Title X - Crimes against Property II

Tuesday, 23 January 2018

5:47 PM
When is taking complete? The taking is complete at the time the offender got hold of the item in
robbery with violation or intimidation. We said that two weeks ago, there is no more frustrated.
While there is a taking, it is consummated. Before taking, merely attempted.

There's another kind of robbery - use of force upon things. Person must be able to go out of the
premises. Unless the person has gone out of the premises, then the taking is not yet complete.

Theft and Robbery

Doctrine of singular larceny doctrine - In crimes of property, remember Manok case. He stole
different chickens from different owners in the chicken coop. There's only one criminal intent.
Regardless of number of acts, what controls is the intent. The singularity of the intent.

Singular larceny doctrine only applies to theft, robbery, and crimes against property. Does not
apply to crimes against persons. It's why it's the single LARCENY doctrine, referring to theft or
robbery. Reason I'm saying that is because in crimes against persons, SC said that the single
impulse doctrine NOT CONTROLLING doctrine. Exception rather than the rule.

Miriam Santiago v. Jaime Garchitorena - Santiago was charged with several counts, but court
said… These are the special complex crimes. (murag wala na continue niya ang case lol)

Special Complex Crimes of Robbery

1. Robbery with homicide

2. Robbery with rape
3. Robbery with mutilation
4. Robbery with serious physical injuries:
(any person)
a. Insane , imbecile, impotent, blind
b. Lost use of speech, hear, smell; lost an eye, hand, foot, arm, leg or thereof, or incapacitated
for work that he was habitually engaged to.

(injuries inflicted on person not responsible for its commission)

c. Deformity
d. More than 30 days
5. Robbery with physical injuries by band
6. Attempted or (frustrated?) robbery wih
homicide
7. Robbery with arson under RA 7659

Example: Robbery with homicide. Two robbers, Pedro and Juan. Course of robbery, Juan killed
Pedro, but they are friends. Not necessary to kill Pedro to commit the robbery because they are
buddies. Juan killed the other robber. SC said it does not matter. It will still be special complex
crime, regardless of who is the victim whether if person killed person in robbery, a bystander,
innocent third person, and may even be the person who is also a robber. Killed by a co-robber.
Same with serious physical injuries.
If the serious physical injuries only resulted in any of the two other injuries (c&d), the victim must
not be a co-robber; otherwise, it will not be a special complex crime.

If it is a special complex crime, in rape, diba one of the absolutory causes is when the rapist
marries the victim? So, if the rapist marries his victim, he cannot be anymore criminally liable.
However, if there were many of them charged for that rape, that marriage, the benefit will only
inure to the person who got married.

SITUATION A: Here’s the thing. Let's say there was only one rape. For that one rape, A was the
one who had carnal knowledge, but he was in conspiracy with B and C. Let's say that A married
X (raped victim). It will not exculpate B and C. Charges against them will still stand because this is
a PERSONAL ABSOLUTORY CAUSES. Only extinguishes liability of person who married.

SITUATION B: A raped X. B raped X. C raped X. In all of these rapes, A conspired with them. What
will happen now? Without a doubt, the rape of A will be extinguished. What about B and C
where A is a conspirator. Will it also be extinguished? WE DON'T KNOW. WALA PAY
JURISPRUDENCE.

(Fiscal banter: If the answer is yes because what’s the point of marrying if he will be charged?
But, you can also say no because it will only exculpate him in so far as his own rape is
concerned. The law did not say that you must be the one. If you committed rape, you can be a
principal of any kind/conspirator. No clear answer to that. Now, however, under the law,
husbands can be liable for rape. So, is it not rather inconsistent that if A raped X, had carnal
knowledge with X before marriage, the marriage will exculpate him/absolve. If he is already
married and he raped, then he can be liable. It doesn't make sense noh?)

Like any special complex crime, it is the intent that complexes it.

Even if victim of rape marries the rapist, so the crime of robbery with rape will not change
because if the intent is to rob, he might be absolved from the rape aspect but not from the
robbery because the law does not say that if you marry victim, it will absolve your robbery.
Name of crime will not change, but it will just be robbery.

SLIDE SHIZ:

Robbery with rape, Robbery with homicide

· The true intent must be determined – which is to commit the robbery. This must precede the
rape or homicide.
· If otherwise, there will be two separate crimes of robbery and rape, or theft and homicide or
murder.
· Robbery cannot anymore be committed after the victim is killed, he cannot anymore be
“intimidated”.
· There is no complex crime of robbery with attempted rape.
· Even if the victim if rape marries the rapist, the crime of robbery with rape will not change.

In People v. Tapales, when rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, it is Art 294
Par 1 which applies. Rape is to be considered the aggravating circumstance. There may be an
appreciable interval of time between the robbery and the killing and the rape. There was a
direct relation, an intimate connection between them such that it can be stated that it was by
reason or on accasion of the robbery that homicide and rape were committed.
People v. Napud - it may still be robbery with rape even if rape occurred before the robbery.
What is important is the main intention was to rob. It would be different if it was robbery with
homicide. This rule does not apply in robbery with homicide. If robbery was with violence and
intimidation of persons. Even if main intention is to rob, but before they rob, they killed, there
could be no robbery. Once a person is killed, they cannot be a person anymore. The thing with
robbery with homicide is that it must be robbery with violence; that kind of robbery.

People v. Porcare - Robbery remains to be a crime against property. In the same manner,
robbery with homicide is a crime against property, not against a person; however, even if it is
classified as a crime against property and not against persons, the aggravating circumstance of
treachery may still be appreciated in the crime. Normally, treachery is an aggravating
circumstance only in crimes against persons.

So, for example, if Juan is a thief. Juan waited for nighttime so that the owner of the jewelries will
not be able to discover. Under the cover of darkness, he sneaked into the house and while the
victim was sleeping, he took the bag containing jewels. Would you say that there is treachery
because there was availment of nighttime so victim cannot put up a defense?

Maybe yes. But that cannot be appreciated in theft. To become aggravating, treachery must
attend a crime against persons. No such thing as theft with treachery. As a rule.

Exception: In the case of robbery with homicide, this robbery with homicide is not a crime
against persons, and yet treachery can be appreciated in order to increase the felony.
BUT TREACHERY CAN BE AGGRAVATING.

Under 7659, there can be robbery with arson if there is no other robbery with (special complex).
If there is homicide, it will remain to be robbery with homicide.

Brigandage

It is a form of conspiracy. In this crime of conspiracy, people are organized as a group for the
purpose of committing robbery. They must be 4 or more persons that are armed. It would be
robbery in band if they committed robbery. If they didn't but there is already an organization, it is
already a crime.

BRIGANDAGE v. HIGHWAY ROBBERY

In robbery, there is an SPL, and we took up Title I, PD 532 was also mentioned. It also punishes
piracy. It also punishes highway robbery. How can highway robbery be committed?

It must be committed in a highway, and the victim may be any random victim. And, unlike in
robbery in band, in brigandage under PD 532, it is possible that they can only be one offender.
Unlike in brigandage that there must be 4. It is still brigandage, but in 532, there must be an act.
Not under 532, brigandage is already a crime. Brigandage in PD 532, it is actually highway
robbery. If it is a random person, it is higher.

But if Juan the robber intended a target. He has a target - Maria. He followed Maria to rob her.
It so happened when finally the robbery took place, it happened on a highway. NOT HIGHWAY
ROBBERY ANYMORE even if place is a highway. To constitute highway robbery, it must be a
random person. He must be operating in a highway.

Estafa
Two general elements:

a. Deprivation
b. Damage

There is fraud resulting in damage. The deprivation may consist of or may take the form of three
different modes:

1. With abuse of confidence/unfaithfulness - which means to say that there is a degree of

relationship between offender and offended. We're talking about trust and confidence.
This offender abused this confidence. That means that there is some kind of relationship.
They must already know each other.

a. You have four acts. Altering - You altered, but you look at number 2, there is also
altering. So, if I alter for example, should it be #1 or #2? It can be either.

Ex. Altering because of false pretenses - I will sell you a bag. It is Louis Vuitton. Then,
because you really trusted and deceived, that is number 2. But if you say please buy
me Louis Vuitton, and you go to Hong Kong and bought her LV. But you bought a
fake. You could not have committed the deprivation if person did not trust you.
Altering but because of abuse of confidence.

b. Misappropriation - Person was entrusted with something. With abuse of confidence,

he misappropriated this thing although he had an obligation. There must be a thing
received, and the thing received must be received because of confidence. Yet,
despite that confidence, he misappropriated it. There is an obligation to return the
very same thing, or if it is a contract of agency authorizing the recipient to sell and
remit proceeds, and he failed to remit. There is a sort of agency involved. Offender
becomes agent of the owner of the thing.

Ex. Juana is the owner of jewelries, then she asked Maria to sell jewelry and it's up to
you to have a markup. There is a property received. But there is an obligation to sell,
and thereafter to receive and remit proceeds. If the items will not be sold, then the
items should be returned. Once Juana received the jewelry, then we have to
determine the nature of the possession. If there was no duty to sell, no relationship of
agency, then the crime cannot be estafa.

Ex. I cannot wait anymore. I give it to you to give it to someone else. There is stealing.
If you steal it, that is qualified theft. The nature of possession is material and physical. If
it was entrusted for you to do something with it to become the agent, your possession
is already juridical in nature, meaning that if you sell it, the buyer will get legal title
from it.

If jewelry paid in installments, and buyer failed to pay. It will be in the concept of
owner. If the buyer does not pay, there will be no crime.

In estafa 1-B, there is a need to determine the nature of the possession of the things.
Because in estafa 1-B, it talks about possession of a thing. Was the thing taken or
received? Whether the thing was received or taken, it doesn't matter. The kind of
possession matters. So, if possession is merely PHYSICAL, then it cannot be estafa. It
can only be theft/qualified theft. If the kind of possession is JURIDICAL, it doesn't
 matter whether it was taken or received. Kind of possession does not play a role in
OTHER KINDS OF ESTAFA.

Ex. In estafa by deceit, ngilad ka, gi-ilad ka. I own this watch, and it is Rolex. This
watch is so expensive blah blah blah. And then, this is worth 2M pesos. I have serial
number and everything to prove that it is really genuine. You want it. So now, you
became the owner, and your possession is as the owner. His possession was in the
concept of owner. There is still estafa by deceit, estafa #2. In #2, nature of possession
will not have any bearing anymore.

a. Taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank; and in
writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the
offended party or of any third person.

2. By means of false pretenses - They do not know each other. He was just misled. It's the
misleading that causes the deprivation. The false pretenses constitutes the deprivation.

Ex. In #1, there are no false pretenses, meaning it is possible that the victim gave money
because he trusted person, and he ran off with money. That is unfaithfulness. But, if I give
you the money not because I know you or trust you, but because you tricked me into
giving the money, then that is false pretenses/fraudulent acts. Simply put, deceit.

a. There is use of fictitious name - I will sell San Carlos to you because I am the owner.
And you bought it, that is false pretenses.

b. Altering quality with false pretenses

c. pretending to have bribed a government employee

d. Postdating a check - Not enough that there is a bouncing check. It should be given
IN CONSIDERATION of something. The check has become a tool for deceit. You
deceived somebody, but you could not have done so except through the check.
You only deceived him with the check.

Ex. You bought a car. You don't know the owner of Toyota. The only reason why you were
given the car is because you issued a check. The check was the reason for you to get the
car. If check bounced, it was a tool for you to defraud somebody of his property. Not
enough that the check bounced. It should be given IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING. If not
for something, there is no estafa.

Ex. Villa and I are friends, and I asked Villa, Villa because you are a billionaire, can you
lend me a small amount like P100M? So, Villa lent me money. Then, when we saw each
other again, he asked where the money at gurl? After next week, I said I will issue you a
check. Did I get something when I issued it? No, because I already got it. The check was
not anymore a tool for me to deceive Villa to get the money. Since it is not a tool for
deceit, if the check bounces, there will be no more estafa.

What if by reason of the check, he gave me his watch? So, the check now became a tool
for defrauding. If there is a bouncing, there is estafa and bouncing checks. It cannot be
complexed because one is a special penal law. There can be two separate crimes.

e. Failure to pay food, accommodation, etc - There must be intent to get.

3. Through fraudulent means

a. Inducing another to sign a document.

If you deceive him to sign a document, it is estafa. What is the crime if instead of inducing,
you forced somebody to sign, that would be ROBBERY.

Fraud v. Deceit

Difference - Deceit is more specific compared to fraud. Why? Because in estafa, in 1, 2,

and 3, there must be fraud. But 2 is not just fraud, it is deceit. What if the charges are for
deceit, but the allegations in the information are for fraud. SC Said never mind if it says
deceit because deceit is a form of fraud.