CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

ROBBERY ART. 293, RPC

Robbery (BAR 1998) It is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent
to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person or using force upon
anything.

NOTE: For the appellant to be guilty of consummated robbery there must be

incontrovertible proof that property was taken from the victim. The appellant is guilty of
attempted robbery only when he commences the commission of robbery directly by
overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which would produce robbery
by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Classification of robbery:

1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons (Arts. 294, 297, and
298, RPC);

2. Robbery by the use of force upon things. (Arts. 299 and 302, RPC)

Elements of robbery in general

1. There is personal property belonging to another; (BAR 1992, 1996)

2. There is unlawful taking of that property;

3. Taking must be with intent to gain; and

4. There is violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things.

(BAR 1992, 2002, 2005)

Unlawful taking is complete when:

1. As to robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons– from the

moment the offender gains possession of the thing even if the culprit had no opportunity
to dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is complete.

2. As to robbery with force upon things– the thing must be taken out of the
building/premises to consummate the crime.

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS ART. 294, RPC

Punishable acts under Art. 294, RPC (2000, 2005, 2010 BAR)

1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery the crime of homicide is

committed;

2. When the robbery is accompanied by:

a. Rape;

b. Intentional mutilation; or

c. Arson

3. When by reason or on the occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries
resulting in:

a. Insanity; b. Imbecility;

c. Impotency; or d. Blindness is inflicted

 4. When by reason or on the occasion of robbery, any of the physical injuries
resulting in the:

a. Loss of the use of speech;

b. Loss of the power to hear or to smell;

c. Loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg;

d. Loss of the use of any of such member; or

e. Incapacity for the work in which the injured person is theretofore

habitually engaged is inflicted

5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery is

carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime;

6. 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:

a. Becomes deformed; b. Loses any other member of his

body;

c. Loses the use thereof;

d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he

is habitually engaged for more than 90 days; or

e. Becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days

7. If the violence employed by the offender does not cause any of the serious
physical injuries defined in Art.263, or if the offender employs intimidation only.

NOTE: The crime defined in this article is a special complex crime. Article 48 does not
apply.

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE Robbery with homicide (2009, 2014 BAR) If death results or
even accompanies a robbery, the crime will be robbery with homicide provided that the
robbery and the homicide are consummated. The crime of robbery with homicide is a
special complex crime or a single indivisible crime. The killings must have been
perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of robbery. As long as the homicide resulted,
during, or because of the robbery, even if the killing is by mere accident, robbery with
homicide is committed. (People v. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004)

NOTE: Even if the killing preceded or was done ahead of the robbing, whether intentional
or not, the crime is robbery with homicide. If aside from homicide, rape or physical
injuries are also committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the rape or
physical injuries are considered aggravating circumstances in the crime of robbery with
homicide. Whenever homicide is 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 will also be
guilty as principals in the crime of robbery with homicide.

Q: Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank. Jervis and
Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from the vault because
the same was protected by a timedelay mechanism. They contended themselves with the
customer’s cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they dashed out of the bank
and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian
which resulted in the latter’s death. What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon, and
Jonathan commit? Explain your answer. (2007 BAR)

A: Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan committed the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable
for the robbery only because that was the crime conspired upon and actually committed
by them, assuming that the taking of the cellphones and the cash from the bank’s
customers was effected by intimidation. They will not incur liability for the death of the
pedestrian because they have nothing to do with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for
the death of the pedestrian, aside from the robbery, because he alone brought about
such death. Although the death caused was not intentional but accidental, it shall be a
component of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide because it was
committed in the course of the commission of the robbery.

No crime of robbery with multiple homicide (1995, 2007, 2009 BAR)

There is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the RPC. The crime is robbery
with homicide notwithstanding the number of homicides committed on the occasion of
the robbery and even if murder, physical injuries, and rape were also committed on the
same occasion. The latter crimes being absorbed. (People v. Hijada, G.R. No. 123696,
March 11, 2004)

ROBBERY WITH RAPE (1996, 1999, 2003, 2004 BAR)

The crime of robbery with rape is a crime against property which is a single indivisible
offense. The rape accompanies the robbery. In a case where rape and not homicide is
committed, there is only a crime of robbery with rape if both the robbery and the rape are
consummated.

NOTE: Although the victim was raped twice on the occasion of Robbery, the additional
rape is not considered as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery and rape.
There is no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be
considered as aggravating circumstance. It further observed that the enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the RPC is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the
same Code, which enumerates the mitigating circumstances where analogous
circumstances may be considered. (People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000;
People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 132470, April 27, 2000)

In People v. Suyu, it was ruled that once conspiracy is established between several
accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable for
the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of
them proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape. (2004 BAR)

ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES

To be considered as such, the physical injuries must always be serious. If the physical
injuries are only less serious or slight, they are absorbed in the robbery. The crime
becomes merely robbery. But if the less serious physical injuries were committed after
the robbery was already consummated, there would be a separate charge for the less
serious physical injuries. It will only be absorbed in the robbery if it was inflicted in the
course of the execution of the robbery. The same is true in the case of slight physical
injuries.

ROBBERY WITH ARSON R.A. 7659- Commission of composite crime. The composite
crime would only be committed if the primordial intent of the offender is to commit
robbery and there is no killing, rape, or intentional mutilation committed by the offender
during the robbery. Otherwise, the crime would be robbery with homicide, or robbery
with rape, or robbery with intentional mutilation, in that order and the arson would only
be an aggravating circumstance. Robbery must precede arson. It is essential that
robbery precede the arson, as in the case of rape and intentional mutilation, because the
amendment included arson among the rape and intentional mutilation which have
accompanied the robbery.

NOTE: Arson has been made a component only of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons but not of robbery by the use of force upon things. Hence, if the
robbery was by the use of force upon things and therewith arson was committed, two
distinct crimes are committed.

ROBBERY COMMITTED BY A BAND ART. 296, RPC (2010 BAR)

Robbery is committed by a band when at least 4 armed malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery.

NOTE: If any unlicensed firearm is used, the penalty imposed upon all the malefactors
shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice to
the criminal liability for illegal possession of such firearms. This is a special aggravating
circumstance applicable only in a case of robbery in band.

In Robbery by a band, all are liable for any assault committed by the band, unless one or
some attempted to prevent the assault.

ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO

WORSHIP ART. 299, RPC

Elements of the first kind of robbery with force upon things under Art. 299

1. Offender entered an inhabited house, or public building, or edifice devoted to

religious worship; (1992, 2007, 2008 BAR)

2. Entrance was effected by any of the following means:

a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress;

b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor, or breaking any door or window;

(2000 BAR)

c. By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools, or

d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public

authority.

NOTE! The whole body of culprit must be inside the building to constitute
entering.

3. Once inside the building, the offender took personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain.

ENTRY: the offender must have entered the premises where the robbery was committed.
If no entry was effected, even though force may have been employed in the taking of the
property from within the premises, the crime will only be theft.

EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION ART. 298

Elements (2001 BAR)

1. Offender has intent to defraud another;

 2. Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or
document; and

3. Compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.

NOTE! Art. 298 applies even if the document signed, executed, or delivered is a private or
commercial document.

POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR TOOLS ART. 304, RPC

Elements (2009 BAR)

1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools;

2. Such picklocks or similar tools are specially adopted to the commission of

robbery; and

3. Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.

THEFT: ART. 308, RPC

Theft is 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.

Persons liable (1995, 1998, 2000, 2008, 2009 BAR)

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;

2. Those who having found lost property, fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner; (1998, 2001 BAR)

NOTE: Lost property includes stolen property so that the accused who found a
stolen horse is liable if he fails to deliver the same to the owner or to the
authorities since the term “lost” is generic in nature and embraces loss by
stealing or by any act of a person other than the owner as well as by the act of the
owner himself through same casual occurrence. (People v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. L‐
18507, March 31, 1966)

3. Those who after having maliciously damaged the property of another, remove
or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them; or

4. 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.

Q: Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, and since it did not belong to him, he
approached policeman P and delivered the watch with instruction to return the same to
whoever may be found to be the owner. P failed to return the watch to the owner and,
instead, sold it and appropriated for himself the proceeds of the sale. Charged with theft,
P reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was not he who found the
watch. Moreover, the watch turned out to be stolen property. Is P's defense valid? (1998
BAR)

A: NO. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the personal property subject thereof
belongs to another and not to the offender. It is irrelevant whether the person deprived of
the possession of the watch has or has no right to the watch. Theft is committed by one
who, with intent to gain, appropriates property of another without the consent of its
owner. Furthermore, the crime is committed even when the offender receives property of
another but acquires only physical possession to hold the same. P is a finder in law
liable for theft not estafa.

QUALIFIED THEFT ART. 310, RPC (2007, 2010 BAR)

1. If theft is committed by a domestic servant;

2. If the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence;

NOTE: If the offense is to be qualified by abuse of confidence, the abuse must be

grave, like an accused who was offered food and allowed to sleep in the house of the
complainant out of the latter’s pity and charity, but stole the latter’s money in his house
when he left the place.

3. If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (2002 BAR)

4. If the property stolen consist of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation;

5. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or

6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or

any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (2006 BAR)

(2014 BAR) A: The defense of Clepto has no merit. Theft is already consummated from
the moment Clepto took possession of one of the smaller purses inside a high-end shop,
without paying for it. She took the personal property of another, with intent to gain,
without the consent of the latter. Damage or injury to the owner is not an element of theft,
hence, even if she left her purse in lieu of the purse she took, theft is still committed.

Q: Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and decided to take one of the smaller
purses without paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided to leave her own
purse in place of the one she took. Her act was discovered and Clepto was charged with
theft. She claimed that there was no theft, as the store suffered no injury or prejudice
because she had left a purse in place of the one she took. Comment on her defense.
(2014 BAR)

A: The defense of Clepto has no merit. Theft is already consummated from the moment
Clepto took possession of one of the smaller purses inside a high-end shop, without
paying for it. She took the personal property of another, with intent to gain, without the
consent of the latter. Damage or injury to the owner is not an element of theft, hence,
even if she left her purse in lieu of the purse she took, theft is still committed.

Q: On May 22, 2012, according to Raquel Torres, one of the household helper of victims
Spouses Gavino, Belen Mejares received a call. She hurried to the computer room and
answered the call away from Torres. When Mejares returned, she was “pale, perspiring,
and panicky.” When Torres asked about the identity of the caller, Mejares did not answer.
She told her instead that Gavino met an accident and instructed her to get something
from a drawer in the master’s bedroom. Since it was locked, Mejares was supposedly
told to destroy it. When Mejares emerged from the bedroom, she was holding a plastic
hamper that contained black wallet and envelopes and was talking to someone on her
phone. Later on, Mejares told Torres that she was instructed by Gavino to also take a
watch and jewelry since thecash was not enough to pay the driver in the accident who
was threatening to sue. Mejares placed everything in a green bag and tried to leave the
condominium. Is Valencia liable of the crime of qualified theft?

A: YES. Normal human experience, as well as the consistency in and confluence of the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses, lead to no other conclusion than that Mejares,
taking advantage of her being a domestic helper of private complainant for
approximately a year, committed the crime of qualified theft. Thus, the Court has been
consistent in holding that "intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is
presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation.
Thus, actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain." In this
case, it is clear from the established facts that it was Mejares who opened the drawer in
the masters' bedroom and took away the cash and valuables it contained. (People v.
Mejares, G.R. No. 2255735, January 10, 2018, as penned by J. Leonen)

OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY

ART. 312, RPC

Punishable acts:

1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another; and

2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another.

ELEMENTS:

1. Offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in
property;

2. Real property or real rights belongs to another;

3. Violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in

occupying real property or usurping real rights in property; (1996 BAR) and

4. There is intent to gain

SWINDLING (ESTAFA) ART. 315, RPC (1999, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2013 BAR)

Elements of estafa in general:

1. Accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit – This

covers the three different ways of committing estafa under Art. 315, thus:

a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;

b. By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or

c. Through fraudulent means

2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended

party or third person.

a. The failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the
goods, documents, or instruments covered by a trust receipt, to the extent of the
amount owing to the entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt; or

b. The failure to return said goods, documents, or instruments if they were

not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt.

SWINDLING (ESTAFA) ART. 315, RPC (1999, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2013 BAR)

Elements of estafa in general

1. Accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit – This

covers the three different ways of committing estafa under Art. 315, thus:

a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;

 b. By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or

c. Through fraudulent means

2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party

or third person.

a. The failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods,
documents, or instruments covered by a trust receipt, to the extent of the amount owing
to the entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt; or

b. The failure to return said goods, documents, or instruments if they were not
sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt.

Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Art. 315 (1)

Under paragraph (b):

a. 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. There is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the

offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;

c. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;

and

d. There is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.

NOTE: The fourth element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation
of the goods by the defendant.

Illustration: The accused received in trust the money from the complainants for the
particular purpose of investing the same with the Philtrust Investment Corp. with the
obligation to make delivery thereof upon demand but failed to return the same despite
demands. It was admitted that she used the money for her business. Accused is guilty of
estafa through misappropriation. (Fontanilla v. People, G.R. No. 120949, July 5, 1996)
(2015 BAR)

A money market transaction, however, partakes the nature of a loan, and non‐ payment
thereof would not give rise to criminal liability for estafa through misappropriation or
conversion. In money market placements, the unpaid investor should institute against
the middleman or dealer, before the ordinary courts, a simple action for recovery of the
amount he had invested, and if there is allegation of fraud, the proper forum would be the
SEC. (Sesbreno v. CA, G.R. No. 84096, January 26, 1995)

Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. Although she received the jewelry from
Victoria under an obligation to return the same or deliver the proceeds thereof, she did
not misappropriate it. In fact, she gave them to Aurelia specifically to be returned to
Victoria. The misappropriation was done by Aurelia, and absent the showing of any
conspiracy between Aurelia and Rosa, the latter cannot be held criminally liable for
Aurelia's acts. (1999 BAR)

Elements of estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts under Article 315 (2)

Under paragraph (c) – Pretending to have bribed any government employee, without
prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring
against the offender. (2014 BAR)
Under paragraph (d) – postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation.
(2014 BAR)

Elements:

1. The postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at

the time the check was issued;

2. Lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and

3. Damage to the payee. (People v. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011)

Application:

1. Check is drawn to enter into an obligation

2. Obligation is not pre‐existing

NOTE: The check must be genuine. If the check is falsified and is encashed with
the bank or exchanged for cash, the crime is estafa thru falsification of a
commercial document.

Illlustration: The accused must be able to obtain something from the offended
party by means of the check he issued and delivered. Thus, if A issued a check in
favor of B for a debt he has incurred a month or so ago, the dishonor of the check
for insufficiency of funds in the bank does not constitute Estafa. But if A told B to
deliver to him P10,000 and he would issue in favor of B a check in the sum of
P11,000 as it was a Sunday and A needed the cash urgently, and B gave his
P10,000 having in mind the profit of P1,000 when he encashed the check on
Monday and the check bounced when deposited, A can be held liable for Estafa. In
such case, it was clear that B would have not parted with his P10,000 were it not
for the issuance of A’s check.

Good faith as a defense: The payee’s knowledge that the drawer has no sufficient
funds to cover the postdated checks at the time of their issuance negates estafa.

Separate charges of estafa and illegal recruitment:

It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment
under R.A. No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. We explicated in People v. Cortez and Yabut
that: In this jurisdiction, it is settled that the offense of illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction,
while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for
conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for
offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of
Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under
the Labor Code. It follows that one’s acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily
result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.
(People v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011; 2015 BAR)

OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING ART. 316, RPC

Disposing real property knowing it to be encumbered even if the encumbrance be not

recorded. (1998 BAR)

Elements:
 a. That the thing disposed of is real property;

NOTE: If the thing encumbered is a personal property, it is Art. 319 (selling or

pledging personal property) which governs and not this Article.
b. Offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the
encumbrance is recorded or not;

NOTE: Encumbrance includes every right or interest in the land which exists in
favor of third persons
c. There must be express representation by the offender that the real property is
free from encumbrance; and
d. Act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of another.

NOTE: If the loan had already been granted before the property was offered as
a security, Art. 316 (2) is not violated.

OTHER DECEITS ART. 318, RPC (2000 BAR)

1. Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not mentioned in the

preceding articles; and

2. Interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling fortunes, or taking advantage of

the credulity of the public in any other similar manner, for profit or gain. Deceits in this
article include false pretenses and fraudulent acts.

Q: Osorio, an agent of Philam Life, offered Gabriel insurance policy. During the
meeting, Osorio presented her ID and calling card. Gabriel accepted and consistently
paid her premiums. Later on, Gabriel received a letter from PMIAM thanking her for
investing her money with PMIAM. Gabriel confronted Osorio on why her investment was
diverted to PMIAM. Osorio explained that PMIAM investments would yield a higher rate of
return. Displeased, Gabriel asked for a refund of her initial investment. Consequently,
Gabriel received P13,000.00 from PMIAM. In spite of this, Gabriel insisted on the refund.
PMIAM informed Gabriel that her initial investment and unpaid interest income would be
released to her. Unfortunately, she was unable to recover it. Demands were made to
Osorio, but these remained unheeded. Osorio was charged with estafa under Article
315(2)(e). Is Osorio guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(e)?

A: NO. Osorio is not guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(e), but is guilty of other
deceits under Article 318 of the RPC. Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in
application. It is intended as a catch-all provision to cover all other kinds of deceit not
falling under Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the RPC. Osorio, in soliciting Gabriel’s money,
falsely represented that it would be invested in Philam Life and that its proceeds would
be used to pay for Gabriel's insurance premiums. This false representation is what
induced Gabriel to part with her funds and disregard the payment of her insurance
premiums. Since Osorio deviated from what was originally agreed upon by placing the
investment in another company, Gabriel's insurance policies lapsed. Osorio must be
criminally liable for misrepresenting to Gabriel that the latter's money would be invested
in Philam Life Fund Management and that its proceeds may be utilized to pay for
Gabriel's insurance premiums. (Osorio v. People, G.R. No. 207711, July 2, 2018, as
penned by J. Leonen)

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON ART. 320, RPC AS AMENDED BY R.A. 7659

NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are P.D. 1613 on Simple Arson, and Art. 320, as
amended by R.A. 7659 on Destructive Arson. (Reyes, 2017)
Commission of Destructive Arson

1. Any person who shall burn: (2000 BAR)

a. One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or

as a result of simultaneous burnings, or committed on several or different occasions;

b. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general, or

where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited
to official governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce, trade
workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as
but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyance or stops or
terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in
said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the
building is actually inhabited or not; (1994 BAR)

c. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to

transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure;

d. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto,

which are devoted to the service of public utilities; or

e. 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. (1995 BAR)

2. Two or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is

merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in
the commission of another violation of law.

3. Any person who shall burn:

a. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory,

ordinance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government.

b. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive

materials.

NOTE: If there was intent to kill, the crime committed is not arson but murder by means
of fire.

PERSONS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY ART.

332, RPC

Crimes involved in this Article

1. Theft;

2. Swindling (estafa); and

3. Malicious mischief.

If any of the crimes is complexed with another crime, such as Estafa thru Falsification,
Art. 332 is not applicable.

Persons exempted under Art. 332, RPC (2000, 2008 BAR)

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;

 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same passed into the possession of another; and

3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

NOTE: The exemption does not apply to strangers participating in the commission of the
offense. Reason for exemption. The law recognizes the presumed co-ownership of the
property between the offender and the offended party.

Persons also included in the enumeration:

The stepfather, adopted children, natural children, concubine, and paramour.

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

ADULTERY ART. 333, RPC

Elements (2002, 2008, 2015 BAR)

1. To convict a woman for adultery, it is necessary:

a. That she is a married woman; and

b. That she unites in sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.

2. To convict a man for adultery, it is necessary:

a. That he had actual intercourse with a married woman; and

b. That he commits the act with the knowledge that said woman is married.

NOTE! A single intercourse consummates the crime of adultery. Each sexual intercourse
constitutes a crime of adultery, even if it involves the same man. The sexual intercourse
need not to be proved by direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence like seeing the
married woman and her paramour in scanty dress, sleeping together, alone in a house,
would suffice.

Q: Is the acquittal of one of the defendants operates as a cause of acquittal of the other?

A: NO, because of the following reasons:

1. There may not be a joint criminal intent, although there is joint physical act. One
of the parties may be insane and the other sane, in which case, only the sane could be
held liable criminally. (Reyes, 2017)

2. The man may not know that the woman is married, in which case, the man is
innocent.

3. Death of the woman during the pendency of the action cannot defeat the trial
and conviction of the man.

4. Even if the man had left the country and could not be apprehended, the woman
can be tried and convicted.

CONCUBINAGE ART. 334, RPC

Punishable acts under concubinage:

 1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.

2. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman

who is not his wife.

3. Cohabiting with her in any other place.

Unlike in adultery where a single sexual intercourse may constitute such a crime, in
concubinage, a married man is liable only when he had sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstances.

Elements (1994, 2002, 2010 BAR)

1. Man must be married;

2. He committed any of the following acts:

a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;

Illustration: If the charges consist in keeping a mistress in the conjugal

dwelling, there is no need of proof of sexual intercourse. The conjugal dwelling is
the house of the spouses even if the wife happens to be temporarily absent
therefrom. The woman however must be brought to the conjugal house by the
accused as concubine to fall under this article. Thus, if the co-accused was
voluntarily taken and sheltered by the spouses in their house, and treated as an
adopted child being a relative of the complaining wife, her illicit relations with the
accused husband does not make her a mistress.

b. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a

woman who is not his wife; or

Illustration: For the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse

under a scandalous manner to exist, it must be done imprudently and wantonly as
to offend modesty and sense of morality and decency. Thus, where the accused
and his mistress lived in the same room of a house, comported themselves as
husband and wife publicly and privately, giving the impression to everybody that
they were married, and performed acts in sight of the community which gave rise
to criticism and general protest among neighbors, they committed concubinage.

c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.

Illustration: If the charge is cohabiting with a woman not his wife in any
other place, proof of actual sexual intercourse may not be necessary too. But the
term “cohabit” means intercourse together as husband or wife or living together
as husband and wife. The cohabitation must be for some period of time which
may be a week, a year or longer as distinguished from occasional or transient
meetings for unlawful sexual intercourse.

3. As regards the woman, she must know him to be married.

QUALIFIED SEDUCTION ART. 337, RPC

Acts that constitute qualified seduction:

1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of age by certain persons,
such as, a person in public authority, priest, home servant, domestic, guardian,
 teacher, or any person who, in any capacity shall be entrusted with the education
or custody of the woman seduced;

Elements: (2007 BAR)

a. Offended party is a virgin which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation;

b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;

c. Offender has sexual intercourse with her; and

d. There is abuse of authority, confidence, or relationship on the part of the

offender.

2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, regardless

of her age or reputation.

NOTE! In this case, it is not necessary that the offended party is still a virgin.

Persons liable for qualified seduction:

1. Those who abused their authority:

a. Person in public authority;

b. Guardian;

c. Teacher; or

d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the
woman seduced.

NOTE: In the case of a teacher, it is not necessary that the girl be his student. It is
enough that she is enrolled in the same school.

2. Those who abused the confidence reposed in them:

a. Priest;

b. Home servant; or

c. Domestic.

3. Those who abused their relationship:

a. Brother who seduced his sister; or

b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant.

NOTE: If the offended party is a descendant or a sister of the offender – no matter

how old she is or whether she is a prostitute – the crime of qualified seduction is
committed.

NOTE: Virginity for purposes of qualified seduction does not mean physical virginity. It
refers to a woman of chaste character or virtuous woman of good reputation. Virginity is
not to be understood in a material sense as to exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous
woman of a good reputation. Thus, when the accused claims he had prior sexual
intercourse with the complainant, the latter is still to be considered a virgin.

CONSENTED ABDUCTION ART. 343, RPC Elements (2002 BAR)

1. Offended party must be a virgin;

 NOTE: The virginity mentioned in this Article should not be understood in its
material sense and does not exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of
good reputation because the essence of the offense is not the wrong done to the
woman but the outrage to the family and the alarm produced in it by the
disappearance of one of its members. (Valdepeñas v. People, G.R. No. L-20687,
April 30, 1966)

2. She must be over 12 and under 18 years of age;

3. Taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation or
cajolery from the offender; and

4. Taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs.

NOTE: In consented abduction, it is not necessary that the young victim (a virgin
over twelve and under 18) be personally taken from her parent’s home by the accused; it
is sufficient that she was instrumental in leaving the house. The accused must however
use solicitation, cajolery or deceit, or honeyed promises of marriage to induce the girl to
escape from her home.

CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS

SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND

CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD ART. 347, RPC

Punishable acts:

1. Simulation of births;

2. Substitution of one child for another; and

3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause such child
to lose its civil status.

NOTE! The commission of any of the acts defined in this Article must have, for its object,
the creation of a false civil status. The purpose is to cause the loss of any trace as to the
filiation of the child. (Reyes, 2012)

When simulation of birth takes place (2002 BAR)

Simulation of birth takes place when the woman pretends to be pregnant when in
fact she is not, and on the day of the supposed delivery, takes the child of another as her
own. The woman is liable together with the person who furnishes the child. (Guevara, as
cited in Reyes, 2008)

NOTE: The fact that the child will be benefited by simulation of birth is not a defense
since it creates a false status detriment of members of the family to which the child is
introduced.

In People v. Sangalang (74 O.G. 5983), it was ruled that for the crime to exist, it must be
shown that the pretending parents have registered or caused the registration of the child
with the Registry of Births or that in so doing they were motivated by a desire to cause
the loss of any trace as to the child’s filiation to his prejudice.

BIGAMY ART. 349, RPC

Elements (1996, 2004, 2008, 2012 BAR)

1. That the offender has been legally married;

2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for
validity, except for the existence of the first marriage.

NOTE: The second husband or wife who knew of the first marriage is an accomplice. The
witness who falsely vouched for the capacity of either of the contracting parties is also
an accomplice. (Reyes, 2008)

**The second or subsequent marriage should be valid were it not for the first marriage.
Otherwise, the charge of Bigamy will not materialize. (People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-
5877, September 28, 1954)

**Bigamy is NOT a private crime. Thus, it is immaterial whether it is the first or the
second wife who initiates the action, for it is a public crime which can be denounced not
only by the person affected thereby but even by a civic-spirited citizen who may come to
know the same. (People v. Belen, C.A., 45 O.G., Supp. 5, 88)

Q: Vitangcol married Alice Eduardo and begot 3 children. After some time, Alice began
hearing rumors that her husband was previously married to another woman named Gina
Gaerlan. Such marriage was supported by a marriage contract registered with the NSO.
This prompted Alice to file a criminal complaint for bigamy against Vitangcol. In his
defense, Vitangcol alleges that he already revealed to Alice that he had a “fake marriage”
with his college girlfriend Gina and that there is a Certification from the Office of the Civil
Registrar that there is no record of the marriage license issued to Vitangcol and his first
wife Gina which makes his first marriage as void. Is Vitangcol liable of the crime of
bigamy?

A: YES, Vitangcol is liable of the crime of bigamy. Bigamy consists of the following
elements: (1) that the offender has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage had
not yet been legally dissolved or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse
could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a
second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all
the essential requisites for validity. In this case, all the elements of bigamy are present,
since Vitangcol was still legally married to Gina when he married Alice. His defense of
Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar implying that there is no record of the
marriage license issued to Vitangcol and his first wife Gina will not lie because marriages
are not dissolved through mere certifications by the civil registrar. Hence, Vitangcol is
still considered to be legally married to Gina when he married Alice and is not exculpated
from the bigamy charged. (Vitangcol v. People, G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016, as
penned by J. Leonen)

MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS ART. 350, RPC

Elements (1993, 2004 BAR)

1. Offender contracted marriage;

2. He knew at the time that the: a. Requirements of the law were not complied
with; or b. Marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment.

3. The act of the offender does not constitute bigamy.

Illustration: Where the parties secured a falsified marriage contract complete with
the supposed signature of a mayor and which they presented to the priest who
solemnized the marriage, they committed Illegal Marriage.

CRIMES AGAINST HONOR

LIBEL ART. 353, RPC - a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending
to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Commission of libel is a defamation committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means.

Persons liable for libel:

1. Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of
any defamation in writing or by similar means; or

2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager

of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, for defamation contained therein to
the same extent as if he were the author thereof.

Elements (2005, 2010 BAR)

1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,

or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance;

2. Imputation must be made publicly; (2003 BAR)

3. It must be malicious;

4. It must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; ( 2002

BAR) and

5. It must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person

defamed.

**No necessity in naming the person accused In order to maintain a libel suit, it is
essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. It
must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous
publication. (Borjal v. CA, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999)