Title Ten CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 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 intimidation of persons 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

Article 316. Other forms of swindling Article 317. Swindling a minor Article 318. Other deceits 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Chapter Eight – ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTION (REPEALED BY PD 1613 and RA 7659) Article 320.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 one’s 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:

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)

1.

There is personal property belonging to another; 2. There is unlawful taking of that property; 3. The taking must be with intent to gain; and 4. There is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon anything.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 108

The property taken must be personal property, for if real property is occupied or real right 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 intimidation of persons 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 reyes’s 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 party’s 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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 109

Salas was last seen with the victim at 3:00am. At 6:00, the victim’s body was found in a canal. Her purse, alleged to contain P2,000 and jewelry were missing. No one witnessed 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 latter’s 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 victim’s 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 accusedappellant 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 Nerio’s instructions, Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which caused the latter’s death. After the incident, Edgar Suela demanded P20,000.00 from Rosas for an information

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 110

regarding the robbery. The RTC found Edgar Suela guilty of robbery for demanding P200,000 as payment for information on the robbery-slay case. 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 Gabil’o death.

6.

7.

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 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.

Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons Acts punished: 1. 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;

2. 3.

4.

5.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 111

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 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 victim’s 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)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 112

Using sharp. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 113 . while the other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face covered with a handkerchief. HELD: In People v. Ben Hernandez. with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Gonzales. was leisurely pacing along Quezon Street. who placed it in his pocket. As Roberto pulled away he warded off Demarayo by kicking him on the waist. Catapang and Hernandez strangled Natividad to death with the use of a white rope made of buri/vine string. (b) the property belongs to another. (b) the property taken belongs to another. in the direction of a forested area where there were also mango and coconut trees. 389 SCRA 45 (2002) FACTS: While Marivic and Ben with their baby were watching television in their bedroom. People v. Philippine Army. namely. and hack wounds on his right nape and mouth. causes. Then the knife-wielder ransacked the cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325. 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. one carrying a gun and the other a knife. 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. accused-appellants stabbed a security guard and thereafter took away his gun. about 2 meters away from the sala. both armed with bladed weapons. when Roberto and Ricky both surnamed Martin blocked his path. (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof.000 in their possession. 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. Carolita. and jewelry belonging to the victim. The knife-wielder held Chona. As such. People v. both of them could only be convicted of the separate crimes of Homicide and Theft. After taking the money and jewelry. The holduppers also divested one of the guests of his Seiko diver's wristwatch and then left. robbery and homicide. the crime of homicide. the third child of the Suralta spouses. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. Milliam. has been committed.100.00.00. (c) the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi. Nicanor was heard moaning. in robbery with homicide. must be consummated. It is only the result obtained. to the knife-wielder. Ranis. Thereafter. Ricky drew his firearm and fired at Demarayo. Murphy asked for the proceeds of the land Ben sold and some jewelry but Marivic told him that they only had P2. which were both duly proved. Murphy then took the P2. There. The one carrying a gun had a bonnet over his face. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. All persons in the house were ordered to go inside the bedroom. Nicanor eventually died. The homicide may take place before. it could be possible that it was done to prevent him from retaliating as he was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshot wound. In addition. the assailants nonchalantly walked away with Demarayo's M-16. (c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain). The constitutive elements of the crime. After the brutal slaying. The taking of the gun might have been an afterthought and not the real purpose of the crime.FACTS: Catapang and Hernandez dragged 72 yearold Natividad Mendoza. Marivic Rodelas positively identified appellants Ernesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy as the two persons who entered her bedroom. to give money to the holduppers. 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. without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. watches. the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery. accused-appellants should properly be convicted of the separate offenses of Homicide and Theft. Ben was brought to the hospital but he was proclaimed dead on arrival. a member of the 15th Infantry Battalion. the onus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. and announced a holdup. which was intended to be deposited in the bank. appellants demanded and took money. which is used in the generic sense. Without any provocation coming from the soldier. as amended by Republic Act No. the court ruled that the prosecution evidence establishes the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. suddenly entered the house through the kitchen door. Carolita gave P2. A brief struggle among the three (3) men ensued which caused the victim to fall down. Nicanor answered that he had no gun. 7659. with only his eyes exposed. during or after the robbery. both accused tied her hands and those of Ben with electric cord and then they went out of the house. People v. The court further held that. In this case. Hernandez was found stabbed to death. Murphy and Sabiyon. modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. which was intended for the school expenses of the Suralta children. HELD: In charging robbery with homicide. suddenly entered their unlocked bedroom. but asked his wife. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. HELD: The Court held that appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide under Article 294. The two took the money and jewelry of Natividad while she was lying on the ground. 382 SCRA 694 (2002) FACTS: Nicanor Suralta was having drinks with his visitors in their house when two armed men. As the holduppers were leaving. hitting the latter’s left hand. Roberto fired another shot hitting Demarayo on the same spot. bladed weapons. the man with a gun demanded a gun and money from Nicanor. two gunshots rang out. HELD: After reviewing the records of this case. 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. Thereafter. blood stains on the body.000 and several pieces of luxury watches and jewelry. 324 SCRA 155 (2000) FACTS: Demarayo. The Court ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide. Salazar. The lower court ruled that the crime committed was Robbery with Homicide. While the victim was sprawled on the ground Roberto aimed his rifle at Demarayo's chest and pulled the trigger. Murphy poked a knife at her neck while Ernesto straddled on top of Ben who was then lying in bed. Iloilo City. he took the family's Sanyo cassette recorder and some clothes.

must have a direct relation to. for the killing of Modesto Castillo. 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. HELD: Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime against property. but three separate offenses: 1. In robbery with homicide. pieces of jewelry and checks. After shooting. Maxion. the victims necklace. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation and intimate connection between robbery and killing. Legaspi. All elements are present in the case at bar. Homicide. they were stopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the road. the offense committed by the malefactors is indubitably the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. drenched in his own blood with hands tied at the back. Consajero then asked Castillo and Usigan to accompany them to a nearby store. and handed him a black leather bag which contained P300. his sons Julian and Macky and Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with their employer. Thereafter. Consejero. Estella. The two replied in the negative. 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. They were on board a truck driven by Boloy. Homicide is incidental to the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. From all indications. they took the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca ridden by Castillo and Usigan which is owned by Israel. The man behind Gargaceran immediately took Gargaceran's handgun. Accused Consajero. In People v.000.644. and the taking of the subject engine was merely an afterthought that arouse subsequent to the killing of the victims. Torres approached the left side of the truck. People v. In charging robbery with homicide. Amania. was committed. The original design must have been robbery.75. and shot Boloy once. a CAFGU member and Malapit. 352 SCRA 276 (2001) FACTS: While they were fishing. Afterwards the men ran towards the mountainside with the victims bag containing P500. and 3. whether both crimes be committed at the same time. ring and his wristwatch. they shouted to release the bag containing the money. 331 SCRA 95 FACTS: Carlos Deveza. a CAFGU member. erstwhile member of the PNP arrived at the Cartimar Plaza Market to fetch his wife.464.and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. who was still at the driver's seat. whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crime be committed at the same time. which is used in the generic sense. was primarily interested in taking the life of the two deceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from the Barangay captain. even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery. accused-appellant.000. With their guns pointed at him. 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. The Court ruled that all elements of robbery with homicide are present in this case. The two persons came from the portion where bamboos grew by the side of the road. an intimate connection between robbery and the killing. who was then closing the family chain of stalls for the day. a teller at the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). People v. While Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the street going back to the bank. Maxion shot Gargaceran at close range hitting him on the chest eventually causing his death. the Court had occasion to rule that in robbery with homicide. The phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another. Theft. 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. on occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. the killing must have been directly connected with the robbery. Carlos parked his Toyota Tamaraw vehicle in front of the stall. 359 SCRA 761 (2001) FACTS: Vicente Galanao. 2. and the homicide. UCPB sent security escort Gargaceran. They then killed Castillo and Usigan. Boloy . Torres. Thus. for the unlawful taking of the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca. Immediately thereafter. This is evident from the testimony of teller Himor that as soon as the two men stopped him from running towards the bank. Both of them aimed their guns at Gargaceran. and shortly thereafter. who sustained thirty-one stab and hack wounds on the different parts of his body. the onus probandi is to establish: xxx… xxx… (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. People v. Himor tossed the bag containing the money to them and ran back to the supermarket. People v. The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought which arose subsequent to the killing. homicide in its generic sense is committed. the crime of homicide. he placed the money inside a duffle bag and padlocked the bag. what is essential is that there be "a direct relation. face down. for the death of Dionisio Usigan. In the present case. to buy copra and abaca. Murder. It is necessary that there must have been an intent on the part of the offenders to commit robbery from the outset and. Maxion and another man suddenly emerged and walked towards them.00 cash.00. or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate the robbery. On the way. it matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties of the victim. As the robbery resulted in the killing of the security guard Gargaceran. walked across the street towards the Hi-Top Supermarket. Twenty meters away lay the dead body of Usigan. armed with an M-14. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Thereafter. HELD: The criminal acts of accused-appellant constitute not a complex crime of robbery with homicide. The offense becomes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. As Estella C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 114 . Castillo was found lying on the ground. Estella approached Carlos. he called the bank to send his security escort. Maxion was in front of Gargaceran while the second stayed behind him. asked Castillo and Usigan if they were the ones exacting quota from the Barangay captain. Upon arrival. to pick up the cash deposit of the supermarket amounting to P1. After issuing the deposit slip. two persons armed with guns appeared from nowhere and approached the back of the truck and told them to lie face downward. went up the truck. 361 SCRA 414 (2001) FACTS: Himor.

Here. "You will see I will tell my father that you killed my mother. Dazo and Franco wrestled causing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing Legaspi to take an aim and shoot at Dazo twice. 341 SCRA 319 (2000) FACTS: Renato Sucilan. entered the house of the Robleses. and brother Romeo were eating dinner in Renato's house. Accused Nelson was Maria's store helper. and held a knife against her. operated a passenger jeepney and engaged in the buy and sale of palay. Cruz." To avoid being identified by the boy. Romeo Sucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. HELD: All the elements of robbery with homicide concur in this case. The properties taken consisted of pieces of jewelry. Lara. 380 SCRA 13 (2002) FACTS: Donato Cruz. People v. The gunman then picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casually walked away from the scene of the crime. Later. cohorts of the Temanels entered the hut. Zuela. Dazo hid behind a post and waited in ambush for Legaspi and the latter’s companion. dead with several stab wounds in the neck and his intestines exposed. Nelson and Tito alighted from the jeepney. People v. HELD: Obviously. in the process stepping on the sleeping John-John who was then awakened. if all accused take part in a robbery resulting in death. In the case at bar. Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda in her store during palay season. the killing of Carlos Deveza and the shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. as well as an undetermined amount of US dollars. In addition. The intruders tied the couple. Romeo. Deveza fell on the pavement. a stone was hurled into Renato's house hitting the petromax lamp. The other accused Maximo Velarde was known to Romualda because she met him at a birthday party held at Maria's house. Immediately. a radio. The fact that it was Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants. who was outside the hut. his wife Adelina. were no longer on his body. Accused-appellant's argument that the element of "taking" was not proved is thus unavailing in the face of Tulod's testimony. Laura saw respondent and she became hysterical and started shouting. level and poke a gun wrapped in a piece of cloth or towel at the latter’s nape and eventually pull the trigger.00 in cash. Terrified. money and other valuables. But if robbery was an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide. the former stepped out of the house and was shocked to find his brother. he ransacked the cabinet of the Robleses taking away a Minolta camera. Tito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepney of Maria and upon reaching an uninhabited place. Maximo.left to make a phone call. the prosecution was correct when it did not charge appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Where homicide is perpetrated with a view to rob. The pieces of jewelry he usually wore. Maximo poked a gun at the driver and shot him. who stabbed Romeo is of no moment. Legaspi. Taken in its entirety. Thereafter. Carlos alighted from the Tamaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle with both arms resting on the vehicle's window. At the height of the struggle between Dazo and Franco. Adelina prepared for bed while Renato played with Liezl.000. got hold of a pointed object and stabbed to death Laura Robles and her 5-year old daughter. While conversing with other tricycle drivers. Efren Temanel. Osis grabbed Liezl. Nelson went to the left front side of the jeepney. 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. coming from the front of the vehicle position himself 2½ meters away from Deveza. The properties were violently taken and intent to gain can be presumed from the unlawful taking. Temanel. Her sister Romualda also had a store. there are two distinct offenses. homicide being a mere incident of the robbery with the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal (People vs. Cruz went inside the house. Adelina put the valuables in an empty milk can and placed the same outside the door. Suddenly. 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. while Tito approached the right front side of the jeepney. and sat on a sofa near the kitchen. 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. When Renato and Adelina were able to free themselves. HELD: The Court held that the argument of the Appellant is without merit. Romeo went home to his own hut situated five meters away. Maximo. Tito told C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 115 . Hence. She had a store. The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property. brothers Jose and Eddie Temanel entered the house. 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. He also shot Maria at the neck when the latter shouted. one bullet hitting Dazo on the right jaw. 266 SCRA 569 [1997]). Mendoza. The three accused were friends. Eddie and Jose Temanel. Franco. In the final analysis. Navales. but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmed Franco by the waist. The RTC convicted Cruz of two (2) counts of murder and one (1) count of theft. took the can. While seated on the sofa. daughter Liezl. the offense is robbery with homicide. The boy stood up and said. In People v. Thereafter. a wedding ring and P8. Dazo intended to seize and stop Legaspi who was then holding a gun. Jose poked Renato with a bladed weapon while Eddie ordered Adelina to take out their money and valuables. and not against persons. all of them shall be held liable for robbery with homicide in the absence of proof that they prevented the killing. the evidence on record shows that appellant stole the camera and cash only as an afterthought. Thinking that he will be assaulted by Laura. After dinner. Appellant argues that he should have been charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. rice. People v. In so doing. all of which clearly belonged to the Sucilans. Thus. Pitying the victim. the killing was committed in the course of the robbery. after he panicked. 323 SCRA 589 (2000) FACTS: Maria Abendaño was engaged in business. Lara. the physical injuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide. who was high on drugs. the shooting of Dazo was done in order to defend the possession of the stolen property. shots were fired by Legaspi. His primary purpose was to kill Laura and her 5-year old daughter.

it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. embracing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense. armed with a knife followed Manuel to the bedroom. HELD: The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. a househelp of Marife. Maria Fe took the money from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and Jose. 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. Tidula. Upon Manuel’s order Jose tied the hands of Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape on her mouth. and Ronito then had a drinking spree. The number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed by Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. People v.Maximo to kill the boy. Jose. A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before. 379 SCRA 107 (2002) FACTS: Marilyn Pajarillo was in their house lying down in bed with her 2-year old daughter. Napalit. ordered her to lie prone on the ground. Petrified. Manuel armed with a . irrespective of their numbers. the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime. drinking gin with Marilyn's husband Charlie Pajarillo and Deogracias Acosta. It is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person the malefactor intended to rob. on the occasion or by reason of robbery. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. Nonetheless. Four members of the group then entered the cashier's office of the hospital and ordered the employees to lie down on the floor. In People vs. For the conviction of the special complex crime. Damaso. This would preclude an anomalous situation where. Outside. Marilyn merely sat down. Tito took Maria's money and divided it.00 in cash representing her sales. Later. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with it. Jose also tied the hands of Marife’s cousin. Dinamman. One of them pointed a gun at the cashier.38 caliber gun. cause. Leo. each accused receiving about seven thousand (P7. 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. Daniela. two (rims of Champion cigarettes. One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guard and announced a hold-up.000.00) pesos from the loot.500. The trial court's ruled that Orlando and Fenando Dinamling. 396 SCRA 687 (2003) FACTS:A group of more than six armed men including Napalit barged into the Tondo General Hospital. et al. The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Dinamling. and ordered him to open the vault. during or after the commission of the robbery. Simultaneously. her family and their househelps if she refused to surrender her money. Suddenly. got a knife. Robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of the robbery is different from the victim of homicide. It is settled that regardless of the number of homicides committed. modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime. entered their sari-sari store. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. outside the house. Manuel then raped Julifer. there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Maria Fe to borrow money. In People v. Rogelio and Deogaracias were shot to death. What is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. Before Alonzo could do as instructed. Orlando Dinamling entered their house and poked a long gun at Marilyn's forehead. the appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide. he was searched for C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 116 . 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. The trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged in the information. the homicides or murders and physical injuries. Manuel and Jose did not believe Maria Fe and ransacked the room but failed to find money. from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. People v. After a while. robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with multiple killings would be. Even if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on another. Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings in connection with the robbery. Diinamman and Linnam are guilty of "robbery with double homicide" HELD: Accused-appellants' crime is robbery with homicide. Alonzo. as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. another security guard. 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. Maximo then took hold of the boy's hair and slashed his neck. Jose went to the kitchen. Napalit pointed a gun at. committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide. Jose. the crime should still be denominated as robbery with homicide. this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another. The trial court's denomination of the offense as "robbery with double homicide" is erroneous. People v. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his body. who was waiting for her father Rogelio. entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe and poked the said gun on Maria Fe. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace. searched their belongings and took more or less P1. Stated differently.. with a short firearm. Fernando Dinamling and Linnam poked guns at the heads of Rogelio and Deogracias. covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed the latter several times. who were then lying prostrate on the ground. Rogelio was then in the patio. one dozen cans of sardines and one pack of Juicy Fruit chewing gum. 401 SCRA 519 (2002) FACTS: Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis came to the house of Ronito and his common-law wife. does not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with homicide. and on the occasion thereof. Manuel. Manuel then threatened to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria Fe. and grabbed the firearm of. killed Ronito. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the latter's wristwatch and ring.. Seated beside her was 11-year old Rosemarie Malalay. rings and earrings.

robbery with rape. Fabon. The civil liability for rape in robbery with rape has been set at P50. 9600942). Deloria raped househelp Narcisa while Maniquez raped househelp Mary Ann. and such intent must precede the rape. Lara (2006) The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 328 SCRA 302 (2000) FACTS: Locsin Fabon. how could rape be merely an aggravating circumstance?) People vs. Pp vs Basca.00. the absence of the intent to rob on the part of the appellant was apparent. Liad. Gomez. It must be emphasized that when the victim and appellant met and had a heated argument. (note: this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal. he should only be held liable for robbery and not for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Moreno was convicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez. the crime of robbery with rape was committed. Pedroso. after forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle. 6539 (the Anti-Carnapping Act). It must be consummated. 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. the offender must have the intent to take the personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. Fabon strangled and stabbed Lasquite with a knife resulting Robbery with rape Like in robbery with homicide. and shot twice by one of the armed men. Bonifacia Lasquite and forcibly took the victim’s money amounting to P25. Held: The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as 2 separate offences. HELD: In a long line of cases.90 in cash. People vs Moreno Facts: Accused Moreno. Deloria and Maniquez robbed the Mohnani spouses. pushed outside the hospital premises. The RTC found Napalit guilty of robbery with homicide and violation of R. 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. alias "Loklok.010. another security guard. There is no such crime as robbery with attempted rape.000. One of the duo ordered the passenger at the front seat to get off the vehicle. Alonzo then opened the vault which the four emptied of P1. the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance only. they are separate offences. On the occasion of the robbery. appellant could only be convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or homicide. She refused to give him the watch so he took if forcibly from her and left. even accidental) because the opportunity presented itself. Otherwise. unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.274. due to heavy traffic. If the intention of the accused was to commit robbery but rape was also committed even before the robbery. who was manning the hospital gate was disarmed of his service pistol. The other. Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty. and theft. 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. Lago. No one would in one’s right mind just leave a firearm lying around after being in a heated argument with another person. respectively. defendant’s failure to consummate the rape. Fabon raped Lasquite. the criminal act should be viewed as 2 distinct offences. Patola Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art 294 par 2. Dinola Facts: Dinola saw victim Marilyn’s watch after he had raped her. not under RPC 335 on qualified rape.000. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim." entered the home of 64 year-old. When the taking of personal property of a woman is an independent act following C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 117 . Dinola was convicted of robbery with rape. Having failed to establish that appellant’s original criminal design was robbery. in front of the hospital. 336 SCRA 163) People v. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery. People v. and Pp vs Villa. If the original design was to commit rape but the accused after committing rape also committed robbery (more of an afterthought. Held: Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of robbery only. People vs.weapons in the course of which his wallet containing P450. People v. People v. Two of them headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castor which was on a stop position.00 in cash was taken. A. (People v. Appellant’s act of taking the shotgun was not for the purpose of robbing the victim. there are two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape and theft. the Court has ruled that whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery. While the four malefactors were at the cashier's office. Thereafter. but i disagree with this ruling based on moral grounds and lack of legal basis. but to protect himself from the victim. the crime is robbery with homicide and rape under par 1 of Art 294. When the taking of property after the rape is not with intent to gain. Ruling was correct. there is neither theft nor robbery committed. as the case may be. All acts of rape on that occasion being integrated in one composite crime. 358 SCRA 550 (2001). 355 SCRA 11 (2001). 97-13706. Napalit argues that assuming that he had indeed participated in the incident. drove it and fled with his companion.

Thereafter. Doquila a. and not the special complex crime of robbery with rape. as amended. 388 SCRA 515 (2002) FACTS: Accused Verceles alias "Baldog". succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while the others just stood outside the door and did nothing to prevent Soriano.00. Immediately after ROGELIO put his arms around MARITES and directed the knife at her neck. The proper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. People v. number 1 of the RPC. The contemporaneous acts of appellant and his co-accused stress the fact that they were initially motivated by animus lucrandi. Lascuna. Robbery with rape occurs when the following elements are present: (1) personal property is taken with violence or intimidation against persons. moneys and animals from Valentin Gabertan. In the case at bar." In other words. proof of the rape alone is not sufficient. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery. ipil-ipil posts and bolo. The Court cited the case of People vs.350. If the original plan was to commit rape. all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape. Valdez. it was only when they entered the house and saw his wife when they thought of raping her. it is imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. all the foregoing elements are present. the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Gibertas. and a certain John Doe took turns in raping Juliet Magamayo at the house of his friend where she stayed for C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 118 . and 2 chickens.A. such additional offense is treated as an aggravating circumstance which would result in the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. To sustain a conviction for robbery with rape. in addition to the crime of rape. The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery with Homicide and Rape.k. and then he ran away. Junior. People v. The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIO against the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact of the taking of the bag. a watch and money from complainants through violence. 7659. but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself.V.The prosecution likewise established that appellant and his co-accused took chickens. 349 SCRA 547 (2001) FACTS: Seguis a. MARITES told him to get her bag if he needed money. they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery." After giving vent to his lustful desire. Pedro. 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. In the special complex crime of robbery with rape. unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape. 9 turkeys. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the grills of the window. People v." Again. as amended by R. assorted jewelries. It was an afterthought following the rape. Ramos and Soriano entered the house of Mrs. A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this case convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separate offenses of rape and theft. 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. but ROGELIO replied "I do not need money. To support a conviction therefor.to her death. employs the clause "when the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape. . Moreno. Lolong. Soriano. the latter did not take it and instead replied. armed with a piece of bamboo. In the course of the robbery. 1 ladies gold Seiko watch.k. or on the occasion of a robbery. These acts clearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexual gratification. Dodong. r Canico. he snatched the victim's shoulder bag. . RTC found appellant guilty of robbery with multiple rape. Once inside.k. Domingo. HELD: Once conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery. Eventually they stole from the Gabertan spouses cash in the amount of P5. to be liable for such crime.a." When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional mutilation. 383 SCRA 43 (2002) FACTS: Appellant Domingo Temporal. the four accused took turns in raping Carla outside the house where she was forcibly laid on the cogon grass. where it was held that “We agree with the Solicitor General's observation that the crime committed was erroneously designated as robbery with homicide. 1 alarm clock and 1 radio cassettes. and Rivera went to the house of Spouses Valentin and Clara Gabertan. they took away 1 colored T. 1 VHS. "Mamaya na iyan". rape and physical injuries. penalized under Article 294. and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. it cannot be considered for the purpose of classifying the crime as robbery. Seguis. the taking of personal property was not the original evil plan of ROGELIO. Accused-appellant may thus be held liable for simple theft only. dela Cruz. when ROGELIO removed his pants. Estebe a. and such intent must precede the rape. he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABC Commercial Complex and removed her clothes. although not all of them took part in the rape. which was then on her right foot. This intent was further established by the fact that when MARITES offered to give her ring to ROGELIO. . The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence. the true intent of the accused must first be determined. Hence. Clearly then.a. HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellant of robbery with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape. Soriano alias "Merto". "That will come later on because I will give it back to you but you have to follow me first. It was for the purpose of accomplishing his lustful desire. Apparently.. the offender must have the intent to take the personal property of another under circumstances that makes the taking one of robbery. They first demanded guns. Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape punished under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. because their intent determines the offense they committed. the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime.a. Verceles. Corpuz. (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi. it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code which applies. People v. HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated the crime committed as "robbery with homicide and rape. while Rivera guarded Valentin. (2) the property taken belongs to another. 2x2 piece of wood. Significantly. They assaulted and clubbed Valentin with their weapons. weakening and injuring him.

a special complex crime punishable under Art. 353 SCRA 126 (2001) Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The lower court's finding of the accused’nonparticipation in the robbery does not mean that they are totally guiltless. 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. 329 SCRA 707 (2000) FACTS: Sixteen-year old. integrated whole that is robbery with rape. bolo in hand. independent offense or offenses. robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. when appellant Armando Regala and his two other companions entered the former's house. including the existence of a conspiracy. so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery. while in other cases it ruled that the “multiplicity of rapes/homicides” committed could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Nerissa and her grandmother were hogtied by appellant and his companions. Notwithstanding the viciousness with which he perpetrated the offense. at least for the robbery. The RTC finds each of the accused. robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. 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. the latter may still be convicted for the rape. Regala went to the room of Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun on them. 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. if any. People v. Requisites of robbery under 2nd case of par 4 Art 294: 1) that any of physical injuries defined in par 3 & 4 263 was inflicted in the course of robbery. 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. Adriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code HELD: It is to be noted that the accused in this case were originally indicted for the felony of robbery with multiple rape. Regala and his companions entered the house through the kitchen by removing the pieces of wood under the stove. Nerissa Tagala. 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. those who were charged should be acquitted. should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstances. But in People v. They will still be held accountable for whatever unlawful acts they may have committed. Appellant and his companions then ran away with P3. This case is singular in its barbarity and nauseating in the manner with which the accused. The question that needs to be resolved is whether the “multiplicity of homicides” could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Otherwise. Nerissa was raped by twice by Regala in bed and in the kitchen. making other rapes in excess of that number as separate. one after the other. 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.000 in cash. and 2) that any them was inflicted upon any person the Art the of not C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 119 . In a criminal action for robbery with rape. Gano. or after the robbery. where the prosecution failed to prove the robo or the participation of the accused in it. during. 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. To sustain a conviction. butchered his preys. it is imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. Regala. Thereafter. It is essentially a crime against property. The trial court’s ruling that the appellants had carnal knowledge of the private complainant by using force and intimidation. and her grandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in. Still and all. bracelet and cash though Juliet can not pinpoint who specifically did it among the many accused. All the rapes are merged in the composite. Proof of the rape alone is not sufficient to support a conviction for the crime of robbery with rape. 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. needless to say. and accordingly. However. 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. we are constrained to apply the principle laid down in People v. People v. appellant and his two companions counted the money which they took from the "aparador. just as the fact that it was the accused who committed it be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches. covers cases of multiple rapes." The said provision. For sometime. par. 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. However. the remedy lies with the legislature. the two (2) other killings contrary to the ruling of the trial court. The prosecution must be able to demonstrate the level of their participation with legal and moral certainty. 294. this does not change the nature of the felony. It does not matter too whether the rape occurred before. the remedy lies with the legislature.the night. Gano is guilty of Robbery with Homicide. One of the said accused took her gold ring. and for which acts they were charged. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and which is committed "when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape. 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. After the rape. Regala.

2.  Difference between robbery and bribery: o It is robbery when the victim did not commit a crime. there must be acts done by the accused which. The detention of the victims was a necessary means to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery. it may be thru an intermediary. in threats. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 120 . The accused were convicted of the complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention. or airship. The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery on a street.responsible for the commission of the robbery. Sevilla Facts: The accused detained several persons as hostages in a store they robbed. In an uninhabited place. In grave coercion. Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide. in robbery. By attacking a moving train.  Difference between robbery with violence and grave coercion: o In both crimes. there is intent to gain. road. 5. there is violence used by the offender. Article 295. In the ensuing gunfight. the victim is deprived of his money or property by force or intimidation. or robbery with rape. the intimidation is personal. as a means of extortion of the amount asked.) People vs. the hostages suffered physical injuries. the offender shall be punished by the maximum periods of the proper penalties prescribed in Article 294. the gain of the culprit is immediate. in bribery. motor vehicle. either by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances under which they are executed. highway or alley. or robbery with serious physical injuries under par 1 of Art 263. the intimidation is actual and immediate. Robbery with violence or intimidation  Violence or intimidation need not be present before or at the exact moment when the object is taken. but deliberately. The victims were not held as a security to facilitate their escape or to insure their security against the police. Article 296. the gain is not immediate. Robbery with physical injuries. the intent is to compel another to do something against his will. road.  Intimidation exists when the acts executed or words uttered by the ofender are capable of producing fear in the person threatened. inspire fear in the person against whom they are directed. 3. One of the hostages eventually had to have her leg amputated. it is bribery when the victim has committed a crime and gives money or gift to avoid arrest or prosecution. no such requirement in grave coercion. He was a member of the band. Should the crime of serious illegal detention be prosecuted as a separate offence? Held: NO. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a train. highway or alley. street car. It may enter at any time before the owner is finally deprived of his property. committed in an uninhabited place and by a band. in threats. the intimidation may refer to the person. o In threats. or with the use of firearm on a street. Any of these qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. in threats. o In robbery. 4. o In robbery. o In robbery.  In robbery with intimidation. he parts with his money or property voluntarily.  Difference between threats to extort money and robbery thru intimidation: o In robbery. the intimidation is directed only to the person of the victim. honor or property of the offended party or that of his family. (note: the circumstances and applicability of Art 295 are very specific so please note them. By a band. 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. the intimidation is conditional or future. or in any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances. The police launched an offensive. road or alley Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person is qualified if it is committed: 1. and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms. o In robbery. or On a street.

” The circumstance of band becomes an ordinary .  But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide and robbery. SC believes that: (1) Art 296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Art 295 on robbery in band. and (3) par 3. Hence.2. all members of the band are liable for robbery with homicide. unless the others attempted to prevent the assault. The compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation. blindness and insanity occurred by reason or on the occasion of accompanying robbery. there being no evidence that he gave instructions to kill the victim or intended that this should be done. 5 of Art 294. the robber who did not take part in the assault by another is not liable for that assault. 2. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation Elements: 1.” Thus. 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. Offender compels him to sign. SC rejected this. not necessarily at the commission of the assault. parricide. the use of an unlicensed firearm should not have been considered as a special aggravating circumstance. (2) RPC 295 is explicitly limited to scope to pars.  “Unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the Code” may be illustrated as follows: In an attempted or frustrated robbery. execute. murder. In robbery by a band. 5 of Art 294 does not include cases where homicide. a principal by inducement. 3.  The penalty is the same. 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. 4. even if less than 4 armed men. rape. infanticide. are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. since Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide under par 1 Art 294. 3. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 121  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. is not liable for robbery with homicide. He did not attempt to prevent the assault. etc. whether the robbery is attempted or frustrated. not governed by Art 48. Article 298. 4. all are liable for any assault committed by the band.  This is also a special complex crime. Art 296 in relation to par 3. The other members of the band committed an assault. The proper penalty for murder or parricide shall be imposed because it is more severe. if the agreement was only to commit robbery. Thus. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances  “Homicide” here is used in a generic sense. He was present at the commission of a robbery by that band. It includes multiple homicides. the killing of the victim is qualified by treachery or relationship.  When there was conspiracy for robbery only but homicide was also committed on the occasion thereof. who did not go with the band at the place of the commission of the robbery. impotence. 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. the one who did not participate in the killing is liable for robbery only. Apduhan 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.  The members of the band liable for the assault must be present at the commission of the robbery.  When the robbery was not committed by a band.  Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery. 3. all the conspirators. intentional mutilation. who was not present at the commission of the robbery. aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide. 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.   When the robbery was not by a band and homicide was not determined by the accused when they plotted the crime. imbecility. Article 297. 4. thus. People vs.  Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement. but only for robbery in band. Offender has intent to defraud another. 4. or deliver any public instrument or document.  There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in band.

By the breaking of doors. the penalty imposed shall be those under Art 297. execute or deliver the document under the law. under any of the following circumstances: a. executed or delivered is a private or commercial document. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship Elements under subdivision (a): 1. In entering the building. Once inside the building. Article 299. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. roof or floor.  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. offender took personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it. or breaking any door or window. By breaking any wall. or d. there is no robbery. public building or edifice devoted to religious worship. This article applies even if the document signed. c. Elements under subdivision (b): 1. or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle. By using false keys. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress. If the violence used resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded. entering an automobile does not fall under this article. with intent to gain. thus. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery.  Art 298 is not applicable if the document is void. “Inhabited house” = any shelter. the crime is robbery with homicide. the offender must have an intention to take personal property.  When the offended party is under obligation to sign. public building. or b. Offender takes personal property belonging to another. Subdivision (a) 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). wardrobes. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 122 2. b. Offender is inside a dwelling house. Offender entered an inhabited house. chests. picklocks or similar tools. . The place entered must be a house or building. But there will be COERCION if violence is used in compelling the offended party to sign or deliver the document. 3. or edifice devoted to religious worship.  2. The entrance was effected by any of the following means: a. 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.

Article 301. 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. Robbery with force upon things. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band Robbery in an inhabited house. 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. The term “door” in par 1 subdiv (b) refers only to “doors. even if some of them do not carry arms. it becomes robbery with intimidation of person. not to get out. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building Elements: 1. Article 300. chest. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was not a dwelling house. 2. roof. The 2 qualifications must concur. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed. must be committed in an uninhabited place AND by a band.“Public building” = every building owned by the govt or belonging to a private person but used or rented by the govt. in order to be qualified. not to inside doors of house or building. d. The liability for carrying arms while robbing an inhabited house is extended to each of the offenders who take part in the robbery. wardrobe. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 123 . Jaranilla Facts: Accused took 6 fighting cocks from a coop located in Babylon’s backyard. Article 302. The entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or egress. while robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons must be committed in an uninhabited place OR by a band. public building. and (3) must form part of the whole. A door. 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. b. Held: The killing of the police officer was not by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The genuine key must be stolen. hence only the person who shot such officer should be liable for the killing. It is only THEFT when the false key is used to open wardrobe or locked receptacle or drawer or inside door. even if the same be broken open elsewhere. for the reason that once the circumstance of intimidation enters in the commission of the crime. What is an inhabited house. They were intercepted by a police officer who was shot by one of the accused. The weapon carried by the offender must not have been used to intimidate a person. or outside door or window was broken. Any of the 4 means described in subdiv (a) must be resorted to by the offender to enter a house or building. The door of the coop was broken. People vs. The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise authority must be to enter the building. public building. lids or opening sheets” of furniture or other portable receptacles. although temporarily unoccupied by the same. Subdivision (b) Entrance into the building by any of the means in subdiv (a) is not required in robbery under subdiv (b). not taken by force or with intimidation from the owner. c. or e. picklocks or other similar tools. it is sufficient to remove the offence from Art 299 and place it within the purview of Art 294. Any of the following circumstances was present: a. A wall. not a public building. public building or edifice devoted to religious worship is qualified when committed by a band AND in an uninhabited place. not robbery. floor. or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was broken. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys. In the latter case. The whole body of the culprit must be inside the building to constitute entering. or edifice devoted to religious worship must be located in an uninhabited place. or not an edifice devoted to religious worship. Orchards or other lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the term “dependencies”. The inhabited house. They were convicted by robbery with homicide.

shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating. 2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner. Trailers having any number of wheels. trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes.  If the store is located on the ground floor of the house belonging to the owner of the store.3. with intent to gain. such as freight car and warehouse. Definition of Terms. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent. since the owner lived in a separate house. similar tools Elements: 1. or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building Penalty is one degree lower if cereals. scratching. Robbery of cereals. 6539 Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 SECTION 2. Tools mentioned in Article 304. "Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways. amphibian trucks.  The use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority is not a means of entering the building under this article. "Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing.  If the store was not actually occupied at the time the robbery took place and was not used as a dwelling. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its motor engine. otherwise. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 124 . 3. Offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. 3.A. or by using force upon things. There is repainting whenever the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its   Penalty is based only on value of property taken. the robbery committed therein would be considered as committed in an inhabited house under Art 299. graders. the robbery committed therein is punished under Art 302. street-sweepers. but excepting road rollers. fruits. Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession. and tractors. the robbery should be considered as having been perpetrated in an uninhabited place under Art 302. Thus. it is a dependency of an inhabited house and the robbery committed therein is punished under the last par of Art 299.  The receptacle must be “closed” or “sealed”. altering or changing of the original factory-inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine. engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle. when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle. False keys False keys include the following: 1. Carnapping R. that motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered with serial number.  “uninhabited uninhabited building place” = Article 304. it is only THEFT. Any key other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender. Possession of picklocks or  The information must allege that the store was used and occupied as a dwelling. if a person opened without breaking a closed but not locked chest and took personal property therefrom. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. vehicles. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools. lawn mowers. Article 305. Article 303. bulldozers.  “building” = includes any kind of structure used for storage or safekeeping of personal property. which run only on rails or tracks. because the place is uninhabited. fruits or firewood are taken in robbery with force upon things. Such picklock or similar tools are especially adopted to the commission of robbery. trolley cars. having an interior entrance connected therewith. If the store is used as a dwelling of 1 or more persons. sprinklers. and cranes if not used on public highways. 2. "Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting. “cereal” = palay or other seedlings The palay must be kept by the owner as “seedling” or taken for that purpose by the robbers. — "Carnapping" is the taking. 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. fork-lifts.

piece by piece or part by part. with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which belonged to another. People vs. Thereafter. engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles. driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 125 . of a motor vehicle. Conveyance. "Dismantling" is the tearing apart. specifying therein their type. all motor vehicle engines. and the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the owner. Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine. That all Land Transportation Commission regional. whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registered owner. SECTION 14. Transfer. make and serial numbers and stating therein the names and addresses of their present and previous owners. 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. or force upon things. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. — Aliens convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after service of sentence without further proceedings by the Deportation Board. the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwith issue a certificate of clearance. Izon vs. Public highways are those free for the use of every person. Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance from the Philippine Constabulary and after verification of the registration of the motor vehicle engine. SECTION 15. — Any person who is found guilty of carnapping. Dela Cruz The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when there is taking.color as registered in the Land Transportation Commission. "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. engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered with the Land Transportation Commission. without the latter’s consent or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. Copies of the registry and of all entries made thereon shall be furnished the Philippine Constabulary and all Land Transportation Commission regional. as this term is defined in Section two of this Act. shall within one week after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof from the registered owner. Motor vehicles assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor vehicle engines. be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months. "Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its entire body with a new body. — Any person seeking the original registration of a motor vehicle. 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. engine block and chassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicle engines. transfer. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not in that list. SECTION 5. SECTION 6. provincial and city branch offices: Provided. People A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle. Aliens. engine blocks and chassis. — The Land Transportation Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle engines. "Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle. 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. verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. conveyance. substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine. SECTION 3. engine block or chassis. irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken. All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities are required to register their cars with the local police without paying any charges. thus not limited to a national road connecting various towns. SECTION 4. which is defined as any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using public highways. Engine Block or Chassis. — Every sale. the Land Transportation Commission shall register the motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws. or force upon things. 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 and Chassis. and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years. 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. when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person. Penalty for Carnapping. and shall be confiscated in favor of the Government. The Philippine Constabulary shall. or by using force upon things. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle Engines. Registration of Sale. Substitution or Replacement of a Motor Vehicle Engine. apply to the Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle for registration with the Land Transportation Commission. rules and regulations. shall. upon receipt of the application. when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons. Engine Blocks and Chassis. — Within one year after the approval of this Act.

the mandatory penalty of Cattle Rustling PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. equipment. between and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel. the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. street. It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly. Philippine Waters. or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo. 532 Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 SECTION 2. 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. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. People vs. Of the 6 passengers. Definition of Terms. committed by any person. not highway robbery. — Any person who commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined. shall be considered as piracy. or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom. the only woman. articles. Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at a talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbed on after the other. e. — The following terms shall mean and be understood. or railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons. such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the government. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed during or on the occasion of the commission of robbery or brigandage. gulfs. If rape. Puno Accused held up Mrs Sarmiento in her car at gunpoint. Vessel. 533 THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974 C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 126 .Highway Robbery P. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period shall be imposed. including territorial sea. and all other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title. irrespective of its depth. Philippine Highway. or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. It shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing. as follows: a. Was highway robbery committed? NO. extortion or other unlawful purposes. the sea-bed. by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. People vs. passage. Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accused were organised for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. seas. murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy. — It shall refer to any road.D. — Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands. or when the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves. 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. Piracy. or rape is committed as a result or on the occasion thereof. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided. SECTION 3. or murder or homicide. shall. c. breadth. death shall be imposed. — It shall refer to all bodies of water. or any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage. d. — Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion. or vehicles. Pulusan Facts: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the McArthur highway. — The seizure of any person for ransom. Penalties. there was no proof that the 4 accused previously attempted to commit armed robberies. the insular shelves. In this case. shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. They were convicted of robbery with homicide although they were charged with highway robbery. b. or property or both.000 in check. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on the occasion thereof. length or dimension. irrespective of the value thereof. What was the crime committed? Held: Robbery with homicide. upon conviction by competent court be punished by: Piracy. highway and bridges or other parts thereof. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. bays around. such as but not limited to. including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel. SECTION 4. or locomotives or trains for the movement or circulation of persons or transportation of goods. — Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through Philippine Waters. the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. in Philippine waters. unless the contrary is proven. committed by any person on any Philippine Highway. the penalty of death shall be imposed. They were able to extort P7000 in cash and P100.

horse. irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved. arrived at the Taer’s hourse at 2am with 2 male carabaos. Before issuance of the permit herein prescribed. takes part subsequent to its commission by profiting himself by the effects of the crime. partnership. 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. Penalties Imposed Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall. or meat. If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. such that Pajunar had to enlist the aid of the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow.” Ordonio’s stubborn insistence that the calf belonged to his brother. CA Facts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. control or custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling. but Ordonio claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by his brother Agustin. its hides. the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle. be punished by prision mayor in its 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. exhibit the documents prescribed in the preceding sections. 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. association. or other domesticated member of the bovine family. without the consent of the owner/raiser. Manocatcat asked Taer to tend the carabaos for him. Ordonio denied seeing it. 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. without having participated as a principal or an accomplice. 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. Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle. If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling. of any of the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or gain. is the essence cattle rustling. corporation or entity desiring to ship or transport large cattle. carabao. Duty of the owner/raiser  before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the age of six months. caretaker. methods or schemes. When Pajunar inquired abt his cow. 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. The cow was eventually found in Ordonio’s possession. Held: The law reads “taking away by any means. he shall. The permit shall only be valid in such province. arrived at Taer’s house to retrieve the carabaos. the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. Taer vs. The perpetrator’s intent to gain is then inferred from his deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person. 10 days later. partnership. ass. An accessory is someone who. — Every person having in his possession. register the same with the office of the city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised. the owners of the carabaos. Presumption of Cattle Rustling. or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. knowing that the property does not belong to him. or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser. CA Facts: Co-accused Manocatcat.as herein used shall include the cow. the Provincial Commander shall require the submission of the certificate of ownership as prescribed in Section 3 hereof. association. No person. Ordonio vs. having knowledge of the commission of the crime. upon demand by competent authorities.shall include the herdsman. control or custody of large cattle shall. be disqualified from voting or being voted upon in any election/referendum and from holding any public office or employment. When the offender is a government official or employee. or for any other C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 127 . in addition to the foregoing penalty. association. Failure to exhibit the required documents shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his possession. hides or meat are free from any disease. corporation or entity. and such other documents or records as may be necessary. Owner/raiser. What was Taer’s participation in the crime? Held: Taer was an accessory because he employed the carabaos in his farm. he shall be deported immediately upon the completion of the service of his sentence without further proceedings. when he knew fully well that it belonged to Pajunar. partnership. Shipment of large cattle. Any person.What is cattle rustling? Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means. When the offender is an alien. a certification from the Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large cattle. mule. method or scheme. It includes the killing of large cattle. Large cattle .

of brigands Elements: 1. after having maliciously damaged the property of another. 2. 2. remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by them. 3. Article 307. Who are brigands Elements of brigandage: 1. but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. The taking was done without the consent of the owner. is shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands. He acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands. To attain by means of force and violence any other purpose. They formed a band of robbers. Offender does any of the following acts: a. 3. (2) to kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or obtaining ransom. b. In brigandage. 3. The property taken belongs to another. The arms carried by the members of the band of robbers may be any deadly weapon. 3. Those who. fails to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner. 4. It must be a band of robbers. In case of robbery by a band. b. 4. Those who having found lost property. in robbery in band. Who are liable for theft Persons liable: 1. hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and. the mere formation of a band for any of the purposes mentioned in the law is sufficient. as a mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable. The purpose of the band must be (1) to commit robbery in the highway. or c. The taking was done with intent to gain. He gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the government. Article 308. To contrast. without the consent of its owner. with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. Thus. not necessarily in the highway. Those who with intent to gain. shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. 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. a band of dissidents or oppositionists will not qualify. 2. The purpose is any of the following: a. Offender knows the band to be of 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. If any of the arms carried by any of a group of persons be an unlicensed firearm. cereals or other forest or farm products. Article 306. Aiding and abetting a band There is a band of brigands. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom. 2. or c. and in case of conviction. There is taking of personal property. If the agreement among more than 3 armed men was to commit only a particular robbery. but only robbery in band. the purpose of the offenders is only to commit robbery.purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. the offence is not brigandage. There are least four armed persons. “highway” = includes city streets as well as roads outside the cities. Elements: 1. it is necessary to prove that the band actually committed robbery. take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. He in any manner aids. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 128 . abets or protects such band of brigands. or (3) any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. To commit robbery in the highway. the penalty shall be imposed in the max period. THEFT committed by any person who.

twenty-three (23) C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 129 .  Finder of hidden treasure who misappropriated the share pertaining to the owner of the property is guilty of theft as regards that share. theft is consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the thing taken by them. not robbery. or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment. the offender must have the intention of making himself the owner of the thing taken. Convicted of estafa in RTC then CA convicted him of qualified theft. it is necessary that there should be a taking against the will of the owner. Illustration: Tina gave Rey her rolex watch for the purpose of having it examined since Rey has a pawnshop. the crime is ESTAFA. People Penalosa gave car to Santos to be repaired. for the presumption to work. 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. the Court held that asportation is complete from the moment the offender had full possession of the thing. the thing taken by him from its owner.   As of 2007.   animus lucandi = intent to gain  The taking in theft must have the character of permanency.  When goods were lost at the same time. the juridical possession of the thing is transferred to the offender. The presumption regarding possession of stolen property does not exclusively refer to actual physical possession thereof but may include prior unexplained possession. the article is deemed to have been taken also. (note: thus. It is enough that on taking them. People vs.  But if the accused received the thing from another person in trust or on commission. Santos vs. if it was stolen a long time ago. thus. Rey subsequently appropriated it rolex watch with intent to gain and without consent of Tina. in the same place. even if he did not have an opportunity to dispose of the same. he was then actuated by the desire or intent to gain. and later misappropriated or converted the thing to the prejudice of another. It is not an indispensable element of theft that the thief carry. Lucas v. but an act done soon thereafter by the offender which may result in unlawful taking or asportation. and on the same occasion. the property must be recently stolen. it suffices that consent on the part of the owner is lacking. the presumption will not lie. Gulinao Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. He was convicted of illegal possession and robbery. For robbery to exist. it was in fact given to. for theft. SC ruled that he is guilty of THEFT. Thus.  It is not necessary that there was real or actual gain on the part of the offender. Owner wanted to claim it back but Santos could not be found. In any case.  It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking. There is theft even if accused did not take them for his own use. The actual transfer of possession may not always and by itself constitute the unlawful taking.  The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after the transfer of physical possession (not juridical possession) of the thing to the offender. 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. Thus. 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. In such case. Gulinao went back to get Dr Chua’s diamond ring. more or less far away. the person in possession of part of the missing property is presumed to be the thief of the entire property. the distinction between juridical and mere physical possession is important. SC rule that he is guilty of THEFT. CA.  Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person. the offender. an electric fan. although in the beginning. or for administration. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons of force upon things. The taking of the ring was just an afterthought.  “taking” ≠ taking away or carrying away.5. – This is THEFT. Violence used in killing Dr Chua had no bearing on the taking of the ring.)   Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another.. and received by. because under those transactions.

service drops. (3) there must be an intention to gain from the taking of another person's personal property. 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. valued at P100. severe. one (1) box of car toys. and (e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of electric service obtained through any of the acts mentioned in subsections (a). The Court thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code. four (4) pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls. and.any person who: installs any water. AND OTHER ACTS Who are punishable? -. (c) Tamper. electrical and/or telephone wires. In the case before us.” In theft. 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. tampers and/or uses tampered water or electrical meters or jumpers or other devices whereby water or electricity is stolen. This is clutching at straws. 1974 C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 130 . 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.00 all belonging to Luisito Tuazon. knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water and/or electrical meters as well as stolen or pilfered water. (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. 7832 Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/ Materials Pilferage Act of 1994 Acts punishable Illegal Use of Electricity (§2) (a) Tap. electric and/or telephone wires.A. and (d) above. current reversing transformer. Lucas. (b) Tap. there is no crime of frustrated theft. slice. electrical or telephone connection without previous authority from the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. separate. Theft of Electricity. or (3) the circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime. shorting or shunting wire. HELD: To sustain a conviction for theft. saw. The said robbery took place when Luisito was at work. Appellant are guilty of theft. jumper. If there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it. or Article 309. make or cause to be made any connection with overhead lines. without previous authority or consent of the private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned. The amounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner took them without authority to do so Valenzuela v. these two elements were established. (c). Again. 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. Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and Materials (§3) Cut. in its primary sense. the following elements must be present: (1) personal property of another person must be taken without the latter's consent.pieces of cassette tapes. Dino and Empelis rulings. (d) Damage or destroy an electric meter. and. To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not an element of the corpus delicti in theft. People (2007) The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao.00 and jewelry worth P10. smelt. corpus delicti has two elements. PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF WATER. split. steals or pilfers water and/or electric meters or water. 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.000. ELECTRICAL OR TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS. Electric or Telephone Connections PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. as the case may be. Illegal Water. R. Gan v. THE USE OF TAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL METERS. 401 March 1. Navarro and one Lovena escaped on board a tricycle. the Manila Electric Company or the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. After the robbery.000. or other electric service wires.000. and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. Corpus delicti means the “body or substance of the crime. 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. equipment. cash of P20.00. the court should impose the minimum penalty corresponding to theft. install or use a tampered electrical meter. namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner. (b). refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed.

broken. reconnection. . whether or not the act is done for profit or gain. The presence of a tampered. and construction of access road and water mains and distribution network and any C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 131 . without the consent of the owner. stocked. lock. 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. appliance. inventoried. or computerized chart. including the prevention of. The existence of any wiring connection which affects the normal operation or registration of the electric meter. gate. For theft of electric power transmission lines and materials The possession or custody of electric power transmission line/material by any person. possess or otherwise keep in his premises. custody or control. reservoir. of a current reversing transformer. air or sea. or its metering accessories. obstruct. deposited. Store. whether or not the act is done for profit or gain. situated or located. and/or loop connection or any other similar device. ship or move from one place to another. water distribution pipes. measurement. and accessories. inlet. water mains. jumper. shorting and/or shunting wire. machinery buildings. or at the back or any other part of said meter. or the supply. 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. or any other installation or place of installation or any other place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored. pipes. or other works. 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. must be personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). conveyance. stocked. or log. or attempt to destroy. without first securing a clearance/permit for the said purpose from its owner or the National Power Corporation (NPC) or its regional office concerned. kept. works. as the case may be. transformers. or any place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored. alteration. monument. any electric power transmission line/material or meter from a tower. or regulation thereof. 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. transmission or distribution of electric power. and Load. bypassing or tampering of instruments. or fake seal on the meter. the holding of a preliminary investigation by the prosecutor and the subsequent filing in court of the pertinent information. deposited. dam. pier. The discovery of any of the foregoing circumstances. carry away or remove or transfer. Anti-Pilferage. any integral accessory of the metering device box which encases an electric meter. whether public or private. situated or located without the consent of the owner. The presence inside the electric meter of salt. whether by land.remove any electric power transmission line/material or meter from a tower. bulkhead. control or custody thereof. whether or not the act is done for profit or gain. any electrical power transmission line/material. Prevent. graph. and therefore such line/material may be confiscated from the person in possession. pole. in order to constitute prima facie evidence. and shall be the basis for: the immediate disconnection by the electric utility to such person after due notice. Take. 8. The destruction of. any electric power transmission line/material or meter without the consent of the owner. any other installation or place of installation.It is hereby declared unlawful for any person to: Destroy. and interfere with the survey. carry. service. crib. or mutilated. 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. kept. wire benchmark. with or without the use of a motor vehicle or other means of conveyance. natural or juridical. or interference with any authorized person engaged in the discharge of duties connected therewith. altered or tampered meter recording chart or graph. whether or not the act is done for profit or gain. 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. RA 8041 An Act to Address the National Water Crisis and For Other Purposes Sec. ditch. raceway. damage or interfere with any canal. 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. or property of any water utility entity. not engaged in the transformation. aqueduct. The mutilation. inventoried. conduit. disconnection. pole.

8550 An Act Providing For The Development. except for scientific or research purposes. may allow. 4. stupefy. And For Other Purposes What acts are punishable? 1. Use or receive the direct benefit of water service with knowledge that diversion.  The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed with the use of explosive. and Knowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the above. 2. pipes and related or ancillary facilities. magnets. 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. officer or employee of the water utility concerned. tampering. Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters. the offender shall be punished imprisonment from six (6) to twelve (12) years. sticks. which will kill. the use of electricity. or cause to be made any connection with water lines without prior authority or consent from the water utility concerned. noxious or poisonous substance such as sodium cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas. fishing for daily food sustenance or for leisure which is not for commercial. poisonous or noxious substances to catch. Tap. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other Unauthorized Fisheries Activities (a) exploiting. Tamper. Steal or pilfer water meters. 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. make. boat official or fishworker is fishing with the use thereof. Noxious or Poisonous Substance. disable or render unconscious fish or fishery species  The Department. (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 C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 132 . main lines. Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto. operator. or that the use or receipt was otherwise without the authorization of the water utility. the said employee. noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing (d) Actual use of explosives. Steal water for profit or resale. or illegal connection existed at the time of that use. shortening of vane wheels and other devices to steal water or interfere with accurate registry or metering of water usage. 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. explosives. educational or scientific purposes only. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation (a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and semiprecious corals. Management And Conservation Of The Fisheries And Aquatic Resources. 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. subject to safeguards and conditions deemed necessary and endorsement from the concerned LGUs. noxious or poisonous substances or by electricity shall constitute prima facie evidence that the fisherfolk. and/or Electricity (a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of electricity. or otherwise result in its diversion in a manner whereby water is stolen or wasted. 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. install or use tampered water meters. for research. (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. whether raw or in processed form. 3. 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. (c) Mere possession of explosive. 5. Fishing Through Explosives. 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. occupation or livelihood purposes may be allowed. 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 confiscated corals shall either be returned to the sea or donated to schools and museums for Illegal Fishing REPUBLIC ACT NO.related works of the utility entity. reversing water meters. that the same was used for fishing in violation of this Code.

or large cattle. CA Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that tested positive for sodium cyanide. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season 11. and other fishery marine life habitat as may be determined by the Department (b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation. Illegal Use of Superlights (a) fishing with the use of superlights in 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. Its presence in the commission of theft is sufficient. 13. in areas including. catadromous and other migratory species. guardianship or vigilance. The accused were convicted for illegal fishing using poisonous substances under PD 703. that has created a high degree of confidence between them. between the accused and the offended party. Spawners. Lake or Bay Penalties for qualified theft are now next HIGHER BY 2 DEGREES. Refuge and Sanctuaries 12. Other violations Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all Fishponds. There must be allegation in the information and proof of a relation. which the accused abused. 5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer 7. Exportation of Breeders. 2. Ban on Muro-Ami. Fish Pens and Fish Cages without a license/permit 19. mail matter. Threatened or Hizon vs. Qualified theft Theft is qualified if: 1. typhoon. Fishing or Taking Endangered Species of Rare. 6. Eggs or Fry 15. silica. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of anadromous. Article 310. 4. other physical or mechanical acts to pound the coral reefs and other habitat to entrap. Committed by a domestic servant. The grave abuse of confidence need not be premeditated. earthquake. The property stolen is a motor vehicle. Fishing in Fishery Reserves. pebbles and other substances which make up any marine habitat 8. 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. SC held that the presumption is only prima facie hence. 14. The abuse of confidence must be grave.educational or scientific through other means. 3. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species 16. Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. Conversion of Mangroves (a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for any other purposes 10. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Employing Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew 20. but not limited to river mouths and estuaries within a distance determined by the concerned FARMCs 21. Other Methods and Gear Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat (a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs. or any other calamity. Aquatic Pollution 18. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. Violation of Catch Ceilings 17. seagrass beds. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 133 . rebuttable by competent evidence. which creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when any fish taken is positive for poisonous substances. Committed with grave abuse of confidence. and such similar gear and methods that require diving. or civil disturbance. selling or exporting white sand. vehicular accident. by reason of dependence. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners  However. purposes or disposed Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps. Petitioners question the legality of the presumption. it is not necessary to prove grave abuse of confidence. River. 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. or If property is taken on the occasion of fire. gather or catch fish and other fishery species (c) gathering. volcanic eruption.

On December 25. (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner. Empelis vs. HELD: The trial court correctly found that appellant was a trusted employee of Azkcon..The confidence gravely abused must be that existing between offended party and the offender. They dropped the coconuts after being seen by the owner. (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. 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. The trial court found him guilty of qualified theft. From 1991 to 1992. ESC was able to recovered. Bago’s job was to go to Power Construction’s 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. As the theft was committed with grave abuse of confidence. However. The act of asportation in this case was undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thief to profit by the act. he succeeded in withdrawing from the said supplier the cold rolled sheets. animo lucrandi. as amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. however. Due to this trust. appellant presented the third receipt (Invoice No. People vs. Inexplicably. appellant is guilty of qualified theft. People v. 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.m. was subsequently recovered." When statutes are in pari materia or when they relate to the same person or thing.m. Clearly. and (6) the property was taken on the C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 134 . 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. Neither will it diminish the criminal responsibility of appellant. 6539. and since he effectively deprived the true owner of the possession of the entire automobile. or have the same purpose or object. 1992 for stamping only on April 21. Bago was discovered to have participated in the theft of materials worth P192. 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. but he did not return it on the same day as he was supposed to. People v.00 per day. (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence. all the elements of theft were established. 51111) dated March 23. They were tasked to deliver the prawns to the pier using the truck. The materials he took from the supplier on March 23. mail matter or large cattle. after which he would return it to ESC Transport's garage and remit the boundary fee in the amount of P780. The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his right of possession were complete as to the entire car. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft. Carpio: The gist of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking and asportation of property. Cañales Facts: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner. 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. to 11:00 p. 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 company’s plant in Kalookan City. (2) that said property belongs to another. (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain.00. On January 9. 1997. and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things. and with intent to deprive the true owner of the possession thereof. (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. otherwise known as "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING. the offense of larceny comprised the whole car. Article 310 has been modified.000. They stole a truck and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from the company. They were convicted of qualified theft. Azkcon has a business arrangement with Power Construction Supply Company (Power Construction) whereby Azkcon buys cold rolled sheets from the latter. (4) the taking was done with intent to gain. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. Reynaldo Bago (2000) FACTS: Reynaldo Bago was an employee of Azkcon Metal Industries from 1988-1992. with respect to certain vehicles. These cold rolled sheets are also cut by Power Construction for a fee and Azkcon converts them into drums or containers. It was agreed that appellant would drive the taxi from 6:00 a. by Republic Act No. (2) the property belongs to another. He was incharge of overseeing the cutting of the materials at Power Construction and ensuring their delivery to Azkcon. HELD: Bustinera was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The truck. or to the same class of persons or things. Theft is qualified when any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant. 1996. or cover the same specific or particular subject matter. Luisito Bustinera (2004) FACTS: ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as a taxi driver. to wit: (1) there was a taking of personal property. as amended. and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. IAC 4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from a plantation. appellant admittedly reported for work and drove the taxi. Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transport and revealed that the taxi had been abandoned. The reasonable conclusion is that he asported the materials. 1992. 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. In People v. (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle.

it is the anti-carnapping law and not the provisions of qualified theft which would apply. and then later the withdrawal of P6. since appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo sedan. People v Ruben Sison (2000) FACTS: Ruben Sison first joined the Auditing Department of the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) in December 1977.000. Cariaga v.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch. is qualified theft. From the foregoing. Court of Appeals (2001) FACTS: "Luis Miguel Aboitiz was the Systems Analyst of the Davao Light & Power Company. if the teller appropriates the money for personal gain then the felony committed is theft and not estafa.000. (BABSLA). 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. the group was brought down and Jonathan Cariaga was charged and found guilty of qualified by grave abuse of confidence HELD: The defense. what is involved is the possession of money in the capacity of a bank teller. the integrity of telegraphic fund transfers and account names of bank clients. The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that there be a relation of independence. He initiated a covert operation to discover the method and to capture one of the culprits. that he had access to the electrical supplies of said company. vehicular accident or civil disturbance. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. beginning with People v. We note that the information alleged that petitioner was an employee of DLPC. De Vera. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent. He rose from the ranks and was promoted to the position of Assistant Manager and concurrently held the position of Branch Operation Officer. 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.00 and P4. as amended defines "carnapping" as "the taking. He was charged and found guilty of qualified theft. The management of the PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its Luneta Branch Operation Officer. the felony of qualified theft would be committed.00.000. Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 135 . Jonathan D.000.000. 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.000. (DLPC). among others. robbery and carnapping being the same. (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. Inc. except the Branch Manager. In line with the reasoning of the Court in several cases. He received reports that some private electricians were engaged in the clandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. 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. volcanic eruption. with grave abuse of confidence.755. In People v. guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and Western. anchors itself on the bare denial of petitioner of the specific acts imputed by the prosecution against him.000. Locson this Court considered deposits received by a teller in behalf of a bank as being only in the material possession of the teller. HELD: In the present case. verily. an equally fictitious account. cut-out and wires. and that with grave abuse of confidence. As such. Juridical possession remains with the bank. HELD: The appeal has no merit. Further. Section 2 of Republic Act No. and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. including custody of the cash vault. Roque argued that since the money was lawfully received by her and later misappropriated she was guilty only of estafa. to confidential and highly delicate computerized security systems designed to safeguard. Sison facilitated the crediting of two (2) fictitious remittances in the amounts of P3. which were generally used for the installation of transformers and power lines. the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB). Astudillo v. including lightning arresters. 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. whose duty was to devise means to prevent losses due to waste. The trial court correctly convicted appellant of Qualified Theft on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Using an undercover agent. Certainly. Such is only material possession. He was the primary control officer directly responsible for the day to day operations of the branch.000. or by using force upon things. typhoon. she was charged with qualified theft and covicted.00 in favor of Solid Realty Development Corporation. Asuncion Roque v People (2004) FACTS: Asuncion Roque was a teller of the Basa Air Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. earthquake. and the bank places money in the teller's possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller. with intent to gain.occasion of fire. or any other calamity. On the other hand. 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. Ultimately. since the teller occupies a position of confidence. She was found to have taken money from several of the depositors. pilferage or theft of company property. he stole electrical materials belonging to DLPC. 6539. The crime perpetuated by appellant against his employer. Unable to return the money. 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. he was assigned to different branches until his last detail at the PCIB Luneta Branch in February 1991. and it was this trust and confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of PCIB in the amount of P6.250. the concept of unlawful taking in theft. and specifically stored therein for emergency operations at night when the stockroom is closed. conceived and accomplished the theft of P6. 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 elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another. Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch.

license or permit. collect. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 136 . of the corporation. or should be known to him. Presumption of Fencing. 330 PenalizingTimber Smuggling or Illegal Cutting of Logs SECTION 1. collected or removed. or smuggles timber. That in the case of partnership. without any authority under a license agreement. object or anything of value which he knows. Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber is actually processed forest raw materials or just processed timber. firm. in addition to the penalty herein prescribed. Mustang Lumber Inc vs. Mere possession of any good. That if the offender is a corporation. or permittee who cuts timber from the licensed or a. but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. While they had access to the merchandise. shall buy. with intent to gain for himself or for another. to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. leased area of another. gathering or collecting shall be liable. lessee. association or corporation. Cutting. In such cases. 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store. association corporation or partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing. or from private lands.000 pesos but not exceeding 22. gathers. the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period. Fencing PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. acquire. partnership or association. shall before offering the same for sale to the public. — Any person who shall cut. implements and tools used therein. establishment or entity is located. if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum.D. they had no access to the cashier’s booth or to the cash payments subject of the offense.payments. and if such guilty officer or officers are aliens. shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC. if the value of the property involved is more than 12. firm. object. the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers. be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. equipment. item. or in any other manner deal in any article. he or they shall be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commissioned of Immigration and Deportation. preparation and issuance of invoices. Provided. and the forfeiture of his improvements in the area. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or forest products to cut. they shall. item. 705 The Forestry Reform Code (as amended) SECTION 68. whether under license or lease. object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof. lease. The penalty of prision mayor. gather. removes. without prejudice to whatever civil action the latter may bring against the offender. adding one year for each additional 10. possess. 1612 ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 What is fencing? “Fencing" is the act of any person who. Provided. the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed. conceal. forest reserves and other kinds of public forests. or other forest products. They had no hand in the safekeeping. receive. in addition to the penalty. gathered. Penalties imposed Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated: P. CA Illegal Logging P. partnership or association. whether natural or juridical.D. or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. or timber from alienable and disposable public lands. sell or dispose of. Therefore. or shall buy and sell. Any person. article.000 pesos. and if such officers are aliens. item. lease. license or permit and perpetual disqualification from acquiring any such privilege shall be imposed upon any licensee. article. either from any of the public forest. or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land. keep. who directly or indirectly cuts. the officers who ordered the cutting. lumber is necessarily included in timber as the law makes no distinction. They merely assisted customers in making a purchase and in demonstrating the merchandise to prospective buyers. "Fence" includes any person. firm. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles is required All stores. and the machinery. gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good.000 pesos. or from any privately owned forest lands in violation of existing laws. as the case may be. The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement. rules and regulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualified theft as defined and penalized under Articles 308.

If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of strategy or stealth) . The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 137 . who had lost a case in a cadastral proceeding. if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6. if such value does not exceed 5 pesos. took possession of the land adjudicated in favor of the offended party and harvested the palay. if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.000 pesos but not exceeding 12. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. it only provides for a fine. 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. and when the administrator of such land told him to leave. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. example: Accused. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. The real property or real right must belong to another 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. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period. If at all.  IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physical injuries inflicted as a result of the acts of violence. 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. 3. the crime is: grave coercion Usurpation of Real Right. e. if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6. only CIVIL LIABILITY exists Violence or intimidation must be DURING the occupation or usurpation. d. f. c. 2. Elements: 1. takes possession of any real property or b. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Article 312. by means of threats and intimidation. 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. Distinguished from theft or robbery: Usurpation Theft/robbery 2.000 pesos. 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. but accused threatened administrator he would "kill anyone who would drive me away" or chased administrator away with bolo.b. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. Article 311. 4.000 pesos. That the offender a. 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. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property Acts punishable: 1. 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. Art 312 DOES NOT apply. if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.

but to some third person. landmarks Elements: 1. with the use of force. The considerations in the deed of sale were all fictitious. (2) violence or intimidation should be employed in possessing the real property or in usurping the real right. surmises and conjectures" but clearly on the evidence on record and in accordance with the applicable law. HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation. violence and intimidation. . 2. usurped and took possession of the landholding. removing a fence Article 314. defendants asserted a calim over the land despite the fact that a prior judicial decision declared the Del Montes as the rightful owners. 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. required not intention alone. In order to sustain a conviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales. While there. together with their other close relatives appeared on the property of Francisco and Bienvenido Del Monte. 3. Fraudulent Insolvency Elements: 1. The requisites of usurpation are that the accused took possession of another's real property or usurped real rights in another's property. since it was the creditors of her husband (not HER creditors) who were defrauded. Judgment was rendered against him and execution issued. Resultantly. not to the occupant or usurper. provinces." the proof must show that the real property occupied or usurped belongs. Distinguished from Insolvency Law: Insolvency Law: requires that the criminal act be committed AFTER the institution of insolvency proceedings C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 138 Article 313. taking it to another place or c. In the trial court. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns.does not require that the debtor should depart and physically conceal his property. claiming that the same is their inheritance from their ascendants further they gathered coconuts and made them into copra. Thus. He owned several parcels of real property which he transferred to another to place them beyond the reach of his creditors.There is intent to gain Occupation or usurpation There is taking or asportation Real property or real Personal property taken right Conchita Quinao v People (2000) FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao. and (3) the accused should be animated by the intent to gain. Being a merchant is not an element of this offense. defendants were found guilty of usurpation of real property. 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. 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. or estates. 4. is Concealment of property not sufficient if the debtor-accused has some other property with which to satisfy his obligation. 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. The mere alteration of the boundary marks or monuments intended to designate the boundaries of towns. Hence. the decision rendered by the trial court convicting her of the crime of usurpation of real property was not based on "speculations. Cubelo. or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same The offender alters said boundary marks Intent to gain NOT necessary. that the possession or usurpation was committed with violence or intimidation and that the accused had animo lucrandi. Includes: a. "Alter": General and indefinite meaning. He was thus forced to seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine National Police. Altering boundaries or 2. or estate is punishable. provinces. destruction of stone monument b. Actual prejudice. It only makes the penalty higher Real property may be involved "Absond". real property may be the subject of fraudulent insolvency. More explicitly. in Castrodes vs. Such participation does NOT prove her complicity in the fraud. Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of the offender Example: Wife of accused helped prepare documents to abscond with his property.

2. since amount of the damage is the basis of the penalty. That the accused defrauded another by a. having been licensed or Three general ways of committing Estafa: 1. establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL: 1. The Minister shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents paraphernalia. 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 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. 2018 Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic Sabotage Acts punishable 1. quantity. Swindling (Estafa) P.D. properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies. Article 315. without authorized to do so. enterprise or scheme. abuse of confidence or by means of deceit of That damage or prejudice capable pecuniary estimation is caused to a. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts 3. employment. 2. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence 2. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value 2. or quality of anything of value Elements: 1. quantity. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 139 . 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 offended party or b. or quality 3. Any recruitment activities. * intent of defrauding another is always an element * no estafa through negligence -Estafa through Abuse of Confidence- I. DECEIT is NOT an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence * As to second general element of DAMAGE. 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. b.Fraudulent insolvency: no need for defendant to be adjudged bankrupt or insolvent. Paragraph 1 (a): Estafa with unfaithfulness by altering the substance. it should be capable of pecuniary estimation. third person * As seen above. That he alters its substance. 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. through fraudulent means Article 315. including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

or who sells the same to the buyer on credit. or d) to effect their presentation. for administration d. general property rights in such goods. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of such property by the offender OR (b) denial of such receipt 3. or c) to load. goods. Of Justice said that since PBM would not be selling the equipment but would just be using them. Any violation of the TRA is punished (Geof's notes in Comm: wrong SC decision!  ) Lee vs. Ordonez PBM got equipment from bank and executed trust receipt agreement (TRA) -. 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. Estafa may arise even if the thing to be delivered is not subject of lawful commerce (ex. trust (Trust Receipts Law) b. or c) to effect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to a depository or register. 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. has. 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. Therefore. on commission c. a) to sell the goods or procure their sale. or 2. or b) to deliver them to a principal. documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods. does not constitute a trust receipt transaction. Sec. documents or instruments. or other personal property be received by the offender in a. In the case of instruments. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 140 . or other personal property otherwise disposed of. as against the buyer. goods. whereby the entruster. ship or tranship or otherwise deal with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to their sale. • Even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration. 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. Demand was made by the offended to the offender PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. No further formality of execution or authentication shall be necessary to the validity of a trust receipt. Elements: 1.delivery of a thing unacceptable to the complainant is NOT estafa. there was no violation of PD 115. goods.acknowledged bank's ownership of equipment and PBM's obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale of said equipments. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction? A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by and between a person referred to as the entruster. That money. or to manufacture or process the goods with the purpose of ultimate sale: Provided. under any obligation involving duty to return the very same thing 2.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. There is prejudice to another 4. documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling goods. collection or renewal NOTE: The sale of goods. documents or instruments. HELD: PD 115 applies to ALL trust receipt transactions. or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any of the following: 1. Rodil Lee executed TRA for the purchase of materials but misappropriated the value of the goods for personal use. documents or instruments for profit who. in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt. 115 January 29. Paragraph 1 (b): misappropriating or converting money. opium) Article 315. documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not Allied Banking v. or other personal property OR denying having received such money. b) II. Charged with estafa under PD 115. That. at the outset of the transaction. unload. a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange. retaining title or other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price. 1973 PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUST RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS "Trust Receipt" -. and another person referred to as entrustee. In the case of goods or documents. who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods. in the case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before its ultimate sale. the fact that the goods were just to be used by PBM and not to be sold is of no importance.

depositary pledged the thing deposited) "misappropriation" . only CIVIL LIABILITY b) if buyer did not pay the price to owner. as if the thing were the accused's own (ex. The gravity of the crime of Estafa is determined on the basis of the amount not returned before the institution of criminal action. lease. it is necessary because failure to account upon demand. • • • • • The 4th element is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation of goods by the defendant Check is included in the word "money" "conversion" – thing was devoted for a purpose different from that agreed upon. does not relieve him from criminal liability. ‘Even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond’ – a security executed by the agent to answer for damages etc. only Civil liability • • • • • No estafa when the money or other personal property received is NOT to be used for a particular purpose. Contract of sale (ownership is transferred at the time of delivery): a) if thing sold not delivered and advance payment not returned. "to the prejudice of another"necessarily the owner of the property Partnerships: not • • • Money/goods must be received by the offender. is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. only CIVIL LIABILITY also Key: if no obligation to return the very same thing. Otherwise.   but NOT contract of loan! Loan of money is mutuum. no estafa. commodatum. pledge  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 Art 314 par 1 (b) is the ONLY kind of estafa where demand is necessary. the novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by the State prosecutors. for this undertaking refers only to his civil liability.using an amount for personal purposes Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts collected: IF AUTHORIZED to retain commission. the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor relation. Ownership was transferred. nor is acceptance of a PN for money misappropriated  Also.HELD: Sec 13 of PD 115 explicitly states that the failure to give back the proceeds or return the goods of estafa is punishable. 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. • a. Although it is not required by law. upon delivery of the thing to the offender. "involving the duty to return the same" includes quasi-contracts and contract of bailment: deposit. because up to that time. What is punished is the violation of the trust receipt and not the non-payment of the loan. crime is THEFT (taking without consent of owner)  hence. Estafa with abuse of confidence Offender acquires the juridical possession of the property Offender receives the thing from the offended party • Additional test: In theft. 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. No violation of the Constitution as the loan is separate from the trust receipt. Theft Offender acquires only material possession of the property Offender takes the thing from the offended party  • b. 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 C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 141 .

he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense. or fraudulent means. 3.Both are continuing offenses The funds or property Involves public funds or are 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. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank 2. crime is falsification of instrument) -Estafa by DeceitElements of Estafa by means of deceit: 1. redeemed the jewelry Pretending to possess power: "pretend to be a magician who can find gold. (c): estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank fictitious name: when a person found a pawnshop ticket in the name of another and. fraudulent act or fraudulent means. AMPI did not demand return of the parts. Failure to deliver the proceeds did not cause damage to AMPI. There must be a false pretense. or through goods or other personal abandonment or property negligence. Pretending to possess influence: I have connections in Malacañang so pay me if you wanna get your documents approved" trick Estafa by means of deceit vs. credit f. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense. other similar deceits • III. Saddul did not receive the parts from AMPI in trust (received it from another party which was the owner of the parts). IV. falsely pretending to possess a. As a result thereof. CA Saddul was authorized to sell some car parts. Saddul v. par 1. theft: juridical/ legal possession is still transferred • Elements: 1. par 2. if it is involved in the commission of a crime. a document is written by offender without authority to do so 4. 2. Also. or causes damage to the offended party or any third person • • C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 142 . influence c. Article 315. fraudulent act. the offended party suffered damage. property e. as it was not the owner of the parts. fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. using the name of that person. but pay me to find the gold under your house" trick. HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. qualifications d. fraudulent act or fraudulent means. if it is not involved in the commission of a crime. It is malversation. business or imaginary transactions 3. That the document so written creates a liability of. • Misappropriation of firearms received by a policeman is Estafa. Three ways of committing estafa under this provision: 1. Article 315. That the offended party should have delivered it to the offender 3. That above the signature. consenting. Such false pretense. 4. may still be held liable for Estafa even if the public officer was acquitted. 20% of the proceeds from sale would go to AMPI. that is. using fictitious name 2. agency g. power b. permitting any other person to take the public funds or property • The paper with the signature in blank MUST BE DELIVERED by the offended party to the offender (otherwise. (a) • Private individual allegedly in conspiracy with public officer in a prosecution of the latter for malversation. taking converting or denying or misappropriating or having received money. Saddul did not convert it for personal use. by appropriating.

VIII. • 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 Article 315. Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa by inducing another to sign any document Elements: 1. That such postdating or issuing was done when: a. Manipulation of Scale: violation of Revised Administrative Code Article 315. without paying therefor. fineness. That the offender postdated a check. 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. 2. IX. funds deposited were not sufficient • check must be genuine and not falsified. etc • VII. or accommodation at a hotel. Paragraph 2 pretending to have bribed Government employee (c): any  When check is issued in substitution of a promissory note. Article 315. refreshment. food. a jeweler. if drawer is able to fund within 3 days from notice of dishonoring. • 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  otherwise. Article 315. Paragraph 2 (d): postdating a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank.to offender in case of estafa. V. 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 C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 143 . Elements: 1. By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by the use of false pretenses 3. refreshment. it is estafa under paragraph 2(a). That the offender induced the offended party to sign a document. But it is transferred through deceit. etc. That deceit be employed to make him sign the document 3. Paragraph 2 (b): by altering quality. Three ways of committing estafa under the this provision: 1. That the offended party personally signed the document 4. offender had no funds or b. By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from any of said establishments after obtaining credit. or his funds were not sufficient to cover the amount Article 315. there is no Estafa because it is not in payment of an obligation. By obtaining food. a diamond to be made into a ring. otherwise. or issued a check in payment of an obligation 2. without paying therefor. with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof. it is in payment of a pre existing obligation  When the check is issued by a guarantor. or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business Example: A gives B. 2. not liable for estafa • • VI. B changed the stone with one of lower quality. It MUST be for an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance or delivery of the check. Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa by obtaining food or accommodation at a hotel. or accommodation therein.

Abujuela vs. However. "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. even if there is damage. • 1. the act of destroying court record will be malicious mischief Examples: Concealing document: A person who concealed a document evidencing a deposit of P2. That the offender had intent to defraud another • If no intent to defraud. there is no estafa. HELD: GUILTY of estafa by false pretense. The crime committed is only falsification of public document. • • • 1. Destroying documents: Destruction of a PN given back to the maker to be replaced with a new one to renew the loan. There CAN be a complex crime of theft and estafa. office files. having pretended to have special powers and fooled the extremely stupid victim. 2. or destroying documents officially entrusted with the documents There is intent to defraud document Intent to defraud not an element in this crime Final Notes on Estafa: • X. That there be court record. when the former is a necessary means to commit the latter. but who effects full settlement of the loan within the period agreed upon. Article 315. Elements: 1. • Accused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of a dwarf. People Balo offered financial assistance to Abujuela by virtue of some insurance proceeds that Balo would receive from his 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 Estafa under par.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. In a very old case. the offended party was dispossessed of the evidence of a debt. took the pawnshop tickets without the consent of A (Theft). A private person who procures a loan by means of deceit through a falsified public document of mortgage. 3 (c) C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 144 . concealing. using a fictitious name. 2. hence it cannot be the subject of estafa. By redeeming the jewels by means of the tickets. is Estafa. with intent to gain. That the offender removed. Hence. 3. documents or any other papers 2. concealed or destroyed any of them 3. does not commit the crime of Estafa. The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa with abuse of confidence under an information alleging estafa by means of deceit. C. given to cover losses in gambling. There is only civil liability.600 which came into his possession when he offered to collect the deposit is guilty of estafa. there being no disturbance of proprietary rights and no person defrauded thereby. without making a new promissory note is estafa because by destroying the old one. 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. Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa by removing. The basis of the penalty for estafa is the amount or value of the property misappropriated BEFORE the institution of the criminal action. there was a dissenting opinion which stated that such PN is void and of no value. C also committed estafa. Paragraph 3 (b): Estafa by resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in gambling Article 315. it was ruled that the act of destroying a PN. CA • • XI. partial payment made subsequent to the commission of estafa does not reduce the amount misappropriated which is the basis of the penalty. by the maker thereof. If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence.

Abujuela charged as accomplice to estafa through falsification of commercial documents HELD: NOT guilty. Because of said act. Koh Tieng Heng vs. Eventually. CA Gaw delivered to accused the amount of P180.e. and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. People Heng deposited two checks worth P18. After trial on the merits. Llamado contends that the money which Gaw gave the corporation was intended for investment which they agreed will be returned to Gaw with interests. Thus. a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public document was filed against Lu Hayco. the crime of estafa. if not a mode of payment. HELD: Possession and utterance of a falsified check gives rise to the presumption that the possessor is the forger of the check. i.000.00. The SPOA also authorized Lu Hayco “To deposit and withdraw funds in the name of the company. Goyenechea (8 Phil. When the account was closed. if any. Upon delivery of the money.000 paid by customers of the Units Optical. will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes. Lu Hayco argues. that it will be repaid plus interests and a share in the profits of the corporation. Gaw deposited the check in his current account. The drawee banks subsequently dishonored deposited checks. Knowledge of criminal intent is essential to be an accomplice in estafa. Heng was finally caught trying to withdraw again. the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption. People vs. discrepancies were found between the ledger and the account. and that the check was drawn against insufficient funds.S. To make a very long story short.father.060 each issued by a certain Dyaico. But then. lack of involvement in the negotiation for the transaction is not a defense. Attempted estafa correct as he was caught trying to withdraw. or the terms and conditions for their issuance. he signed the check in blank. If as he claims. Ong had no knowledge of lack of funds. that there is no estafa since the element of misappropriation or conversion was not proven. 22. v. the check need not have been issued because a receipt and their written agreement would have sufficed. was placed in a doubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. [The SC] held that: “McCullough & Co. a secretary in petitioner's office. and is positive enough under rule of law to produce one of the elements constituting the offense. is itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. always constitutes real and actual damage. 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. CA Lu Hayco had a special power of attorney from Lu Chiong Sun to manage the Units Optical Supply Company. among others. Llamado admits that Gaw made an investment in said amount with Pan-Asia Finance Corporation. not in the company's banks but in his own personal accounts.” C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 145 . the defendant pledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough & Co. 315(l -b) of the RPC. 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. the secretary of the accused in the corporation. Llamado vs. at least suffered disturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter and in the possession thereof. It became incumbent upon him to prove his defenses. the trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused of violation of Batas Pambansa No. only if the project became successful. which Gaw handed to Aida Tan. or as evidence of indebtedness. 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. accused Ricardo Llamado and Jacinto Pascual signed a postdated Philippine Trust Company Check in the presence of Gaw. knowledge involves a state of mind difficult to establish. Gaw was also notified by the bank that his current account was debited because of the dishonor of the said check. HELD: The disturbance in property rights caused by misappropriation. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. and without it being necessary to deal with any other considerations of material fact herein. In U. which the drawee bank dishonored later informed Gaw that said check because payment was stopped. he made himself prone to being charged with violation of BP 22. Diayco questioned the withdrawals.. The check was issued for an actual valuable consideration. checks not issued in payment of an obligation as required by the RPC. After 2 demand letters were ignored. Balo borrowed Abujuela's passbook and made it appear that certain deposits were made. Lu Hayco vs. though only temporary. is hardly a defense. Then he withdrew several times from the account. I think).” Lu Hayco deposited P139. However. HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. the typewriter was seized by the police. 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. by itself. if this were true. Throughout the trial. to the American Loan Company. Llamado failed to rebut the presumption by paying the amount of the check within five (5) banking days from notice of the dishonor. with the assurance of Aida Tan. and taken into court. HELD: Llamado denies knowledge of the issuance of the check without sufficient funds and involvement in the transaction with Gaw. it is common practice in commercial transactions to require debtors to issue checks on which creditors must rely as guarantee of payment. Lastly. This fact. McCullough & Co. True. Abujuela NOT aware of the fraudulent plans of Balo. 117). But to determine the reason for which checks are issued. In fact. he was convicted. So. the first case of estafa was dismissed but many more ensued (as many as 75 counts. His claim that he signed the check in blank which allegedly is common business practice. As Treasurer of the corporation who signed the check in his capacity as an officer of the corporation.

At least. People (2005) FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in the trading of animal feeds. only to be offloaded that day. upon which the complainant relied when he paid the premium. CA Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan Guaranty Company. 315 (1-b) of the RPC. 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". credit.. and collected Pl. Remullo also required each applicant to submit a passport. the following requisites must concur: • that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power. but with promises to be booked in a plane flight on another day. HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: a) that money. he handled said account. qualifications. which is sufficient to constitute conversion in the context of Art. who then appropriated the money for her own use and benefit. brought to the airport with their passports and tickets. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of.” To secure a conviction for estafa under par. Promptly preparing a certification and summary of payments. Cadacio. he was able to bring in Ocean Feed Mills as a client. By virtue of appellant's false representations. Ocean Feed Mills informed Atoz that they have already fully settled their accounts and even made overpayments. only to realize they were gypped. influence. or by means of other similar deceits. Having "personally found" Ocean Feed Mills. 2(a) of Art. as no jobs await them abroad. pictures. Said company had been suspended from operating and eventually closed by the Insurance Commissioner since February 21. Atoz thus notified Ocean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was no longer connected with the corporation. complainants were provided defective visas. This knowledge makes him liable under paragraph 2(a) of Art. but failed utterly to provide overseas job placements to the complainants. or to return the same. Evelyn Landrito. People v. At the time of their supposed departure. or for administration.000 as recruitment fee to appellant.00. 1968. this could be considered as a temporary prejudice suffered by Lu Chiong Sun. The recruits wait in vain for weeks. or falsely pretending to possess power. influence. the City Court of Iligan City convicted Salcedo of estafa. 1968 a P50. 315 of the RPC. private complainants each parted with their hard-earned money. or on commission. Atoz audited some of the accounts handled by him. vice president and general manager of Jamila later certified that appellant was not authorized to receive payments on behalf of Jamila. 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.80 as premium. agency. agency. 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. HELD: In this case. Lu Chiong Sun and Units Optical could not dispose of the said amounts. When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in 1994. Remullo told them to fill up application forms and to go to the office of Jamila and Co. While the funds received by Lu Hayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts. Salcedo vs.095. 383 SCRA 93 (2002) FACTS: Quinsaat.000 for each applicant. where Remullo told them she was recruiting factory workers for Malaysia. even years. 315 of the RPC which provides that: “2. the recruitment agency where Remullo allegedly worked. qualifications. All these requisites are present in this case. there was a disturbance in the property rights of Lu Chiong Sun. Through conversion or misappropriation Crisanto Lee v. Atoz filed several cases of estafa against Lee. business or imaginary transactions. In the course of Lee's employment therewith. Inc. the offended party suffered damage. It was then that Atoz discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaid account in the amount of P318. Salcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order but he deliberately concealed the same from complainant Ponce when he issued on March 18. which they did. and then to undergo a medical examination ‘The three were then asked by Remullo to pay a placement fee of P15. which was engaged in the business of property insurance. he had knowledge that his company was no longer authorized to conduct insurance business. 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. In a classic rigmarole. property. or denial on his part of such C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 146 . credit. and advised it to verify its accounts. and clearance from the NBI.672. months. Their passports were cancelled and their boarding passes marked "offloaded". and that as result thereof. HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan Guarantee.In the case at bar. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust. No clearer cases of estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant should be held criminally responsible. at Iligan City. appellant clearly defrauded private complainants by deceiving them into believing that she had the power and authority to send them on jobs abroad. When he signed and issued the policy and collected the premium thereof. property. No receipts were issued for said payments. Robert Crisanto Lee was the corporation's sales manager from early 90's to 1994. an immigration officer at the airport told the victims they lacked a requirement imposed by the POEA. b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender. Remullo. Each complainant paid P15.000 fire insurance policy unto the complainant. Eventually. Transactions between the two companies were then coursed through Lee. and Mejia went to appellant's house sometime in March 1993. and the trial court found him guilty.

demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money. Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. the appointment of Labrador as petitioner's sub-agent was not expressly prohibited by Quilatan in the acknowledgement receipt. 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. However. Jorge Salazar v. Unknown to Quilatan. Salazar was charged and convicted. The elements of estafa under Article 315.59 to US$1. People. Serona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to one Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission basis. Resultantly Aurora/UniGroup failed to produce the 700 dozens of ladies jeans resulting in a suit against them. Werner Lettmayr at Citibank N. As requested. Olivier (Philippines) Inc. both within 30 days from receipt of the items. Mr. the remedy of Skiva against Aurora/Uni-Group for breaching its contract is a civil. (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender. to the joint account of Mr. We reiterate that the contract between Skiva and Aurora was one of sale. is a New Yorkbased corporation which imports clothes from the Philippines through its buying agent. 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. Petitioner and the OSG contend that under these facts. 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. Skiva informed Olivier that it needs ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January 1986. The balance was allegedly returned by him. If the transaction fails. 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 C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 147 . Werner Lettmayr is the President of both Aurora and UniGroup while the petitioner. To "misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit. not a criminal suit. and (d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender. the balance was later found missing.370. Skiva has no cause to complain that petitioner committed estafa. (“Uni-Group”) are domestic corporations which supply finished clothes to Skiva.receipt. Werner Lettmayr. Upon petitioner's failure to pay. His conviction was upheld even by the Supreme Court. Mr. After demand.00) as Aurora/Uni-Group did not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials to manufacture the jeans. $41. in turn. requested Skiva for advance payment in order to procure the raw materials needed for the 700-dozen ladies’ jeans. Inc. the obligation to return the advance payment ensues but this obligation is civil and not of criminal nature. contacted Aurora and Uni-Group to supply the jeans. Thus. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. HELD: We find merit in the new motion. the SC reversed and held he was innocent. there was delay in the performance of contract on the part of Aurora/Uni-Group. Quilatan required her to execute an acknowledgment receipt indicating their agreement and the total amount due.A. In a prosecution for estafa. However. On January 7. the Israel Discount Bank. par. 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. or for administration. the accused may be convicted of the felony under Article 315.300.300. Olivier. which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to Quilatan. Demand is not an element of the felony or a condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint for estafa. Serona was not able to collect payment from Labrador. representing Aurora/UniGroup. 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." 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. By oral agreement of the parties. It was also Mr. People (2004) FACTS: Skiva International. Aurora Manufacturing & Development Corporation (“Aurora”) and Uni-Group Inc. It was also agreed that the amount advanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its order of 700 dozens of ladies jeans. However in this Motion for Reconsideration. and Mrs. c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. and Mrs. is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. Despite the payment. The trial court found her guilty. not only the conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right. failure to account upon demand. (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. is the VicePresident and Treasurer of Uni-Group and a consultant of Aurora. Quilatan filed a complaint with the prosecutor and Serona was charged with estafa.00 was transmitted by Skiva as advance payment. After the perfection of the contract of sale. In the case at bar. Indeed. In Abeto vs. Mr. we held that “an advance payment is subject to the disposal of the vendee.00 (then equivalent to P850. 1986. Virgie Serona v Court of Appeals (2002) FACTS: Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces of jewelry to Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis.00 at the exchange rate of P20. the parties agreed that Skiva will advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount of US$41. together with petitioner and his wife. Skiva remitted the funds by way of telegraphic transfer from its bank in New York. Jorge Salazar. petitioner shall remit payment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold to Quilatan. Lettmayr who suggested that the advance payment be made to the joint account of himself and his wife. or denial on his part of such receipt. We agree. Jorge Salazar withdrew money from the dollar account converted it into pesos and purchased cloth for the manufacture of 300 dozens of ladies jeans.” In fine. for funds or property held in trust. In December 1985. Jorge Salazar and Mr. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission. thereby committing conversion and a clear breach of trust.

legally sanctioned. goods. fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof. The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of private complainants. on the other hand. 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. Such act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received. HELD: Petitioner herein being a mere cash custodian had no juridical possession over the missing funds. Locson. both being mere bank employees. In said case. 57 Phil. and an agent who receives the proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. and has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank. with grave abuse of confidence. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. 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. however. autonomous. [N]ew Civil Code. agency. the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. 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. or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. 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. spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl. qualifications." Through false pretenses. or their proceeds. and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault (Article 1915. 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are present.388.924. Cristeta Chua Burce v Court of Appeals (2000) FACTS: After finding a shortage of P150. In this case. petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of estafa under Article 315. influence. removed the money and appropriated it to his own use without the consent of the bank. The trial court convicted accused-appellants of one (1) count of illegal recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa. An agent. Roberto Erquiaga vs Court of Appeals ( 2001) C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 148 . The offended party must have relied on the false pretense. 1993. We explained in Locson that — "The money was in the possession of the defendant as receiving teller of the bank. the receipts for the payment made by private complainants. business or imaginary transactions. In the Guzman case.00 representing the amounts they paid for the processing of their papers. right to retain money or goods received in consequence of the agency. He was. When the money. the prosecution also proved the guilt of accusedappellants for the crime of estafa. Her possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller. When the defendant.00. Calapan Branch. 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. several investigations were carried out.other time. be convicted of estafa under Art. The defense interposed denial and alibi. She was found guilty of estafa by the trial court. Estafa under Article 315. can even assert. No. 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. Thus. in addition. or falsely pretends to possess power. is not in point. an independent. 3 and where Karl Reichl pledged to refund to private complainants the total sum of P1. in fact. and the possession of the defendant was the possession of the bank.000. In the former case. property. It is by this representation that they induced private complainants to pay a placement fee of P150. Article 1730. as against his own principal. although they did not have any authority or license.00 in the vault of Metrobank. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may. There is an essential distinction between the possession by a receiving teller of funds received from third persons paid to the bank. found liable for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Locson. as when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made. old). the offended party suffered damages. and not qualified theft. HELD: SC upheld the trial court stating that. 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 People v. all of them concluded that the person primarily responsible was the bank’s Cash Custodian. was held guilty of qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. credit. He was found liable for qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. the receiving teller of a bank misappropriated the money received by him for the bank. Cristeta Chua-Burce. 325). in support of its theory that appellant only had the material possession of the merchandise he was selling for his principal. there was the taking or apoderamiento contemplated in the definition of the crime of theft. Court of Appeals.000. the receiving teller of a bank who misappropriated money received by him for the bank. paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name. payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself. petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily responsible for the cash-in-vault. Hence. 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. the element of juridical possession being absent. 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." In the subsequent case of Guzman v.

I ndeed. Petitioner Orosco misrepresented himself as a seller of marine preservative. Elsa Jose v People [G.00 at a later date. August 12.000. Ramos assured them that the visa would be obtained soon and the P17. 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. and Orosco as "Rey". 4. They used aliases. "Mr.R. 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. he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense. The following day. Guerrerro. That as a result thereof. as well as a roundtrip ticket to and a visa for Japan. Ramos told del Rosario that she was a ‘professional travel agent’ and would assist her in going to Japan. or fraudulent means. Del Rosario thereafter filed a case for estafa against Ramos. a. The following day. or fraudulent means. It was during this transaction that petitioner Roberto Erquiaga. as the former had ‘several connection(s) at the Japanese Embassy. Others more sensible might not have done so in a similar situation. On the other hand is the testimony of petitioner denying she ever made such misrepresentation. May 20. It has been established C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 149 . paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.FACTS: Honesta Bal is a businesswoman who owned a bookstore. Thereafter.500 each from a certain peddler. The elements of estafa or swindling under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code 18 are the following: 1. On December 4. HELD: Deceit refers to a “false representation of a matter of fact (whether by words or conduct. was filed against Roberto Erquiaga. They said they worked as field purchasing representative and field purchasing head.00 stating that part of the money would be used to expedite the release of the visa. That such false pretense.] FACTS: 24 November 1994.000. whether such a well-planned confidence operation resulted in the consummated crime of estafa.000. they would buy these cans from her at P2. however. Sometime in May 1989. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense. Camarines Sur. appeared at Honesta's store and introduced himself as an agent.000 each. They persuaded Honesta to purchase cans of a marine preservative which. a sting. He encouraged Honesta to borrow money. Dayandante. "Rey. Regie Ramos del Rosario went with her aunt Yolanda B. she was contacted by Manuel Dayandante @ Manny Cruz who offered to buy her land in Pili. In turn.000. 2.a. Del Rosario kept following up her papers with Ramos who insisted on her prior assurances that the visa would soon be released.k. Realizing that she was conned. Erquiaga as "Mr. must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 1989 Glenn Orosco. of the Taiwanese Marine Products. Bautista to the office of Elsa Ramos. visa and round trip ticket. the RTC found her guilty as did the Court of Appeals. respectively. Erquiaga.” On record are. Orosco brought five more cans which Honesta bought and eventually sold to Lawas. They were assured that she would be able to leave for Japan with her mother. private respondent has shown her gullibility and perhaps even foolishness in believing petitioner and in consequently parting with her P104.000. Guerrero".500. an Information for Estafa under Article 315. fraudulent act or fraudulent means. and Orosco vanished.00 ‘as initial payment and another P17. That there must be a false pretense." who sold said marine preservative. Undisputedly. 148371. May 21. Ramos asked for another P57. Honesta fell for these misrepresentations and the lure of profits offered by petitioners made her borrow money upon their inducement. Her daughter and she met Dayandante and a certain Lawas (Rodolfo Sevilla) at the Aristocrat Hotel." was introduced to Honesta to ascertain whether the cans of marine preservative were genuine or not. Erquiaga misrepresented himself as a "verifier" of the contents of the cans.900. All these payments were accompanied by a written receipt. Further. On May 24. 2004. who could assist in processing private respondent’s travel papers. could be bought for P1. fraudulent act. Pastor Lawas and Manuel Dayandante.k. Honesta purchased a can which she sold to Dayandante for P1. But such naivete cannot absolve petitioner of criminal liability. This charade convinced the latter and her family to part with their P104. They asked Ramos whether she was a travel agent. she was not a travel agent. and then petitioners disappeared from the scene after taking the money from her. upon examination of the contents of the cans. Del Rosario gave P30. she purchased all 215 cans for P322. Orosco delivered 215 cans to Honesta. Glenn Orosco. that is.00 was in payment of the round trip ticket.’ Ramos stated she could help in the processing of passport. or "con operation" known as "negosyo" of their group. 3. by false or misleading allegations. fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. He told Honesta that the company he represented was interested in purchasing her property. Honesta reported the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which. on the one hand. Neither was she licensed to engage in the business of travel agency.00 as deposit or earnest money and who promised to shoulder the 10% interest of her loan. a. fraudulent act. Lawas. discovered that these were nothing more than starch. She borrowed the money from a Jose Bichara at 10% interest on the advice of Erquiaga who lent her P5. 1989. No. 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. Soon after the payment. the offended party suffered damage.a.000.000. Encouraged by the huge profits from her previous transactions. Further. HELD: That petitioners had conspired with each other must be viewed not in isolation from but in relation to an alleged plot.

is a material ingredient of the offense. not only must said date be specifically and particularly alleged in the information. The check was dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED". Evangeline demanded the return of her money and the three accused executed their respective promissory notes.000.000. and (3) that the payee has been defrauded. with the assistance of a lawyer. Sia is the owner of Schanika Enterprises engaged in retailing nylon tires. whether by words or conduct. but his calls were unanswered.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. (2) that at the time of the issuance of the check. He then tried to call Dinglasan several times. because the three accused represented to her that they needed expenses in following up the papers of the land. Evangeline filed a criminal complaint against them. HELD: Dinglasan was charged and convicted of estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code. Subsequently. 4885. HELD: The elements of estafa. False pretense is any deceitful practice or device by which another is led to part with the property in the thing taken. failed and refused to deposit C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 150 . but the drawee bank.250. are: (1) that the offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance. as defined under Art. the offender had no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were insufficient to cover the amount of the check. 315. the account was closed on the very date of the postdated check issued to complainant. but more so the gullible and the guileless. the three accused divided the money among themselves. The first element of the offense requires that the dishonored check must have been postdated or issued at the time the obligation was contracted. The trial court convicted Dinglasan. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and amended by Republic Act No. The failure of petitioners and accused Roberto in not paying the back taxes and in misappropriating the money to their own personal use. she agreed.P 22 were filed. 558574. Cases for Estafa and violation of B.000. Del Rosario.00 to Pacita G.00. Accused-appellant admitted that she issued PCIB Check No.500-square meter portion of the land. Even if the land exists. and once the title is validated she will be assigned a 2. As already stated. Evangeline found out that instead of paying for the back taxes and validation of the property. or the total amount of P332.00 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. 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. 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. She misrepresented to complainant that she was financially stable and that her business was flourishing. Hence. Evangeline gave more than P330. The RTC found Flores guilty. Because Eliza is her townmate and since Victoria assured her that her son is married to a daughter of Pulmano. diamond from Pacita Del Rosario. (3) knowledge on the part of the offender of such circumstances.000. and (4) damage to the complainant. All he got were promises that appellant would pay the amounts due. the date the obligation was entered into. Sia deposited them.00 and P250. 10 These elements are present in this case. by false or misleading allegations. People v Alexander Dinglasan (2002) FACTS: Alexander Dinglasan was the owner and operator of Alexander Transport.000. The deceit or false pretense employed by petitioners is the fact that they assured complainant that the amount of P330. (2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check. Eliza introduced Victoria and Felomina to her. Failing to pay. dishonored these for insufficiency of funds. HELD: Deceit is defined as the false representation of a matter of fact. being the very date the check was issued or postdated. The three convinced her to contribute P330. however. Eliza Pablo v People (2004] FACTS: The complainant Evangeline Bates was approached by Eliza Pablo and Felomina Jacobe and Victoria Roberto Bates. He vehemently insisted that his refusal to pay Sia was primarily due to the poor quality of the tires sold him by the latter.8 ct. for P662. It is thus clear that she obtained the amounts of P662. 1992. Dinglasan issued three checks as payment for tire purchases. Dinglasan vigorously denied any intent to deceive or defraud Sia. 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.500 square meters of the subject land. it must be proved as alleged.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. dated October 20. while private complainant Charles Q.00. 13 finally prompting him to hale appellant to court. 11 The check was issued as payment for a ring and the P250. 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.00 transportation fare which accused-appellant received from complainant. then sent appellant a demand letter. Banco de Oro. accused-appellant had no funds sufficient to cover the check she issued to complainant.00 through deceit. Sia. notwithstanding due notice to her of such dishonor of said check. the necessary amount of said check. The fraudulent intent of accused-appellant had been proven to exist at the time of the issuance of the check. In other words. constitute the crime of Estafa. In reality. par. When the checks fell due.

it is payable only to a specific person or the "payee" and is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH. Upon noticing that the 30 September 1993 Decision of the trial court did not resolve the issue of petitioner's liability for estafa. The same restriction is produced when a check is crossed: only the payee named in the check may deposit it in his bank account. He was allegedly lured to part with his money due to their seeming honest representations that the check was good and would never bounce. to constitute estafa. People v Aloma Reyes (2005) FACTS: Aloma Reyes. or simultaneous with. they were all dishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn against insufficient funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED. the first element of the offense was neither correctly alleged nor proven by the prosecution. 1989 drawn against the Security Bank . not the current account. to constitute estafa. Despite notice of dishonor thereof. 18082. 1994. which constrained the Abagat spouses to file a complaint for estafa against Cuyugan. Settled is the rule that.R. 1989 and September 30. However. the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation and. When the checks were presented for payment. CR. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. together with her daughter. 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. Deceit. 029020. we held that they are negotiable instruments. for which Check No. Hence. When said checks were presented to the bank for payment. is inconsequential. the NOW check is drawn against the savings. it is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law. should be the efficient cause of defraudation. Rica Cuyugan (2002) FACTS: Rica G. 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. In other words. The situation obtains similarly regarding Check No.000. Cuyugan issued to Norma Abagat several checks in payment of supplies she wanted to buy for the Philippine Armed Forces. 029014 was allegedly postdated by appellant. as such. for which Check No. 029014 was issued. Again. Manuel Nagrampa v People (2002) FACTS: Nagrampa issued 2 checks (Php75. when the check was presented to the drawee bank for encashment." First. Despite repeated demands. Cuygan C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 151 . If a third person accepts a cross check and pays cash for its value despite the warning of the crossing. and not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when indorsed by the payee to another person. No. Evidently. and not the "check" contemplated in Criminal Law. there was no obligation contracted by the parties on July 24. We disagree. The fact that a NOW check shall be payable only to a specific person. Hence. 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. the act of fraud. 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. The purpose of the crossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed by the rightful payee only. of appellant. the prosecution's evidence clearly and categorically shows that there was no transaction between the parties on July 30. Nagrampa failed and refused to redeem or make good said checks. 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.In the present case.000 each) to Fedcor Trading Corp represented by Federico Santander on August 31. he cannot be considered in good faith and thus not a holder in due course. 029014 and 029020. negotiability is not the gravamen of the crime of estafa through bouncing checks. 1994 for which appellant allegedly postdated another check. It is the fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuing a worthless check that is penalized. it should be either prior to. To be sure. 1994. and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation. 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. The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the issuance of the check. issued Jules Alabastro a check for rediscounting. Hence. Appellant posits that this condition strips the subject check the character of negotiability. Yet. the check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money or property. despite the restriction on the negotiability of cross checks. 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. appellant cannot be charged much less found guilty of estafa with respect to Checks Nos. HELD: We l sustain the conviction for the crime of estafa. 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. The appeal was docketed as CA-G. no obligation was contracted on July 30. Second. 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. the same were dishonored for the reason that the drawer did not have any funds therein. appellant failed to make good the checks. 2 cases were filed against him. There must be concomitance: the issuance of a check should be the means to obtain money or property from the payee. People v. Stated otherwise." Appellant quotes the restriction written on the face of a NOW check: "NOW" shall be payable only to a specific person. It must have been committed either prior or simultaneous with the defraudation complained of.

No. Four days later. 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. Holzer informed complainant that new equipment had arrived in Manila. Ojeda (2004) FACTS: Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics (telas) from complainant Ruby Chua. Forster was not satisfied with the satellite antenna installed and the equipment which came with it which he thought were second-hand. In exchange. HELD: Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the RPC. 1995. The transaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses. Demands were allegedly made to make good the dishonored checks. She issued postdated checks as proof that the Abagat spouses had invested their money with her. Ernst Holzer (2000) FACTS: Ernst Holzer et al were the owners of MGF ELECTRONICS SATELLITE SUPPLY. 2. Bigornia delivered hog meat to the spouses Timbal at their stall located at the Farmer's Market.00. 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. 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. He was assured by accused-appellant Holzer that should new equipment arrive from abroad. 4885. he wanted a bigger antenna. complainant filed a complaint for estafa HELD: In view of the amendment of Art. as well as that of the appellate court. Judy I. knowledge of the drawer that he has no funds in the bank or that the funds deposited by him are not sufficient. The husband. She claimed that she was the industrial partner as she did all the legwork in getting the projects. 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. They installed a system in the house of Bernhard Forster. The 22 checks were all dishonored. Before the due date. As such. appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she bought. Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against Ojeda. 315(2)(d) by R. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 152 . For the three years approximately she transacted business with Chua. HELD: We find the appeal meritorious. 1995. and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. was not enough to secure the release of the equipment from the Bureau of Customs. Timbal’s mere presence at the scene of a crime would not by itself establish conspiracy. she has the obligation to make good the payment of the money borrowed by her.00 to accusedappellant Holzer. HELD: The petition has merit. They then shared in the profits after deducting all the miscellaneous expenses. a business engaged in selling and installing satellite antenna system.00. the check was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. When the latter presented the check to the bank for encashment. 1983. 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. For this reason. Despite the request. to no avail. a prima facie presumption of deceit will arise which must then be overcome by the accused. no criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code arises from the mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of repayment. His money. however. 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. or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. it was dishonored on the ground that the account was closed.000. But such obligation is civil in character and in the absence of fraud. the used equipment would be replaced and another antenna would be given. People v. On November 5.716. In payment. the following are no longer elements of estafa: 1.000. 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). 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 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. the court a quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued. Complainant agreed and issued a check for P100. complainant deposited the check on August 9.Pio Timbal was present when the check was issued and handed over by his wife Maritess to Bigornia. as amended by RA 4885. (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the People v. participated in the commission of fraud to the damage of the complainant. However. As to be expected. 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. accused-appellant Holzer asked the complainant not to deposit the check on August 1. in our view. he asked complainant to lend him P100. by an act or series of acts. Moreover. The trial court also convicted appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing checks. On the same day. absent any evidence that he. The decision of the trial court. however. accused-appellant again asked the latter not to deposit the check because the money from Switzerland to cover the check had not yet arrived.claimed that the Abagat spousesand she were partners in obtaining construction projects with the Philippine Army. Maritess Timbal issued in favor of Bigornia a check for P80. that is by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank. Otherwise.A. the latter issued a post dated check.

b. nisi mens sit rea. 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.check. The trial court convicted Dimalanta of Estafa. 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 principal consideration is the existence of malicious intent. the debtor not only made arrangements for payment. Otherwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. be accompanied by a criminal intent. albeit only to the extent of P25. called up complainant Elvira D. 2. Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating a check. 3. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. Pacana. as complainant herself categorically stated. That a person makes or draws and issues any check That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value 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 That the check a. In the case at bar. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check. HELD: Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with 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." American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. a defense in estafa by postdating a check. would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer. nisi mens sit rea. However. the account was closed. is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. 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 paragraph of Section 1: defined in the first 1. Abarca on the telephone to express her desire to purchase jewelry. After the first check was dishonored. ordered the bank to stop payment Elements of the offense defined in the second paragraph of Section 1: People v. for instance. Complainant went to Dimalanta’s house where the latter purchased twelve pairs of jewelry. In this case. or 4. appellant issued twelve postdated checks with the representation that the same will be sufficiently funded on their respective maturity dates. rather the same were merely given to her for resale. There is a concurrence of freedom. she exerted best efforts to make good the value of the check. Actus non facit reum. the remaining eleven checks were all returned unpaid since 1. Sandiganbayan: XXX The rule was reiterated in People v. 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. Actus non facit reum." Thus. We are convinced that appellant was able to prove the absence of criminal intent in her transactions with Chua. Dimalanta (2004) FACTS: Josefina Dimalanta who was then employed at the Caloocan City Engineer's Office. the act must. The first check issued by Dimalanta was honored and paid by the drawee bank. appellant would not have exerted extraordinary effort to pay the complainant. Had her intention been tainted with malice and deceit. 3. generally and in most cases.00. The prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellant's evidence of good faith. given her own business and financial reverses. 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. by a debtor's offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. although this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa: "Ordinarily.000. In payment thereof. As we held in Tabuena vs. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check 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 That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 153 . 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. intelligence and intent which together make up the "criminal mind" behind the "criminal act. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. We find that appellant acted in good faith during the transaction. Deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. to constitute a crime. without any valid reason. evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. 2. (3) damage to the payee thereof. This may be manifested by appellant's act of offering to make arrangements with complainant as to the manner of payment. Good faith may be demonstrated. the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks. On demand Dimalanta failed to make good on the checks. The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case.

The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum BP 22 vs. company. HELD: Memorandum Check (one used as evidence for a debt) falls within coverage of BP 22. element of DAMAGE is NOT REQUIRED in BP 22 2. crime against poperty and is mala in se. Checks were used to pay for the purchase made in Sta. par 1. so the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment. Estafa needs deceit and damage. 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. and 3. not the payment of the obligation. • There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check. there was a VALID reason (wrong payee) for ordering the bank to stop payment. • 3. not for pre-existing obligations. People Que issued checks in Quezon City. Memorandum check is NOT a PN.• Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check. Checks were issued NOT to pay for an obligation but just to guarantee payment. or stamp on the check or to be attached thereto the reason for dishonoring. 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. print. 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. Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has DECEIT as an element.included as long as it was an issued check that subsequently bounced. • BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn by a corporation. the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof. HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction. the making or issuance of the check 2. in case where drawee refuses to pay the check to the holder: C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 154 . Dacuycuy Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored. 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. when the maker or drawer pays the holder thereof of the amount due thereon or b. • 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 in payment of an obligation or to merely guarantee an obligation Illustration for Section 1. Que vs. In this case. as the court had no jurisdiction on the case. Nitafan Lim issued a memorandum check that was subsequently dishonored. HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses.  Write. HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction! Violation of BP 22 AND estafa are transitory crimes. Gorospe Parulan paid check in Bulacan. Deceit happened in Pampanga where it was uttered/delivered while the damage was done in Bulacan where it was issued. BP 22: deceit and damage not required because mere issuance gives presumption of guilt. in case drawee bank received an order to stop payment. Check was forwarded in BPI Pampanga. element 4: 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. People vs. BP 22 does NOT require such element. the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the reason indicated thereto Nievas vs. Case was filed in Pampanga but was dismissed. can be for a pre-existing debt. if such be the fact. Also. He was charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. Checks later dishonored. then dishonored. 1 count of violation of BP 22. People vs. BP 22. 1st paragraph requires knowledge of insufficient funds. Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT important as law does not distinguish-. Estafa under Article 315 par 2 (d): 1. Nievas invokes double jeopardy. 2. Mesa. Unlike estafa. 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 Section 3 Section 3 requires the drawee 1. crime against public order and is mala prohibitum. and it appeared that the drawer knew at the time that the check was issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank.

the owner or b. Accused issued 48 postdated checks for the balance. Other forms of swindling I. encumbering. such as a parcel of land or a building C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 155 . second purchaser. due to the defects and incomplete features of the unit. HELD: Not guilty as the check was NOT issued for a debt but as a collateral or evidence of the other partners share. representing to the latter that he (A) was still the owner thereof. Idos issued 4 postdated checks . A sold a parcel of land to B. A was no longer owner of the property. FRC however continued to present the checks for payment thus always forcing him to issue stop order payments. 2nd element of BP22 (knowledge by the issuer of the check that he does not have sufficient funds) not proven. he is guilty of estafa by means of false pretenses. A sold same parcel of land to C. notice only given to the employer which is not sufficient as law requires personal notice. Paragraph 1: By conveying. encumbering. representing to latter that he (A) was the owner thereof. the first purchaser. CAB. 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. BP22 and PD957 must be construed together in order to harmonize their application. CA Idos and Alarilla had a partnership that was terminated with each entitled to P1. CA Accused here bought a townhouse unit from FRC. or mortgaging the real property) That the act be made to the prejudice of a. That the thing be real property. HELD: Accused not guilty. accused suspended payments. no notice of the dishonor was given to her. CA Lim was an officer in a company where she signed checks. 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. while it was her superior who filled the blanks. Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient.8M each. pretending to be the owner of the same. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. Lim Lao vs. At time he sold the land to C.1 was dishonored. Other statutes can be used as a valid defense under BP22. 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. Later. a third person Example: the the the the A sold a parcel of land to B. It is here that 6 checks were presented by FRC but were dishonored. There must be actual damage. Later. Accused convicted under BP22. Check which she signed as issuer was dishonored. fine prescribed is based on the damage caused Article 316. or mortgaging any real property. 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. Elements: 1. However. while deceit was practiced against C. 4. 3. Presumption in law is rebuttable by contrary evidence. especially if he has a Certificate of Title. A sold the same parcel of land to C. Convicted for violating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds when check is issued. In fact. selling. 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. Sycip vs. The bank then advised accused to just close the account in order to save on hefty bank charges upon every stop order. damage fell on B. Hence. leasing.2. Deceit consisting in false pretense Article 316 only penalizes only those who PRETEND to be the owner of property. A will still be liable under Art 316 par 1 if B files a crim case. Idos vs. C registered the sale in his favor. That the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the owner thereof That the offender should have executed acts of ownership (selling. HELD: NOT guilty. Consequence: B lost the property due to non-registration in his favor. Also. Where the accused CLAIMS to be the owner.

"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.) 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. Offender owner of personal property If third person and his purpose in taking it is to return it to the owner. Article 316. misrepresenting that the property is free from encumbrance. he ran away without paying the loan. Art 315 par 2(a) does not need this circumstance. That the offender knew that the real property was encumbered. Thing disposed must be REAL property If the thing encumbered and disposed is personal property. III. Once getting hold of his watch. accused were acquitted. as there is neither deceit nor fraud. 3. Art 315 par 2(a) Art 316 par 1: the offender exercises acts of ownership over the property as part of the false representation. although such encumbrance be not recorded. 4. it being the obligation of a finder to C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 156 . That the thing disposed be real property 2. That the personal property is in the lawful possession of another 3. that is. the crime is THEFT. A. When the loan HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED when defendant later offered the property as security for the payment of the loan. he would not have granted the loan had he known that the property was already encumbered. That prejudice is caused to the possessor or third person Example: Accused pawned his watch to complainant. pretending to redeem watch. "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. C cannot complain. Later. since the encumbrances were NOT registered. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor. Note: not theft an owner cannot be held guilty of theft of his own property. whether the encumbrance be recorded or not. On the other hand. Conflicting jurisprudence: "Although such encumbrance be not recorded" Notwithstanding this phrase. That the offender is owner of personal property 2. Later. par 2 is NOT applicable Elements: 1. some cases held that the encumbrance must be legally constituted! In these cases. That there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance 4. accused asked offended party to give him the watch. But if C knew that the property had already been mortgaged to B. Article 319 applies (punishing one who sells or pledges personal property already subject to encumbrance. "Shall dispose": includes encumbering or mortgaging. II. mortgaged it again. That the act of disposing real property be made to the damage of another Example: A mortgaged his property to B.Art 316 par 1 vs. this time to C. In lawful possession of another Finder of a lost thing is NOT a lawful possessor. Paragraph 3: By wrongful taking by the owner of his personal property from its lawful possessor Elements: 1. Paragraph 2: By disposing of real property as free from encumbrance.

otherwise. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 157 . A returned later and was about to put back the watch in the drawer when B surprised A (Bulaga!!!) Is A liable under 316. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action. some loan of money b. other personal property 4. Swindling a minor Elements: 1. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor. and (2) WITH INTENT TO GAIN/ CHARGE THE BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE the crime is ROBBERY. or c. to give release. mortgages. it will only be a case of solutio indebiti under the Civil Code. VI. That the consideration is a. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO B. in any other manner encumbers said real property 4.give the thing authorities. made before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him • There must be damage caused under this article. to execute a transfer of any property right 3. or encumbering real property or properties with which the offender guaranteed the fulfillment of his obligation as surety Elements: 1. "Wrongful taking" to the owner or to the V. Paragraph 6: By selling. 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. credit. par 3? NO. mortgaging. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property/properties 3. crime is ESTAFA. That he induces such minor to: a. or c. One night. IV. Fictitious contract 2. If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1) VIOLENCE and (2) WITHOUT INTENT TO GAIN. assume an obligation b. "To the prejudice of possessor or third person" Example: A pledged his watch to B. his dorm mate to secure a loan of P3000. or. By accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labor not performed If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1) VIOLENCE. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor. 2. 2. Note: The example above may become a crime of fraudulent insolvency (Art 314) if the conveyance is real and made for a consideration. made before the cancellation of his bond. That such sale. That he sells. By executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another Elements: 1. Damage to another Example: A person who simulates (consideration is fictitious) a conveyance to another for the purpose of defrauding a creditor. Compensation wrongfully received (accepting compensation for service not rendered nor performed) 2. mortgage or encumbrance is a. Malicious failure to return the compensation wrongfully received (fraud) There must be fraud in this crime. or c. A took the watch from the drawer of B without B's consent and knowledge and used it for the night. Elements: 1. without express authority from the court b. Article 317.

written ii. or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any other similar manner 2. 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. 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. When not committed by a syndicate as above defined. transaction. CA District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that led to the disbursement of 23 checks for a project that was anomalous. Such sale/pledge is without the consent of the mortgagee which is i.000 pesos. making forecasts. By defrauding or damaging another 2. That personal property is validly mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law 2. 1689 Increasing The Penalty Swindling Or Estafa For 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. By interpreting dreams. 1. or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. Other deceits Elements: A. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. administrators or assigns to such removal B. sells or pledges the same or any part thereof 3. For profit or gain 3. He was convicted of Estafa. 1. who is the mortgagor of such property. enterprise or scheme. it is VOID and CANNOT be a basis for criminal prosecution under Art 319. DAMAGE should always be present. since a minor can not convey real property farmers association. That the removal is permanent 5. Removal. in turn he offered his car as collateral (Chattel mortgage instituted). That the offender knows that such property is so mortgaged 3.Note: Only personal property. or . 1. 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. cooperative. Article 319. by any other deceit not mentioned in the proceeding articles B. CA Villaflor borrowed P1. Veloso vs. "samahang nayon(s)". If the chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of good faith and/or is not registered. He was negligent as he approved the vouchers that had mistakes which were detectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 158 2. 1. Villaflor was convicted of Estafa. That personal property is already pledged under the Chattel Mortgage Law That the offender. the penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100.000. Article 318. Villaflor vs. sale or pledge of mortgaged property Elements: 2 Acts punishable: A. 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. HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure the veracity of the documents. at the back of the mortgage and iii. Damage to others Note: As in other cases of estafa. telling fortunes. or members of rural banks. and the defraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders. Villaflor failed to pay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the car was already repossessed. That there is no written consent of the mortgage or his executors.

5. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned. whether used as a dwelling or not. Destructive Arson. 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. public or private market. 2. Any railway or bus station. Any archive. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson.No violation of Article 319 if the removal was justified. 4. or any edifice devoted to culture. sugar mill. shipyard. 1613 Amending the Law on Arson SECTION 1. 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. wharf or warehouse. 2. (NOTE: SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R. under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. airport. 4. under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. If committed for the benefit of another. 7659 AMENDING ART. Estafa (316. 2. Other cases of arson. Arson (repealed or amended by PD 1613 and PD 1744) Kinds of arson. SECTION 5. (based on a CA case) If the mortgagee elected to file a suit for collection (not foreclosure). grain field. farm. Any inhabited house or dwelling. Any building. vessel or watercraft. Any hospital. 7659. hotel. bamboo grove or forest. The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons. Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually assemble. education or social services. not for foreclosure of chattel mortgage. even if buyer is informed that property is mortgaged Purpose of law: to Purpose of law: to protect the purchaser protect the mortgagee another. disposing encumbered property) Removal. Any industrial establishment. lodging house. Arson. or conveyance for transportation of persons or property. shopping center. relieves the accused of criminal responsibility. judicial. — 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. orchard. situated in a populated or congested area. theater or movie house or any similar place or building. dormitory. museum. 1. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative. 3. Other Cases of Arson. sale or 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. growing crop. 3. inflammable or combustible materials are stored. 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 C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 159 . oil well or mine shaft. 3.A. P. 6. housing tenement. Arson. and 6. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies. — Any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence of arson: Articles 320 to 326-B. 2. Filing a civil action for collection. If committed with intent to gain. 1613. 1613. — Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be punished by Prision Mayor. platform or tunnel. 7. Destructive arson. as amended by Republic Act No. whether public or private. administrative or other official proceedings. SECTION 6. Damage to the mortgagee is not essential. SECTION 2.D. cane mill or mill central. Any rice mill. 320) SECTION 3. 5. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson. 1. airplane or any aircraft. — If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results. If committed by a syndicate. 3. pastureland. under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code. Where Death Results from Arson. 4. SECTION 4. Any plantation. the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed. — The penalty in any case of arson shall be imposed in its maximum period. Any train. — The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following: 1.

collects some rags. private transaction. If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article. worship. death or injury results. 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.A. and Consummated A person. 1. devoted to transportation or convenience. commerce. One (1) or more buildings or edifices. or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or property. Article 320 as amended by R. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn: 1. 4. soaks them in gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of the policy. If gasoline. 2. transient dwellings. public conveyance or stops or terminals. Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances. Any building of public or private ownership. When he is about to light a match to set fire to the rags. Any arsenal. If shortly before the fire. equipment. the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law. and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not. consequent to one single act of burning. trade. devoted to the use of the public in general. or any valuable documents. ordnance storehouse. storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory.A. petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or materials soaked therewith or containers thereof. warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto. chemical. 2. shipyard. SECTION 8. 5. Any building. any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials. he is discovered by another who chases him away.D. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 160 .The building which is the object of arson including the land on which it is situated shall be confiscated and escheated to the State. regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire. 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. SECTION 7. or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as but not limited to official governmental function or business. 7. entertainment or leisure. 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. — Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished by Prision Mayor in its minimum period. Any train or locomotive. 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. or committed on several or different occasions. Conspiracy to Commit Arson. 1613 and Article 320 as amended by R. or as result of simultaneous burnings. . archives or general museum of the government. Attempted arson: the crime committed in the above scenario is attempted arson. or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire. electrical. factory. machineries. 7659 (such as Section 2 on destructive arson) are DEEMED REPEALED) Attempted. The provisions of P. 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. 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. the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. 1613 that are inconsistent with R. intending to burn a building. 4. or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or establishment. or any mechanical. or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels.1.D. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn: 1.A. ship or vessel. or other valuable properties were burned or destroyed. apparatus. 6. meetings and conferences. regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the edifice. 7659 Article 320. Confiscation of Object of Arson. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire in exchange for the desistance of the offender or for the safety of the person or property of the victim. 7659. airplane. kerosene. Arson Frustrated. Destructive Arson. which are devoted to the service of public utilities. 3. 3. In an inhabited place. or public use. 2. airship or NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are P. or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance. 5. Any building. motels.

If after damaging the property. 7 Circumstances constituting prima facie evidence of arson Standing alone. Caballes charged him for malicious mischief. homicide is absorbed and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to Death is imposed. unexplained or uncontradicted. PD 1613. They had a confrontation over this issue. Sec 3. HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony to have tried to burn the house of Marigomen. furniture. any of those circumstance is sufficient to establish the fact of arson. He was charged with arson and found guilty. Who are liable for malicious mischief Elements: 1. Consummated arson: a. stormed the house of Acosta and burned their clothes. and camote. Sometimes. Sec 6. d. malicious mischief CANNOT be committed through NEGLIGENCE. crime is THEFT Caballen vs. "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. In attempted arson. If no malice. Montesclaros. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another 2. or other evil motive. People v. revenge. Malice and negligence are essentially incompatible. 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. That the act of damaging another's property be committed mere for the sake of damaging it Albeit Abajon’s previous arrangement with the former owner of the property. mere scorching or discoloration by heat NOT consummated c. death results. He used to be a good friend of Almanzor "Elmer" Montesclaros. Thereafter Acosta attempted to burn down the house of Marigomen. Example: damage done as a result of another crime. "Damage" covers both loss and diminution. bananas. Case was dismissed. proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 161 . 'day!) of the wood of the building.accused chased opponent around the house to kill him and along the way broke various objects. HENCE. DAR 3. Not necessary that the wood should be ablaze. Marigomen. offender removes/ uses objects of the damage. asked Abajon to vacate the premises where his house was and where he had planted corn. As the harvesting was done without her consent. On February 27. and appliances. sufficient that the fiber of the wood is destroyed b. In prosecutions for arson. offender also inspired by the mere pleasure of destroying things. par 2. any charring (CHARING! Whiz na lang. Caballes. it is not necessary that there be a fire Look at the facts if there was intent to burn. * 3rd element presupposes that offender acted due to hate. No complex crime of arson with homicide PD 1613: if by reason or on occasion or arson. the new owner. it is not required that the house be occupied and that the offender knew it when the house was burned. Acosta (2000) FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year old mason. but reached no agreement. Article 327. the grandson of private complainant.2. only civil liability for damages. 1996. 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. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction 3. Damaging of property must not result from crime. PD 1613 If the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Abajon then harvested the bananas and jackfruit. there is consummated arson. However small a portion of the building is BURNED. 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. in the belief that Acosta and his wife were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him. Filomena M.

If no intent to kill: crime is damages to means of communication with homicide B. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. When Ferigel burned Avelino's house. if credible.D. People v. If with intent to kill: murder (cf. and (2) the identity of the defendants as the one responsible for the crime. or any other thing used IN COMMON by the public.  Article 332. if credible. It refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. Special cases of malicious mischief Special cases of malicious mischief/"Qualified Malicious Mischief" are: a. the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is "any inhabited house or dwelling. it is the fact that a crime has actually been committed. or to any archive or registry. The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness. c. Oliva (2000) FACTS: Avelino Manguba and his family were sleeping in their house. Dominador Oliva. Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime. Article 330. Benjamin Estrellon went to the nearby river and fetched water with a pail. the law applicable was P. Only Oliva was found guilty. certain passengers of the train are killed? Answer: It depends A. telegraph lines or The telegraph and telephone pertain to a railway system! must If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars. d. 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. collision or other accident. Article 329. Avelino's wife and children were asleep therein. Destroying or damaging statues. BOTH have intent to obstruct the performance or public function b. No. public monuments. Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo watched at a distance of about five (5) meters. Here. may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. In arson. Under Section 3 (2) of Presidential Decree No. a fire because of criminal agency. corpus delicti of the arson was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt. Persons criminal liability exempt from Article 328. Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime. While the fire razed Avelino's house. In arson. or paintings No notes. the elements of arson are: (1) that there is intentional burning. Avelino went out of the house to urinate. promenade. One of the neighbors. Dumlao where accused scattered around the municipal building coconut husks containing human excrements. Other mischiefs Poignant Example: People v. Article 248. He saw Ferigel Oliva set the roof of their house on fire with a lighted match. road.delicti. waterworks. par 3) Article 331. it is the fact that the house burned is inhabited that qualifies the crime. The records show that when Ferigel willfully set fire to the roof of Avelino's house. the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. There is no need to prove that the accused had actual knowledge that the house was inhabited. HELD: We find no reversible error and affirm the conviction. As Benjamin was helping put out the fire. the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. that is. The gunshot wound caused Benjamin's death. a higher penalty shall be imposed Question: What crime is committed IF as a result of the damage caused to the railway. 1613. he was shot by Ferigel at close range. Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecutions for felonies and offenses. 35 Under Section 3 (2) of the law. Causing damage to obstruct performance of public functions the Crimes involved in the exemption: 1. Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimonies of witnesses. Damage and obstruction to means of communication Example: damaging telephone lines railways. distinguished from sedition: the element of public and tumultuous uprising is not present in Art 328 but. Ferigel and three others. Theft C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 162 . 1613." Under the amendment. and (2) that what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. The cases for arson and murder were tried jointly.

Does not apply to strangers who participated in the crime.2. Widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed into the possession of another 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. Spouses. common-law spouses INCLUDED 3. Stepfather. paramours. 3. ascendants and descendants. • • • C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 163 . or relatives by affinity in the same line 2. adopted child. • Swindling (estafa) Malicious mischief does not include robbery or estafa through falsification reason for ownership exemption: presumed co- • Persons exempted from criminal liability only liablefor CIVIL liabilities): 1.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times