — The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period toReclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the propertyburned is any of the following:1.
pastureland. lodging house.4.Any railway or bus station. and6. SECTION 6. hotel. platform or tunnel.If the offender is motivated by spite orhatred towards the owner or occupant of theproperty burned.growing crop. shipyard. orchard. Where Death Results from Arson. SECTION 4.If committed by a syndicate. — The penalty in any case of arson shall beimposed in its maximum period. — The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall beimposed if the property burned is any of thefollowing:1. cane mill ormill central.3.Any hospital. public orprivate market.5. 7659AMENDING ART. airport. The offense is committed by a syndicate if its isplanned or carried out by a group of three (3) ormore persons. grain field.(NOTE: SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R.3. Special Aggravating Circumstances inArson.wharf or warehouse. Other Cases of Arson.proceedings. 7. dormitory.4. farm.6. whether used as a dwelling or not. the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua todeath shall be imposed. 320) SECTION 3.1. — If by reason of or on the occasion of the arsondeath results. bamboo groveor forest. SECTION 5.Any building used as offices of thegovernment or any of its agencies.oil well or mine shaft.housing tenement.2.Any inhabited house or dwelling.Any rice mill. Any building.Any industrial establishment.If committed for the benefit of another. —Any of the following circumstances shall constituteprima facie evidence of arson: C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer159 . theater or movie house or anysimilar place or building.If committed with intent to gain.Any plantation. sugar mill. shopping center. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson.A.situated in a populated or congested area.2.
7.meetings and conferences. orwhere people usually gather or congregate for adefinite purpose such as but not limited toofficial governmental function or business.devoted to the use of the public in general. worship. or asresult of simultaneous burnings. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to deathshall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:1.Any building of public or private ownership. —Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished byPrision Mayor in its minimum period. the burning of which is for thepurpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law. kerosene.If a demand for money or other valuableconsideration was made before the fire inexchange for the desistance of the offender orfor the safety of the person or property of thevictim.consequent to one single act of burning. commerce. trade.or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire.Any building. thepenalty of death shall likewise be imposed whenthe arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2)or more persons or by a group of persons.4.If the fire started simultaneously in more thanone part of the building or establishment. and regardless also of whetherthe building is actually inhabited or not.One (1) or more buildings or edifices.3. or any mechanical. electrical.Any building. chemical.If shortly before the fire.Thebuilding which is the object of arson including theland on which it is situated shall be confiscated andescheated to the State. . which are devotedto the service of public utilities.2. entertainment orleisure. a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a building orproperty had been withdrawn from the premisesexcept in the ordinary course of business.Irrespective of the application of the aboveenumerated qualifying circumstances. Conspiracy to Commit Arson.regardless of whether their purpose is .2.Any train or locomotive.If during the lifetime of the corresponding fireinsurance policy more than two fires haveoccurred in the same or other premises ownedor under the control of the offender and/orinsured. devoted to transportation orconvenience. Article 320 as amended by R.1. unless the owner thereof canprove that he has no participation in nor knowledgeof such arson despite the exercise of due on his part. SECTION 8.5. or merely incidentalto a definite purpose such as but not limited tohotels.If the building or property is insured forsubstantially more than its actual value at thetime of the issuance of the policy. regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that thereare persons in said building or edifice at the timeit is set on fire. petroleum or otherflammable or combustible substances ormaterials soaked therewith or containersthereof. Confiscation of Object of Arson. motels. factory.4.If substantial amount of flammable substancesor materials are stored within the building notnecessary in the business of the offender nor forhousehold use. or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors orto collect from insurance. SECTION 7.3.A.5. or public use.private transaction. 7659 Article 320.If gasoline.6. or committedon several or different occasions. Destructive Arson.or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing arefound in the ruins or premises of the burnedbuilding or property. transient dwellings. publicconveyance or stops or terminals. warehouse installation andany appurtenances thereto. airship orairplane. ship or vessel.
'day!) of the wood of thebuilding. sufficient that thefiber of the wood is destroyed b.A. 2.d.7659.any charring (CHARING! Whizna lang.Any arsenal. intending to burn a building.D. The provisions of P.machineries. ordnancestorehouse. archives or general museum of thegovernment. Frustrated arson : if the person is able toset fire to the rags but the fire was put outbefore any part of the building was burned. Not necessary that the woodshould be ablaze. the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.However small a portion of thebuilding is BURNED.D. there .2. 1613 that areinconsistent with R. When he isabout to light a match to set fire to the rags.Setting fire to the contents of the building is already consummatedarson (setting fire to a building) even if no part of the building was burned. 1.A.If as a consequence of the commission of any of theacts penalized under this Article. 7659 (such as Section 2on destructive arson) are DEEMED REPEALED)Attempted. or other valuable propertieswere burned or destroyed. heis discovered by another who chases him away. shipyard. equipment. apparatus.because the offender commences thecommission of the crime directly by overtacts but does not perform all the acts of execution (the setting of fire to the rags)due to timely intervention. NOTE: The laws on arson in force today areP. Consummated arson :a. and ConsummatedArsonA person. 1613 and Article 320 as amended by R. storehouse or militarypowder or fireworks factory. collectssome rags. any storehouse or factoryof inflammable or explosive materials. death or injuryresults. mere scorching or discolorationby heat NOT consummated c. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximumperiod to death shall also be imposed upon anyperson who shall burn:1. Frustrated.merely toburn or destroy the building or the edifice. soaks them in gasoline and placesthem beside the wooden wall. or theburning merely constitutes an overt act in thecommission or another violation of law. or any valuable documents. Attempted arson : the crime committed inthe above scenario is attempted arson. 3.In an inhabited place.
HENCE. PD 1613If the property burned is an inhabited houseor dwelling. bananas. it is not required that the house beoccupied and that the offender knew it whenthe house was burned.That such act does not constitute arson orother crimes involving destruction3.That the offender deliberately causeddamage to the property of another2. Caballes. malicious mischief CANNOT be committed throughNEGLIGENCE .Example: damage done as a result of another crime. As the harvesting was done without her consent.Sec 6. People v.If no malice. Article 327."Damage" covers both loss and diminution. Theyhad a confrontation over this issue. any of those circumstance issufficient to establish the fact of arson.Sometimes. offenderremoves/ uses objects of the damage. Malice and negligence areessentially incompatible."Shall deliberately cause to the property of another any damage"This means that the offender should actunder this impulse of specific desire to inflictinjury to another. homicide is absorbed andthe penalty of reclusion perpetua to Death isimposed. Acosta (2000) . 7 Circumstances constitutingprima facie evidence of arsonStanding alone. and camote. offender also inspired by the merepleasure of destroying things. the new owner. DAR Albeit Abajon’s previous arrangement with the formerowner of the property.In attempted arson.Sec 3. only civil liability for damages. death results.isconsummated arson. crime is THEFT Caballen vs.HELD: The essential element of the crime of maliciousmischief which is “damage deliberately caused to theproperty of another” is absent because Abajon merely cuthis own plantings. unexplained oruncontradicted. or other evil motive.Damaging of property must not result fromcrime. askedAbajon to vacate the premises where his house was andwhere he had planted corn.accused chased opponentaround the house to kill him and along the waybroke various objects.If after damaging the property. it is not necessary thatthere be a fireLook at the facts if there was intent to burn.That the act of damaging another'sproperty be committed mere for the sakeof damaging it* 3 rd element presupposes that offender acteddue to hate.No complex crime of arson with homicidePD 1613: if by reason or on occasion orarson. but reached noagreement. PD 1613.Caballes charged him for malicious mischief. revenge. Case was dismissed. Abajon then harvested the bananas andjackfruit. par 2. Who are liable for maliciousmischief Elements:1.
As Benjamin was helpingput out the fire. Only Oliva wasfound guilty. Thereafter Acosta attemptedto burn down the house of Marigomen. and (2) thatwhat is intentionally burned is an inhabited house ordwelling. the grandson of privatecomplainant. Corpusdelicti is the fact of the commission of the crime thatmay be proved by the testimonies of witnesses.HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony tohave tried to burn the house of Marigomen. No. Benjamin Estrellon went to the nearby riverand fetched water with a pail. He used to be a good friend of Almanzor"Elmer" Montesclaros. 1613. . DominadorOliva. in the belief that Acosta and hiswife were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him. Filomena M. Corpus delicti means thesubstance of the crime. Ferigel and three others. and(2) the identity of the defendants as the oneresponsible for the crime. Even the uncorroboratedtestimony of a single witness. It refers to the factthat a crime has been actually committed. if credible. 35 Under Section3 (2) of the law. Inarson. that is. he was shot by Ferigel at close range. While the fire razedAvelino's house. Inprosecutions for arson. The records show that when Ferigel willfullyset fire to the roof of Avelino's house. Oliva (2000) FACTS: Avelino Manguba and his family weresleeping in their house.furniture.HELD: We find no reversible error and affirmthe conviction." Under theamendment. may be enough toprove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.1996.D. a fire because of criminal agency. corpus delicti of the arson was duly provenbeyond reasonable doubt. People v. One of theneighbors. the corpus delictirule is generally satisfied by proof of the bareoccurrence of the fire and of its having beenintentionally caused. if credible. When Ferigel burned Avelino's house.FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year oldmason. it is the fact that the house burned isinhabited that qualifies the crime. Avelino went out of the houseto urinate. There is no need toprove that the accused had actual knowledge that thehouse was inhabited. the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of thebare occurrence of the fire and of its having beenintentionally caused. Montesclaros. proof of the crime charged iscomplete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer161 delicti. The uncorroborated testimony ofa single eyewitness. Marigomen.stormed the house of Acosta and burned their clothes. The casesfor arson and murder were tried jointly. He was chargedwith arson and found guilty. may beenough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrantconviction. Under Section 3 (2) ofPresidential Decree No. He saw Ferigel Oliva set the roof of theirhouse on fire with a lighted match.Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable inprosecutions for felonies and offenses. and appliances. On February 27.The gunshot wound caused Benjamin's death. Corpus delicti isthe body or substance of the crime. the penalty of reclusion temporal toreclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the propertyburned is "any inhabited house or dwelling. it is the fact that a crime hasactually been committed. Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo watched at adistance of about five (5) meters.Here. Avelino's wifeand children were asleep therein. In arson.the law applicable was P. 1613. the elements of arsonare: (1) that there is intentional burning.
telegraph ortelephone lines The telegraph and telephone lines must pertain to a railway system !If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars. Article 248. public monuments. BOTH have intent toobstruct the performance or publicfunctionb. or paintings No notes.If no intent to kill: crime is damages tomeans of communication with homicideB. or any other thing used INCOMMON by the public. waterworks.Causing damage to obstruct theperformance of public functions distinguished from sedition: theelement of public and tumultuousuprising is not present in Art 328 but. Dumlao where accused scatteredaround the municipal building coconut huskscontaining human excrements. Persons exempt fromcriminal liability Crimes involved in the exemption:1.If with intent to kill: murder (cf.certain passengers of the train are killed?Answer: It dependsA. collision or other accident. or toany archive or registry. a higherpenalty shall be imposedQuestion: What crime is committed IF as aresult of the damage caused to the railway. Destroying or damagingstatues. Article 330. Article 332.Causing damage to the property of theNational Museum or National Library.Using any poisonous or corrosivesubstancec. Article 329. road.par 3) Article 331. Damage and obstruction tomeans of communication Example: damaging railways.Spreading any infection or contagionamong cattled.Theft .promenade. Special cases of maliciousmischief Special cases of malicious mischief/"QualifiedMalicious Mischief" are:a. Other mischiefs Poignant Example: People v.Article 328.
Widowed spouse with respect to theproperty which belonged to the deceasedspouse before the same passed into thepossession of another3. orrelatives by affinity in the same line2. • Does not apply to strangers whoparticipated in the crime. • Stepfather.Brothers and sisters and brothers andsister-in-law IF LIVING TOGETHER • Article 332 only applies when BOTH theoffender and offended party are relativesas enumerated in the provision.Malicious mischief • does not include robbery or estafa throughfalsification • reason for exemption: presumed co-ownershipPersons exempted from criminal liability onlyliablefor CIVIL liabilities):1.common-law spouses INCLUDED .2. ascendants and descendants.Swindling (estafa)3. paramours. adopted child.Spouses.