Title 10 Property

Title Ten
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Article 316. Other forms of swindling

Article 317. Swindling a minor
Article 318. Other deceits
Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERAL

Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery
Section One Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries,
committed in an uninhabited place and by a
band, or with the use of firearm on a street,
road or alley
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty
incurred by the members thereof
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of
violence or intimidation
Section Two Robbery by the use of force upon
things
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or
public building or edifice devoted to worship
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place
and by a band
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public
building, or building dedicated to religious
worship and their dependencies
Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or
in a private building
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or
firewood in an uninhabited place or private
building
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar
tools
Article 305. False keys
Chapter Two BRIGANDAGE
Article 306. Who are brigands
Article 307.
Aiding and abetting a band of
brigands
Chapter Three THEFT
Article 308.
Article 309.
Article 310.
Article 311.
Library
Who are liable for theft

Penalties
Qualified theft
Theft of the property of the National
and National Museum
Chapter Four USURPATION

Article 312.
Occupation of real property or
usurpation
of real rights in property
Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks
Chapter Five CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
Article 314. Fraudulent insolvency
Chapter Six SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)
Chapter Seven CHATTEL MORTGAGE

Article 319.
mortgaged
Property
Removal,
sale
or
pledge
of
Chapter Eight ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES

INVOLVING
DESTRUCTION (REPEALED
BY PD 1613 and RA 7659)
Article 320. Destructive arson
Article 321. Other forms of arson
Article 322. Cases of arson not included in the
preceding articles
Article 323. Arson of property of small value
Article 324. Crimes involving destruction
Article 325. Burning ones own property as
means to
commit arson
Article 326. Setting fire to property exclusively
owned
by the offender
Article 326-A. In cases where death resulted as a
consequence of arson
Article 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson
Chapter Nine MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Article 327.
Who are liable for malicious
mischief
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief
Article 329. Other mischiefs
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means
of
communication
Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues,
public
monuments or paintings
Chapter Ten EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABLITY
IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Article 333.
liability
Persons exempt from criminal
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery

Elements of robbery in general:
1.
2.
3.
4.
There is personal property belonging to

another;
There is unlawful taking of that
property;
The taking must be with intent to gain;
and
There
is
violence
against
or
intimidation of any person, or force upon
anything.
The property taken must be personal property,

for if real property is occupied or real right
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
108
is usurped by means of violence against or

intimidation of person, the crime is
USURPATION.
The phrase belonging to another means that
the property taken does not belong to the
offender.
The person from whom the
property is taken need not be the owner.
Possession
of
the
property
is
sufficient.
The unlawful taking of personal property is an
essential part of the crime of robbery.
Where the taking was lawful and the
unlawful misappropriation was subsequent
to such taking, the crime is ESTAFA or
MALVERSATION.
UNLAWFUL TAKING when complete?
a) as to robbery with violence against or
o from the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing, even
if
the
culprit
has
had
no
opportunity to dispose of the same
b) as to robbery with force upon things
o the thing must be taken out of the
building, or the place broken into,
to consummate the crime (note:
this is purely based on reyess
opinion)
Taking as an element of robbery, means
depriving the offended party of ownership
of the thing taken with the character of
permanency.
Intent to gain is presumed from the
unlawful taking of personal property.
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking
of personal property GRAVE COERCION if
there is violence used.
The element of personal property belonging to
another and that of intent to gain must
concur.
The violence, as an element of robbery, must
be against the person of the offended
party, not upon the thing taken.
As for intimidation, it need not be threat of
bodily harm. It could be a threat of paying
a fine or closing the offended partys shop.
GENERAL RULE: The violence or intimidation
must be present before the taking of
personal property is complete. It is not
necessary that violence of intimidation
should be present from the very beginning.
EXCEPTION: When the violence results in
(1) homicide, (2) rape, (3) intentional
mutilation, or (4) any of the serious
physical injuries under par 1 & 2 of Art 263
the taking of personal property is robbery
complexed with any of those crimes under
Art 294, even if the taking was already
complete when the violence was used by
the 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 intimidation
of any person is used, the taking of
personal property belonging to another
is always robbery. If only force upon
things, the taking is robbery only if the
force is used either to enter the
building or to break doors, wardrobes,
chests or any other kind of locked or
sealed furniture or receptacle inside
the building or to force them open
outside after taking the same from the
building.
In robbery with violence against or
intimidation of any person, the value of
the
personal
property
taken
is
immaterial. The penalty depends (a)
on the result of the violence used ie
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation
etc, and (b) on the existence of
intimidation only. In robbery with force
upon things, committed in an inhabited
house, public building, or edifice
devoted to religious worship, the
penalty is based (a) on the value of the
property taken, and (b) on whether or
not the offenders carry arms.
If
committed in an uninhabited building,
the penalty is based only on the value
of the property taken.
Napolis vs. CA
Facts: Nicanor Napolis, with several co-accused, entered
the house of the Penaflor spouses by breaking a wall of a
store, and forcing the door of the house adjacent to the
store open. Once inside, the accused used violence against
the husband and initimidation against the wife, enabling
them to get away with P2557 in cash and goods. They were
convicted of robbery by armed men in an inhabited place.
Held: The crime is considered a complex one under Art 48,
where the penalty for the most serious offence in its max
period should be imposed. Otherwise, there will exist an
absurd situation where the concurrence of a graver offence
results in the reduction of the penalty.
People vs. Biruar
There is no law or jurisprudence which requires the
presentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that it
had been taken away.
People vs. Salas
Salas was last seen with the victim at 3:00am. At 6:00, the
victims body was found in a canal. Her purse, alleged to
contain P2,000 and jewelry were missing. No one witnessed

109
the robbery, much less the killing. Is the crime committed

homicide or robbery with homicide?
HELD: Robbery with Homicide. In this special complex
crime against property, Homicide is incidental to the
robbery, which is the main purpose of the
criminal. The onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the taking
of personal property with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to
another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus
lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the
generic sense, was committed."
While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talens
was robbed at the time she was killed, we may conclude
from four circumstances that the robbery occasioned her
killing: (1) Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake.
(2) The appellant knew that victim was winning. (3) The
victim was last seen alive with appellant. (4) The victim's
purse containing her money and earrings were missing from
her body when found.
These circumstances logically lead to the inescapable
conclusion that appellant should be liable not just of
simple homicide, but robbery with homicide
People v. Del Rosario, 359 SCRA 166 (2001)
FACTS: Del Rosario stole six pieces of
jewelry belonging to Paragua. He then pawned and sold
the same. Also, on the occasion of the said robbery, Del
Rosario hit Paraguas niece, Racquel, with a hard object,
strangled her and and tied the the latters neck of with a
Cat-V wire which resulted to her death shortly thereafter.
Del Rsoario admitted in court that he needed money to
marry his common-law wife. The RTC convicted del Rosario
of the crime of robbery with homicide. Del Rosario
contends that it is essential to prove the intent to rob and
that the intent to rob must come first before the killing
transpired.
HELD: Animus lucrandi or intent to gain, is an
internal act which can be established through the overt
acts of the offender. Although proof as to motive for the
crime is essential when the evidence of the theft is
circumstantial, the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is the
usual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking of
useful property appertaining to another, unless special
circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the
perpetrator. ". . . (T)he intent to gain may be presumed
from the proven unlawful taking." Intent to gain (animus
lucrandi) is presumed to be alleged in an information
where it is charged that there was unlawful taking
(apoderamiento) and appropriation by the offender of the
things subject of the robbery.
In this case, it was apparent that the reason why
Del Rosario stole the jewelry of Paragua was because he
intended to gain by them. He had already admitted that he
needed money to marry his common-law wife. The court
also stated that if gaining through unlawful means was
farthest from the mind of the accused, why then did he
pawn and sell the jewelry he had taken from Paragua
It is immaterial whether the killing transpired
before or after the robbery. In the crime of robbery with
homicide, the homicide may precede robbery or may occur
after robbery. What is essential is that there is a nexus, an
intimate connection between robbery and the killing
whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, or
whether both crimes be committed at the same time.
People v. Reyes, 399 SCRA 528 (2003)

FACTS: Cergontes forcibly took the wristwatch of
Solis while Reyes stabbed the latter at the back resulting to
his death. The victims gold necklace, one gold ring, all of
an undetermined value, and a wallet containing
unspecified amount of cash were also taken from him.
Reyes was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
Appellant now contends that the animus lucrandi was not
sufficiently established as the taking of the watch could
have been a mere afterthought and the real intent of the
malefactors was to inflict injuries upon the victim.
Moreover, there was no evidence of ownership of the
wristwatch, as it may have belonged to the two persons
who attacked the victim
HELD: The court held that appellants contention
is devoid of merit. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an
internal act which can be established through the overt
acts of the offender. Although proof of motive for the crime
is essential when the evidence of the robbery is
circumstantial, intent to gain or animus lucrandi may be
presumed from the furtive taking of useful property
pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a
different intent on the part of the perpetrator. The intent
to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawful taking.
In the case at bar, the act of taking the victim's wristwatch
by one of the accused Cergontes while accused-appellant
Reyes poked a knife behind him sufficiently gave rise to the
presumption.
The detailed narration of how the victim was
forcibly divested of the wristwatch by accused Cergontes
and stabbed at the back by accused-appellant cannot be
taken lightly on the argument that the attackers owned the
wristwatch and they attacked the victim solely on their
desire to retrieve it. In any event, in robbery by the taking
of property through intimidation or violence, it is not
necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the
personal property be the owner thereof. Article 293 of the
Revised Penal Code employs the phrase "belonging to
another" and this has been interpreted to merely require
that the property taken does not belong to the offender.
Actual possession of the property by the person
dispossessed thereof suffices. In fact, it has been held that
robbery may be committed against a bailee or a person
who himself has stolen it. So long as there is
apoderamiento of personal property from another against
the latter's will through violence or intimidation, with
animo de lucro, robbery is the offense imputable to the
offender. If the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason
of the robbery, the offense is converted into the composite
crime of robbery with homicide.
People v. Suela,
373 SCRA 163 (2002)
FACTS: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, and
Edgardo Batocan sporting ski masks, bonnests and gloves,
brandishing handguns and knife barged into the room of
Director Rosas who was watching television together with
his adopted son, Norman and his friend Gabilo. They
threatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo to give the location
of their money and valuables, which they eventually took.
They dragged Gabilo downstairs with them. Upon Nerios
instructions, Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which caused
the latters death.
After the incident, Edgar Suela
demanded P20,000.00 from Rosas for an information
regarding the robbery. The RTC found Edgar Suela guilty
of robbery for demanding P200,000 as payment for
information on the robbery-slay case.

110
HELD: With respect to the charge of robbery for

demanding P200,000 as payment for information on the
robbery-slay case, the Court held that Edgar Suela should
be acquitted. The OSG explained: "Simple robbery is
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons as distinguished from the use of force upon things,
but the extent of the violence or intimidation does not fall
under pars. 1 to 4 of Article 294 (Revised Penal Code)
"Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the prosecution failed to
prove that appellant, Edgar Suela employed force or
intimidation on private complainant Rosas by instilling fear
in his mind so as to compel the latter to cough out the
amount of P200,000.00. Instead, what was established was
that he had agreed to give the P200,000.00 in exchange for
information regarding the identity and whereabouts of
those who robbed him and killed his friend. There was no
showing that appellant Edgar Suela had exerted
intimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to give
the money. Instead, what is clear was that the giving of the
money was done not out of fear but because it was a
choice private complainant opted because he wanted to
get the information being offered to him for the
consideration of P200,000.00. In fact, the money was
delivered not due to fear but for the purpose of possibly
having a lead in solving the case and to possibly bring the
culprit to justice (ibid.). As such, the elements of simple
robbery have not been established in the instant case,
hence, appellant Edgar Suela should be acquitted of that
charge." However, Edgar is still guilty as principal of the
complex crime of robber with homicide for robbing the
house of Rosas and for Gabilo death.
Article 294. Robbery with violence

against or intimidation of persons
Acts punished:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
When by reason or on occasion of the

robbery (taking of personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain),
the crime of homicide is committed;
When the robbery is accompanied by rape
or intentional mutilation or arson;
When by reason of on occasion of such
robbery, any of the physical injuries
resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency
or blindness is inflicted;
When by reason or on occasion of robbery,
any of the physical injuries resulting in the
loss of the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or the loss of
the use of any such member or incapacity
for the work in which the injured person is
theretofore habitually engaged is inflicted;
If the violence or intimidation employed in
the commission of the robbery is carried to
a degree unnecessary for the commission
of the crime;
When in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inflicted upon any
person not responsible for the commission
of the robbery any of the physical injuries
7.
in consequence of which the person injured

becomes deformed or loses any other
member of his body or loses the sue
thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in which he is
habitually engaged for more than 90 days
or the person injured becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30
days;
If the violence employed by the offender
does not cause any of the serious physical
injuries defined in Article 263, or if the
offender employs intimidation only.
The crime defined in this article is a special

complex crime. Thus, Art 48 no longer
applies.
on the occasion = in the course of
by reason = because of
Robbery with homicide
Robbery and homicide are separate offences,
when the homicide was not committed on
the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
Where the original design comprehends
robbery, and homicide is perpetrated by
reason or on the occasion of the
consummation of the former, the crime
committed is robbery with homicide.
There is no such crime as robbery with
murder. The treachery which attended
the commission of the crime must be
considered not qualifying but merely as a
generic aggravating circumstance.
An intent to take personal property belonging
to another with intent to gain must precede
the killing.
The crime is robbery with homicide, even if the
motive of the offenders was that of robbery
as well as vengeance.
Homicide may precede robbery or may occur
after robbery.
It is immaterial that the death of a person
supervened by mere accident, provided
that the homicide be produced by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery.
Killing a person to escape after the commission
of robbery is robbery with homicide.
There is still robbery with homicide even
if the person killed is another robber
or an innocent bystander. Thus, the
person killed need not be the person
robbed.
An accessory to robbery with homicide must
have knowledge and complicity as to the
homicide as well in order to be charged
with the same offence. Otherwise, if the
accessory had no knowledge of the

111
homicide, he may only be charged with

robbery.
People vs. Mangulabnan
Facts: During the robbery, one of the accused climbed on a
table and fired at the ceiling, where the victim was hiding.
The shots caused the victims death.
Held: It is immaterial that death supervened by mere
accident. By reason or on occasion of means it is only
the result obtained, without reference to or distinction as
to circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in
the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into
consideration.
People vs. Calixtro
When death results, the crime is still robbery with
homicide, regardless of the circumstances, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime.
People vs. Pecato
Whenever a homicide has been committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those
who took part as principals in the commission of the crime
are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide although they did not actually take
part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
People vs. Tapales
When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of
robbery, should rape be considered an aggravating
circumstance? YES. Rapes, wanton robbery for personal
gain and other forms of cruelties are condemned and their
perpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstances
of ignominy and deliberately augmenting unnecessary
wrongs.
Poeple vs. Quinones
There is no such crime as robbery with multiple homicide.
There is only the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, regardless of the fact that 3 persons were killed
in the commission of the crime. In robbery, all homicides
and murders are merged in the composite. As such, the
single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed only once even if multiple killings accompanied
the robbery.
People vs. Faigano
Nely was suddenly roused from her sleep by Carmelo
Faigano, a worker at a nearby construction project. He was
in black T-shirt but was no longer wearing pants or
underwear. He poked a 29-inch balisong at her neck and
threatened to kill her and the children beside her. Then
forcibly tore her nightie, raised her pair of brassieres above
her breasts and pulled her to the edge of the king-size
wooden bed. He spread her thighs apart against her will
and inserted his organ into hers. He had sexual intercourse
with her. After satisfying his lust, Faigano then put on his
short pants and ordered Nely to bring out her money. He

took Nely's money, her husband's wristwatch and two rings.
TC found him guilty of the special complex crime of
robbery with rape
HELD: SC found him guilty of the separate crimes of
robbery and rape. If the intention of the accused was to
rob but rape was also committed even before the
asportation the crime is robbery with rape. But if the
original plan was to rape but the accused after committing
the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity
presented itself, the offenses should be viewed as separate
and distinct. To be liable for the special complex crime of
robbery with rape the intent to take personal property of
another must precede the rape. Under the circumstances,
SC is convinced that when Faigano entered the victim's
house he only had in mind sexual gratification. The taking
of the cash and pieces of jewelry against Nely's will appears
to be an afterthought.
People v. Reyes, 427 SCRA 28 (2004)
FACTS: Dr. Aurora Lagrada, a spinster of about 70
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 Lagrada without
the latter knowing. Armed with a bolo, Reyes stole one
Rolex wristwatch, 1 gold bracelet, 1 gold ring with
birthstone of Jade, 1 Pass Book from Lagrada. On the
occasion of the said robbery, Reyes stabbed Lagrada several
times in the different parts of her body directly causing her
death. The trial court convicted Reyes of robbery with
homicide.
HELD: To sustain a conviction of the accused for
robbery with homicide, the prosecution is burdened to
prove the essential elements of the crime. The accused
must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing
robbery, the homicide being committed either by reason of
or on occasion of the robbery. The homicide may precede
robbery or may occur thereafter. What is essential is that
there is a nexus, an intrinsic connection between the
robbery and the killing. The latter may be done prior to or
subsequent to the former. However, the intent to commit
robbery must precede the taking of the victim's life.
Furthermore, the constituted crimes of robbery and
homicide must be consummated.
A homicide is considered as having been
committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery
when the motive of the offender in killing the victim is to
deprive the latter of his property, to eliminate an obstacle
to the crime, to protect his possession of the loot, to
eliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended or
to insure his escape from the scene of the crime.
Appellant stated that he barged into the house of
the victim to rob her, and that he stabbed the victim when
she was about to shout and because he was drunk. The
appellant then took the victim's money and personal
belongings and fled from the scene of the crime. The trial
court correctly convicted the appellant of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Hernandez, 432 SCRA 104 (2004)
FACTS: Catapang and Hernandez dragged 72 yearold Natividad Mendoza, in the direction of a forested area
where there were also mango and coconut trees. The two
took the money and jewelry of Natividad while she was
lying on the ground. Thereafter, Catapang and Hernandez

112
strangled Natividad to death with the use of a white rope

made of buri/vine string.
HELD: The Court held that appellant is guilty of
robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659.
The court further held that, in robbery with
homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is
to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit
robbery must precede the taking of human life. The
homicide may take place before, during or after the
robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has
to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of
robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or
simple 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 Infantry
Battalion, Philippine Army, was leisurely pacing along
Quezon Street, Iloilo City, when Roberto and Ricky both
surnamed Martin blocked his path. Without any provocation
coming from the soldier, Ricky drew his firearm and fired at
Demarayo, hitting the latters left hand. A brief struggle
among the three (3) men ensued which caused the victim
to fall down. As Roberto pulled away he warded off
Demarayo by kicking him on the waist. While the victim
was sprawled on the ground Roberto aimed his rifle at
Demarayo's chest and pulled the trigger. Roberto fired
another shot hitting Demarayo on the same spot. After the
brutal slaying, the assailants nonchalantly walked away
with Demarayo's M-16. The lower court ruled that the crime
committed was Robbery with Homicide.
HELD: In People v. Salazar, accused-appellants
stabbed a security guard and thereafter took away his gun.
It was ruled that since the prosecution failed to establish
that the homicide was committed by reason or on the
occasion of stealing the security guard's firearm, both of
them could only be convicted of the separate crimes of
Homicide and Theft.
The records are bereft of any evidence to prove
that the asportation of Demarayo's service firearm was the
prime motive of accused-appellants. Although it may be
true that they were seen grabbing the gun from the victim
as the latter was lying prone on the ground, it could be
possible that it was done to prevent him from retaliating as
he was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshot
wound. The taking of the gun might have been an
afterthought and not the real purpose of the crime. It can
therefore be seen that the prosecution failed to establish
convincingly that the homicide was committed for the
purpose or on the occasion of robbing the victim. As such,
accused-appellants should properly be convicted of the
separate offenses of Homicide and Theft, which were both
duly proved.
People v. Ranis, 389 SCRA 45 (2002)
FACTS: While Marivic and Ben with their baby
were watching television in their bedroom, Murphy and
Sabiyon, both armed with bladed weapons, suddenly
entered their unlocked bedroom. Murphy poked a knife at
her neck while Ernesto straddled on top of Ben who was
then lying in bed. Murphy asked for the proceeds of the

land Ben sold and some jewelry but Marivic told him that
they only had P2,000 in their possession. Murphy then took
the P2,000 and several pieces of luxury watches and
jewelry. After taking the money and jewelry, both accused
tied her hands and those of Ben with electric cord and then
they went out of the house, taking Ben with them. The
body of Ben was later found lying about five to ten meters
from the house with a cloth in the mouth, blood stains on
the body, and hack wounds on his right nape and mouth.
Ben was brought to the hospital but he was proclaimed
dead on arrival.
HELD: In charging robbery with homicide, the
onus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personal
property with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking
is characterized by animus lucrandi; (d) on the occasion of
the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide,
which is used in the generic sense, has been committed. In
this case, Marivic Rodelas positively identified appellants
Ernesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy as the two persons who
entered her bedroom. Using sharp, bladed weapons,
appellants demanded and took money, watches, and
jewelry belonging to the victim, Ben Hernandez.
Thereafter, Hernandez was found stabbed to death. The
Court ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Gonzales, 382 SCRA 694 (2002)
FACTS: Nicanor Suralta was having drinks with his
visitors in their house when two armed men, one carrying a
gun and the other a knife, suddenly entered the house
through the kitchen door. The one carrying a gun had a
bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed, while the
other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face
covered with a handkerchief. The knife-wielder held
Chona, the third child of the Suralta spouses, and
announced a holdup. All persons in the house were ordered
to go inside the bedroom, about 2 meters away from the
sala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun and
money from Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun,
but asked his wife, Carolita, to give money to the
holduppers. Carolita gave P2,100.00, which was intended
to be deposited in the bank, to the knife-wielder, who
placed it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder ransacked
the cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325.00,
which was intended for the school expenses of the Suralta
children. In addition, he took the family's Sanyo cassette
recorder and some clothes. The holduppers also divested
one of the guests of his Seiko diver's wristwatch and then
left. As the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rang
out. Nicanor was heard moaning. Nicanor eventually died.
HELD: After reviewing the records of this case,
the court ruled that the prosecution evidence establishes
the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. A
conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of the
following elements: (a) the taking of personal property
with violence or intimidation against persons or with force
upon 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 reason
thereof, homicide in its generic sense is committed. The
offense becomes the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide under Art. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the
victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
All elements are present in the case at bar.

113
People v. Torres, 359 SCRA 761 (2001)

FACTS: Vicente Galanao, his sons Julian and
Macky and Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with their
employer, Boloy , to buy copra and abaca. They were on
board a truck driven by Boloy. On the way, they were
stopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the road.
Torres approached the left side of the truck, went up the
truck, and shot Boloy once. After shooting, two persons
armed with guns appeared from nowhere and approached
the back of the truck and told them to lie face downward.
The two persons came from the portion where bamboos
grew by the side of the road. Afterwards the men ran
towards the mountainside with the victims bag containing
P500,000.00, the victims necklace, ring and his wristwatch.
HELD:
Robbery with homicide is a special
complex crime against property. Homicide is incidental to
the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. In
charging robbery with homicide, the onus probandi is to
establish: xxx xxx (d) on the occasion of the robbery or
by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in
the generic sense, was committed. The phrase "by reason"
covers homicide committed before or after the taking of
personal property of another, as long as the motive of the
offender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprive
the victim of his personal property which is sought to be
accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or in
killing a person after the robbery to do away with a witness
or to defend the possession of the stolen property. Thus, it
matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of
the personal properties of the victim. What is essential in
robbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation and
intimate connection between robbery and killing, whether
both crimes be committed at the same time. The Court
ruled that all elements of robbery with homicide are
present in this case.
People v. Maxion, 361 SCRA 414 (2001)
FACTS: Himor, a teller at the United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB), walked across the street towards the
Hi-Top Supermarket, to pick up the cash deposit of the
supermarket amounting to P1,464,644.75. After issuing the
deposit slip, he placed the money inside a duffle bag and
padlocked the bag. Thereafter, he called the bank to send
his security escort. UCPB sent security escort Gargaceran.
While Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the street
going back to the bank. Maxion and another man suddenly
emerged and walked towards them. Maxion was in front of
Gargaceran while the second stayed behind him. Both of
them aimed their guns at Gargaceran. The man behind
Gargaceran immediately took Gargaceran's handgun, and
shortly thereafter, Maxion shot Gargaceran at close range
hitting him on the chest eventually causing his death.
Himor attempted to run with the bag towards the bank but
he was stopped by the armed men who ordered him to
release the bag. With their guns pointed at him, Himor
tossed the bag containing the money to them and ran back
to the supermarket.
HELD: There is no question that the original and
principal intention of the two armed men was to get the
money of Hi-Top Supermarket. This is evident from the
testimony of teller Himor that as soon as the two men
stopped him from running towards the bank, they shouted
to release the bag containing the money. As the robbery
resulted in the killing of the security guard Gargaceran, the
offense committed by the malefactors is indubitably the

special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
In
robbery with homicide, what is essential is that there be "a
direct relation, an intimate connection between robbery
and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent
to the former or whether both crime be committed at the
same time.
People v. Consejero, 352 SCRA 276 (2001)
FACTS: While they were fishing, Accused
Consajero, a CAFGU member and Malapit, armed with an
M-14, asked Castillo and Usigan if they were the ones
exacting quota from the Barangay captain. The two replied
in the negative. Consajero then asked Castillo and Usigan
to accompany them to a nearby store. They then killed
Castillo and Usigan. Thereafter, they took the Briggs and
Straton engine of the motorized banca ridden by Castillo
and Usigan which is owned by Israel. Castillo was found
lying on the ground, face down, drenched in his own blood
with hands tied at the back. Twenty meters away lay the
dead body of Usigan, who sustained thirty-one stab and
hack wounds on the different parts of his body.
HELD: The criminal acts of accused-appellant
constitute not a complex crime of robbery with homicide,
but three separate offenses: 1. Murder, for the killing of
Modesto Castillo, 2. Homicide, for the death of Dionisio
Usigan; and 3. Theft, for the unlawful taking of the Briggs
and Straton engine of the motorized banca.
In People v. Amania, the Court had occasion to
rule that in robbery with homicide, the killing must have
been directly connected with the robbery. It is necessary
that there must have been an intent on the part of the
offenders to commit robbery from the outset and, on
occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. The
original design must have been robbery, and the homicide,
even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, must
have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with a
view to consummate the robbery. The taking of the
property should not be merely an afterthought which arose
subsequent to the killing.
In the present case, it does not appear that the
primary purpose of accused-appellant in accosting the two
deceased was to rob the engine of the motorized banca.
From all indications, accused-appellant, a CAFGU member,
was primarily interested in taking the life of the two
deceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from the
Barangay captain, and the taking of the subject engine was
merely an afterthought that arouse subsequent to the
killing of the victims.
People v. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95
FACTS: Carlos Deveza, erstwhile member of the
PNP arrived at the Cartimar Plaza Market to fetch his wife,
Estella, who was then closing the family chain of stalls for
the day. Upon arrival, Carlos parked his Toyota Tamaraw
vehicle in front of the stall. Immediately thereafter, Estella
approached Carlos, who was still at the driver's seat, and
handed him a black leather bag which contained
P300,000.00 cash, pieces of jewelry and checks. As Estella
left to make a phone call, Carlos alighted from the
Tamaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle with both
arms resting on the vehicle's window. Legaspi, coming from
the front of the vehicle position himself 2 meters away
from Deveza, level and poke a gun wrapped in a piece of
cloth or towel at the latters nape and eventually pull the
trigger. Deveza fell on the pavement. The gunman then

114
picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casually walked

away from the scene of the crime.
While conversing with other tricycle drivers,
Wilfredo Dazo heard the gunshot prompting him to dart his
eyes toward the direction of the gunfire where he saw
Deveza stooping and about to fall. Pitying the victim,
Dazo hid behind a post and waited in ambush for Legaspi
and the latters companion, Franco. In so doing, Dazo
intended to seize and stop Legaspi who was then holding a
gun, but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmed
Franco by the waist. Thereafter, Dazo and Franco wrestled
causing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing Legaspi to
take an aim and shoot at Dazo twice. At the height of the
struggle between Dazo and Franco, shots were fired by
Legaspi, one bullet hitting Dazo on the right jaw.
HELD: Obviously, the killing of Carlos Deveza and
the shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reason
of or on the occasion of the robbery. Thus, the physical
injuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in the
crime of robbery with homicide. Taken in its entirety, the
overt acts of accused-appellant Legaspi prove that the lone
motive for the killing of Deveza and the shooting of Dazo
was for the purpose of consummating and ensuring the
success of the robbery.
In the final analysis, the shooting of Dazo was
done in order to defend the possession of the stolen
property. It was therefore an act which tended to insure
the successful termination of the robbery and secure to the
robber the possession and enjoyment of the goods taken.
Accused-appellant's argument that the element of "taking"
was not proved is thus unavailing in the face of Tulod's
testimony.
People v. Temanel, 341 SCRA 319 (2000)
FACTS: Renato Sucilan, his wife Adelina, daughter
Liezl, and brother Romeo were eating dinner in Renato's
house. After dinner, Adelina prepared for bed while Renato
played with Liezl. Romeo went home to his own hut
situated five meters away. Suddenly, a stone was hurled
into Renato's house hitting the petromax lamp.
Immediately, brothers Jose and Eddie Temanel entered the
house. Jose poked Renato with a bladed weapon while
Eddie ordered Adelina to take out their money and
valuables. Later, cohorts of the Temanels entered the hut.
Osis grabbed Liezl, and held a knife against her. Terrified,
Adelina put the valuables in an empty milk can and placed
the same outside the door. Efren Temanel, who was outside
the hut, took the can. The intruders tied the couple. When
Renato and Adelina were able to free themselves, the
former stepped out of the house and was shocked to find
his brother, Romeo, dead with several stab wounds in the
neck and his intestines exposed. The pieces of jewelry he
usually wore, were no longer on his body.
HELD: All the elements of robbery with homicide
concur in this case. The properties taken consisted of
pieces of jewelry, a radio, rice, money and other valuables,
all of which clearly belonged to the Sucilans. The
properties were violently taken and intent to gain can be
presumed from the unlawful taking. In addition, Romeo
Sucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery.
Where homicide is perpetrated with a view to
rob, the offense is robbery with homicide. But if robbery
was an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide,
there are two distinct offenses. Here, the killing was
committed in the course of the robbery. The fact that it
was Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants, Eddie and

Jose Temanel, who stabbed Romeo is of no moment. In
People v. Mendoza, if all accused take part in a robbery
resulting in death, all of them shall be held liable for
robbery with homicide in the absence of proof that they
prevented the killing.
People v. Cruz, 380 SCRA 13 (2002)
FACTS: Donato Cruz, who was high on drugs,
entered the house of the Robleses, and sat on a sofa near
the kitchen. While seated on the sofa, Laura saw
respondent and she became hysterical and started
shouting. Thinking that he will be assaulted by Laura, Cruz
went inside the house, got hold of a pointed object and
stabbed to death Laura Robles and her 5-year old daughter,
Lara. Thereafter, he ransacked the cabinet of the Robleses
taking away a Minolta camera, a wedding ring and
P8,000.00 in cash, as well as an undetermined amount of
US dollars. The RTC convicted Cruz of two (2) counts of
murder and one (1) count of theft. Appellant argues that he
should have been charged with the crime of robbery with
homicide.
HELD: The Court held that the argument of the
Appellant is without merit. The special complex crime of
robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against
property, and not against persons, homicide being a mere
incident of the robbery with the latter being the main
purpose and object of the criminal (People vs. Navales, 266
SCRA 569 [1997]). In the case at bar, the evidence on
record shows that appellant stole the camera and cash only
as an afterthought. His primary purpose was to kill Laura
and her 5-year old daughter, Lara, after he panicked.
Hence, the prosecution was correct when it did not charge
appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000)
FACTS: Maria Abendao was engaged in business.
She had a store, operated a passenger jeepney and
engaged in the buy and sale of palay. Her sister Romualda
also had a store. Accused Nelson was Maria's store helper.
Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda in her
store during palay season. The other accused Maximo
Velarde was known to Romualda because she met him at a
birthday party held at Maria's house. The three accused
were friends. Maximo, Tito and Nelson conceived the plan
to hold-up Maria while drinking in front of Romualda's store
because Maximo needed money for his fare to Manila.
Maximo, Tito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepney
of Maria and upon reaching an uninhabited place. Maximo
poked a gun at the driver and shot him. He also shot Maria
at the neck when the latter shouted. Nelson and Tito
alighted from the jeepney. Nelson went to the left front
side of the jeepney, while Tito approached the right front
side of the jeepney, in the process stepping on the sleeping
John-John who was then awakened. The boy stood up and
said, "You will see I will tell my father that you killed my
mother." To avoid being identified by the boy, Tito told
Maximo to kill the boy. Maximo then took hold of the boy's
hair and slashed his neck. Tito took Maria's money and
divided it, each accused receiving about seven thousand
(P7,000.00) pesos from the loot.
HELD:
The crime committed is the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and

115
penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The

trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with
homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged
in the information. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is
used in its generic sense, embracing not only the act which
results in death but also all other acts producing anything
short of death. Neither is the nature of the offense altered
by the number of killings in connection with the robbery.
The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the
robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situation
where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense,
robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way
that robbery with multiple killings would be.
People v. Dinamling, 379 SCRA 107 (2002)
FACTS: Marilyn Pajarillo was in their house
lying down in bed with her 2-year old daughter. Seated
beside her was 11-year old Rosemarie Malalay, who was
waiting for her father Rogelio. Rogelio was then in the
patio, outside the house, drinking gin with Marilyn's
husband Charlie Pajarillo and Deogracias Acosta. Suddenly,
Orlando Dinamling entered their house and poked a long
gun at Marilyn's forehead, ordered her to lie prone on the
ground. Marilyn merely sat down. Dinamman, with a short
firearm, entered their sari-sari store, searched their
belongings and took more or less P1,500.00 in cash
representing her sales, two (rims of Champion cigarettes,
one dozen cans of sardines and one pack of Juicy Fruit
chewing gum. Outside, Fernando Dinamling and Linnam
poked guns at the heads of Rogelio and Deogracias, who
were then lying prostrate on the ground.. After a while,
Rogelio and Deogaracias were shot to death. The trial
court's ruled that Orlando and Fenando Dinamling,
Diinamman and Linnam are guilty of "robbery with double
homicide"
HELD: Accused-appellants' crime is robbery with
homicide. The trial court's denomination of the offense as
"robbery with double homicide" is erroneous. It is settled
that regardless of the number of homicides committed, the
crime should still be denominated as robbery with
homicide. The number of persons killed is immaterial and
does not increase the penalty prescribed by Article 294 of
the Revised Penal Code. Stated differently, the homicides
or murders and physical injuries, irrespective of their
numbers, committed on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with
homicide.
Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to

surrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money
from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and
Jose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito
with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered
Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed
the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on
different parts of his body. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt
of his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the
latter's wristwatch and ring. Manuel then raped Julifer, a
househelp of Marife.
HELD: The law does not require that the sole
motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide
by reason or on the occasion thereof. In People vs. Tidula,
et al., this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends
to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction
for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In
People v. Damaso, the Court held that the fact that the
intent of the felons was tempered with a desire also to
avenge grievances against the victim killed, does not
negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for
robbery with homicide.
A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper
even if the homicide is committed before, during or after
the commission of the robbery. The homicide may be
committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by
mere accident. Even if two or more persons are killed and a
woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on
another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is
only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
What is primordial is the result obtained without reference
or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime.
Robbery with homicide is committed even if the
victim of the robbery is different from the victim of
homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery. It is not even necessary
that the victim of the robbery is the very person the
malefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of the
special complex crime, the robbery itself must be proved
as conclusively as any other element of the crime. It may
be true that the original intent of appellant Manuel was to
borrow again money from Ronito and Maria Fe but later on
conspired with Jose and robbed the couple of their money
and pieces of jewelry, and on the occasion thereof, killed
Ronito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of robbery
with homicide.
People v. Napalit, 396 SCRA 687 (2003)
People v. Daniela, 401 SCRA 519 (2002)

FACTS: Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis came to
the house of Ronito and his common-law wife, Maria Fe to
borrow money. Manuel, Jose, and Ronito then had a
drinking spree. Later, Manuel armed with a .38 caliber gun,
entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe and poked the
said gun on Maria Fe. Jose, armed with a knife followed
Manuel to the bedroom. Upon Manuels order Jose tied the
hands of Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape on her
mouth. Jose also tied the hands of Marifes cousin, Leo.
Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace,
rings and earrings. Manuel demanded that she give them
her money but Maria Fe told them that she had used her
money to pay her partners in the fish vending business.
Manuel and Jose did not believe Maria Fe and ransacked
the room but failed to find money. Manuel then threatened
to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria
FACTS:A group of more than six armed men

including Napalit barged into the Tondo General Hospital.
One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guard
and announced a hold-up. Simultaneously, Napalit pointed
a gun at, and grabbed the firearm of, another security
guard. Four members of the group then entered the
cashier's office of the hospital and ordered the employees
to lie down on the floor. One of them pointed a gun at the
cashier, Alonzo, and ordered him to open the vault. Before
Alonzo could do as instructed, he was searched for
weapons in the course of which his wallet containing
P450.00 in cash was taken. Alonzo then opened the vault
which the four emptied of P1,010,274.90 in cash. While the
four malefactors were at the cashier's office, another
security guard, Gomez, who was manning the hospital gate
was disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside the
hospital premises, and shot twice by one of the armed

116
men. The four armed men who emptied the vault then
rushed out of the hospital and one of them also shot Gomez
who had by then collapsed on the ground. Two of them
headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castor
which was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in front
of the hospital. One of the duo ordered the passenger at
the front seat to get off the vehicle. The other, after
forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fled
with his companion. The RTC found Napalit guilty of
robbery with homicide and violation of R. A. 6539 (the AntiCarnapping Act), respectively. Napalit argues that assuming
that he had indeed participated in the incident, he should
only be held liable for robbery and not for the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide.
HELD: In a long line of cases, the Court has ruled
that whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or
on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as
principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide,
unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide. (People v. Lago, 358 SCRA 550 (2001), People
v. Liad, 355 SCRA 11 (2001), People v. Pedroso, 336 SCRA
163)
People v. Lara (2006)
The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that
appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide in
Criminal Case No. 97-13706. There is nothing in the
records that would show that the principal purpose of
appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun (Serial No.
9600942). It must be emphasized that when the victim and
appellant met and had a heated argument, the absence of
the intent to rob on the part of the appellant was
apparent. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim.
Appellants act of taking the shotgun was not for the
purpose of robbing the victim, but to protect himself from
the victim. No one would in ones right mind just leave a
firearm lying around after being in a heated argument with
another person. Having failed to establish that appellants
original criminal design was robbery, appellant could 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 offender
must have the intent to take the personal
property belonging to another with intent
to gain, and such intent must precede the
rape.
There is no such crime as robbery with
attempted
rape.
It
must
be
consummated.
Otherwise, they are
separate offences.
When the taking of personal property of a
woman is an independent act following
defendants failure to consummate the
rape, there are two distinct crimes
committed: attempted rape and theft.
Additional rapes committed on the same
occasion of robbery will not increase the
penalty. All acts of rape on that occasion

being integrated in one composite crime.
When the taking of property after the rape is
not with intent to gain, there is neither
theft nor robbery committed.
The civil liability for rape in robbery with rape
has been set at P50,000.
When rape and homicide co-exist in the
commission of robbery, the crime is
robbery with homicide and rape under par
1 of Art 294, the rape to be considered as
an aggravating circumstance only. (note:
this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal, Pp vs
Basca, and Pp vs Villa. but i disagree with
this ruling based on moral grounds and
lack of legal basis. how could rape be
merely an aggravating circumstance?)
People vs. Patola
Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art
294 par 2, not under RPC 335 on qualified rape.
People vs. Dinola
Facts: Dinola saw victim Marilyns watch after he had
raped her. She refused to give him the watch so he took if
forcibly from her and left. Dinola was convicted of robbery
with rape.
Held: The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as
2 separate offences. If the original design was to commit
rape but the accused after committing rape also committed
robbery (more of an afterthought, even accidental)
because the opportunity presented itself, the criminal act
should be viewed as 2 distinct offences. If the intention of
the accused was to commit robbery but rape was also
committed even before the robbery, the crime of robbery
with rape was committed.
People vs Moreno
Facts: Accused Moreno, Deloria and Maniquez robbed the
Mohnani spouses. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa while
Maniquez raped househelp Mary Ann.
Moreno was
convicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez, robbery
with rape.
Held: Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of
robbery only. Ruling was correct.
People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302 (2000)
FACTS: Locsin Fabon, alias "Loklok," entered
the home of 64 year-old, Bonifacia Lasquite and forcibly
took the victims money amounting to P25,000.00. On the
occasion of the robbery, Fabon raped Lasquite. Thereafter,
Fabon strangled and stabbed Lasquite with a knife resulting
to her death. The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery with
Homicide and Rape, penalized under Article 294, number 1
of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659.
HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated the
crime committed as "robbery with homicide and rape."

117
When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide

is accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional
mutilation, such additional offense is treated as an
aggravating circumstance which would result in the
imposition of the maximum penalty of death. The Court
cited the case of People vs. Lascuna, where it was held
that We agree with the Solicitor General's observation that
the crime committed was erroneously designated as
robbery with homicide, rape and physical injuries. The
proper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated by
rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission
of robbery, it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code which applies, the rape to be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. . . .
People v. Domingo, 383 SCRA 43 (2002)
FACTS: Appellant Domingo Temporal, Pedro,
Valdez, and Rivera went to the house of Spouses Valentin
and Clara Gabertan, armed with a piece of bamboo, 2x2
piece of wood, ipil-ipil posts and bolo, They assaulted and
clubbed Valentin with their weapons, weakening and
injuring him. Eventually they stole from the Gabertan
spouses cash in the amount of P5,350.00, 1 ladies gold
Seiko watch, 9 turkeys, and 2 chickens. Thereafter, while
Rivera guarded Valentin, the four accused took turns in
raping Carla outside the house where she was forcibly laid
on the cogon grass. RTC found appellant guilty of robbery
with multiple rape.
HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellant
of robbery with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape.
In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the true
intent of the accused must first be determined, because
their intent determines the offense they committed. To
sustain a conviction for robbery with rape, it is imperative
that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. To
support a conviction therefor, proof of the rape alone is not
sufficient. Robbery with rape occurs when the following
elements are present: (1) personal property is taken with
violence or intimidation against persons, (2) the property
taken belongs to another, (3) the taking is done with animo
lucrandi, and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.
In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are
present. The contemporaneous acts of appellant and his coaccused stress the fact that they were initially motivated
by animus lucrandi. They first demanded guns, moneys and
animals from Valentin Gabertan. Apparently, it was only
when they entered the house and saw his wife when they
thought of raping her.The prosecution likewise established
that appellant and his co-accused took chickens, a watch
and money from complainants through violence.
People v. Verceles, 388 SCRA 515 (2002)
FACTS: Accused
Verceles
alias
"Baldog",
Corpuz, Soriano alias "Merto", Ramos and Soriano entered
the house of Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the
grills of the window. Once inside, they took away 1 colored
T.V., 1 VHS, assorted jewelries, 1 alarm clock and 1 radio
cassettes. In the course of the robbery, Soriano, succumbed
to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while the
others just stood outside the door and did nothing to
prevent Soriano.
HELD: Once conspiracy is established between
two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery,
they would be both equally culpable for the rape
committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery,
unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent

the other from committing the rape. The rule in this
jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a
consequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who
took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of
robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in
the rape. Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Robbery with Rape punished under Article 294
(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Moreno, 374 SCRA 667 (2002)
The special complex crime of robbery with rape
defined in Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, employs the
clause "when the robbery shall have been accompanied
with rape." In other words, to be liable for such crime, the
offender must have the intent to take the personal
property of another under circumstances that makes the
taking one of robbery, and such intent must precede the
rape. If the original plan was to commit rape, but the
accused after committing the rape also committed robbery
when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery should
be viewed as a separate and distinct crime.
A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this
case convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separate
offenses of rape and theft, and not the special complex
crime of robbery with rape. Immediately after ROGELIO put
his arms around MARITES and directed the knife at her
neck, he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABC
Commercial Complex and removed her clothes. These acts
clearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexual
gratification. This intent was further established by the
fact that when MARITES offered to give her ring to
ROGELIO, the latter did not take it and instead replied,
"Mamaya na iyan"; "That will come later on because I will
give it back to you but you have to follow me first." Again,
when ROGELIO removed his pants, MARITES told him to get
her bag if he needed money; but ROGELIO replied "I do not
need money." After giving vent to his lustful desire, he
snatched the victim's shoulder bag, which was then on her
right foot, and then he ran away. Clearly then, the taking
of personal property was not the original evil plan of
ROGELIO. It was an afterthought following the rape.
Significantly, the constitutive element of violence
or intimidation against persons in robbery was not present
at the time of the snatching of the shoulder bag of
MARITES. The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIO
against the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact of
the taking of the bag. It was for the purpose of
accomplishing his lustful desire. Hence, it cannot be
considered for the purpose of classifying the crime as
robbery. Accused-appellant may thus be held liable for
simple theft only, in addition to the crime of rape.
People v. Seguis, 349 SCRA 547 (2001)
FACTS:
Seguis a.k.a. Junior, Estebe a.k.a.
Dodong, Doquila a.k.a. Lolong, r Canico, Gibertas, dela
Cruz, and a certain John Doe took turns in raping Juliet
Magamayo at the house of his friend where she stayed for
the night. One of the said accused took her gold ring,
bracelet and cash though Juliet can not pinpoint who
specifically did it among the many accused. The RTC finds
each of the accused, Adriano guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principal of the crime of simple rape under Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code

118
HELD: It is to be noted that the accused in this

case were originally indicted for the felony of robbery with
multiple rape, a special complex crime punishable under
Art. 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and which is
committed "when the robbery shall have been accompanied
by rape." The said provision, needless to say, covers cases
of multiple rapes. This is primarily due to the fact that the
juridical concept of this crime does not limit the
consummation of rape against one single victim or to one
single act, making other rapes in excess of that number as
separate, independent offense or offenses. All the rapes
are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is
robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the
robbery. It does not matter too whether the rape occurred
before, during, or after the robbery.
Still and all, this does not change the nature of
the felony. It is essentially a crime against property. To
sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the robbery itself
must be conclusively established; just as the fact that it
was the accused who committed it be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution must be able to
demonstrate the level of their participation with legal and
moral certainty, including the existence of a conspiracy, if
any. Otherwise, those who were charged should be
acquitted, at least for the robbery. Proof of the rape alone
is not sufficient to support a conviction for the crime of
robbery with rape.
The lower court's finding of the accusednonparticipation in the robbery does not mean that they are
totally guiltless. They will still be held accountable for
whatever unlawful acts they may have committed, and for
which acts they were charged. In a criminal action for
robbery with rape, where the prosecution failed to prove
the robo or the participation of the accused in it, the latter
may still be convicted for the rape. The trial courts ruling
that the appellants had carnal knowledge of the private
complainant by using force and intimidation, convicting
them of one count of rape each because there was no
showing that they conspired or assisted each other in
committing those rapes is affirmed.
People v. Gano, 353 SCRA 126 (2001)
Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The question
that needs to be resolved is whether the multiplicity of
homicides could be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. For sometime, this ticklish issue has been
the subject of conflicting views by this Court when it held
in some cases that the additional rapes/homicides
committed on the occasion of robbery would not increase
the penalty, while in other cases it ruled that the
multiplicity of rapes/homicides committed could be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. But in People
v. Regala this Court spoke with finality on the matter
It should be noted that there is no law providing
that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be
considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration
of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the
enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding
mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph
(paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in
the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery
with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with
multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the

legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within its terms
if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
This case is singular in its barbarity and
nauseating in the manner with which the accused, bolo in
hand, butchered his preys. Notwithstanding the viciousness
with which he perpetrated the offense, we are constrained
to apply the principle laid down in People v. Regala, and
accordingly, the two (2) other killings contrary to the ruling
of the trial court, should not be appreciated as aggravating
circumstances. Gano is guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
People v. Regala, 329 SCRA 707 (2000)
FACTS: Sixteen-year old, Nerissa Tagala, and her
grandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping, when
appellant Armando Regala and his two other companions
entered the former's house. Regala and his companions
entered the house through the kitchen by removing the
pieces of wood under the stove. Regala went to the room
of Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun on
them, one after the other. Nerissa and her grandmother
were hogtied by appellant and his companions. Thereafter,
Nerissa was raped by twice by Regala in bed and in the
kitchen. After the rape, appellant and his two companions
counted the money which they took from the "aparador.
Appellant and his companions then ran away with P3,000 in
cash, 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches.
HELD: It should be noted that there is no law
providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should
be considered as aggravating circumstance. The
enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14
of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the
enumeration in Article 13 of the same code regarding
mitigating circumstances where there is a specific
paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous
circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in.
the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery
with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with
multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the
legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within its terms
if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
Requisites of robbery under 2nd case of par 4

Art 294:
1) that any of the physical injuries defined in
par 3 & 4 Art 263 was inflicted in the
course of the robbery, and
2) that any of them was inflicted upon any
person not responsible for the commission
of the robbery.
Robbery with violence or intimidation
Violence or intimidation need not be

present before or at the exact moment
when the object is taken. It may enter at

119
any time before the owner is finally

deprived of his property.
Intimidation exists when the acts executed
or words uttered by the ofender are
capable of producing fear in the person
threatened.
In robbery with intimidation, there must be
acts done by the accused which, either by
their own nature or by reason of the
circumstances under which they are
executed, inspire fear in the person against
whom they are directed.
Difference between threats to extort
money and robbery thru intimidation:
o In robbery, the intimidation is actual
and immediate; in threats,
the
intimidation is conditional or future.
o In robbery, the intimidation is personal;
in threats, it may be thru an
intermediary.
o In threats, the intimidation may refer to
the person, honor or property of the
offended party or that of his family; in
robbery, the intimidation is directed
only to the person of the victim.
o In robbery, the gain of the culprit is
immediate; in threats, the gain is not
immediate.
Difference between robbery with
violence and grave coercion:
o In both crimes, there is violence used
by the offender.
o In robbery, there is intent to gain; no
such requirement in grave coercion. In
grave coercion, the intent is to compel
another to do something against his
will.
Difference
between
robbery
and
bribery:
o It is robbery when the victim did not
commit a crime; it is bribery when the
victim has committed a crime and
gives money or gift to avoid arrest or
prosecution.
o In robbery, the victim is deprived of his
money or property by force or
intimidation; in bribery, he parts with
his money or property voluntarily.
Article 295.
Robbery with physical
injuries, committed in an uninhabited
place and by a band, or with the use of
firearm on a street, road or alley
Robbery with violence against or intimidation
of person is qualified if it is committed:
1.
2.
In an uninhabited place;
By a band;
3.
4.
5.
By attacking a moving train, street car,

motor vehicle, or airship;
By entering the passengers compartments
in a train, or in any manner taking the
passengers thereof by surprise in the
respective conveyances; or
On a street, road, highway or alley, and the
intimidation is made with the use of
firearms, the offender shall be punished by
the maximum periods of the proper
penalties prescribed in Article 294.
Any of these qualifying circumstances must be

alleged in the information and proved
during the trial.
The intimidation with the use of firearm
qualifies only robbery on a street, road,
highway or alley.
Art 295 does not apply to robbery with
homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery
with serious physical injuries under par 1 of
Art 263. (note: the circumstances and
applicability of Art 295 are very specific so
please note them.)
People vs. Sevilla
Facts: The accused detained several persons as hostages in
a store they robbed. The police launched an offensive. In
the ensuing gunfight, the hostages suffered physical
injuries. One of the hostages eventually had to have her
leg amputated. The accused were convicted of the complex
crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious
illegal detention. Should the crime of serious illegal
detention be prosecuted as a separate offence?
Held: NO. The detention of the victims was a necessary
means to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery. The
victims were not held as a security to facilitate their
escape or to insure their security against the police, but
deliberately, as a means of extortion of the amount asked.
Article 296.
Definition of a band and
penalty incurred by the members thereof
Requisites for liability for the acts of the other
members of the band:
1.
2.
3.
4.
He was a member of the band;

He was present at the commission of a
robbery by that band;
The other members of the band committed
an assault;
He did not attempt to prevent the assault.
When the robbery was not committed by a
band, the robber who did not take part in
the assault by another is not liable for that
assault.
When the robbery was not by a band and
homicide was not determined by the
120
accused when they plotted the crime, the

one who did not participate in the killing is
liable for robbery only. It is only when
the robbery is in band that all those
present in the commission of the
robbery may be punished for any of
the assaults which any of its members
might commit.
But when there is conspiracy to commit
homicide and robbery, all the conspirators,
even if less than 4 armed men, are liable
for the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.
Art 296 is not applicable to principal by
inducement, who was not present at the
commission of the robbery, if the
agreement was only to commit robbery.
The article speaks of more than 3 armed
malefactors who takes part in the
commission of the robbery and member of
a band who is present at the commission
of a robbery by a band. Thus, a principal
by inducement, who did not go with the
band at the place of the commission of the
robbery, is not liable for robbery with
homicide, but only for robbery in band,
there being no evidence that he gave
instructions to kill the victim or intended
that this should be done.
When there was conspiracy for robbery
only but homicide was also committed on
the occasion thereof, all members of the
band are liable for robbery with homicide.
Whenever homicide is committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part in the
commission of the robbery are also guilty
as principals in the crime of homicide
unless it appears that they endeavored to
prevent the homicide.
Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold
a member of the band liable for robbery
with homicide actually committed by the
other members of the band.
There is no crime as robbery with
homicide in band. The circumstance
of
band
becomes
an
ordinary
aggravating circumstance to robbery
with homicide.
In robbery by a band, all are liable for any
assault committed by the band, unless the
others attempted to prevent the assault.
The members of the band liable for the
assault must be present at the commission
of the robbery, not necessarily at the
commission of the assault.
Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and was

sentenced to death because the court considered the use
of unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance
under Art 296. SC rejected this. SC believes that: (1) Art
296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Art 295
on robbery in band, (2) RPC 295 is explicitly limited to
scope to pars. 3, 4, 5 of Art 294, and (3) par 3, 4, 5 of Art
294 does not include cases where homicide, rape,
intentional mutilation, impotence, imbecility, blindness
and insanity occurred by reason or on the occasion of
accompanying robbery. Thus, since Apduhan was convicted
of robbery with homicide under par 1 Art 294, Art 296 in
relation to par 3, 4, 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. Hence,
the use of an unlicensed firearm should not have been
considered as a special aggravating circumstance.
Article 297.
Attempted and frustrated
robbery
committed
under
certain
circumstances
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means

of violence or intimidation
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
People vs. Apduhan
Homicide here is used in a generic

sense.
It includes multiple homicides,
murder, parricide, infanticide, etc.
The penalty is the same, whether the
robbery is attempted or frustrated.
Unless the homicide committed shall
deserve a higher penalty under the Code
may be illustrated as follows:
In an
attempted or frustrated robbery, the killing
of the victim is qualified by treachery or
relationship.
The proper penalty for
murder or parricide shall be imposed
because it is more severe.
This is also a special complex crime,
thus, not governed by Art 48.
Offender has intent to defraud another;

Offender compels him to sign, execute, or
deliver any public instrument or document.
The compulsion is by means of violence or
intimidation.
If the violence used resulted in the death of
the person to be defrauded, the crime is
robbery with homicide.
If the execution of deeds by means of
violence is only in the attempted or
frustrated stage and the violence used
resulted in the death of the person to be
defrauded, the penalty imposed shall be
those under Art 297.
This article applies even if the document
signed, executed or delivered is a private
or commercial document.

121
Art 298 is not applicable if the

document is void.
When the offended party is under

obligation to sign, execute or deliver the
document under the law, there is no
robbery. But there will be COERCION if
violence is used in compelling the offended
party to sign or deliver the document.
Article 299.
Robbery in an inhabited
house or public building or edifice
devoted to worship
Elements under subdivision (a):

1.
2.
3.
Offender entered an inhabited house,

public building or edifice devoted to
religious worship;
The entrance was effected by any of the
following means:
a. Through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress;
b. By breaking any wall, roof or floor, or
breaking any door or window;
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar
tools; or
d. By using any fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public
authority.
Once inside the building, offender took
personal property belonging to another
with intent to gain.
There must be evidence or the facts must show

that the accused entered the dwelling
house or building by any of the means
enumerated in subdiv (a).
In entering the building, the offender must
have an intention to take personal
property.
The place entered must be a house or building;
thus, entering an automobile does not fall
under this article.
Inhabited house = any shelter, ship or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more
persons even though the inhabitants
thereof are temporarily absent therefrom
when the robbery is committed.
Elements under subdivision (b):

1.
2.
Offender is inside a dwelling house, public

building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship, regardless of the circumstances
under which he entered it;
Offender takes personal property belonging
to another, with intent to gain, under any
of the following circumstances:
a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes,
chests, or any other kind of locked or
sealed furniture or receptacle; or
b. By taking such furniture or objects
away to be broken or forced open
outside the place of the robbery.
Subdivision (a)

122
Public building = every building owned by

the govt or belonging to a private person
but used or rented by the govt, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Any of the 4 means described in subdiv (a)
must be resorted to by the offender to
enter a house or building, not to get out.
The whole body of the culprit must be inside
the building to constitute entering.
The genuine key must be stolen, not taken by
force or with intimidation from the owner.
In the latter case, it becomes robbery with
intimidation of person.
It is only THEFT when the false key is used to
open wardrobe or locked receptacle or
drawer or inside door.
The use of fictitious name or the act of
pretending to exercise authority must be to
enter the building.
Subdivision (b)
Entrance into the building by any of the means
in subdiv (a) is not required in robbery
under subdiv (b).
The term door in par 1 subdiv (b) refers only
to doors, lids or opening sheets of
furniture or other portable receptacles; not
to inside doors of house or building.
A person who carries away a sealed box or
receptacle for the purpose of breaking the
same and taking out its contents outside
the place of robbery is guilty of
consummated robbery even though he
does not succeed in opening the box.
A person who opens by force a certain locked
or sealed receptacle which has been
confided in his custody and takes the
money contained therein is guilty of
ESTAFA, not robbery.
The weapon carried by the offender must not
have been used to intimidate a person, for
the reason that once the circumstance of
intimidation enters in the commission of
the crime, it is sufficient to remove the
offence from Art 299 and place it within the
purview of Art 294.
The liability for carrying arms while robbing an
inhabited house is extended to each of the
offenders who take part in the robbery,
even if some of them do not carry arms.
People vs. Jaranilla
Facts: Accused took 6 fighting cocks from a coop located in
Babylons backyard. The door of the coop was broken.
They were intercepted by a police officer who was shot by
one of the accused. They were convicted by robbery with
homicide.
Held: The killing of the police officer was not by reason or

on the occasion of the robbery, hence only the person who
shot such officer should be liable for the killing.
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited

place and by a band
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building
or edifice devoted to religious worship is
qualified when committed by a band AND
in an uninhabited place.
The 2
qualifications must concur.
The inhabited house, public building, or edifice
devoted to religious worship must be
located in an uninhabited place.
Robbery with force upon things, in order to be
qualified, must be committed in an
uninhabited place AND by a band; while
robbery
with
violence
against
or
intimidation of persons must be committed
in an uninhabited place OR by a band.
Article 301. What is an inhabited house,
public building, or building dedicated to
religious worship and their dependencies
3 requisites for dependencies: (1) must be
contiguous to the building, (2) must have
an interior entrance connected therewith,
and (3) must form part of the whole.
Orchards or other lands used for cultivation or
production are not included in the term
dependencies.
Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited
place or in a private building
Elements:
1.
2.
Offender entered an uninhabited place or a

building which was not a dwelling house,
not a public building, or not an edifice
devoted to religious worship;
Any of the following circumstances was
present:
a. The entrance was effected through an
opening not intended for entrance or
egress;
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or
window was broken;
c. The entrance was effected through the
use of false keys, picklocks or other
similar tools;
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed
or closed furniture or receptacle was
broken; or
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was
removed, even if the same be broken
open elsewhere.

123
3.
Offender took therefrom personal property

belonging to another with intent to gain.
uninhabited
place
=
uninhabited building
The information must allege
that the store was used and occupied as a
dwelling; otherwise, the robbery should be
considered as having been perpetrated in
an uninhabited place under Art 302.
building = includes any kind
of
structure
used
for
storage
or
safekeeping of personal property, such as
freight car and warehouse.
The use of fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public authority
is not a means of entering the building
under this article, because the place is
uninhabited.
The
receptacle
must
be
closed or sealed. Thus, if a person
opened without breaking a closed but not
locked chest and took personal property
therefrom, it is only THEFT.
Penalty is based only on value
of property taken.
If the store is used as a
dwelling of 1 or more persons, the robbery
committed therein would be considered as
committed in an inhabited house under Art
299.
If the store was not actually
occupied at the time the robbery took
place and was not used as a dwelling, since
the owner lived in a separate house, the
robbery committed therein is punished
under Art 302.
If the store is located on the
ground floor of the house belonging to the
owner of the store, having an interior
entrance connected therewith, it is a
dependency of an inhabited house and the
robbery committed therein is punished
under the last par of Art 299.
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or

firewood in an uninhabited place or
private building
Penalty is one degree lower if cereals, fruits or
firewood are taken in robbery with force
upon things.
cereal = palay or other seedlings
The palay must be kept by the owner as
seedling or taken for that purpose by the
robbers.
Article 304.
similar tools
Possession of picklocks or
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
Offender has in his possession picklocks or

similar tools;
Such picklock or similar tools are especially
adopted to the commission of robbery;
Offender does not have lawful cause for
such possession.
Article 305. False keys

False keys include the following:
1.
2.
3.
Tools mentioned in Article 304;

Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
Any key other than those intended by the
owner for use in the lock forcibly opened
by the offender.
Carnapping
R.A. 6539
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms.
"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a
motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latter's consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.
"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power
other than muscular power using the public
highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars,
street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers,
graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if
not used on public highways, vehicles, which run
only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and
traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for
agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of
wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled
by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified
as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the
erasing, scratching, altering or changing of the
original factory-inscribed serial number on the motor
vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motor
vehicle. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to
have a serial number on its motor engine, engine
block or chassis which is different from that which is
listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for
motor vehicles imported into the Philippines, that
motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced
or tampered with serial number.
"Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle
by means of painting. There is repainting whenever
the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its
color as registered in the Land Transportation
Commission.

124
"Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor

vehicle in order to replace its entire body with a new
body.
"Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes in
the shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle.
"Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or
part by part, of a motor vehicle.
"Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the
whole engine of a motor vehicle by separating the
motor engine and its parts from the body of the
motor vehicle.
SECTION 3. Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine,
Engine Block and Chassis. Within one year after
the approval of this Act, every owner or possessor of
unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof in knock
down condition shall register with the Land
Transportation Commission the motor vehicle engine,
engine block and chassis in his name or in the name
of the real owner who shall be readily available to
answer any claim over the registered motor vehicle
engine, engine block or chassis. Thereafter, all motor
vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not
registered with the Land Transportation Commission
shall be considered as untaxed importation or
coming from an illegal source or carnapped, and shall
be confiscated in favor of the Government.
All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and
municipalities are required to register their cars with
the local police without paying any charges.
SECTION 4. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle
Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis. The Land
Transportation Commission shall keep a permanent
registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis of all motor vehicles, specifying therein their
type, make and serial numbers and stating therein
the names and addresses of their present and
previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all
entries made thereon shall be furnished the
Philippine Constabulary and all Land Transportation
Commission regional, provincial and city branch
offices: Provided, That all Land Transportation
Commission regional, provincial and city branch
offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all
registration of motor vehicles to the main office and
to the Philippine Constabulary.
SECTION 5.
Registration of Sale, Transfer,
Conveyance, Substitution or Replacement of a Motor
Vehicle Engine, Engine Block or Chassis. Every
sale,
transfer,
conveyance,
substitution
or
replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block
or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered with
the Land Transportation Commission. Motor vehicles
assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement
with motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis not registered with the Land Transportation
Commission shall not be issued certificates of
registration and shall be considered as untaxed
imported motor vehicles or motor vehicles carnapped
or proceeding from illegal sources.
SECTION 6. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles.

Any person seeking the original registration of a
motor vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is newly
assembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registered
owner, shall within one week after the completion of
the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition
thereof from the registered owner, apply to the
Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor
vehicle for registration with the Land Transportation
Commission. The Philippine Constabulary shall, upon
receipt of the application, verify if the motor vehicle
or its numbered parts are in the list of carnapped
motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If the
motor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not in
that list, the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwith
issue a certificate of clearance. Upon presentation of
the certificate of clearance from the Philippine
Constabulary and after verification of the registration
of the motor vehicle engine, engine block and
chassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis, the Land
Transportation Commission shall register the motor
vehicle in accordance with existing laws, rules and
regulations.
SECTION 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person
who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is
defined in Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective
of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by
imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and
eight months and not more than seventeen years
and four months, when the carnapping is committed
without violence or intimidation of persons, or force
upon things; and by imprisonment for not less than
seventeen years and four months and not more than
thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by
means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or force upon things; and the penalty of life
imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the
owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor
vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping.
SECTION 15. Aliens. Aliens convicted under the
provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately
after service of sentence without further proceedings
by the Deportation Board.
People vs. Dela Cruz

The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when
there is taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which
belonged to another, without the latters consent or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things.
Izon vs. People
A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle, which is defined as
any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular
power using public highways. Public highways are those
free for the use of every person, thus not limited to a
national road connecting various towns.
Highway Robbery
125
P.D. 532
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
1974
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. The following
terms shall mean and be understood, as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Philippine Waters. It shall refer to all bodies of

water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs,
bays around, between and connecting each of
the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or
dimension, and all other waters belonging to the
Philippines by historic or legal title, including
territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Vessel. Any vessel or watercraft used for
transport of passengers and cargo from one
place to another through Philippine Waters. It
shall include all kinds and types of vessels or
boats used in fishing.
Philippine Highway. It shall refer to any road,
street, passage, highway and bridges or other
parts thereof, or railway or railroad within the
Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or
locomotives or trains for the movement or
circulation of persons or transportation of goods,
articles, or property or both.
Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of any
vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part
thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal
belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters,
shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall
be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided.
Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The seizure of
any person for ransom, extortion or other
unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the
property of another by means of violence
against or intimidation of person or force upon
things of other unlawful means, committed by
any person on any Philippine Highway.
SECTION 3. Penalties. Any person who commits

piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as herein
defined, shall, upon conviction by competent court
be punished by:
Piracy. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are
committed as a result or on the occasion
thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed. If rape, murder or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion of
piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the
victims without means of saving themselves, or
when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon
or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of
death shall be imposed.
Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its minimum period shall

be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes
are committed during or on the occasion of the
commission of robbery or brigandage, the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed. If
kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or
homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on
the occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall
be imposed.
SECTION
4.
Aiding
pirates
or
highway
robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage. Any person who knowingly
and in any manner aids or protects pirates or
highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them
information about the movement of police or other
peace officers of the government, or acquires or
receives property taken by such pirates or brigands
or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or
any person who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of piracy or highway robbery or
brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of
the principal offenders and be punished in
accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised
Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any
of the acts provided in this Section has performed
them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
People vs. Puno

Accused held up Mrs Sarmiento in her car at gunpoint.
They were able to extort P7000 in cash and P100,000 in
check. Was highway robbery committed? NO. We should
not adopt the literal interpretation that all types of taking
of property as long as committed in a highway would be
covered by PD 532.
People vs. Pulusan
Facts: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the
McArthur highway. Of the 6 passengers, the only woman,
Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at a
talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbed
on after the other. They were convicted of robbery with
homicide although they were charged with highway
robbery. What was the crime committed?
Held:
Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery.
Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accused
were organised for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. In this case, there was no proof that the
4 accused previously attempted to commit armed
robberies.
Cattle Rustling
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 533
THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974

126
What is cattle rustling?

Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means,
method or scheme, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of any of the above-mentioned animals
whether or not for profit or gain,
or whether
committed with or without violence against or
intimidation of any person or force upon things. It
includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat
or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium

period if the offense is committed without violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things.
Large cattle - as herein used shall include the cow,

carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated
member of the bovine family.
If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or

on the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed.
Owner/raiser- shall include the herdsman, caretaker,

employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in
the raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful
possession of such large cattle.
Duty of the owner/raiser
before the large cattle belonging to him shall
attain the age of six months, register the same with
the office of the city/municipal treasurer where such
large cattle are raised.
Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle.
No person, partnership, association, corporation or
entity shall engage in the business of buy and sell of
large cattle without first securing a permit for the
said purpose from the Provincial Commander of the
province where it shall conduct such business and
the city/municipal treasurer of the place of residence
of such person, partnership, association, corporation
or entity. The permit shall only be valid in such
province.
Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle.
Any person, partnership, association, corporation or
entity desiring to ship or transport large cattle, its
hides, or meat, from one province to another shall
secure a permit for such purpose from the Provincial
Commander of the province where the large cattle is
registered. Before issuance of the permit herein
prescribed, the Provincial Commander shall require
the submission of the certificate of ownership as
prescribed in Section 3 hereof, a certification from
the Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such
large cattle, hides or meat are free from any disease;
and such other documents or records as may be
necessary. Shipment of large cattle, its hides or meat
from one city/municipality to another within the
same province may be done upon securing permit
from the city/municipal treasurer of the place of
origin.
Presumption of Cattle Rustling. Every person
having in his possession, control or custody of large
cattle shall, upon demand by competent authorities,
exhibit the documents prescribed in the preceding
sections. Failure to exhibit the required documents
shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in
his possession, control or custody are the fruits of the
crime of cattle rustling.
Penalties Imposed
Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein
defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large
cattle involved, be punished by prision mayor in its
If the offense is committed with violence against or

intimidation of persons or force upon things, the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.
When the offender is a government official or

employee, he shall, in addition to the foregoing
penalty, be disqualified from voting or being voted
upon in any election/referendum and from holding
any public office or employment.
When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported
immediately upon the completion of the service of
his sentence without further proceedings.
Taer vs. CA
Facts: Co-accused Manocatcat, arrived at the Taers hourse
at 2am with 2 male carabaos. Manocatcat asked Taer to
tend the carabaos for him. 10 days later, the owners of the
carabaos, arrived at Taers house to retrieve the carabaos.
What was Taers participation in the crime?
Held: Taer was an accessory because he employed the
carabaos in his farm. An accessory is someone who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, without having
participated as a principal or an accomplice, takes part
subsequent to its commission by profiting himself by the
effects of the crime.
Ordonio vs. CA
Facts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. When Pajunar
inquired abt his cow, Ordonio denied seeing it. The cow
was eventually found in Ordonios possession, but Ordonio
claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by
his brother Agustin, such that Pajunar had to enlist the aid
of the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow.
Held: The law reads taking away by any means,
methods or schemes. Ordonios stubborn insistence that
the calf belonged to his brother, when he knew fully well
that it belonged to Pajunar, is the essence cattle rustling.
The perpetrators intent to gain is then inferred from his
deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper
person, knowing that the property does not belong to him.
BRIGANDAGE
a crime committed by more than 3 armed
persons who form a band of robbers for the
purpose of committing robbery in the highway
or kidnapping persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other

127
purpose to be attained by means of force and

violence.
Article 307.
of brigands
Aiding and abetting a band
Elements:
Article 306. Who are brigands
Elements of brigandage:
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
There is a band of brigands;

Offender knows the band to be of brigands;
Offender does any of the following acts:
a. He in any manner aids, abets or
protects such band of brigands;
b. He gives them information of the
movements of the police or other
peace officers of the government; or
c. He acquires or receives the property
taken by such brigands.
It shall be presumed that the person

performing any of the acts provided in this
article has performed them knowingly,
unless contrary is proven.
There are least four armed persons;

They formed a band of robbers;
The purpose is any of the following:
a. To commit robbery in the highway;
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom; or
c. To attain by means of force and
violence any other purpose.
It must be a band of robbers. Thus, a band of

dissidents or oppositionists will not qualify.
The purpose of the band must be (1) to commit
robbery in the highway, (2) to kidnap
persons for the purpose of extortion or
obtaining ransom, or (3) any other purpose
to be attained by means of force and
violence. To contrast, In case of robbery by
a band, the purpose of the offenders is only
to commit robbery, not necessarily in the
highway.
If any of the arms carried by any of a group of
persons be an unlicensed firearm, is shall
be presumed that said persons are
highway robbers or brigands, and in case
of conviction, the penalty shall be imposed
in the max period.
The arms carried by the members of the band
of robbers may be any deadly weapon.
The only things to prove are:
b) that there is an organisation of more
than 3 armed persons forming a band
of robbers
c) that the purpose of the band is any of
those enumerated in Art 306
d) that they went upon the highway or
roamed upon the country for that
purpose
e) that the accused is a member of such
band.
highway = includes city streets as well as
roads outside the cities.
If the agreement among more than 3 armed
men was to commit only a particular
robbery, the offence is not brigandage, but
only robbery in band.
In brigandage, the mere formation of a band
for any of the purposes mentioned in the
law is sufficient; in robbery in band, it is
necessary to prove that the band actually
committed robbery, as a mere conspiracy
to commit robbery is not punishable.
THEFT
committed by any person who, with intent to
gain
but
without
violence
against
or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take personal property of another without
the latters consent.
Article 308. Who are liable for theft
Persons liable:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Those who with intent to gain, but without

violence against or intimidation of persons
nor force upon things, take personal
property of another without the latters
consent;
Those who having found lost property, fails
to deliver the same to the local authorities
or to its owner;
Those who, after having maliciously
damaged the property of another, remove
or make use of the fruits or objects of the
damage caused by them;
Those who enter an enclosed estate or a
field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another and, without the
consent of its owner, hunt or fish upon the
same or gather fruits, cereals or other
forest or farm products.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
There is taking of personal property;

The property taken belongs to another;
The taking was done with intent to gain;
The taking was done without the consent of
the owner;

128
5.
The taking is accomplished without the use

of violence against or intimidation of
persons of force upon things.
taking taking away or carrying
away; thus, theft is consummated when
the culprits were able to take possession of
the thing taken by them. It is not an
indispensable element of theft that the
thief carry, more or less far away, the thing
taken by him from its owner.
As of 2007, the Court held that
asportation is complete from the
moment
the
offender
had
full
possession of the thing, even if he did
not have an opportunity to dispose of
the same..
animus lucandi = intent to gain
The taking in theft must have the
character of permanency.
Thus, the
offender must have the intention of making
himself the owner of the thing taken.
The unlawful taking may occur at or
soon after the transfer of physical
possession (not juridical possession)
of the thing to the offender.
The actual
transfer of possession may not always and
by itself constitute the unlawful taking, but
an act done soon thereafter by the
offender which may result in unlawful
taking or asportation. In such case, the
article is deemed to have been taken also,
although in the beginning, it was in fact
given to, and received by, the offender.
Illustration: Tina gave Rey her rolex watch
for the purpose of having it examined since
Rey has a pawnshop. Rey subsequently
appropriated it rolex watch with intent to
gain and without consent of Tina. This is
THEFT.
But if the accused received the thing
from another person in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under
a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment,
and later misappropriated or converted the
thing to the prejudice of another, the crime
is
ESTAFA,
because
under
those
transactions, the juridical possession of
the thing is transferred to the offender.
(note:
thus, the distinction between
juridical and mere physical possession is
important.)
Intent to gain is presumed from the
unlawful taking of personal property
belonging to another.
There is theft even if accused did not
take them for his own use.
It is not necessary that there was real
or actual gain on the part of the offender.
It is enough that on taking them, he was
then actuated by the desire or intent to

gain.
For robbery to exist, it is necessary that
there should be a taking against the will
of the owner; for theft, it suffices that
consent on the part of the owner is
lacking.
It is not robbery when violence is for a
reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking.
When goods were lost at the same
time, in the same place, and on the same
occasion, the person in possession of part
of the missing property is presumed to be
the thief of the entire property.
The presumption regarding possession
of stolen property does not exclusively
refer to actual physical possession thereof
but may include prior unexplained
possession.
In any case, for the
presumption to work, the property must be
recently stolen. Thus, if it was stolen a
long time ago, the presumption will not lie.
Intent to gain is inferred from
deliberate failure to deliver the lost
property to the proper person.
Finder
of
hidden
treasure
who
misappropriated the share pertaining to
the owner of the property is guilty of theft
as regards that share.
People vs. Gulinao
Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. Gulinao went back to get

Dr Chuas diamond ring. He was convicted of illegal
possession and robbery. SC ruled that he is guilty of THEFT,
not robbery.
The taking of the ring was just an
afterthought. Violence used in killing Dr Chua had no
bearing on the taking of the ring.
Santos vs. People
Penalosa gave car to Santos to be repaired. Owner wanted
to claim it back but Santos could not be found. Convicted
of estafa in RTC then CA convicted him of qualified theft.
SC rule that he is guilty of THEFT, not estafa as the latter
requires that the offender has juridical possession of the
thing and then it is converted for his own personal use.
Not qualified theft as the fact that the car was taken was
not alleged in the information therefore it can only be seen
as an aggravating circumstance.
Lucas v. CA, 389 SCRA 749 (2002)

FACTS: Lucas was convicted by the RTC together
with Wilfredo Navarro for stealing one stereo component, a
14-inch colored TV, an electric fan, twenty-three (23)
pieces of cassette tapes, one (1) box of car toys, four (4)
pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls, cash of P20,000.00 and
jewelry worth P10,000.00, valued at P100,000.00 all
belonging to Luisito Tuazon. The said robbery took place

129
when Luisito was at work. After the robbery, Lucas, Navarro

and one Lovena escaped on board a tricycle.
HELD: To sustain a conviction for theft, the
following elements must be present: (1) personal property
of another person must be taken without the latter's
consent; (2) the act of taking the personal property of
another must be done without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons nor force upon things; and, (3)
there must be an intention to gain from the taking of
another person's personal property. Appellant are guilty of
theft.
Gan v. People (2007)
The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable for
the charges on the ground that he was not caught in
possession of the missing funds. This is clutching at straws.
To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not an
element of the corpus delicti in theft. Corpus delicti
means the body or substance of the crime, and, in its
primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been
actually committed. In theft, corpus delicti has two
elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the
owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. In the
case before us, these two elements were established. The
amounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner took
them without authority to do so
AND OTHER ACTS

Who are punishable? -- any person who:
installs any water, electrical or telephone
connection without previous authority from
the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System, the Manila Electric Company or the
Philippine
Long
Distance
Telephone
Company, as the case may be;
tampers and/or uses tampered water or
electrical meters or jumpers or other
devices whereby water or electricity is
stolen; steals or pilfers water and/or electric
meters or water, electric and/or telephone
wires;
knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water
and/or electrical meters as well as stolen or
pilfered water, electrical and/or telephone
wires.
R.A. 7832
Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/
Materials Pilferage Act of 1994
Acts punishable
Illegal Use of Electricity (2)
Valenzuela v. People (2007)

The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been
designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao,
Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language in
Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the free
disposition of the items stolen is in any way determinative
of whether the crime of theft has been produced. The
Court thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code,
there is no crime of frustrated theft.
Article 309. Penalties

The basis of the penalty in theft is (1) the value
of the thing stolen and in some cases (2)
the value and also the nature of the
property taken, or (3) the circumstances or
causes that impelled the culprit to commit
the crime.
If there is no available evidence to prove the
value of the stolen property or that the
prosecution failed to prove it, the court
should impose the minimum penalty
corresponding to theft.
Theft of Electricity, Illegal Water, Electric
or Telephone Connections
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 401 March 1, 1974
PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED
INSTALLATION OF WATER, ELECTRICAL OR
TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS, THE USE OF
TAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL METERS,
(a) Tap, make or cause to be made any

connection with overhead lines, service
drops, or other electric service wires,
without previous authority or consent of the
private electric utility or rural electric
cooperative concerned;
(b) Tap, make or cause to be made any
connection to the existing electric service
facilities of any duly registered consumer
without the latter's or the electric utility's
consent or authority;
(c) Tamper, install or use a tampered electrical
meter,
jumper,
current
reversing
transformer, shorting or shunting wire, loop
connection or any other device which
interferes with the proper or accurate
registry or metering of electric current or
otherwise results in its diversion in a
manner whereby electricity is stolen or
wasted;
(d) Damage or destroy an electric meter,
equipment, wire or conduit or allow any of
them to be so damaged or destroyed as to
interfere with the proper or accurate
metering of electric current; and
(e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit
of electric service obtained through any of
the acts mentioned in subsections (a), (b),
(c), and (d) above.
Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and
Materials (3)
Cut, saw, slice, separate, split, severe, smelt, or
remove any electric power transmission
line/material or meter from a tower, pole, or
any other installation or place of installation
or any other place or site where it may be

130
rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept,

stocked, inventoried, situated or located,
without the consent of the owner, whether
or not the act is done for profit or gain;
Take, carry away or remove or transfer, with or
without the use of a motor vehicle or other
means of conveyance, any electric power
transmission line/material or meter from a
tower, pole, any other installation or place
of installation, or any place or site where it
may be rightfully or lawfully stored,
deposited,
kept,
stocked,
inventoried,
situated or located without the consent of
the owner, whether or not the act is done
for profit or gain;
Store, possess or otherwise keep in his premises,
custody or control, any electric power
transmission line/material or meter without
the consent of the owner, whether or not
the act is done for profit or gain; and
Load, carry, ship or move from one place to
another, whether by land, air or sea, any
electrical power transmission line/material,
whether or not the act is done for profit or
gain,
without
first
securing
a
clearance/permit for the said purpose from
its owner or the National Power Corporation
(NPC) or its regional office concerned, as the
case may be.
Presumptions
For illegal use of electricity:
The presence of any of the following circumstances
shall constitute prima facie evidence of illegal
use of electricity by the person benefited
thereby, and shall be the basis for:
the immediate disconnection by the electric
utility to such person after due notice,
the holding of a preliminary investigation by the
prosecutor and the subsequent filing in
court of the pertinent information, and
the lifting of any temporary restraining order or
injunction which may have been issued
against a private electric utility or rural
electric cooperative
Circumstances:
The presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of
the electric meter, or at the back or any other
part of said meter;
The presence inside the electric meter of salt, sugar
and other elements that could result in the
inaccurate registration of the meter's internal
parts to prevent its accurate registration of
consumption of electricity;
The existence of any wiring connection which affects
the normal operation or registration of the
electric meter;
The presence of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on
the meter, or mutilated, altered or tampered
meter recording chart or graph, or computerized
chart, graph, or log;
The presence in any part of the building or its
premises which is subject to the control of the
consumer or on the electric meter, of a current
reversing transformer, jumper, shorting and/or

shunting wire, and/or loop connection or any
other similar device;
The
mutilation,
alteration,
reconnection,
disconnection, bypassing or tampering of
instruments, transformers, and accessories;
The destruction of, or attempt to destroy, any
integral accessory of the metering device box
which encases an electric meter, or its metering
accessories; and
The acceptance of money and/or other valuable
consideration by any officer of employee of the
electric utility concerned or the making of such
an offer to any such officer or employee for not
reporting the presence of any of the
circumstances
enumerated
above.
The
discovery of any of the foregoing circumstances,
in order to constitute prima facie evidence,
must be personally witnessed and attested
to by an officer of the law or a duly
authorized representative of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB).
For theft of electric power transmission lines and
materials
The possession or custody of electric power
transmission line/material by any person, natural or
juridical, not engaged in the transformation,
transmission or distribution of electric power, or in
the manufacture of such electric power transmission
line/material shall be prima facie evidence that such
line/material is the fruit of the offense of theft of
electric power transmission lines and materials, and
therefore such line/material may be confiscated from
the person in possession, control or custody thereof.
RA 8041
An Act to Address the National Water Crisis
and For Other Purposes
Sec. 8. Anti-Pilferage. - It is hereby declared unlawful
for any person to:
Destroy, damage or interfere with any canal,
raceway, ditch, lock, pier, inlet, crib, bulkhead,
dam, gate, service, reservoir, aqueduct, water
mains, water distribution pipes, conduit, pipes,
wire benchmark, monument, or other works,
appliance, machinery buildings, or property of
any water utility entity, whether public or
private;
Do any malicious act which shall injuriously affect the
quantity or quality of the water or sewage flow
of any waterworks and/or sewerage system, or
the supply, conveyance, measurement, or
regulation thereof, including the prevention of,
or interference with any authorized person
engaged in the discharge of duties connected
therewith;
Prevent, obstruct, and interfere with the survey,
works, and construction of access road and
water mains and distribution network and any
related works of the utility entity.
Tap, make, or cause to be made any connection with
water lines without prior authority or consent

131
from the water utility concerned;

Tamper, install or use tampered water meters, sticks,
magnets, reversing water meters, shortening of
vane wheels and other devices to steal water or
interfere with accurate registry or metering of
water usage, or otherwise result in its diversion
in a manner whereby water is stolen or wasted;
Use or receive the direct benefit of water service with
knowledge that diversion, tampering, or illegal
connection existed at the time of that use, or
that the use or receipt was otherwise without the
authorization of the water utility;
Steal or pilfer water meters, main lines, pipes and
related or ancillary facilities;
Steal water for profit or resale;
Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters;
and
Knowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of
the above.
Penalties:
imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years and
a fine not exceeding double the amount of the
value of the water stolen or the value of the
damaged facilities
If the offender is assisted in the commission of the
crime by a plumber, officer or employee of the
water utility concerned, the said employee,
officer or plumber shall be punished by
imprisonment of two (2) years to six (6) years
If the water is stolen for profit or resale, the

offender shall be punished imprisonment from
six (6) to twelve (12) years.
Illegal Fishing
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8550
An Act Providing For The Development,
Management And Conservation Of The
Fisheries And Aquatic Resources, Integrating
All Laws Pertinent Thereto, And For Other
Purposes
What acts are punishable?
1. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other
Unauthorized Fisheries Activities
(a) exploiting, breeding fish in Philippine waters
without a license
Discovery of any person in an area where he has
no permit or registration papers for a fishing vessel
shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the
person and/or vessel is engaged in unauthorized
fishing: BUT, fishing for daily food sustenance or for
leisure which is not for commercial, occupation or
livelihood purposes may be allowed.
(b) fishing by commercial fishing vessels in fishery
management areas declared as over exploited
(c) engaging in any commercial fishing activity in
municipal waters when not listed in the registry of
municipal fisherfolk
2. Poaching in Philippine Waters
(a) foreign person fishing or operating a fishing
vessel in Philippine waters

The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine
waters shall constitute a prima facie evidence that
the vessel is engaged in fishing in Philippine waters.
3. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or
Poisonous Substance, and/or Electricity
(a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of
electricity,
explosives,
noxious
or
poisonous
substance such as sodium cyanide in the Philippine
fishery areas, which will kill, stupefy, disable or
render unconscious fish or fishery species
The Department, subject to safeguards and
conditions deemed necessary and endorsement from
the concerned LGUs, may allow, for research,
educational or scientific purposes only, the use of
electricity, poisonous or noxious substances to catch,
take or gather fish or fishery species:
The use of poisonous or noxious substances to
eradicate predators in fishponds in accordance with
accepted scientific practices and without causing
adverse environmental impact in neighboring waters
and grounds shall not be construed as illegal fishing.
(b) dealing in fish illegally caught
The discovery of explosives or equipment for
electro-fishing in any fishing vessel or in the
possession of any fishworker shall constitute prima
facie evidence, that the same was used for fishing in
violation of this Code.
The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught
or killed with the use of explosive, noxious or
poisonous substances or by electricity shall
constitute prima facie evidence that the fisherfolk,
operator, boat official or fishworker is fishing with the
use thereof.
(c) Mere possession of explosive, noxious or
poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for
illegal fishing
(d) Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonous
substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing
Penalty is without prejudice to the filing of
separate criminal cases when the use of the same
result to physical injury or loss of human life.
4. Use of Fine Mesh Net
(a) fishing using nets with mesh smaller than that
which may be fixed by the Department
Prohibition shall not apply to the gathering of fry
and such species which by their nature are small but
already mature to be identified in the implementing
rules and regulations by the Department.
5. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and
Bays and Other Fishery Management Areas
(a) fishing in municipal waters and in all bays as well
as other fishery management areas using active
fishing gears
6. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation
(a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and semiprecious corals, whether raw or in processed form,
except for scientific or research purposes.
The confiscated corals shall either be returned to
the sea or donated to schools and museums for
educational or scientific purposes or disposed
through other means.

132
license/permit
7. Ban on Muro-Ami, Other Methods and Gear
Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat
(a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs,
seagrass beds, and other fishery marine life habitat
as may be determined by the Department
(b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation, and
such similar gear and methods that require diving,
other physical or mechanical acts to pound the coral
reefs and other habitat to entrap, gather or catch fish
and other fishery species
(c) gathering, selling or exporting white sand, silica,
pebbles and other substances which make up any
marine habitat
8. Illegal Use of Superlights
(a) fishing with the use of superlights in municipal
waters or in violation of the rules and regulations
which may be promulgated by the Department on the
use of superlights outside municipal waters
9. Conversion of Mangroves
(a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for any
other purposes
10. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed
Season
11.
Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge and
Sanctuaries
12. Fishing or Taking
Endangered Species
of
Rare,
Threatened
or
13. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners

However, catching of sabalo and other
breeders/spawners for local breeding purposes or
scientific or research purposes may be allowed
subject to guidelines to be promulgated by the
Department.
14. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry
15. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery
Species
16. Violation of Catch Ceilings
17. Aquatic Pollution
18. Other violations
Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety
Standards
Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all
Fishponds, Fish Pens and Fish Cages
Gathering and Marketing of Shell Fish which is
sexually mature or below the minimum size
or
above
the
maximum
quantities
prescribed for the particular species
Obstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb of
Tide in any Stream, River, Lake or Bay
Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps,
Fish Pens and Fish Cages without a
19. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Employing

Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew
20. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of
anadromous, catadromous and other migratory
species, in areas including, but not limited to river
mouths and estuaries within a distance determined
by the concerned FARMCs
21. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement
Officer
Hizon vs. CA
Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that tested
positive for sodium cyanide. The accused were convicted
for illegal fishing using poisonous substances under PD 703,
which creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when any
fish taken is positive for poisonous substances. Petitioners
question the legality of the presumption. SC held that the
presumption is only prima facie hence, rebuttable by
competent evidence.
Article 310. Qualified theft

Theft is qualified if:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Committed by a domestic servant;

Committed with grave abuse of confidence;
The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail
matter, or large cattle;
The property stolen consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of a plantation;
The property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; or
If property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident, or
civil disturbance.
Penalties for qualified theft are now next

HIGHER BY 2 DEGREES.
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified.
it is not necessary to prove grave abuse of
confidence.
The abuse of confidence must be grave.
There must be allegation in the information
and proof of a relation, by reason of
dependence, guardianship or vigilance,
between the accused and the offended
party, that has created a high degree of
confidence between them, which the
accused abused.
The grave abuse of confidence need not be
premeditated.
Its presence in the
commission of theft is sufficient.

133
The confidence gravely abused must be that

existing between offended party and the
offender.
Empelis vs. IAC
4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from a
plantation. They dropped the coconuts after being seen by
the owner. They were convicted of qualified theft. SC
held that they are guilty only of FRUSTRATED QUALIFIED
THEFT as they were not able to carry away the coconuts
from the plantation that is the gravamen of the offence
under Art 310.
People vs. Caales
Facts: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. They
stole a truck and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from the
company. They were tasked to deliver the prawns to the
pier using the truck. The truck, however, was subsequently
recovered. Was there qualified theft as to the recovered
truck?
Held: The recovery of the stolen motor vehicle does not
mean that the crime of qualified theft was not
consummated. Neither will it diminish the criminal
responsibility of appellant. In People v. Carpio: The gist
of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking
and asportation of property, animo lucrandi, and with
intent to deprive the true owner of the possession
thereof. The act of asportation in this case was
undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thief
to profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived the
true owner of the possession of the entire automobile, the
offense of larceny comprised the whole car. The fact that
the accused stripped the car of its tires and abandoned the
machine in a distant part of the city did not make the
appellant any less liable for the larceny of the automobile.
The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his
right of possession were complete as to the entire car; and
the fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly to
abandon the machine in no wise limits their criminal
responsibility to the particular parts of the car that were
appropriate and subsequently used by the appellant upon
his own car.
People v. Reynaldo Bago (2000)
FACTS: Reynaldo Bago was an employee of Azkcon
Metal Industries from 1988-1992. From 1991 to 1992, he
served as team leader at the cutting department under the
supervision of the Material Comptroller who kept track of
all the materials coming in and going out of the companys
plant in Kalookan City. Azkcon has a business arrangement
with Power Construction Supply Company (Power
Construction) whereby Azkcon buys cold rolled sheets from
the latter. These cold rolled sheets are also cut by Power
Construction for a fee and Azkcon converts them into
drums or containers. Bagos job was to go to Power
Constructions establishment in Quezon City to oversee the
cutting of the cold rolled sheets and ensure their delivery
to Azkcon using the trucks sent by Hilo. Bago was
discovered to have participated in the theft of materials
worth P192,000.00. The trial court found him guilty of
qualified theft.
HELD: The trial court correctly found that

appellant was a trusted employee of Azkcon. He was incharge of overseeing the cutting of the materials at Power
Construction and ensuring their delivery to Azkcon. Due to
this trust, he succeeded in withdrawing from the said
supplier the cold rolled sheets. The materials he took from
the supplier on March 23, 1992 could not be found in the
premises of Azkcon and there was no evidence that he
delivered them on said date or on any other day thereafter.
Inexplicably, appellant presented the third receipt (Invoice
No. 51111) dated March 23, 1992 for stamping only on April
21, 1992. The reasonable conclusion is that he asported the
materials.
Clearly, all the elements of theft were
established, to wit: (1) there was a taking of personal
property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the
taking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking
was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was
accomplished without violence or intimidation against the
person or force upon things. As the theft was committed
with grave abuse of confidence, appellant is guilty of
qualified theft.
People v. Luisito Bustinera (2004)

FACTS: ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as a
taxi driver. It was agreed that appellant would drive the
taxi from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., after which he would
return it to ESC Transport's garage and remit the boundary
fee in the amount of P780.00 per day. On December 25,
1996, appellant admittedly reported for work and drove
the taxi, but he did not return it on the same day as he was
supposed to. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. On
January 9, 1997, Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transport and
revealed that the taxi had been abandoned. ESC was able
to recovered. The trial court found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of qualified theft.
HELD: Bustinera was convicted of qualified theft
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. However, Article
310 has been modified, with respect to certain vehicles, by
Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwise known as
"AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING."
When statutes are in pari materia or when they
relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of
persons or things, or cover the same specific or particular
subject matter, or have the same purpose or object, the
rule dictates that they should be construed together
The elements of the crime of theft as provided
for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that
there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property
belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent
to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of
the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without
the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things.
Theft is qualified when any of the following
circumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by a
domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave
abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a
motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property
stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a
plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

134
On the other hand, Section 2 of Republic Act No.

6539, as amended defines "carnapping" as "the taking, with
intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking
of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking
is without the consent of the owner or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force
upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain.
Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a
motorized vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in theft,
robbery and carnapping being the same. From the
foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful
taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and
not the provisions of qualified theft which would apply.
Jonathan D. Cariaga v. Court of Appeals (2001)
FACTS: "Luis Miguel Aboitiz was the Systems
Analyst of the Davao Light & Power Company, Inc. (DLPC),
whose duty was to devise means to prevent losses due to
waste, pilferage or theft of company property. He received
reports that some private electricians were engaged in the
clandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. He
initiated a covert operation to discover the method and to
capture one of the culprits. Using an undercover agent, the
group was brought down and Jonathan Cariaga was charged
and found guilty of qualified by grave abuse of confidence
HELD: The defense, verily, anchors itself on the
bare denial of petitioner of the specific acts imputed by
the prosecution against him. Certainly, this negative
assertion cannot prevail over the unimpeached testimony
of the prosecution witness describing in sufficient detail
the active participation of petitioner in the commission of
the crime charged. We note that the information alleged
that petitioner was an employee of DLPC; that he had
access to the electrical supplies of said company; and that
with grave abuse of confidence, he stole electrical
materials belonging to DLPC. The prosecution established
that petitioner who was permanently assigned as driver of
Truck "S-143" had charge of all the DLPC equipment and
supplies kept in his vehicle, including lightning arresters,
cut-out and wires, which were generally used for the
installation of transformers and power lines; and
specifically stored therein for emergency operations at
night when the stockroom is closed. While the mere
circumstance that the petitioner is an employee or laborer
of DLPC does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law requires to designate
the crime as qualified theft, it has been held that access to
the place where the taking took place or access to the
stolen items changes the complexion of the crime
committed to that of qualified theft.
People v Ruben Sison (2000)
FACTS: Ruben Sison first joined the Auditing
Department of the Philippine Commercial International
Bank (PCIB) in December 1977. He rose from the ranks and
was promoted to the position of Assistant Manager and
concurrently held the position of Branch Operation Officer.
As such, he was assigned to different branches until his last
detail at the PCIB Luneta Branch in February 1991. He was
the primary control officer directly responsible for the day
to day operations of the branch, including custody of the
cash vault. Sison facilitated the crediting of two (2)
fictitious remittances in the amounts of P3,250,000.00 and
P4,755,000.00 in favor of Solid Realty Development

Corporation, an equally fictitious account, and then later
the withdrawal of P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB Luneta
Branch. He was charged and found guilty of qualified theft.
HELD: The appeal has no merit. The trial court
correctly convicted appellant of Qualified Theft on the
basis of circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, the
combination of all the incriminating facts proven by the
prosecution and the logical inferences derived therefrom
leave no doubt in Our mind that appellant, with grave
abuse of confidence, conceived and accomplished the theft
of P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch.
The crime perpetuated by appellant against his
employer, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank
(PCIB), is qualified theft. Appellant could not have
committed the crime had he not been holding the position
of Luneta Branch Operation Officer which gave him not
only sole access to the bank vault but also control of the
access of all bank employees in that branch, except the
Branch Manager, to confidential and highly delicate
computerized security systems designed to safeguard,
among others, the integrity of telegraphic fund transfers
and account names of bank clients. The management of the
PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its
Luneta Branch Operation Officer, and it was this trust and
confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the
damage and prejudice of PCIB in the amount of
P6,000,000.00.
Asuncion Roque v People (2004)
FACTS: Asuncion Roque was a teller of the Basa
Air Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA). She
was found to have taken money from several of the
depositors. Unable to return the money, she was charged
with qualified theft and covicted. Roque argued that since
the money was lawfully received by her and later
misappropriated she was guilty only of estafa.
HELD: In the present case, what is involved is the
possession of money in the capacity of a bank teller. In
People v. Locson this Court considered deposits received by
a teller in behalf of a bank as being only in the material
possession of the teller. This interpretation applies with
equal force to money received by a bank teller at the
beginning of a business day for the purpose of servicing
withdrawals. Such is only material possession. Juridical
possession remains with the bank. In line with the
reasoning of the Court in several cases, beginning with
People v. De Vera, if the teller appropriates the money for
personal gain then the felony committed is theft and not
estafa. Further, since the teller occupies a position of
confidence, and the bank places money in the teller's
possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, the
felony of qualified theft would be committed.
Astudillo v. People (2006)
Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees of
Western does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law requires. The
element of grave abuse of confidence requires that
there be a relation of independence, guardianship or
vigilance between the petitioners and Western.
Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive
payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping,
preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely assisted

135
customers in making a purchase and in demonstrating the

merchandise to prospective buyers. While they had access
to the merchandise, they had no access to the cashiers
booth or to the cash payments subject of the offense.
offender.
Mustang Lumber Inc vs. CA
Illegal Logging
P.D. 330
PenalizingTimber Smuggling or
Illegal Cutting of Logs
SECTION 1.
Any person, whether natural or
juridical, who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers,
removes, or smuggles timber, or other forest
products, either from any of the public forest, forest
reserves and other kinds of public forests, whether
under license or lease, or from any privately owned
forest lands in violation of existing laws, rules and
regulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualified
theft as defined and penalized under Articles 308,
309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code; Provided,
That if the offender is a corporation, firm, partnership
or association, the penalty shall be imposed upon the
guilty officer or officers, as the case may be, of the
corporation, firm, partnership or association, and if
such guilty officer or officers are aliens, in addition to
the penalty herein prescribed, he or they shall be
deported without further proceedings on the part of
the Commissioned of Immigration and Deportation.
P.D. 705
The Forestry Reform Code (as amended)
SECTION 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting
timber or other products without license. Any
person who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove
timber or other forest products from any forest land,
or timber from alienable and disposable public lands,
or from private lands, without any authority under a
license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be
guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished
under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC; Provided,
That in the case of partnership, association or
corporation, the officers who ordered the cutting,
gathering or collecting shall be liable, and if such
officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the
penalty, be deported without further proceedings on
the part of the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation.
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor
of the government of the timber or forest products to
cut, gathered, collected or removed, and the
machinery, equipment, implements and tools used
therein, and the forfeiture of his improvements in the
area.
The same penalty plus cancellation of his license
agreement, lease, license or permit and perpetual
disqualification from acquiring any such privilege
shall be imposed upon any licensee, lessee, or
permittee who cuts timber from the licensed or
leased area of another, without prejudice to
whatever civil action the latter may bring against the
Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber is

actually processed forest raw materials or just processed
timber. Therefore, lumber is necessarily included in
timber as the law makes no distinction.
Fencing
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
What is fencing?
Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or
shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any
article, item, object or anything of value which he
knows, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
"Fence" includes any person, firm, association
corporation or partnership or other organization
who/which commits the act of fencing.
Presumption of Fencing.
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.
Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand
Articles is required
All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the
buy and sell of any good, article, item, object of
anything of value obtained from an unlicensed
dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering
the same for sale to the public, secure the
necessary clearance or permit from the station
commander of the Integrated National Police in
the
town
or
city
where
such
store,
establishment or entity is located.
Penalties imposed
Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as
hereunder indicated:
a.
The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of
the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos
but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of
such property exceeds the latter sum, the
penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year
for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be
termed reclusion temporal and the accessory
penalty pertaining thereto provided in the
Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
b.
The penalty of
prision correccional in its

136
medium and maximum periods, if the value of

the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000
pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.
c.
The penalty of prision correccional in its

minimum and medium periods, if the value of
the property involved is more than 200 pesos
but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
d.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium

period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the value of the property involved is
over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.
e.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium

period, if such value is over five (5) pesos but
not exceeding 50 pesos.
f.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum

period, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
Article 311. Theft of the property of the

National Library and National Museum
Theft of the property on

National Library and Museum has a fixed
penalty regardless of its value.
Article 312. Occupation of real property

or usurpation of real rights in property
Acts punishable:
1.
2.
Taking possession of any real property

belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons;
Usurping any real rights in property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the offender

a. takes possession of any real property
or
b. usurps any real rights in property
That the real property or real right belongs
to another
That violence against or intimidation of
persons is used by the offender in
occupying real property or usurping real
rights in property
That there is intent to gain.
If defendant who took possession of the

land using violence or intimidation has shown
he is owner of the land in question and
complainant was a mere possessor, Art 312
DOES NOT apply.
If at all, the crime is: grave coercion
Usurpation of Real Right, example:
Accused, who had lost a case in a cadastral
proceeding, took possession of the land
adjudicated in favor of the offended party and
harvested the palay, by means of threats and
intimidation.
If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of
strategy or stealth) , only CIVIL LIABILITY exists
Violence or intimidation must be DURING the
occupation or usurpation.
Art 312 DOES NOT apply when the violence
or intimidation only took place SUBSEQUENT to
the entry into property
Example: if accused ALREADY OCCUPPIED
the land, and when the administrator of such
land told him to leave, but accused threatened
administrator he would "kill anyone who would
drive me away" or chased administrator away
with bolo.
Article 312 does NOT apply in case of open
defiance of a writ of execution issued in a
forcible entry case
Reason: Accused did not secure the
possession of the land by means of violence or
intimidation. The refusal (violent or not) of the
accused to comply with writ of execution is a
DISTINCT OFFENSE: contempt of court under
the Rules of Court.
Criminal Action for occupation of real property
NOT A BAR for civil action for forcible entry
Reason: Causes of action are different!
Article 312 does NOT provide for a penalty, it
only provides for a fine.
IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physical
injuries inflicted as a result of the acts of
violence.
Distinguished from theft or robbery:
The real property or real right must belong to

another
Usurpation
Theft/robbery
There is intent to gain
Occupation or usurpation There is taking or
asportation

137
Real property or real

right
Personal property taken
Conchita Quinao v People (2000)

FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao,
together with their other close relatives appeared on the
property of Francisco and Bienvenido Del Monte. While
there, with the use of force, violence and intimidation,
usurped and took possession of the landholding, claiming
that the same is their inheritance from their ascendants
further they gathered coconuts and made them into copra.
Thus, Bienvenido Del Monte was forcibly driven out by the
accused from their landholding and was threatened that he
should not return lest harm befall him. He was thus forced
to seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine National
Police. In the trial court, defendants asserted a calim over
the land despite the fact that a prior judicial decision
declared the Del Montes as the rightful owners. Resultantly,
defendants were found guilty of usurpation of real
property.
HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the
decision rendered by the trial court convicting her of the
crime of usurpation of real property was not based on
"speculations, surmises and conjectures" but clearly on the
evidence on record and in accordance with the applicable
law. The requisites of usurpation are that the accused took
possession of another's real property or usurped real rights
in another's property; that the possession or usurpation was
committed with violence or intimidation and that the
accused had animo lucrandi. In order to sustain a
conviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales," the proof
must show that the real property occupied or usurped
belongs, not to the occupant or usurper, but to some third
person, and that the possession of the usurper was
obtained by means of intimidation or violence done to the
person ousted of possession of the property.
More explicitly, in Castrodes vs. Cubelo, the
Court stated that the elements of the offense are (1)
occupation of another's real properly or usurpation of a real
right belonging to another person; (2) violence or
intimidation should be employed in possessing the real
property or in usurping the real right, and (3) the accused
should be animated by the intent to gain.
Article 313.
landmarks
Altering
boundaries
or
Elements:
1.
2.
That there be boundary marks or

monuments of towns, provinces, or estates,
or any other marks intended to designate
the boundaries of the same
The offender alters said boundary marks
a.
b.
c.
destruction of stone monument

taking it to another place or
removing a fence
Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency

Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the offender is a debtor

Obligation is due and payable
He absconds with his property
There is prejudice to his creditors
Illustration of Fraudulent Insolvency:

Defendant became indebted to several
merchants in Cebu. Judgment was rendered
against him and execution issued. He owned
several parcels of real property which he
transferred to another to place them beyond
the reach of his creditors. The considerations in
the deed of sale were all fictitious.
Actual prejudice,
required
not
intention
alone,
is
Concealment of property not sufficient if the

debtor-accused has some other property with
which to satisfy his obligation.
Being a merchant is not an element of this
offense. It only makes the penalty higher
Real property may be involved
"Absond"- does not require that the debtor
should depart and physically conceal his
property. Hence, real property may be the
subject of fraudulent insolvency.
Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of the
offender
Example: Wife of accused helped prepare
documents to abscond with his property. Such
participation does NOT prove her complicity in
the fraud, since it was the creditors of her
husband (not HER creditors) who were
defrauded.
Intent to gain NOT necessary.
Distinguished from Insolvency Law:
The mere alteration of the boundary marks

or monuments intended to designate the
boundaries of towns, provinces, or estate is
punishable.
Insolvency Law: requires that the criminal

act be committed AFTER the institution of
insolvency proceedings
Fraudulent insolvency: no need for
defendant to be adjudged bankrupt or
insolvent.
"Alter": General and indefinite meaning.

Includes:

138
Three general ways of committing Estafa:

1. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
2. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent
acts
3. through fraudulent means
Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)

P.D. 2018
Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of
Economic Sabotage
Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL:

1. That the accused defrauded another by
a. abuse of confidence or
b. by means of deceit
2.
Acts punishable
1.
2.
Any recruitment activities, including the

prohibited practices enumerated under Article
34 of the Labor Code, to be undertaken by
non-licensees or non-holders of authority
shall be deemed illegal and punishable
under Article 39 of the Labor Code. The Ministry
of Labor and Employment or any law
enforcement officers may initiate complaints
under this Article.
Illegal recruitment when committed by a
syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic
sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance
with Article 39 of the Labor Code
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed
by a syndicate if carried out by a group of
three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another in carrying out
any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or
scheme.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or
more persons individually or as a group.
Powers of Minister of Labor and Employment

(now Secretary of DOLE)
The Minister of Labor and Employment or
his duly authorized representatives shall have the
power to cause the arrest and detention of such
non-license or non-holder of authority if after
investigation it is determined that his activities
constitute a danger to national security and public
order or will lead to further exploitation of jobseekers.
The Minister shall order the search of the
office or premises and seizure of documents
paraphernalia, properties and other implements used
in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of
companies, establishment and entities found to be
engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas
employment, without having been licensed or
authorized to do so.
That damage or prejudice capable

pecuniary estimation is caused to
a. the offended party or
b. third person
of
* As seen above, DECEIT is NOT an essential

requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence
* As to second general element of DAMAGE, it
should be capable of pecuniary estimation,
since amount of the damage is the basis of the
penalty.
* intent of defrauding another is always an
element
* no estafa through negligence
-Estafa through Abuse of ConfidenceI.
Article 315, Paragraph 1 (a): Estafa

with unfaithfulness by altering the
substance, quantity, or quality of
anything of value
Elements:
1. That the offender has an onerous
obligation to deliver something of value
2. That he alters its substance, quantity, or
quality
3. That damage or prejudice is caused by
another
There must be an onerous obligation
If the thing delivered had not yet been fully

paid or just partially paid, NO ESTAFA even if
there was alteration Ratio: there was no
damage to talk about
When there is no agreement as to the

quality of the thing to be delivered,
delivery of a thing unacceptable to the
complainant is NOT estafa.
Even though such obligation be based on

an immoral or illegal consideration. Estafa
may arise even if the thing to be delivered

139
is not subject of lawful commerce (ex.

opium)
II.
Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b):

misappropriating
or
converting
money, goods, or other personal
property
OR
denying
having
received such money, goods, or
other personal property
Elements:
1. That money, goods, or other personal
property be received by the offender in
a. trust (Trust Receipts Law)
b. on commission
c. for administration
d. under any obligation involving duty to
return the very same thing
2. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion
of such property by the offender OR (b)
denial of such receipt
3. There is prejudice to another
4. Demand was made by the offended to the
offender
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 115 January 29,
1973
PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUST
RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS
"Trust Receipt" -- shall refer to the written or
printed document signed by the entrustee in favor of
the entruster containing terms and conditions
substantially complying with the provisions of this
Decree. No further formality of execution or
authentication shall be necessary to the validity of a
trust receipt.
What constitutes a trust receipt transaction?
A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by and
between a person referred to as the entruster, and
another person referred to as entrustee, whereby
the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or
security interests over certain specified goods,
documents or instruments, releases the same to the
possession of the entrustee upon the latter's
execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed
document called a "trust receipt" wherein the
entrustee binds himself to hold the designated
goods, documents or instruments in trust for the
entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the
goods, documents or instruments with the obligation
to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to
the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as
appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents
or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not
otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms
and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for
other purposes substantially equivalent to any of the
following:
the purpose of ultimate sale: Provided,

That, in the case of goods delivered under
trust
receipt
for
the
purpose
of
manufacturing or processing before its
ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its
title over the goods whether in its original or
processed form until the entrustee has
complied fully with his obligation under the
trust receipt; or
c)
to load, unload, ship or tranship or
otherwise deal with them in a manner
preliminary or necessary to their sale; or
2. In the case of instruments,
a)
to sell or procure their sale or
exchange; or
b)
to deliver them to a principal; or
c)
to effect the consummation of
some transactions involving delivery to a
depository or register; or
d)
to
effect
their
presentation,
collection or renewal
NOTE: The sale of goods, documents or instruments
by a person in the business of selling goods,
documents or instruments for profit who, at the
outset of the transaction, has, as against the buyer,
general property rights in such goods, documents or
instruments, or who sells the same to the buyer on
credit, retaining title or other interest as security for
the payment of the purchase price, does not
constitute a trust receipt transaction.
Allied Banking v. Ordonez

PBM got equipment from bank and executed trust receipt
agreement (TRA) -- acknowledged bank's ownership of
equipment and PBM's obligation to turn over the proceeds
of the sale of said equipments. Sec. Of Justice said that
since PBM would not be selling the equipment but would
just be using them, there was no violation of PD 115.
HELD: PD 115 applies to ALL trust receipt transactions.
Therefore, the fact that the goods were just to be used by
PBM and not to be sold is of no importance. Any violation of
the TRA is punished (Geof's notes in Comm: wrong SC
decision! )
Lee vs. Rodil
Lee executed TRA for the purchase of materials but
misappropriated the value of the goods for personal use.
Charged with estafa under PD 115. Challenged the validity
of the law saying that a violation of PD 115 is NOT estafa
and that the law violates non-imprisonment for debts
clause of the Constitution.
HELD: Sec 13 of PD 115 explicitly states that the failure to
give back the proceeds or return the goods of estafa is
punishable. No violation of the Constitution as the loan is
separate from the trust receipt. What is punished is the
violation of the trust receipt and not the non-payment of
the loan.
1. In the case of goods or documents,

a) to sell the goods or procure their sale; or
b)
to manufacture or process the goods with

140
The 4th element is not necessary where

there is evidence of misappropriation of
goods by the defendant
Check is included in the word "money"
Money/goods must be received by the

offender. Otherwise, crime is THEFT (taking
without consent of owner)
hence, offender must have material AND
juridical possession of the thing
JURIDICAL POSSESSION:
means a
possession which gives the transferee a right
over the thing which the transferee may set up
even against the owner.
a.
b.
"involving the duty to return the same"

includes
quasi-contracts and
contract of bailment: deposit, lease,
commodatum, pledge
but NOT contract of loan! Loan of
money is mutuum. Ownership was
transferred.
Contract
of
sale
(ownership
is
transferred at the time of delivery):
a) if thing sold not delivered and
advance payment not returned,
only CIVIL LIABILITY
b) if buyer did not pay the price to
owner, only CIVIL LIABILITY also
Art 314 par 1 (b) is the ONLY kind of estafa

where demand is necessary. Although it is
not required by law, it is necessary
because failure to account upon demand, is
circumstantial
evidence
of
misappropriation.
Even though such obligation be totally or

partially guaranteed by a bond a security
executed by the agent to answer for
damages etc. does not relieve him from
criminal liability, for this undertaking refers
only to his civil liability.
The gravity of the crime of Estafa is
determined on the basis of the amount not
returned before the institution of criminal
action.
Key: if no obligation to return the very same

thing, only Civil liability
No estafa when the money or other

personal property received is NOT to be
used for a particular purpose.
Novation of contract from one of agency to
one of sale or to one of loan relieves
defendant from the incipient criminal
liability under the first contract
But granting extension of time is not
novation, nor is acceptance of a PN for
money misappropriated
Also, the novation theory may perhaps
apply prior to the filing of the criminal
information in court by the State
prosecutors, because up to that time,
the original trust relation may be
converted by the parties into an
ordinary creditor-debtor relation.
"conversion" thing was devoted for a
purpose different from that agreed upon,
as if the thing were the accused's own (ex.
depositary pledged the thing deposited)
"misappropriation" - using an amount for
personal purposes
Right of agent to deduct commission from
amounts collected: IF AUTHORIZED to
retain commission, no estafa.
"to the prejudice of another"- not

necessarily the owner of the property
Partnerships:
Where a partner sold partnership
property and misappropriates the
selling price only gives rise to civil
obligation only (it is a debt due to a
partner as part of partnership funds)
Partner given money to be used for a
specific purpose then misappropriated
it estafa
A co-owner is not liable for estafa during
the subsistence of the co-ownership
Estafa with abuse of

confidence
Offender acquires the
juridical possession of
the property
Offender receives the
thing from the offended
party
Theft
Offender acquires only
material possession of
the property
Offender takes the thing
from the offended party
Additional test: In theft, upon

delivery of the thing to the offender, the
owner expects an immediate return of the
thing to him
Estafa with abuse of

Malversation
confidence
The offenders are entrusted with funds or property
Both are continuing offenses
The funds or property are Involves public funds or
always private
property
The offender is a private
Offender is usually a
individual or a public
public officer who is
officer who is not
accountable for public
accountable for public
funds or property
funds or property
The crime is committed
The crime is committed
by misappropriating,
by appropriating, taking
converting or denying
or misappropriating or
having received money,
consenting, or through

141
goods or other personal

property
abandonment or
negligence, permitting
any other person to take
the public funds or
property
Private individual allegedly in

conspiracy with public officer in a
prosecution of the latter for malversation,
may still be held liable for Estafa even if
the public officer was acquitted.
Misappropriation of firearms
received by a policeman is Estafa, if it is
not involved in the commission of a crime.
It is malversation, if it is involved in the
commission of a crime.
1.
2.
3.
4.
IV.
Saddul v. CA
Saddul was authorized to sell some car parts. 20% of the
proceeds from sale would go to AMPI.
HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Saddul did not receive the
parts from AMPI in trust (received it from another party
which was the owner of the parts). Saddul did not convert
it for personal use. Failure to deliver the proceeds did not
cause damage to AMPI, as it was not the owner of the
parts. Also, AMPI did not demand return of the parts.
III.
Article 315, par 1, (c): estafa by

taking undue advantage of the
signature of the offended party in
blank
Elements:
1. That the paper with the signature of the
offended party be in blank
2. That the offended party should have
delivered it to the offender
3. That above the signature, a document is
written by offender without authority to do
so
4. That the document so written creates a
liability of, or causes damage to the
offended party or any third person
The paper with the signature in blank MUST

BE DELIVERED by the offended party to the
offender (otherwise, crime is falsification of
instrument)
Article 315, par 2, (a)
Three ways of committing estafa under this

provision:
1. using fictitious name
2. falsely pretending to possess
a. power
b. influence
c. qualifications
d. property
e. credit
f. agency
g. business or imaginary transactions
3. other similar deceits
fictitious name: when a person found a

pawnshop ticket in the name of another
and, using the name of that person,
redeemed the jewelry
Pretending to possess power: "pretend to

be a magician who can find gold, but pay
me to find the gold under your house"
trick.
Pretending to possess influence: I have

connections in Malacaang so pay me if
you wanna get your documents approved"
trick
Estafa by means of deceit vs. theft:

juridical/ legal possession is still transferred
to offender in case of estafa. But it is
transferred through deceit.
V.
-Estafa by DeceitElements of Estafa by means of deceit:
There must be a false pretense,

fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
Such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud;
The offended party must have relied on
the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means, that is, he was induced
to part with his money or property because
of the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means;
As a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
Article 315, Paragraph 2 (b): by

altering
quality,
fineness,
or
weight of anything pertaining to
his art or business
Example: A gives B, a jeweler, a diamond
to be made into a ring. B changed the
stone with one of lower quality.
142
VI.
Manipulation of Scale: violation of Revised

Administrative Code
Article 315, Paragraph 2
pretending to have bribed
Government employee
(c):
any
Person would ask money from another for

the
alleged
purpose
of
bribing
a
government employee but just pocketed
the money after
"without prejudice to an action for

calumny" : the offender may also be
charged with defamation which the
government employee allegedly bribed
may deem proper to bring against the
offender
VII.
Article 315, Paragraph 2 (d):

postdating a check in payment of
an obligation when the offender
had no funds in the bank, or his
funds were not sufficient to cover
the amount
Elements:
1. That the offender postdated a check, or
issued a check in payment of an obligation
2. That such postdating or issuing was done
when:
a. offender had no funds or
b. funds deposited were not sufficient
check must be genuine and not falsified,

otherwise, it is estafa under paragraph
2(a), not 2(d) (example: signing a check
with a fictitious name and falsely
pretending said check could be encashed)
the issuance of a check is NOT for a pre
existing obligation. It MUST be for an
obligation contracted at the time of the
issuance or delivery of the check.
When check is issued in substitution of
a promissory note, it is in payment of a
pre existing obligation
When the check is issued by a
guarantor, there is no Estafa because it
is not in payment of an obligation.
Prima facie evidence of deceit: failure of
the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check
within three days from receipt of notice
from the bank and/or the payee or holder
that said check has been dishonored for
lack or insufficiency of funds
VIII.
otherwise, if drawer is able to fund

within
3
days
from
notice
of
dishonoring, not liable for estafa
Article 315, Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa
by
obtaining
food
or
accommodation at a hotel, etc
Three ways of committing estafa under the this

provision:
1. By obtaining
food,
refreshment,
or
accommodation at a hotel, etc. without
paying therefor, with intent to defraud the
proprietor or manager thereof.
2. By obtaining credit at any of said
establishments by the use of false
pretenses
3. By abandoning or surreptitiously removing
any part of his baggage from any of said
establishments after obtaining credit, food,
refreshment, or accommodation therein,
without paying therefor.
IX.
Article 315, Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa

by inducing another to sign any
document
Elements:
1. That the offender induced the offended
party to sign a document.
2. That deceit be employed to make him sign
the document
3. That the offended party personally signed
the document
4. That prejudice be caused
There must be inducement:

if the offended party was willing to sign
although there was deceit as to the
character or contents of the document
(because the contents are different
from those which the offended party
told the accused to state in the
document) crime is falsification
accused should make statements tending

to mislead the complainant as to the
character of the document executed by
him.
X.
Article 315, Paragraph 3 (b):

Estafa by resorting to some
fraudulent
practice
to
insure
success in gambling

143
XI.
Article 315, Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa

by
removing,
concealing,
or
destroying documents
Elements:
1. That there be court record, office files,
documents or any other papers
2. That the offender removed, concealed or
destroyed any of them
3. That the offender had intent to defraud
another
If no intent to defraud, the act of

destroying court record will be malicious
mischief
1.
Examples:
Concealing document: A person who
concealed a document evidencing a
deposit of P2,600 which came into his
possession when he offered to collect the
deposit is guilty of estafa.
2.
Destroying documents: Destruction of a PN

given back to the maker to be replaced
with a new one to renew the loan, without
making a new promissory note is estafa
because by destroying the old one, the
offended party was dispossessed of the
evidence of a debt.
1.
2.
3.
means to commit the latter. C, with intent

to gain, took the pawnshop tickets without
the consent of A (Theft). By redeeming the
jewels by means of the tickets, C also
committed estafa, using a fictitious name.
The basis of the penalty for estafa is the
amount
or value
of
the property
misappropriated BEFORE the institution of
the criminal action. Hence, partial payment
made subsequent to the commission of
estafa does not reduce the amount
misappropriated which is the basis of the
penalty.
A private person who procures a loan by
means of deceit through a falsified public
document of mortgage, but who effects full
settlement of the loan within the period
agreed upon, does not commit the crime of
Estafa, there being no disturbance of
proprietary rights and no person defrauded
thereby.
The crime committed is only
falsification of public document.
"Prejudice" consists in:
The offended party being deprived of his
money or property as a result of the fraud
Disturbance in property rights
Temporary prejudice
Celino vs. CA
In a very old case, it was ruled that the act

of destroying a PN, given to cover losses in
gambling, by the maker thereof, is Estafa.
However, there was a dissenting opinion
which stated that such PN is void and of no
value, hence it cannot be the subject of
estafa.
Infidelity in the
custody of documents
Manner of committing offenses is the same
The offender is a private
The offender is a public
individual or even a
officer who is officially
public officer who is not
entrusted with the
officially entrusted with
document
the documents
There is intent to defraud Intent to defraud not an
element in this crime
Accused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of a

dwarf. They were able to make the victim allow them to
dig in the victim's backyard and extort some funds from him
with the promise that it would grow into a big amount.
HELD: GUILTY of estafa by false pretense, having pretended
to have special powers and fooled the extremely stupid
victim.
Estafa under par. 3 (c)
Final Notes on Estafa:
The accused CANNOT be convicted of

estafa with abuse of confidence under an
information alleging estafa by means of
deceit.
If there is no deceit and no abuse of

confidence, there is no estafa, even if there
is damage. There is only civil liability.
There CAN be a complex crime of theft and

estafa, when the former is a necessary
Abujuela vs. People

Balo offered financial assistance to Abujuela by virtue of
some insurance proceeds that Balo would receive from his
father. Balo borrowed Abujuela's passbook and made it
appear that certain deposits were made. When the account
was closed, discrepancies were found between the ledger
and the account. Abujuela charged as accomplice to estafa
through falsification of commercial documents
HELD: NOT guilty. Abujuela NOT aware of the fraudulent
plans of Balo. Knowledge of criminal intent is essential to
be an accomplice in estafa.
Koh Tieng Heng vs. People
Heng deposited two checks worth P18,060 each issued by a
certain Dyaico. Then he withdrew several times from the
account. Diayco questioned the withdrawals. Heng was
finally caught trying to withdraw again.

144
HELD: Possession and utterance of a falsified check gives

rise to the presumption that the possessor is the forger of
the check. Attempted estafa correct as he was caught
trying to withdraw.
People vs. Ong
Ong deposits checks then withdraws from the deposited
accounts on the same day without waiting for the required
5-day clearance period for checks. The drawee banks
subsequently dishonored deposited checks.
HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Ong had no knowledge of lack
of funds, checks not issued in payment of an obligation as
required by the RPC. Lastly, Ong did not employ deceit in
withdrawing the money as the bank waived the 5-day
clearance period for its preferred customers where Ong
was one of those.
True, it is common practice in commercial transactions to

require debtors to issue checks on which creditors must
rely as guarantee of payment, or as evidence of
indebtedness, if not a mode of payment. But to determine
the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and
conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith
the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of
checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in
trade and in banking communities. So, what the law
punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of
issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
Lu Hayco vs. CA
Lu Hayco had a special power of attorney from Lu Chiong
Sun to manage the Units Optical Supply Company. The SPOA
also authorized Lu Hayco To deposit and withdraw funds in
the name of the company.
Llamado vs. CA
Gaw delivered to accused the amount of P180,000.00, with
the assurance of Aida Tan, the secretary of the accused in
the corporation, that it will be repaid plus interests and a
share in the profits of the corporation, if any. Upon delivery
of the money, accused Ricardo Llamado and Jacinto Pascual
signed a postdated Philippine Trust Company Check in the
presence of Gaw. Gaw deposited the check in his current
account, which the drawee bank dishonored later informed
Gaw that said check because payment was stopped, and
that the check was drawn against insufficient funds. Gaw
was also notified by the bank that his current account was
debited because of the dishonor of the said check. After
trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment
convicting the accused of violation of Batas Pambansa No.
22.
HELD: Llamado denies knowledge of the issuance of the
check without sufficient funds and involvement in the
transaction with Gaw. However, knowledge involves a state
of mind difficult to establish. Thus, the statute itself
creates a prima facie presumption, i.e., that the drawer
had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit
with the bank at the time of the issuance and on the
check's presentment for payment. Llamado failed to rebut
the presumption by paying the amount of the check within
five (5) banking days from notice of the dishonor. His claim
that he signed the check in blank which allegedly is
common business practice, is hardly a defense. If as he
claims, he signed the check in blank, he made himself
prone to being charged with violation of BP 22. It became
incumbent upon him to prove his defenses. As Treasurer of
the corporation who signed the check in his capacity as an
officer of the corporation, lack of involvement in the
negotiation for the transaction is not a defense.
The check was issued for an actual valuable consideration,
which Gaw handed to Aida Tan, a secretary in petitioner's
office. In fact, Llamado admits that Gaw made an
investment in said amount with Pan-Asia Finance
Corporation. Llamado contends that the money which Gaw
gave the corporation was intended for investment which
they agreed will be returned to Gaw with interests, only if
the project became successful. But then, if this were true,
the check need not have been issued because a receipt and
their written agreement would have sufficed.
Lu Hayco deposited P139,000 paid by customers of the

Units Optical, not in the company's banks but in his own
personal accounts. After 2 demand letters were ignored, a
criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public
document was filed against Lu Hayco.
To make a very long story short, the first case of estafa was
dismissed but many more ensued (as many as 75 counts, I
think). Eventually, he was convicted. Lu Hayco argues,
among others, that there is no estafa since the element of
misappropriation or conversion was not proven.
HELD:
The disturbance in property rights caused by
misappropriation, though only temporary, is itself sufficient
to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 315(l -b) of
the RPC. In U.S. v. Goyenechea (8 Phil. 117), the defendant
pledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough & Co. to the
American Loan Company. Because of said act, the
typewriter was seized by the police, and taken into court.
Throughout the trial, McCullough & Co. was placed in a
doubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. [The
SC] held that:
McCullough & Co. at least suffered
disturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter and
in the possession thereof. This fact, by itself, and without
it being necessary to deal with any other considerations of
material fact herein, always constitutes real and actual
damage, and is positive enough under rule of law to
produce one of the elements constituting the offense, the
crime of estafa.
In the case at bar, there was a disturbance in the property
rights of Lu Chiong Sun. While the funds received by Lu
Hayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts, Lu
Chiong Sun and Units Optical could not dispose of the said
amounts. At least, this could be considered as a temporary
prejudice suffered by Lu Chiong Sun, which is sufficient to
constitute conversion in the context of Art. 315 (1-b) of the
RPC.
Salcedo vs. CA
Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan
Guaranty Company, Inc. at Iligan City, which was engaged
in the business of property insurance. Said company had
been suspended from operating and eventually closed by
the Insurance Commissioner since February 21, 1968.

145
Salcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order but

he deliberately concealed the same from complainant
Ponce when he issued on March 18, 1968 a P50,000 fire
insurance policy unto the complainant, and collected
Pl,095.80 as premium. Eventually, the City Court of Iligan
City convicted Salcedo of estafa.
HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan
Guarantee. When he signed and issued the policy and
collected the premium thereof, he had knowledge that his
company was no longer authorized to conduct insurance
business. This knowledge makes him liable under paragraph
2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC which provides that:
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of
other similar deceits.
To secure a conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315
of the RPC, the following requisites must concur:
that the accused made false pretenses or

fraudulent representations as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary
that such false premises or fraudulent

representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or
property, and that as result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
All these requisites are present in this case. The deliberate
concealment by Salcedo of the fact that his company was
no longer authorized to engage in the business of insurance
when he signed and issued the fire insurance policy and
collected the premium payment constitutes false
representations or false pretenses, upon which the
complainant relied when he paid the premium.
People v. Remullo, 383 SCRA 93 (2002)
FACTS: Quinsaat, Cadacio, and Mejia went to
appellant's house sometime in March 1993, where
Remullo told them she was recruiting factory workers
for Malaysia. Remullo told them to fill up application
forms and to go to the office of Jamila and Co., the
recruitment agency where Remullo allegedly worked.
Remullo also required each applicant to submit a
passport, pictures, and clearance from the NBI; and
then to undergo a medical examination The three
were then asked by Remullo to pay a placement fee
of P15,000 for each applicant, which they did. No
receipts were issued for said payments. At the time
of their supposed departure, an immigration officer
at the airport told the victims they lacked a
requirement imposed by the POEA. Their passports
were cancelled and their boarding passes marked
"offloaded".
Evelyn Landrito, vice president and
general manager of Jamila later certified that
appellant was not authorized to receive payments on
behalf of Jamila.
HELD: In this case, appellant clearly defrauded
private complainants by deceiving them into believing that
she had the power and authority to send them on jobs
abroad. By virtue of appellant's false representations,
private complainants each parted with their hard-earned

money. Each complainant paid P15,000 as recruitment fee
to appellant, who then appropriated the money for her own
use and benefit, but failed utterly to provide overseas job
placements to the complainants. In a classic rigmarole,
complainants were provided defective visas, brought to the
airport with their passports and tickets, only to be
offloaded that day, but with promises to be booked in a
plane flight on another day. The recruits wait in vain for
weeks, months, even years, only to realize they were
gypped, as no jobs await them abroad. No clearer cases of
estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant
should be held criminally responsible.
Through conversion or
misappropriation
Crisanto Lee v. People (2005)
FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in the
trading of animal feeds. Robert Crisanto Lee was the
corporation's sales manager from early 90's to 1994. In the
course of Lee's employment therewith, he was able to bring
in Ocean Feed Mills as a client. Having "personally found"
Ocean Feed Mills, he handled said account. Transactions
between the two companies were then coursed through
Lee, so that it was upon the latter's instructions that Ocean
Feed Mills addressed its payments through telegraphic
transfers to either "Atoz Trading and/or Robert Lee" or
"Robert Lee".
When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in
1994, Atoz audited some of the accounts handled by him. It
was then that Atoz discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaid
account in the amount of P318,672.00. Atoz thus notified
Ocean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was no longer connected
with the corporation, and advised it to verify its accounts.
Promptly preparing a certification and summary of
payments, Ocean Feed Mills informed Atoz that they have
already fully settled their accounts and even made
overpayments. Atoz filed several cases of estafa against
Lee, and the trial court found him guilty.
HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are
as follows: a) that money, goods or other personal property
is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or
for administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; b) that
there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender; or denial on his part of such
receipt; c) that such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another.
The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as used
in the aforequoted law connote an act of using or disposing
of another's property as if it were one's own or of devoting
it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
"misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or
benefit, not only the conversion to one's personal
advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without a right. Misappropriation or
conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
Demand is not an element of the felony or a
condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint
for estafa. Indeed, the accused may be convicted of the
felony under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code if the prosecution proved misappropriation or
conversion by the accused of the money or property
subject of the Information. In a prosecution for estafa,

146
demand is not necessary where there is evidence of

misappropriation or conversion. However, failure to
account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust,
is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Jorge Salazar v. People (2004)
FACTS: Skiva International, Inc. is a New Yorkbased corporation which imports clothes from the
Philippines through its buying agent, Olivier (Philippines)
Inc. Aurora Manufacturing & Development Corporation
(Aurora) and Uni-Group Inc. (Uni-Group) are domestic
corporations which supply finished clothes to Skiva. Mr.
Werner Lettmayr is the President of both Aurora and UniGroup while the petitioner, Jorge Salazar, is the VicePresident and Treasurer of Uni-Group and a consultant of
Aurora.
In December 1985, Skiva informed Olivier that it
needs ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January
1986. Olivier, in turn, contacted Aurora and Uni-Group to
supply the jeans. Thus, a Purchase Contract was issued by
Olivier to Uni-Group wherein Uni-Group was to supply 700
dozens of Ladies Jeans payable by means of a letter of
credit at sight.
On January 7, 1986, the parties agreed that Skiva
will advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount of
US$41,300.00 (then equivalent to P850,370.00 at the
exchange rate of P20.59 to US$1.00) as Aurora/Uni-Group
did not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials to
manufacture the jeans. It was also agreed that the amount
advanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its order
of 700 dozens of ladies jeans. Skiva remitted the funds by
way of telegraphic transfer from its bank in New York, the
Israel Discount Bank, to the joint account of Mr. and Mrs.
Jorge Salazar and Mr. and Mrs. Werner Lettmayr at Citibank
N.A.
Mr. Jorge Salazar withdrew money from the dollar
account converted it into pesos and purchased cloth for the
manufacture of 300 dozens of ladies jeans. The balance
was allegedly returned by him. However, the balance was
later found missing. Resultantly Aurora/Uni-Group failed to
produce the 700 dozens of ladies jeans resulting in a suit
against them. Salazar was charged and convicted. His
conviction was upheld even by the Supreme Court.
However in this Motion for Reconsideration, the SC
reversed and held he was innocent.
HELD: We find merit in the new motion. The
elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money,
goods or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same; (b) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property
by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (c)
that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (d) there is demand by the
offended party to the offender.
We reiterate that the contract between Skiva and
Aurora was one of sale. After the perfection of the contract
of sale, Mr. Werner Lettmayr, representing Aurora/UniGroup, requested Skiva for advance payment in order to
procure the raw materials needed for the 700-dozen ladies
jeans. It was also Mr. Lettmayr who suggested that the
advance payment be made to the joint account of himself
and his wife, together with petitioner and his wife. As
requested, $41,300.00 was transmitted by Skiva as advance

payment. Despite the payment, there was delay in the
performance of contract on the part of Aurora/Uni-Group.
Petitioner and the OSG contend that under these facts,
Skiva has no cause to complain that petitioner committed
estafa. We agree. In Abeto vs. People, we held that an
advance payment is subject to the disposal of the
vendee. If the transaction fails, the obligation to return
the advance payment ensues but this obligation is civil
and not of criminal nature. In fine, the remedy of Skiva
against Aurora/Uni-Group for breaching its contract is a
civil, not a criminal suit.
Virgie Serona v Court of Appeals (2002)
FACTS: Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces of
jewelry to Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis. By
oral agreement of the parties, petitioner shall remit
payment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold to
Quilatan, both within 30 days from receipt of the items.
Upon petitioner's failure to pay, Quilatan required her to
execute an acknowledgment receipt indicating their
agreement and the total amount due. Unknown to
Quilatan, Serona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to one
Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission basis.
Serona was not able to collect payment from Labrador,
which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to
Quilatan. After demand, Quilatan filed a complaint with
the prosecutor and Serona was charged with estafa. The
trial court found her guilty.
HELD: Serona did not ipso facto commit the
crime of estafa through conversion or misappropriation by
delivering the jewelry to a sub-agent for sale on
commission basis. We are unable to agree with the lower
courts' conclusion that this fact alone is sufficient ground
for holding that petitioner disposed of the jewelry "as if it
were hers, thereby committing conversion and a clear
breach of trust." It must be pointed out that the law on
agency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by an
agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of an
express agreement to the contrary between the agent and
the principal. In the case at bar, the appointment of
Labrador as petitioner's sub-agent was not expressly
prohibited by Quilatan in the acknowledgement receipt.
Neither does it appear that Serona was verbally forbidden
by Quilatan from passing on the jewelry to another person
before the acknowledgment receipt was executed or at any
other time. Thus, it cannot be said that Serona 's act of
entrusting the jewelry to Labrador is characterized by
abuse of confidence because such an act was not
proscribed and is, in fact, legally sanctioned.
Cristeta Chua Burce v Court of Appeals (2000)
FACTS: After finding a shortage of P150,000.00 in
the vault of Metrobank, Calapan Branch, several
investigations were carried out, all of them concluded that
the person primarily responsible was the banks Cash
Custodian, Cristeta Chua-Burce. She was found guilty of
estafa by the trial court.
HELD: Petitioner herein being a mere cash
custodian had no juridical possession over the missing
funds. Hence, the element of juridical possession being
absent, petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of
estafa under Article 315, No. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal
Code.

147
When the money, goods, or any other personal

property is received by the offender from the offended
party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for
administration, the offender acquires both material or
physical possession and juridical possession of the thing
received. Juridical possession means a possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which the
transferee may set up even against the owner. In this case,
petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily
responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of the
cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller,
both being mere bank employees.
In People v. Locson, the receiving teller of a bank
misappropriated the money received by him for the bank.
He was found liable for qualified theft on the theory that
the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank.
We explained in Locson that
"The money was in the possession of the
defendant as receiving teller of the bank, and the
possession of the defendant was the possession of the
bank. When the defendant, with grave abuse of
confidence, removed the money and appropriated it to his
own use without the consent of the bank, there was the
taking or apoderamiento contemplated in the definition of
the crime of theft."
In the subsequent case of Guzman v. Court of
Appeals, 28 a travelling sales agent misappropriated or
failed to return to his principal the proceeds of things or
goods he was commissioned or authorized to sell. He was,
however, found liable for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of
the Revised Penal Code, and not qualified theft. In the
Guzman case, we explained the distinction between
possession of a bank teller and an agent for purposes of
determining criminal liability
"The case cited by the Court of Appeals (People
vs. Locson, 57 Phil. 325), in support of its theory that
appellant only had the material possession of the
merchandise he was selling for his principal, or their
proceeds, is not in point. In said case, the receiving teller
of a bank who misappropriated money received by him for
the bank, was held guilty of qualified theft on the theory
that the possession of the teller is the possession of the
bank. There is an essential distinction between the
possession by a receiving teller of funds received from third
persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the
proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in
agency by his principal. In the former case, payment by
third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself;
the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds
received, and has no independent right or title to retain or
possess the same as against the bank. An agent, on the
other hand, can even assert, as against his own principal,
an independent, autonomous, right to retain money or
goods received in consequence of the agency; as when the
principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made,
and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault
(Article 1915, [N]ew Civil Code; Article 1730, old)."
Through false pretenses,

fraudulent acts or means
People v Francisco Hernandez (2002)
FACTS: Eight (8) informations for syndicated
and large scale illegal recruitment and eight (8)
informations for estafa were filed against accusedappellants, spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl.
The evidence for the prosecution consisted of

the testimonies of private complainants; a certification
from
the
Philippine
Overseas
Employment
Administration (POEA) that Karl Reichl and Yolanda
Gutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities were
neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit
workers for overseas employment; the receipts for the
payment made by private complainants; and two
documents signed by the Reichl spouses where they
admitted that they promised to secure Austrian tourist
visas for private complainants and that they would
return all the expenses incurred by them if they are not
able to leave by March 24, 1993, 3 and where Karl
Reichl pledged to refund to private complainants the
total sum of P1,388,924.00 representing the amounts
they paid for the processing of their papers. The
defense interposed denial and alibi. The trial court
convicted accused-appellants of one (1) count of illegal
recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa.
HELD: SC upheld the trial court stating that,
the prosecution also proved the guilt of accusedappellants for the crime of estafa. A person who is
convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be
convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the Revised
Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are
present.
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the
Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely
pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud. The offended party must have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the
accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damages.
It has been proved in this case that accused-appellants
represented themselves to private complainants to
have the capacity to send domestic helpers to Italy,
although they did not have any authority or license. It
is by this representation that they induced private
complainants to pay a placement fee of P150,000.00.
Such act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2)
of the Revised Penal Code.
Roberto Erquiaga vs Court of Appeals ( 2001)
FACTS: Honesta Bal is a businesswoman who
owned a bookstore. Sometime in May 1989, she was
contacted by Manuel Dayandante @ Manny Cruz who
offered to buy her land in Pili, Camarines Sur. He told
Honesta that the company he represented was
interested in purchasing her property. Her daughter and
she met Dayandante and a certain Lawas (Rodolfo
Sevilla) at the Aristocrat Hotel. They said they worked
as field purchasing representative and field purchasing
head, respectively, of the Taiwanese Marine Products.
They persuaded Honesta to purchase cans of a marine
preservative which, could be bought for P1,500 each
from a certain peddler. In turn, they would buy these
cans from her at P2,000 each.
The following day, May 20, 1989 Glenn
Orosco, appeared at Honesta's store and introduced
himself as an agent, a.k.a. "Rey," who sold said marine
preservative. Honesta purchased a can which she sold
to Dayandante for P1,900. The following day, May 21,
Orosco brought five more cans which Honesta bought

148
and eventually sold to Lawas. It was during this

transaction that petitioner Roberto Erquiaga, a.k.a.
"Mr. Guerrerro," was introduced to Honesta to ascertain
whether the cans of marine preservative were genuine
or not.
On May 24, Orosco delivered 215 cans to
Honesta. Encouraged by the huge profits from her
previous transactions, she purchased all 215 cans for
P322,500. She borrowed the money from a Jose Bichara
at 10% interest on the advice of Erquiaga who lent her
P5,000.00 as deposit or earnest money and who
promised to shoulder the 10% interest of her loan. Soon
after the payment, Lawas, Dayandante, Erquiaga, and
Orosco vanished. Realizing that she was conned,
Honesta reported the incident to the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) which, upon examination of the
contents of the cans, discovered that these were
nothing more than starch.
On December 4, 1989, an Information for
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised
Penal Code, was filed against Roberto Erquiaga, Glenn
Orosco, Pastor Lawas and Manuel Dayandante.
HELD: That petitioners had conspired with
each other must be viewed not in isolation from but in
relation to an alleged plot, a sting, or "con operation"
known as "negosyo" of their group. Further, whether
such a well-planned confidence operation resulted in
the consummated crime of estafa, however, must be
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt.
The elements of estafa or swindling under
paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
18 are the following:
1.
That there must be a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means.
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
3. That the offended party must have relied
on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means, that is, he was induced to part with his money
or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means.
4. That as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
Erquiaga misrepresented himself as a
"verifier" of the contents of the cans. He encouraged
Honesta to borrow money. Petitioner Orosco
misrepresented himself as a seller of marine
preservative. They used aliases, Erquiaga as "Mr.
Guerrero"; and Orosco as "Rey". Honesta fell for these
misrepresentations and the lure of profits offered by
petitioners made her borrow money upon their
inducement, and then petitioners disappeared from the
scene after taking the money from her.
Elsa Jose v People [G.R. No. 148371. August 12,

2004.]
FACTS: 24 November 1994, Regie Ramos
Rosario went with her aunt Yolanda B. Bautista to
office of Elsa Ramos. They asked Ramos whether
was a travel agent. Ramos told del Rosario that
was a professional travel agent and would assist
del
the
she
she
her
in going to Japan, as the former had several

connection(s) at the Japanese Embassy. Ramos stated
she could help in the processing of passport, visa and
round trip ticket.
Del Rosario gave P30,000.00 as initial
payment and another P17,000.00 at a later date.
Ramos assured them that the visa would be obtained
soon and the P17,000.00 was in payment of the round
trip ticket. Further, Ramos asked for another
P57,000.00 stating that part of the money would be
used to expedite the release of the visa. They were
assured that she would be able to leave for Japan with
her mother. All these payments were accompanied by a
written receipt. Thereafter, Del Rosario kept following
up her papers with Ramos who insisted on her prior
assurances that the visa would soon be released. Del
Rosario thereafter filed a case for estafa against
Ramos, the RTC found her guilty as did the Court of
Appeals.
HELD:
Deceit
refers
to
a
false
representation of a matter of fact (whether by words
or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed)
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
On record are, on the one hand, the pieces of
evidence submitted by the People of the Philippines
establishing how petitioner held herself out as a
professional travel agent who could process and obtain
for private respondent a passport, as well as a roundtrip ticket to and a visa for Japan. This charade
convinced the latter and her family to part with their
P104,000. On the other hand is the testimony of
petitioner
denying
she
ever
made
such
misrepresentation.
The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused made false pretenses as to her
qualifications and the transactions she had purportedly
entered into as a professional travel agent, who could
assist in processing private respondents travel papers.
Undisputedly, she was not a travel agent. Neither was
she licensed to engage in the business of travel agency.
I
ndeed, private respondent has shown her
gullibility and perhaps even foolishness in believing
petitioner and in consequently parting with her
P104,000; Others more sensible might not have done so
in a similar situation. But such naivete cannot absolve
petitioner of criminal liability. It has been established
with moral certainty that she intentionally committed a
crime in violation of the law enacted precisely to
protect not only the wary and the wily, but more so the
gullible and the guileless.
Eliza Pablo v People (2004]
FACTS: The complainant Evangeline Bates was
approached by Eliza Pablo and Felomina Jacobe and
Victoria Roberto Bates. Eliza introduced Victoria and
Felomina to her. The three convinced her to contribute
P330,000.00 as her share in the payment of the back
taxes due on a parcel of land owned by the late
Pulmano Molintas in Baguio City, and once the title is
validated she will be assigned a 2,500-square meter
portion of the land. Because Eliza is her townmate and
since Victoria assured her that her son is married to a
daughter of Pulmano, she agreed.
Evangeline gave more than P330,000.00, or
the total amount of P332,000.00, because the three

149
accused represented to her that they needed expenses

in following up the papers of the land.
Subsequently, Evangeline found out that instead of
paying for the back taxes and validation of the
property, the three accused divided the money among
themselves. Evangeline demanded the return of her
money and the three accused executed their respective
promissory notes. Failing to pay, Evangeline filed a
criminal complaint against them.
HELD: Deceit is defined as the false
representation of a matter of fact, whether by words
or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. False
pretense is any deceitful practice or device by which
another is led to part with the property in the thing
taken.
The deceit or false pretense employed by
petitioners is the fact that they assured complainant
that the amount of P330,000.00 delivered to them and
accused Victoria by Evangeline was to pay the back
taxes of a certain parcel of land so that a title may be
secured and complainant will be given 2,500 square
meters of the subject land.
The failure of petitioners and accused Roberto in not
paying the back taxes and in misappropriating the money to
their own personal use, constitute the crime of Estafa.
Even if the land exists, the crime of Estafa is committed
when petitioners and accused Roberto convinced
complainant to part with her money on the basis of their
assurance that they will pay the back taxes due on the land
so as to secure a title over the land and a portion thereof
titled in the name of complainant.
Bouncing Checks
BP 22
People v Grace Flores (2002)
FACTS: Grace Flores issued a check in
payment of one (1) man's ring with a 5.8 ct. diamond
from Pacita Del Rosario. The check was dishonored and
payment thereof refused for the reason "ACCOUNT
CLOSED", notwithstanding due notice to her of such
dishonor of said check, failed and refused to deposit
the necessary amount of said check. Cases for Estafa
and violation of B.P 22 were filed. The RTC found
Flores guilty.
HELD: The elements of estafa, as defined
under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and
amended by Republic Act No. 4885, are: (1) that the
offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or
issuance; (2) that at the time of the issuance of the
check, the offender had no funds in the bank or the
funds deposited were insufficient to cover the amount
of the check; and (3) that the payee has been
defrauded. 10
These elements are present in this case.
Accused-appellant admitted that she issued PCIB Check
No. 558574, dated October 20, 1992, for P662,250.00
to Pacita G. Del Rosario. 11 The check was issued as
payment for a ring and the P250.00 transportation fare
which accused-appellant received from complainant.
The fraudulent intent of accused-appellant

had been proven to exist at the time of the issuance of
the check. She misrepresented to complainant that she
was financially stable and that her business was
flourishing. In reality, however, accused-appellant had
no funds sufficient to cover the check she issued to
complainant. It is thus clear that she obtained the
amounts of P662,000.00 and P250.00 through deceit. As
already stated, the account was closed on the very
date of the postdated check issued to complainant.
People v Alexander Dinglasan (2002)

FACTS: Alexander Dinglasan was the owner
and operator of Alexander Transport, while private
complainant Charles Q. Sia is the owner of Schanika
Enterprises engaged in retailing nylon tires. Dinglasan
issued three checks as payment for tire purchases.
When the checks fell due, Sia deposited them, but the
drawee bank, Banco de Oro, dishonored these for
insufficiency of funds. He then tried to call Dinglasan
several times, but his calls were unanswered. Sia, with
the assistance of a lawyer, then sent appellant a
demand letter. All he got were promises that appellant
would pay the amounts due, 13 finally prompting him
to hale appellant to court. Dinglasan vigorously denied
any intent to deceive or defraud Sia. He vehemently
insisted that his refusal to pay Sia was primarily due to
the poor quality of the tires sold him by the latter. The
trial court convicted Dinglasan.
HELD: Dinglasan was charged and convicted
of estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal
Code. 22 The elements of the offense are: (1)
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued;
(2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check; (3)
knowledge on the part of the offender of such
circumstances; and (4) damage to the complainant. The
first element of the offense requires that the
dishonored check must have been postdated or issued
at the time the obligation was contracted. In other
words, the date the obligation was entered into, being
the very date the check was issued or postdated, is a
material ingredient of the offense. Hence, not only
must said date be specifically and particularly alleged
in the information, it must be proved as alleged.
In the present case, the prosecution's
evidence clearly and categorically shows that there was
no transaction between the parties on July 30, 1994,
for which Check No. 029014 was issued. In other words,
no obligation was contracted on July 30, 1994, for
which Check No. 029014 was allegedly postdated by
appellant. The situation obtains similarly regarding
Check No. 029020. Again, there was no obligation
contracted by the parties on July 24, 1994 for which
appellant allegedly postdated another check. Evidently,
the first element of the offense was neither correctly
alleged nor proven by the prosecution. Hence,
appellant cannot be charged much less found guilty of
estafa with respect to Checks Nos. 029014 and 029020.
People v Aloma Reyes (2005)
FACTS: Aloma Reyes, together with her
daughter, issued Jules Alabastro a check for
rediscounting. He was allegedly lured to part with his
money due to their seeming honest representations

150
that the check was good and would never bounce.

However, when the check was presented to the drawee
bank for encashment, the same was dishonored for the
reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and after having been
notified by such dishonor said accused failed and
refused to redeem said check despite repeated
demands.
HELD: Appellant avers that the subject check
does not fall within the meaning of Section 185 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law which defines a "check" as
a "bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on
demand." First, the NOW check is drawn against the
savings, not the current account, of appellant. Second,
it is payable only to a specific person or the "payee"
and is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to
"CASH." Appellant quotes the restriction written on the
face of a NOW check:
"NOW" shall be payable only to a specific
person, natural or juridical. It is not valid when made
payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when [i]ndorsed by
the payee to another person. Only the payee can
encash this "NOW" with the drawee bank or deposit it in
his account with the drawee bank or with any other
bank.
Appellant posits that this condition strips the
subject check the character of negotiability. Hence, it
is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable
Instruments Law, and not the "check" contemplated in
Criminal Law.
We disagree.
Section X223 of the Manual of Regulations for
Banks defines Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW)
Accounts as interest-bearing deposit accounts that
combine the payable on demand feature of checks and
the investment feature of savings accounts.
The fact that a NOW check shall be payable
only to a specific person, and not valid when made
payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when indorsed by
the payee to another person, is inconsequential. The
same restriction is produced when a check is crossed:
only the payee named in the check may deposit it in his
bank account. If a third person accepts a cross check
and pays cash for its value despite the warning of the
crossing, he cannot be considered in good faith and
thus not a holder in due course. The purpose of the
crossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed by
the rightful payee only. Yet, despite the restriction on
the negotiability of cross checks, we held that they are
negotiable instruments.
To be sure, negotiability is not the gravamen
of the crime of estafa through bouncing checks. It is
the fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuing
a worthless check that is penalized.
Deceit, to constitute estafa, should be the
efficient cause of defraudation. It must have been
committed either prior or simultaneous with the
defraudation complained of. There must be
concomitance: the issuance of a check should be the
means to obtain money or property from the payee.
Hence, a check issued in payment of a pre-existing
obligation does not constitute estafa even if there is no
fund in the bank to cover the amount of the check.
Manuel Nagrampa v People (2002)

FACTS: Nagrampa issued 2 checks (Php75,000
each) to Fedcor Trading Corp represented by Federico
Santander on August 31, 1989 and September 30, 1989

drawn against the Security Bank . When said checks
were presented to the bank for payment, the same
were dishonored for the reason that the drawer did not
have any funds therein. Despite notice of dishonor
thereof, Nagrampa failed and refused to redeem or
make good said checks, 2 cases were filed against him.
The trial court found Nagrampa guilty of two counts of
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law and sentencing
him to suffer imprisonment for two years and pay
FEDCOR P150,000.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court
of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.
No. 18082. Upon noticing that the 30 September 1993
Decision of the trial court did not resolve the issue of
petitioner's liability for estafa, the Court of Appeals
issued on 19 May 1998 a resolution 18 ordering the
return of the entire records of the case to the trial
court for the latter to decide the estafa case against
petitioner.
HELD: We l sustain the conviction for the
crime of estafa. Settled is the rule that, to constitute
estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of
defraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to,
or simultaneous with, the act of fraud. The offender
must be able to obtain money or property from the
offended party because of the issuance of the check, or
the person to whom the check was delivered would not
have parted with his money or property had there been
no check issued to him. Stated otherwise, the check
should have been issued as an inducement for the
surrender by the party deceived of his money or
property, and not in payment of a pre-existing
obligation.
People v. Rica Cuyugan (2002)
FACTS: Rica G. Cuyugan issued to Norma
Abagat several checks in payment of supplies she
wanted to buy for the Philippine Armed Forces. When
the checks were presented for payment, they were all
dishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn against
insufficient funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED.
Despite repeated demands, appellant failed to make
good the checks, which constrained the Abagat spouses
to file a complaint for estafa against Cuyugan. Cuygan
claimed that the Abagat spousesand she were partners
in obtaining construction projects with the Philippine
Army. She issued postdated checks as proof that the
Abagat spouses had invested their money with her. She
claimed that she was the industrial partner as she did
all the legwork in getting the projects. They then
shared in the profits after deducting all the
miscellaneous expenses.
The trial court found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of estafa committed by means of
false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, that
is by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment
of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient
to cover the amount of the check.
HELD: We find the appeal meritorious. The
transaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses,
in our view, was one for a loan of money to be used by
appellant in her business and she issued checks to
guarantee the payment of the loan. As such, she has

151
the obligation to make good the payment of the money

borrowed by her. But such obligation is civil in
character and in the absence of fraud, no criminal
liability under the Revised Penal Code arises from the
mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of
repayment.
Pio TImbal v Court of Appeals (2001)
FACTS: A husband was held by the court a quo
accountable for estafa through false pretense on
account of a check issued by his wife. Judy I. Bigornia
delivered hog meat to the spouses Timbal at their stall
located at the Farmer's Market. In payment, Maritess
Timbal issued in favor of Bigornia a check for
P80,716.00. The husband- Pio Timbal was present when
the check was issued and handed over by his wife
Maritess to Bigornia. When the latter presented the
check to the bank for encashment, it was dishonored
on the ground that the account was closed. Pio Timbal
contended that he had no active participation in the
business of his wife and claimed that when the check
was issued by his wife he was manning his own
restaurant.
HELD: The petition has merit. The decision of
the trial court, as well as that of the appellate court,
would reveal that the main basis used in convicting
petitioner was the fact of his presence at the time of
the issuance of the check by his wife. Nothing else was
shown nor reflected in the appealed decision that could
indicate any overt act on the part of petitioner that
would even remotely suggest that he had a hand in
dealing with Bigornia. Timbals mere presence at the
scene of a crime would not by itself establish
conspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an act or
series of acts, participated in the commission of fraud
to the damage of the complainant.
People v. Ernst Holzer (2000)

FACTS: Ernst Holzer et al were the owners of
MGF ELECTRONICS SATELLITE SUPPLY, a business
engaged in selling and installing satellite antenna
system. They installed a system in the house of
Bernhard Forster. Forster was not satisfied with the
satellite antenna installed and the equipment which
came with it which he thought were second-hand.
Moreover, he wanted a bigger antenna. He was assured
by accused-appellant Holzer that should new
equipment arrive from abroad, the used equipment
would be replaced and another antenna would be
given.
Holzer informed complainant that new
equipment had arrived in Manila. His money, however,
was not enough to secure the release of the equipment
from the Bureau of Customs. For this reason, he asked
complainant to lend him P100,000.00. Complainant
agreed and issued a check for P100,000.00 to accusedappellant Holzer. In exchange, the latter issued a post
dated check. Before the due date, accused-appellant
Holzer asked the complainant not to deposit the check
on August 1, 1995. Four days later, accused-appellant
again asked the latter not to deposit the check because
the money from Switzerland to cover the check had not
yet arrived.
Despite the request, however, complainant
deposited the check on August 9, 1995. As to be
expected, the check was dishonored for having been
drawn against insufficient funds. On the same day,

complainant filed a complaint for estafa
HELD: In view of the amendment of Art.

315(2)(d) by R.A. No. 4885, the following are no longer
elements of estafa:
1. knowledge of the drawer that he has no
funds in the bank or that the funds deposited
by him are not sufficient.
2. failure to inform the payee of such
circumstance 18
The drawer of the dishonored check is given
three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to
deposit the amount necessary to cover the check.
Otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit will
arise which must then be overcome by the accused.
People v. Ojeda (2004)

FACTS: Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics
(telas) from complainant Ruby Chua. For the three
years approximately she transacted business with Chua,
appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics
she bought. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased
from Chua various fabrics and textile materials worth
P228,306 for which she issued 22 postdated checks
bearing different dates and amounts.
The 22 checks were all dishonored. Demands
were allegedly made to make good the dishonored
checks, to no avail. Estafa and BP 22 charges were
thereafter filed against Ojeda. The trial court
convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined
and penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her to
reclusion perpetua. The trial court also convicted
appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing
checks. However, the court a quo held her guilty of
only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued.
HELD: Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of
the RPC, as amended by RA 4885, 20 the elements of
estafa are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is
issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. Deceit and
damage are essential elements of the offense and must
be established by satisfactory proof to warrant
conviction. Thus, the drawer of the dishonored check is
given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor
to cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a prima
facie presumption of deceit arises.
The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this
case. The prima facie presumption of deceit was
successfully rebutted by appellant's evidence of good
faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check. Good
faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor's
offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. In
this case, the debtor not only made arrangements for
payment; as complainant herself categorically stated,
the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of
the dishonored checks.
It must be noted that our Revised Penal Code
was enacted to penalize unlawful acts accompanied by
evil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. The
principal consideration is the existence of malicious

152
intent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence

and intent which together make up the "criminal mind"
behind the "criminal act." Thus, to constitute a crime,
the act must, generally and in most cases, be
accompanied by a criminal intent. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. No crime is committed if the
mind of the person performing the act complained of is
innocent. As we held in Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan:
XXX
The rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana,
although this case involved falsification of public
documents and estafa:
"Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an
unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when
the criminal mind is wanting."
American jurisprudence echoes the same
principle. It adheres to the view that criminal intent in
embezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as to
the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into,
and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the
person doing the act is innocent or if there is no
wrongful purpose.
The accused may thus prove that he acted in
good faith and that he had no intention to convert the
money or goods for his personal benefit. We are
convinced that appellant was able to prove the absence
of criminal intent in her transactions with Chua. Had
her intention been tainted with malice and deceit,
appellant would not have exerted extraordinary effort
to pay the complainant, given her own business and
financial reverses.
People v. Dimalanta (2004)

FACTS: Josefina Dimalanta who was then
employed at the Caloocan City Engineer's Office, called
up complainant Elvira D. Abarca on the telephone to
express her desire to purchase jewelry. Complainant
went to Dimalantas house where the latter purchased
twelve pairs of jewelry. In payment thereof, appellant
issued twelve postdated checks with the representation
that the same will be sufficiently funded on their
respective maturity dates.
The first check issued by Dimalanta was
honored and paid by the drawee bank. However, the
remaining eleven checks were all returned unpaid since
the account was closed. On demand Dimalanta failed to
make good on the checks. The trial court convicted
Dimalanta of Estafa.
HELD: Damage and deceit are essential
elements of the offense and must be established with
satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The false
pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to
or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check.
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish
beyond a shadow of a doubt that appellant employed
deceit. Its evidence was overcome by the defense's
proof that the pieces of jewelry were not purchased by
appellant for her own use; rather the same were
merely given to her for resale.
We find that appellant acted in good faith
during the transaction. After the first check was
dishonored, she exerted best efforts to make good the
value of the check, albeit only to the extent of
P25,000.00. Good faith is a defense to a charge of
Estafa by postdating a check. This may be manifested
by appellant's act of offering to make arrangements

with complainant as to the manner of payment.
BP 22
An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and
Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or
Credit and For Other Purposes
Section 1
BP 22 may be violated in TWO ways
Elements of the offense defined in the first paragraph
of Section 1:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any
check
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to
apply on account or for value
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues
the check knows at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of such check
in full upon its presentment
4. That the check
a. is subsequently dishonored by the drawee
bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or
b. would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment
Elements of the offense defined in the second
paragraph of Section 1:
1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when he makes or draws
and issues a check
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the
check if presented within a period of 90 days
from the date appearing thereon
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee
bank
Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check, not

the payment of the obligation. The law has made
the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum
prohibitum
BP 22 vs. Estafa under Article 315 par 2

(d):
1. Unlike estafa, element of DAMAGE is NOT
REQUIRED in BP 22
2.
Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has DECEIT as

an element. BP 22 does NOT require such
element.
3.
Also, the mere fact of postdating or issuing

a check when the drawer had no or
insufficient funds in the bank makes
someone liable under Article 315 par 2(d) of
estafa. BP 22, 1st paragraph requires
knowledge of insufficient funds.
The check may be drawn and issued to "apply

on account of for value": BP 22 does not make a
distinction as to whether the bad check is issued

153
in payment of an obligation or to merely

guarantee an obligation
Illustration for Section 1, par 1, element 4:
There was a mistake in naming the payee of the

check; so the drawer ordered the bank to stop
payment; and it appeared that the drawer knew at
the time that the check was issued that he had no
sufficient funds in the bank. In this case, NO
VIOLATION OF BP 22!
Even if the check would have been dishonored for
insufficiency of funds had he not ordered the bank to
stop payment, there was a VALID reason (wrong
payee) for ordering the bank to stop payment.
BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn by

a corporation, company, or entity: the person/s
who ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of
such drawer
Section 2
Section establishes a prima facie evidence of
"knowledge of insufficiency ": when payment of the
check is refused by the drawee because of
insufficient funds / credit when the check is
presented within 90 days from the date of such
check
Exception:
a. when the maker or drawer pays the holder
thereof of the amount due thereon or
b. makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such check within 5 banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee
HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses.

Estafa needs deceit and damage, not for pre-existing
obligations, crime against poperty and is mala in se. BP 22:
deceit and damage not required because mere issuance
gives presumption of guilt, can be for a pre-existing debt,
crime against public order and is mala prohibitum.
People vs. Gorospe
Parulan paid check in Bulacan. Check was forwarded in BPI
Pampanga, then dishonored. Case was filed in Pampanga
but was dismissed, as the court had no jurisdiction on the
case.
HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction! Violation of BP
22 AND estafa are transitory crimes. Deceit happened in
Pampanga where it was uttered/delivered while the
damage was done in Bulacan where it was issued.
Que vs. People
Que issued checks in Quezon City. Checks were used to pay
for the purchase made in Sta. Mesa. Checks were issued
NOT to pay for an obligation but just to guarantee
payment. Checks later dishonored.
HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction.
Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT
important as law does not distinguish-- included as long as
it was an issued check that subsequently bounced.
People vs. Nitafan
Section 3
Section 3 requires the drawee
1. in case where drawee refuses to pay the check
to the holder:
Write, print, or stamp on the check or to be
attached thereto the reason for dishonoring.
2.
Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored. He

was charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. 1 count
of violation of BP 22. Nievas invokes double jeopardy.
in case drawee bank received an order to stop

payment, it should state in the notice that there
were no sufficient funds in or credit with it for
the payment in full of the check, if such be the
fact.
Introduction in evidence of any unpaid and

dishonored check with the drawer's refusal to pay
indicated thereon or attached thereto is prima facie
evidence of:
1. the making or issuance of the check
2. the due presentment to the drawee for payment
and the dishonor thereof; and
3. the fact that the check was properly dishonored
for the reason indicated thereto
Lim issued a memorandum check that was subsequently

dishonored.
HELD: Memorandum Check (one used as evidence for a
debt) falls within coverage of BP 22. Memorandum check is
NOT a PN.
Lim Lao vs. CA
Lim was an officer in a company where she signed checks,
while it was her superior who filled the blanks. Check
which she signed as issuer was dishonored. Convicted for
violating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds when check is issued.
HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable by
contrary evidence. Also, no notice of the dishonor was
given to her; notice only given to the employer which is not
sufficient as law requires personal notice.
Idos vs. CA
Nievas vs. Dacuycuy
Idos and Alarilla had a partnership that was terminated

with each entitled to P1.8M each. Idos issued 4 postdated
checks - 1 was dishonored.

154
HELD: Not guilty as the check was NOT issued for a debt
but as a collateral or evidence of the other partners share.
Sycip vs. CA
Accused here bought a townhouse unit from FRC. Accused
issued 48 postdated checks for the balance. However, due
to the defects and incomplete features of the unit, accused
suspended payments. FRC however continued to present
the checks for payment thus always forcing him to issue
stop order payments. The bank then advised accused to
just close the account in order to save on hefty bank
charges upon every stop order. It is here that 6 checks were
presented by FRC but were dishonored. Accused convicted
under BP22.
HELD: Accused not guilty. 2nd element of BP22 (knowledge
by the issuer of the check that he does not have sufficient
funds) not proven. Proven that there was sufficient funds in
the account and that it was closed not for insufficiency but
upon the banks advice to save on charges.
Other statutes can be used as a valid defense under BP22.
CAB, PD957 that governs sales of townhouses allows the
buyer to suspend payments until the developer has
complied with its obligations to properly furnish the unit.
BP22 and PD957 must be construed together in order to
harmonize their application.
Article 316. Other forms of swindling

I.
Paragraph 1: By conveying, selling,

encumbering, or mortgaging any
real property, pretending to be the
owner of the same.
Elements:
1. That the thing be real property, such as a
parcel of land or a building
2. That the offender who is not the owner of
said property should represent that he is
the owner thereof
3. That the offender should have executed
acts
of ownership
(selling, leasing,
encumbering, or mortgaging the real
property)
4. That the act be made to the prejudice of
a. the owner or
b. a third person
Example:
the
the
the
the
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold

same parcel of land to C, representing to
latter that he (A) was the owner thereof. At
time he sold the land to C, A was no longer
owner of the property.
The thing disposed of must be real property

If property is chattel: ESTAFA!
There must be EXISTING real property

If accused sold non-existent land, he is
guilty of estafa by means of false pretenses.
Deceit consisting in false pretense
Article 316 only penalizes only those who
PRETEND to be the owner of property. Where
the accused CLAIMS to be the owner,
especially if he has a Certificate of Title, there
was no pretension even if his ownership
is defective and later compelled to return the
property to the person found to be the true
owner of the property.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the
second purchaser and the damage is incurred
by the first purchaser, there is violation of Art
316 par 1.
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the
same parcel of land to C, representing to the
latter that he (A) was still the owner thereof. C
registered the sale in his favor. Consequence: B
lost the property due to non-registration in his
favor.
Hence, damage fell on B, the first
purchaser, while deceit was practiced against
C, second purchaser. A will still be liable under
Art 316 par 1 if B files a crim case.
Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient.
There must be actual damage. In fact, fine
prescribed is based on the damage caused
Art 316 par 1 vs. Art 315 par 2(a)
Art 316 par 1: the offender exercises acts of
ownership over the property as part of the
false representation. On the other hand, Art
315 par 2(a) does not need this circumstance.
II.
Paragraph 2: By disposing of real

property
as
free
from
encumbrance,
although
such
encumbrance be not recorded.
Elements:
1. That the thing disposed be real property
2. That the offender knew that the real
property was encumbered, whether the
encumbrance be recorded or not.
3. That there must be express representation
by the offender that the real property is
free from encumbrance
4. That the act of disposing real property be
made to the damage of another

155
III.
Example:
A mortgaged his property to B. Later, A,
misrepresenting that the property is free from
encumbrance, mortgaged it again, this time to
C.
But if C knew that the property had already
been mortgaged to B, C cannot complain, as
there is neither deceit nor fraud.
"Shall dispose of the same"
The act constituting the offense is the
DISPOSING of the real property FALSELY
REPRESENTING
that
it
is
free
from
encumbrance.
"Shall dispose": includes encumbering or
mortgaging.
"Encumbrance": every right or interest in
the land existing in favor of third persons
Mortgage
Ordinary lease
Attachment
Lien of a judgment
Execution sale
The offended party must have been deceived,
that is, he would not have granted the loan had
he known that the property was already
encumbered.
When the loan HAD ALREADY BEEN
GRANTED when defendant later offered the
property as security for the payment of the
loan, Article 316, par 2 is NOT applicable
Conflicting jurisprudence: "Although such
encumbrance be not recorded"
Notwithstanding this phrase, some cases
held that the encumbrance must be legally
constituted! In these cases, since the
encumbrances were NOT registered, accused
were acquitted.
Thing disposed must be REAL property
If the thing encumbered and disposed is
personal
property,
Article
319
applies
(punishing one who sells or pledges personal
property already subject to encumbrance.)
Real property may be registered under any
system of registration
This paragraph applies whether the
property is registered under the Spanish
system or under the Land Registration Act.
Paragraph 3: By wrongful taking

by the owner of his personal
property from its lawful possessor
Elements:
1. That the offender is owner of personal
property
2. That the personal property is in the lawful
possession of another
3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from
its lawful possessor.
4. That prejudice is caused to the possessor
or third person
Example:
Accused pawned his watch to complainant.
Later, pretending to redeem watch, accused
asked offended party to give him the watch.
Once getting hold of his watch, he ran away
without paying the loan.
Note: not theft an owner cannot be held
guilty of theft of his own property.
Offender owner of personal property
If third person and his purpose in taking it is
to return it to the owner, the crime is THEFT.
In lawful possession of another

Finder of a lost thing is NOT a lawful
possessor, it being the obligation of a finder to
give the thing to the owner or to the
authorities.
"Wrongful taking"
If owner takes the thing from a bailee
through (1) VIOLENCE, and (2) WITH INTENT TO
GAIN/ CHARGE THE BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE the
crime is ROBBERY.
If owner takes the thing from a bailee
through (1) VIOLENCE
and (2) WITHOUT
INTENT TO GAIN, crime is GRAVE COERCION
If owner took the thing (1) without consent
and knowledge of possessor and (2) later
charged possessor of the value of the property,
crime is ESTAFA.
"To the prejudice of possessor or third person"
Example: A pledged his watch to B, his
dorm mate to secure a loan of P3000. One
night, A took the watch from the drawer of B
without B's consent and knowledge and used it
156
for the night. A returned later and was about to

put back the watch in the drawer when B
surprised A (Bulaga!!!)
2.
Is A liable under 316, par 3? NO. THERE

WAS NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO B.
4.
IV.
3.
By
executing
any
fictitious
contract to the prejudice of
another
That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such

obligation with his real property/properties
That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other
manner encumbers said real property
That such sale, mortgage or encumbrance
is
a. without express authority from the
court
b. made before the cancellation of his
bond, or
c. made before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him
Elements:
1. Fictitious contract
2. Damage to another
Example:
A person who simulates (consideration is
fictitious) a conveyance to another for the
purpose of defrauding a creditor.
Article 317.
Note: The example above may become a crime

of fraudulent insolvency (Art 314) if the
conveyance is real and made for a
consideration.
V.
By accepting any compensation for

services not rendered or for labor
not performed
Elements:
1. Compensation
wrongfully
received
(accepting compensation for service not
rendered nor performed)
2. Malicious
failure
to
return
the
compensation wrongfully received (fraud)
There must be fraud in this crime, otherwise, it
will only be a case of solutio indebiti under the
Civil Code.
There must be damage caused

under this article.
Swindling a minor
Elements:
1. That the offender takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor.
2. That he induces such minor to:
a. assume an obligation
b. to give release, or
c. to execute a transfer of any property
right
3. That the consideration is
a. some loan of money
b. credit, or
c. other personal property
4. That the transaction is to the detriment of
such minor.
Note: Only personal property, since a minor
can not convey real property
Article 318. Other deceits

Elements:
A.
1. By defrauding or damaging another
2. by any other deceit not mentioned in the
proceeding articles
Paragraph
6:
By
selling,
mortgaging, or encumbering real
property or properties with which
the
offender
guaranteed
the
fulfillment of his obligation as
surety
B.
1. By interpreting dreams, making forecasts,
telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of
the credulity of the public in any other
similar manner
2. For profit or gain
3. Damage to others
Elements:
1. That the offender is a surety in a bond
given in a criminal or civil action.
Note: As in other cases of estafa, DAMAGE

should always be present.
VI.

157
Villaflor vs. CA
5.
Villaflor borrowed P1,000, in turn he offered his car as

collateral (Chattel mortgage instituted). Villaflor failed to
pay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the car
was already repossessed. Villaflor was convicted of Estafa.
HELD: Gulty of Estafa as there was deceit he represented
self as the owner of the car and failed to reveal that the
car was already mortgaged.
Veloso vs. CA
HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure the

veracity of the documents. He was negligent as he
approved the vouchers that had mistakes which were
detectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor.

Increasing The Penalty
Swindling Or Estafa
For
B.
1. That personal property is already pledged
under the Chattel Mortgage Law
2.
3.
District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that led to the

disbursement of 23 checks for a project that was
anomalous. He was convicted of Estafa.
Certain
Forms
Of
Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or

other forms of swindling as defined RPC 315 and 316
shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if the
swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate
consisting of five or more persons formed with the
intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act,
transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the
defraudation results in the misappropriation of
money contributed by stockholders, or members of
rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or
farmers association, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.
When not committed by a syndicate as above
defined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the
fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.
Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of

mortgaged property
Elements:
2 Acts punishable:
A.
1. That
personal
property
is
validly
mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage
Law
2. That the offender knows that such property
is so mortgaged
3. That he removes such mortgaged personal
property to any province or city other than
the one in which it was located at the time
of the execution of the mortgage
4. That the removal is permanent
That there is no written consent of the

mortgage or his executors, administrators
or assigns to such removal
That the offender, who is the mortgagor of

such property, sells or pledges the same or
any part thereof
Such sale/pledge is without the consent of
the mortgagee which is
i. written
ii. at the back of the mortgage and
iii. noted on the record thereof in the
office of the register of deeds
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting

It is essential that the chattel mortgage be
valid and subsisting. If the chattel mortgage
does not contain an affidavit of good faith
and/or is not registered, it is VOID and
CANNOT be a basis for criminal prosecution
under Art 319.
Persons Liable
Even third persons who removed the
property to another province or city are liable
because the offender is "ANY PERSON who
shall knowingly remove"
The removal of the mortgaged property must
be coupled with INTENT TO DEFRAUD.
No violation of Article 319 if the removal
was justified.
Filing a civil action for collection, not for
foreclosure of chattel mortgage, relieves the
accused of criminal responsibility. (based on a
CA case)
If the mortgagee elected to file a suit for
collection (not foreclosure), there can be no
violation of Article 319 anymore since the
mortgage as a basis of relief has already been
abandoned by the suit for collection.
House (generally considered as immovable)
may be a subject of chattel mortgage by
agreement of the parties
Article 319 par 2 also contemplates a second
mortgage.
Damage to the mortgagee is not essential.
Estafa (316, disposing
Removal, sale or

158
encumbered property)
pledge of mortgaged
property
Mortgaged property is sold in disposed of in both
cases
Real property
Personal property
Property must be sold as
Property sold without
free and unencumbered
consent of the
mortgagee in writing,
even if buyer is informed
that property is
mortgaged
Purpose of law: to
Purpose of law: to
protect the purchaser
protect the mortgagee
Articles 320 to 326-B. Arson (repealed or

amended by PD 1613 and PD 1744)
Kinds of arson;
1.
2.
3.
Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential

Decree No. 1613;
Destructive arson, under Article 320 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659;
Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 1613.
P.D. 1613
Amending the Law on Arson
SECTION 1. Arson. Any person who burns or sets

fire to the property of another shall be punished by
Prision Mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person
sets fire to his own property under circumstances
which expose to danger the life or property of
another.
SECTION 2. Destructive Arson. The penalty of
Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to
Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property
burned is any of the following:
1. Any ammunition factory and other establishment
where explosives, inflammable or combustible
materials are stored.
2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private,
or any edifice devoted to culture, education or
social services.
3. Any church or place of worship or other building
where people usually assemble.
4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or
watercraft, or conveyance for transportation of
persons or property.
5. Any building where evidence is kept for use in
any legislative, judicial, administrative or other
official proceedings.
6. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house,
housing tenement, shopping center, public or
private market, theater or movie house or any
similar place or building.
7. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not,
situated in a populated or congested area.
(NOTE:
SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R.A. 7659
AMENDING ART. 320)
SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of

Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be
imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:
1.
Any building used as offices of the
government or any of its agencies;
2.
Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3.
Any industrial establishment, shipyard,
oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
4.
Any plantation, farm, pastureland,
growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove
or forest;
5.
Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or
mill central; and
6.
Any railway or bus station, airport,
wharf or warehouse.
SECTION 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in
Arson. The penalty in any case of arson shall be
imposed in its maximum period;
1.
If committed with intent to gain;
2.
If committed for the benefit of another;
3.
If the offender is motivated by spite or
hatred towards the owner or occupant of the
property burned;
4.
If committed by a syndicate.
The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is
planned or carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons.
SECTION 5. Where Death Results from Arson.
If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson
death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to
SECTION 6. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson.
Any of the following circumstances shall constitute
prima facie evidence of arson:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than
one part of the building or establishment.
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances
or materials are stored within the building not
necessary in the business of the offender nor for
household use.
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other
flammable or combustible substances or
materials soaked therewith or containers
thereof, or any mechanical, electrical, chemical,
or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire,
or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are
found in the ruins or premises of the burned
building or property.
4. If the building or property is insured for
substantially more than its actual value at the
time of the issuance of the policy.
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire
insurance policy more than two fires have
occurred in the same or other premises owned
or under the control of the offender and/or
insured.
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of
the effects insured and stored in a building or
property had been withdrawn from the premises
except in the ordinary course of business.
7. If a demand for money or other valuable
consideration was made before the fire in
exchange for the desistance of the offender or

159
for the safety of the person or property of the

victim.
SECTION 7.
Conspiracy to Commit Arson.
Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished by
Prision Mayor in its minimum period.
SECTION 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. - The
building which is the object of arson including the
land on which it is situated shall be confiscated and
escheated to the State, unless the owner thereof can
prove that he has no participation in nor knowledge
of such arson despite the exercise of due on his part.
Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659

Article 320. Destructive Arson. The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death
shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices,
consequent to one single act of burning, or as
result of simultaneous burnings, or committed
on several or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership,
devoted to the use of the public in general, or
where people usually gather or congregate for a
definite purpose such as but not limited to
official governmental function or business,
private transaction, commerce, trade, worship,
meetings and conferences, or merely incidental
to a definite purpose such as but not limited to
hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public
conveyance or stops or terminals, regardless of
whether the offender had knowledge that there
are persons in said building or edifice at the time
it is set on fire, and regardless also of whether
the building is actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or
airplane,
devoted
to
transportation
or
convenience, or public use, entertainment or
leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and
any appurtenances thereto, which are devoted
to the service of public utilities.
5. Any building, the burning of which is for the
purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of
another violation of law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or
to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above
enumerated
qualifying
circumstances, the
penalty of death shall likewise be imposed when
the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2)
or more persons or by a group of persons,
regardless of whether their purpose is merely to
burn or destroy the building or the edifice, or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death shall also be imposed upon any
person who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military
powder
or
fireworks
factory,
ordnance
storehouse, archives or general museum of the
government.
2.
In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory

of inflammable or explosive materials.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the

acts penalized under this Article, death or injury
results, or any valuable documents, equipment,
machineries, apparatus, or other valuable properties
were burned or destroyed, the mandatory penalty of
NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are

P.D. 1613 and Article 320 as amended by R.A.
7659. The provisions of P.D. 1613 that are
inconsistent with R.A. 7659 (such as Section 2
on destructive arson) are DEEMED REPEALED)
Attempted,
Arson
Frustrated,
and
Consummated
A person, intending to burn a building, collects

some rags, soaks them in gasoline and places
them beside the wooden wall. When he is
about to light a match to set fire to the rags, he
is discovered by another who chases him away.
1.
Attempted arson: the crime committed in

the above scenario is attempted arson,
because the offender commences the
commission of the crime directly by overt
acts but does not perform all the acts of
execution (the setting of fire to the rags)
due to timely intervention.
2.
Frustrated arson: if the person is able to

set fire to the rags but the fire was put out
before any part of the building was burned.
3.
Consummated arson:
a. any charring (CHARING! Whiz na lang,
'day!) of the wood of the building. Not
necessary that the wood should be
ablaze, sufficient that the fiber of the
wood is destroyed
b. mere scorching or discoloration by heat
NOT consummated
c. Setting fire to the contents of the
building is already consummated arson
(setting fire to a building) even if no
part of the building was burned.
d. However small a portion of the building
is BURNED, there is consummated
arson.
In attempted arson, it is not necessary that

there be a fire
Look at the facts if there was intent to burn.
Sec 3, par 2, PD 1613

160
If the property burned is an inhabited house

or dwelling, it is not required that the house be
occupied and that the offender knew it when
the house was burned.
No complex crime of arson with homicide
If after damaging the property, offender

removes/ uses objects of the damage, crime is
THEFT
Caballen vs. DAR
Sec 6, PD 1613, 7 Circumstances constituting

prima facie evidence of arson
Albeit Abajons previous arrangement with the former

owner of the property, Caballes, the new owner, asked
Abajon to vacate the premises where his house was and
where he had planted corn, bananas, and camote. They
had a confrontation over this issue, but reached no
agreement.
Abajon then harvested the bananas and
jackfruit. As the harvesting was done without her consent,
Caballes charged him for malicious mischief.
Standing alone, unexplained or

uncontradicted, any of those circumstance is
sufficient to establish the fact of arson.
HELD: The essential element of the crime of malicious

mischief which is damage deliberately caused to the
property of another is absent because Abajon merely cut
his own plantings. Case was dismissed.
PD 1613: if by reason or on occasion or

arson, death results, homicide is absorbed and
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to Death is
imposed.
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious

mischief
Elements:
1. That the offender deliberately caused
damage to the property of another
2. That such act does not constitute arson or
other crimes involving destruction
3. That the act of damaging another's
property be committed mere for the sake
of damaging it
* 3 element presupposes that offender acted
due to hate, revenge, or other evil motive.
Sometimes, offender also inspired by the mere
pleasure of destroying things.
rd
"Shall deliberately cause to the property of

another any damage"
This means that the offender should act
under this impulse of specific desire to inflict
injury to another. HENCE, malicious mischief
CANNOT
be
committed
through
NEGLIGENCE. Malice and negligence are
essentially incompatible.
"Damage" covers both loss and diminution.
If no malice, only civil liability for damages.
Damaging of property must not result from
crime.
Example: damage done as a result of
another crime- accused chased opponent
around the house to kill him and along the way
broke various objects.
People v. Acosta (2000)

FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year old
mason. He used to be a good friend of Almanzor "Elmer"
Montesclaros, the grandson of private complainant,
Filomena M. Marigomen. On February 27, 1996,
Montesclaros, in the belief that Acosta and his wife
were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him,
stormed the house of Acosta and burned their clothes,
furniture, and appliances. Thereafter Acosta attempted
to burn down the house of Marigomen. He was charged
with arson and found guilty.
HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony to
have tried to burn the house of Marigomen. In
prosecutions for arson, proof of the crime charged is
complete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus
delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and
(2) the identity of the defendants as the one
responsible for the crime. Corpus delicti means the
substance of the crime, it is the fact that a crime has
actually been committed. In arson, the corpus delicti
rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare
occurrence of the fire and of its having been
intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated
testimony of a single witness, if credible, may be
enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant
conviction.
People v. Oliva (2000)
FACTS: Avelino Manguba and his family were
sleeping in their house. Avelino went out of the house
to urinate. He saw Ferigel Oliva set the roof of their
house on fire with a lighted match. While the fire razed
Avelino's house, Ferigel and three others, Dominador
Oliva, Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo watched at a
distance of about five (5) meters. One of the
neighbors, Benjamin Estrellon went to the nearby river
and fetched water with a pail. As Benjamin was helping
put out the fire, he was shot by Ferigel at close range.
The gunshot wound caused Benjamin's death. The cases
for arson and murder were tried jointly. Only Oliva was
found guilty.
HELD: We find no reversible error and affirm
the conviction. When Ferigel burned Avelino's house,
the law applicable was P.D. No. 1613. 35 Under Section
3 (2) of the law, the penalty of reclusion temporal to

161
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property

burned is "any inhabited house or dwelling." Under the
amendment, it is the fact that the house burned is
inhabited that qualifies the crime. There is no need to
prove that the accused had actual knowledge that the
house was inhabited. Under Section 3 (2) of
Presidential Decree No. 1613, the elements of arson
are: (1) that there is intentional burning; and (2) that
what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling. The records show that when Ferigel willfully
set fire to the roof of Avelino's house, Avelino's wife and
children were asleep therein.
Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in
prosecutions for felonies and offenses. Corpus delicti is
the body or substance of the crime. It refers to the fact
that a crime has been actually committed. Corpus
delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that
may be proved by the testimonies of witnesses. In
arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the
bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been
intentionally caused. The uncorroborated testimony of
a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to
prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.
Here, corpus delicti of the arson was duly proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
The telegraph and telephone

pertain to a railway system!
Question: What crime is committed IF as a

result of the damage caused to the railway,
certain passengers of the train are killed?
Answer: It depends
A. If no intent to kill: crime is damages to
means of communication with homicide
B. If with intent to kill: murder (cf. Article 248,
par 3)
Article 331. Destroying or damaging
statues, public monuments, or paintings
No notes,
Special cases of malicious mischief/"Qualified

Malicious Mischief" are:
b.
c.
d.
Causing
damage
to
obstruct
the
performance of public functions
distinguished
from
sedition:
the
element of public and tumultuous
uprising is not present in Art 328
but, BOTH have intent to obstruct the
performance or public function
Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
Spreading any infection or contagion
among cattle
Causing damage to the property of the
National Museum or National Library, or to
any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used IN
COMMON by the public.
Article 329. Other mischiefs

Poignant Example:
People v. Dumlao where accused scattered
around the municipal building coconut husks
containing human excrements.
Article 332.
Persons
criminal liability
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to

means of communication
railways,
telegraph
exempt
from
Crimes involved in the exemption:

1. Theft
2. Swindling (estafa)
3. Malicious mischief
does not include robbery or estafa through

falsification
reason for exemption: presumed coownership
Persons exempted from criminal liability only

liablefor CIVIL liabilities):
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line
2.
Widowed spouse with respect to the

property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same passed into the
possession of another
3.
Brothers and sisters and brothers and

sister-in-law IF LIVING TOGETHER
Article 332 only applies when BOTH the

offender and offended party are relatives
as enumerated in the provision.
Does not apply to strangers who
participated in the crime.
Stepfather, adopted child, paramours,
common-law spouses INCLUDED
Example: damaging
telephone lines
must
If the damage shall result in any derailment of

cars, collision or other accident, a higher
penalty shall be imposed
Article 328. Special cases of malicious

mischief
a.
lines
or

162

163

Title 10 Property

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 10 Property

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title Ten

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Article 316. Other forms of swindling

Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERAL

Who are liable for theft

Chapter Four USURPATION

Chapter Seven CHATTEL MORTGAGE

Chapter Eight ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES

Persons exempt from criminal

Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery

There is personal property belonging to

The property taken must be personal property,

is usurped by means of violence against or

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

the robbery, much less the killing. Is the crime committed

People v. Reyes, 399 SCRA 528 (2003)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

HELD: With respect to the charge of robbery for

Article 294. Robbery with violence

When by reason or on occasion of the

in consequence of which the person injured

The crime defined in this article is a special

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

homicide, he may only be charged with

short pants and ordered Nely to bring out her money. He

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

strangled Natividad to death with the use of a white rope

then lying in bed. Murphy asked for the proceeds of the

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

People v. Torres, 359 SCRA 761 (2001)

offense committed by the malefactors is indubitably the

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casually walked

was Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants, Eddie and

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The

Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to

People v. Daniela, 401 SCRA 519 (2002)

FACTS:A group of more than six armed men

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

Robbery with rape

penalty. All acts of rape on that occasion

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide

unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

HELD: It is to be noted that the accused in this

multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the

Requisites of robbery under 2nd case of par 4

Violence or intimidation need not be

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

any time before the owner is finally

By attacking a moving train, street car,

Any of these qualifying circumstances must be

He was a member of the band;

accused when they plotted the crime, the

Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and was

Article 298. Execution of deeds by means

People vs. Apduhan

Homicide here is used in a generic

Offender has intent to defraud another;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

Art 298 is not applicable if the