This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
Chapter Seven – CHATTEL MORTGAGE Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged Property Chapter Eight – ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTION (REPEALED BY PD 1613 and RA 7659) Article 320.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. Persons exempt from criminal liability
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 Article Article Article 315. 316. 317. 318. Swindling (Estafa) Other forms of swindling Swindling a minor Other deceits
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. 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
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 108
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 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
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 109
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 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
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 110
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.
Robbery with homicide Robbery and homicide are separate offences, when the homicide was not committed “on the occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery. Where the original design comprehends robbery, and homicide is perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the consummation of the former, the crime committed is robbery with homicide. There is no such crime as robbery with murder. The treachery which attended the commission of the crime must be considered not qualifying but merely as a generic aggravating circumstance. An intent to take personal property belonging to another with intent to gain must precede the killing. The crime is robbery with homicide, even if the motive of the offenders was that of robbery as well as vengeance. Homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery. It is immaterial that the death of a person supervened by mere accident, provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Killing a person to escape after the commission of robbery is robbery with homicide. There is still robbery with homicide even if the person killed is another robber or an innocent bystander. Thus, the person killed need not be the person robbed. An accessory to robbery with homicide must have knowledge and complicity as to the homicide as well in order to be charged with the same offence. Otherwise, if the accessory had no knowledge of the 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
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; 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.
2. 3. 4.
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”
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 111
Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the crime are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. People vs. Tapales When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, should rape be considered an aggravating circumstance? YES. Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain and other forms of cruelties are condemned and their perpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstances of ignominy and deliberately augmenting unnecessary wrongs. Poeple vs. Quinones There is no such crime as robbery with multiple homicide. There is only the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, regardless of the fact that 3 persons were killed in the commission of the crime. In robbery, all homicides and murders are merged in the composite. As such, the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed only once even if multiple killings accompanied the robbery. People vs. Faigano Nely was suddenly roused from her sleep by Carmelo Faigano, a worker at a nearby construction project. He was in black T-shirt but was no longer wearing pants or underwear. He poked a 29-inch balisong at her neck and threatened to kill her and the children beside her. Then forcibly tore her nightie, raised her pair of brassieres above her breasts and pulled her to the edge of the king-size wooden bed. He spread her thighs apart against her will and inserted his organ into hers. He had sexual intercourse with her. After satisfying his lust, Faigano then put on his short pants and ordered Nely to bring out her money. He took Nely's money, her husband's wristwatch and two rings. TC found him guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape HELD: SC found him guilty of the separate crimes of robbery and rape. If the intention of the accused was to rob but rape was also committed even before the asportation the crime is robbery with rape. But if the original plan was to rape but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the offenses should be viewed as separate and distinct. To be liable for the special complex crime of robbery with rape the intent to take personal property of another must precede the rape. Under the circumstances, SC is convinced that when Faigano entered the victim's house he only had in mind sexual gratification. The taking of the cash and pieces of jewelry against Nely's will appears to be an afterthought. People v. Reyes, 427 SCRA 28 (2004) FACTS: Dr. Aurora Lagrada, a spinster of about 70 years old, lived alone in her 2-storey house. Reyes’ house was about 4-5 meters away from the doctor's house.
Reyes was able to gain entry into the house of Lagrada without the latter knowing. Armed with a bolo, Reyes stole one Rolex wristwatch, 1 gold bracelet, 1 gold ring with birthstone of Jade, 1 Pass Book from Lagrada. On the occasion of the said robbery, Reyes stabbed Lagrada several times in the different parts of her body directly causing her death. The trial court convicted Reyes of robbery with homicide. HELD: To sustain a conviction of the accused for robbery with homicide, the prosecution is burdened to prove the essential elements of the crime. The accused must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing robbery, the homicide being committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. The homicide may precede robbery or may occur thereafter. What is essential is that there is a nexus, an intrinsic connection between the robbery and the killing. The latter may be done prior to or subsequent to the former. However, the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of the victim's life. Furthermore, the constituted crimes of robbery and homicide must be consummated. A homicide is considered as having been committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery when the motive of the offender in killing the victim is to deprive the latter of his property, to eliminate an obstacle to the crime, to protect his possession of the loot, to eliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended or to insure his escape from the scene of the crime. Appellant stated that he barged into the house of the victim to rob her, and that he stabbed the victim when she was about to shout and because he was drunk. The appellant then took the victim's money and personal belongings and fled from the scene of the crime. The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of robbery with homicide. People v. Hernandez, 432 SCRA 104 (2004) FACTS: Catapang and Hernandez dragged 72 yearold Natividad Mendoza, in the direction of a forested area where there were also mango and coconut trees. The two took the money and jewelry of Natividad while she was lying on the ground. Thereafter, Catapang and Hernandez strangled Natividad to death with the use of a white rope made of buri/vine string. HELD: The Court held that appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The court further held that, in robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated. People v. Milliam, 324 SCRA 155 (2000) FACTS: Demarayo, a member of the 15th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army, was leisurely pacing along
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 112
one carrying a gun and the other a knife. The taking of the gun might have been an afterthought and not the real purpose of the crime. (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. After shooting. the third child of the Suralta spouses. accused-appellants stabbed a security guard and thereafter took away his gun. Boloy . Hernandez was found stabbed to death. the crime of homicide. and announced a holdup. and hack wounds on his right nape and mouth. The Court ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide. to buy copra and abaca. All elements are present in the case at bar. to the knife-wielder. Marivic Rodelas positively identified appellants Ernesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy as the two persons who entered her bedroom. The phrase "by reason" C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 113 .Quezon Street. A brief struggle among the three (3) men ensued which caused the victim to fall down. Carolita gave P2. suddenly entered their unlocked bedroom. The body of Ben was later found lying about five to ten meters from the house with a cloth in the mouth. Ranis. which is used in the generic sense. HELD: In charging robbery with homicide. Murphy asked for the proceeds of the land Ben sold and some jewelry but Marivic told him that they only had P2. While the victim was sprawled on the ground Roberto aimed his rifle at Demarayo's chest and pulled the trigger. the court ruled that the prosecution evidence establishes the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. was committed. 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. accused-appellants should properly be convicted of the separate offenses of Homicide and Theft. it could be possible that it was done to prevent him from retaliating as he was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshot wound. he took the family's Sanyo cassette recorder and some clothes.00. HELD: In People v. which was intended to be deposited in the bank. 389 SCRA 45 (2002) FACTS: While Marivic and Ben with their baby were watching television in their bedroom. the onus probandi is to establish: xxx… xxx… (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. has been committed. watches. which were both duly proved. Torres approached the left side of the truck. As such. blood stains on the body.000 and several pieces of luxury watches and jewelry.00. In addition. 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. In charging robbery with homicide. Murphy and Sabiyon. Torres.000 in their possession. Gonzales. Without any provocation coming from the soldier. suddenly entered the house through the kitchen door. On the way. As the holduppers were leaving. Ben was brought to the hospital but he was proclaimed dead on arrival. and shot Boloy once. the assailants nonchalantly walked away with Demarayo's M-16. As Roberto pulled away he warded off Demarayo by kicking him on the waist. which is used in the generic sense. to give money to the holduppers. People v. appellants demanded and took money. about 2 meters away from the sala. Although it may be true that they were seen grabbing the gun from the victim as the latter was lying prone on the ground. Thereafter. Nicanor eventually died. HELD: After reviewing the records of this case. while the other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face covered with a handkerchief. (b) the property taken belongs to another. The offense becomes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. homicide in its generic sense is committed. who placed it in his pocket. (c) the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi. The two persons came from the portion where bamboos grew by the side of the road. the crime of homicide.00. HELD: Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime against property. the victims necklace. Salazar. The records are bereft of any evidence to prove that the asportation of Demarayo's service firearm was the prime motive of accused-appellants. two gunshots rang out. hitting the latter’s left hand. they were stopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the road. 359 SCRA 761 (2001) FACTS: Vicente Galanao. (b) the property belongs to another. The lower court ruled that the crime committed was Robbery with Homicide. After taking the money and jewelry. Using sharp. Carolita. The one carrying a gun had a bonnet over his face. Nicanor was heard moaning. Iloilo City. but asked his wife. People v.000. In this case. went up the truck. Then the knife-wielder ransacked the cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325.100. 382 SCRA 694 (2002) FACTS: Nicanor Suralta was having drinks with his visitors in their house when two armed men. There. with only his eyes exposed. which was intended for the school expenses of the Suralta children. Ricky drew his firearm and fired at Demarayo. All persons in the house were ordered to go inside the bedroom. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. The holduppers also divested one of the guests of his Seiko diver's wristwatch and then left. 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. Homicide is incidental to the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. Murphy then took the P2. Afterwards the men ran towards the mountainside with the victims bag containing P500. the man with a gun demanded a gun and money from Nicanor. Ben Hernandez. when Roberto and Ricky both surnamed Martin blocked his path. both armed with bladed weapons. They were on board a truck driven by Boloy. and jewelry belonging to the victim. After the brutal slaying. taking Ben with them. ring and his wristwatch. Nicanor answered that he had no gun. both of them could only be convicted of the separate crimes of Homicide and Theft. bladed weapons. two persons armed with guns appeared from nowhere and approached the back of the truck and told them to lie face downward. his sons Julian and Macky and Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with their employer. The knife-wielder held Chona. both accused tied her hands and those of Ben with electric cord and then they went out of the house. the onus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. Murphy poked a knife at her neck while Ernesto straddled on top of Ben who was then lying in bed. (c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain). Roberto fired another shot hitting Demarayo on the same spot. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. People v.
to pick up the cash deposit of the supermarket amounting to P1. Estella. In the present case. Taken in its entirety.00 cash. 352 SCRA 276 (2001) FACTS: While they were fishing. the killing of Carlos Deveza and the shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. Consajero then asked Castillo and Usigan to accompany them to a nearby store. accused-appellant. This is evident from the testimony of teller Himor that as soon as the two men stopped him from running towards the bank. who sustained thirty-one stab and hack wounds on the different parts of his body. 2. Upon arrival. Theft. level and poke a gun wrapped in a piece of cloth or towel at the latter’s nape and eventually pull the trigger. 361 SCRA 414 (2001) FACTS: Himor. 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. face down. and shortly thereafter. Accused Consajero. shots were fired by Legaspi. Both of them aimed their guns at Gargaceran. pieces of jewelry and checks. Consejero. coming from the front of the vehicle position himself 2½ meters away from Deveza. Immediately thereafter. Franco. and 3. From all indications. While conversing with other tricycle drivers. who was then closing the family chain of stalls for the day. whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crime be committed at the same time. the killing must have been directly connected with the robbery. who was still at the driver's seat.75. Dazo and Franco wrestled causing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing Legaspi to take an aim and shoot at Dazo twice. drenched in his own blood with hands tied at the back. Legaspi. Castillo was found lying on the ground. People v. Murder. what is essential is that there be "a direct relation. walked across the street towards the Hi-Top Supermarket. whether both crimes be committed at the same time. Maxion. 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. a teller at the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). The gunman then picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casually walked away from the scene of the crime.covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another. HELD: Obviously. Thus. and the taking of the subject engine was merely an afterthought that arouse subsequent to the killing of the victims. Homicide. Maxion was in front of Gargaceran while the second stayed behind him. Thereafter. People v. asked Castillo and Usigan if they were the ones exacting quota from the Barangay captain. Maxion shot Gargaceran at close range hitting him on the chest eventually causing his death. In so doing. the offense committed by the malefactors is indubitably the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Estella approached Carlos. or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate the robbery. The Court ruled that all elements of robbery with homicide are present in this case. Twenty meters away lay the dead body of Usigan. At the height of the struggle between Dazo and Franco. Dazo intended to seize and stop Legaspi who was then holding a gun. they took the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca ridden by Castillo and Usigan which is owned by Israel. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation and intimate connection between robbery and killing. for the unlawful taking of the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca. People v. must have a direct relation to. a CAFGU member. and handed him a black leather bag which contained P300. 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. for the killing of Modesto Castillo. the overt acts of accused-appellant Legaspi prove that the lone motive for the killing of Deveza and the shooting of Dazo C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 114 . The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought which arose subsequent to the killing. Thereafter. they shouted to release the bag containing the money. the Court had occasion to rule that in robbery with homicide. but three separate offenses: 1. The two replied in the negative. In robbery with homicide. even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery. As the robbery resulted in the killing of the security guard Gargaceran. As Estella left to make a phone call. UCPB sent security escort Gargaceran. on occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. While Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the street going back to the bank. Carlos parked his Toyota Tamaraw vehicle in front of the stall. a CAFGU member and Malapit. for the death of Dionisio Usigan. it matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties of the victim. Thereafter. Himor tossed the bag containing the money to them and ran back to the supermarket. Dazo hid behind a post and waited in ambush for Legaspi and the latter’s companion. Thus. was primarily interested in taking the life of the two deceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from the Barangay captain. erstwhile member of the PNP arrived at the Cartimar Plaza Market to fetch his wife. he called the bank to send his security escort. 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. With their guns pointed at him. Pitying the victim. 331 SCRA 95 FACTS: Carlos Deveza. The original design must have been robbery.000. It is necessary that there must have been an intent on the part of the offenders to commit robbery from the outset and. an intimate connection between robbery and the killing. Deveza fell on the pavement. but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmed Franco by the waist. Amania. 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. Carlos alighted from the Tamaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle with both arms resting on the vehicle's window. They then killed Castillo and Usigan. HELD: The criminal acts of accused-appellant constitute not a complex crime of robbery with homicide. one bullet hitting Dazo on the right jaw. armed with an M-14. and the homicide. The man behind Gargaceran immediately took Gargaceran's handgun. he placed the money inside a duffle bag and padlocked the bag. the physical injuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide. Legaspi. Maxion and another man suddenly emerged and walked towards them. After issuing the deposit slip.644. In People v.464.
and sat on a sofa near the kitchen. She had a store. Dinamling. Eddie and Jose Temanel. operated a passenger jeepney and engaged in the buy and sale of palay. People v. a wedding ring and P8. after he panicked. The trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged in the information. 380 SCRA 13 (2002) FACTS: Donato Cruz. The boy stood up and said. People v. The intruders tied the couple. 379 SCRA 107 (2002) FACTS: Marilyn Pajarillo was in their house lying down in bed with her 2-year old daughter. dead with several stab wounds in the neck and his intestines exposed. who stabbed Romeo is of no moment. if all accused take part in a robbery resulting in death. cohorts of the Temanels entered the hut. from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense.000. entered the house of the Robleses. got hold of a pointed object and stabbed to death Laura Robles and her 5-year old daughter. each accused receiving about seven thousand (P7. The other accused Maximo Velarde was known to Romualda because she met him at a birthday party held at Maria's house. Adelina put the valuables in an empty milk can and placed the same outside the door. But if robbery was an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide. who was high on drugs. Romeo. his wife Adelina. Accused-appellant's argument that the element of "taking" was not proved is thus unavailing in the face of Tulod's testimony. Zuela. Osis grabbed Liezl. Cruz. the offense is robbery with homicide. Romeo went home to his own hut situated five meters away. Tito told Maximo to kill the boy. Nelson and Tito alighted from the jeepney. HELD: All the elements of robbery with homicide concur in this case. Maximo poked a gun at the driver and shot him. The RTC convicted Cruz of two (2) counts of murder and one (1) count of theft. Laura saw respondent and she became hysterical and started shouting. Maximo then took hold of the boy's hair and slashed his neck. Efren Temanel. Terrified. Suddenly. The pieces of jewelry he usually wore.000. Thereafter. While seated on the sofa. The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property. as well as an undetermined amount of US dollars. Maximo. the shooting of Dazo was done in order to defend the possession of the stolen property. and not against persons. The three accused were friends. outside the house. HELD: The Court held that the argument of the Appellant is without merit. all of which clearly belonged to the Sucilans. Nelson went to the left front side of the jeepney. Immediately. HELD: The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Cruz went inside the house. brothers Jose and Eddie Temanel entered the house. 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.00) pesos from the loot. Hence. The properties were violently taken and intent to gain can be presumed from the unlawful taking. 341 SCRA 319 (2000) FACTS: Renato Sucilan. Here. When Renato and Adelina were able to free themselves. Romeo Sucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. money and other valuables. Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda in her store during palay season. a radio.was for the purpose of consummating and ensuring the success of the robbery. Maximo. who was waiting for her father Rogelio. 323 SCRA 589 (2000) FACTS: Maria Abendaño was engaged in business. and brother Romeo were eating dinner in Renato's house. 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. Her sister Romualda also had a store. His primary purpose was to kill Laura and her 5-year old daughter. Thinking that he will be assaulted by Laura. In the case at bar. Mendoza. This would preclude an anomalous situation where. and held a knife against her. Seated beside her was 11-year old Rosemarie Malalay. In the final analysis. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense. Tito took Maria's money and divided it. drinking gin with Marilyn's C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 115 .00 in cash. Tito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepney of Maria and upon reaching an uninhabited place. took the can. while Tito approached the right front side of the jeepney. there are two distinct offenses. who was outside the hut. Appellant argues that he should have been charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. "You will see I will tell my father that you killed my mother. 266 SCRA 569 ). rice. The properties taken consisted of pieces of jewelry. homicide being a mere incident of the robbery with the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal (People vs. Temanel. 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. all of them shall be held liable for robbery with homicide in the absence of proof that they prevented the killing. Accused Nelson was Maria's store helper. Navales. daughter Liezl. In People v. embracing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death. a stone was hurled into Renato's house hitting the petromax lamp. Jose poked Renato with a bladed weapon while Eddie ordered Adelina to take out their money and valuables. Lara. he ransacked the cabinet of the Robleses taking away a Minolta camera. the former stepped out of the house and was shocked to find his brother. Adelina prepared for bed while Renato played with Liezl. The fact that it was Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants." To avoid being identified by the boy. After dinner. were no longer on his body. The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Lara. the evidence on record shows that appellant stole the camera and cash only as an afterthought. Rogelio was then in the patio. the killing was committed in the course of the robbery. robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with multiple killings would be. In addition. He also shot Maria at the neck when the latter shouted. People v. Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings in connection with the robbery. People v. Later. in the process stepping on the sleeping John-John who was then awakened.
One of the duo ordered the passenger at the front seat to get off the vehicle. It is settled that regardless of the number of homicides committed. Alonzo then opened the vault which the four emptied of P1. this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another. he was searched for weapons in the course of which his wallet containing P450. 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. pushed outside the hospital premises. as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. HELD: In a long line of cases. Jose went to the kitchen. Stated differently. and ordered him to open the vault.husband Charlie Pajarillo and Deogracias Acosta. one dozen cans of sardines and one pack of Juicy Fruit chewing gum. Later. For the conviction of the special complex crime. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. Diinamman and Linnam are guilty of "robbery with double homicide" HELD: Accused-appellants' crime is robbery with homicide. rings and earrings. The number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed by Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Fernando Dinamling and Linnam poked guns at the heads of Rogelio and Deogracias. irrespective of their numbers. The RTC found Napalit guilty of robbery with homicide and violation of R. Manuel demanded that she give them her money but Maria Fe told them that she had used her money to pay her partners in the fish vending business. Manuel and Jose did not believe Maria Fe and ransacked the room but failed to find money. 396 SCRA 687 (2003) FACTS:A group of more than six armed men including Napalit barged into the Tondo General Hospital. committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide. In People v. cause. Damaso.00 in cash representing her sales. Upon Manuel’s order Jose tied the hands of Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape on her mouth. Manuel armed with a . People v. 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.00 in cash was taken.010. got a knife.90 in cash. What is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. 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. While the four malefactors were at the cashier's office. and shot twice by one of the armed men. Before Alonzo could do as instructed. Napalit pointed a gun at. entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe and poked the said gun on Maria Fe. The trial court's denomination of the offense as "robbery with double homicide" is erroneous. it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. with a short firearm. Outside.. who were then lying prostrate on the ground. the Court has ruled that whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery. Robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of the robbery is different from the victim of homicide. One of them pointed a gun at the cashier. 401 SCRA 519 (2002) FACTS: Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis came to the house of Ronito and his common-law wife.500. A. Daniela. the crime should still be denominated as robbery with homicide. Jose also tied the hands of Marife’s cousin. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his body. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the latter's wristwatch and ring. Jose. The trial court's ruled that Orlando and Fenando Dinamling. Dinamman. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace. her family and their househelps if she refused to surrender her money. Orlando Dinamling entered their house and poked a long gun at Marilyn's forehead. Two of them headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castor which was on a stop position. respectively. Suddenly. another security guard. covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed the latter several times. in front of the hospital. modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime. on the occasion or by reason of robbery. Maria Fe to borrow money. Manuel then threatened to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria Fe. and Ronito then had a drinking spree. there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. the homicides or murders and physical injuries. 6539 (the Anti-Carnapping Act). due to heavy traffic. Napalit. Rogelio and Deogaracias were shot to death. Manuel. Marilyn merely sat down. Manuel then raped Julifer. The other. It is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person the malefactor intended to rob. Jose. Nonetheless. he should only be held liable for robbery and not for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Maria Fe took the money from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and Jose. and grabbed the firearm of. Alonzo. Four members of the group then entered the cashier's office of the hospital and ordered the employees to lie down on the floor. ordered her to lie prone on the ground. Leo. killed Ronito. Even if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on another.. Napalit argues that assuming that he had indeed participated in the incident. Gomez. et al. the appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide. In People vs. two (rims of Champion cigarettes. A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before. does not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with homicide. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with it. drove it and fled with his companion. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 116 . One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guard and announced a hold-up. after forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle. the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime. Simultaneously. It may be true that the original intent of appellant Manuel was to borrow again money from Ronito and Maria Fe but later on conspired with Jose and robbed the couple of their money and pieces of jewelry. and on the occasion thereof. during or after the commission of the robbery. Tidula. People v.274. After a while. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. searched their belongings and took more or less P1. 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.38 caliber gun. Petrified. who was manning the hospital gate was disarmed of his service pistol. a househelp of Marife. entered their sari-sari store. armed with a knife followed Manuel to the bedroom. another security guard.
328 SCRA 302 (2000) FACTS: Locsin Fabon. the offender must have the intent to take the personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. Pp vs Basca. rape and physical injuries. They assaulted and clubbed Valentin with their weapons. the crime of robbery with rape was committed. Ruling was correct. All acts of rape on that occasion being integrated in one composite crime. When the taking of personal property of a woman is an independent act following defendant’s failure to consummate the rape. . the crime is robbery with homicide and rape under par 1 of Art 294. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery. ipil-ipil posts and bolo. as amended by R. Pedroso. appellant could only be convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or homicide. (People v. Thereafter. People v. how could rape be merely an aggravating circumstance?) People vs. Valdez. 9600942). C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 117 . Moreno was convicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez.350. Patola Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art 294 par 2.000. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery. Dinola Facts: Dinola saw victim Marilyn’s watch after he had raped her. When the taking of property after the rape is not with intent to gain. Held: Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of robbery only. Having failed to establish that appellant’s original criminal design was robbery. Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty. The civil liability for rape in robbery with rape has been set at P50. as the case may be. People v. . If the intention of the accused was to commit robbery but rape was also committed even before the robbery.00. where it was held that “We agree with the Solicitor General's observation that the crime committed was erroneously designated as robbery with homicide. alias "Loklok. the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance. and such intent must precede the rape." When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional mutilation. Deloria and Maniquez robbed the Mohnani spouses. . the absence of the intent to rob on the part of the appellant was apparent. 336 SCRA 163) People v. even accidental) because the opportunity presented itself. Held: The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as 2 separate offences. number 1 of the RPC. 355 SCRA 11 (2001). (note: this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal. She refused to give him the watch so he took if forcibly from her and left. but i disagree with this ruling based on moral grounds and lack of legal basis. and theft.00. The Court cited the case of People vs. 2x2 piece of wood. If the original design was to commit rape but the accused after committing rape also committed robbery (more of an afterthought. HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated the crime committed as "robbery with homicide and rape. they are separate offences. the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance only. Domingo. weakening and injuring him. there is neither theft nor robbery committed. Lago." entered the home of 64 year-old. Eventually they stole from the Gabertan spouses cash in the amount of P5. armed with a piece of bamboo. The proper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. but to protect himself from the victim. not under RPC 335 on qualified rape.000. No one would in one’s right mind just leave a firearm lying around after being in a heated argument with another person. penalized under Article 294. People vs Moreno Facts: Accused Moreno. On the occasion of the robbery. Fabon raped Lasquite. Pedro. Appellant’s act of taking the shotgun was not for the purpose of robbing the victim. 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. It must be consummated. Dinola was convicted of robbery with rape. Thereafter. and Pp vs Villa. the criminal act should be viewed as 2 distinct offences. Lascuna. Lara (2006) The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. There is no such crime as robbery with attempted rape. People v. It must be emphasized that when the victim and appellant met and had a heated argument. 7659. while Robbery with rape Like in robbery with homicide. Fabon. and Rivera went to the house of Spouses Valentin and Clara Gabertan. People v. People vs. 383 SCRA 43 (2002) FACTS: Appellant Domingo Temporal. 97-13706. such additional offense is treated as an aggravating circumstance which would result in the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. and 2 chickens. 1 ladies gold Seiko watch. 358 SCRA 550 (2001). Otherwise. 9 turkeys. The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery with Homicide and Rape. Fabon strangled and stabbed Lasquite with a knife resulting to her death. it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code which applies. there are two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape and theft.A. Liad. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa while Maniquez raped househelp Mary Ann. robbery with rape.unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. Bonifacia Lasquite and forcibly took the victim’s money amounting to P25.
it is imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. it is imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. he snatched the victim's shoulder bag. The RTC finds each of the accused. Verceles.k. RTC found appellant guilty of robbery with multiple rape. making other rapes in excess of that number as separate.k. Hence. it was only when they entered the house and saw his wife when they thought of raping her. all the foregoing elements are present.a. and then he ran away. or after the robbery. People v. Apparently. People v. including the existence of a conspiracy." In other words. To sustain a conviction. Clearly then. to be liable for such crime. 294. independent offense or offenses. Soriano alias "Merto". In the course of the robbery.Rivera guarded Valentin. a special complex crime punishable under Art. when ROGELIO removed his pants. 1 VHS. and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. The contemporaneous acts of appellant and his co-accused stress the fact that they were initially motivated by animus lucrandi. but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself.The prosecution likewise established that appellant and his co-accused took chickens. The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIO against the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact of the taking of the bag. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the grills of the window. Accused-appellant may thus be held liable for simple theft only. because their intent determines the offense they committed. Seguis. in addition to the crime of rape. HELD: Once conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery. during. Robbery with rape occurs when the following elements are present: (1) personal property is taken with violence or intimidation against persons. but ROGELIO replied "I do not need money. integrated whole that is robbery with rape. To sustain a conviction for robbery with rape. 349 SCRA 547 (2001) FACTS: Seguis a.. although not all of them took part in the rape. Gibertas. Corpuz. par. moneys and animals from Valentin Gabertan. It does not matter too whether the rape occurred before. (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi. 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. MARITES told him to get her bag if he needed money. Soriano. the four accused took turns in raping Carla outside the house where she was forcibly laid on the cogon grass. Dodong. the offender must have the intent to take the personal property of another under circumstances that makes the taking one of robbery. It was for the purpose of accomplishing his lustful desire. 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. "That will come later on because I will give it back to you but you have to follow me first. which was then on her right foot. dela Cruz. If the original plan was to commit rape. 1 alarm clock and 1 radio cassettes. Immediately after ROGELIO put his arms around MARITES and directed the knife at her neck. the latter did not take it and instead replied. Still and all. A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this case convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separate offenses of rape and theft. employs the clause "when the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape. In the case at bar. 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. These acts clearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexual gratification.k. It is essentially a crime against property. all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape. they took away 1 colored T." The said provision. the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime." After giving vent to his lustful desire. r Canico. a watch and money from complainants through violence." Again. (2) the property taken belongs to another. The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence. it cannot be considered for the purpose of classifying the crime as robbery. All the rapes are merged in the composite. and not the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Significantly. This intent was further established by the fact that when MARITES offered to give her ring to ROGELIO. and such intent must precede the rape. or on the occasion of a robbery. Ramos and Soriano entered the house of Mrs. bracelet and cash though Juliet can not pinpoint who specifically did it among the many accused. this does not change the nature of the felony. It was an afterthought following the rape. unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape.V. as amended. HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellant of robbery with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape. "Mamaya na iyan". the taking of personal property was not the original evil plan of ROGELIO. needless to say. To support a conviction therefor. Moreno. covers cases of multiple rapes. Doquila a. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and which is committed "when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape. they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery. proof of the rape alone is not sufficient. 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. Estebe a. assorted jewelries. People v. Once inside. 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. The prosecution must be able to demonstrate the level of their participation with legal and moral certainty. just as the fact that it was the accused who committed it be proved beyond reasonable doubt. the true intent of the accused must first be determined. so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery. 388 SCRA 515 (2002) FACTS: Accused Verceles alias "Baldog". if C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 118 . and a certain John Doe took turns in raping Juliet Magamayo at the house of his friend where she stayed for the night. Junior.a. Lolong.a. In the special complex crime of robbery with rape. succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while the others just stood outside the door and did nothing to prevent Soriano. One of the said accused took her gold ring. he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABC Commercial Complex and removed her clothes.
o In threats. 329 SCRA 707 (2000) FACTS: Sixteen-year old. robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. 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. appellant and his two companions counted the money which they took from the "aparador. in threats. 353 SCRA 126 (2001) Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Regala. the intimidation is actual and immediate. and accordingly. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. 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 remedy lies with the legislature. Nerissa and her grandmother were hogtied by appellant and his companions. Robbery with violence or intimidation Violence or intimidation need not be present before or at the exact moment when the object is taken. However. In a criminal action for robbery with rape. those who were charged should be acquitted. in threats. the remedy lies with the legislature. the intimidation is conditional or future. o In robbery. Appellant and his companions then ran away with P3. and 2) that any of them was inflicted upon any person not responsible for the commission of the robbery. one after the other. Otherwise.000 in cash. butchered his preys. 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. Proof of the rape alone is not sufficient to support a conviction for the crime of robbery with rape. there must be acts done by the accused which. Regala and his companions entered the house through the kitchen by removing the pieces of wood under the stove. For sometime. Requisites of robbery under 2nd case of par 4 Art 294: 1) that any of the physical injuries defined in par 3 & 4 Art 263 was inflicted in the course of the robbery. Regala. 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. either by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances under which they are executed. 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 intimidation is personal. They will still be held accountable for whatever unlawful acts they may have committed. However. the intimidation may refer to the person. People v. Nerissa was raped by twice by Regala in bed and in the kitchen. and for which acts they were charged. Regala went to the room of Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun on them. the two (2) other killings contrary to the ruling of the trial court. Difference between threats to extort money and robbery thru intimidation: o In robbery. where the prosecution failed to prove the robo or the participation of the accused in it. the latter may still be convicted for the rape. This case is singular in its barbarity and nauseating in the manner with which the accused. 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. But in People v. and her grandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping. bolo in hand. when appellant Armando Regala and his two other companions entered the former's house. The trial court’s ruling that the appellants had carnal knowledge of the private complainant by using force and intimidation. inspire fear in the person against whom they are directed. in C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 119 . 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches. we are constrained to apply the principle laid down in People v. The question that needs to be resolved is whether the “multiplicity of homicides” could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. 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. honor or property of the offended party or that of his family. Thereafter. Gano. Intimidation exists when the acts executed or words uttered by the ofender are capable of producing fear in the person threatened. it may be thru an intermediary. It may enter at any time before the owner is finally deprived of his property. should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstances. 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. The lower court's finding of the accused’nonparticipation in the robbery does not mean that they are totally guiltless. 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. Gano is guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In robbery with intimidation. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in. at least for the robbery. while in other cases it ruled that the “multiplicity of rapes/homicides” committed could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. After the rape. Nerissa Tagala. Notwithstanding the viciousness with which he perpetrated the offense.any. People v.
the robber who did not take part in the assault by another is not liable for that assault. Difference between robbery with violence and grave coercion: o In both crimes. as a means of extortion of the amount asked. 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. The accused were convicted of the complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention. Facts: The accused detained several persons as hostages in a store they robbed. all the conspirators. road. 2. 2. who was not present at the commission of the robbery. Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement. the hostages suffered physical injuries. Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide. but deliberately. is not liable for robbery with homicide. there is intent to gain. Should the crime of serious illegal detention be prosecuted as a separate offence? Held: NO. if the agreement was only to commit robbery. He was present at the commission of a robbery by that band. there is violence used by the offender. 5. One of the hostages eventually had to have her leg amputated. o In robbery. Sevilla When the robbery was not by a band and homicide was not determined by the accused when they plotted the crime. (note: the circumstances and applicability of Art 295 are very specific so please note them. or On a street. The other members of the band committed an assault. He did not attempt to prevent the assault. Difference between robbery and bribery: o It is robbery when the victim did not commit a crime. o In robbery. Any of these qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. there being no evidence that he gave instructions to kill the victim or intended that this should be done. and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms. no such requirement in grave coercion. But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide and robbery. he parts with his money or property voluntarily. He was a member of the band. In an uninhabited place. When there was conspiracy for robbery only but homicide was also committed on the occasion C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 120 . When the robbery was not committed by a band. The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery on a street. The victims were not held as a security to facilitate their escape or to insure their security against the police. the victim is deprived of his money or property by force or intimidation. a principal by inducement.robbery. are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. who did not go with the band at the place of the commission of the robbery. 4. the gain of the culprit is immediate. or with the use of firearm on a street. 4. or in any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances. The detention of the victims was a necessary means to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery. 3. road. highway or alley. or robbery with serious physical injuries under par 1 of Art 263. By a band. the gain is not immediate. the intimidation is directed only to the person of the victim. or robbery with rape. or airship. committed in an uninhabited place and by a band. motor vehicle. In the ensuing gunfight. The police launched an offensive. By attacking a moving train. in threats. 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. 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. highway or alley. 3. o In robbery. road or alley Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person is qualified if it is committed: 1. it is bribery when the victim has committed a crime and gives money or gift to avoid arrest or prosecution. Article 296. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a train. street car.) People vs. in bribery. but only for robbery in band. In grave coercion. even if less than 4 armed men.” Thus. the one who did not participate in the killing is liable for robbery only. the offender shall be punished by the maximum periods of the proper penalties prescribed in Article 294. the intent is to compel another to do something against his will. Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries.
Offender compels him to sign. SC believes that: (1) Art 296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Art 295 on robbery in band.thereof. public building. The proper penalty for murder or parricide shall be imposed because it is more severe. or breaking any door or window. Art 298 is not applicable if the document is void. Offender entered an inhabited house. offender took personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. 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. picklocks or similar tools. Art 296 in relation to par 3. murder. “Unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the Code” may be illustrated as follows: In an attempted or frustrated robbery. 3. or d. thus.” The circumstance of band becomes an ordinary aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide. 5 of Art 294 does not include cases where homicide. The members of the band liable for the assault must be present at the commission of the robbery. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship Elements under subdivision (a): 1. Once inside the building. 3. roof or floor. Offender is inside a dwelling house. whether the robbery is attempted or frustrated. Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery. since Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide under par 1 Art 294. the use of an unlicensed firearm should not have been considered as a special aggravating circumstance. etc. 5 of Art 294. 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. 2. unless the others attempted to prevent the assault. If the violence used resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded. This is also a special complex crime. not governed by Art 48. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation Elements: 1. 4. rape. public building or edifice devoted to religious worship. By breaking any wall. imbecility. there is no robbery. or deliver any public instrument or document. Hence. execute or deliver the document under the law. 2. Elements under subdivision (b): 1. People vs. the penalty imposed shall be those under Art 297. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 121 . The entrance was effected by any of the following means: a. Article 299. c. 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. There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in band. executed or delivered is a private or commercial document. It includes multiple homicides. or edifice devoted to religious worship. The compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation. 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. all are liable for any assault committed by the band. and (3) par 3. 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. infanticide. In robbery by a band. execute. 4. the killing of the victim is qualified by treachery or relationship. Article 298. (2) RPC 295 is explicitly limited to scope to pars. parricide. the crime is robbery with homicide. b. 4. But there will be COERCION if violence is used in compelling the offended party to sign or deliver the document. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress. By using false keys. This article applies even if the document signed. impotence. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances “Homicide” here is used in a generic sense. Thus. blindness and insanity occurred by reason or on the occasion of accompanying robbery. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. Article 297. Offender has intent to defraud another. intentional mutilation. SC rejected this. The penalty is the same. When the offended party is under obligation to sign. 3. all members of the band are liable for robbery with homicide. not necessarily at the commission of the assault.
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). The weapon carried by the offender must not have been used to intimidate a person. under any of the following circumstances: a. Jaranilla Facts: Accused took 6 fighting cocks from a coop located in Babylon’s backyard. not taken by force or with intimidation from the owner. “Inhabited house” = any shelter. Held: The killing of the police officer was not by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. it is sufficient to remove the offence from Art 299 and place it within the purview of Art 294. Offender takes personal property belonging to another. thus. The whole body of the culprit must be inside the building to constitute entering. Subdivision (b) Entrance into the building by any of the means in subdiv (a) is not required in robbery under subdiv (b). lids or opening sheets” of furniture or other portable receptacles. or b. The liability for carrying arms while robbing an inhabited house is extended to each of the offenders who take part in the robbery. not to get out. or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle. People vs. not robbery. They were convicted by robbery with homicide. It is only THEFT when the false key is used to open wardrobe or locked receptacle or drawer or inside door. “Public building” = every building owned by the govt or belonging to a private person but used or rented by the govt. for the reason that once the circumstance of intimidation enters in the commission of the crime. In entering the building. Any of the 4 means described in subdiv (a) must be resorted to by the offender to enter a house or building. The place entered must be a house or building. The term “door” in par 1 subdiv (b) refers only to “doors. The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise authority must be to enter the building. even if some of them do not carry arms. although temporarily unoccupied by the same. 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. chests. They were intercepted by a police officer who was shot by one of the accused. 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. with intent to gain. entering an automobile does not fall under this article. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 122 . By the breaking of doors. 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. In the latter case. the offender must have an intention to take personal property. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery.2. hence only the person who shot such officer should be liable for the killing. regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it. wardrobes. The genuine key must be stolen. not to inside doors of house or building. it becomes robbery with intimidation of person. The door of the coop was broken.
roof. chest. or edifice devoted to religious worship must be located in an uninhabited place. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 123 . Article 304. or e. in order to be qualified. if a person opened without breaking a closed but not locked chest and took personal property therefrom. Orchards or other lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the term “dependencies”. building “uninhabited place” = uninhabited otherwise. even if the same be broken open elsewhere. such as freight car and warehouse. Offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. Article 302. Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession. The information must allege that the store was used and occupied as a dwelling. 2. the robbery committed therein would be considered as committed in an inhabited house under Art 299. or not an edifice devoted to religious worship. it is only THEFT. “cereal” = palay or other seedlings The palay must be kept by the owner as “seedling” or taken for that purpose by the robbers. tools Elements: 1. If the store is used as a dwelling of 1 or more persons. A wall. b. Possession of picklocks or similar 2. d. not a public building. must be committed in an uninhabited place AND by a band. or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was broken. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building Elements: 1. The 2 qualifications must concur. If the store was not actually occupied at the time the robbery took place and was not used as a dwelling. 3. because the place is uninhabited. 3. picklocks or other similar tools. or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building Penalty is one degree lower if cereals. Penalty is based only on value of property taken. wardrobe. or outside door or window was broken. or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies 3 requisites for “dependencies”: (1) must be contiguous to the building. public building or edifice devoted to religious worship is qualified when committed by a band AND in an uninhabited place. c. since the owner lived in a separate house. floor. the robbery should be considered as having been perpetrated in an uninhabited place under Art 302. fruits. Such picklock or similar tools are especially adopted to the commission of robbery. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed. The receptacle must be “closed” or “sealed”. The entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or egress. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band Robbery in an inhabited house.Article 300. having an interior entrance connected therewith. “building” = includes any kind of structure used for storage or safekeeping of personal property. Any of the following circumstances was present: a. (2) must have an interior entrance connected therewith. What is an inhabited house. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was not a dwelling house. while robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons must be committed in an uninhabited place OR by a band. The use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority is not a means of entering the building under this article. Thus. and (3) must form part of the whole. The inhabited house. Robbery of cereals. Article 303. Robbery with force upon things. public building. the robbery committed therein is punished under Art 302. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools. it is a dependency of an inhabited house and the robbery committed therein is punished under the last par of Art 299. A door. If the store is located on the ground floor of the house belonging to the owner of the store. fruits or firewood are taken in robbery with force upon things. public building. Article 301.
Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine. trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. piece by piece or part by part. "Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing. trolley cars. Definition of Terms. shall within one week after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof from the registered owner. SECTION 5. transfer. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent. every owner or possessor of unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof in knock down condition shall register with the Land Transportation Commission the motor vehicle engine. Engine Block and Chassis. altering or changing of the original factoryinscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine. Genuine keys stolen from the owner. Substitution or Replacement of a Motor Vehicle Engine. 3. scratching. the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwith issue a certificate of clearance. verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its motor engine. Transfer. vehicles. amphibian trucks. street-sweepers. — "Carnapping" is the taking. — The Land Transportation Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle engines. apply to the Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle for registration with the Land Transportation Commission. whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registered owner. engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle.and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle. The Philippine Constabulary shall. "Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting. which run only on rails or tracks.A. substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine. fork-lifts. "Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle. engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles. SECTION 6. 6539 Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 SECTION 2. All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities are required to register their cars with the local police without paying any charges. Motor vehicles assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor vehicle engines. 2. sprinklers. 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. make and serial numbers and stating therein the names and addresses of their present and previous owners. — Every sale. — Within one year after the approval of this Act. There is repainting whenever the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as registered in the Land Transportation Commission. lawn mowers. Engine Blocks and Chassis. provincial and city branch offices: Provided. of a motor vehicle. engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered with the Land Transportation Commission. "Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways. 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. Copies of the registry and of all entries made thereon shall be furnished the Philippine Constabulary and all Land Transportation Commission regional. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle Engines. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. all motor vehicle engines. That all Land Transportation Commission regional. and tractors. — Any person seeking the original registration of a motor vehicle. but excepting road rollers. shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating. and cranes if not used on public highways. Any key other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender. 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. engine block or chassis. Thereafter. False keys False keys include the following: 1. Tools mentioned in Article 304. "Dismantling" is the tearing apart. or by using force upon things. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not in that list. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. specifying therein their type. Conveyance. SECTION 4. upon receipt of the application. Article 305. Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance from the Philippine Constabulary and after verification of the registration of the motor vehicle engine. "Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by separating the motor engine SECTION 3. bulldozers. conveyance. Trailers having any number of wheels. and shall be confiscated in favor of the Government. 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. Carnapping R. graders. "Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its entire body with a new body. 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. that motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered with serial number. Registration of Sale. with intent to gain. engine block and chassis in the C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 124 . Engine Block or Chassis. when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle.
and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. equipment. the Land Transportation Commission shall register the motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws. If rape. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — Any person who is found guilty of carnapping. Highway Robbery P. including territorial sea. the insular shelves. murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy. thus not limited to a national road connecting various towns. or when the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves. upon conviction by competent court be punished by: Piracy. or railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons. 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. as this term is defined in Section two of this Act. or rape is committed as a result or on the occasion thereof. Philippine Highway. articles. People A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. breadth. highway and bridges or other parts thereof. Penalties. or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel. rules and regulations. or force upon things. irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken. the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person. with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which belonged to another. or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo. driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping. the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. gulfs. passage. bays around. shall. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 125 . and all other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title. engine blocks and chassis. e. c. — Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel. People vs. — It shall refer to all bodies of water. or vehicles.permanent registry of motor vehicle engines. shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons. d. It shall include all kinds and b. such as but not limited to. — Any person who commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined. between and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago. street. or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers. Vessel. in Philippine waters. unless the contrary is proven. — It shall refer to any road. committed by any person on any Philippine Highway. be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months. 532 Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 SECTION 2. shall be considered as piracy. Izon vs. extortion or other unlawful purposes. or property or both. without the latter’s consent or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. or locomotives or trains for the movement or circulation of persons or transportation of goods. Piracy. or force upon things. SECTION 3. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on the occasion thereof. Dela Cruz The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when there is taking. or by using force upon things. Definition of Terms. the sea-bed. — The following terms shall mean and be understood. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. SECTION 14. which is defined as any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using public highways. including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel. seas. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed during or on the occasion of the commission of robbery or brigandage. — Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through Philippine Waters. Aliens. by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. irrespective of the value thereof. irrespective of its depth. shall. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period shall be imposed. such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the government. It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly. length or dimension.D. or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom. Philippine Waters. SECTION 15. the penalty of death shall be imposed. Public highways are those free for the use of every person. Penalty for Carnapping. — Aliens convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after service of sentence without further proceedings by the Deportation Board. and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years. types of vessels or boats used in fishing. or murder or homicide. — The seizure of any person for ransom. and the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the owner. SECTION 4. committed by any person. as follows: a. — Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands. or any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided. Highway Robbery/Brigandage.
Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at a talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbed on after the other. Was highway robbery committed? NO. No person. exhibit the documents prescribed in the preceding sections. caretaker. In this case. Duty of the owner/raiser before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the age of six months. If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. arrived at Taer’s house to retrieve the carabaos. hides or meat are free from any disease. having knowledge of the commission of the crime. What was the crime committed? Held: Robbery with homicide. ass. a certification from the Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large cattle. — Every person having in his possession. the owners of the carabaos. there was no proof that the 4 accused previously attempted to commit armed robberies. mule. 533 THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974 What is cattle rustling? Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means. partnership. association. Taer vs. corporation or entity. Manocatcat asked Taer to tend the carabaos for him. Presumption of Cattle Rustling. 10 days later. register the same with the office of the city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised. in addition to the foregoing penalty. corporation or entity desiring to ship or transport large cattle. Any person. without the consent of the owner/raiser. Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accused were organised for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. the Provincial Commander shall require the submission of the certificate of ownership as prescribed in Section 3 hereof. horse. An accessory is someone who. Owner/raiser. Shipment of large cattle. or meat. arrived at the Taer’s hourse at 2am with 2 male carabaos. without C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 126 . upon demand by competent authorities. carabao. partnership. method or scheme. Failure to exhibit the required documents shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his possession. its hides. the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. partnership. or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser. control or custody of large cattle shall. They were able to extort P7000 in cash and P100. Large cattle . Of the 6 passengers. Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle. People vs. the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling. When the offender is a government official or employee. 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. 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. and such other documents or records as may be necessary. or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved. The permit shall only be valid in such province. They were convicted of robbery with homicide although they were charged with highway robbery. Penalties Imposed Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall. or other domesticated member of the bovine family.as herein used shall include the cow. Cattle Rustling PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. Before issuance of the permit herein prescribed. When the offender is an alien.People vs.000 in check. 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. It includes the killing of large cattle. 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. be disqualified from voting or being voted upon in any election/referendum and from holding any public office or employment. association. of any of the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or gain. Pulusan Facts: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the McArthur highway. the only woman. control or custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling. 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. CA Facts: Co-accused Manocatcat. not highway robbery. Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle. its hides or meat from one city/municipality to another within the same province may be done upon securing permit from the city/municipal treasurer of the place of origin. What was Taer’s participation in the crime? Held: Taer was an accessory because he employed the carabaos in his farm. association. he shall be deported immediately upon the completion of the service of his sentence without further proceedings. he shall. Puno Accused held up Mrs Sarmiento in her car at gunpoint.shall include the herdsman.
Ordonio denied seeing it. The arms carried by the members of the band of robbers may be any deadly weapon. when he knew fully well that it belonged to Pajunar. and in case of conviction. the mere formation of a band for any of the purposes mentioned in the law is sufficient. 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. or c. is the essence cattle rustling. There is a band of brigands. 3. (2) to kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or obtaining ransom. in robbery in band. When Pajunar inquired abt his cow. Article 307. with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. To attain by means of force and violence any other purpose. Ordonio vs. but only robbery in band. 2. shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. brigands Elements: 1. b. To commit robbery in the highway. The cow was eventually found in Ordonio’s possession. unless contrary is proven. THEFT committed by any person who. Who are brigands Elements of brigandage: 1. The purpose is any of the following: a. or c. the offence is not brigandage. Offender knows the band to be of brigands. 2. not necessarily in the highway. Article 308. Those who with intent to gain. Thus. CA Facts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. Held: The law reads “taking away by any means. the penalty shall be imposed in the max period.” Ordonio’s stubborn insistence that the calf belonged to his brother. Who are liable for theft Persons liable: 1. but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 127 . The purpose of the band must be (1) to commit robbery in the highway. knowing that the property does not belong to him. as a mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable. Article 306. a band of dissidents or oppositionists will not qualify. abets or protects such band of brigands. or (3) any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom.having participated as a principal or an accomplice. Aiding and abetting a band of It must be a band of robbers. such that Pajunar had to enlist the aid of the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow. To contrast. the purpose of the offenders is only to commit robbery. In brigandage. is shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands. 3. In case of robbery by a band. If the agreement among more than 3 armed men was to commit only a particular robbery. 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. takes part subsequent to its commission by profiting himself by the effects of the crime. “highway” = includes city streets as well as roads outside the cities. but Ordonio claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by his brother Agustin. it is necessary to prove that the band actually committed robbery. The perpetrator’s intent to gain is then inferred from his deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person. If any of the arms carried by any of a group of persons be an unlicensed firearm. methods or schemes. Offender does any of the following acts: a. There are least four armed persons. He acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands. They formed a band of robbers. He gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the government. He in any manner aids. or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. It shall be presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has performed them knowingly.
The presumption regarding possession of stolen property does not exclusively refer to actual physical possession thereof but may include prior unexplained possession. The property taken belongs to another. The taking was done with intent to gain. fails to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner. it suffices that consent on the part of the owner is lacking . because under those transactions. in the same place. It is not an indispensable element of theft that the thief carry. thus. Rey subsequently appropriated it rolex watch with intent to gain and without consent of Tina. “taking” ≠ taking away or carrying away. Owner wanted to claim it back but Santos could not be found. – This is THEFT. not robbery. It is enough that on taking them. It is not necessary that there was real or actual gain on the part of the offender. Those who. the person in possession of part of the missing property is presumed to be the thief of the entire property. 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. remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by them. animus lucandi = intent to gain The taking in theft must have the character of permanency. Those who having found lost property. When goods were lost at the same time.2. 2. Gulinao Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. Elements: 1. the juridical possession of the thing is transferred to the offender. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons of force upon things. it is necessary that there should be a taking against the will of the owner. 4. But if the accused received the thing from another person in trust or on commission. or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment. the distinction between juridical and mere physical possession is important. Convicted C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 128 . People vs. more or less far away. It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking. and received by. theft is consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the thing taken by them. force upon things. without the consent of its owner. after having maliciously damaged the property of another. For robbery to exist. Thus. the Court held that asportation is complete from the moment the offender had full possession of the thing. 4. the crime is ESTAFA. the property must be recently stolen. Illustration: Tina gave Rey her rolex watch for the purpose of having it examined since Rey has a pawnshop. hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits. and on the same occasion. if it was stolen a long time ago. In any case. The taking was done without the consent of the owner. There is taking of personal property. the offender must have the intention of making himself the owner of the thing taken. the presumption will not lie.. the offender. People Penalosa gave car to Santos to be repaired. but an act done soon thereafter by the offender which may result in unlawful taking or asportation. There is theft even if accused did not take them for his own use. Gulinao went back to get Dr Chua’s diamond ring. even if he did not have an opportunity to dispose of the same. Violence used in killing Dr Chua had no bearing on the taking of the ring. take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. he was then actuated by the desire or intent to gain. 5. for the presumption to work. (note: thus. He was convicted of illegal possession and robbery. Thus. Finder of hidden treasure who misappropriated the share pertaining to the owner of the property is guilty of theft as regards that share.) Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another. cereals or other forest or farm products. The taking of the ring was just an afterthought. SC ruled that he is guilty of THEFT. Santos vs. for theft. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and. 3. the thing taken by him from its owner. or for administration. As of 2007. although in the beginning. it was in fact given to. the article is deemed to have been taken also. Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person. In such case. and later misappropriated or converted the thing to the prejudice of another. 3.
Theft of Electricity. To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not an element of the corpus delicti in theft. THE USE OF TAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL METERS. and (e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of electric service obtained through any of the acts Article 309.of estafa in RTC then CA convicted him of qualified theft. not estafa as the latter requires that the offender has juridical possession of the thing and then it is converted for his own personal use.any person who: installs any water. twenty-three (23) pieces of cassette tapes. Dino and Empelis rulings. the court should impose the minimum penalty corresponding to theft. If there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it.00 and jewelry worth P10. After the robbery. Again. circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime. wire or conduit or allow any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electric current. and. 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. corpus delicti has two elements. AND OTHER ACTS Who are punishable? -. one (1) box of car toys. electrical and/or telephone wires. the Manila Electric Company or the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water and/or electrical meters as well as stolen or pilfered water. 7832 Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/ Materials Pilferage Act of 1994 Acts punishable Illegal Use of Electricity (§2) (a) Tap. shorting or shunting wire. these two elements were established. (d) Damage or destroy an electric meter. The amounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner took them without authority to do so Valenzuela v.” In theft. and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. The Court thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code. (b) Tap. HELD: To sustain a conviction for theft. and. CA. Corpus delicti means the “body or substance of the crime. This is clutching at straws. or other electric service wires. refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed. or (3) the C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 129 . 401 March 1. Lucas v.00 all belonging to Luisito Tuazon. (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.A. an electric fan. 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. Illegal Water. 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. namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner. electric and/or telephone wires.000. 1974 PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF WATER. 389 SCRA 749 (2002) FACTS: Lucas was convicted by the RTC together with Wilfredo Navarro for stealing one stereo component. as the case may be. jumper. Lucas. (c) Tamper. service drops. Gan v. there is no crime of frustrated theft. R. tampers and/or uses tampered water or electrical meters or jumpers or other devices whereby water or electricity is stolen. People (2007) The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao.00. The said robbery took place when Luisito was at work. valued at P100. four (4) pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls. Appellant are guilty of theft. 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. (3) there must be an intention to gain from the taking of another person's personal property. equipment. SC rule that he is guilty of THEFT. without previous authority or consent of the private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned. 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. ELECTRICAL OR TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS.000. make or cause to be made any connection with overhead lines.000. the following elements must be present: (1) personal property of another person must be taken without the latter's consent. in its primary sense. electrical or telephone connection without previous authority from the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. Navarro and one Lovena escaped on board a tricycle. install or use a tampered electrical meter. cash of P20. In the case before us. current reversing transformer. 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. steals or pilfers water and/or electric meters or water. Electric or Telephone Connections PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. a 14-inch colored TV.
stocked. The presence inside the electric meter of salt. or any other installation or place of installation or any other place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored. or the supply. For theft of electric power transmission lines and materials The possession or custody of electric power transmission line/material by any person.It is hereby declared unlawful for any person to: Destroy. Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and Materials (§3) Cut. pier. or cause to be made any connection with water lines without prior authority or consent from the water C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 130 . slice. any electric power transmission line/material or meter from a tower. and (d) above. and Load. disconnection. 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. aqueduct. 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. control or custody thereof. ditch. damage or interfere with any canal. Presumptions For illegal use of electricity: The presence of any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity by the person benefited thereby. and construction of access road and water mains and distribution network and any related works of the utility entity. carry away or remove or transfer. in order to constitute prima facie evidence. broken. without first securing a clearance/permit for the said purpose from its owner or the National Power Corporation (NPC) or its regional office concerned. bulkhead. crib. severe. must be personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). dam. whether or not the act is done for profit or gain. whether or not the act is done for profit or gain. custody or control. reconnection. or fake seal on the meter. or interference with any authorized person engaged in the discharge of duties connected therewith. water distribution pipes. deposited. The discovery of any of the foregoing circumstances. of a current reversing transformer. air or sea. (b). monument. The existence of any wiring connection which affects the normal operation or registration of the electric meter. whether or not the act is done for profit or gain. situated or located. or any place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored. kept. transmission or distribution of electric power. make. altered or tampered meter recording chart or graph. pole. Prevent. deposited. measurement. jumper. transformers. or at the back or any other part of said meter. The mutilation. or log. whether by land. service. and/or loop connection or any other similar device. whether or not the act is done for profit or gain. or its metering accessories. any integral accessory of the metering device box which encases an electric meter. gate. or property of any water utility entity. stocked. any electrical power transmission line/material. 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. situated or located without the consent of the owner. raceway. any electric power transmission line/material or meter without the consent of the owner. and shall be the basis for: the immediate disconnection by the electric utility to such person after due notice. water mains. including the prevention of. machinery buildings. pipes. pole. Store. any other installation or place of installation. without the consent of the owner. or other works. split. inventoried. or computerized chart. kept. smelt. with or without the use of a motor vehicle or other means of conveyance. 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. natural or juridical. or attempt to destroy. 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. . The destruction of. Take. 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. RA 8041 An Act to Address the National Water Crisis and For Other Purposes Sec. appliance. conveyance. inventoried. alteration. Anti-Pilferage. not engaged in the transformation. The presence of a tampered. and accessories. ship or move from one place to another. obstruct. whether public or private. saw. or regulation thereof. graph. (c). or remove any electric power transmission line/material or meter from a tower. reservoir. bypassing or tampering of instruments. and interfere with the survey. possess or otherwise keep in his premises. works. the holding of a preliminary investigation by the prosecutor and the subsequent filing in court of the pertinent information. separate. or mutilated. 8. conduit. wire benchmark. Tap. shorting and/or shunting wire. carry. lock. as the case may be.mentioned in subsections (a). and therefore such line/material may be confiscated from the person in possession. inlet.
3. Steal or pilfer water meters. Other Methods and Gear Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat (a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs. the offender shall be punished imprisonment from six (6) to twelve (12) years. officer or employee of the water utility concerned. shortening of vane wheels and other devices to steal water or interfere with accurate registry or metering of water usage. 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. poisonous or noxious substances to catch. occupation or livelihood purposes may be allowed. noxious or poisonous substances or by electricity shall constitute prima facie evidence that the fisherfolk. Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto. The confiscated corals shall either be returned to the sea or donated to schools and museums for educational or scientific purposes or disposed through other means. tampering. or illegal connection existed at the time of that use. and other fishery marine life habitat as may be determined by the Department (b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation. Management And Conservation Of The Fisheries And Aquatic Resources. 4. Tamper. engaged in fishing in Philippine waters. boat official or fishworker is fishing with the use thereof. whether raw or in processed form. seagrass beds. for research. operator. magnets. Ban on Muro-Ami. 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. 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. 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. 8550 An Act Providing For The Development. noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing (d) Actual use of explosives. which will kill. and such Illegal Fishing REPUBLIC ACT NO. (b) dealing in fish illegally caught The discovery of explosives or equipment for electrofishing in any fishing vessel or in the possession of any fishworker shall constitute prima facie evidence. Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters. Use or receive the direct benefit of water service with knowledge that diversion. disable or render unconscious fish or fishery species The Department. explosives. may allow. that the same was used for fishing in violation of this Code. sticks. reversing water meters. 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 C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 131 . 7. (c) Mere possession of explosive. 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. or that the use or receipt was otherwise without the authorization of the water utility. 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. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other Unauthorized Fisheries Activities (a) exploiting.utility concerned. noxious or poisonous substance such as sodium cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas. (b) fishing by commercial fishing vessels in fishery management areas declared as over exploited (c) engaging in any commercial fishing activity in municipal waters when not listed in the registry of municipal fisherfolk 2. and Knowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the above. install or use tampered water meters. main lines. stupefy. and/or Electricity (a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of electricity. The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed with the use of explosive. Steal water for profit or resale. 5. pipes and related or ancillary facilities. educational or scientific purposes only. the said employee. except for scientific or research purposes. the use of electricity. And For Other Purposes What acts are punishable? 1. 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. or otherwise result in its diversion in a manner whereby water is stolen or wasted. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation (a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and semi-precious corals. Fishing Through Explosives. Noxious or Poisonous Substance. subject to safeguards and conditions deemed necessary and endorsement from the concerned LGUs. fishing for daily food sustenance or for leisure which is not for commercial.
guardianship or vigilance. pebbles and other substances which make up any marine habitat 8. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. The property stolen is a motor vehicle. other physical or mechanical acts to pound the coral reefs and other habitat to entrap. catadromous and other migratory species. which the accused abused. CA Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that tested positive for sodium cyanide. 14. gather or catch fish and other fishery species (c) gathering. mail matter. They dropped the coconuts after being seen by the owner. Fishing or Taking of Rare. Cañales 20. but not limited to river mouths and estuaries within a distance determined by the concerned FARMCs 21. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 132 . selling or exporting white sand. earthquake. 6. silica. Article 310. SC held that the presumption is only prima facie hence. 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. The confidence gravely abused must be that existing between offended party and the offender. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners However. Exportation of Breeders. 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. or any other calamity. Empelis vs. Fishing in Fishery Reserves. in areas including. typhoon. by reason of dependence. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew Employing Hizon vs. or civil disturbance. IAC 4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from a plantation. Qualified theft Theft is qualified if: 1. 2. Conversion of Mangroves (a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for any other purposes 10. 3. They were convicted of qualified theft. Refuge and Sanctuaries 12. Its presence in the commission of theft is sufficient. Violation of Catch Ceilings 17. Penalties for qualified theft are now next HIGHER BY 2 DEGREES. that has created a high degree of confidence between them. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season 11. between the accused and the offended party. Aquatic Pollution 18. Fish Pens and Fish Cages without a license/permit 19. volcanic eruption. People vs. The abuse of confidence must be grave. River. 5. which creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when any fish taken is positive for poisonous substances. Committed by a domestic servant. rebuttable by competent evidence. Threatened or Endangered Species 13. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. it is not necessary to prove grave abuse of confidence. Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. or If property is taken on the occasion of fire. Other violations Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all Fishponds.similar gear and methods that require diving. or large cattle. 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. Lake or Bay Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps. Committed with grave abuse of confidence. 4. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species 16. The grave abuse of confidence need not be premeditated. Eggs or Fry 15. vehicular accident. Spawners. There must be allegation in the information and proof of a relation. Petitioners question the legality of the presumption. The accused were convicted for illegal fishing using poisonous substances under PD 703. 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. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of anadromous.
(3) that the taking be done with intent to gain. and with intent to deprive the true owner of the possession thereof. appellant presented the third receipt (Invoice No. volcanic eruption. 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. and since he effectively deprived the true owner of the possession of the entire automobile. and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. Jonathan D. (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle. The act of asportation in this case was undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thief to profit by the act. Clearly. The truck. On January 9. Theft is qualified when any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant. 6539. People v. 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. 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. to 11:00 p. Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transport and revealed that the taxi had been abandoned. was subsequently recovered. People v. Luisito Bustinera (2004) FACTS: ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as a taxi driver. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent. (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner.000. and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire. (4) the taking was done with intent to gain. ESC was able to recovered. or any other calamity. However. as amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. 6539. but he did not return it on the same day as he was supposed to. to wit: (1) there was a taking of personal property. (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence. with intent to gain. 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. (2) that said property belongs to another. or have the same purpose or object. Due to this trust. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. appellant admittedly reported for work and drove the taxi. with respect to certain vehicles.m.. Neither will it diminish the criminal responsibility of appellant. As the theft was committed with grave abuse of confidence. after which he would return it to ESC Transport's garage and remit the boundary fee in the amount of P780. HELD: The trial court correctly found that appellant was a trusted employee of Azkcon. or to the same class of persons or things. however. by Republic Act No. vehicular accident or civil disturbance. These cold rolled sheets are also cut by Power Construction for a fee and Azkcon converts them into drums or containers. Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle. all the elements of theft were established. 1992 for stamping only on April 21. 51111) dated March 23. The trial court found him guilty of qualified theft. In People v. (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner. as amended defines "carnapping" as "the taking. Section 2 of Republic Act No. Inexplicably. From the foregoing. The reasonable conclusion is that he asported the materials. or cover the same specific or particular subject matter. otherwise known as "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING. Carpio: The gist of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking and asportation of property. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. Reynaldo Bago (2000) FACTS: Reynaldo Bago was an employee of Azkcon Metal Industries from 1988-1992. or by using force upon things. He was incharge of overseeing the cutting of the materials at Power Construction and ensuring their delivery to Azkcon. appellant is guilty of qualified theft. It was agreed that appellant would drive the taxi from 6:00 a. as amended. Cariaga v. earthquake." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft.00. (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation.Facts: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. animo lucrandi. HELD: Bustinera was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. Azkcon has a business arrangement with Power Construction Supply Company (Power Construction) whereby Azkcon buys cold rolled sheets from the latter. 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. the concept of unlawful taking in theft. it is the anti-carnapping law and not the provisions of qualified theft which would apply. 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. Bago was discovered to have participated in the theft of materials worth P192. robbery and carnapping being the same. mail matter or large cattle. From 1991 to 1992. and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things. On December 25. he succeeded in withdrawing from the said supplier the cold rolled sheets. typhoon. The materials he took from the supplier on March 23. (2) the property belongs to another. 1997. 1996. They were tasked to deliver the prawns to the pier using the truck. Court of Appeals (2001) C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 133 .m. the offense of larceny comprised the whole car. They stole a truck and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from the company. 1992. 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. On the other hand. since appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo sedan. The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his right of possession were complete as to the entire car.00 per day. (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." When statutes are in pari materia or when they relate to the same person or thing. Article 310 has been modified.
The trial court correctly convicted appellant of Qualified Theft on the basis of circumstantial evidence. As such.000. She was found to have taken money from several of the depositors. He was charged and found guilty of qualified theft. 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. including lightning arresters. the integrity of telegraphic fund transfers and account names of bank clients. Sison facilitated the crediting of two (2) fictitious remittances in the amounts of P3. the felony of qualified theft would be committed.000. 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. which were generally used for the installation of transformers and power lines. Illegal Logging P.000. 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. In People v. He initiated a covert operation to discover the method and to capture one of the culprits. and then later the withdrawal of P6. among others. or other forest products.755. guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and Western. He rose from the ranks and was promoted to the position of Assistant Manager and concurrently held the position of Branch Operation Officer. We note that the information alleged that petitioner was an employee of DLPC. anchors itself on the bare denial of petitioner of the specific acts imputed by the prosecution against him. an equally fictitious account. including custody of the cash vault.000. Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive payments. (BABSLA). if the teller appropriates the money for personal gain then the felony committed is theft and not estafa. the group was brought down and Jonathan Cariaga was charged and found guilty of qualified by grave abuse of confidence HELD: The defense. who directly or indirectly cuts. They merely assisted customers in making a purchase and in demonstrating the merchandise to prospective buyers.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch.000.000. what is involved is the possession of money in the capacity of a bank teller. 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. is qualified theft. People v Ruben Sison (2000) FACTS: Ruben Sison first joined the Auditing Department of the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) in December 1977.D. that he had access to the electrical supplies of said company. He received reports that some private electricians were engaged in the clandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. verily. cut-out and wires. Ultimately.FACTS: "Luis Miguel Aboitiz was the Systems Analyst of the Davao Light & Power Company. and specifically stored therein for emergency operations at night when the stockroom is closed. While the mere circumstance that the petitioner is an employee or laborer of DLPC does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy that the law requires to designate the crime as qualified theft.00. removes. Unable to return the money. the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB).00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch. De Vera. Juridical possession remains with the bank. with grave abuse of confidence. Inc. he was assigned to different branches until his last detail at the PCIB Luneta Branch in February 1991.000. Such is only material possession. he stole electrical materials belonging to DLPC. she was charged with qualified theft and covicted. preparation and issuance of invoices. He was the primary control officer directly responsible for the day to day operations of the branch. HELD: The appeal has no merit. 330 PenalizingTimber Smuggling or Illegal Cutting of Logs SECTION 1. conceived and accomplished the theft of P6. 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. since the teller occupies a position of confidence. and that with grave abuse of confidence. or smuggles timber. In line with the reasoning of the Court in several cases. Using an undercover agent. 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. to confidential and highly delicate computerized security systems designed to safeguard. they had no access to the cashier’s booth or to the cash payments subject of the offense. beginning with People v. The crime perpetuated by appellant against his employer. The management of the PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its Luneta Branch Operation Officer. 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.250. either from any of the C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 134 .000. Certainly. Roque argued that since the money was lawfully received by her and later misappropriated she was guilty only of estafa. The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that there be a relation of independence. and the bank places money in the teller's possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller. pilferage or theft of company property. They had no hand in the safekeeping. whose duty was to devise means to prevent losses due to waste.00 and P4. Any person. 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. While they had access to the merchandise. (DLPC). whether natural or juridical. Asuncion Roque v People (2004) FACTS: Asuncion Roque was a teller of the Basa Air Base Savings and Loan Association Inc.00 in favor of Solid Realty Development Corporation. Astudillo v. Further. 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. except the Branch Manager. gathers.
to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. shall before offering the same for sale to the public. d. article. equipment. or timber from alienable and disposable public lands. and if such guilty officer or officers are aliens. conceal. if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6.000 pesos but not exceeding 22. without prejudice to whatever civil action the latter may bring against the offender. lease. association corporation or partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing. lease. Provided. object or anything of value which he knows. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period. gathering or collecting shall be liable. if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.000 pesos but not exceeding 12. gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. c. and the machinery. if such value does not exceed 5 pesos. object. Therefore. gathered. collected or removed. they shall. as the case may be. for himself or for another.D. receive. or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land. Provided. if the value of the property involved is more than 12. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. license or permit and perpetual disqualification from acquiring any such privilege shall be imposed upon any licensee. That in the case of partnership. be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. with intent to gain f. partnership or association. Mere possession of any good. partnership or association. or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. P. forest reserves and other kinds of public forests. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or forest products to cut. shall buy. he or they shall be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commissioned of Immigration and Deportation. Presumption of Fencing.000 pesos. the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period. whether under license or lease.000 pesos. and if such officers are aliens. acquire. item. rules and regulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualified theft as defined and penalized under Articles 308. secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store. the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers. article. the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed. 705 The Forestry Reform Code (as amended) SECTION 68. association or corporation. or shall buy and sell. keep. b. lumber is necessarily included in timber as the law makes no distinction. firm. Fencing PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. firm. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.000 pesos. lessee. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 135 . if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum. the officers who ordered the cutting. 1612 ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 What is fencing? “Fencing" is the act of any person who. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period. or from any privately owned forest lands in violation of existing laws. license or permit. The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement. CA Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber is actually processed forest raw materials or just processed timber. or from private lands. In such cases. establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles is required All stores. e. adding one year for each additional 10. sell or dispose of. collect. possess. firm. or permittee who cuts timber from the licensed or leased area of another. item. but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.000 pesos. 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. That if the offender is a corporation. The penalty of prision mayor. or should be known to him. shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC. object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof. without any authority under a license agreement. implements and tools used therein. gather. in addition to the penalty herein prescribed. and the forfeiture of his improvements in the area. if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Cutting. of the corporation. Mustang Lumber Inc vs. item. in addition to the penalty. establishment or entity is located. or in any other manner deal in any article.public forest. if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6. Penalties imposed Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated: a. "Fence" includes any person. — Any person who shall cut.
If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of strategy or stealth) . 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. IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physical injuries inflicted as a result of the acts of violence. claiming that the same is their inheritance from their ascendants further they gathered coconuts and made them into copra. violence and intimidation. defendants were found guilty of usurpation of real property. Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property Acts punishable: 1. Elements: 1. While there. HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation. together with their other close relatives appeared on the property of Francisco and Bienvenido Del Monte. but accused threatened administrator he would "kill anyone who would drive me away" or chased administrator away with bolo. the crime is: grave coercion Usurpation of Real Right. surmises and conjectures" but clearly on the evidence on record and in accordance with the applicable law. took possession of the land adjudicated in favor of the offended party and harvested the palay. defendants asserted a calim over the land despite the fact that a prior judicial decision declared the Del Montes as the rightful owners. only CIVIL LIABILITY exists Violence or intimidation must be DURING the occupation or usurpation. 4. 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. The requisites of usurpation are that the accused took 2. 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. Taking possession of any real belonging to another by means of 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. by means of threats and intimidation. The refusal (violent or not) of the accused to comply with writ of execution is a DISTINCT OFFENSE: contempt of court under the Rules of Court. That the offender a. the decision rendered by the trial court convicting her of the crime of usurpation of real property was not based on "speculations. In the trial court. He was thus forced to seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine National Police. Distinguished from theft or robbery: Usurpation Theft/robbery There is intent to gain Occupation or usurpation There is taking or asportation Real property or real right Personal property taken Conchita Quinao v People (2000) FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao. Art 312 DOES NOT apply.Article 311. with the use of force. Resultantly. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 136 . usurped and took possession of the landholding. property violence property violence 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. example: Accused. If at all. Thus. 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. 2. who had lost a case in a cadastral proceeding. 3. and when the administrator of such land told him to leave. it only provides for a fine. 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. takes possession of any real property or b. Usurping any real rights in belonging to another by means of against or intimidation of persons.
possession of another's real property or usurped real rights in another's property. Such participation does NOT prove her complicity in the fraud. The mere alteration of the boundary marks or monuments intended to designate the boundaries of towns. Article 313. 4. taking it to another place or c. Any recruitment activities. Being a merchant is not an element of this offense. (2) violence or intimidation should be employed in possessing the real property or in usurping the real right. provinces. but to some third person. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an 1. Actual prejudice. or estates. Hence. 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. provinces. Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of the offender Example: Wife of accused helped prepare documents to abscond with his property. in Castrodes vs. since it was the creditors of her husband (not HER creditors) who were defrauded. destruction of stone monument b. not intention alone. removing a fence Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency Elements: Article 315. 3. including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. and (3) the accused should be animated by the intent to gain. "Alter": General and indefinite meaning. Cubelo. is required Concealment of property not sufficient if the debtor-accused has some other property with which to satisfy his obligation. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns. to be undertaken by non-licensees or nonholders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. 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.does not require that the debtor should depart and physically conceal his property. 2. Distinguished from Insolvency Law: Insolvency Law: requires that the criminal act be committed AFTER the institution of insolvency proceedings Fraudulent insolvency: no need for defendant to be adjudged bankrupt or insolvent.D. 2. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officers may initiate complaints under this Article. The considerations in the deed of sale were all fictitious. In order to sustain a conviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales." the proof must show that the real property occupied or usurped belongs. real property may be the subject of fraudulent insolvency. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 137 . Swindling (Estafa) P. 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. He owned several parcels of real property which he transferred to another to place them beyond the reach of his creditors. or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same The offender alters said boundary marks 2. not to the occupant or usurper. Altering boundaries or landmarks Elements: 1. Judgment was rendered against him and execution issued. Includes: a. 2018 Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic Sabotage Acts punishable 1. More explicitly. that the possession or usurpation was committed with violence or intimidation and that the accused had animo lucrandi. Intent to gain NOT necessary. or estate is punishable. It only makes the penalty higher Real property may be involved "Absond".
Demand was made by the offended to the offender PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. NO ESTAFA even if there was alteration Ratio: there was no damage to talk about • When there is no agreement as to the quality of the thing to be delivered. delivery of a thing unacceptable to the complainant is NOT estafa. DECEIT is NOT an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence * As to second general element of DAMAGE. establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment. third person * As seen above. or quality 3. goods. it should be capable of pecuniary estimation. No further formality of C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 138 . the offended party or b. That he alters its substance. The Minister shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents paraphernalia. That money. * intent of defrauding another is always an element * no estafa through negligence Elements: 1. Article 315. enterprise or scheme. 1973 PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUST RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS "Trust Receipt" -. or other personal property • II. goods. quantity. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. through fraudulent means Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL: 1. on commission c. That the accused defrauded another by a. Estafa may arise even if the thing to be delivered is not subject of lawful commerce (ex. opium) Article 315. under any obligation involving duty to return the very same thing 2. trust (Trust Receipts Law) b. since amount of the damage is the basis of the penalty. b. abuse of confidence or by means of deceit That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to a. goods. Three general ways of committing Estafa: 1. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of such property by the offender OR (b) denial of such receipt 3. or quality of anything of value Elements: 1. -Estafa through Abuse of Confidence- I. 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. There is prejudice to another 4. 115 January 29. Even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration. properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies. for administration d. or other personal property be received by the offender in a. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts 3. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value 2. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence 2. or other personal property OR denying having received such money.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. Paragraph 1 (b): misappropriating or converting money.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. without having been licensed or authorized to do so. 2. quantity. Paragraph 1 (a): Estafa with unfaithfulness by altering the substance. 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 job-seekers.
and another person referred to as entrustee . "involving the duty to return the same" includes quasi-contracts and contract of bailment: deposit. there was no violation of PD 115. 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. in the case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before its ultimate sale. has. documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods. That. whereby the entruster. only Civil liability Allied Banking v. a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange. but NOT contract of loan! Loan of money is mutuum. Sec. 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. a) to sell the goods or procure their sale. • a. 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. Ordonez PBM got equipment from bank and executed trust receipt agreement (TRA) -. only CIVIL LIABILITY b) if buyer did not pay the price to owner. does not constitute a trust receipt transaction. In the case of goods or documents. In the case of instruments. general property rights in such goods. as against the buyer. HELD: Sec 13 of PD 115 explicitly states that the failure to give back the proceeds or return the goods of estafa is punishable. or who sells the same to the buyer on credit. documents or instruments for profit who. unload. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 139 . commodatum. only CIVIL LIABILITY also Key: if no obligation to return the very same thing. documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of. or 2. HELD: PD 115 applies to ALL trust receipt transactions. or c) to effect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to a depository or register. Otherwise. 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. or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any of the following: 1. Of Justice said that since PBM would not be selling the equipment but would just be using them. documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling goods. • No estafa when the money or other personal property received is NOT to be used for a particular purpose. Rodil Lee executed TRA for the purchase of materials but misappropriated the value of the goods for personal use. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction? A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by and between a person referred to as the entruster . Ownership was transferred. Charged with estafa under PD 115. What is punished is the violation of the trust receipt and not the non-payment of the loan. pledge b. lease. or d) to effect their presentation. Any violation of the TRA is punished (Geof's notes in Comm: wrong SC decision! ) Lee vs. collection or renewal NOTE: The sale of goods.execution or authentication shall be necessary to the validity of a trust receipt. retaining title or other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price. or to manufacture or process the goods with the purpose of ultimate sale: Provided. the fact that the goods were just to be used by PBM and not to be sold is of no importance.acknowledged bank's ownership of equipment and PBM's obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale of said equipments. ship or tranship or otherwise deal with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to their sale. documents or instruments. Contract of sale (ownership is transferred at the time of delivery): a) if thing sold not delivered and advance payment not returned. or b) to deliver them to a principal. crime is THEFT (taking without consent of owner) hence. documents or instruments. • • b) The 4th element is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation of goods by the defendant Check is included in the word "money" • Money/goods must be received by the offender. in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt. or c) to load. No violation of the Constitution as the loan is separate from the trust receipt. 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. at the outset of the transaction. Therefore. who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods.
using an amount for personal purposes Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts collected: IF AUTHORIZED to retain commission.• 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. Also. 20% of the proceeds from sale would go to AMPI. it is necessary because failure to account upon demand. because up to that time. goods or other consenting. nor is acceptance of a PN for money misappropriated Also. the novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by the State prosecutors. if it is not involved in the commission of a crime. Article 315. ‘Even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond’ – a security executed by the agent to answer for damages etc. taking or or denying having received misappropriating or money. or through personal property abandonment or negligence. as it was not the owner of the parts. It is malversation. does not relieve him from criminal liability. The gravity of the crime of Estafa is determined on the basis of the amount not returned before the institution of criminal action. "conversion" – thing was devoted for a purpose different from that agreed upon. • Misappropriation of firearms received by a policeman is Estafa. Saddul did not receive the parts from AMPI in trust (received it from another party which was the owner of the parts). permitting any other person to take the public funds or property • • • • • 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.not necessarily the owner of the property Partnerships: juridical possession of the property Offender receives the thing from the offended party material possession of the property Offender takes the thing from the offended party • Additional test: In theft. Saddul did not convert it for personal use. (c): estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank Estafa with abuse of confidence Offender acquires the Elements: 1. the owner expects an immediate return of the thing to him Estafa with abuse of Malversation confidence The offenders are entrusted with funds or property Both are continuing offenses The funds or property are Involves public funds or always private property The offender is a private Offender is usually a public individual or a public officer officer who is accountable who is not accountable for for public funds or property public funds or property The crime is committed by The crime is committed by misappropriating. Saddul v. the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor relation. Failure to deliver the proceeds did not cause damage to AMPI. CA Saddul was authorized to sell some car parts. Although it is not required by law. Theft Offender acquires only • Private individual allegedly in conspiracy with public officer in a prosecution of the latter for malversation. as if the thing were the accused's own (ex. depositary pledged the thing deposited) "misappropriation" . for this undertaking refers only to his civil liability. • • • • III. may still be held liable for Estafa even if the public officer was acquitted. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 140 . no estafa. "to the prejudice of another". AMPI did not demand return of the parts. upon delivery of the thing to the offender. par 1. HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. if it is involved in the commission of a crime. converting appropriating. is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
the offended party suffered damage. 3. qualifications d. Article 315. Paragraph 2 (d): postdating a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank. • V. 4. Manipulation of Scale: violation of Revised Administrative Code Article 315. It MUST be for an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance or delivery of the 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. 4. offender had no funds or b. (a) • • VI. or his funds were not sufficient to cover the amount -Estafa by DeceitElements of Estafa by means of deceit: 1. • fictitious name: when a person found a pawnshop ticket in the name of another and. business or imaginary transactions 3. or issued a check in payment of an obligation 2. That the offender postdated a check. fineness. other similar deceits VII. a document is written by offender without authority to do so That the document so written creates a liability of. That the offended party should have delivered it to the offender That above the signature. par 2. crime is falsification of instrument) • Estafa by means of deceit vs. power b. 3. Paragraph 2 (b): by altering quality. fraudulent act or fraudulent means. otherwise. a diamond to be made into a ring. or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business Example: A gives B. falsely pretending to possess a. But it is transferred through deceit. or fraudulent means. but pay me to find the gold under your house" trick.2. Paragraph 2 (c): pretending to have bribed any Government employee 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. agency g. or causes damage to the offended party or any third person The paper with the signature in blank MUST BE DELIVERED by the offended party to the offender (otherwise. As a result thereof. influence c. it is estafa under paragraph 2(a). property e. using the name of that person. IV. Such false pretense. fraudulent act or fraudulent means. he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense. B changed the stone with one of lower quality. using fictitious name 2. redeemed the jewelry Pretending to possess power: "pretend to be a magician who can find gold. funds deposited were not sufficient • check must be genuine and not falsified. Pretending to possess influence: I have connections in Malacañang so pay me if you wanna get your documents approved" trick • • • C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 141 . 2. fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. credit f. Article 315. fraudulent act. a jeweler. theft: juridical/ legal possession is still transferred to offender in case of estafa. That such postdating or issuing was done when: a. There must be a false pretense. Elements: 1. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense. that is. • • Three ways of committing estafa under this provision: 1.
with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof. refreshment. documents or any other papers 2. Destroying documents: Destruction of a PN given back to the maker to be replaced with a new one to renew the loan. without making a new promissory note is estafa because by destroying the old one. there was a dissenting opinion which stated that such PN is void and of no value. That deceit be employed to make him sign the document 3. hence it cannot be the subject of estafa. the act of destroying court record will be malicious mischief Examples: Concealing document: A person who concealed a document evidencing a deposit of P2. Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa by removing. or accommodation at a hotel. the offended party was dispossessed of the evidence of a debt. there is no Estafa because it is not in payment of an obligation. Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa by obtaining food or accommodation at a hotel. office files. That prejudice be caused • There must be inducement: if the offended party was willing to sign although there was deceit as to the character or contents of the document (because the contents are different from those which the offended party told the accused to state in the document) crime is falsification 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 public officer who is officially officer who is not officially entrusted with the document entrusted with the documents There is intent to defraud Intent to defraud not an element in this crime Final Notes on Estafa: C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 142 . it was ruled that the act of destroying a PN. • 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. By obtaining food. That the offender removed. However. 3 (c) Three ways of committing estafa under the this provision: 1. That there be court record. When check is issued in substitution of a promissory note. not liable for estafa • accused should make statements tending to mislead the complainant as to the character of the document executed by him. In a very old case. That the offender induced the offended party to sign a document. etc. IX. given to cover losses in gambling. Estafa under par. That the offender had intent to defraud another • • If no intent to defraud. Article 315. • Elements: 1. without paying therefor. or accommodation therein. VIII.600 which came into his possession when he offered to collect the deposit is guilty of estafa. 2. By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by the use of false pretenses 3. XI. That the offended party personally signed the document 4. without paying therefor. refreshment. By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from any of said establishments after obtaining credit. by the maker thereof. 2. 2. it is in payment of a pre existing obligation When the check is issued by a guarantor. concealed or destroyed any of them 3. concealing. Article 315. Paragraph 3 (b): Estafa by resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in gambling Article 315. Article 315. food. if drawer is able to fund within 3 days from notice of dishonoring. is Estafa. or destroying documents X. Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa by inducing another to sign any document 1. etc Elements: 1.
HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. with the assurance of Aida Tan. he signed the check in blank. If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence. Heng was finally caught trying to withdraw again. Balo borrowed Abujuela's passbook and made it appear that certain deposits were made. After trial on the merits. Llamado failed to rebut the presumption by paying the amount of the check within five (5) banking days from notice of the dishonor. took the pawnshop tickets without the consent of A (Theft). His claim that he signed the check in blank which allegedly is common business practice. If as he claims. Diayco questioned the withdrawals. The basis of the penalty for estafa is the amount or value of the property misappropriated BEFORE the institution of the criminal action. Llamado admits that Gaw made an • • • 1. Lastly. having pretended to have special powers and fooled the extremely stupid victim.e. 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. the secretary of the accused in the corporation. Attempted estafa correct as he was caught trying to withdraw. Abujuela charged as accomplice to estafa through falsification of commercial documents HELD: NOT guilty. 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 statute itself creates a prima facie presumption. Abujuela vs. Thus. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 143 . The check was issued for an actual valuable consideration. using a fictitious name. if any.060 each issued by a certain Dyaico. CA Gaw delivered to accused the amount of P180. The drawee banks subsequently dishonored deposited checks. 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. Upon delivery of the money. he made himself prone to being charged with violation of BP 22. As Treasurer of the corporation who signed the check in his capacity as an officer of the corporation. "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. does not commit the crime of Estafa. Gaw deposited the check in his current account.. Then he withdrew several times from the account. It became incumbent upon him to prove his defenses. the trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused of violation of Batas Pambansa No. HELD: Llamado denies knowledge of the issuance of the check without sufficient funds and involvement in the transaction with Gaw. there is no estafa. checks not issued in payment of an obligation as required by the RPC. C. CA Koh Tieng Heng vs.00. accused Ricardo Llamado and Jacinto Pascual signed a postdated Philippine Trust Company Check in the presence of Gaw. A private person who procures a loan by means of deceit through a falsified public document of mortgage. Ong had no knowledge of lack of funds. Llamado vs.• • • The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa with abuse of confidence under an information alleging estafa by means of deceit. i. Accused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of a dwarf. By redeeming the jewels by means of the tickets. There is only civil liability. which Gaw handed to Aida Tan. People vs. Knowledge of criminal intent is essential to be an accomplice in estafa. knowledge involves a state of mind difficult to establish. Abujuela NOT aware of the fraudulent plans of Balo. but who effects full settlement of the loan within the period agreed upon. 22. there being no disturbance of proprietary rights and no person defrauded thereby. and that the check was drawn against insufficient funds. discrepancies were found between the ledger and the account. People Balo offered financial assistance to Abujuela by virtue of some insurance proceeds that Balo would receive from his father. The crime committed is only falsification of public document. that it will be repaid plus interests and a share in the profits of the corporation. 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. which the drawee bank dishonored later informed Gaw that said check because payment was stopped. when the former is a necessary means to commit the latter. with intent to gain. 2. is hardly a defense. When the account was closed. C also committed estafa. In fact. a secretary in petitioner's office. HELD: GUILTY of estafa by false pretense. Gaw was also notified by the bank that his current account was debited because of the dishonor of the said check. even if there is damage.000. Hence. HELD: Possession and utterance of a falsified check gives rise to the presumption that the possessor is the forger of the check. lack of involvement in the negotiation for the transaction is not a defense. There CAN be a complex crime of theft and estafa. People Heng deposited two checks worth P18. However. partial payment made subsequent to the commission of estafa does not reduce the amount misappropriated which is the basis of the penalty. 3.
and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. McCullough & Co. what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. the crime of estafa. it is common practice in commercial transactions to require debtors to issue checks on which creditors must rely as guarantee of payment. a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public document was filed against Lu Hayco. at Iligan City. is itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 1968 a P50. 383 SCRA 93 (2002) FACTS: Quinsaat. No receipts were issued for said payments.000 for each applicant.S. In U. HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan Guarantee. which they did. the offended party suffered damage. always constitutes real and actual damage. 1968.. and clearance from the NBI. and that as result thereof. 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. was placed in a doubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. Llamado contends that the money which Gaw gave the corporation was intended for investment which they agreed will be returned to Gaw with interests. an immigration officer at the airport told the victims they lacked a requirement imposed by the POEA. which is sufficient to constitute conversion in the context of Art. CA Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan Guaranty Company.000 fire insurance policy unto the complainant. and collected Pl. the City Court of Iligan City convicted Salcedo of estafa. 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.” Lu Hayco deposited P139. At the time of their supposed departure. To make a very long story short. Remullo told them to fill up application forms and to go to the office of Jamila and Co. this could be considered as a temporary prejudice suffered by Lu Chiong Sun. Lu Hayco vs.investment in said amount with Pan-Asia Finance Corporation. Remullo also required each applicant to submit a passport. if not a mode of payment. 117).” In the case at bar. Eventually.” To secure a conviction for estafa under par. vice president and C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 144 . upon which the complainant relied when he paid the premium. the check need not have been issued because a receipt and their written agreement would have sufficed. At least. So. not in the company's banks but in his own personal accounts. he was convicted. or falsely pretending to possess power. 2(a) of Art. if this were true. by itself. agency. This fact. 315 (1-b) of the RPC. When he signed and issued the policy and collected the premium thereof. which was engaged in the business of property insurance. 315(l -b) of the RPC. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. Goyenechea (8 Phil. the first case of estafa was dismissed but many more ensued (as many as 75 counts. agency. Salcedo vs. I think). Their passports were cancelled and their boarding passes marked "offloaded". HELD: The disturbance in property rights caused by misappropriation. to the American Loan Company. property. Because of said act. Eventually. Evelyn Landrito. at least suffered disturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter and in the possession thereof. the recruitment agency where Remullo allegedly worked. After 2 demand letters were ignored. influence. v. pictures. influence. Said company had been suspended from operating and eventually closed by the Insurance Commissioner since February 21. All these requisites are present in this case. the defendant pledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough & Co. business or imaginary transactions. 315 of the RPC. The SPOA also authorized Lu Hayco “To deposit and withdraw funds in the name of the company. CA Lu Hayco had a special power of attorney from Lu Chiong Sun to manage the Units Optical Supply Company. among others. 315 of the RPC which provides that: “2.80 as premium. there was a disturbance in the property rights of Lu Chiong Sun. credit. qualifications.095. Inc. But to determine the reason for which checks are issued.000 paid by customers of the Units Optical. or as evidence of indebtedness. where Remullo told them she was recruiting factory workers for Malaysia. and then to undergo a medical examination ‘The three were then asked by Remullo to pay a placement fee of P15. Lu Hayco argues. True. People v. and is positive enough under rule of law to produce one of the elements constituting the offense. and taken into court. credit. Remullo. and Mejia went to appellant's house sometime in March 1993. the typewriter was seized by the police. [The SC] held that: “McCullough & Co. property. Cadacio. that there is no estafa since the element of misappropriation or conversion was not proven. or the terms and conditions for their issuance. the following requisites must concur: • that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power. though only temporary. Lu Chiong Sun and Units Optical could not dispose of the said amounts. While the funds received by Lu Hayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts. Salcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order but he deliberately concealed the same from complainant Ponce when he issued on March 18. qualifications. But then. Throughout the trial. 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. will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes. or by means of other similar deceits. only if the project became successful. he had knowledge that his company was no longer authorized to conduct insurance business. This knowledge makes him liable under paragraph 2(a) of Art. and without it being necessary to deal with any other considerations of material fact herein.
On January 7. and the trial court found him guilty. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust. Werner Lettmayr at Citibank N. (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. Olivier.00 at the exchange rate of P20. he handled said account.A. b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender. failure to account upon demand. However. brought to the airport with their passports and tickets. However in this Motion for Reconsideration. Demand is not an element of the felony or a condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint for estafa.00 (then equivalent to P850. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of. By virtue of appellant's false representations. only to be offloaded that day. People (2005) FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in the trading of animal feeds. In December 1985. and advised it to verify its accounts. the accused may be convicted of the felony under Article 315. HELD: We find merit in the new motion. appellant clearly defrauded private complainants by deceiving them into believing that she had the power and authority to send them on jobs abroad. par.300. Werner Lettmayr is the President of both Aurora and UniGroup while the petitioner. Jorge Salazar withdrew money from the dollar account converted it into pesos and purchased cloth for the manufacture of 300 dozens of ladies jeans. His conviction was upheld even by the Supreme Court. (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender. Skiva remitted the funds by way of telegraphic transfer from its bank in New York. It was also agreed that the amount advanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its order of 700 dozens of ladies jeans.672. Jorge Salazar. complainants were provided defective visas. the balance was later found missing. In a classic rigmarole. as no jobs await them abroad.general manager of Jamila later certified that appellant was not authorized to receive payments on behalf of Jamila. but with promises to be booked in a plane flight on another day. Jorge Salazar and Mr. not only the conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right. In a prosecution for estafa. Skiva informed Olivier that it needs ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January 1986. contacted Aurora and Uni-Group to supply the jeans. Olivier (Philippines) Inc. People (2004) FACTS: Skiva International. private complainants each parted with their hard-earned money. who then appropriated the money for her own use and benefit. It was then that Atoz discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaid account in the amount of P318. Having "personally found" Ocean Feed Mills. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 145 . or denial on his part of such receipt. HELD: In this case. is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. Jorge Salazar v. (“Uni-Group”) are domestic corporations which supply finished clothes to Skiva. only to realize they were gypped. 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". In the course of Lee's employment therewith. The recruits wait in vain for weeks. Through conversion or misappropriation Crisanto Lee v.000 as recruitment fee to appellant. No clearer cases of estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant should be held criminally responsible. or denial on his part of such receipt. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission. or to return the same. is a New Yorkbased corporation which imports clothes from the Philippines through its buying agent.59 to US$1. When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in 1994. To "misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit. or for administration. HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: a) that money. Salazar was charged and convicted. in turn. or for administration. Resultantly Aurora/UniGroup failed to produce the 700 dozens of ladies jeans resulting in a suit against them.370. and (d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender. The elements of estafa under Article 315. and Mrs. but failed utterly to provide overseas job placements to the complainants. Each complainant paid P15. is the VicePresident and Treasurer of Uni-Group and a consultant of Aurora. Mr. months. Aurora Manufacturing & Development Corporation (“Aurora”) and Uni-Group Inc. 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. for funds or property held in trust. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money. The balance was allegedly returned by him. c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Mr. Transactions between the two companies were then coursed through Lee. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. Inc. Robert Crisanto Lee was the corporation's sales manager from early 90's to 1994. he was able to bring in Ocean Feed Mills as a client. or on commission. Atoz audited some of the accounts handled by him. However. Thus. and Mrs. the parties agreed that Skiva will advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount of US$41. even years. to the joint account of Mr.00) as Aurora/Uni-Group did not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials to manufacture the jeans. demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion. Ocean Feed Mills informed Atoz that they have already fully settled their accounts and even made overpayments. 1986. the SC reversed and held he was innocent. Atoz thus notified Ocean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was no longer connected with the corporation. Promptly preparing a certification and summary of payments.00. Indeed. Atoz filed several cases of estafa against Lee. 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. the Israel Discount Bank. 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.
Unknown to Quilatan. in fact. 57 Phil. People.00 was transmitted by Skiva as advance payment. all of them concluded that the person primarily responsible was the bank’s Cash Custodian. old).We reiterate that the contract between Skiva and Aurora was one of sale.300. Quilatan filed a complaint with the prosecutor and Serona was charged with estafa. legally sanctioned. $41. Locson. If the transaction fails. an independent. In the Guzman case. In said case. as against his own principal. there was delay in the performance of contract on the part of Aurora/Uni-Group. In this case. By oral agreement of the parties. payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself. however. is not in point. was held guilty of qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. Upon petitioner's failure to pay." In the subsequent case of Guzman v. In the former case." C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 146 . An agent. and not qualified theft. both being mere bank employees. the receiving teller of a bank misappropriated the money received by him for the bank. Locson. 325). the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received. 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. Petitioner and the OSG contend that under these facts. petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of estafa under Article 315. Court of Appeals. found liable for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. goods. He was found liable for qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. Serona was not able to collect payment from Labrador. We agree. No. Article 1730. Thus. Virgie Serona v Court of Appeals (2002) FACTS: Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces of jewelry to Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis. autonomous. Werner Lettmayr. Quilatan required her to execute an acknowledgment receipt indicating their agreement and the total amount due. It was also Mr. requested Skiva for advance payment in order to procure the raw materials needed for the 700-dozen ladies’ jeans. 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.00 in the vault of Metrobank. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. Mr. Neither does it appear that Serona was verbally forbidden by Quilatan from passing on the jewelry to another person before the acknowledgment receipt was executed or at any other time. In People v. and has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank. After demand. He was. Cristeta Chua-Burce. as when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made. When the money. [N]ew Civil Code. Her possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller. 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. When the defendant. In the case at bar. petitioner shall remit payment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold to Quilatan. both within 30 days from receipt of the items. petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily responsible for the cash-in-vault. In Abeto vs. in support of its theory that appellant only had the material possession of the merchandise he was selling for his principal. She was found guilty of estafa by the trial court. HELD: Petitioner herein being a mere cash custodian had no juridical possession over the missing funds. right to retain money or goods received in consequence of the agency. The trial court found her guilty. After the perfection of the contract of sale. 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. thereby committing conversion and a clear breach of trust. the element of juridical possession being absent. 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. we held that “an advance payment is subject to the disposal of the vendee. and the possession of the defendant was the possession of the bank. There is an essential distinction between the possession by a receiving teller of funds received from third persons paid to the bank. Calapan Branch. 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. Despite the payment. Serona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to one Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission basis. Hence.” In fine. can even assert. As requested. removed the money and appropriated it to his own use without the consent of the bank. with grave abuse of confidence. which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to Quilatan. Cristeta Chua Burce v Court of Appeals (2000) FACTS: After finding a shortage of P150. representing Aurora/UniGroup. the remedy of Skiva against Aurora/Uni-Group for breaching its contract is a civil. Lettmayr who suggested that the advance payment be made to the joint account of himself and his wife. the receiving teller of a bank who misappropriated money received by him for the bank. the obligation to return the advance payment ensues but this obligation is civil and not of criminal nature. not a criminal suit. there was the taking or apoderamiento contemplated in the definition of the crime of theft. and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault (Article 1915. together with petitioner and his wife. We explained in Locson that — "The money was in the possession of the defendant as receiving teller of the bank. or their proceeds. several investigations were carried out. on the other hand. the appointment of Labrador as petitioner's sub-agent was not expressly prohibited by Quilatan in the acknowledgement receipt. the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. and an agent who receives the proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. Skiva has no cause to complain that petitioner committed estafa.000." 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. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
fraudulent act or fraudulent means. It was during this transaction that petitioner Roberto Erquiaga. She borrowed the money from a Jose Bichara at 10% interest on the advice of Erquiaga who lent her P5. He told Honesta that the company he represented was interested in purchasing her property.000. HELD: That petitioners had conspired with each other must be viewed not in isolation from but in relation to an alleged plot. business or imaginary transactions. May 20. the offended party suffered damage. Petitioner Orosco misrepresented himself as a seller of marine preservative. That such false pretense. "Mr. fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof. of the Taiwanese Marine Products. a sting. paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. Guerrerro. 2. Honesta fell for these misrepresentations and the lure of profits offered by petitioners made her borrow money upon their C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 147 . Further. Honesta reported the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which. The trial court convicted accused-appellants of one (1) count of illegal recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa. HELD: SC upheld the trial court stating that. Honesta purchased a can which she sold to Dayandante for P1. appeared at Honesta's store and introduced himself as an agent. or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. They said they worked as field purchasing representative and field purchasing head.Through false pretenses.388. fraudulent act. 3. a.924.00 representing the amounts they paid for the processing of their papers. an Information for Estafa under Article 315. In turn." who sold said marine preservative. a. Such act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2) 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.000 each. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may. Roberto Erquiaga vs Court of Appeals ( 2001) FACTS: Honesta Bal is a businesswoman who owned a bookstore. could be bought for P1. paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name. agency. they would buy these cans from her at P2.a. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense. The following day. The elements of estafa or swindling under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code 18 are the following: 1. 3 and where Karl Reichl pledged to refund to private complainants the total sum of P1. On May 24.00. Lawas. It is by this representation that they induced private complainants to pay a placement fee of P150. 4. and Orosco vanished. fraudulent act. The following day.k. The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of private complainants. and Orosco as "Rey". 1993. Erquiaga misrepresented himself as a "verifier" of the contents of the cans. must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.000. Erquiaga.900. qualifications. he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense. On December 4. or falsely pretends to possess power. or fraudulent means.a. property. the receipts for the payment made by private complainants. was filed against Roberto Erquiaga.k. however. respectively. the offended party suffered damages. 1989 Glenn Orosco. that is. fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. Orosco brought five more cans which Honesta bought and eventually sold to Lawas. Glenn Orosco. discovered that these were nothing more than starch. although they did not have any authority or license. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense. He encouraged Honesta to borrow money. 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. They used aliases. Estafa under Article 315. spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl. 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are present. The defense interposed denial and alibi. That there must be a false pretense.500. she purchased all 215 cans for P322. or "con operation" known as "negosyo" of their group. 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 addition. Encouraged by the huge profits from her previous transactions.00 as deposit or earnest money and who promised to shoulder the 10% interest of her loan. Dayandante. or fraudulent means. upon examination of the contents of the cans. she was contacted by Manuel Dayandante @ Manny Cruz who offered to buy her land in Pili. the prosecution also proved the guilt of accusedappellants for the crime of estafa. be convicted of estafa under Art. influence. Sometime in May 1989. 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. Guerrero". whether such a well-planned confidence operation resulted in the consummated crime of estafa. May 21. Realizing that she was conned. They persuaded Honesta to purchase cans of a marine preservative which. Pastor Lawas and Manuel Dayandante. credit. Soon after the payment. Erquiaga as "Mr. 1989. That as a result thereof. Orosco delivered 215 cans to Honesta. Her daughter and she met Dayandante and a certain Lawas (Rodolfo Sevilla) at the Aristocrat Hotel. Camarines Sur. "Rey." was introduced to Honesta to ascertain whether the cans of marine preservative were genuine or not.500 each from a certain peddler.
by false or misleading allegations. Elsa Jose v People [G. 148371. HELD: The elements of estafa. Evangeline demanded the return of her money and the three accused executed their respective promissory notes. or the total amount of P332. and then petitioners disappeared from the scene after taking the money from her. Eliza introduced Victoria and Felomina to her. and once the title is validated she will be assigned a 2. Undisputedly. HELD: Deceit refers to a “false representation of a matter of fact (whether by words or conduct. 315. Neither was she licensed to engage in the business of travel agency. Because Eliza is her townmate and since Victoria assured her that her son is married to a daughter of Pulmano. private respondent has shown her gullibility and perhaps even foolishness in believing petitioner and in consequently parting with her P104. as the former had ‘several connection(s) at the Japanese Embassy. The RTC found Flores guilty.8 ct.000. 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. The check was dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED". It has been established with moral certainty that she intentionally committed a crime in violation of the law enacted precisely to protect not only the wary and the wily. by false or misleading allegations. No. Del Rosario gave P30. The failure of petitioners and accused Roberto in not paying the back taxes and in misappropriating the money to their own personal use. 4885. The deceit or false pretense employed by petitioners is the fact that they assured complainant that the amount of P330.00 ‘as initial payment and another P17. because the three accused represented to her that they needed expenses in following up the papers of the land. Thereafter. Failing to pay.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.inducement. False pretense is any deceitful practice or device by which another is led to part with the property in the thing taken.000. Evangeline gave more than P330.P 22 were filed. she was not a travel agent. HELD: Deceit is defined as the false representation of a matter of fact. whether by words or conduct.00.000. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and amended by Republic Act No. as defined under Art.000.” On record are.500 square meters of the subject land. on the one hand. 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.00 was in payment of the round trip ticket.00. Del Rosario thereafter filed a case for estafa against Ramos. 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. I ndeed.500-square meter portion of the land. but more so the gullible and the guileless. But such naivete cannot absolve petitioner of criminal liability. failed and refused to deposit the necessary amount of said check. 2004.000. On the other hand is the testimony of petitioner denying she ever made such misrepresentation. Ramos told del Rosario that she was a ‘professional travel agent’ and would assist her in going to Japan. This charade convinced the latter and her family to part with their P104. They were assured that she would be able to leave for Japan with her mother.00 stating that part of the money would be used to expedite the release of the visa. as well as a roundtrip ticket to and a visa for Japan.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. They asked Ramos whether she was a travel agent. Further. the RTC found her guilty as did the Court of Appeals.000. Cases for Estafa and violation of B. Subsequently. The three convinced her to contribute P330. Evangeline filed a criminal complaint against them. the three accused divided the money among themselves. August 12. Regie Ramos del Rosario went with her aunt Yolanda B. Even if the land exists. par. she agreed. diamond from Pacita Del Rosario. constitute the crime of Estafa. 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 5.000.000. All these payments were accompanied by a written receipt.00 at a later date. Others more sensible might not have done so in a similar situation. Ramos assured them that the visa would be obtained soon and the P17. are: (1) that the C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 148 . who could assist in processing private respondent’s travel papers. Bautista to the office of Elsa Ramos. Evangeline found out that instead of paying for the back taxes and validation of the property. Del Rosario kept following up her papers with Ramos who insisted on her prior assurances that the visa would soon be released. Eliza Pablo v People (2004] FACTS: The complainant Evangeline Bates was approached by Eliza Pablo and Felomina Jacobe and Victoria Roberto Bates. Ramos asked for another P57. 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.] FACTS: 24 November 1994.’ Ramos stated she could help in the processing of passport.000. notwithstanding due notice to her of such dishonor of said check.000.00 as her share in the payment of the back taxes due on a parcel of land owned by the late Pulmano Molintas in Baguio City. visa and round trip ticket.
In other words. it is payable only to a specific person or the "payee" and is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH. 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. when the check was presented to the drawee bank for encashment. People v Aloma Reyes (2005) FACTS: Aloma Reyes. 029014 and 029020. the NOW check is drawn against the savings. Sia deposited them. and (4) damage to the complainant.00 to Pacita G. It is thus clear that she obtained the amounts of P662. As already stated. Second. however. 1992. The purpose of the crossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed by the rightful payee only. HELD: Dinglasan was charged and convicted of estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code. She misrepresented to complainant that she was financially stable and that her business was flourishing. not the current account. the date the obligation was entered into. then sent appellant a demand letter. The fact that a NOW check shall be payable only to a specific person. issued Jules Alabastro a check for rediscounting. Hence. dishonored these for insufficiency of funds. negotiability is not the gravamen of the crime of estafa through bouncing checks. for which Check No. 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. Hence. 029020.250. Hence. no obligation was contracted on July 30. 558574. together with her daughter. 029014 was allegedly postdated by appellant. Del Rosario. and (3) that the payee has been defrauded. 1994 for which appellant allegedly postdated another check. (3) knowledge on the part of the offender of such circumstances. of appellant. Again. being the very date the check was issued or postdated. To be sure. Appellant posits that this condition strips the subject check the character of negotiability. with the assistance of a lawyer. but the drawee bank. He then tried to call Dinglasan several times. Yet. contracted by the parties on July 24. Banco de Oro. the account was closed on the very date of the postdated check issued to complainant. When the checks fell due. for P662. 1994. 11 The check was issued as payment for a ring and the P250. he cannot be considered in good faith and thus not a holder in due course. 13 finally prompting him to hale appellant to court. Dinglasan vigorously denied any intent to deceive or defraud Sia." First. it must be proved as alleged. and not the "check" contemplated in Criminal Law. The situation obtains similarly regarding Check No. 10 These elements are present in this case. while private complainant Charles Q. the first element of the offense was neither correctly alleged nor proven by the prosecution. is a material ingredient of the offense. All he got were promises that appellant would pay the amounts due. (2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check. 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. accused-appellant had no funds sufficient to cover the check she issued to complainant. In the present case. Dinglasan issued three checks as payment for tire purchases. and not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when indorsed by the payee to another person. We disagree. Accused-appellant admitted that she issued PCIB Check No. there was no obligation C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 149 . 1994. for which Check No. not only must said date be specifically and particularly alleged in the information. (2) that at the time of the issuance of the check.000. He was allegedly lured to part with his money due to their seeming honest representations that the check was good and would never bounce. The first element of the offense requires that the dishonored check must have been postdated or issued at the time the obligation was contracted. dated October 20. it is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law. appellant cannot be charged much less found guilty of estafa with respect to Checks Nos. The fraudulent intent of accused-appellant had been proven to exist at the time of the issuance of the check. 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. Evidently. It is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when [i]ndorsed by the payee to another person.00 transportation fare which accused-appellant received from complainant. 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. In other words. In reality. but his calls were unanswered. the offender had no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were insufficient to cover the amount of the check. The same restriction is produced when a check is crossed: only the payee named in the check may deposit it in his bank account.offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance.00 through deceit. If a third person accepts a cross check and pays cash for its value despite the warning of the crossing. despite the restriction on the negotiability of cross checks. He vehemently insisted that his refusal to pay Sia was primarily due to the poor quality of the tires sold him by the latter. the prosecution's evidence clearly and categorically shows that there was no transaction between the parties on July 30. natural or juridical. The trial court convicted Dinglasan.00 and P250. we held that they are negotiable instruments. However." Appellant quotes the restriction written on the face of a NOW check: "NOW" shall be payable only to a specific person. It is the fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuing a worthless check that is penalized. is inconsequential. Sia is the owner of Schanika Enterprises engaged in retailing nylon tires. 029014 was issued. People v Alexander Dinglasan (2002) FACTS: Alexander Dinglasan was the owner and operator of Alexander Transport. Sia.
Deceit. It must have been committed either prior or simultaneous with the defraudation complained of. it was dishonored on the ground that the account was closed. in our view. No. They then People v. no criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code arises from the mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of repayment. 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. should be the efficient cause of defraudation. the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation and. HELD: We l sustain the conviction for the crime of estafa. that is by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. they were all dishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn against insufficient funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED. She issued postdated checks as proof that the Abagat spouses had invested their money with her.000 each) to Fedcor Trading Corp represented by Federico Santander on August 31. the check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money or property. he wanted a bigger antenna. Despite repeated demands. 1989 drawn against the Security Bank . Stated otherwise. as well as that of the appellate court. was one for a loan of money to be used by appellant in her business and she issued checks to guarantee the payment of the loan. As such. to constitute estafa. The appeal was docketed as CA-G. she has the obligation to make good the payment of the money borrowed by her. to constitute estafa. or simultaneous with. the act of fraud. Bigornia delivered hog meat to the spouses Timbal at their stall located at the Farmer's Market. 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. 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. They installed a system in the house of Bernhard Forster. 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. Ernst Holzer (2000) FACTS: Ernst Holzer et al were the owners of MGF ELECTRONICS SATELLITE SUPPLY. Despite notice of dishonor thereof. 2 cases were filed against him. shared in the profits after deducting all the miscellaneous expenses. But such obligation is civil in character and in the absence of fraud. The decision of the trial court. HELD: The petition has merit. Timbal’s mere presence at the scene of a crime would not by itself establish conspiracy. People v. which constrained the Abagat spouses to file a complaint for estafa against Cuyugan. When the checks were presented for payment. The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the issuance of the check. He was assured by accused-appellant Holzer that should new equipment arrive from abroad. 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. HELD: We find the appeal meritorious. the same were dishonored for the reason that the drawer did not have any funds therein. absent any evidence that he.R. When said checks were presented to the bank for payment. 1989 and September 30. 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.00. 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. In payment.Pio Timbal was present when the check was issued and handed over by his wife Maritess to Bigornia. The transaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses. Judy I. by an act or series of acts. She claimed that she was the industrial partner as she did all the legwork in getting the projects. Nagrampa failed and refused to redeem or make good said checks. Settled is the rule that. Rica Cuyugan (2002) FACTS: Rica G. Manuel Nagrampa v People (2002) FACTS: Nagrampa issued 2 checks (Php75. it should be either prior to. appellant failed to make good the checks. 18082. When the latter presented the check to the bank for encashment. Cuyugan issued to Norma Abagat several checks in payment of supplies she wanted to buy for the Philippine Armed Forces. the used equipment would be replaced and another antenna would be given. Forster was not satisfied with the satellite antenna installed and the equipment which came with it which he thought were second-hand. Maritess Timbal issued in favor of Bigornia a check for P80. a business engaged in selling and installing satellite antenna system.000. There must be concomitance: the issuance of a check should be the means to obtain money or property from the payee.716. Cuygan claimed that the Abagat spousesand she were partners in obtaining construction projects with the Philippine Army. 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 husband. participated in the commission of fraud to the damage of the complainant. Upon noticing that the 30 September 1993 Decision of the trial court did not resolve the issue of petitioner's liability for estafa. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 150 . Hence. and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation. CR. or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. as such. Moreover. 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.
accused-appellant Holzer asked the complainant not to deposit the check on August 1. a prima facie presumption of deceit will arise which must then be overcome by the accused. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. Demands were allegedly made to make good the dishonored checks. The first check issued by Dimalanta was honored and paid by the drawee bank. The trial court convicted Dimalanta of Estafa. Dimalanta (2004) FACTS: Josefina Dimalanta who was then employed at the Caloocan City Engineer's Office. given her own business and financial reverses. However. Complainant went to Dimalanta’s house where the latter purchased twelve pairs of jewelry. by a debtor's offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. Abarca on the telephone to express her desire to purchase jewelry. the following are no longer elements of estafa: 1. In exchange. 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. Otherwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. Actus non facit reum.00 to accusedappellant Holzer. For the three years approximately she transacted business with Chua.000. the check was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. On demand Dimalanta failed to make good on the checks. 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. 1995. The principal consideration is the existence of malicious intent. For this reason. however. Ojeda (2004) FACTS: Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics (telas) from complainant Ruby Chua. The trial court also convicted appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing checks. intelligence and intent which together make up the "criminal mind" behind the "criminal act. as complainant herself categorically stated. although this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa: "Ordinarily.000. On the same day. On November 5." Thus. We are convinced that appellant was able to prove the absence of criminal intent in her transactions with Chua. evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose. Had her intention been tainted with malice and deceit. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. the act must. The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. the court a quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued.Holzer informed complainant that new equipment had arrived in Manila. complainant filed a complaint for estafa HELD: In view of the amendment of Art. In payment thereof. the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks. (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check. to no avail. The prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellant's evidence of good faith." American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. As to be expected. Otherwise. complainant deposited the check on August 9. nisi mens sit rea. No. People v. Complainant agreed and issued a check for P100. called up complainant Elvira D. a defense in estafa by postdating a check. HELD: Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the RPC. Deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. In this case. for instance. appellant would not have exerted extraordinary effort to pay the complainant. the latter issued a post dated check. People v. knowledge of the drawer that he has no funds in the bank or that the funds deposited by him are not sufficient. 1983. generally and in most cases.306 for which she issued 22 postdated checks bearing different dates and amounts. appellant purchased from Chua various fabrics and textile materials worth P228. Sandiganbayan: XXX The rule was reiterated in People v. Despite the request. appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she bought. 1995. was not enough to secure the release of the equipment from the Bureau of Customs. His money. as amended by RA 4885. Four days later. and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. Pacana. However. Good faith may be demonstrated. 4885. There is a concurrence of freedom. 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. The 22 checks were all dishonored. Thus. however. he asked complainant to lend him P100.A.00. 315(2)(d) by R. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 151 . appellant issued twelve postdated checks with the representation that the same will be sufficiently funded on their respective maturity dates. 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. 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). Before the due date. the debtor not only made arrangements for payment. be accompanied by a criminal intent. the remaining eleven checks were all returned unpaid since the account was closed. As we held in Tabuena vs. Actus non facit reum. (3) damage to the payee thereof. nisi mens sit rea. 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. to constitute a crime. Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against Ojeda. accused-appellant again asked the latter not to deposit the check because the money from Switzerland to cover the check had not yet arrived. the drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check. 2.
or 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. print. 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. she exerted best efforts to make good the value of the check. company. BP 22 An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes 2.HELD: Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. 2. so the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment. the making or issuance of the check C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 152 . 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. BP 22 does NOT require such element. In this case. not the payment of the obligation. 4.00. Unlike estafa. or stamp on the check or to be attached thereto the reason for dishonoring. • 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. in case drawee bank received an order to stop payment. We find that appellant acted in good faith during the transaction. Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has DECEIT as an element. 3. and it appeared that the drawer knew at the time that the check was issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. 1st paragraph requires knowledge of insufficient funds. is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. 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. the prosecution failed to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that appellant employed deceit. 2. 2.000. rather the same were merely given to her for resale. would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer. when the maker or drawer pays the holder thereof of the amount due thereon or b. • BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn by a corporation. in case where drawee refuses to pay the check to the holder: Write. par 1. Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating a check. or entity: the person/s who ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of such drawer 1. element 4: • Section 1 BP 22 may be violated in TWO ways Elements of the offense defined in the first paragraph of Section 1: There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check. albeit only to the extent of P25. 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. After the first check was dishonored. ordered the bank to stop payment Elements of the offense defined in the second paragraph of Section 1: 1. This may be manifested by appellant's act of offering to make arrangements with complainant as to the manner of payment. if such be the fact. BP 22. Also. 3. Estafa under Article 315 par 2 (d): 1. Its evidence was overcome by the defense's proof that the pieces of jewelry were not purchased by appellant for her own use. there was a VALID reason (wrong payee) for ordering the bank to stop payment. element of DAMAGE is NOT REQUIRED in BP 22 Section 3 Section 3 requires the drawee 1. 3. 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 b. without any valid reason. • Introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check with the drawer's refusal to pay indicated thereon or attached thereto is prima facie evidence of: 1. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check. In the case at bar. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum BP 22 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 Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check.
due to the defects and incomplete features of the unit. He was charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. or mortgaging the real property) 4. notice only given to the employer which is not sufficient as law requires personal notice. while it was her superior who filled the blanks. FRC however continued to present the checks for payment thus always forcing him to issue stop order payments. HELD: Memorandum Check (one used as evidence for a debt) falls within coverage of BP 22. and the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the reason indicated thereto given to her. Deceit happened in Pampanga where it was uttered/delivered while the damage was done in Bulacan where it was issued. CAB. Check which she signed as issuer was dishonored. 2nd element of BP22 (knowledge by the issuer of the check that he does not have sufficient funds) not proven. Gorospe Parulan paid check in Bulacan. no notice of the dishonor was Article 316. the owner or b. People vs. People Que issued checks in Quezon City. Presumption in law is rebuttable by contrary evidence. 3. It is here that 6 checks were presented by FRC but were dishonored. Idos vs. Check was forwarded in BPI Pampanga. People vs. crime against public order and is mala prohibitum. HELD: Not guilty as the check was NOT issued for a debt but as a collateral or evidence of the other partners share. That the act be made to the prejudice of a. Checks were used to pay for the purchase made in Sta. HELD: NOT guilty.2. HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. HELD: Accused not guilty. not for pre-existing obligations. HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses. encumbering. Checks were issued NOT to pay for an obligation but just to guarantee payment. accused suspended payments. can be for a pre-existing debt. Nievas invokes double jeopardy. BP 22: deceit and damage not required because mere issuance gives presumption of guilt. pretending to be the owner of the same. the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof. Estafa needs deceit and damage. Memorandum check is NOT a PN. Sycip vs. That the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the owner thereof 3. Accused convicted under BP22. 1 count of violation of BP 22. Other statutes can be used as a valid defense under BP22.included as long as it was an issued check that subsequently bounced. a third person C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 153 . leasing. Idos issued 4 postdated checks . then dishonored. Que vs. The bank then advised accused to just close the account in order to save on hefty bank charges upon every stop order. That the offender should have executed acts of ownership (selling. Checks later dishonored. However. Elements: 1. or mortgaging any real property. CA Accused here bought a townhouse unit from FRC. 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. Also. encumbering. Other forms of swindling I. Case was filed in Pampanga but was dismissed. BP22 and PD957 must be construed together in order to harmonize their application. Paragraph 1: By conveying. as the court had no jurisdiction on the case. selling.1 was dishonored. Lim Lao vs. 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. such as a parcel of land or a building 2. Convicted for violating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds when check is issued. CA Lim was an officer in a company where she signed checks. Dacuycuy Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored. HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction! Violation of BP 22 AND estafa are transitory crimes. Nitafan Lim issued a memorandum check that was subsequently dishonored. Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT important as law does not distinguish-. crime against poperty and is mala in se. Accused issued 48 postdated checks for the balance. Nievas vs. Mesa.8M each. That the thing be real property. CA Idos and Alarilla had a partnership that was terminated with each entitled to P1.
A sold a parcel of land to B. C registered the sale in his favor. Later. he would not have granted the loan had he known that the property was already encumbered. Consequence: B lost the property due to non-registration in his favor. "Shall dispose": includes encumbering or mortgaging. Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient. Hence. A will still be liable under Art 316 par 1 if B files a crim case. That the offender knew that the real property was encumbered. he is guilty of estafa by means of false pretenses. 3. Later. A was no longer the owner of the property. When the loan HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED when defendant later offered the property as security for the payment of the loan. Elements: 1. 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. A sold the same parcel of land to C. accused were acquitted. There must be actual damage. "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. mortgaged it again. A sold the same parcel of land to C. that is. misrepresenting that the property is free from encumbrance. Article 316. especially if he has a Certificate of Title. C cannot complain.Example: A sold a parcel of land to B. That the thing disposed be real property 2. while deceit was practiced against C. although such encumbrance be not recorded. as there is neither deceit nor fraud. representing to the latter that he (A) was the owner thereof. In fact. That there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance 4. At the time he sold the land to C. Art 315 par 2(a) Art 316 par 1: the offender exercises acts of ownership over the property as part of the false representation. second purchaser. there is violation of Art 316 par 1. damage fell on B. whether the encumbrance be recorded or not. some cases held that the encumbrance must be legally constituted! In these cases. fine prescribed is based on the damage caused Art 316 par 1 vs. representing to the latter that he (A) was still the owner thereof. Art 315 par 2(a) does not need this circumstance. Paragraph 2: By disposing of real property as free from encumbrance. A. Later. 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. Thing disposed must be REAL property If the thing encumbered and disposed is personal property. II. par 2 is NOT applicable Conflicting jurisprudence: "Although such encumbrance be not recorded" Notwithstanding this phrase. Even if the deceit is practiced against the second purchaser and the damage is incurred by the first purchaser. On the other hand. the first purchaser. But if C knew that the property had already been mortgaged to B. "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. Deceit consisting in false pretense Article 316 only penalizes only those who PRETEND to be the owner of property.) C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 154 . this time to C. Article 319 applies (punishing one who sells or pledges personal property already subject to encumbrance. since the encumbrances were NOT registered. Where the accused CLAIMS to be the owner. That the act of disposing real property be made to the damage of another Example: A mortgaged his property to B.
or encumbering real property or properties with which the offender guaranteed the fulfillment of his obligation as surety Elements: C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 155 . A took the watch from the drawer of B without B's consent and knowledge and used it for the night. Note: not theft an owner cannot be held guilty of theft of his own property. Elements: 1. In lawful possession of another Finder of a lost thing is NOT a lawful possessor. par 3? NO. VI. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO B. crime is ESTAFA. By executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another Elements: 1. Fictitious contract 2. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor. mortgaging. the crime is THEFT. he ran away without paying the loan. Paragraph 3: By wrongful taking by the owner of his personal property from its lawful possessor "To the prejudice of possessor or third person" Example: A pledged his watch to B. Paragraph 6: By selling. Later. 4. pretending to redeem watch. Compensation wrongfully received (accepting compensation for service not rendered nor performed) 2. By accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labor not performed Elements: 1. V. Note: The example above may become a crime of fraudulent insolvency (Art 314) if the conveyance is real and made for a consideration. That the offender is owner of personal property 2. "Wrongful taking" If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1) VIOLENCE. 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. That the personal property is in the lawful possession of another 3. If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1) VIOLENCE and (2) WITHOUT INTENT TO GAIN. otherwise. IV. it being the obligation of a finder to give the thing to the owner or to the authorities. Once getting hold of his watch. Damage to another Example: A person who simulates (consideration is fictitious) a conveyance to another for the purpose of defrauding a creditor.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. his dorm mate to secure a loan of P3000. One night. and (2) WITH INTENT TO GAIN/ CHARGE THE BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE the crime is ROBBERY. Malicious failure to return the compensation wrongfully received (fraud) There must be fraud in this crime. it will only be a case of solutio indebiti under the Civil Code. Offender owner of personal property If third person and his purpose in taking it is to return it to the owner. That prejudice is caused to the possessor or third person Example: Accused pawned his watch to complainant. accused asked offended party to give him the watch. III. A returned later and was about to put back the watch in the drawer when B surprised A (Bulaga!!!) Is A liable under 316.
transaction. 2. 2. and the defraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders. credit. Article 317. By defrauding or damaging another 2. assume an obligation b. 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. When not committed by a syndicate as above defined. That the removal is permanent 5. Swindling a minor Elements: 1. or members of rural banks. Other deceits Elements: A. 4. Note: Only personal property. or c. Veloso vs. Villaflor vs. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property/properties That he sells. DAMAGE should always be present. 1689 Increasing The Penalty For Certain Forms Of Swindling Or Estafa 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. 2. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor. Villaflor was convicted of Estafa. 1. "samahang nayon(s)". telling fortunes. Villaflor failed to pay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the car was already repossessed. CA District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that led to the disbursement of 23 checks for a project that was anomalous. Article 318. HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure the veracity of the documents. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action. to execute a transfer of any property right 3. some loan of money b. That there is no written consent of the mortgage or his executors. by any other deceit not mentioned in the proceeding articles B.1. made before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him • There must be damage caused under this article. mortgaged property sale or pledge of Note: As in other cases of estafa.000 pesos. since a minor can not convey real property PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 3. or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any other similar manner For profit or gain Damage to others Article 319. He was negligent as he approved the vouchers that had mistakes which were detectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor. the penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100. That the offender knows that such property is so mortgaged 3. 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. or c. Villaflor borrowed P1. in any other manner encumbers said real property That such sale. making forecasts. 1. 3. cooperative. or c. That he induces such minor to: a. to give release. or. other personal property 4.000. By interpreting dreams. without express authority from the court b. That the consideration is a. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor. mortgage or encumbrance is a. enterprise or scheme. in turn he offered his car as collateral (Chattel mortgage instituted). administrators or assigns to such removal C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 156 . CA Elements: 2 Acts punishable: A. mortgages. or farmers association. made before the cancellation of his bond. He was convicted of Estafa. That personal property is validly mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law 2. Removal. or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. 1.
2. Estafa (316. (NOTE: SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R. shipyard. under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code. who is the mortgagor of such property. 2. written at the back of the mortgage and 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. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative. platform or tunnel. airplane or any aircraft. 6.A. public or private market. — The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following: 1. No violation of Article 319 if the removal was justified. whether public or private. Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually assemble. or conveyance for transportation of persons or property.D. 3. whether used as a dwelling or not. 3. 5. Any building. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies. shopping center. Any hospital. Any train. disposing Removal. sells or pledges the same or any part thereof 3. 4. Damage to the mortgagee is not essential. Arson (repealed amended by PD 1613 and PD 1744) Kinds of arson. 2. dormitory. Such sale/pledge is without the consent of the mortgagee which is i. museum. under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. If the chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of good faith and/or is not registered. 1613. 1. 7659. even if buyer is informed that property is mortgaged Purpose of law: to protect the mortgagee Articles 320 to 326-B. relieves the accused of criminal responsibility. free and unencumbered That personal property is already pledged under the Chattel Mortgage Law Purpose of law: to protect the purchaser ii. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 157 . lodging house. Arson. judicial. as amended by Republic Act No. 320) SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. 7. 1613 Amending the Law on Arson SECTION 1. Destructive arson. 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. education or social services. or any edifice devoted to culture. The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another. sale or pledge of encumbered property) mortgaged property Mortgaged property is sold in disposed of in both cases Real property Personal property Property must be sold as Property sold without consent of the mortgagee in writing. inflammable or combustible materials are stored. housing tenement.B. 7659 AMENDING ART. vessel or watercraft. Any inhabited house or dwelling. Any industrial establishment. Filing a civil action for collection. 1613. P. iii. administrative or other official proceedings. — 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. (based on a CA case) If the mortgagee elected to file a suit for collection (not foreclosure). theater or movie house or any similar place or building. SECTION 2. 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. Other cases of arson. it is VOID and CANNOT be a basis for criminal prosecution under Art 319. 3. not for foreclosure of chattel mortgage. oil well or mine shaft. situated in a populated or congested area. hotel. Any archive. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where explosives. under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. Arson. — Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be punished by Prision Mayor. 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. or 1. 2. That the offender.
or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or property. private transaction. which are devoted to the service of public utilities. 2. If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article. 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. 5. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of the policy. — Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished by Prision Mayor in its minimum period. — Any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence of arson: 1. 7659 Article 320. regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire. 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. 2. 1613 and Article 320 as amended by R. Frustrated. — If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results. airport. 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. The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons. machineries. Confiscation of Object of Arson. or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law. worship. 7. If gasoline. airship or airplane.The building which is the object of arson including the land on which it is situated shall be confiscated and escheated to the State. 4. chemical. SECTION 8. 3. bamboo grove or forest. or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as but not limited to official governmental function or business. Any train or locomotive. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn: 1. 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. If committed for the benefit of another. archives or general museum of the government. 7659. kerosene. or any valuable documents. SECTION 7. 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. ordnance storehouse. or public use. or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire. In an inhabited place. Where Death Results from Arson. SECTION 6. 7659 (such as Section 2 on destructive arson) are DEEMED REPEALED) Attempted. and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not. cane mill or mill central. wharf or warehouse. the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed. or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels. 2. 6. equipment. 3. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or establishment. 3. petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or materials soaked therewith or containers thereof. 4. One (1) or more buildings or edifices. grain field. Any plantation. meetings and conferences. growing crop. trade.D. devoted to transportation or convenience. commerce. — The penalty in any case of arson shall be imposed in its maximum period. storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory. factory. or any mechanical. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned. Conspiracy to Commit Arson.A. The provisions of P. or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance. and Any railway or bus station. SECTION 5. Any building of public or private ownership. warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto. pastureland. shipyard. entertainment or leisure. the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law. the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. devoted to the use of the public in general. Any building. 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. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson. If committed with intent to gain. orchard. Destructive Arson. 1. NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are P. Any building. or as result of simultaneous burnings. public conveyance or stops or terminals.4. If committed by a syndicate. Article 320 as amended by R.A. 5. Any rice mill. ship or vessel. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn: 1. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. 6. Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances.A. 5. SECTION 4. regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the edifice. sugar mill. Any arsenal. any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials. 4. 1613 that are inconsistent with R. or other valuable properties were burned or destroyed. apparatus.D. transient dwellings. death or injury results. . electrical. motels. farm. If shortly before the fire. and Consummated Arson C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 158 . consequent to one single act of burning. or committed on several or different occasions. 2.
That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction 3. but reached no agreement. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another 2. If no malice. any of those circumstance is sufficient to establish the fact of arson. Caballes charged him for malicious mischief. On February 27. Marigomen.accused chased opponent around the house to kill him and along the way broke various objects. because the offender commences the commission of the crime directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution (the setting of fire to the rags) due to timely intervention. 2. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 159 . mere scorching or discoloration by heat NOT consummated c. sufficient that the fiber of the wood is destroyed b. only civil liability for damages. the new owner. Example: damage done as a result of another crime. DAR Albeit Abajon’s previous arrangement with the former owner of the property. However small a portion of the building is BURNED. "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. If after damaging the property. Sometimes. PD 1613 If the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Article 327. Sec 6. No complex crime of arson with homicide PD 1613: if by reason or on occasion or arson. PD 1613. Not necessary that the wood should be ablaze. Malice and negligence are essentially incompatible. any charring (CHARING! Whiz na lang. revenge. collects some rags. offender removes/ uses objects of the damage. 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. or other evil motive. 'day!) of the wood of the building. Sec 3. he is discovered by another who chases him away. Who are liable for malicious mischief Elements: 1. unexplained or uncontradicted. 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. d. "Damage" covers both loss and diminution. it is not necessary that there be a fire Look at the facts if there was intent to burn.A person. crime is THEFT Caballen vs. there is consummated arson. Acosta (2000) FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year old mason. Consummated arson: a. malicious mischief CANNOT be committed through NEGLIGENCE. Case was dismissed. asked Abajon to vacate the premises where his house was and where he had planted corn. it is not required that the house be occupied and that the offender knew it when the house was burned. Montesclaros. 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 the act of damaging another's property be committed mere for the sake of damaging it * 3rd element presupposes that offender acted due to hate. homicide is absorbed and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to Death is imposed. He used to be a good friend of Almanzor "Elmer" Montesclaros. As the harvesting was done without her consent. In attempted arson. When he is about to light a match to set fire to the rags. death results. bananas. People v. HENCE. and camote. offender also inspired by the mere pleasure of destroying things. They had a confrontation over this issue. the grandson of private complainant. 7 Circumstances constituting prima facie evidence of arson Standing alone. Filomena M. par 2. Attempted arson: the crime committed in the above scenario is attempted arson. soaks them in gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall. Damaging of property must not result from crime. 1996. 3. intending to burn a building. in the belief that Acosta and his 1. Caballes. Abajon then harvested the bananas and jackfruit.
When Ferigel burned Avelino's house. No. corpus delicti of the arson was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt. Dominador Oliva. public monuments. If no intent to kill: crime is damages to means of communication with homicide B. There is no need to prove that the accused had actual knowledge that the house was inhabited." Under the amendment. BOTH have intent to obstruct the performance or public function Using any poisonous or corrosive substance Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library. 1613. road. Under Section 3 (2) of Presidential Decree No. promenade. The gunshot wound caused Benjamin's death. Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimonies of witnesses. While the fire razed Avelino's house. if credible. In prosecutions for arson. 35 Under Section 3 (2) of the law. HELD: We find no reversible error and affirm the conviction. par 3) Article 331. Avelino's wife and children were asleep therein. may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. and appliances. It refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime. Damage and obstruction to means of communication Example: damaging railways. stormed the house of Acosta and burned their clothes. The cases for arson and murder were tried jointly. waterworks. In arson. Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecutions for felonies and offenses. or any other thing used IN COMMON by the public. proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus delicti. or to any archive or registry. if credible. Thereafter Acosta attempted to burn down the house of Marigomen. a higher penalty shall be imposed Question: What crime is committed IF as a result of the damage caused to the railway. Destroying or damaging statues.wife were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him. the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. Only Oliva was found guilty. it is the fact that the house burned is inhabited that qualifies the crime. One of the neighbors. He saw Ferigel Oliva set the roof of their house on fire with a lighted match. Article 330. Special cases of malicious Malicious Mischief" are: a. If with intent to kill: murder (cf. the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is "any inhabited house or dwelling. Here. Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo watched at a distance of about five (5) meters. Avelino went out of the house to urinate. 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. a fire because of criminal agency. In arson. The records show that when Ferigel willfully set fire to the roof of Avelino's house. the elements of arson are: (1) that there is intentional burning. and (2) that what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Article 248. Article 328.D. Dumlao where accused scattered around the municipal building coconut husks containing human excrements. b. or paintings No notes. The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness. collision or other accident. telegraph or telephone lines The telegraph and telephone lines must pertain to a railway system ! If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars. People v. HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony to have tried to burn the house of Marigomen. 1613. furniture. Special cases of malicious mischief C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 160 . that is. c. Article 329. Oliva (2000) FACTS: Avelino Manguba and his family were sleeping in their house. he was shot by Ferigel at close range. Other mischiefs Poignant Example: People v. mischief/"Qualified Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions distinguished from sedition: the element of public and tumultuous uprising is not present in Art 328 but. Benjamin Estrellon went to the nearby river and fetched water with a pail. it is the fact that a crime has actually been committed. certain passengers of the train are killed? Answer: It depends A. d. Ferigel and three others. He was charged with arson and found guilty. may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. the law applicable was P. and (2) the identity of the defendants as the one responsible for the crime.
Article 332. Does not apply to strangers who participated in the crime. Stepfather. 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-inlaw IF LIVING TOGETHER Article 332 only applies when BOTH the offender and offended party are relatives as enumerated in the provision. Theft 2. or relatives by affinity in the same line 2. liability Persons exempt from criminal Crimes involved in the exemption: 1. ascendants and descendants. Spouses. Swindling (estafa) 3. • • • C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 161 . paramours. commonlaw spouses INCLUDED 3. Malicious mischief • does not include robbery or estafa through falsification reason for exemption: presumed co-ownership • Persons exempted from criminal liability only liablefor CIVIL liabilities): 1. adopted child.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.