Criminal Law Reviewer Finals Requisites:

Multiple Offenders 1. That the offender was already convicted

by final judgment of one offense.
1. Recidivism- That the accused is a
recidivist. 2. That he committed a new felony before
A recidivist is one who, at the time of beginning to serve such sentence or while
his trial for one crime, shall have been serving the same.
previously convicted by final judgment
Article 171 – Falsification by Public Officer,
of another crime embraced in the
Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister
same title of this Code.
Elements:
Requisites:
1. Offender is a Public officer, employee, or
a. Offender is on trial for a felony b. He
notary public;
was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime: 2. He takes advantage of his official position;
• Both the first and second felonies are
3. He falsifies a document by committing any
embraced in the same title of the RPC
of the following acts:
• Offender is convicted of the new
offense a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
2. Reiteracion- That the offender has signature or rubric;
been previously punished by an
b. Causing it to appear that persons have
offense to which the law attaches an
participated in any act or proceeding when
equal or greater penalty or for two or
they did not in fact so participate;
more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty. c. Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
Requisites:
statements other than those in fact made by
a. Accused is on trial for an offense them;
b. He previously served sentence:
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration
• for another offense to which the law
of facts;
attaches an equal or greater penalty,
OR for two or more crimes to which it e. Altering true dates;
attaches lighter penalty than that for
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
the new offense
genuine document which changes its meaning;
• He is convicted of the new offense
g. Issuing in an authenticated form:
3. Quasi-Recidivism- any person who
shall commit a felony after having • A document purporting to be a copy of an
been convicted by final judgment, original document
before beginning to serve such • When no such original exists, or
sentence, or while serving the same,
shall be punished by the maximum • Including in such a copy a statement contrary
period of the penalty prescribed by law to, or different from, that of the genuine
for the new felony. original;
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry,
or official book.
a. Article 349 – Bigamy
Elements:
1. Offender has been legally married;
2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved
or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead
according to the Civil Code
3. He contracts a second or subsequent
marriage
4. The second or subsequent marriage has all
the essential requisites for validity.
The first marriage must be valid.
Nullity of marriage, not a defense in bigamy.
The fact that the first marriage is void from the
beginning is not a defense. As with voidable
marriage, there must be a judicial declaration
of nullity of marriage before contracting the
second marriage.
Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain
the whereabouts of the first wife is bigamy
through reckless imprudence.
One who contracted a subsequent marriage
before the declaration of presumptive death of
the absent spouse is guilty of bigamy.
The second marriage must have all the
essential requisites for validity.
One convicted of bigamy may also be
prosecuted for concubinage as both are
distinct offenses. The first is an offense against
civil status, which may be prosecuted at the
instance of the state; the second is an offense
against chastity, and may be prosecuted only
at the instance of the offended party.
The test is not whether the defendant has
already been tried for the same act, but
whether he has been put in jeopardy for the
same offense.
The second spouse is not necessarily liable for
bigamy.
Whether the second spouse should be
included in the information is a question of fact
that was to be determined by the fiscal who
conducted the preliminary investigation.
[People v. Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. L-40624
(1975)]
The second husband or wife who knew of first
marriage is an accomplice.
The witness who falsely vouched for the
capacity of either of the contracting parties is
also an accomplice.
Bigamy is not a private crime.
In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we laid down the
elements of bigamy thus: 1. The offender has
been legally married; 2. The first marriage has
not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her
spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not
been judicially declared presumptively dead; 3.
He contracts a subsequent marriage; and 4.
The subsequent marriage would have been
valid had it not been for the existence of the
first.
Applying the foregoing test to the instant case,
we note that the trial court found that there
was no actual marriage ceremony performed
between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing
officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere
signing of the marriage contract by the two,
without the presence of a solemnizing officer.
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires
that the accused must have been legally
married. But in this case, legally speaking, the
petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete.
Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of.
Under the principle of retroactivity of a
marriage being declared void ab initio, the two
were never married “from the beginning.” The
contract of marriage is null; it bears no legal
effect.
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion,
for legal purposes, petitioner was not married
to Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage
with Maria Jececha. The existence and the
validity of the first marriage being an essential
element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical
that a conviction for said offense cannot be
sustained where there is no first marriage to
speak of. The petitioner, must, perforce be
acquitted of the instant charge. [Morigo v.
People, G.R. No. 145226 (2004)]
The subsequent judicial declaration of the
nullity of the first marriage was immaterial
because prior to the declaration of nullity, the
crime had already been consummated.
Moreover, petitioner's assertion would only
delay the prosecution of bigamy cases
considering that an accused could simply file a
petition to declare his previous marriage void
and
invoke the pendency of that action as a
prejudicial question in the criminal case. We
cannot allow that.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had no bearing
upon the determination of petitioner's
innocence or guilt in the criminal case for
bigamy, because all that is required for the
charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first
marriage be subsisting at the time the second
marriage is contracted. Thus, under the law, a
marriage, even one which is void or voidable,
shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise
in a judicial proceeding.
In this case, even if petitioner eventually
obtained a declaration that his first marriage
was void ab initio, the point is, both the first
and the second marriage were subsisting
before the first marriage was annulled.
[Abunado v. People, G,R. No. 159218 (2004)]
A careful study of the disputed decision reveals
that respondent Judge had been less than
circumspect in his study of the law and
jurisprudence applicable to the bigamy case. In
his comment, respondent Judge stated: “That
the accused married Manuel P. Diego in the
honest belief that she was free to do so by
virtue of the decree of divorce is a mistake of
fact.”
This Court, in People v. Bitdu [G.R. No. L-38230
(1933)], carefully distinguished between a
mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the
defense of good faith in a bigamy case, from a
mistake of law, which does not excuse a
person, even a lay person, from liability. Bitdu
held that even if the accused, who had
obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan
custom, honestly believed that in contracting
her second marriage she was not committing
any violation of the law, and that she had no
criminal intent, the same does not justify her
act.
This Court further stated therein that with
respect to the contention that the accused
acted in good faith in contracting the second
marriage, believing that she had been validly
divorced from her first husband, it is sufficient
to say that everyone is presumed to know the
law, and the fact that one does not know that
his act constitutes a violation of the law does
not exempt him from the consequences
thereof.
Moreover, squarely applicable to the criminal
case for bigamy, is People v. Schneckenburger
[G.R. No. L-48183 (1941)], where it was held
that the accused who secured a foreign
divorce, and later remarried in the Philippines,
in the belief that the foreign divorce was valid,
is liable for bigamy. [Diego v. Castillo, AM
RTJ02-1673 (2004)]
a. Article 353 - Definition of Libel
Elements:
1. There must be an imputation of–
a. a crime,
b. a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR
c. any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance;
2. The imputation must be made publicly;
3. It must be malicious;
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural
or juridical person, or one who is dead; and
5. The imputation must tend to cause
dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
offended party.
Defamation is composed of:
1. Libel – written defamation
2. Slander- oral defamation
3. Slander by deed – defamation through acts
Test of the defamatory character of words
used: Whether they are calculated to induce
the hearers to suppose and understand that
the person against whom they (i.e. the
defamatory words) were uttered was guilty of
certain offenses; OR are sufficient to impeach
his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold
him up to public ridicule. [U.S. v. O’Connell,
G.R. No. L-13173 (1918)]
First element: There must be an imputation of
a crime, a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR
any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance;
Imputation of a criminal act may be implied
from the acts and statements of the accused.
Imputation of criminal intention is not libelous.
An expression of opinion by one affected by
the act of another and based on actual fact is
not libelous.
Second element: The imputation must be
made publicly.
Publication: communication of the defamatory
matter to some third person or persons. There
is no crime if the defamatory imputation is not
published.
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the
offended party constitutes publication.
[Magno v. People, G.R. No. 133896 (2006)]
In libel, publication means making the
defamatory matter, after it is written, known
to someone other than the person against
whom it has been written.
Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself states
that the same was copy furnished to all
concerned. Also, petitioner had dictated the
letter to his secretary. It is enough that the
author of the libel complained of has
communicated it to a third person.
Furthermore, the letter, when found in the
mailbox, was open, not contained in an
envelope thus, open to public. [Buatis v.
People, G.R. No. 142509 (2006)]
Third element: The publication must be
malicious.
Malice in fact – may be shown by proof of ill-
will, hatred or purpose to injure.
Malice in law – presumed from a defamatory
imputation. Proof of malice is not required.
(Art. 354, par.1)
But where the communication is privileged,
malice is not presumed from the defamatory
words.
Malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent
with honest or laudable purpose. Even if the
publication is injurious, the presumption of
malice disappears upon proof of good
intentions and justifiable motive.
But where malice in fact is present, justifiable
motive cannot exist, and the imputations
become actionable.
Fourth element: The imputation must be
directed at a natural or juridical person, or one
who is dead.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential
that the victim be identifiable, although it is
not necessary that the person be named. It is
enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is
apparent or if the publication contains matters
of description or reference to facts and
circumstances from which others reading the
article may know the person alluded to, or if
the latter is pointed out by extraneous
circumstances so that those knowing such
person could and did understand that he was
the person referred to.
Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid
the rule that this requirement is complied
withwhere a third person recognized or could
identify the party vilified in the article. [People
v. Ogie Diaz, G.R. No. 159787 (2007)]
Defamatory remarks directed at a group of
persons is not actionable unless the
statements are all-embracing or sufficiently
specific for the victim to be identifiable.
Libel published in different places may be
taken together to establish the identification of
the offended party.
While it is true that a publication's libelous
nature depends on its scope, spirit and motive
taken in their entirety, the article in question
as a whole explicitly makes mention of private
complainant Rivera all throughout. It cannot be
said that the article was a mere general
commentary on the alleged existing state of
affairs at the aforementioned public market.
Rivera was not only specifically pointed out
several times therein but was even tagged with
derogatory names. Indubitably, this name-
calling was, as correctly found by the two
courts below, directed at the very person of
Rivera himself. [Figueroa v. People, G.R. No.
159818 (2006)]
Fifth element: The imputation must tend to
cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
offended party.
Dishonor – disgrace, shame or ignominy
Discredit – loss of credit of reputation;
disesteem Contempt – state of being despised
For a statement to be considered malicious, it
must be shown that it was written or published
with the knowledge that they are false OR in
reckless disregard of WON they were false.
Reckless disregard– the defendant entertains
serious doubt as to the truth of the publication,
OR that he possesses a high degree of
awareness of their probable falsity.
To avoid self-censorship that would necessarily
accompany strict liability for erroneous
statements, rules governing liability for injury
to reputation are required to allow an
adequate margin of error by protecting some
inaccuracies. [Borjal v. CA, G.R. No. 126466
(1999)]
Fine preferred penalty in libel cases
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 stated the
rule of preference of fine only rather than
imprisonment in libel cases, having in mind the
ff. principles:
1. The circular does not remove imprisonment
as an alternative penalty
2. Judges may, in the exercise of their
discretion, determine whether the imposition
of fine alone would best serve the interest of
justice.
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the
accused unable to pay the fine, there is no legal
obstacle to the application of the RPC on
subsidiary imprisonment.
Articles 320-326-B have been repealed by PD
1613 (Amending the Law on Arson)
There are actually two categories of arson,
namely: Destructive Arson under Article 320 of
the RPC and Simple Arson under P.D. No. 1316.
Said classification is based on the kind,
character and location of the property burned,
regardless of the value of the damage caused.
Article 320 contemplates the malicious
burning of structures, both public and private,
hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels,
aircraft, factories and other military,
government or commercial establishments by
any person or group of persons. On the other
hand, P.D. No. 1316 covers houses, dwellings,
government buildings, farms, mills,
plantations, railways, bus stations, airports,
wharves and other industrial establishments.
Simple Arson Any person who burns or sets fire
to the property of another shall be punished by
Prision Mayor.
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.[Sec. 1 P.D. No. 1613]
The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to
Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the
property burned is any of the following: 1. Any
building used as offices of the government or
any of its agencies; 2. Any inhabited house or
dwelling; 3. Any industrial establishment,
shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or
tunnel; 4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland,
growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo
grove or forest; 5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane
mill or mill central; and 6. Any railway or bus
station, airport, wharf or warehouse.[Sec. 2
P.D. No. 1613]
Destructive Arson The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death shall
be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices,
consequent to one single act of burning or as a
result of simultaneous burnings, or committed
on several or different occasions; 2. Any
building of public or private ownership,
devoted to the public in general or where
people usually gather or congregate for a
definite purpose such as but not limited to
official governmental function or business,
private transaction, commerce, trade
workshop, meetings and conferences, or
merely incidental to a definite purpose such as
but not limited to hotels, motels, transient
dwellings, public conveyance or stops or
terminals, regardless of whether the offender
had knowledge that there are persons in said
building or edifice at the time it is set on fire
and regardless also of whether the building is
actually inhabited or not. 3. Any train or
locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane,
devoted to transportation or conveyance, or
for public use, entertainment or leisure. 4. Any
building, factory, warehouse installation and
any appurtenances thereto, which are devoted
to the service of public utilities. 5. Any building
the burning of which is for the purpose of
concealing or destroying evidence of another
violation of law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors
or to collect from insurance.[Art. 320]
By two or more persons Irrespective of the
application of the above enumerated
qualifying circumstances, 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, regardless of
whether their purpose is merely to burn or
destroy the building or the burning merely
constitutes an overt act in the commission or
another violation of law.[Art. 320]
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its To kill a particular Two separate and
maximum period to death shall also be person, and in fact distinct crimes are
imposed upon any person who shall burn: 1. the offender has committed:
Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military already done so, but 1) homicide/murder,
powder or fireworks factory, ordinance, fire is resorted to as and
storehouse, archives or general museum of the a means to cover up 2) arson [People v.
government. 2. In an inhabited place, any the killing Baluntong, G.R. No.
storehouse or factory of inflammable or 182061 (2010)]
explosive materials.

Arson resulting in death If as a consequence of Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson

his commission of any of the acts penalized The penalty in any case of arson shall be
under this Article (320), death or injury results, imposed in its maximum period; 1. If
or any valuable documents, equipment, committed with intent to gain; 2. If committed
machineries, apparatus, or other valuable for the benefit of another; 3. If the offender is
properties motivated by spite or hatred towards the
owner or occupant of the property burned; 4.
were burned or destroyed, the mandatory
If committed by a syndicate. The offense is
penalty of death shall be imposed.[Art. 320]
committed by a syndicate if it is planned or
If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson carried out by a group of three (3) or more
death results, the penalty of Reclusion persons.[Sec. 4 P.D. No. 1613]
Perpetua to death shall be imposed.[Sec. 5 P.D.
Prima facie evidence of arson Any of the
No. 1613]
following circumstances shall constitute prima
Arson and homicide/murder [I]n cases where facie evidence of arson:
both burning and death occur, in order to
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more
determine what crime/crimes was/were
than one part of the building or establishment.
perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson
2. If substantial amount of flammable
and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to
substances or materials are stored within the
ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:
building note necessary in the business of the
Main Objective Crime/s committed offender nor for household us.
Burning of the Arson (the resulting
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other
building or edifice, homicide is
flammable or combustible substances or
but death results by absorbed)
materials soaked therewith or containers
reason or on the
thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
occasion of arson
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed
To kill a particular Murder
to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any of the
person who may be
foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of
in a building or
the burned building or property.
edifice, when fire is
resorted to as the 4. If the building or property is insured for
means to accomplish substantially more than its actual value at the
such goal time of the issuance of the policy.

5. 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.
6. If shortly before the fire, 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. 7. 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.[Sec. 6 P.D. No. 1613]
Conspiracy to commit Arson Conspiracy to
commit arson shall be punished by Prision
Mayor in its minimum period.[Sec. 7 P.D. No.
1613]
a. Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of Robbery
Elements of Robbery in General
1. That there is personal property belonging to
another;
2. That there is unlawful taking of that
property;
3. That the taking is with intent to gain; and
4. That there is violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things.
The property taken must be personal, if real
property/right is usurped the crime is
usurpation (Art. 312).
Prohibitive articles may be the subject of
robbery, e.g., opium
From the moment the offender gains
possession of the object, even without the
chance to dispose of the same, the unlawful
taking is complete.
“Taking” – depriving the offended party of
possession of the thing taken with the
character of permanency.
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful
taking. It cannot be established by direct
evidence, except in case of confession.
It is not necessary that violence or intimidation
is present from the beginning. If the violence
or intimidation at any time before asportation
is complete, the taking of property is qualified
to robbery.
When is violence committed? General rule:
Violence or intimidation must be present
BEFORE the taking of personal property is
complete.
Exception: When violence results in homicide,
rape, intentional mutilation, or any of the
serious physical injuries penalized in par. 1 and
2 of Art. 263, the taking of the personal
property is robbery complexed with any of
those crimes under Art. 294, even if the taking
was already complete when violence was used
by the offender.
b. Article 294 – Robbery with Violence against
or Intimidation of Persons
Acts punished under Art 294:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, Homicide is committed. (Robbery
with Homicide)
2. When the robbery is accompanied by Rape
or Intentional Mutilation or Arson. (Robbery
with Rape, Robbery with Intentional
Mutilation, Robbery with Arson)
3. When by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the Physical Injuries resulting
in insanity, imbecility, impotency, or blindness
is inflicted.
4. 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 Value of the thing If committed in an
engaged is inflicted. taken is immaterial. inhabited house,
The penalty depends public building, or
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in
on: edifice devoted to
the commission of the robbery is carried to a
1. the result of the religious worship,
degree clearly unnecessary for the commission
violence used the penalty is based
of the crime.
(homicide, rape, on: 1. the value of
6. When in the course of its execution, the intentional the thing taken and
offender shall have inflicted upon any person mutilation, serious 2. whether or not
not responsible for the commission of the physical injuries, less the offenders carry
robbery any of the Physical Injuries in serious or slight arms
consequence of which the person injured physical injuries
becomes deformed or loses any other member resulted) and
of his body or loses the use thereof or becomes 2. the existence of
ill or incapacitated for the performance of the intimidation only
work in which he is habitually engaged for
labor for more than 90 days or the person
The crime defined in this article is a special
injured becomes ill or incapacitated for labor
complex crime.
for more than 30 days.
“On the occasion” and “by reason” mean that
7. If the violence employed by the offender
homicide or serious physical injuries must be
does not cause any of the serious physical
committed in the course or because of the
injuries defined in Art. 263, or if the offender
robbery.
employs intimidation only.
The violence must be against the person, not
Violence against or Use of force upon
upon the thing taken. It must be present
intimidation of thigs
before the taking of personal property is
person
complete.
The taking is always The taking is robbery
robbery only if force is used “Homicide” is used in its generic sense, as to
to: include parricide and murder. Hence, there is
1. enter the building no robbery with murder. The crime is still
2. break doors, robbery with homicide even if, in the course of
wardrobes, chests, the robbery, the person killed was another
or any other kind of robber or a bystander.
locked or sealed
Even if the rape was committed in another
furniture or
place, it is still robbery with rape. When the
receptacle inside the
taking of personal property of a woman is an
building; OR 3. force
independent act following defendant’s failure
them open outside
to consummate the rape, there are two
after taking the
distinct crimes committed: attempted rape
same from the
and theft. Additional rape committed on the
building (Art. 299 &
same occasion of robbery will not increase the
302)
penalty.
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking
of personal property grave coercion if there is
violence used (Art. 286).
If both violence/intimidation of persons (294)
and force upon things (299/302) co-exist, it will
be considered as violation of Art 294 because
it is more serious than in Art 299/302.
BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5
the penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the
complex crime should be imputed for the
higher penalty to be imposed without
sacrificing the principle that robbery w/
violence against persons is more severe than
that w/ force upon things. [Napolis v. CA, G.R
No. L28865 (1972)]
When the taking of the victim’s gun was to
prevent the victim from retaliating, then the
crimes committed are theft and homicide not
robbery with homicide.
These offenses are known as SPECIAL
COMPLEX CRIMES. Crimes defined under this
article are the following:
1. Robbery with homicide
2. Robbery with rape
3. Robbery with intentional mutilation
4. Robbery with arson
5. Robbery with serious physical injuries
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; (Absorption
Theory applied) Attempted homicide or
attempted murder committed during or on the
occasion of the robbery, as in this case, is
absorbed in the crime of Robbery with
Homicide which is a special complex crime that
remains fundamentally the same regardless of
the number of homicides or injuries
committed in connection with the robbery.
[People v. Cabbab, Jr., G.R. No. 173479 (2007)]
ROBBERY WITH RAPE If the intention of the
accused was to rob, but rape was committed
even before the asportation, the crime is the
special complex crime of Robbery with Rape.
So long as the intent of the accused is to rob,
rape may
be committed before, during or after the
robbery. But if the primary intent of the
accused was to rape and his taking away the
belongings of the victim was only a mere
afterthought, two separate felonies are
committed: Rape and Theft or Robbery
depending upon the circumstances
surrounding the unlawful taking. [People v.
Naag, G.R. No. 1361394 (2001)]
c. Article 295 - Robbery with Physical Injuries,
in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band
Robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons is qualified when it is committed:
1. In an Uninhabited place, or
2. By a Band, or
3. By Attacking a moving train, street car,
motor vehicle, or airship, or
4. By Entering the passengers’ compartments
in a train, or in any manner taking the
passengers thereof by surprise in the
respective conveyances, or
5. On a Street, road, highway, or alley, AND the
intimidation is made with the use of Firearms
Here, the offender shall be punished by the
maximum periods of the proper penalties in
Art. 294. The penalty cannot be offset by a
generic mitigating circumstance.
The intimidation with the use of firearm
qualifies only robbery on a street, road,
highway, or alley.
Any of these qualifying circumstances must be
alleged in the information and proved during
the trial.
d. Article 296 – Robbery by a Band
Outline of Art. 296 (Definition of a Band and
Penalty Incurred by the Members Thereof): 1.
When at least 4 armed malefactors take part in
the commission of a robbery, it is deemed
committed by a band. 2. When any of the arms
used in the commission of robbery is not
licensed, penalty upon all the malefactors shall
be the maximum of the corresponding penalty
provided by law, without prejudice to the
criminal liability for illegal possession of such
firearms. 3. Any member of a band who was
present at the commission of a robbery by the
band, shall be punished as principal of any of
the assaults committed by the band, unless it
be shown that he attempted to prevent the
crime.
Requisites for Liability for the acts of the other
members: 1. Member of the band. 2. Present
at the commission of the robbery. 3. Other
members committed an assault. 4. He did not
attempt to prevent assault.
Conspiracy is presumed when robbery is by
band.
When the robbery was not committed by a
band, the robber who did not take part in the
assault by another is not liable for that assault.
When the robbery was not by a band and
homicide was not determined by the accused
when they plotted the crime, the one who did
not participate in the killing is liable for robbery
only. 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.
But when there is conspiracy to commit
homicide and robbery, all the conspirators,
even if less than 4 armed men, are liable for the
special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
Art 296 is not applicable to principal by
inducement, who was not present at the
commission of the robbery, if the agreement
was only to commit robbery.
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.” Thus, a principal by inducement, who
did not go with the band at the place of the
commission of the robbery, is not liable for
robbery with homicide, but only for robbery in
band, there being no evidence that he gave
instructions to kill the victim or intended that
this should be done.
When there was conspiracy for robbery only
but homicide was also committed on the
occasion thereof, all members of the band are
liable for robbery with homicide.
Whenever homicide is committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a
robbery, 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.
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.
There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in
band”. Band is only ordinary aggravating
circumstance in robbery w/ homicide
In order for special aggravating circumstance
of unlicensed firearm to be appreciated, it is
condition sine qua non that offense charged be
robbery by a band under Art 295.
Pursuant to Art 295, circumstance of a band is
qualifying only in robbery under par 3, 4 & 5 of
Art 294. Hence, Art. 295 does not apply to
robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape,
or robbery with serious physical injuries under
par. 1 of Art. 263.
Special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed
firearm is inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide,
or robbery with rape, or robbery with physical
injuries, committed by a band. [People v.
Apduhan, G.R. No. L19491 (1968)]
e. Article 297 - Attempted and Frustrated
Robbery with Homicide
Elements:
1. There is attempted or frustrated robbery
2. A homicide is committed on the same
occasion
“Homicide” includes multiple homicides,
murder, parricide, or even infanticide.
The penalty is the same, whether robbery is
attempted or frustrated.
Robbery with homicide and attempted or
frustrated robbery with homicide are special
complex crimes, not governed by Art. 48, but
by the special provisions of Arts. 294 & 297,
respectively.
There is only one crime of attempted robbery
with homicide even if slight physical injuries
were inflicted on other persons on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery.
f. Article 298 - Execution of Deeds through
Violence or Intimidation
Elements: 1. Offender has Intent to defraud
another2. Offender Compels him to sign,
execute, or deliver any public instrument or
document 3. Compulsion is by means of
violence or intimidation.
If the violence resulted in the death of the
person to be defrauded, crime is robbery with
homicide and shall be penalized under Art 294
par. 1.
Art. 298 applies to private or commercial
document, but it does not apply if document is
void.
When the offended party is under obligation to
sign, execute or deliver the document under
the law, it is not robbery but coercion.
By Force Upon Things Robbery by the use of
force upon things is committed only when
either: 1. Offender entered a house or building
by any of the means specified in Art. 299 or Art.
302, or 2. Even if there was no entrance by any
of those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest, or
any other kind of locked or closed or sealed
furniture or receptacle in the house or
building, or he took it away to be broken or
forced open outside.
g. Article 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited House
or Public Building or Edifice Devoted to
Worship
Elements of robbery with force upon things
under SUBDIVISION (A):
1. Offender entered
a. An inhabited house
b. Public building
c. Edifice devoted to religious worship
2. Entrance was effected by any of the
following means:
a. Through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress;
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor, or door
or window;
c. By using False keys, picklocks or similar tools;
or
d. By using any Fictitious name or pretending
the exercise of public authority.
3. That once inside the building, the offender
took personal property belonging to another
with intent to gain.
There must be evidence that accused entered
the dwelling house or building by any of the
means enumerated in subdivision (a). In
entering the
building, there must be the intent to take
personal property.
“Inhabited house” – any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more
persons even though the inhabitants thereof
are temporarily absent when the robbery is
committed.
“Public building” – every building owned by the
Government or belonging to a private person
but used or rented by the Government,
although temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Any of the four means described in subdivision
(a) must be resorted to enter a house or
building, not to get out otherwise it is only
theft. The whole body of the culprit must be
inside the building to constitute entering.
Illustration: If the culprit had entered the
house through an open door, and the owner,
not knowing that the culprit was inside, closed
and locked the door from the outside and left,
and the culprit, after taking personal property
in the house, went out through the window, it
is only theft, not robbery.
“Breaking” – means entering the building. The
force used must be actual, as distinguished
constructive force.
“False keys” – genuine keys stolen from the
owner or any keys other than those intended
for use in the lock forcibly opened by the
offender. The genuine key must be stolen, not
taken by force or with intimidation, from the
owner.
If false key is used to open wardrobe or locked
receptacle or drawer or inside door it is only
theft.
E l e m e n t s o f r o b b e r y w it h f o r c e u p
o n t h i n g s under SUBDIVISION (B) of Art.
299:
1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public
building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship, regardless of the circumstances
under which he entered it.
2. Offender takes personal property belonging
to another, with intent to gain, under any of
the following circumstances:
a. Breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any
other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle;
or b. Taking such furniture or objects away to
be broken or forced open outside the place of
the robbery.
Entrance into the building by any of the means
mentioned in subdivision (a) is not required in
robbery under subdivision (b).
The term “door” in par. 1, subdivision (b) of
Art. 299, refers only to “doors, lids or opening
sheets” of furniture or other portable
receptacles—not to inside doors of house or
building.
Breaking the keyhole of the door of a
wardrobe, which is locked, is breaking a locked
furniture.
It is theft if the locked or sealed receptacle is
not forced open in the building where it is kept
or taken from to be broken outside.
The penalty depends on the value of property
taken and on whether or not offender carries
arm. Arms carried must not be used to
intimidate. Liability for carrying arms is
extended to all those who participated in the
robbery, including those without arms.
The provision punishes more severely the
robbery in a house used as a dwelling than that
committed in an uninhabited place, because of
the possibility that the inhabitants in the
former might suffer bodily harm during the
robbery.
h. Article 300 – Robbery in an Uninhabited
Place and by a Band
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building
or edifice dedicated to religious worship is
qualified when committed by a band and
located in an uninhabited place.
See discussion on Art. 296 for definition of
“band.”
To qualify Robbery w/ force upon things (Art
299)
To qualify Robbery w/ violence against or
intimidation of persons
It must be committed in uninhabited place and
by a band (Art 300)
It must be committed in an uninhabited place
or by a band (Art. 295)
i. Article 301 - What is an inhabited House,
Public Building Dedicated to Religious Worship
and Their Dependencies
“Inhabited house” – any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more
persons even though the inhabitants thereof
are temporarily absent when the robbery is
committed.
• Even if the occupant was absent during the
robbery, the place is still inhabited if the place
was ordinarily inhabited and intended as a
dwelling.
“Public building” – every building owned by the
Government or belonging to a private person
but used or rented by the Government,
although temporarily unoccupied by the same.
“Dependencies” – all interior courts, corrals,
warehouses, granaries or inclosed places
contiguous to the building or edifice, having an
interior entrance connected therewith, and
which form part of the whole (Art. 301, par. 2).
Requisites:
1. Contiguous to the building;
2. Interior entrance connected therewith;
3. Form part of the whole.
Orchards and lands used for cultivation or
production are not included in the term
“dependencies” (Art. 301, par. 3).
j. Article 302 – Robbery In an Uninhabited
Place or Private Building
Elements:
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a
building which was not a dwelling house, not a
public building, or not an edifice devoted to
religious worship.
2. That any of the following circumstances was
present:
a. Entrance was effected through an opening
not intended for entrance or egress;
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window
was broken
c. Entrance was effected through the use of
false keys, picklocks or other similar tools;
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or
closed furniture or receptacle was broken; or
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed,
even if the same be broken open elsewhere.
f. With intent to gain, the offender took
therefrom personal property belonging to
another.
“Building” – includes any kind of structure used
for storage or safekeeping of personal
property, such as (a) freight car and (b)
warehouse.
Entrance through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress is not necessary, if there is
breaking of wardrobe, chest, or sealed or
closed furniture or receptacle, or removal m. Article 305 - False Keys
thereof to be broken open elsewhere.
Deemed to include the following: 1. Tools
Breaking padlock is use of force upon things. mentioned in Article 304;

Use of fictitious name or pretending the
exercise of public authority is not covered
under this article.
A receptacle is a container, which must be
“closed” or “sealed”.
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner; 3. Any
key other than those intended by the owner
for use in the lock forcibly opened by the
offender.

Penalty is based only on value of property

taken.

k. Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or

Firewood in an Uninhabited Place or Private
Building

In cases enumerated in Arts. 299 and 302, the

penalty is one degree lower when robbery
consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or
firewood.

Cereals – seedlings which are the immediate

product of the soil. The palay must be kept by
the owner as “seedling” or taken for that
purpose by the robbers.

l. Article 304 - Possession of Picklock or

Similar Tools

Elements:

1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or

similar tools;

2. Such picklock or similar tools are especially

adopted to the commission of robbery;

3. Offender does not have lawful cause for

such possession.

Possession of such tools, without lawful cause,

is punished. Actual use is not necessary. Since
picking of locks is one way to gain entrance to
commit robbery, a picklock is per se specially
adapted to the commission of robbery. [People
v Lopez, G.R. No. L18766 (1965)]

If the person who makes such tools is a

locksmith, the penalty is higher.