Blackmail is “the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in the

public prints,…obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation against
him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice.” In common parlance and in general
acceptation, it is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion, the exaction of money either for the performance
of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or the exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or
by operating on the fears or the credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose the weaknesses, the
follies, or the crime of the victim.

In extortion, there is a threat of violence involved and it leaves victims with no other choice but to comply to
avoid any inconvenience and disturbance.

In common parlance, blackmail and extortion are synonimous, although the latter term may have the wider
signification. Blackmail, in its metaphorical sense, may be defined as any unlawful extortion of money by
an appeal to the fears of the victim, especially extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure.
Two words are expressive of the crime — hush money. The gravamen of the offense is the intent to extort
money or other thing of value. The extortion is committed by obtaining property from another without his
consent, induced by wrongful use of fear. The end is the same as in crimes against property, but the
means employed are different. Indeed, certain classes of threatening letters have been held in the United
States when followed by extortion to constitute robbery. (See Green vs. The State [1901], 157 Ind., 101;
State vs. Hammond [1881], 80 Ind., 80; Chunn vs. The State [1906], 125 Ga., 789; 8 Corpus Juris, p.
1114, citing cases; Wharton's Criminal Law, secs. 1087, 1990.) G.R. No. L-13540 October 24, 1917

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
SALVADOR A. EGUIA and SEBASTIAN LOZANO, objector-appellant.

APRIL 23, 2018

G.R. No. 222861

PO2 JESSIE FLORES y DE LEON, Respondent

vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Simple robbery is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, but the extent of the
violation or intimidation does not fall under paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 294 of the RPC. 15 For the
successful prosecution of this offense, the following elements must be established: a) that there is
personal property belonging to another; b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; c) that the taking is
with intent to gain; and d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. 16

In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking, which is defined as the taking of items without the consent of
the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. 17 As
ruled in a plethora of cases, taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession
of the thing, even if he did not have the opportunity to dispose of the same. 18 Intent to gain or animus
lucrandi, on the other hand, is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking of the personal
property belonging to another. 19

In the present case, there is no doubt that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of the
crime charged. France, the private complainant categorically testified that that petitioner demanded and
eventually received from him the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00) in exchange for the release
of his driver's license. When the marked money was placed inside petitioner's drawer, who counted it
afterwards, he was deemed to have taken possession of the money. This amount was unlawfully taken by
petitioner from France with intent to gain and through intimidation. As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner
was a police officer assigned as an investigator at the Traffic Sector of Kamuning Police Station whose
main duties and responsibilities included conducting inquiries · involving traffic law violations and making
reports of his investigation. While petitioner had the authority to confiscate the driver's license of traffic
violators, nowhere in the law is he authorized to keep an offender's license and receive any payment for its
return.
 September 26, 2018

G.R. No. 217722

JOMAR ABLAZA y CAPARAS, Petitioner

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Now, on how to construe the phrase ''by means of violence against or intimidation of persons" as used in
Article 294, the case of People v. Judge Alfeche, Jr. 54 is enlightening:

Accordingly, the phrase ·by means of violence against or intimidation of persons· in Article 312 must be
construed to refer to the same phrase used in Article 294. There are five classes of robbery under the
latter, namely: (a) robbery with homicide (par. 1); (b) robbery with rape, intentional mutilation. or the
physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 (par. 2): (c) robbery with physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 2 of Article 26) (par. 3): (d) robbery committed with unnecessary violence or with
physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of Article 263 (par. 4); and (e) robbery in other cases, or
simply robbery (par. 5), where the violence against or intimidation of persons cannot be subsumed by or
where it is not sufficiently specified so as to fall under, the first four paragraphs.

Paragraphs one to four Article 294 indisputably involve the use of violence against persons. The actual
physical force inflicted results in death, rape, mutilation or the physical injuries therein enumerated. The
simple robbery under paragraph five may cover physical injuries not included in paragraphs two to
four. Turns, when less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries arc inflicted upon the
offended party on the occasion of a robbery, the accused may be prosecuted for and convicted of
robbery under paragraph five.

It seems obvious that intimidation is not encompassed under paragraphs one to four since no actual
physical violence is inflicted; evidently then, it can only fall under paragraph five.

But what is meant by the word intimidation? It is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as 'unlawful coercion;
extortion; duress; putting in fear'. To take, or attempt to take, by intimidation means 'wilfully to take, or
attempt to take, by putting in fear of bodily harm." As shown in United States vs. Osoriomaterial violence is
not indispensable for there to be intimidation, intense fear produced in the mind of the victim which restricts
or hinders the exercise of the wi11 is sufficient. x x x55

Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, p. 642, citing People v. Marco, 12 C.A. Rep. 377.

Intimidation is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear.40 In
robbery with intimidation of persons, the intimidation consists in causing or creating fear in the mind of a
person or in bringing in a sense of mental distress in view of a risk or evil that may be impending, real or
imagined. Such fear of injury to person or property must continue to operate in the mind of the victim at the
time of the delivery of the money.41