You are on page 1of 6

Crimes Against Property

1. Robbery:

a). With Violence or Intimidation Against Persons ( Hold-up)

b). With Fore Upon Things ( Break-In)

2. Theft
a). Simple
b). Qualified

4. Malicious Mischief
a). Ordinary
b). Special Cases

5. Arson

6. Violation of the Chattel Mortgage Law

Qualified theft defined; proper

penalty explained
The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article
308 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there
be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs
to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4)
that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things. Theft becomes qualified when any of the following
circumstances under Article 310 is present: (1) the theft is



committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed

with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is
either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the
property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises
of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

However, notwithstanding the correctness of the finding of
petitioners guilt, a modification is called for as regards the
imposable penalty. On the imposition of the correct penalty,
People v. Mercado is instructive. Pursuant to said case, in the
determination of the penalty for qualified theft, note is taken
of the value of the property stolen, which is P797,187.85 in
this case. Since the value exceeds P22,000.00, the basic
penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods
to be imposed in the maximum period, that is, eight (8)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years of
prision mayor.
To determine the additional years of imprisonment to be
added to the basic penalty, the amount ofP22,000.00 is
deducted from P797,187.85, which yields a remainder of
P775,187.85. This amount is then divided by P10,000.00,
disregarding any amount less than P10,000.00. The end
result is that 77 years should be added to the basic penalty.
However, the total imposable penalty for simple theft should
not exceed 20 years. Thus, had petitioner committed simple
theft, the penalty would be 20 years of reclusion temporal. As
the penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher, the trial
court, as well as the appellate court, should have imposed

the penalty of reclusion perpetua."

In Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487, 492 (1990), this Court distinguished
between theft and estafa to wit:
Theft should not be confused with estafa. According to Chief Justice Ramon
C. Aquino in his book on the Revised Penal Code, The principal distinction
between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the
accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit.
However, there may be theft even if the accused has possession of
the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or
physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his
misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the
juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same
constitutes embezzlement or estafa. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied; citation omitted)
Moreover, in People v. Isaac, 96 Phil. 931 (1955), this Court
convicted a jeepney driver of theft and not estafa when he did not
return the jeepney to its owner since the motor vehicle was in the
juridical possession of its owner, although physically held by the
driver. The Court reasoned that the accused was not a lessee or
hirer of the jeepney because the Public Service Law and its
regulations prohibit a motor vehicle operator from entering into any
kind of contract with any person if by the terms thereof it allows the
use and operation of all or any of his equipment under a fixed rental
basis. The contract with the accused being under the boundary
system, legally, the accused was not a lessee but only an employee
of the owner. Thus, the accuseds possession of the vehicle was
only an extension of the owners.

Robbery In General
I. Concept: the taking, with intent to gain, of
personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence against or intimidation of

persons, or by using force upon things.

A. The two major classifications are based on the manner by which the
robbery was committed. The first is commonly called hold-up while the
second is robbery by breaking in
B. If none of these two methods are used, the taking will constitute theft.
C. If both methods were used, the result is complex a crime i.e. robbery
with Force Upon things complexed with Robbery with Violence.
D. In robbery with violence, the violence need not be present at the start of
the taking so long as it was resorted to before the taking was complete.

II. Elements Common to Robbery and Theft

A. The subject matter must be a personal property
1. These include licit as well as illicit articles such as drugs and unlicensed
firearms as well as stolen articles
2. The term Personal Property does not follow the meaning provided for
by the Civil Code. It means such property, whether tangibles or those with
physical appearance and form or intangibles, as long as they maybe subject
of appropriation and may be carried away without altering its nature.
a. Thus this includes those considered as Real Property by Immobilization or
destination or those attached to the soil or building for so long as they
were detached there from and carried away. Such as trees, machineries,
statutes, soil, stones and rocks
b. Accessories of real properties such as fruits of trees, fishes, paintings
3. In theft the article must have a value because the penalty, and
jurisdiction over the offense, is based on the value of the article taken
a. The value must be proved as courts will not take judicial notice thereof. If
no value is proved, the court uses the lowest value in the law value as basis

B. The property must belong to another

1. This means the property does not belong to the accused. Hence there is
no robbery or theft of ones own property. The offenses are either Grave
Coercion instead of robbery and Impossible Crime of Theft instead of the
ordinary crime of theft.
2. The victim need not be the owner. He may be a mere possessor or even
a robber or thief himself. Thus robbery or theft may be committed against
another criminal robber or thief. It is enough that the accused is not the
owner of the property.

C. There must be an act of taking or apoderamiento, which is the physical

act of divesting another of the possession of a thing, or to separate and
remove the property from the actual or constructive possession or custody
or control of the victim
1. The accused must hold the thing in a manner sufficient to enable him to
dispose of it had he wanted to
2. The possession may be permanent, temporary or transitory

D. There must Animus Lucrandi or intent of gain

1. The gain need not be in terms of financial or material gain as this

includes: intent to obtain some utility, enjoyment, satisfaction, or pleasure.
Example: X boxed Y so that Y will hand over the magazine for X to see the
nude pictures. X returned the magazine thereafter.
2. If there is no animus lucrandi but force was used to get an object, the
crime is coercion.
3. Robbery and theft maybe a continuous offense as in the case of robbery
of several persons. The accused entered a classroom and robbed the 20

students of their money at the point of a gun. Or, when the several
robberies are component parts of a general plan to rob within a specific
place or area. Example: Robbery of several houses in subdivision or robbery
of the various stalls in side the shopping mall.