Title Ten CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERAL Article 293.

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

Article 316. Other forms of swindling Article 317. Swindling a minor Article 318. Other deceits Chapter Seven – CHATTEL MORTGAGE Article 319. mortgaged Property Removal, sale or pledge of

Chapter Eight – ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTION (REPEALED BY PD 1613 and RA 7659) Article 320.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. liability Persons exempt from criminal

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 315. Swindling (Estafa)

1.

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.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 108

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 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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 109

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 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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 110

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 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.

6.

7.

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.

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” 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.

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;

2. 3.

4.

5.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 111

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 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)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 112

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 Quezon Street, Iloilo City, when Roberto and Ricky both surnamed Martin blocked his path. Without any provocation coming from the soldier, Ricky drew his firearm and fired at Demarayo, hitting the latter’s left hand. A brief struggle among the three (3) men ensued which caused the victim to fall down. As Roberto pulled away he warded off Demarayo by kicking him on the waist. While the victim was sprawled on the ground Roberto aimed his rifle at Demarayo's chest and pulled the trigger. Roberto fired another shot hitting Demarayo on the same spot. After the brutal slaying, the assailants nonchalantly walked away with Demarayo's M-16. The lower court ruled that the crime committed was Robbery with Homicide. HELD: In People v. Salazar, accused-appellants stabbed a security guard and thereafter took away his gun. 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, both of them could only be convicted of the separate crimes of Homicide and Theft. The records are bereft of any evidence to prove that the asportation of Demarayo's service firearm was the prime motive of accused-appellants. Although it may be true that they were seen grabbing the gun from the victim as the latter was lying prone on the ground, it could be possible that it was done to prevent him from retaliating as he was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshot wound. The taking of the gun might have been an afterthought and not the real purpose of the crime. 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. As such, accused-appellants should properly be convicted of the separate offenses of Homicide and Theft, which were both duly proved. People v. Ranis, 389 SCRA 45 (2002)

FACTS: While Marivic and Ben with their baby were watching television in their bedroom, Murphy and Sabiyon, both armed with bladed weapons, suddenly entered their unlocked bedroom. Murphy poked a knife at her neck while Ernesto straddled on top of Ben who was then lying in bed. Murphy asked for the proceeds of the land Ben sold and some jewelry but Marivic told him that they only had P2,000 in their possession. Murphy then took the P2,000 and several pieces of luxury watches and jewelry. After taking the money and jewelry, both accused tied her hands and those of Ben with electric cord and then they went out of the house, taking Ben with them. The body of Ben was later found lying about five to ten meters from the house with a cloth in the mouth, blood stains on the body, and hack wounds on his right nape and mouth. Ben was brought to the hospital but he was proclaimed dead on arrival. HELD: In charging robbery with homicide, 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 by animus lucrandi; (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, has been committed. In this case, Marivic Rodelas positively identified appellants Ernesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy as the two persons who entered her bedroom. Using sharp, bladed weapons, appellants demanded and took money, watches, and jewelry belonging to the victim, Ben Hernandez. Thereafter, Hernandez was found stabbed to death. The Court ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide. People v. Gonzales, 382 SCRA 694 (2002) FACTS: Nicanor Suralta was having drinks with his visitors in their house when two armed men, one carrying a gun and the other a knife, suddenly entered the house through the kitchen door. The one carrying a gun had a bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed, while the other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face covered with a handkerchief. The knife-wielder held Chona, the third child of the Suralta spouses, and announced a holdup. All persons in the house were ordered to go inside the bedroom, about 2 meters away from the sala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun and money from Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun, but asked his wife, Carolita, to give money to the holduppers. Carolita gave P2,100.00, which was intended to be deposited in the bank, to the knife-wielder, who placed it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder ransacked the cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325.00, which was intended for the school expenses of the Suralta children. In addition, he took the family's Sanyo cassette recorder and some clothes. The holduppers also divested one of the guests of his Seiko diver's wristwatch and then left. As the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rang out. Nicanor was heard moaning. Nicanor eventually died. HELD: After reviewing the records of this case, the court ruled that the prosecution evidence establishes the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 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; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain);

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 113

and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide in its generic sense is committed. The offense becomes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. All elements are present in the case at bar. People v. Torres, 359 SCRA 761 (2001) FACTS: Vicente Galanao, his sons Julian and Macky and Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with their employer, Boloy , to buy copra and abaca. They were on board a truck driven by Boloy. On the way, they were stopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the road. Torres approached the left side of the truck, went up the truck, and shot Boloy once. After shooting, two persons armed with guns appeared from nowhere and approached the back of the truck and told them to lie face downward. The two persons came from the portion where bamboos grew by the side of the road. Afterwards the men ran towards the mountainside with the victims bag containing P500,000.00, the victims necklace, ring and his wristwatch. HELD: Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime against property. Homicide is incidental to the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. In charging robbery with homicide, the onus probandi is to establish: xxx… xxx… (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed. The phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another, 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. Thus, it matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties of the victim. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation and intimate connection between robbery and killing, whether both crimes be committed at the same time. The Court ruled that all elements of robbery with homicide are present in this case. People v. Maxion, 361 SCRA 414 (2001) FACTS: Himor, a teller at the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), walked across the street towards the Hi-Top Supermarket, to pick up the cash deposit of the supermarket amounting to P1,464,644.75. After issuing the deposit slip, he placed the money inside a duffle bag and padlocked the bag. Thereafter, he called the bank to send his security escort. UCPB sent security escort Gargaceran. While Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the street going back to the bank. Maxion and another man suddenly emerged and walked towards them. Maxion was in front of Gargaceran while the second stayed behind him. Both of them aimed their guns at Gargaceran. The man behind Gargaceran immediately took Gargaceran's handgun, and shortly thereafter, Maxion shot Gargaceran at close range hitting him on the chest eventually causing his death. 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. With their guns pointed at him, Himor tossed the bag containing the money to them and ran back to the supermarket.

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. This is evident from the testimony of teller Himor that as soon as the two men stopped him from running towards the bank, they shouted to release the bag containing the money. As the robbery resulted in the killing of the security guard Gargaceran, the offense committed by the malefactors is indubitably the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In robbery with homicide, what is essential is that there be "a direct relation, an intimate connection between robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crime be committed at the same time. People v. Consejero, 352 SCRA 276 (2001) FACTS: While they were fishing, Accused Consajero, a CAFGU member and Malapit, armed with an M-14, asked Castillo and Usigan if they were the ones exacting quota from the Barangay captain. The two replied in the negative. Consajero then asked Castillo and Usigan to accompany them to a nearby store. They then killed Castillo and Usigan. Thereafter, they took the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca ridden by Castillo and Usigan which is owned by Israel. Castillo was found lying on the ground, face down, drenched in his own blood with hands tied at the back. Twenty meters away lay the dead body of Usigan, who sustained thirty-one stab and hack wounds on the different parts of his body. HELD: The criminal acts of accused-appellant constitute not a complex crime of robbery with homicide, but three separate offenses: 1. Murder, for the killing of Modesto Castillo, 2. Homicide, for the death of Dionisio Usigan; and 3. Theft, for the unlawful taking of the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca. In People v. Amania, the Court had occasion to rule that in robbery with homicide, the killing must have been directly connected with the robbery. It is necessary that there must have been an intent on the part of the offenders to commit robbery from the outset and, on occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. The original design must have been robbery, and the homicide, even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, must have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate the robbery. The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought which arose subsequent to the killing. In the present case, 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. From all indications, accused-appellant, a CAFGU member, was primarily interested in taking the life of the two deceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from the Barangay captain, and the taking of the subject engine was merely an afterthought that arouse subsequent to the killing of the victims. People v. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95 FACTS: Carlos Deveza, erstwhile member of the PNP arrived at the Cartimar Plaza Market to fetch his wife, Estella, who was then closing the family chain of stalls for the day. Upon arrival, Carlos parked his Toyota Tamaraw vehicle in front of the stall. Immediately thereafter, Estella approached Carlos, who was still at the driver's seat, and handed him a black leather bag which contained P300,000.00 cash, pieces of jewelry and checks. As Estella

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 114

left to make a phone call, Carlos alighted from the Tamaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle with both arms resting on the vehicle's window. Legaspi, coming from the front of the vehicle position himself 2½ meters away from Deveza, level and poke a gun wrapped in a piece of cloth or towel at the latter’s nape and eventually pull the trigger. Deveza fell on the pavement. The gunman then picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casually walked away from the scene of the crime. While conversing with other tricycle drivers, 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. Pitying the victim, Dazo hid behind a post and waited in ambush for Legaspi and the latter’s companion, Franco. In so doing, Dazo intended to seize and stop Legaspi who was then holding a gun, but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmed Franco by the waist. Thereafter, Dazo and Franco wrestled causing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing Legaspi to take an aim and shoot at Dazo twice. At the height of the struggle between Dazo and Franco, shots were fired by Legaspi, one bullet hitting Dazo on the right jaw. HELD: Obviously, the killing of Carlos Deveza and the shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. Thus, the physical injuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide. Taken in its entirety, the overt acts of accused-appellant Legaspi prove that the lone motive for the killing of Deveza and the shooting of Dazo was for the purpose of consummating and ensuring the success of the robbery. In the final analysis, the shooting of Dazo was done in order to defend the possession of the stolen property. 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. Accused-appellant's argument that the element of "taking" was not proved is thus unavailing in the face of Tulod's testimony. People v. Temanel, 341 SCRA 319 (2000) FACTS: Renato Sucilan, his wife Adelina, daughter Liezl, and brother Romeo were eating dinner in Renato's house. After dinner, Adelina prepared for bed while Renato played with Liezl. Romeo went home to his own hut situated five meters away. Suddenly, a stone was hurled into Renato's house hitting the petromax lamp. Immediately, brothers Jose and Eddie Temanel entered the house. Jose poked Renato with a bladed weapon while Eddie ordered Adelina to take out their money and valuables. Later, cohorts of the Temanels entered the hut. Osis grabbed Liezl, and held a knife against her. Terrified, Adelina put the valuables in an empty milk can and placed the same outside the door. Efren Temanel, who was outside the hut, took the can. The intruders tied the couple. When Renato and Adelina were able to free themselves, the former stepped out of the house and was shocked to find his brother, Romeo, dead with several stab wounds in the neck and his intestines exposed. The pieces of jewelry he usually wore, were no longer on his body. HELD: All the elements of robbery with homicide concur in this case. The properties taken consisted of pieces of jewelry, a radio, rice, money and other valuables, all of which clearly belonged to the Sucilans. The properties were violently taken and intent to gain can be presumed from the unlawful taking. In addition, Romeo

Sucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Where homicide is perpetrated with a view to rob, the offense is robbery with homicide. But if robbery was an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide, there are two distinct offenses. Here, the killing was committed in the course of the robbery. The fact that it was Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants, Eddie and Jose Temanel, who stabbed Romeo is of no moment. In People v. Mendoza, if all accused take part in a robbery resulting in death, all of them shall be held liable for robbery with homicide in the absence of proof that they prevented the killing. People v. Cruz, 380 SCRA 13 (2002) FACTS: Donato Cruz, who was high on drugs, entered the house of the Robleses, and sat on a sofa near the kitchen. While seated on the sofa, Laura saw respondent and she became hysterical and started shouting. Thinking that he will be assaulted by Laura, Cruz went inside the house, got hold of a pointed object and stabbed to death Laura Robles and her 5-year old daughter, Lara. Thereafter, he ransacked the cabinet of the Robleses taking away a Minolta camera, a wedding ring and P8,000.00 in cash, as well as an undetermined amount of US dollars. The RTC convicted Cruz of two (2) counts of murder and one (1) count of theft. Appellant argues that he should have been charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. HELD: The Court held that the argument of the Appellant is without merit. The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property, and not against persons, homicide being a mere incident of the robbery with the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal (People vs. Navales, 266 SCRA 569 [1997]). In the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that appellant stole the camera and cash only as an afterthought. His primary purpose was to kill Laura and her 5-year old daughter, Lara, after he panicked. Hence, the prosecution was correct when it did not charge appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000) FACTS: Maria Abendaño was engaged in business. She had a store, operated a passenger jeepney and engaged in the buy and sale of palay. Her sister Romualda also had a store. Accused Nelson was Maria's store helper. Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda in her store during palay season. The other accused Maximo Velarde was known to Romualda because she met him at a birthday party held at Maria's house. The three accused were friends. Maximo, 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. Maximo, Tito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepney of Maria and upon reaching an uninhabited place. Maximo poked a gun at the driver and shot him. He also shot Maria at the neck when the latter shouted. Nelson and Tito alighted from the jeepney. Nelson went to the left front side of the jeepney, while Tito approached the right front side of the jeepney, in the process stepping on the sleeping John-John who was then awakened. The boy stood up and said, "You will see I will tell my father that you killed my mother." To avoid being identified by the boy, Tito told

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 115

Maximo to kill the boy. Maximo then took hold of the boy's hair and slashed his neck. Tito took Maria's money and divided it, each accused receiving about seven thousand (P7,000.00) pesos from the loot. HELD: The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged in the information. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense, embracing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death. Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings in connection with the robbery. The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situation where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with multiple killings would be. People v. Dinamling, 379 SCRA 107 (2002) FACTS: Marilyn Pajarillo was in their house lying down in bed with her 2-year old daughter. Seated beside her was 11-year old Rosemarie Malalay, who was waiting for her father Rogelio. Rogelio was then in the patio, outside the house, drinking gin with Marilyn's husband Charlie Pajarillo and Deogracias Acosta. Suddenly, Orlando Dinamling entered their house and poked a long gun at Marilyn's forehead, ordered her to lie prone on the ground. Marilyn merely sat down. Dinamman, with a short firearm, entered their sari-sari store, searched their belongings and took more or less P1,500.00 in cash representing her sales, two (rims of Champion cigarettes, one dozen cans of sardines and one pack of Juicy Fruit chewing gum. Outside, Fernando Dinamling and Linnam poked guns at the heads of Rogelio and Deogracias, who were then lying prostrate on the ground.. After a while, Rogelio and Deogaracias were shot to death. The trial court's ruled that Orlando and Fenando Dinamling, Diinamman and Linnam are guilty of "robbery with double homicide" HELD: Accused-appellants' crime is robbery with homicide. The trial court's denomination of the offense as "robbery with double homicide" is erroneous. It is settled that regardless of the number of homicides committed, the crime should still be denominated as robbery with homicide. The number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed by Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Stated differently, the homicides or murders and physical injuries, irrespective of their numbers, committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide. People v. Daniela, 401 SCRA 519 (2002) FACTS: Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis came to the house of Ronito and his common-law wife, Maria Fe to borrow money. Manuel, Jose, and Ronito then had a drinking spree. Later, Manuel armed with a .38 caliber gun, entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe and poked the said gun on Maria Fe. Jose, armed with a knife followed Manuel to the bedroom. Upon Manuel’s order Jose tied the hands of Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape on her mouth. Jose also tied the hands of Marife’s cousin, Leo.

Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace, rings and earrings. 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. Manuel then threatened to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to surrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and Jose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his body. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the latter's wristwatch and ring. Manuel then raped Julifer, a househelp of Marife. 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. In People vs. Tidula, et al., this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In People v. Damaso, 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, does not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with homicide. A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before, during or after the commission of the robbery. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. Even if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime. Robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of the robbery is different from the victim of homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person the malefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of the special complex crime, the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime. 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, killed Ronito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of robbery with homicide. People v. Napalit, 396 SCRA 687 (2003) FACTS:A group of more than six armed men including Napalit barged into the Tondo General Hospital. One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guard and announced a hold-up. Simultaneously, Napalit pointed a gun at, and grabbed the firearm of, another security guard. Four members of the group then entered the cashier's office of the hospital and ordered the employees to lie down on the floor. One of them pointed a gun at the cashier, Alonzo, and ordered him to open the vault. Before Alonzo could do as instructed, he was searched for

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 116

weapons in the course of which his wallet containing P450.00 in cash was taken. Alonzo then opened the vault which the four emptied of P1,010,274.90 in cash. While the four malefactors were at the cashier's office, another security guard, Gomez, who was manning the hospital gate was disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside the hospital premises, and shot twice by one of the armed men. 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. Two of them headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castor which was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in front of the hospital. One of the duo ordered the passenger at the front seat to get off the vehicle. The other, after forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fled with his companion. The RTC found Napalit guilty of robbery with homicide and violation of R. A. 6539 (the Anti-Carnapping Act), respectively. Napalit argues that assuming that he had indeed participated in the incident, he should only be held liable for robbery and not for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. HELD: In a long line of cases, the Court has ruled that whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, 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, unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. (People v. Lago, 358 SCRA 550 (2001), People v. Liad, 355 SCRA 11 (2001), People v. Pedroso, 336 SCRA 163) People v. Lara (2006) The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 97-13706. 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. 9600942). It must be emphasized that when the victim and appellant met and had a heated argument, the absence of the intent to rob on the part of the appellant was apparent. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim. Appellant’s act of taking the shotgun was not for the purpose of robbing the victim, but to protect himself from the victim. No one would in one’s right mind just leave a firearm lying around after being in a heated argument with another person. Having failed to establish that appellant’s original criminal design was robbery, appellant could only be convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or homicide, as the case may be, and theft.

defendant’s failure to consummate the rape, there are two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape and theft. Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty. All acts of rape on that occasion being integrated in one composite crime. When the taking of property after the rape is not with intent to gain, there is neither theft nor robbery committed. The civil liability for rape in robbery with rape has been set at P50,000. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide and rape under par 1 of Art 294, the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance only. (note: this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal, Pp vs Basca, and Pp vs Villa. but i disagree with this ruling based on moral grounds and lack of legal basis. how could rape be merely an aggravating circumstance?)
People vs. Patola Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art 294 par 2, not under RPC 335 on qualified rape. People vs. Dinola Facts: Dinola saw victim Marilyn’s watch after he had raped her. She refused to give him the watch so he took if forcibly from her and left. Dinola was convicted of robbery with rape. Held: The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as 2 separate offences. If the original design was to commit rape but the accused after committing rape also committed robbery (more of an afterthought, even accidental) because the opportunity presented itself, the criminal act should be viewed as 2 distinct offences. If the intention of the accused was to commit robbery but rape was also committed even before the robbery, the crime of robbery with rape was committed. People vs Moreno Facts: Accused Moreno, Deloria and Maniquez robbed the Mohnani spouses. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa while Maniquez raped househelp Mary Ann. Moreno was convicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez, robbery with rape. Held: Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of robbery only. Ruling was correct. People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302 (2000) FACTS: Locsin Fabon, alias "Loklok," entered the home of 64 year-old, Bonifacia Lasquite and forcibly took the victim’s money amounting to P25,000.00. On the occasion of the robbery, Fabon raped Lasquite. Thereafter, Fabon strangled and stabbed Lasquite with a knife resulting

Robbery with rape Like in robbery with homicide, the offender must have the intent to take the personal property belonging to another with intent to gain, and such intent must precede the rape. There is no such crime as robbery with attempted rape. It must be consummated. Otherwise, they are separate offences. When the taking of personal property of a woman is an independent act following

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 117

to her death. The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery with Homicide and Rape, penalized under Article 294, number 1 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659. HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated the crime committed as "robbery with homicide and rape." When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional mutilation, such additional offense is treated as an aggravating circumstance which would result in the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. The Court cited the case of People vs. Lascuna, where it was held that “We agree with the Solicitor General's observation that the crime committed was erroneously designated as robbery with homicide, rape and physical injuries. The proper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code which applies, the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance. . . . People v. Domingo, 383 SCRA 43 (2002) FACTS: Appellant Domingo Temporal, Pedro, Valdez, and Rivera went to the house of Spouses Valentin and Clara Gabertan, armed with a piece of bamboo, 2x2 piece of wood, ipil-ipil posts and bolo, They assaulted and clubbed Valentin with their weapons, weakening and injuring him. Eventually they stole from the Gabertan spouses cash in the amount of P5,350.00, 1 ladies gold Seiko watch, 9 turkeys, and 2 chickens. Thereafter, while Rivera guarded Valentin, the four accused took turns in raping Carla outside the house where she was forcibly laid on the cogon grass. RTC found appellant guilty of robbery with multiple rape. HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellant of robbery with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape. In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the true intent of the accused must first be determined, because their intent determines the offense they committed. To sustain a conviction for robbery with rape, it is imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. To support a conviction therefor, proof of the rape alone is not sufficient. Robbery with rape occurs when the following elements are present: (1) personal property is taken with violence or intimidation against persons, (2) the property taken belongs to another, (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi, and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are present. The contemporaneous acts of appellant and his co-accused stress the fact that they were initially motivated by animus lucrandi. They first demanded guns, moneys and animals from Valentin Gabertan. Apparently, it was only when they entered the house and saw his wife when they thought of raping her.The prosecution likewise established that appellant and his co-accused took chickens, a watch and money from complainants through violence. People v. Verceles, 388 SCRA 515 (2002) FACTS: Accused Verceles alias "Baldog", Corpuz, Soriano alias "Merto", Ramos and Soriano entered the house of Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the grills of the window. Once inside, they took away 1 colored T.V., 1 VHS, assorted jewelries, 1 alarm clock and 1 radio cassettes. In the course of the robbery, Soriano,

succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while the others just stood outside the door and did nothing to prevent Soriano. HELD: Once conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape. The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in the rape. Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape punished under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. People v. Moreno, 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, as amended, employs the clause "when the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape." In other words, to be liable for such crime, the offender must have the intent to take the personal property of another under circumstances that makes the taking one of robbery, and such intent must precede the rape. If the original plan was to commit rape, but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime. A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this case convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separate offenses of rape and theft, and not the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Immediately after ROGELIO put his arms around MARITES and directed the knife at her neck, he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABC Commercial Complex and removed her clothes. These acts clearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexual gratification. This intent was further established by the fact that when MARITES offered to give her ring to ROGELIO, the latter did not take it and instead replied, "Mamaya na iyan"; "That will come later on because I will give it back to you but you have to follow me first." Again, when ROGELIO removed his pants, MARITES told him to get her bag if he needed money; but ROGELIO replied "I do not need money." After giving vent to his lustful desire, he snatched the victim's shoulder bag, which was then on her right foot, and then he ran away. Clearly then, the taking of personal property was not the original evil plan of ROGELIO. It was an afterthought following the rape. Significantly, 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. The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIO against the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact of the taking of the bag. It was for the purpose of accomplishing his lustful desire. Hence, it cannot be considered for the purpose of classifying the crime as robbery. Accused-appellant may thus be held liable for simple theft only, in addition to the crime of rape. People v. Seguis, 349 SCRA 547 (2001) FACTS: Seguis a.k.a. Junior, Estebe a.k.a. Dodong, Doquila a.k.a. Lolong, r Canico, Gibertas, dela Cruz, and a certain John Doe took turns in raping Juliet Magamayo at the house of his friend where she stayed for

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 118

the night. One of the said accused took her gold ring, bracelet and cash though Juliet can not pinpoint who specifically did it among the many accused. The RTC finds each of the accused, 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, a special complex crime punishable under Art. 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and which is committed "when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape." The said provision, needless to say, covers cases of multiple rapes. 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, making other rapes in excess of that number as separate, independent offense or offenses. All the rapes are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery. It does not matter too whether the rape occurred before, during, or after the robbery. Still and all, this does not change the nature of the felony. It is essentially a crime against property. To sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established; just as the fact that it was the accused who committed it be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must be able to demonstrate the level of their participation with legal and moral certainty, including the existence of a conspiracy, if any. Otherwise, those who were charged should be acquitted, at least for the robbery. Proof of the rape alone is not sufficient to support a conviction for the crime of robbery with rape. The lower court's finding of the accused’nonparticipation in the robbery does not mean that they are totally guiltless. They will still be held accountable for whatever unlawful acts they may have committed, and for which acts they were charged. In a criminal action for robbery with rape, 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. The trial court’s ruling that the appellants had carnal knowledge of the private complainant by using force and intimidation, 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. People v. Gano, 353 SCRA 126 (2001) Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The question that needs to be resolved is whether the “multiplicity of homicides” could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. For sometime, 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, while in other cases it ruled that the “multiplicity of rapes/homicides” committed could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. But in People v. 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. 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. 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. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. 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. This case is singular in its barbarity and nauseating in the manner with which the accused, bolo in hand, butchered his preys. Notwithstanding the viciousness with which he perpetrated the offense, we are constrained to apply the principle laid down in People v. Regala, and accordingly, the two (2) other killings contrary to the ruling of the trial court, should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstances. Gano is guilty of Robbery with Homicide. People v. Regala, 329 SCRA 707 (2000) FACTS: Sixteen-year old, Nerissa Tagala, and her grandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping, when appellant Armando Regala and his two other companions entered the former's house. Regala and his companions entered the house through the kitchen by removing the pieces of wood under the stove. Regala went to the room of Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun on them, one after the other. Nerissa and her grandmother were hogtied by appellant and his companions. Thereafter, Nerissa was raped by twice by Regala in bed and in the kitchen. After the rape, appellant and his two companions counted the money which they took from the "aparador. Appellant and his companions then ran away with P3,000 in cash, 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches. 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. 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. 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. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. 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.

Requisites of robbery under 2nd case of par 4 Art 294: 1) that any of physical injuries defined in par 3 & 4 263 was inflicted in the course of robbery, and 2) that any them was inflicted upon any person the Art the of not

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 119

responsible for the commission of the robbery. Robbery with violence or intimidation

Violence or intimidation need not be present before or at the exact moment when the object is taken. It may enter at any time before the owner is finally deprived of his property.  Intimidation exists when the acts executed or words uttered by the ofender are capable of producing fear in the person threatened.  In robbery with intimidation, there must be acts done by the accused which, either by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances under which they are executed, inspire fear in the person against whom they are directed.  Difference between threats to extort money and robbery thru intimidation: o In robbery, the intimidation is actual and immediate; in threats, the intimidation is conditional or future. o In robbery, the intimidation is personal; in threats, it may be thru an intermediary. o In threats, the intimidation may refer to the person, honor or property of the offended party or that of his family; in robbery, the intimidation is directed only to the person of the victim. o In robbery, the gain of the culprit is immediate; in threats, the gain is not immediate.  Difference between robbery with violence and grave coercion: o In both crimes, there is violence used by the offender. o In robbery, there is intent to gain; no such requirement in grave coercion. In grave coercion, the intent is to compel another to do something against his will.  Difference between robbery and bribery: o It is robbery when the victim did not commit a crime; it is bribery when the victim has committed a crime and gives money or gift to avoid arrest or prosecution. o In robbery, the victim is deprived of his money or property by force or intimidation; in bribery, he parts with his money or property voluntarily.

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 Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person is qualified if it is committed: 1. 2. 3. 4. In an uninhabited place; By a band; By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or airship; By entering the passengers’ compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances; or On a street, road, highway or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms, the offender shall be punished by the maximum periods of the proper penalties prescribed in Article 294.

5.

Any of these qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery on a street, road, highway or alley. 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. (note: the circumstances and applicability of Art 295 are very specific so please note them.)
People vs. Sevilla Facts: The accused detained several persons as hostages in a store they robbed. The police launched an offensive. In the ensuing gunfight, the hostages suffered physical injuries. One of the hostages eventually had to have her leg amputated. The accused were convicted of the complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention. Should the crime of serious illegal detention be prosecuted as a separate offence? Held: NO. The detention of the victims was a necessary means to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery. The victims were not held as a security to facilitate their escape or to insure their security against the police, but deliberately, as a means of extortion of the amount asked.

Article 296. 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. He was a member of the band; C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 120

2. 3. 4.

He was present at the commission of a robbery by that band; The other members of the band committed an assault; He did not attempt to prevent the assault.  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.

aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide.

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.

In robbery by a band, all are liable for any assault committed by the band, unless the others attempted to prevent the assault.  The members of the band liable for the assault must be present at the commission of the robbery, not necessarily at the commission of the assault.
People vs. 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. SC rejected this. SC believes that: (1) Art 296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Art 295 on robbery in band, (2) RPC 295 is explicitly limited to scope to pars. 3, 4, 5 of Art 294, and (3) par 3, 4, 5 of Art 294 does not include cases where homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, impotence, imbecility, blindness and insanity occurred by reason or on the occasion of accompanying robbery. Thus, since Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide under par 1 Art 294, Art 296 in relation to par 3, 4, 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. Hence, the use of an unlicensed firearm should not have been considered as a special aggravating circumstance.

Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances  “Homicide” here is used in a generic sense. It includes multiple homicides, murder, parricide, infanticide, etc.  The penalty is the same, whether the robbery is attempted or frustrated.  “Unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the Code” may be illustrated as follows: In an attempted or frustrated robbery, the killing of the victim is qualified by treachery or relationship. The proper penalty for murder or parricide shall be imposed because it is more severe.

This is also a special complex crime, thus, not governed by Art 48. Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation Elements: 1. 2. 3. Offender has intent to defraud another; Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or document. The compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 121

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.” The circumstance of band becomes an ordinary

 If the violence used resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded, the crime is robbery with homicide.  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, the penalty imposed shall be those under Art 297. This article applies even if the document signed, executed or delivered is a private or commercial document.  Art 298 is not applicable if the document is void.  When the offended party is under obligation to sign, execute or deliver the document under the law, there is no robbery. But there will be COERCION if violence is used in compelling the offended party to sign or deliver the document. Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship Elements under subdivision (a): 1. Offender entered an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship; The 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 breaking any 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. Once inside the building, offender took personal property belonging to another with intent to gain.

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). In entering the building, the offender must have an intention to take personal property. The place entered must be a house or building; thus, entering an automobile does not fall under this article. “Inhabited house” = any shelter, 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.

2.

3.

Elements under subdivision (b): 1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship, regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it; Offender takes personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, under any of the following circumstances: a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle; or b. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 122

2.

“Public building” = every building owned by the govt or belonging to a private person but used or rented by the govt, although temporarily unoccupied by the same. Any of the 4 means described in subdiv (a) must be resorted to by the offender to enter a house or building, not to get out. The whole body of the culprit must be inside the building to constitute entering. The genuine key must be stolen, not taken by force or with intimidation from the owner. In the latter case, it becomes robbery with intimidation of person. It is only THEFT when the false key is used to open wardrobe or locked receptacle or drawer or inside door. The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise authority must be to enter the building. Subdivision (b) Entrance into the building by any of the means in subdiv (a) is not required in robbery under subdiv (b). The term “door” in par 1 subdiv (b) refers only to “doors, lids or opening sheets” of furniture or other portable receptacles; not to inside doors of house or building. 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. 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, not robbery. The weapon carried by the offender must not have been used to intimidate a person, for the reason that once the circumstance of intimidation enters in the commission of the crime, it is sufficient to remove the offence from Art 299 and place it within the purview of Art 294. The liability for carrying arms while robbing an inhabited house is extended to each of the offenders who take part in the robbery, even if some of them do not carry arms.
People vs. Jaranilla Facts: Accused took 6 fighting cocks from a coop located in Babylon’s backyard. The door of the coop was broken. They were intercepted by a police officer who was shot by one of the accused. They were convicted by robbery with homicide.

Held: The killing of the police officer was not by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, hence only the person who shot such officer should be liable for the killing.

Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship is qualified when committed by a band AND in an uninhabited place. The 2 qualifications must concur. The inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship must be located in an uninhabited place. Robbery with force upon things, in order to be qualified, must be committed in an uninhabited place AND by a band; while robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons must be committed in an uninhabited place OR by a band. Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies 3 requisites for “dependencies”: (1) must be contiguous to the building, (2) must have an interior entrance connected therewith, and (3) must form part of the whole. Orchards or other lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the term “dependencies”. Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a 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; Any of the following circumstances was present: a. The 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. The 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.

2.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 123

3.

Offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another with intent to gain.  “uninhabited uninhabited building place” =

Article 304. similar tools Elements: 1. 2. 3.

Possession of picklocks or

The information must allege that the store was used and occupied as a dwelling; otherwise, the robbery should be considered as having been perpetrated in an uninhabited place under Art 302.  “building” = includes any kind of structure used for storage or safekeeping of personal property, such as freight car and warehouse.  The use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority is not a means of entering the building under this article, because the place is uninhabited.

Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools; Such picklock or similar tools are especially adopted to the commission of robbery; Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.

Article 305. False keys False keys include the following: 1. 2. 3. Tools mentioned in Article 304; Genuine keys stolen from the owner; Any key other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.

The receptacle must be “closed” or “sealed”. Thus, if a person opened without breaking a closed but not locked chest and took personal property therefrom, it is only THEFT.

Carnapping
R.A. 6539 Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — "Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. "Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating. "Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing, scratching, altering or changing of the original factory-inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its motor engine, 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, that motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered with serial number. "Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting. There is repainting whenever the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its

 

Penalty is based only on value of property taken. If the store is used as a dwelling of 1 or more persons, the robbery committed therein would be considered as committed in an inhabited house under Art 299.

If the store was not actually occupied at the time the robbery took place and was not used as a dwelling, since the owner lived in a separate house, the robbery committed therein is punished under Art 302.

If the store is located on the ground floor of the house belonging to the owner of the store, having an interior entrance connected therewith, it is a dependency of an inhabited house and the robbery committed therein is punished under the last par of Art 299. Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building Penalty is one degree lower if cereals, fruits or firewood are taken in robbery with force upon things. “cereal” = palay or other seedlings The palay must be kept by the owner as “seedling” or taken for that purpose by the robbers.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 124

color as registered in the Land Transportation Commission. "Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its entire body with a new body. "Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle. "Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by part, of a motor vehicle. "Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by separating the motor engine and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle. SECTION 3. Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block and Chassis. — Within one year after the approval of this Act, 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 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, engine block or chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, 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, and shall be confiscated in favor of the Government. All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities are required to register their cars with the local police without paying any charges. SECTION 4. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis. — The Land Transportation Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles, specifying therein their type, make and serial numbers and stating therein the names and addresses of their present and previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries made thereon shall be furnished the Philippine Constabulary and all Land Transportation Commission regional, provincial and city branch offices: Provided, That all Land Transportation Commission regional, 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. SECTION 5. Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance, Substitution or Replacement of a Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block or Chassis. — Every sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered with the Land Transportation Commission. Motor vehicles assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor vehicle engines, 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. SECTION 6. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. — Any person seeking the original registration of a motor vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registered owner, shall within one week after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof from the registered owner, apply to the Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle for registration with the Land Transportation Commission. The Philippine Constabulary shall, upon receipt of the application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not in that list, the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwith issue a certificate of clearance. Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance from the Philippine Constabulary and after verification of the registration of the motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis, the Land Transportation Commission shall register the motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations. SECTION 14. Penalty for Carnapping. — Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping. SECTION 15. Aliens. — Aliens convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after service of sentence without further proceedings by the Deportation Board.

People vs. Dela Cruz The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when there is taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which belonged to another, without the latter’s consent or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. Izon vs. People A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle, which is defined as any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using public highways. Public highways are those free for the use of every person, thus not limited to a national road connecting various towns.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 125

Highway Robbery
P.D. 532 Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — The following terms shall mean and be understood, as follows: a. Philippine Waters. — It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. Vessel. — Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing. Philippine Highway. — It shall refer to any road, street, passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the movement or circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both. Piracy. — Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, 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, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.

death shall be imposed. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period shall be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed during or on the occasion of the commission of robbery or brigandage, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall be imposed. SECTION 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. — Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.

b.

c.

d.

People vs. Puno Accused held up Mrs Sarmiento in her car at gunpoint. They were able to extort P7000 in cash and P100,000 in check. Was highway robbery committed? NO. 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. People vs. Pulusan Facts: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the McArthur highway. Of the 6 passengers, the only woman, Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at a talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbed on after the other. They were convicted of robbery with homicide although they were charged with highway robbery. What was the crime committed? Held: Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery. Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accused were organised for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. In this case, there was no proof that the 4 accused previously attempted to commit armed robberies.

e.

SECTION 3. Penalties. — Any person who commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined, shall, upon conviction by competent court be punished by: Piracy. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves, or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of

Cattle Rustling
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 533 THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 126

What is cattle rustling? Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser. Large cattle - as herein used shall include the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member of the bovine family. Owner/raiser- shall include the herdsman, caretaker, 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. Duty of the owner/raiser  before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the age of six months, register the same with the office of the city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised. Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle. No person, partnership, association, 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, partnership, association, corporation or entity. The permit shall only be valid in such province. Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle. Any person, partnership, association, corporation or entity desiring to ship or transport large cattle, its hides, or meat, 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. Before issuance of the permit herein prescribed, the Provincial Commander shall require the submission of the certificate of ownership as prescribed in Section 3 hereof, a certification from the Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large cattle, hides or meat are free from any disease; and such other documents or records as may be necessary. Shipment of 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. Presumption of Cattle Rustling. — Every person having in his possession, control or custody of large cattle shall, upon demand by competent authorities, exhibit the documents prescribed in the preceding sections. Failure to exhibit the required documents shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his possession, control or custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling. Penalties Imposed Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large

cattle involved, 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. If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, 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, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. When the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to the foregoing penalty, be disqualified from voting or being voted upon in any election/referendum and from holding any public office or employment. When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported immediately upon the completion of the service of his sentence without further proceedings.

Taer vs. CA Facts: Co-accused Manocatcat, arrived at the Taer’s hourse at 2am with 2 male carabaos. Manocatcat asked Taer to tend the carabaos for him. 10 days later, the owners of the carabaos, arrived at Taer’s house to retrieve the carabaos. What was Taer’s participation in the crime? Held: Taer was an accessory because he employed the carabaos in his farm. An accessory is someone who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, without having participated as a principal or an accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission by profiting himself by the effects of the crime. Ordonio vs. CA Facts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. When Pajunar inquired abt his cow, Ordonio denied seeing it. The cow was eventually found in Ordonio’s possession, but Ordonio claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by his brother Agustin, such that Pajunar had to enlist the aid of the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow. Held: The law reads “taking away by any means, methods or schemes.” Ordonio’s stubborn insistence that the calf belonged to his brother, when he knew fully well that it belonged to Pajunar, is the essence cattle rustling. The perpetrator’s intent to gain is then inferred from his deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person, knowing that the property does not belong to him.

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, or for any other C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 127

purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. Article 306. Who are brigands Elements of brigandage: 1. 2. 3. There are least four armed persons; They formed a band of robbers; The purpose is any of the following: a. To commit robbery in the highway; b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom; or c. To attain by means of force and violence any other purpose.

Article 307. of brigands Elements: 1. 2. 3.

Aiding and abetting a band

There is a band of brigands; Offender knows the band to be of brigands; Offender does any of the following acts: a. He in any manner aids, abets or protects such band of brigands; b. He gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the government; or c. He acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands.

It must be a band of robbers. Thus, a band of dissidents or oppositionists will not qualify. The purpose of the band must be (1) to commit robbery in the highway, (2) to kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or obtaining ransom, or (3) any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. To contrast, In case of robbery by a band, the purpose of the offenders is only to commit robbery, not necessarily in the highway. If any of the arms carried by any of a group of persons be an unlicensed firearm, is shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of conviction, the penalty shall be imposed in the max period. The arms carried by the members of the band of robbers may be any deadly weapon. 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. “highway” = includes city streets as well as roads outside the cities. If the agreement among more than 3 armed men was to commit only a particular robbery, the offence is not brigandage, but only robbery in band. In brigandage, the mere formation of a band for any of the purposes mentioned in the law is sufficient; in robbery in band, it is necessary to prove that the band actually committed robbery, as a mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable.

It shall be presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has performed them knowingly, unless contrary is proven. THEFT committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. Article 308. Who are liable for theft Persons liable: 1. Those who with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, take personal property of another without the latter’s consent; Those who having found lost property, fails to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner; Those who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by them; Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and, without the consent of its owner, hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products.

2. 3.

4.

Elements: 1. 2. 3. 4. There is taking of personal property; The property taken belongs to another; The taking was done with intent to gain; The taking was done without the consent of the owner; C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 128

5.

The taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons of force upon things.

“taking” ≠ taking away or carrying away; thus, theft is consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the thing taken by them. It is not an indispensable element of theft that the thief carry, more or less far away, the thing taken by him from its owner.

 It is not necessary that there was real or actual gain on the part of the offender. It is enough that on taking them, he was then actuated by the desire or intent to gain.

As of 2007, the Court held that asportation is complete from the moment the offender had full possession of the thing, even if he did not have an opportunity to dispose of the same..

For robbery to exist, it is necessary that there should be a taking against the will of the owner; for theft, it suffices that consent on the part of the owner is lacking.  It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking.

When goods were lost at the same time, in the same place, and on the same occasion, the person in possession of part of the missing property is presumed to be the thief of the entire property.

 

animus lucandi = intent to gain

The taking in theft must have the character of permanency. Thus, the offender must have the intention of making himself the owner of the thing taken.

The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after the transfer of physical possession (not juridical possession) of the thing to the offender. The actual transfer of possession may not always and by itself constitute the unlawful taking, but an act done soon thereafter by the offender which may result in unlawful taking or asportation. In such case, the article is deemed to have been taken also, although in the beginning, it was in fact given to, and received by, the offender. Illustration: Tina gave Rey her rolex watch for the purpose of having it examined since Rey has a pawnshop. Rey subsequently appropriated it rolex watch with intent to gain and without consent of Tina. – This is THEFT.

The presumption regarding possession of stolen property does not exclusively refer to actual physical possession thereof but may include prior unexplained possession. In any case, for the presumption to work, the property must be recently stolen. Thus, if it was stolen a long time ago, the presumption will not lie.  Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person.  Finder of hidden treasure who misappropriated the share pertaining to the owner of the property is guilty of theft as regards that share.
People vs. Gulinao Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. Gulinao went back to get Dr Chua’s diamond ring. He was convicted of illegal possession and robbery. SC ruled that he is guilty of THEFT, not robbery. The taking of the ring was just an afterthought. Violence used in killing Dr Chua had no bearing on the taking of the ring. Santos vs. People Penalosa gave car to Santos to be repaired. Owner wanted to claim it back but Santos could not be found. Convicted of estafa in RTC then CA convicted him of qualified theft. SC rule that he is guilty of 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. 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.

But if the accused received the thing from another person in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment, and later misappropriated or converted the thing to the prejudice of another, the crime is ESTAFA, because under those transactions, the juridical possession of the thing is transferred to the offender. (note: thus, the distinction between juridical and mere physical possession is important.)

 

Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another. There is theft even if accused did not take them for his own use.

Lucas v. CA, 389 SCRA 749 (2002) FACTS: Lucas was convicted by the RTC together with Wilfredo Navarro for stealing one stereo component, a 14-inch colored TV, an electric fan, twenty-three (23)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 129

pieces of cassette tapes, one (1) box of car toys, four (4) pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls, cash of P20,000.00 and jewelry worth P10,000.00, valued at P100,000.00 all belonging to Luisito Tuazon. The said robbery took place when Luisito was at work. After the robbery, Lucas, Navarro and one Lovena escaped on board a tricycle. HELD: To sustain a conviction for theft, the following elements must be present: (1) personal property of another person must be taken without the latter's consent; (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; and, (3) there must be an intention to gain from the taking of another person's personal property. Appellant are guilty of theft. Gan v. 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. This is clutching at straws. To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not an element of the corpus delicti in theft. Corpus delicti means the “body or substance of the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed.” In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. In the case before us, these two elements were established. The amounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner took them without authority to do so Valenzuela v. People (2007) The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, 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. The Court thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft.

PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF WATER, ELECTRICAL OR TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS, THE USE OF TAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL METERS, AND OTHER ACTS Who are punishable? -- any person who: installs any water, electrical or telephone connection without previous authority from the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, the Manila Electric Company or the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, as the case may be; tampers and/or uses tampered water or electrical meters or jumpers or other devices whereby water or electricity is stolen; steals or pilfers water and/or electric meters or water, electric and/or telephone wires; knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water and/or electrical meters as well as stolen or pilfered water, electrical and/or telephone wires. R.A. 7832 Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/ Materials Pilferage Act of 1994 Acts punishable Illegal Use of Electricity (§2) (a) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection with overhead lines, service drops, or other electric service wires, without previous authority or consent of the private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned; (b) Tap, 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; (c) Tamper, install or use a tampered electrical meter, jumper, current reversing transformer, shorting or shunting wire, 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; (d) Damage or destroy an electric meter, equipment, 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 (e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of electric service obtained through any of the acts mentioned in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) above. Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and Materials (§3) Cut, saw, slice, separate, split, severe, smelt, or

Article 309. 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, or (3) the circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime. If there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it, the court should impose the minimum penalty corresponding to theft. Theft of Electricity, Illegal Water, Electric or Telephone Connections
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 401 March 1, 1974

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 130

remove any electric power transmission line/material or meter from a tower, pole, or any other installation or place of installation or any other place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried, situated or located, without the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; Take, carry away or remove or transfer, with or without the use of a motor vehicle or other means of conveyance, any electric power transmission line/material or meter from a tower, pole, any other installation or place of installation, or any place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried, situated or located without the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; Store, possess or otherwise keep in his premises, custody or control, any electric power transmission line/material or meter without the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; and Load, carry, ship or move from one place to another, whether by land, air or sea, any electrical power transmission line/material, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain, without first securing a clearance/permit for the said purpose from its owner or the National Power Corporation (NPC) or its regional office concerned, as the case may be. 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 shall be the basis for: the immediate disconnection by the electric utility to such person after due notice, the holding of a preliminary investigation by the prosecutor and the subsequent filing in court of the pertinent information, 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, or at the back or any other part of said meter; The presence inside the electric meter of salt, 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; The existence of any wiring connection which affects the normal operation or registration of the electric meter; The presence of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on the meter, or mutilated, altered or tampered meter recording chart or graph, or computerized

chart, graph, or log; 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, of a current reversing transformer, jumper, shorting and/or shunting wire, and/or loop connection or any other similar device; The mutilation, alteration, reconnection, disconnection, bypassing or tampering of instruments, transformers, and accessories; The destruction of, or attempt to destroy, any integral accessory of the metering device box which encases an electric meter, or its metering accessories; 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. The discovery of any of the foregoing circumstances, in order to constitute prima facie evidence, must be personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). For theft of electric power transmission lines and materials The possession or custody of electric power transmission line/material by any person, natural or juridical, not engaged in the transformation, transmission or distribution of electric power, 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, and therefore such line/material may be confiscated from the person in possession, control or custody thereof.

RA 8041 An Act to Address the National Water Crisis and For Other Purposes Sec. 8. Anti-Pilferage. - It is hereby declared unlawful for any person to: Destroy, damage or interfere with any canal, raceway, ditch, lock, pier, inlet, crib, bulkhead, dam, gate, service, reservoir, aqueduct, water mains, water distribution pipes, conduit, pipes, wire benchmark, monument, or other works, appliance, machinery buildings, or property of any water utility entity, whether public or private; 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, or the supply, conveyance, measurement, or regulation thereof, including the prevention of, or interference with any authorized person engaged in the discharge of duties connected therewith; Prevent, obstruct, and interfere with the survey, works, and construction of access road and water mains and distribution network and any

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 131

related works of the utility entity. Tap, make, or cause to be made any connection with water lines without prior authority or consent from the water utility concerned; Tamper, install or use tampered water meters, sticks, magnets, reversing water meters, shortening of vane wheels and other devices to steal water or interfere with accurate registry or metering of water usage, or otherwise result in its diversion in a manner whereby water is stolen or wasted; Use or receive the direct benefit of water service with knowledge that diversion, tampering, or illegal connection existed at the time of that use, or that the use or receipt was otherwise without the authorization of the water utility; Steal or pilfer water meters, main lines, pipes and related or ancillary facilities; Steal water for profit or resale; Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters; and Knowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the above. 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, officer or employee of the water utility concerned, the said employee, 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, the offender shall be punished imprisonment from six (6) to twelve (12) years.

2. 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 engaged in fishing in Philippine waters. 3. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or Poisonous Substance, and/or Electricity (a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of electricity, explosives, noxious or poisonous substance such as sodium cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas, which will kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious fish or fishery species  The Department, subject to safeguards and conditions deemed necessary and endorsement from the concerned LGUs, may allow, for research, educational or scientific purposes only, the use of electricity, poisonous or noxious substances to catch, 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. (b) dealing in fish illegally caught  The discovery of explosives or equipment for electro-fishing in any fishing vessel or in the possession of any fishworker shall constitute prima facie evidence, that the same was used for fishing in violation of this Code.  The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed with the use of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances or by electricity shall constitute prima facie evidence that the fisherfolk, operator, boat official or fishworker is fishing with the use thereof. (c) Mere possession of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing (d) Actual use of explosives, 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation (a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and semiprecious corals, whether raw or in processed form, except for scientific or research purposes.  The confiscated corals shall either be returned to the sea or donated to schools and museums for

Illegal Fishing
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8550 An Act Providing For The Development, Management And Conservation Of The Fisheries And Aquatic Resources, Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto, And For Other Purposes What acts are punishable? 1. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other Unauthorized Fisheries Activities (a) exploiting, 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, fishing for daily food sustenance or for leisure which is not for commercial, occupation or livelihood purposes may be allowed. (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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 132

educational or scientific through other means.

purposes

or

disposed

Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps, Fish Pens and Fish Cages without a license/permit 19. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Employing Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew 20. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of anadromous, catadromous and other migratory species, in areas including, but not limited to river mouths and estuaries within a distance determined by the concerned FARMCs 21. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer

7. Ban on Muro-Ami, Other Methods and Gear Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat (a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other fishery marine life habitat as may be determined by the Department (b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation, and such similar gear and methods that require diving, other physical or mechanical acts to pound the coral reefs and other habitat to entrap, gather or catch fish and other fishery species (c) gathering, selling or exporting white sand, silica, pebbles and other substances which make up any marine habitat 8. 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. Conversion of Mangroves (a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for any other purposes 10. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season 11. Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge and Sanctuaries 12. Fishing or Taking Endangered Species of Rare, Threatened or

Hizon vs. CA Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that tested positive for sodium cyanide. The accused were convicted for illegal fishing using poisonous substances under PD 703, which creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when any fish taken is positive for poisonous substances. Petitioners question the legality of the presumption. SC held that the presumption is only prima facie hence, rebuttable by competent evidence.

Article 310. Qualified theft Theft is qualified if: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Committed by a domestic servant; Committed with grave abuse of confidence; The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or large cattle; The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil disturbance.

13. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners  However, 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. 14. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry 15. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species 16. Violation of Catch Ceilings 17. Aquatic Pollution 18. Other violations Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all Fishponds, 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, River, Lake or Bay

Penalties for qualified theft are now next HIGHER BY 2 DEGREES. Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. it is not necessary to prove grave abuse of confidence. The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must be allegation in the information and proof of a relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance, between the accused and the offended party, that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which the accused abused. The grave abuse of confidence need not be premeditated. Its presence in the commission of theft is sufficient. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 133

The confidence gravely abused must be that existing between offended party and the offender.
Empelis vs. IAC 4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from a plantation. They dropped the coconuts after being seen by the owner. They were convicted of qualified theft. 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. People vs. Cañales Facts: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. They stole a truck and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from the company. They were tasked to deliver the prawns to the pier using the truck. The truck, however, was subsequently recovered. 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. Neither will it diminish the criminal responsibility of appellant. In People v. Carpio: The gist of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking and asportation of property, animo lucrandi, and with intent to deprive the true owner of the possession thereof. The act of asportation in this case was undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thief to profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived the true owner of the possession of the entire automobile, the offense of larceny comprised the whole car. 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. The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his right of possession were complete as to the entire car; 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. People v. Reynaldo Bago (2000) FACTS: Reynaldo Bago was an employee of Azkcon Metal Industries from 1988-1992. From 1991 to 1992, 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. Azkcon has a business arrangement with Power Construction Supply Company (Power Construction) whereby Azkcon buys cold rolled sheets from the latter. These cold rolled sheets are also cut by Power Construction for a fee and Azkcon converts them into drums or containers. 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. Bago was discovered to have participated in the theft of materials worth P192,000.00. The trial court found him guilty of qualified theft.

HELD: The trial court correctly found that appellant was a trusted employee of Azkcon. He was incharge of overseeing the cutting of the materials at Power Construction and ensuring their delivery to Azkcon. Due to this trust, he succeeded in withdrawing from the said supplier the cold rolled sheets. The materials he took from the supplier on March 23, 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. Inexplicably, appellant presented the third receipt (Invoice No. 51111) dated March 23, 1992 for stamping only on April 21, 1992. The reasonable conclusion is that he asported the materials. Clearly, all the elements of theft were established, to wit: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things. As the theft was committed with grave abuse of confidence, appellant is guilty of qualified theft.

People v. Luisito Bustinera (2004) FACTS: ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as a taxi driver. It was agreed that appellant would drive the taxi from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., after which he would return it to ESC Transport's garage and remit the boundary fee in the amount of P780.00 per day. On December 25, 1996, appellant admittedly reported for work and drove the taxi, but he did not return it on the same day as he was supposed to. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. On January 9, 1997, Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transport and revealed that the taxi had been abandoned. ESC was able to recovered. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft. HELD: Bustinera was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. However, Article 310 has been modified, with respect to certain vehicles, by Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwise known as "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING." When statutes are in pari materia or when they relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things, or cover the same specific or particular subject matter, or have the same purpose or object, 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; (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 is qualified when any of the following circumstances 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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 134

occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. On the other hand, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended defines "carnapping" as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (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; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same. From the foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and not the provisions of qualified theft which would apply. Jonathan D. Cariaga v. Court of Appeals (2001) FACTS: "Luis Miguel Aboitiz was the Systems Analyst of the Davao Light & Power Company, Inc. (DLPC), whose duty was to devise means to prevent losses due to waste, pilferage or theft of company property. He received reports that some private electricians were engaged in the clandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. He initiated a covert operation to discover the method and to capture one of the culprits. Using an undercover agent, the group was brought down and Jonathan Cariaga was charged and found guilty of qualified by grave abuse of confidence HELD: The defense, verily, anchors itself on the bare denial of petitioner of the specific acts imputed by the prosecution against him. Certainly, 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. We note that the information alleged that petitioner was an employee of DLPC; that he had access to the electrical supplies of said company; and that with grave abuse of confidence, he stole electrical materials belonging to DLPC. 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, including lightning arresters, cut-out and wires, which were generally used for the installation of transformers and power lines; 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, 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. People v Ruben Sison (2000) FACTS: Ruben Sison first joined the Auditing Department of the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) in December 1977. He rose from the ranks and was promoted to the position of Assistant Manager and concurrently held the position of Branch Operation Officer. As such, he was assigned to different branches until his last detail at the PCIB Luneta Branch in February 1991. He was the primary control officer directly responsible for the day to day operations of the branch, including custody of the

cash vault. Sison facilitated the crediting of two (2) fictitious remittances in the amounts of P3,250,000.00 and P4,755,000.00 in favor of Solid Realty Development Corporation, an equally fictitious account, and then later the withdrawal of P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch. He was charged and found guilty of qualified theft. HELD: The appeal has no merit. The trial court correctly convicted appellant of Qualified Theft on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, 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, with grave abuse of confidence, conceived and accomplished the theft of P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch. The crime perpetuated by appellant against his employer, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), is qualified theft. 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, except the Branch Manager, to confidential and highly delicate computerized security systems designed to safeguard, among others, the integrity of telegraphic fund transfers and account names of bank clients. The management of the PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its Luneta Branch Operation Officer, and it was this trust and confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of PCIB in the amount of P6,000,000.00. Asuncion Roque v People (2004) FACTS: Asuncion Roque was a teller of the Basa Air Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA). She was found to have taken money from several of the depositors. Unable to return the money, she was charged with qualified theft and covicted. Roque argued that since the money was lawfully received by her and later misappropriated she was guilty only of estafa. HELD: In the present case, what is involved is the possession of money in the capacity of a bank teller. In People v. Locson this Court considered deposits received by a teller in behalf of a bank as being only in the material possession of the teller. 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. Such is only material possession. Juridical possession remains with the bank. In line with the reasoning of the Court in several cases, beginning with People v. De Vera, if the teller appropriates the money for personal gain then the felony committed is theft and not estafa. Further, since the teller occupies a position of confidence, and the bank places money in the teller's possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, the felony of qualified theft would be committed. Astudillo v. 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. The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that there be a relation of independence, guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and Western. Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 135

payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping, preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely assisted customers in making a purchase and in demonstrating the merchandise to prospective buyers. While they had access to the merchandise, they had no access to the cashier’s booth or to the cash payments subject of the offense.

leased area of another, without prejudice to whatever civil action the latter may bring against the offender.

Mustang Lumber Inc vs. CA

Illegal Logging
P.D. 330 PenalizingTimber Smuggling or Illegal Cutting of Logs SECTION 1. Any person, whether natural or juridical, who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles timber, or other forest products, either from any of the public forest, forest reserves and other kinds of public forests, whether under license or lease, or from any privately owned forest lands in violation of existing laws, rules and regulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualified theft as defined and penalized under Articles 308, 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code; Provided, That if the offender is a corporation, firm, partnership or association, the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers, as the case may be, of the corporation, firm, partnership or association, and if such guilty officer or officers are aliens, in addition to the penalty herein prescribed, he or they shall be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commissioned of Immigration and Deportation.

Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber is actually processed forest raw materials or just processed timber. Therefore, lumber is necessarily included in timber as the law makes no distinction.

Fencing
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612 ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 What is fencing? “Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles is required All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article, item, object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity is located. Penalties imposed Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated:

P.D. 705 The Forestry Reform Code (as amended) SECTION 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. — Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC; Provided, That in the case of partnership, association or corporation, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering or collecting shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or forest products to cut, gathered, collected or removed, and the machinery, equipment, implements and tools used therein, and the forfeiture of his improvements in the area. The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement, lease, license or permit and perpetual disqualification from acquiring any such privilege shall be imposed upon any licensee, lessee, or permittee who cuts timber from the licensed or

a.

The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 136

b. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos. c. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos. d. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos. e. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period, if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.

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, Art 312 DOES NOT apply. If at all, the crime is: grave coercion Usurpation of Real Right, example: Accused, who had lost a case in a cadastral proceeding, took possession of the land adjudicated in favor of the offended party and harvested the palay, by means of threats and intimidation. If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of strategy or stealth) , only CIVIL LIABILITY exists Violence or intimidation must be DURING the occupation or usurpation.

f.

The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

Article 311. 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. Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property Acts punishable: 1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons; 2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. Elements: 1. That the offender a. takes possession of any real property or b. 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.

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, and when the administrator of such land told him to leave, but accused threatened administrator he would "kill anyone who would drive me away" or chased administrator away with bolo. 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. 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. 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, it only provides for a fine.  IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physical injuries inflicted as a result of the acts of violence. Distinguished from theft or robbery:
Usurpation Theft/robbery

2. 3.

4.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 137

There is intent to gain Occupation or usurpation There is taking or asportation Real property or real Personal property taken right Conchita Quinao v People (2000) FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao, together with their other close relatives appeared on the property of Francisco and Bienvenido Del Monte. While there, with the use of force, violence and intimidation, usurped and took possession of the landholding, claiming that the same is their inheritance from their ascendants further they gathered coconuts and made them into copra. Thus, 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. He was thus forced to seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine National Police. In the trial court, defendants asserted a calim over the land despite the fact that a prior judicial decision declared the Del Montes as the rightful owners. Resultantly, defendants were found guilty of usurpation of real property. HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the decision rendered by the trial court convicting her of the crime of usurpation of real property was not based on "speculations, surmises and conjectures" but clearly on the evidence on record and in accordance with the applicable law. The requisites of usurpation are that the accused took possession of another's real property or usurped real rights in another's property; that the possession or usurpation was committed with violence or intimidation and that the accused had animo lucrandi. In order to sustain a conviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales," the proof must show that the real property occupied or usurped belongs, not to the occupant or usurper, but to some third person, 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. More explicitly, in Castrodes vs. Cubelo, 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; (2) violence or intimidation should be employed in possessing the real property or in usurping the real right, and (3) the accused should be animated by the intent to gain.

"Alter": General and indefinite meaning. Includes: a. destruction of stone monument b. taking it to another place or c. removing a fence

Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency Elements:

1. 2. 3. 4.

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. Judgment was rendered against him and execution issued. He owned several parcels of real property which he transferred to another to place them beyond the reach of his creditors. The considerations in the deed of sale were all fictitious. Actual prejudice, required not intention alone, is

Concealment of property not sufficient if the debtor-accused has some other property with which to satisfy his obligation. Being a merchant is not an element of this offense. It only makes the penalty higher Real property may be involved "Absond"- does not require that the debtor should depart and physically conceal his property. Hence, real property may be the subject of fraudulent insolvency. Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of the offender Example: Wife of accused helped prepare documents to abscond with his property. Such participation does NOT prove her complicity in the fraud, since it was the creditors of her husband (not HER creditors) who were defrauded. Distinguished from Insolvency Law: Insolvency Law: requires that the criminal act be committed AFTER the institution of insolvency proceedings C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 138

Article 313. landmarks Elements: 1.

Altering

boundaries

or

2.

That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same The offender alters said boundary marks

Intent to gain NOT necessary. The mere alteration of the boundary marks or monuments intended to designate the boundaries of towns, provinces, or estate is punishable.

Fraudulent insolvency: no need for defendant to be adjudged bankrupt or insolvent.

employment, without authorized to do so.

having

been

licensed

or

Three general ways of committing Estafa: 1. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence 2. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts 3. through fraudulent means Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)
P.D. 2018 Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic Sabotage Acts punishable 1. Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officers may initiate complaints under this Article. 2. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an 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, enterprise or scheme. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. 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 jobseekers. The Minister shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas

Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL: 1. That the accused defrauded another by

a. b. 2.

abuse of confidence or by means of deceit of

That damage or prejudice capable pecuniary estimation is caused to a. the offended party or b. third person

* As seen above, DECEIT is NOT an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence * As to second general element of DAMAGE, it should be capable of pecuniary estimation, since amount of the damage is the basis of the penalty. * intent of defrauding another is always an element * no estafa through negligence -Estafa through Abuse of Confidence-

I.

Article 315, Paragraph 1 (a): Estafa with unfaithfulness by altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value

Elements: 1. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value 2. That he alters its substance, quantity, or quality 3. 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, 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,

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 139

delivery of a thing unacceptable to the complainant is NOT estafa.

Even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration. Estafa may arise even if the thing to be delivered is not subject of lawful commerce (ex. opium) Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b): misappropriating or converting money, goods, or other personal property OR denying having received such money, goods, or other personal property

otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any of the following: 1. In the case of goods or documents, a) to sell the goods or procure their sale; or to manufacture or process the goods with the purpose of ultimate sale: Provided, That, in the case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before its ultimate sale, 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; or c) to load, unload, ship or tranship or otherwise deal with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to their sale; or 2. In the case of instruments, a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange; or b) to deliver them to a principal; or c) to effect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to a depository or register; or d) to effect their presentation, collection or renewal NOTE: The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling goods, documents or instruments for profit who, at the outset of the transaction, has, as against the buyer, general property rights in such goods, documents or instruments, or who sells the same to the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price, does not constitute a trust receipt transaction.

b)

II.

Elements: 1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in a. trust (Trust Receipts Law) b. on commission c. for administration d. under any obligation involving duty to return the very same thing 2. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of such property by the offender OR (b) denial of such receipt 3. There is prejudice to another 4. Demand was made by the offended to the offender
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 115 January 29, 1973 PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUST RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS "Trust Receipt" -- 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. No further formality of execution or authentication shall be necessary to the validity of a trust receipt. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction? A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by and between a person referred to as the entruster, and another person referred to as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, 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, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, 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, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not

Allied Banking v. Ordonez PBM got equipment from bank and executed trust receipt agreement (TRA) -- acknowledged bank's ownership of equipment and PBM's obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale of said equipments. Sec. Of Justice said that since PBM would not be selling the equipment but would just be using them, there was no violation of PD 115. HELD: PD 115 applies to ALL trust receipt transactions. Therefore, the fact that the goods were just to be used by PBM and not to be sold is of no importance. Any violation of the TRA is punished (Geof's notes in Comm: wrong SC decision!  ) Lee vs. Rodil Lee executed TRA for the purchase of materials but misappropriated the value of the goods for personal use. Charged with estafa under PD 115. 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.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 140

HELD: Sec 13 of PD 115 explicitly states that the failure to give back the proceeds or return the goods of estafa is punishable. No violation of the Constitution as the loan is separate from the trust receipt. What is punished is the violation of the trust receipt and not the non-payment of the loan.

• •


The 4th element is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation of goods by the defendant Check is included in the word "money"

"conversion" – thing was devoted for a purpose different from that agreed upon, as if the thing were the accused's own (ex. depositary pledged the thing deposited) "misappropriation" - using an amount for personal purposes Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts collected: IF AUTHORIZED to retain commission, no estafa. "to the prejudice of another"necessarily the owner of the property Partnerships: not

• •

Money/goods must be received by the offender. Otherwise, crime is THEFT (taking without consent of owner)  hence, 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. • a. "involving the duty to return the same" includes quasi-contracts and contract of bailment: deposit, lease, commodatum, pledge

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. Although it is not required by law, it is necessary because failure to account upon demand, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. ‘Even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond’ – a security executed by the agent to answer for damages etc. does not relieve him from criminal liability, for this undertaking refers only to his civil liability. The gravity of the crime of Estafa is determined on the basis of the amount not returned before the institution of criminal action.
Theft Offender acquires only material possession of the property Offender takes the thing from the offended party

b.

 

but NOT contract of loan! Loan of money is mutuum. Ownership was transferred. Contract of sale (ownership is transferred at the time of delivery): a) if thing sold not delivered and advance payment not returned, only CIVIL LIABILITY b) if buyer did not pay the price to owner, only CIVIL LIABILITY also Key: if no obligation to return the very same thing, only Civil liability


No estafa when the money or other personal property received is NOT to be used for a particular purpose. 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, 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, because up to that time, the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor relation.

Estafa with abuse of confidence Offender acquires the juridical possession of the property Offender receives the thing from the offended party

• Additional test: In theft, upon delivery of the thing to the offender, 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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 141

Both are continuing offenses The funds or property Involves public funds or are always private property The offender is a private Offender is usually a individual or a public public officer who is officer who is not accountable for public accountable for public funds or property funds or property The crime is committed The crime is committed by misappropriating, by appropriating, taking converting or denying or misappropriating or having received money, consenting, or through goods or other personal abandonment or property negligence, permitting any other person to take the public funds or property

The paper with the signature in blank MUST BE DELIVERED by the offended party to the offender (otherwise, crime is falsification of instrument)

-Estafa by DeceitElements of Estafa by means of deceit: 1. There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; 2. Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; 3. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; 4. As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. IV. Article 315, par 2, (a)

• Private individual allegedly in conspiracy with public officer in a prosecution of the latter for malversation, may still be held liable for Estafa even if the public officer was acquitted. • Misappropriation of firearms received by a policeman is Estafa, if it is not involved in the commission of a crime. It is malversation, if it is involved in the commission of a crime.
Saddul v. CA Saddul was authorized to sell some car parts. 20% of the proceeds from sale would go to AMPI. HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Saddul did not receive the parts from AMPI in trust (received it from another party which was the owner of the parts). Saddul did not convert it for personal use. Failure to deliver the proceeds did not cause damage to AMPI, as it was not the owner of the parts. Also, AMPI did not demand return of the parts.

Three ways of committing estafa under this provision: 1. using fictitious name 2. falsely pretending to possess a. power b. influence c. qualifications d. property e. credit f. agency g. business or imaginary transactions 3. other similar deceits


III. Article 315, par 1, (c): estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank

fictitious name: when a person found a pawnshop ticket in the name of another and, using the name of that person, redeemed the jewelry Pretending to possess power: "pretend to be a magician who can find gold, but pay me to find the gold under your house" trick. Pretending to possess influence: I have connections in Malacañang so pay me if you wanna get your documents approved" trick Estafa by means of deceit vs. theft: juridical/ legal possession is still transferred

Elements: 1. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank 2. That the offended party should have delivered it to the offender 3. That above the signature, a document is written by offender without authority to do so 4. That the document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to the offended party or any third person

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 142

to offender in case of estafa. But it is transferred through deceit.

V.

Article 315, Paragraph 2 (b): by altering quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business Example: A gives B, a jeweler, a diamond to be made into a ring. B changed the stone with one of lower quality. Manipulation of Scale: violation of Revised Administrative Code Article 315, Paragraph 2 pretending to have bribed Government employee (c): any

 When check is issued in substitution of a promissory note, it is in payment of a pre existing obligation  When the check is issued by a guarantor, there is no Estafa because it is not in payment of an obligation. • 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, if drawer is able to fund within 3 days from notice of dishonoring, not liable for estafa

VI.

VIII.

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, Paragraph 2 (d): postdating a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds were not sufficient to cover the amount

Article 315, Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa by obtaining food or accommodation at a hotel, etc

VII.

Three ways of committing estafa under the this provision: 1. By obtaining food, refreshment, or accommodation at a hotel, etc. without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof. 2. By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by the use of false pretenses 3. By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from any of said establishments after obtaining credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation therein, without paying therefor. IX. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa by inducing another to sign any document

Elements: 1. That the offender postdated a check, or issued a check in payment of an obligation 2. That such postdating or issuing was done when: a. offender had no funds or b. funds deposited were not sufficient • check must be genuine and not falsified, otherwise, it is estafa under paragraph 2(a), 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. It MUST be for an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance or delivery of the check.

Elements: 1. That the offender induced the offended party to sign a document. 2. That deceit be employed to make him sign the document 3. That the offended party personally signed the document 4. 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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 143

state in the document) crime is falsification • accused should make statements tending to mislead the complainant as to the character of the document executed by him. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (b): Estafa by resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in gambling Article 315, Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa by removing, concealing, or destroying documents

officially entrusted with the documents There is intent to defraud

document Intent to defraud not an element in this crime

Final Notes on Estafa:

X.

The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa with abuse of confidence under an information alleging estafa by means of deceit. If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence, there is no estafa, even if there is damage. There is only civil liability. There CAN be a complex crime of theft and estafa, when the former is a necessary means to commit the latter. C, with intent to gain, took the pawnshop tickets without the consent of A (Theft). By redeeming the jewels by means of the tickets, C also committed estafa, using a fictitious name. The basis of the penalty for estafa is the amount or value of the property misappropriated BEFORE the institution of the criminal action. Hence, partial payment made subsequent to the commission of estafa does not reduce the amount misappropriated which is the basis of the penalty. A private person who procures a loan by means of deceit through a falsified public document of mortgage, but who effects full settlement of the loan within the period agreed upon, does not commit the crime of Estafa, there being no disturbance of proprietary rights and no person defrauded thereby. The crime committed is only falsification of public document. "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. CA


XI.

Elements: 1. That there be court record, office files, documents or any other papers 2. That the offender removed, concealed or destroyed any of them 3. That the offender had intent to defraud another • If no intent to defraud, the act of destroying court record will be malicious mischief Examples: Concealing document: A person who concealed a document evidencing a deposit of P2,600 which came into his possession when he offered to collect the deposit is guilty of estafa. 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, the offended party was dispossessed of the evidence of a debt. In a very old case, it was ruled that the act of destroying a PN, given to cover losses in gambling, by the maker thereof, is Estafa. However, there was a dissenting opinion which stated that such PN is void and of no value, hence it cannot be the subject of estafa.

1.

2.

• 1. 2. 3.

Accused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of a dwarf. 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. HELD: GUILTY of estafa by false pretense, having pretended to have special powers and fooled the extremely stupid victim. Abujuela vs. People Balo offered financial assistance to Abujuela by virtue of some insurance proceeds that Balo would receive from his

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 officer who is officially public officer who is not entrusted with the

Estafa under par. 3 (c)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 144

father. Balo borrowed Abujuela's passbook and made it appear that certain deposits were made. When the account was closed, discrepancies were found between the ledger and the account. Abujuela charged as accomplice to estafa through falsification of commercial documents HELD: NOT guilty. Abujuela NOT aware of the fraudulent plans of Balo. Knowledge of criminal intent is essential to be an accomplice in estafa. Koh Tieng Heng vs. People Heng deposited two checks worth P18,060 each issued by a certain Dyaico. Then he withdrew several times from the account. Diayco questioned the withdrawals. Heng was finally caught trying to withdraw again. HELD: Possession and utterance of a falsified check gives rise to the presumption that the possessor is the forger of the check. Attempted estafa correct as he was caught trying to withdraw. People vs. 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. The drawee banks subsequently dishonored deposited checks. HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Ong had no knowledge of lack of funds, checks not issued in payment of an obligation as required by the RPC. Lastly, 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. Llamado vs. CA Gaw delivered to accused the amount of P180,000.00, with the assurance of Aida Tan, the secretary of the accused in the corporation, that it will be repaid plus interests and a share in the profits of the corporation, if any. Upon delivery of the money, accused Ricardo Llamado and Jacinto Pascual signed a postdated Philippine Trust Company Check in the presence of Gaw. Gaw deposited the check in his current account, which the drawee bank dishonored later informed Gaw that said check because payment was stopped, and that the check was drawn against insufficient funds. Gaw was also notified by the bank that his current account was debited because of the dishonor of the said check. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused of violation of Batas Pambansa No. 22. HELD: Llamado denies knowledge of the issuance of the check without sufficient funds and involvement in the transaction with Gaw. However, knowledge involves a state of mind difficult to establish. Thus, the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption, i.e., 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. Llamado failed to rebut the presumption by paying the amount of the check within five (5) banking days from notice of the dishonor. His claim that he signed the check in blank which allegedly is common business practice, is hardly a defense. If as he

claims, he signed the check in blank, he made himself prone to being charged with violation of BP 22. It became incumbent upon him to prove his defenses. As Treasurer of the corporation who signed the check in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, lack of involvement in the negotiation for the transaction is not a defense. The check was issued for an actual valuable consideration, which Gaw handed to Aida Tan, a secretary in petitioner's office. In fact, Llamado admits that Gaw made an investment in said amount with Pan-Asia Finance Corporation. Llamado contends that the money which Gaw gave the corporation was intended for investment which they agreed will be returned to Gaw with interests, only if the project became successful. But then, if this were true, the check need not have been issued because a receipt and their written agreement would have sufficed. True, it is common practice in commercial transactions to require debtors to issue checks on which creditors must rely as guarantee of payment, or as evidence of indebtedness, if not a mode of payment. But to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. So, 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 mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. Lu Hayco vs. CA Lu Hayco had a special power of attorney from Lu Chiong Sun to manage the Units Optical Supply Company. The SPOA also authorized Lu Hayco “To deposit and withdraw funds in the name of the company.” Lu Hayco deposited P139,000 paid by customers of the Units Optical, not in the company's banks but in his own personal accounts. After 2 demand letters were ignored, a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public document was filed against Lu Hayco. To make a very long story short, the first case of estafa was dismissed but many more ensued (as many as 75 counts, I think). Eventually, he was convicted. Lu Hayco argues, among others, that there is no estafa since the element of misappropriation or conversion was not proven. HELD: The disturbance in property rights caused by misappropriation, though only temporary, is itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 315(l -b) of the RPC. In U.S. v. Goyenechea (8 Phil. 117), the defendant pledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough & Co. to the American Loan Company. Because of said act, the typewriter was seized by the police, and taken into court. Throughout the trial, McCullough & Co. was placed in a doubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. [The SC] held that: “McCullough & Co. at least suffered disturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter and in the possession thereof. This fact, by itself, and without it being necessary to deal with any other considerations of material fact herein, always constitutes real and actual damage, and is positive enough under rule of law to produce one of the elements constituting the offense, the crime of estafa.”

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 145

In the case at bar, there was a disturbance in the property rights of Lu Chiong Sun. While the funds received by Lu Hayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts, Lu Chiong Sun and Units Optical could not dispose of the said amounts. At least, this could be considered as a temporary prejudice suffered by Lu Chiong Sun, which is sufficient to constitute conversion in the context of Art. 315 (1-b) of the RPC. Salcedo vs. CA Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan Guaranty Company, Inc. at Iligan City, which was engaged in the business of property insurance. Said company had been suspended from operating and eventually closed by the Insurance Commissioner since February 21, 1968. Salcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order but he deliberately concealed the same from complainant Ponce when he issued on March 18, 1968 a P50,000 fire insurance policy unto the complainant, and collected Pl,095.80 as premium. Eventually, the City Court of Iligan City convicted Salcedo of estafa. HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan Guarantee. When he signed and issued the policy and collected the premium thereof, 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. 315 of the RPC which provides that: “2. 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, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.” To secure a conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC, the following requisites must concur: • that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, 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, and that as result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. All these requisites are present in this case. 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, upon which the complainant relied when he paid the premium. People v. Remullo, 383 SCRA 93 (2002) FACTS: Quinsaat, Cadacio, and Mejia went to appellant's house sometime in March 1993, where Remullo told them she was recruiting factory workers for Malaysia. Remullo told them to fill up application forms and to go to the office of Jamila and Co., the recruitment agency where Remullo allegedly worked. Remullo also required each applicant to submit a

passport, pictures, and clearance from the NBI; and then to undergo a medical examination ‘The three were then asked by Remullo to pay a placement fee of P15,000 for each applicant, which they did. No receipts were issued for said payments. At the time of their supposed departure, an immigration officer at the airport told the victims they lacked a requirement imposed by the POEA. Their passports were cancelled and their boarding passes marked "offloaded". Evelyn Landrito, vice president and general manager of Jamila later certified that appellant was not authorized to receive payments on behalf of Jamila. HELD: In this case, appellant clearly defrauded private complainants by deceiving them into believing that she had the power and authority to send them on jobs abroad. By virtue of appellant's false representations, private complainants each parted with their hard-earned money. Each complainant paid P15,000 as recruitment fee to appellant, who then appropriated the money for her own use and benefit, but failed utterly to provide overseas job placements to the complainants. In a classic rigmarole, complainants were provided defective visas, brought to the airport with their passports and tickets, only to be offloaded that day, but with promises to be booked in a plane flight on another day. The recruits wait in vain for weeks, months, even years, only to realize they were gypped, as no jobs await them abroad. No clearer cases of estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant should be held criminally responsible.

Through conversion or misappropriation
Crisanto Lee v. People (2005) FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in the trading of animal feeds. Robert Crisanto Lee was the corporation's sales manager from early 90's to 1994. In the course of Lee's employment therewith, he was able to bring in Ocean Feed Mills as a client. Having "personally found" Ocean Feed Mills, he handled said account. Transactions between the two companies were then coursed through Lee, 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". When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in 1994, Atoz audited some of the accounts handled by him. It was then that Atoz discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaid account in the amount of P318,672.00. Atoz thus notified Ocean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was no longer connected with the corporation, and advised it to verify its accounts. Promptly preparing a certification and summary of payments, Ocean Feed Mills informed Atoz that they have already fully settled their accounts and even made overpayments. Atoz filed several cases of estafa against Lee, and the trial court found him guilty. HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender; or denial on his part of such

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 146

receipt; c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. 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. To "misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit, not only the conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right. Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Demand is not an element of the felony or a condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint for estafa. Indeed, the accused may be convicted of the felony under Article 315, 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. In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion. However, failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. Jorge Salazar v. People (2004) FACTS: Skiva International, Inc. is a New Yorkbased corporation which imports clothes from the Philippines through its buying agent, Olivier (Philippines) Inc. Aurora Manufacturing & Development Corporation (“Aurora”) and Uni-Group Inc. (“Uni-Group”) are domestic corporations which supply finished clothes to Skiva. Mr. Werner Lettmayr is the President of both Aurora and UniGroup while the petitioner, Jorge Salazar, is the VicePresident and Treasurer of Uni-Group and a consultant of Aurora. In December 1985, Skiva informed Olivier that it needs ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January 1986. Olivier, in turn, contacted Aurora and Uni-Group to supply the jeans. Thus, 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. On January 7, 1986, the parties agreed that Skiva will advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount of US$41,300.00 (then equivalent to P850,370.00 at the exchange rate of P20.59 to US$1.00) as Aurora/Uni-Group did not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials to manufacture the jeans. It was also agreed that the amount advanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its order of 700 dozens of ladies jeans. Skiva remitted the funds by way of telegraphic transfer from its bank in New York, the Israel Discount Bank, to the joint account of Mr. and Mrs. Jorge Salazar and Mr. and Mrs. Werner Lettmayr at Citibank N.A. Mr. Jorge Salazar withdrew money from the dollar account converted it into pesos and purchased cloth for the manufacture of 300 dozens of ladies jeans. The balance was allegedly returned by him. However, the balance was later found missing. Resultantly Aurora/UniGroup failed to produce the 700 dozens of ladies jeans resulting in a suit against them. Salazar was charged and convicted. His conviction was upheld even by the Supreme Court. However in this Motion for Reconsideration, the SC reversed and held he was innocent.

HELD: We find merit in the new motion. The elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender. We reiterate that the contract between Skiva and Aurora was one of sale. After the perfection of the contract of sale, Mr. Werner Lettmayr, representing Aurora/UniGroup, requested Skiva for advance payment in order to procure the raw materials needed for the 700-dozen ladies’ jeans. It was also Mr. Lettmayr who suggested that the advance payment be made to the joint account of himself and his wife, together with petitioner and his wife. As requested, $41,300.00 was transmitted by Skiva as advance payment. Despite the payment, there was delay in the performance of contract on the part of Aurora/Uni-Group. Petitioner and the OSG contend that under these facts, Skiva has no cause to complain that petitioner committed estafa. We agree. In Abeto vs. People, we held that “an advance payment is subject to the disposal of the vendee. If the transaction fails, the obligation to return the advance payment ensues but this obligation is civil and not of criminal nature.” In fine, the remedy of Skiva against Aurora/Uni-Group for breaching its contract is a civil, not a criminal suit. Virgie Serona v Court of Appeals (2002) FACTS: Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces of jewelry to Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis. By oral agreement of the parties, petitioner shall remit payment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold to Quilatan, both within 30 days from receipt of the items. Upon petitioner's failure to pay, Quilatan required her to execute an acknowledgment receipt indicating their agreement and the total amount due. Unknown to Quilatan, Serona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to one Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission basis. Serona was not able to collect payment from Labrador, which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to Quilatan. After demand, Quilatan filed a complaint with the prosecutor and Serona was charged with estafa. The trial court found her guilty. 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. 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, thereby committing conversion and a clear breach of trust." 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. In the case at bar, the appointment of Labrador as petitioner's sub-agent was not expressly prohibited by Quilatan in the acknowledgement receipt. 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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 147

other time. Thus, 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, in fact, legally sanctioned. Cristeta Chua Burce v Court of Appeals (2000) FACTS: After finding a shortage of P150,000.00 in the vault of Metrobank, Calapan Branch, several investigations were carried out, all of them concluded that the person primarily responsible was the bank’s Cash Custodian, Cristeta Chua-Burce. 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. Hence, the element of juridical possession being absent, petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of estafa under Article 315, No. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. When the money, goods, 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, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. In this case, petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller, both being mere bank employees. In People v. Locson, the receiving teller of a bank misappropriated the money received by him for the bank. He was found liable for qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. We explained in Locson that — "The money was in the possession of the defendant as receiving teller of the bank, and the possession of the defendant was the possession of the bank. When the defendant, with grave abuse of confidence, removed the money and appropriated it to his own use without the consent of the bank, there was the taking or apoderamiento contemplated in the definition of the crime of theft." In the subsequent case of Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 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. He was, however, found liable for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, and not qualified theft. In the Guzman case, 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. Locson, 57 Phil. 325), in support of its theory that appellant only had the material possession of the merchandise he was selling for his principal, or their proceeds, is not in point. In said case, the receiving teller of a bank who misappropriated money received by him for the bank, was held guilty of qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the teller is 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, and an agent who receives the proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. In the former case, payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself; the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds

received, and has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank. An agent, on the other hand, can even assert, as against his own principal, an independent, autonomous, right to retain money or goods received in consequence of the agency; as when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault (Article 1915, [N]ew Civil Code; Article 1730, old)."

Through false pretenses, 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, spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl. The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of private complainants; 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; the receipts for the payment made by private complainants; 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, 1993, 3 and where Karl Reichl pledged to refund to private complainants the total sum of P1,388,924.00 representing the amounts they paid for the processing of their papers. The defense interposed denial and alibi. 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, the prosecution also proved the guilt of accusedappellants for the crime of estafa. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are present. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damages. 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, although they did not have any authority or license. It is by this representation that they induced private complainants to pay a placement fee of P150,000.00. Such act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. Roberto Erquiaga vs Court of Appeals ( 2001)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 148

FACTS: Honesta Bal is a businesswoman who owned a bookstore. Sometime in May 1989, she was contacted by Manuel Dayandante @ Manny Cruz who offered to buy her land in Pili, Camarines Sur. He told Honesta that the company he represented was interested in purchasing her property. Her daughter and she met Dayandante and a certain Lawas (Rodolfo Sevilla) at the Aristocrat Hotel. They said they worked as field purchasing representative and field purchasing head, respectively, of the Taiwanese Marine Products. They persuaded Honesta to purchase cans of a marine preservative which, could be bought for P1,500 each from a certain peddler. In turn, they would buy these cans from her at P2,000 each. The following day, May 20, 1989 Glenn Orosco, appeared at Honesta's store and introduced himself as an agent, a.k.a. "Rey," who sold said marine preservative. Honesta purchased a can which she sold to Dayandante for P1,900. The following day, May 21, Orosco brought five more cans which Honesta bought and eventually sold to Lawas. It was during this transaction that petitioner Roberto Erquiaga, a.k.a. "Mr. Guerrerro," was introduced to Honesta to ascertain whether the cans of marine preservative were genuine or not. On May 24, Orosco delivered 215 cans to Honesta. Encouraged by the huge profits from her previous transactions, she purchased all 215 cans for P322,500. She borrowed the money from a Jose Bichara at 10% interest on the advice of Erquiaga who lent her P5,000.00 as deposit or earnest money and who promised to shoulder the 10% interest of her loan. Soon after the payment, Lawas, Dayandante, Erquiaga, and Orosco vanished. Realizing that she was conned, Honesta reported the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which, upon examination of the contents of the cans, discovered that these were nothing more than starch. On December 4, 1989, an Information for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, was filed against Roberto Erquiaga, Glenn Orosco, Pastor Lawas and Manuel Dayandante. HELD: That petitioners had conspired with each other must be viewed not in isolation from but in relation to an alleged plot, a sting, or "con operation" known as "negosyo" of their group. Further, whether such a well-planned confidence operation resulted in the consummated crime of estafa, however, must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of estafa or swindling under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code 18 are the following: 1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. 2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. 3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means. 4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

Erquiaga misrepresented himself as a "verifier" of the contents of the cans. He encouraged Honesta to borrow money. Petitioner Orosco misrepresented himself as a seller of marine preservative. They used aliases, Erquiaga as "Mr. Guerrero"; and Orosco as "Rey". Honesta fell for these misrepresentations and the lure of profits offered by petitioners made her borrow money upon their inducement, and then petitioners disappeared from the scene after taking the money from her.

Elsa Jose v People [G.R. No. 148371. August 12, 2004.] FACTS: 24 November 1994, Regie Ramos del Rosario went with her aunt Yolanda B. Bautista to the office of Elsa Ramos. They asked Ramos whether she was a travel agent. Ramos told del Rosario that she was a ‘professional travel agent’ and would assist her in going to Japan, as the former had ‘several connection(s) at the Japanese Embassy.’ Ramos stated she could help in the processing of passport, visa and round trip ticket. Del Rosario gave P30,000.00 ‘as initial payment and another P17,000.00 at a later date. Ramos assured them that the visa would be obtained soon and the P17,000.00 was in payment of the round trip ticket. Further, Ramos asked for another P57,000.00 stating that part of the money would be used to expedite the release of the visa. They were assured that she would be able to leave for Japan with her mother. All these payments were accompanied by a written receipt. Thereafter, Del Rosario kept following up her papers with Ramos who insisted on her prior assurances that the visa would soon be released. Del Rosario thereafter filed a case for estafa against Ramos, the RTC found her guilty as did the Court of Appeals. HELD: Deceit refers to a “false representation of a matter of fact (whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, 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.” On record are, on the one hand, 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, as well as a roundtrip ticket to and a visa for Japan. This charade convinced the latter and her family to part with their P104,000. On the other hand is the testimony of petitioner denying she ever made such misrepresentation. 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, who could assist in processing private respondent’s travel papers. Undisputedly, she was not a travel agent. Neither was she licensed to engage in the business of travel agency. I ndeed, private respondent has shown her gullibility and perhaps even foolishness in believing petitioner and in consequently parting with her P104,000; Others more sensible might not have done so in a similar situation. But such naivete cannot absolve petitioner of criminal liability. It has been established

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 149

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, but more so the gullible and the guileless. Eliza Pablo v People (2004] FACTS: The complainant Evangeline Bates was approached by Eliza Pablo and Felomina Jacobe and Victoria Roberto Bates. Eliza introduced Victoria and Felomina to her. The three convinced her to contribute P330,000.00 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, and once the title is validated she will be assigned a 2,500-square meter portion of the land. Because Eliza is her townmate and since Victoria assured her that her son is married to a daughter of Pulmano, she agreed. Evangeline gave more than P330,000.00, or the total amount of P332,000.00, because the three accused represented to her that they needed expenses in following up the papers of the land. Subsequently, Evangeline found out that instead of paying for the back taxes and validation of the property, the three accused divided the money among themselves. Evangeline demanded the return of her money and the three accused executed their respective promissory notes. Failing to pay, Evangeline filed a criminal complaint against them. HELD: Deceit is defined as the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, 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. False pretense is any deceitful practice or device by which another is led to part with the property in the thing taken. The deceit or false pretense employed by petitioners is the fact that they assured complainant that the amount of P330,000.00 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 2,500 square meters of the subject land. The failure of petitioners and accused Roberto in not paying the back taxes and in misappropriating the money to their own personal use, constitute the crime of Estafa. Even if the land exists, 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.

the necessary amount of said check. Cases for Estafa and violation of B.P 22 were filed. The RTC found Flores guilty. HELD: The elements of estafa, as defined under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and amended by Republic Act No. 4885, are: (1) that the offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) that at the time of the issuance of the check, the offender had no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were insufficient to cover the amount of the check; and (3) that the payee has been defrauded. 10 These elements are present in this case. Accused-appellant admitted that she issued PCIB Check No. 558574, dated October 20, 1992, for P662,250.00 to Pacita G. Del Rosario. 11 The check was issued as payment for a ring and the P250.00 transportation fare which accused-appellant received from complainant. The fraudulent intent of accused-appellant had been proven to exist at the time of the issuance of the check. She misrepresented to complainant that she was financially stable and that her business was flourishing. In reality, however, accused-appellant had no funds sufficient to cover the check she issued to complainant. It is thus clear that she obtained the amounts of P662,000.00 and P250.00 through deceit. As already stated, the account was closed on the very date of the postdated check issued to complainant.

People v Alexander Dinglasan (2002) FACTS: Alexander Dinglasan was the owner and operator of Alexander Transport, while private complainant Charles Q. Sia is the owner of Schanika Enterprises engaged in retailing nylon tires. Dinglasan issued three checks as payment for tire purchases. When the checks fell due, Sia deposited them, but the drawee bank, Banco de Oro, dishonored these for insufficiency of funds. He then tried to call Dinglasan several times, but his calls were unanswered. Sia, with the assistance of a lawyer, then sent appellant a demand letter. All he got were promises that appellant would pay the amounts due, 13 finally prompting him to hale appellant to court. Dinglasan vigorously denied any intent to deceive or defraud Sia. 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 trial court convicted Dinglasan. HELD: Dinglasan was charged and convicted of estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code. 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; (2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check; (3) knowledge on the part of the offender of such circumstances; and (4) damage to the complainant. The first element of the offense requires that the dishonored check must have been postdated or issued at the time the obligation was contracted. In other words, the date the obligation was entered into, being the very date the check was issued or postdated, is a material ingredient of the offense. Hence, not only must said date be specifically and particularly alleged in the information, it must be proved as alleged.

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 5.8 ct. diamond from Pacita Del Rosario. The check was dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED", notwithstanding due notice to her of such dishonor of said check, failed and refused to deposit

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 150

In the present case, the prosecution's evidence clearly and categorically shows that there was no transaction between the parties on July 30, 1994, for which Check No. 029014 was issued. In other words, no obligation was contracted on July 30, 1994, for which Check No. 029014 was allegedly postdated by appellant. The situation obtains similarly regarding Check No. 029020. Again, there was no obligation contracted by the parties on July 24, 1994 for which appellant allegedly postdated another check. Evidently, the first element of the offense was neither correctly alleged nor proven by the prosecution. Hence, appellant cannot be charged much less found guilty of estafa with respect to Checks Nos. 029014 and 029020. People v Aloma Reyes (2005) FACTS: Aloma Reyes, together with her daughter, issued Jules Alabastro a check for rediscounting. He was allegedly lured to part with his money due to their seeming honest representations that the check was good and would never bounce. However, when the check was presented to the drawee bank for encashment, 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. 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." First, the NOW check is drawn against the savings, not the current account, of appellant. Second, it is payable only to a specific person or the "payee" and is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH." Appellant quotes the restriction written on the face of a NOW check: "NOW" shall be payable only to a specific person, natural or juridical. It is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when [i]ndorsed by the payee to another person. 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. Appellant posits that this condition strips the subject check the character of negotiability. Hence, it is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law, and not the "check" contemplated in Criminal Law. We disagree. 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. The fact that a NOW check shall be payable only to a specific person, and not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when indorsed by the payee to another person, is inconsequential. The same restriction is produced when a check is crossed: only the payee named in the check may deposit it in his bank account. If a third person accepts a cross check and pays cash for its value despite the warning of the crossing, he cannot be considered in good faith and thus not a holder in due course. The purpose of the crossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed by

the rightful payee only. Yet, despite the restriction on the negotiability of cross checks, we held that they are negotiable instruments. To be sure, negotiability is not the gravamen of the crime of estafa through bouncing checks. It is the fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuing a worthless check that is penalized. Deceit, to constitute estafa, should be the efficient cause of defraudation. It must have been committed either prior or simultaneous with the defraudation complained of. There must be concomitance: the issuance of a check should be the means to obtain money or property from the payee. Hence, 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.

Manuel Nagrampa v People (2002) FACTS: Nagrampa issued 2 checks (Php75,000 each) to Fedcor Trading Corp represented by Federico Santander on August 31, 1989 and September 30, 1989 drawn against the Security Bank . When said checks were presented to the bank for payment, the same were dishonored for the reason that the drawer did not have any funds therein. Despite notice of dishonor thereof, Nagrampa failed and refused to redeem or make good said checks, 2 cases were filed against 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 P150,000. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR. No. 18082. Upon noticing that the 30 September 1993 Decision of the trial court did not resolve the issue of petitioner's liability for estafa, 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. HELD: We l sustain the conviction for the crime of estafa. Settled is the rule that, to constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of fraud. The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the issuance of the check, 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. Stated otherwise, the check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money or property, and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation. People v. Rica Cuyugan (2002) FACTS: Rica G. Cuyugan issued to Norma Abagat several checks in payment of supplies she wanted to buy for the Philippine Armed Forces. When the checks were presented for payment, they were all dishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn against insufficient funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED. Despite repeated demands, appellant failed to make good the checks, which constrained the Abagat spouses to file a complaint for estafa against Cuyugan. Cuygan

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 151

claimed that the Abagat spousesand she were partners in obtaining construction projects with the Philippine Army. She issued postdated checks as proof that the Abagat spouses had invested their money with her. She claimed that she was the industrial partner as she did all the legwork in getting the projects. They then shared in the profits after deducting all the miscellaneous expenses. 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, that is by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. HELD: We find the appeal meritorious. The transaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses, in our view, 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, she has the obligation to make good the payment of the money borrowed by her. But such obligation is civil in character and in the absence of fraud, no criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code arises from the mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of repayment. 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. Judy I. Bigornia delivered hog meat to the spouses Timbal at their stall located at the Farmer's Market. In payment, Maritess Timbal issued in favor of Bigornia a check for P80,716.00. The husband- Pio Timbal was present when the check was issued and handed over by his wife Maritess to Bigornia. When the latter presented the check to the bank for encashment, it was dishonored on the ground that the account was closed. 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. HELD: The petition has merit. The decision of the trial court, as well as that of the appellate court, 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. 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. Timbal’s mere presence at the scene of a crime would not by itself establish conspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an act or series of acts, participated in the commission of fraud to the damage of the complainant.

Moreover, he wanted a bigger antenna. He was assured by accused-appellant Holzer that should new equipment arrive from abroad, the used equipment would be replaced and another antenna would be given. Holzer informed complainant that new equipment had arrived in Manila. His money, however, was not enough to secure the release of the equipment from the Bureau of Customs. For this reason, he asked complainant to lend him P100,000.00. Complainant agreed and issued a check for P100,000.00 to accusedappellant Holzer. In exchange, the latter issued a post dated check. Before the due date, accused-appellant Holzer asked the complainant not to deposit the check on August 1, 1995. Four days later, accused-appellant again asked the latter not to deposit the check because the money from Switzerland to cover the check had not yet arrived. Despite the request, however, complainant deposited the check on August 9, 1995. As to be expected, the check was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. On the same day, complainant filed a complaint for estafa

HELD: In view of the amendment of Art. 315(2)(d) by R.A. No. 4885, the following are no longer elements of estafa: 1. knowledge of the drawer that he has no funds in the bank or that the funds deposited by him are not sufficient. 2. 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. Otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit will arise which must then be overcome by the accused.

People v. Ojeda (2004) FACTS: Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics (telas) from complainant Ruby Chua. For the three years approximately she transacted business with Chua, appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she bought. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua various fabrics and textile materials worth P228,306 for which she issued 22 postdated checks bearing different dates and amounts. The 22 checks were all dishonored. Demands were allegedly made to make good the dishonored checks, to no avail. Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against Ojeda. 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), and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The trial court also convicted appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing checks. However, the court a quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued. HELD: Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 4885, 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; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the

People v. Ernst Holzer (2000) FACTS: Ernst Holzer et al were the owners of MGF ELECTRONICS SATELLITE SUPPLY, a business engaged in selling and installing satellite antenna system. They installed a system in the house of Bernhard Forster. Forster was not satisfied with the satellite antenna installed and the equipment which came with it which he thought were second-hand.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 152

check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. Deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. Thus, the drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. The prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by appellant's evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check. Good faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor's offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. In this case, the debtor not only made arrangements for payment; as complainant herself categorically stated, the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks. 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. The principal consideration is the existence of malicious intent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence and intent which together make up the "criminal mind" behind the "criminal act." Thus, to constitute a crime, the act must, generally and in most cases, be accompanied by a criminal intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. As we held in Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan: XXX The rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana, although this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa: "Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting." American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. 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, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose. 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. We are convinced that appellant was able to prove the absence of criminal intent in her transactions with Chua. Had her intention been tainted with malice and deceit, appellant would not have exerted extraordinary effort to pay the complainant, given her own business and financial reverses.

the account was closed. On demand Dimalanta failed to make good on the checks. The trial court convicted Dimalanta of Estafa. HELD: Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. 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 prosecution failed to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that appellant employed deceit. Its evidence was overcome by the defense's proof that the pieces of jewelry were not purchased by appellant for her own use; rather the same were merely given to her for resale. We find that appellant acted in good faith during the transaction. After the first check was dishonored, she exerted best efforts to make good the value of the check, albeit only to the extent of P25,000.00. Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating a check. This may be manifested by appellant's act of offering to make arrangements with complainant as to the manner of payment. BP 22 An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes Section 1 BP 22 may be violated in TWO ways Elements of the offense paragraph of Section 1: defined in the first

1. 2. 3.

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. is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or

4.

b.

would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment Elements of the offense defined in the second paragraph of Section 1:

People v. Dimalanta (2004) FACTS: Josefina Dimalanta who was then employed at the Caloocan City Engineer's Office, called up complainant Elvira D. Abarca on the telephone to express her desire to purchase jewelry. Complainant went to Dimalanta’s house where the latter purchased twelve pairs of jewelry. In payment thereof, appellant issued twelve postdated checks with the representation that the same will be sufficiently funded on their respective maturity dates. The first check issued by Dimalanta was honored and paid by the drawee bank. However, the remaining eleven checks were all returned unpaid since

1. 2.
3.

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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 153

Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check, not the payment of the obligation. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum BP 22 vs. Estafa under Article 315 par 2 (d): 1. Unlike estafa, element of DAMAGE is NOT REQUIRED in BP 22 2. Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has DECEIT as an element. BP 22 does NOT require such element.

 Write, print, or stamp on the check or to be attached thereto the reason for dishonoring. 2. in case drawee bank received an order to stop payment, 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, if such be the fact.

3.

Also, 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. BP 22, 1st paragraph requires knowledge of insufficient funds. • 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, par 1, element 4:

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 making or issuance of the check 2. the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof; and 3. the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the reason indicated thereto

Nievas vs. Dacuycuy Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored. He was charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. 1 count of violation of BP 22. Nievas invokes double jeopardy. HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses. Estafa needs deceit and damage, not for pre-existing obligations, crime against poperty and is mala in se. BP 22: deceit and damage not required because mere issuance gives presumption of guilt, can be for a pre-existing debt, crime against public order and is mala prohibitum. People vs. Gorospe Parulan paid check in Bulacan. Check was forwarded in BPI Pampanga, then dishonored. Case was filed in Pampanga but was dismissed, as the court had no jurisdiction on the case. HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction! Violation of BP 22 AND estafa are transitory crimes. Deceit happened in Pampanga where it was uttered/delivered while the damage was done in Bulacan where it was issued. Que vs. People Que issued checks in Quezon City. Checks were used to pay for the purchase made in Sta. Mesa. Checks were issued NOT to pay for an obligation but just to guarantee payment. Checks later dishonored. HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction. Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT important as law does not distinguish-- included as long as it was an issued check that subsequently bounced. People vs. Nitafan Lim issued a memorandum check that was subsequently dishonored. HELD: Memorandum Check (one used as evidence for a debt) falls within coverage of BP 22. Memorandum check is NOT a PN.

There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check; so the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment; and it appeared that the drawer knew at the time that the check was issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. In this case, 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, there was a VALID reason (wrong payee) for ordering the bank to stop payment. • BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn by a corporation, company, or entity: the person/s who ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of such drawer

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. when the maker or drawer pays the holder thereof of the amount due thereon or b. 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 Section 3 Section 3 requires the drawee 1. in case where drawee refuses to pay the check to the holder:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 154

2.
Lim Lao vs. CA Lim was an officer in a company where she signed checks, while it was her superior who filled the blanks. Check which she signed as issuer was dishonored. Convicted for violating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds when check is issued. HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable by contrary evidence. Also, no notice of the dishonor was given to her; notice only given to the employer which is not sufficient as law requires personal notice. Idos vs. CA Idos and Alarilla had a partnership that was terminated with each entitled to P1.8M each. Idos issued 4 postdated checks - 1 was dishonored. HELD: Not guilty as the check was NOT issued for a debt but as a collateral or evidence of the other partners share. Sycip vs. CA Accused here bought a townhouse unit from FRC. Accused issued 48 postdated checks for the balance. However, due to the defects and incomplete features of the unit, accused suspended payments. FRC however continued to present the checks for payment thus always forcing him to issue stop order payments. The bank then advised accused to just close the account in order to save on hefty bank charges upon every stop order. It is here that 6 checks were presented by FRC but were dishonored. Accused convicted under BP22. HELD: Accused not guilty. 2nd element of BP22 (knowledge by the issuer of the check that he does not have sufficient funds) not proven. 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. Other statutes can be used as a valid defense under BP22. CAB, 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. BP22 and PD957 must be construed together in order to harmonize their application.

3.

4.

That the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the owner thereof That the offender should have executed acts of ownership (selling, leasing, encumbering, or mortgaging the real property) That the act be made to the prejudice of a. the owner or b. a third person

Example: the the the the A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold same parcel of land to C, representing to latter that he (A) was the owner thereof. At time he sold the land to C, A was no longer owner of the property.

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, he is guilty of estafa by means of false pretenses. Deceit consisting in false pretense Article 316 only penalizes only those who PRETEND to be the owner of property. Where the accused CLAIMS to be the owner, especially if he has a Certificate of Title, 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. Even if the deceit is practiced against the second purchaser and the damage is incurred by the first purchaser, there is violation of Art 316 par 1. A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the same parcel of land to C, representing to the latter that he (A) was still the owner thereof. C registered the sale in his favor. Consequence: B lost the property due to non-registration in his favor. Hence, damage fell on B, the first purchaser, while deceit was practiced against C, second purchaser. A will still be liable under Art 316 par 1 if B files a crim case. Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient. There must be actual damage. In fact, fine prescribed is based on the damage caused

Article 316. Other forms of swindling

I.

Paragraph 1: By conveying, selling, encumbering, or mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the owner of the same.

Elements: 1. That the thing be real property, such as a parcel of land or a building

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 155

Art 316 par 1 vs. Art 315 par 2(a) Art 316 par 1: the offender exercises acts of ownership over the property as part of the false representation. On the other hand, Art 315 par 2(a) does not need this circumstance. II. Paragraph 2: By disposing of real property as free from encumbrance, although such encumbrance be not recorded.

Conflicting jurisprudence: "Although such encumbrance be not recorded" Notwithstanding this phrase, some cases held that the encumbrance must be legally constituted! In these cases, since the encumbrances were NOT registered, accused were acquitted. Thing disposed must be REAL property If the thing encumbered and disposed is personal property, Article 319 applies (punishing one who sells or pledges personal property already subject to encumbrance.) 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. III. Paragraph 3: By wrongful taking by the owner of his personal property from its lawful possessor

Elements: 1. That the thing disposed be real property 2. That the offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance be recorded or not. 3. That there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance 4. That the act of disposing real property be made to the damage of another Example: A mortgaged his property to B. Later, A, misrepresenting that the property is free from encumbrance, mortgaged it again, this time to C. But if C knew that the property had already been mortgaged to B, C cannot complain, as there is neither deceit nor fraud. "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. "Shall dispose": includes encumbering or mortgaging. "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, that is, he would not have granted the loan had he known that the property was already encumbered. When the loan HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED when defendant later offered the property as security for the payment of the loan, Article 316, par 2 is NOT applicable

Elements: 1. That the offender is owner of personal property 2. That the personal property is in the lawful possession of another 3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor. 4. That prejudice is caused to the possessor or third person Example: Accused pawned his watch to complainant. Later, pretending to redeem watch, accused asked offended party to give him the watch. Once getting hold of his watch, he ran away without paying the loan. Note: not theft an owner cannot be held guilty of theft of his own property. Offender owner of personal property If third person and his purpose in taking it is to return it to the owner, the crime is THEFT.

In lawful possession of another Finder of a lost thing is NOT a lawful possessor, it being the obligation of a finder to

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 156

give the thing authorities. "Wrongful taking"

to

the

owner

or

to

the

V.

By accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labor not performed

If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1) VIOLENCE, and (2) WITH INTENT TO GAIN/ CHARGE THE BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE the crime is ROBBERY. If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1) VIOLENCE and (2) WITHOUT INTENT TO GAIN, 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, crime is ESTAFA. "To the prejudice of possessor or third person" Example: A pledged his watch to B, his dorm mate to secure a loan of P3000. One night, A took the watch from the drawer of B without B's consent and knowledge and used it for the night. A returned later and was about to put back the watch in the drawer when B surprised A (Bulaga!!!) Is A liable under 316, par 3? NO. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO B. IV. By executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another

Elements: 1. Compensation wrongfully received (accepting compensation for service not rendered nor performed) 2. Malicious failure to return the compensation wrongfully received (fraud) There must be fraud in this crime, otherwise, it will only be a case of solutio indebiti under the Civil Code. VI. Paragraph 6: By selling, mortgaging, or encumbering real property or properties with which the offender guaranteed the fulfillment of his obligation as surety

Elements: 1. Fictitious contract 2. Damage to another Example: A person who simulates (consideration is fictitious) a conveyance to another for the purpose of defrauding a creditor. Note: The example above may become a crime of fraudulent insolvency (Art 314) if the conveyance is real and made for a consideration.

Elements: 1. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action. 2. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property/properties 3. That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner encumbers said real property 4. That such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is a. without express authority from the court b. made before the cancellation of his bond, or c. made before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him • There must be damage caused under this article. Article 317. Swindling a minor

Elements: 1. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor. 2. That he induces such minor to: a. assume an obligation b. to give release, or c. to execute a transfer of any property right 3. That the consideration is a. some loan of money b. credit, or c. other personal property 4. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 157

Note: Only personal property, since a minor can not convey real property

farmers association, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.

Article 318. Other deceits Elements: A. 1. By defrauding or damaging another 2. by any other deceit not mentioned in the proceeding articles B. 1. By interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any other similar manner 2. For profit or gain 3. Damage to others Note: As in other cases of estafa, DAMAGE should always be present.
Villaflor vs. CA Villaflor borrowed P1,000, in turn he offered his car as collateral (Chattel mortgage instituted). Villaflor failed to pay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the car was already repossessed. Villaflor was convicted of Estafa. 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. Veloso vs. CA District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that led to the disbursement of 23 checks for a project that was anomalous. He was convicted of Estafa. HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure the veracity of the documents. He was negligent as he approved the vouchers that had mistakes which were detectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor.

Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property Elements: 2 Acts punishable: A. 1. That personal property is validly mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law 2. That the offender knows that such property is so mortgaged 3. 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. That the removal is permanent 5. That there is no written consent of the mortgage or his executors, administrators or assigns to such removal B. 1. That personal property is already pledged under the Chattel Mortgage Law That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such property, sells or pledges the same or any part thereof 3. Such sale/pledge is without the consent of the mortgagee which is i. written ii. at the back of the mortgage and iii. 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. If the chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of good faith and/or is not registered, it is VOID and CANNOT be a basis for criminal prosecution under Art 319. 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. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 158 2.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1689 Increasing The Penalty Swindling Or Estafa For Certain Forms Of

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, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or

No violation of Article 319 if the removal was justified. Filing a civil action for collection, not for foreclosure of chattel mortgage, relieves the accused of criminal responsibility. (based on a CA case) If the mortgagee elected to file a suit for collection (not foreclosure), 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. 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. Damage to the mortgagee is not essential.
Estafa (316, disposing encumbered property) Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property Mortgaged property is sold in disposed of in both cases Real property Personal property Property must be sold as Property sold without free and unencumbered consent of the mortgagee in writing, even if buyer is informed that property is mortgaged Purpose of law: to Purpose of law: to protect the purchaser protect the mortgagee

another. SECTION 2. Destructive Arson. — 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. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where explosives, inflammable or combustible materials are stored. 2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any edifice devoted to culture, education or social services. 3. Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually assemble. 4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft, or conveyance for transportation of persons or property. 5. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial, administrative or other official proceedings. 6. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping center, public or private market, theater or movie house or any similar place or building.

7.

Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated or congested area. (NOTE: SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R.A. 7659 AMENDING ART. 320) SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. — 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. SECTION 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. — The penalty in any case of arson shall be imposed in its maximum period; 1. If committed with intent to gain; 2. If committed for the benefit of another; 3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned; 4. If committed by a syndicate. The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons. SECTION 5. Where Death Results from Arson. — If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed. SECTION 6. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson. — Any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence of arson:

Articles 320 to 326-B. Arson (repealed or amended by PD 1613 and PD 1744) Kinds of arson;

1. 2. 3.

Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1613; Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659; Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1613.
P.D. 1613 Amending the Law on Arson

SECTION 1. 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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 159

1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or establishment. 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. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or materials soaked therewith or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical, chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or property. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of the policy. 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. 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. 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.

4. 5.

airplane, devoted to transportation or convenience, or public use, entertainment or leisure. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public utilities. 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. 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 edifice, or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn: 1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordnance storehouse, archives or general museum of the government. 2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials. If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death or injury results, or any valuable documents, equipment, machineries, apparatus, or other valuable properties were burned or destroyed, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.

SECTION 7. Conspiracy to Commit Arson. — Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished by Prision Mayor in its minimum period. SECTION 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. - The building which is the object of arson including the land on which it is situated shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, 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.

Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659 Article 320. 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 result of simultaneous burnings, or committed on several or different occasions. 2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the use of 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, worship, 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

NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are P.D. 1613 and Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659. The provisions of P.D. 1613 that are inconsistent with R.A. 7659 (such as Section 2 on destructive arson) are DEEMED REPEALED) Attempted, Arson Frustrated, and Consummated

A person, intending to burn a building, collects some rags, soaks them in gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall. When he is about to light a match to set fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who chases him away.

1.

Attempted arson: the crime committed in the above scenario is attempted arson, 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.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 160

2.

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. Consummated arson: a. any charring (CHARING! Whiz na lang, 'day!) of the wood of the building. Not necessary that the wood should be ablaze, sufficient that the fiber of the wood is destroyed b. mere scorching or discoloration by heat NOT consummated c. 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. d. However small a portion of the building is BURNED, there is consummated arson.

* 3rd element presupposes that offender acted due to hate, revenge, or other evil motive. Sometimes, offender also inspired by the mere pleasure of destroying things. "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. HENCE, malicious mischief CANNOT be committed through NEGLIGENCE. Malice and negligence are essentially incompatible. "Damage" covers both loss and diminution. If no malice, only civil liability for damages. Damaging of property must not result from crime. Example: damage done as a result of another crime- accused chased opponent around the house to kill him and along the way broke various objects. If after damaging the property, offender removes/ uses objects of the damage, crime is THEFT
Caballen vs. DAR

3.

In attempted arson, it is not necessary that there be a fire Look at the facts if there was intent to burn. Sec 3, par 2, PD 1613 If the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling, it is not required that the house be occupied and that the offender knew it when the house was burned. No complex crime of arson with homicide PD 1613: if by reason or on occasion or arson, death results, homicide is absorbed and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to Death is imposed. Sec 6, PD 1613, 7 Circumstances constituting prima facie evidence of arson Standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, any of those circumstance is sufficient to establish the fact of arson. Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief Elements: 1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another 2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction 3. That the act of damaging another's property be committed mere for the sake of damaging it

Albeit Abajon’s previous arrangement with the former owner of the property, Caballes, the new owner, asked Abajon to vacate the premises where his house was and where he had planted corn, bananas, and camote. They had a confrontation over this issue, but reached no agreement. Abajon then harvested the bananas and jackfruit. As the harvesting was done without her consent, Caballes charged him for malicious mischief. 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. Case was dismissed. People v. Acosta (2000) FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year old mason. He used to be a good friend of Almanzor "Elmer" Montesclaros, the grandson of private complainant, Filomena M. Marigomen. On February 27, 1996, Montesclaros, in the belief that Acosta and his wife were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him, stormed the house of Acosta and burned their clothes, furniture, and appliances. Thereafter Acosta attempted to burn down the house of Marigomen. He was charged with arson and found guilty. HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony to have tried to burn the house of Marigomen. In prosecutions for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 161

delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the defendants as the one responsible for the crime. Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime, it is the fact that a crime has actually been committed. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, if credible, may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. People v. Oliva (2000) FACTS: Avelino Manguba and his family were sleeping in their house. Avelino went out of the house to urinate. He saw Ferigel Oliva set the roof of their house on fire with a lighted match. While the fire razed Avelino's house, Ferigel and three others, Dominador Oliva, Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo watched at a distance of about five (5) meters. One of the neighbors, Benjamin Estrellon went to the nearby river and fetched water with a pail. As Benjamin was helping put out the fire, he was shot by Ferigel at close range. The gunshot wound caused Benjamin's death. The cases for arson and murder were tried jointly. Only Oliva was found guilty. HELD: We find no reversible error and affirm the conviction. When Ferigel burned Avelino's house, the law applicable was P.D. No. 1613. 35 Under Section 3 (2) of the law, the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is "any inhabited house or dwelling." Under the amendment, it is the fact that the house burned is inhabited that qualifies the crime. There is no need to prove that the accused had actual knowledge that the house was inhabited. Under Section 3 (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613, the elements of arson are: (1) that there is intentional burning; and (2) that what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. The records show that when Ferigel willfully set fire to the roof of Avelino's house, Avelino's wife and children were asleep therein. Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecutions for felonies and offenses. Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime. It refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimonies of witnesses. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. Here, corpus delicti of the arson was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt.

distinguished from sedition: the element of public and tumultuous uprising is not present in Art 328 but, BOTH have intent to obstruct the performance or public function b. c. d. 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, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used IN COMMON by the public.

Article 329. Other mischiefs Poignant Example: People v. Dumlao where accused scattered around the municipal building coconut husks containing human excrements. Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of communication Example: damaging telephone lines railways, telegraph lines or

The telegraph and telephone pertain to a railway system!

must

If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or other accident, a higher penalty shall be imposed Question: What crime is committed IF as a result of the damage caused to the railway, certain passengers of the train are killed? Answer: It depends A. If no intent to kill: crime is damages to means of communication with homicide B. If with intent to kill: murder (cf. Article 248, par 3) Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments, or paintings No notes,  Article 332. Persons criminal liability exempt from

Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief Special cases of malicious mischief/"Qualified Malicious Mischief" are: a. Causing damage to obstruct performance of public functions the

Crimes involved in the exemption: 1. Theft C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 162

2. 3. •

Swindling (estafa) Malicious mischief does not include robbery or estafa through falsification reason for ownership exemption: presumed co-

Persons exempted from criminal liability only liablefor CIVIL liabilities): 1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line 2. 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-in-law IF LIVING TOGETHER Article 332 only applies when BOTH the offender and offended party are relatives as enumerated in the provision. Does not apply to strangers who participated in the crime. Stepfather, adopted child, paramours, common-law spouses INCLUDED

3. • • •

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 163

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful