Crimes Against Property

ROBBERY (ART. 294, RPC)

There is no such crime as robbery with rape through (sexual assault).

The acts constituting robbery and abuse of the victim, a six (6)-year old child,
where the accused inserted his finger to the vagina of the victim child should not be
treated as a special complex crime of robbery with rape. REASON: At the time the
crime of special complex crime of robbery with rape was introduced by RA No.
7659, the common conception of rape under the former Art. 335 of RPC, that is, rape
through sexual intercourse, was the definition of rape in mind by the framers of the
said law (RA No. 7659). Thus, rape through sexual assault as provided under the
later law, that is, RA No. 8353, as a means of committing rape has not yet been
conceptualized at the time of the establishing the framework for RA No. 7659.
Hence, there is no such special complex
crime as Robbery with Rape through sexual assault (People vs. Barrera, G.R. No. 230549,
December 01, 2020)

Thus, in this case of People vs. Barrera, the accused was convicted for two (2)
separate crimes of robbery and rape through sexual assault.
Nota bene: Note that the matter of minority of the victim here was not duly
established by the prosecution, hence, owing to the application of Secs. 8 and 9 of
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 14 of Art. III, 1987 Constitution,
the accused was not found guilty for sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b) of RA No. 7610.
A traffic enforcer who was offered money in an entrapment of
operation is not liable for robbery: absence of intimidation on the
part of the traffic enforcer negates criminal charge for robbery
(extortion).

Intimidation is defined as unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear.

In robbery with intimidation of persons, the intimidation consists in causing or creating
fear in the mind of a person or in bringing in a sense of mental distress in view of a
risk or evil that may be impending, real or imagined. Such fear of injury to person or
property must continue to operate in the mind of the victim at the time of the delivery
of the money.
Here, it was not shown that Remolano caused fear in the mind of SPOl
Cardines which could have hindered the free exercise of the latter's will and compelled
him to hand Php200.00 to Remolano. For perspective, an entrapment operation here
was carefully planned and coordinated. Police officer SPOl Cardines, as an
undercover, posed as a private motorist in order to entrap Remolano and his co-traffic
enforcers. SPOl Cardines thus deliberately committed a traffic violation by illegally
swerving his vehicle from EDSA towards New York Street. When Remolano flagged
him down, SPO 1 Cardines told Remolano to pardon him as he was just in a hurry to
which Remolano replied, "Sige
pagbibigyan kita pero bahala ka na sa amin ng kabuddy ko. Kahit magkano lang." It was at this
point when SPOl Cardines handed Remolano the two (2) Phpl00.00 marked
money. As it was, Remolano could not have intimidated, nay, threatened SPO
1Cardines to give him money in exchange for not issuing the latter a traffic violation
ticket. In truth, SPOl Cardines intended from the very beginning to hand the two (2)
Phpl00.00 marked money to Remolano so he could effect Remolano's arrest. This,
after all was the objective of the whole entrapment operation. Thus, the Court agrees
with the finding of the Court of Appeals that under the circumstances, the element of
intimidation was clearly wanting
(Remolano vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248682. October 6, 2021).

A threat to expose publicly private video recordings in exchange

of sum of money is a crime of robbery
 (T)he CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts
when it found that petitioner demanded money from private complainant in exchange
for the memory card containing the latter's private photos, which made him liable for
Robbery with Intimidation of Persons. It may be recalled that petitioner originally
demanded for private complainant to have sex with him in exchange for the return of the
private photos. Private complainant refused and offered P5,000.00 instead. It must be
stressed, however, that private complainant's counter-offer does not make it "with
her
 consent," as the same was made as a result of petitioner's existing and
continuing threat of posting the private photos on Facebook. It is worthy to note that
petitioner did not offer to voluntarily and unconditionally return the photos of private
complainant but instead asked for something in exchange for him not to post the
same on Facebook. In effect, when petitioner accepted private complainant's counter-
offer of P5,000.00 instead of sex, his demand was merely amended or changed from
sexual into a monetary one. Accordingly, it is not entirely wrong for the RTC and the
CA to conclude that, in the end, petitioner demanded money in the amount of
P5,000.00 from private complainant, which he took at McDonald's against private
complainant's consent. Concurrently, the second element in the crime of Robbery
with Intimidation of Persons is present in this case -that there is unlawful taking of
property belonging to another. So is the fourth element of the crime charged anent the
presence of intimidation of persons, as petitioner's threat to post the subject private
photos on Facebook if his demand is not met produced fear in the mind of his victim,
private complainant, so that the latter was forced to give to petitioner
the amount of P5,000.00, against or without her consent (Asa vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 236290, January 20, 2021).

Art 293; Ordinary robbery committed on a highway vs highway robbery

under PD 532
2000 No XV
a) Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from
Robbery committed on a highway. (3%)
b) A, B, C, D and B were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having a
drinking spree. At about 1 o'clock in the morning, they decided to leave and so asked for
the bill. They pooled their money together but they were still short of P2,000.00. E then
orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D would go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi
driver of all his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse. A. B, C and D
agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab they encountered.
After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to P1,000.00 only, they
needed P1 ,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they decided to hail another taxicab and
they again robbed driver T of his hard-earned money amounting to P1,000. On their way
back to the beerhouse, they were apprehended by a police team upon the complaint of
X, the driver of the first cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or crimes,
if any. did A, B, C, D and B commit? Explain fully. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery
committed on a highway in these respects:
1) In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is committed
indiscriminately against persons who commute in such highways, regardless of the
potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the robbery is
committed only against predetermined victims;
2) It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one
who roams in public highways and carries out his robbery in public highways as venue,
whenever the opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the Revised
Penal Code when the commission thereof In a public highway is only incidental and the
offender is not a brigand: and
 3) In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in the commission
of the robbery in public highways and against persons travelling thereat; whereas
ordinary Robbery in public highways is only occasional against a predetermined victim,
without frequency in public highways,
b) A. B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article
294 of the Rev. Penal Code; not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are
not brigands but only committed the robbery to raise money to pay their bill because it
happened that they were short of money to pay the same.
Art 293; Robbery
1987 No. XIV:
A, B, C, D, and E were members of a gang operating in Mindanao with Gorio as
over-all leader, Gorio assigned A B, and C to get money from Pedro, a businessman from
Agusan. As instructed, A, B, and C, armed with guns, went to see Pedro and demanded
P100,000.00. When Pedro refused, A pointed his gun at him while B hit him with the butt
of his gun, Pedro gave the amount demanded. After the three (3) left, Pedro went to the
PC Command to tell them what happened. On the way, he met Orlando, also a
businessman. Orlando told him
that D and E, week earlier, wrote him a letter asking P50,000.00 and threatening to kill
his son and wife should he fail to give the amount. Afraid that the two would make good
their threat, he gave the money when D called him that day. Orlando was also on his way
to the PC to report what happened.
(a) What crime did A, B, and C commit?
(b) What crime did D and E commit?
If the crimes committed by A B and C on one hand and D and E on the other hand
are different. Explain why they are different when the purpose is the same, i.e. to extort
money.
(c) Did Gorio commit any crime?
Answer:
a) A, B, and C committed robbery. They were able to make Pedro give
them the P100,000 that they demanded when A pointed his gun at Pedro because he
refused at first to accede to their demand and B hit him with the butt of his gun. They
employed violence and intimidation in the taking of the money with intent to gain.
b) D and E committed Grave Threats. The reason is the intimidation
employed refers to the killings of the wife and son of Orlando should he failed to give the
amount of P50,000 demanded in the latter which D and E sent him. The distinction
between robbery and grave threats when the purpose is the same, that is, to extort
money, is that in robbery, the intimidation is actual and immediate whereas on grave
threats, the intimidation is future and conditional.
c) Gorio, being the over-all leader of the group, is a principal by inducement
in the robbery committed against Pedro. He has no liability regarding the grave threats
committed by D and E against Orlando because the facts of the problem do not
specifically mention his intervention in the activities of D and E.
Art 293; Robbery
2001 No XIV
A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A is a barangay
Kagawad and known to be a bully, while B is reputed to be gay but noted for his industry
and economic savvy which allowed him to amass wealth in leaps and bounds, including
registered and unregistered lands in several barangays. Resenting B's riches and relying
on his political influence, A decided to harass and intimidate B into sharing with him
some of his lands, considering that the latter was single and living alone. One night, A
broke into B's house, forced him to bring out some titles and after picking out a title
covering 200 square meters in their barangay, compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale
conveying the said lot to him for P1.00 and other valuable considerations. All the while,
A carried a paltik caliber .45 in full view of B, who signed the deed out of fear. When A
later on tried to register the deed, B summoned enough courage and had A arrested and
charged in court after preliminary investigation.
What charge or charges should be filed against A? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the Revised Penal Code should be
filed against A. Said Article provides that any person who, with intent to defraud
another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to
sign, execute and deliver any public instrument or document shall be held guilty of
robbery.
The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended to Intimidate B
and thus, used in the commission of the robbery. If it could be established that A had no
license or permit to possess and carry such firearm, it should be taken only as special
aggravating circumstance to the crime of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B to sign, had not
attained the character of a "public" instrument or document, A should be charged for the
crime of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code for
having intruded into B’s house, and for the crime of Grave Coercion under Article 286 of
same Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale against his will.
Art 293; Robbery & Art 208 – maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution
1992 No. 6:
Mrs. Lydia Cortes presented herself to Special Police Officer 2 (SPO 2} Cirio
Cellado at the Northern Police Headquarters with her niece Nani, age 17, and the latter's
friend, Chabeng, age 16, asking for help in filing a criminal case. It appears that while
working as househelp in the home of Col. Rolando Donido (retired), the latter would call
them alternately, lock them up with him in a room and force his lustful desires upon
them. Sobbing violently, Nani narrated how finally her employer succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with her because he kept on threatening to kill her if she refused to
submit to him or if she told Mrs. Donido about what was happening. On the other hand,
Chabeng described how their employer took liberties with her body, short of destroying
her virginity. If they so much as resisted, they were subjected to a lot of verbal abuse and
harassment. Unable to bear it any longer, both of them ran away. Nani got married
immediately to a former boyfriend to save herself from the humiliation of appearing in
their hometown, pregnant but still single. She ended her story saying that no housegirl
ever stayed long in that household "kasi walang patawad iyang D.O.M. (Dirty Old Man )
na iyan".
b) After SPO2 Cirio Cellado heard the story of the two girls, he took aside Mrs.
Cortes and made this proposition: "Let me tell you what I plan to do. Since the D.O.M. is
probably well-known in his community, he will not want his reputation tarnished, I'll tell
him that you have reported him to us and you are all set to file criminal charges against
him at the Prosecutor's Office. But if he will give us P50,000.00, you may be persuaded
not to file the suit anymore. Actually, after he gives that amount, which he surely will,
I shall visit him regularly for more. We shall then divide equally the money we shall
get from him.
Suppose Cellado proceeds to carry out his plan and is caught by his Chief with
incontrovertible evidence, what action or actions may be brought by his superiors to
penalize him and to recover whatever sums of money he may have received from his
victim?
Suggested Answer:
b) Cellado should be charged of robbery because he took personal property from,
Donido, with intent to gain, with intimidation on the person of the
latter. The money passed into the hands of Cellado involuntarily because of fear
(intimidation) on the part of the offended party, Donido.
Likewise, Cellado can be held liable under Art. 208, RPC, he being a public
officer who maliciously refrained from instituting prosecution against violators of the
law. An agent of a person in authority charged with the apprehension and investigation of
a crime is an integral part of the prosecution of offenses.
Art 293; Robbery through violence or intimidation of persons
2002 No XIV.
A. A entered the house of another without employing force or violence upon
things. He was seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing so
because A threatened her with a gun. A then took money and other valuables and
left. Is A guilty of theft or of robbery? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on the maid before
the taking of the money and other valuables. It is the intimidation of person
relative to the taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of simply theft The non-
employment of force upon things is of no moment because robbery is committed not only
by employing force upon things but also by employing violence against or intimidation of
persons.
B. A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking advantage of the confusion,
entered the store and carried away goods which he later sold. What crime, if any, did he
commit? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the goods on the
occasion of and taking advantage of the fire which broke out in the department store. The
occasion of a calamity such as fire, when the theft was committed, qualifies the crime
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Art 293; Robbery thru force or intimidation against persons
1987 No. IX:
Posing as a detective in the Manila Police and flashing a police badge, Jose,
jobless and without any known address and occupation, told Manding and Liling, who
were then sitting in a dark corner in the Luneta Park, that he was placing them under
arrest for vagrancy and taking them to the police station for booking. Manding and Liling
protested, saying that they were merely enjoying the evening alone, as they were
sweethearts and both gainfully employed. Jose told them that they can give their
explanations at the Police Station. Not wanting to be bothered and embarrassed, Manding
offered Jose P200.00 to let them go. Jose agreed, got the money, and left.
Explain whether under the facts given Jose committed any crime
Answer:
Jose is liable for robbery. By posing as a detective with a police badge, telling
Manding and Liling, who were sitting in a dark comer in Luneta Park that they would be
placed under arrest for vagrancy and brought to the police station for booking and by not
listening to the explanation of Manding and Liling that they were sweethearts and
gainfully employed which Jose said they could explain in
the Police Station, created fear in the mind of the couple or a sense of mental distress in
view of the risk or evil or embarrassment that is impending. This fear continued in the
mind of the offended parties when they offered the P200 to Jose which he accepted and
then received the money.
Art 293; Robbery with force upon things
2000 No XI
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends, took the
coconut shell which is being used by B as a bank for coins from inside their locked
cabinet using their common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their
home in the presence of his friends.
What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%)
Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code
for being a brother of B? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because the
coconut shell with the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of
their home, (Art. 299 (b) (2). RPC).
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332 because said
Article applies only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed
is robbery.
Art 293; Robbery with homicide
1977 No, VII-b
E, F, G and H, all armed, ransacked the house of I, a paralytic, and in the process,
E shot I to death when he refused to bring out his money. The shooting awakened the ten-
year old son of I who immediately rushed to his father, but he, too, was shot to death in
cold blood. In the meantime, F went to the room of the wife of I and had carnal
knowledge with her through force. Thereafter; E, F, G and H fled with their loot. What
criminal liability did E, F, G and H incur? Reason fully.
Answer
E, F, G and H are all liable for robbery with homicide since they constitute a
band. The others who were present at the time of the commission of the robbery did not
prevent the killings of I and his ten-year old son by E and the rape of the wife of I by
F (Art 296, R.P.C.). The two killings are merged in the composite, integrate whole that is,
robbery with homicide, as the killings were perpetrated by reason or on occasion of the
robbery (People v. Madrid, 68 Phil. 2), Although rape also accompanied the robbery, the
legal definition of the crime is still robbery with homicide but the rape is to be considered
as an aggravating circumstance. (People v: Ganal, et al., 85 Phil. 743; People v. Basea,
104 Phil. 136; People v. Mongado, et aJL.t 28 SCRA 642).
Art 293; Robbery with homicide
1980 No XVI
Five men, one of them armed with a carbine, entered the hut of an octogenarian,
who was living by himself, ransacked his things and took his carpentry tools and cash
worth P100. "Y" saw them going towards the hut and sensing their evil intentions called
some friends to act as a rescue party. As the
five men were going out with their loot, the rescue party opened fire and there was an
exchange of gunshot between the two groups. Killed were one in the five- man team, and
another in the rescue party. The articles taken were recovered.
Four of the 5 men were charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide. Their
common defenses were that they could not be convicted of the crime charged because (a)
the killing occurred after the consummation of the robbery;
(b) the octogenarian victim of the robbery was not the victim of the homicide; and
(c) the crime was committed by a band.
Evaluate the different defenses of the accused.
Answer
1) Although the killing was committed after the consummation of the robbery,
robbery with homicide is committed because the killing was committed by reason of or
on the occasion of the robbery. If the killing is prior or subsequent to the robbery so long
as it is directly related to the robbery, the crime committed is robbery with homicide,
(People vs. Hernandez, 48 Phil. 48).
2) Even if the victim of the robbery is not the victim of the homicide, robbery
with homicide is committed because the law does not require that the person killed is the
victim of the robbery. (People vs. Barut, L-42666, March 13, 1979). As a matter of fact,
even if the victim killed is a mere bystander robbery with homicide is committed. (People
vs. Disimban, 88 Phil. 120).
3) There seems to be a typographical error in the question. That band is a
defense does not make sense. Obviously, the question would refer to the defense that the
accused did not constitute a band. This is tenable because of the five accused, only
one was armed with a carbine. There is a band if more than three armed malefactors
take part in the commission of a robbery. (Art. 296, R.P.C.; People vs. Barut, supra).
This is not, however, a defense because there is conspiracy among the five accused as
shown by the facts of the problem that "as the five men were going out with their loot, the
rescue party opened fire and there was an exchange of gunshots between the two groups."
When homicide takes place on the occasion of the robbery, all who took part in the
robbery are guilty as principals of the complex crime of robbery with homicide whether
or not they actually participated in the killing, unless they had endeavored to prevent the
killing. (People vs. Berudes, L-30966, Dec. 14, 1979)
Art 293; Robbery with homicide
1988 No. 8:
a) An armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and the driver who sensed that
the band might commit robbery; did not stop the bus but drove it faster. The members of
the band then fired at the bus, killing one passenger who was hit in the head.
b) As the malefactor were about to enter the house of A, the latter hid himself
inside the ceiling. Once inside the house, the malefactor took from A's wife cash and
pieces of jewelry. One of the malefactors stood on a table and fired his gun at the
ceiling. After they had left A's wife called for him and receiving no answer, she went up
the ceiling and found him already dead.
What crime was committed? Explain.
c) In the course of robbery there was confusion and in the exchange of shots
between the robbers and the victims, one of the robbers happened to shoot one of his own
companions.
 What crime was committed? Explain. Answer:
a) They committed the crime of attempted robbery with homicide with band
as a generic aggravating circumstance. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides
that "Attempted. .. robbery committed under certain circumstances.—When... on the
occasion of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such
offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal
b) Robbery with homicide was committed by the malefactors. Article 297 of
the Revised Penal Code provides that "Attempted and frustrated robbery committed
under certain circumstances.— When by reason. . .of an attempted or frustrated
robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by
reclusion temporal...".
c) The robber committed the crime of robbery with homicide in violation of
Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "... when... on the occasion of
an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal. ..".
Art 293; Robbery with homicide
1995 No. 7:
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and
Ricky entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After
ordering beer Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy
vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced "Hold-up
ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl Lucy to prevent
her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people
next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor
scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and
shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other
articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of
Victor and Ricky.
1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
Answer:
1 . All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts
of Ricky in stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in .boxing the salesgirl to prevent her
from helping Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking
help, of Victor in scooping up money from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in
dashing to the street and announcing the escape, are all indicative of conspiracy.
The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the
occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of
the crime of robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing
(People vs. Baello, 224 SCRA 218). Further, the aggravating circumstance of craft could
be assessed against the accused for pretending to be customers of Mang Pandoy,
Art 293; Robbery with homicide
1996 No. 2:
 2) Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock
in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house,
Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her
and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando,
before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted
away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters
of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to
prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain.
Answer:
2) (a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando
committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape, Conspiracy can be inferred from
the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by
Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where the robbery was committed, not in the
presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the rape,
rendering him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R.
108490, 22 June 1995}
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by
reason (to prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes
committed and the fact that several persons were killed [homicide), would be considered
as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the
additional killing synonymous with cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs.
Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
Art 293; Robbery with homicide
1998 No XVIII.
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of
the bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police
officers who fired back and shot it out with them.
1. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came
from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A,
B. C and D? |3%|
2. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the
prosecutor charged A, B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that
they (A, B and C) were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only
be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument? (2%)
Answer:
1. A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide
because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders
on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such
death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery
with homicide.
 2. The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide
was filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery
with homicide which is a single, indivisible offense.
Alternative Answer:
2. The argument raised by A, B and C is not correct because their liability is not
only for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the
facts stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery "and" Homicide were charged,
which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery
with homicide, not two crimes.
Art 293; Robbery with homicide
2003 No IX.
A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to
$10,000 from his daughter working in the United States With the intention of robbing B
of those dollars, A entered B's house at midnight, armed with a knife which he used to
gain entry, and began quietly searching the drawers, shelves, and other likely receptacles
of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the bedroom, and grappled with
A for the possession of the knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A
turned over B's pillow and found the latter's wallet underneath the pillow, which was
bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for. A took the bills and left the house. What
crime or crimes were committed? 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so
because A's primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the
robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the robbery and the killing were consummated,
thus giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary
criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the "occasion" of the robbery,
though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime of robbery with
homicide as a single indivisible offense.
Art 293; Robbery with homicide vs homicide
1983 No. 6
Insulted by the manager of the bank where he was employed as security guard, A,
enraged, shot the former, who died on the spot. As A was about to leave the bank
premises, he noticed the vault open. He entered it, forced open a locked container and got
the jewelry therein.
If you were the fiscal, for what crime or crimes would you prosecute A?
Explain.
Answer
Homicide and Robbery. It is not robbery with homicide because the purpose of A,
the security guard, was not to commit robbery. It is not murder because the aggression
was preceded by the insult of the manager which enraged the offender. So the killing was
attended by passion which negates the presence of treachery. The taking of the jewelries
was an afterthought as the offender entered the vault only when he noticed it was open
when he was about to leave the bank premises. The jewelries were in a locked receptacle
which he forced open while inside the bank premises. This is robbery with force upon
things under Article 299, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
Art 293; Robbery with rape
1999 No XVII
Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value.
They succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was
sexually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so. raped her.
The lady victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B
watched the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape.
Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape
under Art. 294 (1). Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present
when the rape was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single
indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored
to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so,
he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also
liable for robbery with rape.
Art 293; Robbery; homicide; arson
1995 No. 12:
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable
savings. Knowing him to be "loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him
to poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money
which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by
his friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge on the three cheats.
Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions
to drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already
sound asleep he hacked all of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled
through the pockets of his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran
away but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day police
investigators found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the
caretaker of the resort.
After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the
complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery.
Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully.
Answer:
No, Harry was net properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three
(3) separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson.
Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was
considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual
commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means which weakened the
defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were
drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of murder
with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings.
Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex
crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed against dead
persons, it is still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another
separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the
two (2) previous offenses he committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze
did not qualify Harry's crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is
no such crime.
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with
quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3)
separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.
Art 293; Robbery; multiplicity of crimes
1996 No. 8
2) Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by different
families located inside a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block fence.
How many robberies did the five commit? Explain.
Answer;
2) The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because when
they entered the compound, they were impelled only by a single indivisible criminal
resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that there were five families inside
said compound, considering that the same was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block
fence. The series of robbery committed in the same compound at about the same time
constitutes one continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse,
Art 293; Robbery; rape
1997 No. 19:
After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a
cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to
notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of
the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
Was the court correct? Answer:
No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of
robbery with rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes
of robbery and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape
the complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The
robbery must precede the rape. In order to give rise to the special complex crime for
which the court convicted the accused.
Art 308; Theft
1976 No. III-a
X, a commission agent, without being authorized by his principal, pulled out
several typewriters and adding machines from the prospective buyers, who, after the
period of trial of said machines, decided not to buy them. Instead of returning the
machines to the company, X pawned them with the different
pawnshops for sums of money which he used for his own behalf. What crime has X
committed? Reason:
Answer
X committed the crime of theft. When X pulled out the typewriters and adding
machines from the prospective buyers, who, after the period of trial, decided not to buy
them, X, as commission agent, made them believe that he acted on behalf of his principal,
who is his employer, although in truth, he did not as he was not authorized. When he took
away the machines without the knowledge and consent of his principal, he had only
acquired physical possession of the same, (People v. Maglaya, 30 SCRA 606).
Art 308; Theft
1976 No. IV-a
X found in the street amount of P200.00. He did not report his finding of the
money to the proper authorities nor did he return the same to the owner whose address is
inscribed in the bag containing the money. Instead, he used the money for his benefit.
What crime has X committed? Reason.
Answer
X committed theft. Theft is committed by any person who, having found lost
property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner (Art, 308,
No. 1, RPC). Since X found the bag containing the money in the street, he had reason to
know that the property was lost and it was his duty to turn it over to the owner, whose
address is inscribed in the bag or to the authorities. Intent to gain is actually present since
he used the money for his benefit knowing that it did not belong to him. The Revised
Penal Code does not even require knowledge of the owner of the lost property. (People
v. Panotes, et al., CA 36 0G. 1008).
Art 308; Theft
1976 No VI-b
X and his companions got six roosters from a coop, one yard high, five yards long
and one yard wide, by breaking the door of the coop located outside the house of Y,
the owner of the coop and the roosters. The taking of the roosters as well as the
breaking of the coop's door was done without the knowledge and consent of the owner.
What crime have X and his companions committed? Reason.
Answer
X and his companions committed theft. The chicken coop is not a building as
contemplated in Art. 299 and Art. 302 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the coop is
located outside the house of Y, it is not a dependency under Art. 301 of the Code. (People
vs. Jaranilla, et a/., L-28547, February 24, 1974).
Art 308; Theft
1977 No. VII-a
Juan, a commission salesman of an office supply company, without the
knowledge and consent of the company, went to one of its customers who has defaulted
in paying the last three installments of a typewriter purchased on credit and withdrew the
said typewriter. The customer, thinking that Juan was authorized to do so, allowed the
withdrawal. Later on, Juan sold the typewriter
and misappropriated the proceeds thereof for his own benefit. What crime did Juan
commit? Reason fully.
Answer
Juan will be liable for theft. Since he took the typewriter without the knowledge
and consent of the company from the purchaser who defaulted in paying the last three
installments, and the customer allowed Juan to withdraw it thinking that he was
authorized to do so, Juan had only the physical possession of the typewriter, which did
not vest in him juridical possession, which is necessary in estafa. (People v Maglaya, 30
SCRA 606).
Art 308; Theft
1978 No. IX-b
AB accidentally left her purse with P500.00 inside a taxi cab. The driver brought
the purse and money to the police station and handed them to the desk sergeant with the
request that they be delivered to AB, the owner, whose name and address were on a piece
of paper inside the purse. The sergeant did not do as requested but spent the money.
What was the offense/offenses committed by the sergeant? Discuss.
Answer
The offense committed is theft. The sergeant had only the physical possession of
the money although he received the same from the finder. The possession of the money
by the finder, who was the driver of the taxicab, was physical. When the driver handed
the money to the sergeant with the request that it be delivered to AB, the owner, what
was transferred to the sergeant is the physical possession which the driver had on the
money. The sergeant assumed by voluntary substitution, as to both property and its
owner, the same relation as was occupied by the finder, (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).
Art 308; Theft
1980 No. II
"D and "E" intended to steal two bags of cement from a "bodega". They placed
the cement in a jeep and left with their loot.
After travelling some distance, they changed their minds and decided to take the
two bags of cement back. While in the compound of the "bodega", they were
apprehended by a police officer.
Are "D" and "E" liable for any crime? Answer
D and E are liable for consummated theft. When they placed the two bags of
cement in a jeep and left with their loot, they had already performed all the acts of
execution necessary for the accomplishment of the crime of theft. (U.S, vs. Adiao, 38
Phil. 754) Theft was already consummated when after travelling a certain distance, they
changed their minds and decided to take the two bags of cement back. In theft, the
offender must have the possession and dominion of the thing taken coupled with the
intention at the time of taking of withholding it with the character of permanency. (People
vs. Solis et al, 12 CA Rep. 202)
Art 308; Theft
1980 No. XVII
"AA" was the owner of a jeepney for hire. When his driver was hospitalized, he
hired "BB" as driver on a temporary basis and entrusted to him
the vehicle for transporting passengers from Quiapo to Taft-Baclaran with a
compensation of P30 a day. "BB" never returned the vehicle and after a search, the
vehicle was found in Ternate, Cavite, about to be sold. "BB" was charged with
Qualified Theft and was convicted.
Appealing the judgment of conviction, defense counsel contends that "BB" may
have committed Estafa but not Qualified Theft on the theory that the possession of the
vehicle was obtained with the consent of "AA", the owner, and therefore, there was no
illegal taking.
Decide the case.
Answer
The crime committed by BB is qualified theft. Estafa cannot be committed altho
the possession of the vehicle was obtained with the consent of AA, the owner. BB was
hired as a temporary driver and therefore was an employee of the owner of the jeepney
for hire. So he had only the physical or material possession of jeepney. The established
rule is that when the delivery of a chattel does not have the effect of transferring the
juridical possession thereof, the act of disposing it with intent to gain and without the
consent of the owner constitutes the crime of theft. (U.S. vs. De Vera, 43 PhiL 100). In
this case, the juridical possession of the vehicle remained with AA, the owner. (People
vs. Isaac, 96 Phil. 931)
Art 308; Theft
1982 No. 13
"A" broke open a window and, without entering the house, took a wooden chest
lying just underneath the window. He brought out the chest to the yard where he broke it
open and took away the contents thereof, all valued at P1,000.00. What crime did he
commit? Reason.
Answer
The crime committed by A is theft. For robbery with force upon things to be
committed, the offender should have entered the house. The facts of the problem show
that A without entering the house took the wooden chest lying underneath the window
which he broke open. To constitute robbery the offender who brought outside the locked
receptacle must have entered it; otherwise, the crime committed is theft.
Art 308; Theft
1984 No. 19
Melencio gave Janet, a call girl, P5,000 as blood money with the understanding
that she would poison a business executive in the course of a tryst. She did so. But
before she left the scene of the crime, she got the victim's expensive watch, gold ring and
wallet containing about P5,000.
What crime or crimes were committed and by whom? Reasons.
Answer
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma,
Janet committed two crimes:
1. murder: as qualified by circumstance of consideration of a price or reward,
or by means of poison, or with evident premeditation, and
 2. theft: If the motive is to kill and the taking of the valuables is committed
thereafter, the crimes committed are homicide and theft (People v. Elizaga, G.R. No.
2487, as cited in Gregorio, Fundamentals).
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
1. Melencio and Janet are liable for murder. Melencio is a principal by
inducement and Janet is a principal by direct participation. Murder is the crime
committed because the killing was in consideration of & price and by means of poison.
Either will be sufficient to qualify the crime of murder.
2. Janet will also be liable for theft. As an afterthought she got the victim's
expensive watch, gold ring and wallet containing about P5,000. Melencio will not be
liable because the theft was not included in the inducement nor is it a necessary
consequence thereof.
Art 308; Theft
1986 No. 16:
Brothers Aber and Bobot, 16 and 17 years old, respectively, have had no food for
the past two days. Suffering from severe hunger, they hatched a plan to break into a store
to steal some food. Five days later, at 12 midnight, they were able to enter the store by
breaking the hinges of the door. Aber took ten cans of sardines worth P50.00. Bobot
wandered into a nearby room where the store owner, Cosme, was sleeping Cosme,
awakened by Bobot's footsteps, attacked Bobot with a club. Bobot avoided the blow
and hit Cosme in the chest with his fist. Aber, upon hearing the commotion, entered the
room and tried to pull Bobot away from Cosme. Cosme, however, continued to attack
Bobot forcing the latter to box Cosme in the face. Cosme collapsed on the floor.
Bobot and Aber fled. The following day, Aber sold six of the sardine cans taken
from the store to Dimas who lives a block from the store. Earlier that day Dimas heard
rumors that the nearby store had been robbed and that his friend Cosme was found dead.
Dimas thought of asking Aber and Bobot where they got the sardines to clear away this
doubt, but on second thought did not. He bought the cans for P20.00 and sold them for
P30.00.
The fiscal charged Aber and Bobot with the complex crime of robbery with
homicide aggravated by nighttime, evident premeditation and dwelling. The fiscal
charged Dimas as an accessory of Aber and Bobot and for violation of the Anti- Fencing
Law (PD No. J612).
(1) If you were the counsel of Aber, what defenses would you raise?
Explain.
(2) If you were the counsel of Bobot, what defenses would you raise?
Explain.
(3) If you were the counsel of Dimas, what defenses would you raise?
Explain,
(4) If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain,
Answer:
(1) If I were the counsel of Aber, I would question the validity of the charge.
Robbery with homicide is not proper crime because there was no breaking of the door but
only its hinges. (People vs Lising CA 62 OG. 9879) The crime is theft. Since Aber was
only l6 years old at the time of the commission of the crime he should be prosecuted
under the Youth and Child Welfare Code,
where in case of conviction, he could apply for suspension of sentence. If granted, during
confinement upon his good behavior, he would be entitled to be discharged.
Aber cannot be liable for the killing of Cosme because he has no part in its
commission.
(2) If I were the counsel of Bobot, I would invoke his age at the time of the
commission of the crime for the application of the Child and Youth Welfare Code. The
crimes committed are theft and homicide. Regarding the homicide, Bobot can maintain
that Cosme hit him with a club and continued to do so forcing Bobot to attack him in the
face. He can also invoke the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave
a wrong as that which resulted.
(3) If I were the counsel of Dimas, I would maintain that he could not be liable
as an accessory to the crime of homicide attributed to Bobot because he had no
knowledge of its commission.
Regarding the violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, he can maintain that he bought
the tins of sardines in good faith without any knowledge that these were the proceeds of
the crime of theft.
(4) If I were the Judge, I would convict Aber and Bobot for the crime and theft.
The breaking of the hinges of the door is not the breaking of the door as provided in the
law. So the crime committed is not robbery. Only Bobot will be liable for the death of
Cosme. Aber has no participation in his death aside from the fact that the crime is not a
necessary consequence of the plan to steal food in the store. Besides the act of Aber in
trying to pull Bobot away from Cosme is an attempt to prevent Bobot from injuring
Cosme. In the crimes of theft and homicide, only nighttime and dwelling are aggravating.
Evident premeditation is inherent in theft which is a crime against property. It cannot be
considered in homicide as there is no showing of any previous planning to commit it.
However, both Aber and Bobot being 16 and 17 years respectively at the time of the
commission of the crime should be proceeded under the provisions of the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, if still under 18 years at the time of the trial. If convicted, they
could apply for the suspension of the sentence, and if granted, they would be committed
to an institution until they reach the age of majority If they behave properly during
confinement, they would be returned to the court to be discharged; but if they proved
themselves to be incorrigible, then for the imposition of the sentence.
Dimas will be liable for fencing as he bought the tins of sardines without inquiring
from Aber where he got the sardines and under the circumstances he could have known
that those were the proceeds of the crime of theft. He bought them with intent to gain as
in fact he sold them for a profit.
Art 308; Theft
1989 No. 16:
"A", by using force, grabbed the bicycle of "B" and ran away. The following day,
"B" asked "C" to get back his bicycle from "A" and promised to pay him P100 if
successful, "C" agreed. "C" went to "A's" house but it was locked from inside. Since "A"
refused to let "C" in, "C" kicked the door open, confronted "A" and with a dagger in
hand, told "A" to give "B’s” bicycle. Intimidated, "A" gave the bicycle to "C" who, in
turn, gave it to "B". "B" paid "C" P100 for his efforts. What crime or crimes did "A", "B"
and "C" commit, if any?
 Answer:
A, by grabbing the bicycle of B and running away with it committed the crime of
THEFT, there being no showing that there was violence against or intimidation of B to
accomplish the snatching of the bicycle away from him. In a case where the accused
snatched from behind the bag the offended party was then carrying, it was held that there
being no violence against the offended party immediately before, after or at the time the
bag was snatched from her, the accused was not liable for robbery, but only for theft
(People vs. Villar, CA-GR No. 14289, July 29, 1955; People vs. Jose, CA 62 O.G.
4604). In this case, all the elements of theft are present: intent to gain, taking of personal
property of another without the latter's consent, and absence of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things. There is intent to gain which is presumed
from the unlawful taking of the bicycle.
Art 308; Theft
2001 No IX
Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in front of his working
place in Makati and, upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the owner
engraved on the inside. Remembering his parents' admonition that he should not take
anything which does not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet to PO1 Jesus Reyes of
the Makati Quad precinct with the instruction to locate the owner and return it to him.
PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the bracelet and misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent
events brought out the fact that the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher who had grabbed
it from the owner a block away from where Francis had found it and further investigation
traced the last possessor as PO1 Reyes. Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out that
he had not committed any crime because it was not he who had found the bracelet and,
moreover, it turned out to have been stolen.
Resolve the case with reasons. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has not
committed any crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned
out to be stolen also, is devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to
another and the failure to restore the same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain.
The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and
which he only held to be delivered to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to
gain.
Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for delivery to the
owner, the person to whom such property is entrusted and who accepts the same,
assumes the relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if he would
misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).
Art 308; Theft
2002 No V.
A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in Bulacan. Among the
first to arrive at the scene of the accident was A, who found one of the victims already
dead and the others unconscious. Before rescuers could come, A, taking advantage of the
helpless condition of the victims, took their wallets and jewelry.
However, the police, who responded to the report of the accident, caught A. What
crime or crimes did A commit? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the wallets and jewelry
of the victims with evident intent to gain and on the occasion of a vehicular accident
wherein he took advantage of the helpless condition of the victims. But only one crime of
qualified theft was committed although there were more than one victim divested of their
valuables, because all the taking of the valuables were made on one and the same
occasion, thus constituting a continued crime.
Art 308; Theft & Homicide
1976 No. VIII-b
X killed Y in a fit of anger. While in the act of disposing of, or concealing the
body, he found some money in one of the victim's pockets and took it. What crime has X
committed? Reasons.
Answer
Two crimes are committed by X namely, homicide and theft. Since the purpose of
X was not to commit robbery, the crime cannot to robbery with homicide, (US. vs.
Villorente, et at., 30 Phil 59). Since X killed Y in a fit of anger, the motive for the crime
is clear. The taking of the money in the pockets of the victim occurred after the killing,
and as a matter of fact, while in the act of disposing of or concealing the body. The taking
was conceived only after the victim was killed. Two separate crimes of homicide and
theft are therefore committed. (People vs. Elizaga, 86 Phil. 364; People vs. Glore, 87
Phil. 789).
Art 308; Theft; issue of ownership
1998 No XIX.
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 and, moreover, the watch turned out to be stolen property.
Is P's defense valid? [5%] Answer:
No, P's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the personal
property subject thereof belongs to another and not to the offender (P). 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. And the crime is committed even when the
offender receives property of another but acquires only physical possession to hold the
same.
Art 308; Theft; stage of execution
1998 No XVII
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of
bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was
arrested by the guard after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the act in the
store's moving camera. Is the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted? [5%]
Answer:
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete
after Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the
bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete
and thus the crime is consummated.
Art 308; Theft; stage of execution
2000 No III
Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department
Store and proceeded to the women's wear section. The saleslady was of the impression
that she brought to the fitting room three (3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors.
When she came out of the fitting room, she returned only two (2] pieces to the clothes
rack. The saleslady became suspicious and alerted the store detective. Sunshine was
stopped by the detective before she could leave the store and brought to the office of the
store manager. The detective and the manager searched her and found her wearing the
third swimsuit under her blouse and pants. Was the theft of the swimsuit consummated,
frustrated or attempted? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The
asportation is complete when the offender acquired exclusive control of the personal
property being taken: in this case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse and
pants and was on her way out of the store. With evident intent to gain, the taking
constitutes theft and being complete, it is consummated. It is not necessary that the
offender is in a position to dispose of the property,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
The crime of theft was only frustrated because Sunshine has not yet left the store
when the offense was opportunely discovered and the article seized from her. She does
not have yet the freedom to dispose of the swimsuit she was taking (People vs. Dino, CA
45 O.G. 3446). Moreover, in case of doubt as to whether it is consummated or frustrated,
the doubt must be resolved in favor of the milder criminal responsibility,
Art 310; Qualified theft
1975 No. X
A, a receiving teller of the Philippine National Bank, taking advantage of his
position, appropriated the amount of Pl,000.00 which he had in his possession. Did he
commit malversation, estafa, theft, or qualified theft? Why?
Answer
The crime is qualified theft. The receiving teller has only the physical possession
of the amount of P1,000, which is presumably a deposit received from a client of the
bank. Altho the Philippine National Bank is a government bank, it however, performs
proprietary functions and the receiving teller cannot be considered a public officer
under Art. 203 of the Revised Penal Code. In any event, malversation is committed by an
accountable public officer to whom public
funds or property are entrusted for his custody. It cannot be estafa as the teller does not
have juridical possession of the amount. The teller is in possession of the amount as an
employee of the bank. His possession of the money is the possession of the bank. The
crime cannot be simple theft because the duties of a receiving teller being pecuniary are
clothed with monetary responsibilities and confidential in nature. The position involves
trust and confidence. So qualified theft is committed as the misappropriation is with
grave abuse of confidence. (People v. Lacson, 57 Phil. 325).
Art 310; Qualified theft
1976 No. V-b
X left for the province with Ms family to take a vacation. But before doing so, he
entrusted the key to the main door of his house to Y, his neighbor. One day, anxious to
find out the contents of the house, Y opened the same with the key X left him and once
inside took some belongings of Y. What crime has X committed? Reason.
Answer
Y committed the crime of qualified theft with grave abuse of confidence. The fact
that X and Y are neighbors and X having entrusted to Y the key to the main door of his
house when he and his family left for the province to take a vacation shows a relation of
intimacy, dependence, guardianship, and vigilance between Y and the offended party,
which created a high degree of confidence between them and which the accused abused.
In a case where the watchman of the offended party delivered the key to the session hall
of the provincial building and with the key opened the session hall and stole a typewriter,
it was held that the theft was simple because the offended party was not the watchman
but his employer, unlike the facts in the problem. (People vs. Cabahug, CA 48 O.G.
2818). The crime is not robbery with force upon things because the key is not a false key,
as defined and included in Art. 305 (RPC).
Expand to explain the meaning of false key.
Art 310; Qualified theft
1976 No VI-a
X stole two goats valued at P150.00 each. He was charged by the Fiscal's Office
with qualified theft. Is the charge proper? Reason.
The charge for qualified theft is not proper. Goats are not large cattle but small
cattle. (People vs. Nazareno, L-40037, April 30, 1976). The correct charge should be
simple theft.
Art 310; Qualified theft {Carnapping}
1985 No. 19:
CB, a driver of RM, on the boundary system, ran away with the jeepney of the
latter and sold the same, pocketing the proceeds thereof to the prejudice of the aforesaid
owner.
What crime or crimes were committed by CB? Discuss.
Answer:
The driver will be liable for qualified theft. Under the boundary system, the driver
is an employee of the owner of the vehicle. He has only the physical possession of the
vehicle. By running away with the vehicle and selling the same and misappropriating the
proceeds thereof, qualified theft is committed.
Art 310; Qualified Theft of large cattle
1992 No. 4:
At the height of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at around midnight, Aniceto joined
some neighbors in evacuating his family, a few possessions and two horses to higher
ground. Miguel, taking advantage of the darkness and the confusion, got one of the
horses and asked his friend Doro to accompany him to Angeles City where he sold the
same to an acquaintance Peping. Searching for his horse, Aniceto found it, with
identifying brand intact, in the possession of Peping who refused to surrender the same
saying that he had paid good money for it. Whereupon, Aniceto reported the matter to the
police who promised to accompany him to the Prosecutor's office.
a) May Miguel and Doro be charged criminally for any offense? If you were the
counsel for both, what defense could you possibly set up for them?
Suggested Answer:
a) Miguel should be charged of Qualified Theft of Large Cattle, a horse being
classified as such under Art. 310, RPC.
Doro, on the other hand, should be charged as accessory if he is aware that the
horse was stolen as he assisted the principal, Miguel, in profiting from the crime.
If I were the defense counsel, I will put up the defense of consent of the owner;
hence, there is only civil liability.
Art 312; Usurpation of real property
1988 No. 10:
a) Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in the foothills which he planted to
lanzones. On his last visit there he was shocked to discover that his land had been taken
over by a group of 15 families whose members had forcibly driven away his caretaker,
had appropriated the fruits for themselves, and were now threatening to kill him should
he try to eject them.
What crime should Jorge charge these 15 families? Explain.
Answer:
a) Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2 separate crimes namely:
1} Violation of Article 282 which provides that "Grave threats.— Any person
who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or
property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime shall suffer..."
and
2) Violation of Article 312 which provides that: "Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property.— Any person who, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real
rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of
violence executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from P50.00...".
Art 312; Usurpation of real property vs (SPL) squatting
1989 No. 17:
"A" and "B", both farmers, entered the land owned by "X" and planted palay
thereon. When "X" came to know about it, he confronted "A" and "B" and inquired why
the latter occupied his land and planted palay thereon. "A", with a bolo in hand, replied
that the land belongs to the family of "S", and not to "X" and at the same time said, "If
you touch this land and my palay, blood will flow on this ground." Because of said
remark, "X" went to the Chief of Police and complained. The Chief of Police filed a
complex crime of Usurpation of Real Property with Grave Threats. What crime or crimes
were committed?
Answer:
The crime committed by A and B is squatting under PD 772 and not usurpation of
Real Property because in the latter crime, there must be violence against or intimidation
of persons employed in taking possession of any real property or in usurping any real
rights in property belonging to another (Art, 312, RPC). In this case, it appears that A and
B entered X's land without the owner's consent or against his will but without any
violence against or intimidation of persons.
The crime of squatting is committed by any person who, with the use of force,
intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner,
succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will for
residential, commercial or any other purposes.
The threat uttered by A not having been used IN THE TAKING OF
POSSESSION of the land, it is not absorbed in the crime of SQUATTING, When A
threatened X that blood will flow if X touches the land and his palay, he committed the
crime of grave threats by threatening another with the infliction of a wrong amounting
to a crime. Only A is criminally liable for the crime of grave threats.
Art 312; Usurpation of real property vs (SPL) squatting
1977 No. X-a
P occupied a parcel of land when the owner thereof went abroad. When the
owner returned and tried to enter the land, P successively shot him for around ten
times to scare him from entering the land. The landowner was not hit. P was charged of
usurpation of real property and attempted homicide for said acts. Was P correctly
charged? If your answer is in the negative, what crime or crimes will you file against P?
Reason out your answer.
Answer
P was not correctly charged. Occupation of real property is not committed because
in this crime there must be employment of violence or intimidation (Art
312, R.P.C.). The offense committed is squatting under Presidential Decree No. 772 as P
occupied the parcel of land when the owner was abroad. Squatting is committed by the
offender taking advantage of the absence of the landowner occupying his property for
commercial, residential or other purposes. When P successively shot the owner around
ten times to scare him from entering the land, there could be no intent to kill. "To
scare" does not indicate intent to kill. The crime committed is not attempted homicide
but illegal discharge of firearm. (Art. 254, R.P.C.)
Art 312; Usurpation of real rights
1996 No, 17:
Teresita is the owner of a two-hectare land in Bulacan which she planted to rice
and corn. Upon her arrival from a three-month vacation in the United States, she was
surprised to discover that her land had been taken over by Manuel and Teofilo who
forcibly evicted her tenant-caretaker Juliana, after threatening to kill the latter if she
would resist their taking of the land. Thereafter, Manuel and Teofilo plowed, cultivated
and appropriated the harvest for themselves to the exclusion of Teresita.
1) What crime or crimes did Manuel and Teofilo commit? Explain.
2) Suppose Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when the latter refused to surrender
possession of the land, what crime or crimes did the two commit? Explain.
Answer;
1) Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usurpation of real rights under
Art. 312 of the Revised Penal Code for employing violence against or Intimidation of
persons. The threats to kill employed by them in forcibly entering the land is the means of
committing the crime and therefore absorbed in the felony, unless the intimidation
resulted in a more serious felony.
2} The crime would still be usurpation of real rights under Art. 312, RPC, even if
the said offenders killed the caretaker because the killing is the Violence against persons"
which is the means for committing the crime and as such, determinative only. However,
this gives way to the proviso that the penalty provided for therein is "in addition to the
penalty incurred in the acts of violence (murder or homicide] executed by them. The
crime is similar to a robbery where a killing is committed by reason thereof, giving rise
only to one indivisible offense (People vs. Judge Alfeche, plus the fine mentioned
therein.
Art 315; BP 22
1980 No. XX
A check for P20,000.00 was drawn by the Federal Financing Corporation in
favor of "CC", duly signed by "DD", the corporate President, and "EE", the corporate
Treasurer. On the date of the presentation of the said check with the drawee bank, the
check was dishonored but the aforesaid corporate officials were no longer connected
with the corporation.
Charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the "Act Penalizing the
Making or Drawing of Check without Sufficient Funds and for Other Purposes", "DD"
and "EE" contend that they can no longer be held liable for the offense charged because
they are no longer officials of the said corporation.
Decide the case.
 Answer
DD, the Corporate President and EE, the Corporate Treasurer, who signed the
check for the Federal Financing Corporation as drawer, are liable under Batas Pambansa
No. 22 if the check, when presented to the drawee bank, was dishonored for insufficiency
of funds, even though when the check was presented for payment and was dishonored,
the said corporate officials were no longer connected with the corporation.
Batas Pambansa No. 22 is explicit about the liability of the officers of a
corporation who signed the bouncing check for the corporation altho they had ceased to
be officers of the corporation when the check was dishonored. As a matter of fact, an
amendment introduced, during the deliberations of the bill in the Batasang Pambansa, to
exempt from liability the officers of a corporation or association who were no longer
officers when the check was dishonored was not approved by the body.
Art 315; BP 22
1986 No. 14:
On January 1, 1986, Bonifacio sold to Antonio a wrist-watch for P1
,000.00. Antonio took the watch and drew a check forPl,000 payable to Bonifacio or
order. Per agreement, the check was postdated to January 25, 1986.
On January 25, 1986, Antonio called up Bonifacio and requested him not to
present the check until January 30, 1986 by which time the check would be fully funded,
Bonifacio agreed but on the condition that Antonio issue to him another check for P200
to cover the interest. Antonio agreed and issued the second check to Bonifacio. On
January 25, 1986, Bonifacio discounted the first check to Carlos for P900. Carlos paid
Bonifacio P900.00 and Bonifacio endorsed the check to Carlos, Bonifacio assured Carlos
that the check was good and may be encashed on the date indicated thereon. Carlos
presented the check on January 30, 1986. The check was dishonored by the bank for lack
of funds. Carlos immediately notified Antonio and Bonifacio of the dishonor of the
check. Both failed to make good the check.
May Antonio and Bonifacio, both be held liable under B.P No. 22 or the
Bouncing Checks Law? Explain your answer.
Answer:
Only Antonio will be liable under Batas 22 because he issued the check without
sufficient funds. Under the law, said check although postdated, was issued in payment of
the price of a watch for P1,000 and was therefore issued for value. The check was
presented for payment within 90 days from the date of issue. Of course, if Antonio,
within 5 banking days from notice of dishonor, paid Carlos the value of the check or
made a credit arrangement with the bank for its liquidation, then there will be no more
liability under the law.
Bonifacio will not be liable under Batas 22 because he endorsed the check. Under
this law, the one liable is "any person who makes or draws or issues" any check which is
not funded.
Art 315; BP 22
1991 No. 16:
As security for a loan of P50,000.00 he obtained from his friend, Joseph David,
payable not later than 17 April 1990, Roger Vasquez drew and delivered
to Joseph a check for P50,000 dated 17 April 1990. Upon its presentment on due date, the
check was dishonored on the ground of insufficiency of funds. On the basis of the
complaint of Joseph, and after appropriate preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor
filed against Roger an Information for violation of B.P. Big. No. 22 alleging therein,
inter alia, that Roger "with intent to defraud, by means of deceit, knowing fully well that
he had no funds and/or sufficient funds in the bank, for value received, did then and
there, willfully and feloniously, issue the aforesaid check" but "when the said check was
presented for encashment, said check was dishonored and returned" on the ground of
insufficiency of funds.
In a decision rendered thereafter, the trial judge ruled that Roger cannot be
convicted of the offense charged because the information failed to allege that he knew,
when he issued the check, that he would have sufficient- funds for its payment in full
upon its presentment to the drawee bank.
Is the Judge correct?
Answer:
The Judge is not correct in dismissing the case. The allegation satisfies the
legal definition of the offense. The maker's knowledge of insufficiency of his funds is
legally presumed from the dishonor of the check for lack of funds. (People vs. Laggui
171 SCRA 305).
Art 315; BP 22; memorandum check
1994 No. 1;
2) What is a memorandum check?
3) Is the "bouncing" thereof within the purview of BP Blg. 22?
Answer;
2) A "Memorandum Check" is an ordinary check, with the word
"Memorandum", "Memo" or "Mem" written across its face, signifying that the maker or
drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a promissory
note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of
the Negotiable Instruments Law (People vs. Judge David Nitafan, G.R. No. 75954,
October 22, 1992).
3) Yes, a memorandum check is covered by Batas Pambansa No. 22 because
the law covers any check whether it is an evidence of Indebtedness, or in payment of a
pre-existing obligation or as a deposit or guarantee (People versus Nita-fan).
Art 315; BP 22; memorandum check
1995 No. 4:
1. (a) What is a memorandum check ?
(b) Is a person who issues a memorandum check without sufficient funds
necessarily guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22? Explain.
2. Jane is a money lender. Edmund is a businessman who has been borrowing
money from Jane by rediscounting his personal checks to pay his loans. In March 1989,
he borrowed P100,000 from Jane and issued to her a check for the same amount. The
check was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn against a closed
account. When Edmund was notified of the dishonor of his check he promised to raise the
amount within five days. He failed. Consequently, Jane sued Edmund for violation of
the Bouncing Checks
Law (BP. Blg. 22). The defense of Edmund was that he gave the check to Jane to serve
as a memorandum of his indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be encashed.
Is the defense of Edmund valid? Discuss fully.
Answer;
1. (a) A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word
"Memorandum", "Memo", or "Mem" written across the face, signifying that the maker or
drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a promissory
note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of
the Negotiable Instruments Law. (People vs. Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79)
(b) Yes, a person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is
guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22 as said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence of
indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation, or as deposit or guarantee.
(People vs. Nitafan)
2. The defense of Edmund is NOT valid. A memorandum check upon
presentment is generally accepted by the bank. It does not matter whether the check is in
the nature of a memorandum as evidence of indebtedness. What the law punishes is the
mere issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
terms and conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is a
malum prohibitum. The understanding that the check will not be presented at the bank but
will be redeemed by the maker when the loan falls due is a mere private arrangement
which may not prevail to exempt It from the penal sanction of B.P. Blg. 22. (People vs.
Nitafan)
Art 315; BP 22; presumption of knowledge
2002 No XIII.
A a businessman, borrowed P500,000.00 from B, a friend. To pay the loan, A
issued a postdated check to be presented for payment 30 days after the transaction. Two
days before the maturity date of the check, A called up B and told him not to deposit the
check on the date stated on the face thereof, as A had not deposited in the drawee bank
the amount needed to cover the check. Nevertheless, B deposited the check in question
and the same was dishonored of insufficiency of funds. A failed to settle the amount
with B in spite of the latter's demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise
known as the Bouncing Checks Law? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A Is liable for violation of BP. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), Although
knowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lack of funds at the time of the issuance of
the check is an essential element of the violation, the law presumes prima facie such
knowledge, unless within five (5) banking days of notice of dishonor or non-payment, the
drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangements for
payment in full by the drawee of such checks
A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the maturity date of the
check will not defeat the presumption of knowledge created by the law; otherwise, the
purpose and spirit of B.P. 22 will be rendered useless.
Art 315; Estafa
 1977 No XI-b
0 June 2, 1976, L drew a check in favor of M for P200 in the payment of goods
that he purchased from him on May 25, 1976. The check, when presented for payment,
was dishonored for insufficient funds, hence, M notified L of the fact. But
notwithstanding the lapse of three days from receipt of said notice, L failed to pay or
deposit the necessary amount to cover said check. Did L commit estafa? Reason fully.
Answer
L is not liable for estafa. The bouncing check was issued in payment of a pre-
existing obligation. The drawer did not obtain anything by the issuance of said
check (People v. Canlas, CA 38 O.G. 1032). To constitute estafa even under the
law as amended, the check dishonored for lack of sufficient funds must be issued at the
time of contracting the obligation in payment thereof. (People v Teodorico, CA 69 O.G.
4928).
Alternative Answer
Estafa is committed. Under the new law, the mere issuance of a check, whether
postdated or not in payment of an obligation, is estafa when the drawer had no funds in
the bank or his funds deposited were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The
drawer can no longer avail of the defense of a pre- existing obligation or that he did not
know that he had insufficient funds or no funds in the bank. If within three days from
notice, the drawer failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover the check as what is
indicated in the problem, there is a prima, facie evidence of deceit constituting the false
pretense or the fraudulent act. This is the intention of the amendment according to its
author, former Senator Padilla.
Art 315; Estafa
1979 No. III
X called up Y, proprietor of a restaurant, and inquired how much would he spend
for a party of 20 people where 6 specific viands were to be served. Upon information that
the cost would be P600, X and his party proceeded to Y's restaurant and ordered the food
as agreed upon. When the bill came, X found that he was being charged P700.00. Y told
him he committed a mistake in informing him that the cost was only P600.00. X refused
to pay. After an altercation, Y said he would accept P600 but X replied that the incident
had embarrassed him. X refused to pay a single centavo and threatened to sue Y for
damages, Y filed an estafa case against X. Will the charge prosper?
Answer
The case will prosper. The refusal of X to pay the amount of P600.00 which
Y already agreed to accept would constitute defraudation of the owner of the restaurant
since X and his party obtained the food served therein. (Art. 315, par. 2(5), Revised Penal
Code). The embarrassment suffered by X during the altercation regarding the correct
price of the food is not any justification for him to refuse payment. If at all, to vindicate
his injured feelings, he has another remedy other than refusal to pay the price.
Art 315; Estafa
1989 No. 18:
 Alfredo is the corporate treasurer of Multimillion Insurance Company. As
corporate treasurer, he would have in his possession an average of P5,000,000 at any
given time. In 1984, when the money market rate of interest ranged from 35% to 50%,
Alfredo place P1,000,000 of the corporate funds in the money market in his name without
the knowledge of any other corporate official of the company. Upon maturity of the
money market placement, Alfredo returned the amount of P1,000,000 to the corporation,
but kept to himself the interest income of P250,000, At the end of 1984, when audit
examinations of his accounts were undertaken, the auditors found no shortage in his
accountabilities. Did Alfredo commit any crime?
Answer:
Yes, Alfredo committed the crime of estafa thru abuse of confidence, even if he
had no intention to permanently misappropriate the corporate funds for himself. The law
on estafa is clear and does not make any distinctions between permanent and temporary
misappropriations, for as long as damage is suffered by the offended party. Damage was
suffered by the corporation in this case because if the Pl million pesos had not been
withdrawn from the corporate coffers it would have earned interest for the benefit of
the company.
Estafa, and not qualified theft, is committed because as corporate treasurer.
Alfredo has juridical possession of the P5 million pesos in his custody. This was in the
nature of a trust fund entrusted to him for corporate purposes. While it is a general
principle that misappropriation of trust funds for short periods does not always amount to
estafa, it has been held that his principle cannot extend to cases where officers of
corporations converted corporate funds to their own use, (U,S. vs. Sevilla, 43 Phil. 190).
Fraudulent intent is not even necessary in such cases because the breach of confidence
involved in the misappropriation or conversion of trust funds takes the place of fraudulent
intent and is in itself sufficient.
Art 315; Estafa
1990 No, 2;
Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of the town, was also the treasurer of a
charity ball of the church. Because he was short of payroll funds for the municipal
employees, he used part of the church funds to replenish the payroll funds with the
Intention of returning the same when the public funds came.
a) Is Dencio guilty of malversation under the revised Penal Code? State your
reasons,
b) Assuming that he failed to replenish the church funds, may he be held
criminally liable thereby? Explain.
Answer:
b) Yes, momentary use of funds, since there is defraudation, is tantamount to
estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code. This is because he received the funds
in his fiduciary capacity as treasurer and there was temporary damage caused. Personal
benefit is not an element of the crime of estafa.
Art 315; Estafa
1991 No. 19:
A entrusted her car to B for repainting at the agreed cost of P7,800.00. When the
painting job was finished, A wanted to get the car but B refused to
deliver until payment is made. When A came back the next day, the shop was already
closed, and B and the car were nowhere to be found. When finally B was located, he told
A that he sold the car and applied the amount to the repainting cost and labor.
A sued B for estafa. The information related the above facts, indicating the car as
the subject of the felony. The Regional Trial Court convicted B for the crime charged,
Under the facts, is the conviction proper?
Answer:
Conviction was correct. Estafa was really committed as B had both physical and
juridical possession of the car, Having painted the car, he acquired a lien thereto, and
therefore could exercises that right against the whole world, including the owner.
Art 315; Estafa
1992 No. 4:
At the height of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at around midnight, Aniceto joined
some neighbors in evacuating his family, a few possessions and two horses to higher
ground. Miguel, taking advantage of the darkness and the confusion, got one of the
horses and asked his friend Doro to accompany him to Angeles City where he sold the
same to an acquaintance Peping. Searching for his horse, Aniceto found it, with
identifying brand intact, in the possession of Peping who refused to surrender the same
saying that he had paid good money for it. Whereupon, Aniceto reported the matter to the
police who promised to accompany him to the Prosecutor's office.
b) Suppose, before the eruption, Miguel had borrowed the horse for a couple of
days from Aniceto. When the eruption occurred and after evacuating his family,
Aniceto asked Miguel to return the horse to him. Miguel answered that the horse had run
away and he could not locate it. Aniceto, however, found the beast in the possession of
Peping who told him that it was sold to him (Peping) by Miguel. What criminal offense
has Miguel committed, if any?
Suggested Answer:
b) Miguel having borrowed the horse, he has obligation to return the same. His
failure to return the same upon demand will make him criminally liable for Estafa under
Art. 315, par. 1(b), RPC.
Art 315; Estafa
1998 No XII.
Divina, is the owner of a 500-square meter residential lot in Makati City covered
by TCT No. 1998. As her son needed money for his trip abroad, Divina mortgaged her lot
to her neighbor Dino for P1,000,000. Later Divina sold the same lot to Angel for
P2,000,000. In the Deed of Sale, she expressly stated that the property is free from any
lien or encumbrance.
What crime, if any, did Divina commit? [5%] Answer:
Divina committed estafa or swindling under Art. 316, par. 2 of the Revised Penal
Code because, knowing that the real property being sold is encumbered, she still made a
misrepresentation in the Deed of Sale that the same is free from any lien or encumbrance.
There is thus a deceit or fraud causing damage to the buyer of the lot.
Art 315; Estafa
1999 No XIV
(a) Is there such a crime as estafa through negligence? Explain. (2%)
(b) Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer in jewelry who does
business in Timog, Quezon City. Rosa, a resident of Cebu City, agreed to sell a diamond
ring and bracelet to Victoria on a commission basis, on condition that, if these items can
not be sold, they may be returned to Victoria forthwith.
Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa delivered both items to Aurelia In
Cebu City with the understanding that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the items to Victoria
in Timog, Quezon City. Aurelia dutifully returned the bracelet to Victoria but sold the
ring, kept the cash proceeds thereof to herself, and issued a check to Victoria which
bounced. Victoria sued Rosa for estafa under Article 315, R.P.C., Victoria insisting that
delivery to a third person of the thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa.
Is Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the circumstances? Explain, [4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. In estafa, the profit or
gain must be obtained by the accused personally, through his own acts, and his mere
negligence in allowing another to take advantage of or benefit from the entrusted chattel
cannot constitute estafa. (People v. Nepomuceno, CA, 46OG 6135)
(b) No, 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 Amelia's acts. Furthermore, as explained above,
Rosa's negligence which may have allowed Aurelia to misappropriate the jewelry does
not make her criminally liable for estafa.
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22
1988 No. 14:
(b) Raul Doria gave in trust two acrylic paintings to Amar Solo to be sold on
commission basis for P20,000. Failing to sell them to George Ty, Amar consigned the
paintings to Alcanto Gallery. In the same month, Amar retrieved one painting and tried to
return in to Raul who refused to receive it without the other painting. The other painting
was bought by Mr. Lomot whose check, which Amar gave to Raul, bounced, so that
Amar paid Raul his own check of P6,500.00 promising in writing to pay the P3,500-00
balance less his commission.
Is Amar liable for estafa? Why?
How about Mr. Lomot, what crime, if any did he commit?
ANSWER:
(b) Amar is not liable for estafa but is liable for violation of BP 22, There is only
civil liability because as long as no case has been filed in court, an obligation can still be
novated. In this case there was novation.
Mr. Lomot is liable for violation of BP 22.
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22
1983 No. 16
A issued to B a P30,000 check in payment of the jewelry the former
simultaneously received from the latter. The check bounced.
For what offense or offenses may A be indicted? If accused for violation of two
separate laws, could A be held liable under both? Reasons.
Answer
A can be indicted for estafa under Act 315, par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code
as amended by Rep. Act 4885 and under Batas 22 for the offense of issuing a bouncing
check. Under the Revised Penal Code the bouncing check was issued in payment of the
jewelry received, which is, therefore a simultaneous obligation. Under Batas 22 the
check is issued for value. The accused can be held liable for both. Sections 5 of Batas 22
provides that liability under the law is without prejudice to any liability under the Revised
Penal Code. There is no double jeopardy because the two offenses are not the same. In
estafa, damage is an element. The offense punished in Batas 22 does not require
damage. Besides Batas 22 as a special law punishes an offense which is Malum
Prohibitum. Criminal intent is not an element. In estafa, intent to defraud is an element.
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22
1988 No. 14:
(b) Raul Doria gave in trust two acrylic paintings to Amar Solo to be sold on
commission basis for P20,000. Failing to sell them to George Ty, Amar consigned the
paintings to Alcanto Gallery. In the same month, Amar retrieved one painting and tried to
return in to Raul who refused to receive it without the other painting. The other painting
was bought by Mr. Lomot whose check, which Amar gave to Raul, bounced, so that
Amar paid Raul his own check of P6,500.00 promising in writing to pay the P3,500-00
balance less his commission.
Is Amar liable for estafa? Why?
How about Mr. Lomot, what crime, if any did he commit?
ANSWER:
(b) Amar is not liable for estafa but is liable for violation of BP 22, There is only
civil liability because as long as no case has been filed in court, an obligation can still be
novated. In this case there was novation.
Mr. Lomot is liable for violation of BP 22.
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22
1990 No. 10:
Exidor issued a check in payment of goods delivered to him by Virginia.
Unfortunately the check bounced for lack of sufficient funds.
a) What Is the criminal liability of Exidor? Explain your answer.
b) Suppose the bouncing check was postdated, will your answer be the same?
State your reasons.
Answer;
 a) Exidor is liable under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) and for estafa
under Article 315, par. 2[d), Revised Penal Code
b) He will only be liable under the Bouncing Checks Law. (B.P. 22)
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22
1992 No. 10:
Pedro Pobre sought financial assistance from his millionaire friend Joey
Manriquez who accomodated him by issuing in his favor a postdated check in the amount
of P10,000.00. Both of them knew that said check was not duly funded in the bank. The
two then approached Marie Vic Bautista and asked her to change the check with cash,
adding that even P9,500.00 will do, on the assurance that it shall be funded on the due
date. When Bautista presented the check to the bank for encashment on its due date, it
was dishonored as the account was closed.
What action may Bautista bring against Pobre and
Manriquez to hold them criminally liable to recover the P9,500.00 she gave
them? Explain,
Suggested Answer:
Both Pobre and Manriquez can be successfully charged of estafa under Art. 315.
RPC. and violation of BP No. 22.
Estafa, because Manriquez (in conspiracy with Pobre) issued a post-dated check
in payment of a simultaneous obligation, that is the cash of P9,500.00, and when the
check was presented for payment the same bounced. Manriquez cannot even hide behind
the alibi that he issued the check as an accomodation or as a guarantee for the obligation
of Pobre. Jurisprudence are extant that extends the sanction of bouncing checks even
under those circumstances.
BP No. 22 was likewise transgressed because the postdated check was made and
issued "on account or for value". Prosecution can he resorted to under both statutes, as the
elements in the two offenses vary, and besides Estafa is a crime against property whereas
violation of the special law is an offense against public interest.
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22
1996 No. 7:
1) The accused was convicted under B.P, Blg. 22 for having issued several
checks which were dishonored by the drawee bank on their due date because the accused
closed her account after the issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that she could not
be convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 by reason of the closing of her account because said law
applies solely to checks dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds and that at the
time she issued the checks concerned, she had adequate funds in the bank. While she
admits that she may be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code,
she cannot however be found guilty of having violated B.P. Blg. 22.
Is her contention correct? Explain.
Answer:
1) No, the contention of the accused is not correct. As long as the checks issued
were issued to apply on account or for value, and was dishonored upon presentation for
payment to the drawee bank for lack of insufficient funds on their due date, such act
falls within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. Said law expressly
punishes any person who may have insufficient funds in the drawee bank when he issues
the check, but fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check when
presented to the drawee bank within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon.
Art 315; Estafa & BP 22
2003 No XII.
A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B's financial problems. On
his way, one of A's car tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting, he asked B to
lend him (A) money to buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank
deposits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a replenishment of his account
soon, B issued A a postdated check with which A negotiated for a new tire. When
presented, the check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed a criminal
case against A and B. What would be the criminal liability, if any, of each of the two
accused? Explain. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a new tire for his car may
only be prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the
check has no sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not criminally liable.
B who accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be prosecuted under BP
22 for having issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the
bank and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may not be
prosecuted for estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud
in issuing the check which A negotiated. Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to
help A: criminal intent or dolo is absent.
Art 315; Estafa & BP22
1984 No 12
A issued and delivered a check to his friend B. Both A and B knew that the check
was not funded.
In payment of some goods, B indorsed the check to C,
who immediately deposited it with his bank.
When presented for payment to the drawee bank, the check was dishonored.
Notices for dishonor were sent to A and B. One month thereafter, C went to the City
Fiscal's Office to file a criminal complaint.
Against whom should the complaint be filed and for what crime or crimes, if
any? Explain.
A. Furnished 6y Office of Justice Palma
A is liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Check Law,
which punishes the mere act of issuing a check not sufficiently funded.
B is liable for estafa for negotiating in bad faith the check to C that the same was
not funded.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
Under the Revised Penal Code, A, the drawer is not liable for estafa, as he
delivered the check to B, a friend, who knew that the check was not funded.
Deceit was not employed by A in the issuance of the check. B, however, who endorsed
the check as payee to C in payment of some goods, with knowledge that the check was
not funded, acted in bad faith or with deceit, and with intent to defraud C, the endorsee, is
liable for estafa. (People vs. Isleta et al 61 Phil. 332).
Under Batas No. 22, A is liable for the offense of issuing a check without
sufficient funds. The presumption is the check was issued for a consideration or for value
and A made, drew or issued said check knowing at the time of issue that he did not
have sufficient funds to pay the check in full when presented for payment B, the endorser,
is not liable under Batas 22 as he is not the maker, drawer or issuer of said bouncing
check.
Art 315; Estafa & BP22
1987 No. VIII;
Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000.00 from PY & Sons Construction
Company owned by Pedro, and paid the latter a check in the said amount. The following
day, Pedro deposited the check, but it was returned dishonored because it was drawn
against a closed account. Notwithstanding written demands, Jose failed to make good
said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code and another for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg, 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for
Jose, claimed that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and not for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
because one precludes the other and because Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty.-The investigating fiscal,
on his resolution, stated that only one crime was committed, namely, the complex crime
of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 because the single act of issuing the bouncing check constitutes two
offenses, one under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22.
If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to review the matter, how would you
resolve it?
Answer:
The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. There is no complex crime
of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A
complex crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the Revised Penal Code.
Batas 22 which punishes the offense of issuing a worthless check is a special law. The
contention of Atty. San Pascual, counsel of Jose that his client should be liable only for
Batas 22 and for estafa under the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the other
and because Batas 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty
cannot also be sustained. Batas 22 specifically provides that liability under said act is
without prejudice to any liability for estafa under the Revised Penal Code. The check
issued by Jose in payment of roofing materials from PY and Sons was worthless. Said
bouncing check having been issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation constitutes
estafa under the Revised Penal Code and also the offense punished under Batas 22. There
is no identity of offenses. Damage is not an element of the offense punished in Batas 22
whereas in estafa damage is an element. Estafa is an act mala in se in which requires
intent as an element while the offense punished in Batas 22 is an act mala prohibita where
intent is not an element.
Art 315; Estafa & Malversation
1986 No 21:
Corporal Hamak and Sergeant Salat, both policemen, responded to a call for
assistance from Maglimayon, the owner of a bar along Mabini Street. It appears that
Maligalig, a customer, had been creating trouble in the bar, prompting the owner to
request him to leave. Maligalig pulled a gun and shot Maglimayon, Slightly wounded,
Maglimayon reached for his own gun but before he could shoot, other customers subdued
Maligalig.
Corporal Hamak and Sergeant Salat questioned the protagonists and got an
admission from Maligalig that the gun he used was unlicensed. On the other hand,
Maglimayon produced the license and permit for his firearm.
Hamak confiscated Maligalig's firearm. Salat asked for Maglimayon's firearm,
explaining that he had to bring it to the police headquarters for examination but promised
that he would return it to Maglimayon in five days.
(a) Hamak sold the firearm of Maligalig. What offense, if any did Hamak
commit? Give the elements of the offense as part of the explanation in your answer.
(b) Salat gave away Maglimayon's firearm as a gift to his girlfriend. What
offense, if any, did Salat Commit? Explain.
Answer:
(a) Hamak will be liable for malversation. Since the firearm was unlicensed,
then it should be confiscated by the Government as what Hamak did. Such partake of the
nature of public property with Hamak, a public officer, having the custody thereof.
(People vs. Magsino CA 50 O.G. 678),
The elements of malversation are:
1. The offender is a public officer
2. He has the custody or control of public funds or property by reason of his
office.
3. He is accountable for these public funds or property.
4. He appropriates, takes, misappropriates, consents, or through
abandonment or negligence, permits another to take the same (Art. 217, Revised Penal
Code).
(b) Salat committed estafa. He received the licensed firearm from the owner who
is a private person with the promise to return it after it has been examined in the police
headquarters. The fact that he gave it to his girlfriend constitutes misappropriation as he
has the obligation to return it to the owner.
Art 315; Estafa through falsification of a commercial document
1986 No. 9:
Sumaway stole Magtamo's savings deposit passbook after waiting for the latter to
leave the room. Sumaway proceeded immediately to the bank and misrepresented
himself as the owner of the passbook. He also forged the signature of Magtamo on the
withdrawal slip. Because of this acts, he was able to withdraw P10,000.00 from
Magtamo's savings account.
What offense or offenses did Sumaway commit? State your reasons.
Answer:
 The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of a commercial document
(People vs. Pineda CA 37 O/G. 525).
The forging of the signature of Magtamo in the withdrawal slip constitutes
falsification of a commercial document. The crime, is a means necessary to defraud the
owner of the savings passbook.
Alternative Answer:
Two crimes are committed.
1. Theft of the savings pass book. It was taken with intent to gain without force
upon things as in robbery nor violence or intimidation.
2. Estafa thru falsification of commercial document. The forging of the signature
of the owner of the savings pass book in the withdrawal slip is falsification of a
commercial document which is a means to commit estafa.
Art 315; Estafa through falsification
2000 No XVI
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr, Rico Yto, a private Individual, went
to the office of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented themselves as
agents of Moonglow Commercial Trading, an Importer of children's clothes and toys.
Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau of
Customs the necessary Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration covering
Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list, a
commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration which declared
the shipment as children's toys, the taxes and duties of which were computed at
P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the Manila
International Container Port. However, before the shipment was released, a spot check
was conducted by Customs Senior Agent James Bandido, who discovered that the
contents of the van (shipment) were not children's toys as declared in the shipping
documents but 1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes and duties computed at
P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by the
District Collector of Customs. Further investigation showed that Moonglow is non-
existent. Consequently, Mr, Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and convicted for
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among others, for public
officers to cause any undue Injury to any party, including the Government. In the
discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the accused alleged that the
decision was erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an
attempted stage, and that in fact the Government did not suffer any undue injury.
a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain. (3%)
b) Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not
punishable, may the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the
Revised Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime was not consummated
is correct, ...
 b) Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents, a complex crime. They tried to defraud the Government with the use of false
commercial and public documents. Damage is not necessary.
Art 315; Estafa through falsification of commercial documents
1997 No. 13:
The accused opened a saving account with Bank A with an initial deposit of
P2,000.00. A few days later, he deposited in the savings account a Bank B check for P
10,000.00 drawn and endorsed purportedly by C. Ten days later, he withdrew P
10,000.00 from his savings account. C complained to Bank B when the check was
deducted from his account. Two days thereafter, the accused deposited another Bank B
check of P 10,000.00 signed and endorsed allegedly by C. A week later, the accused went
to Bank A to withdraw P10,000.00. While withdrawing the amount, he was arrested.
Convicted under two informations of estafa and attempted estafa both through
falsification of commercial documents, he set up the defenses that, except for the
showing that the signature of C had been forged, no further evidence was presented to
establish (a) that he was the forger of the signature of C nor (b), that as to the second
charge. C suffered any damage.
Rule on the defense.
Answer;
The defense is not tenable; (a) the possessor of a falsified document is presumed
to be the author of the falsification (People vs. Sendaydtego, 81 SCRA 120; Koh Tiek vs.
People, et al, Dec. 21, 1990); (b) In estafa. a mere disturbance of property rights, even if
temporary, would be sufficient to, cause damage. Moreover, in a crime of falsification of
a commercial document, damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary because the
principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth
as therein solemnly proclaimed.
Art 315; Estafa through falsification of private document
1984 No. 9
Can the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a private document be
committed? State your reasons.
Answer:
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma.
There is no such crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code, so it cannot be
committed under any circumstance.
The reason for this is that the falsification of a private document to be punishable
requires damage to a third person or intent to cause damage, consequently, where there is
conversion to his own use of the amount collected through the use of falsified documents,
the crime committed is that of falsification of private document with prejudice to a third
person and not estafa through falsification of private document.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
There is no complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a private document The
reason is the damage which is an element of estafa in the very same damage which is
caused by the falsification of a private document, as an element thereof. So, the
falsification of a private document cannot be a means to commit estafa as the immediate
effect of the falsification which is the damage, is the same as that of estafa. If a private
document is falsified to cause damage to the offended party the crime is falsification of a
private document. (People vs. Reyes 56 Phil. 286). If a private document is falsified to
conceal the misappropriation by the accused of the money belonging to the offended
party, the crime is estafa. (People vs. Co Beng CA 40 O.G. 1919).
Art 315; Estafa through falsification of public document
1993 No. 1:
B Imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a lot, in special power of
attorney naming him (B) as the attorney-in-fact of A. On February 13, 1964, B
mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of attorney to obtain a loan of
P8,500.00. On the same day, both the special power of attorney and the mortgage
contract were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds. Because of B's failure to pay, the
bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new title was
issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that the property was already registered in the name
of X because of an ejectment case filed against him by X.
1) If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or crimes would you charge B?
Explain.
2) If you were the counsel of B, what would be your defense? Discuss.
Answer;
1) The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of public document.
2) My defense will be prescription ...
Art 315; Estafa vs illegal exaction
1977 No. VIII-b
 A teller of the provincial treasurer's office told the landowner that his real estate
tax due is P500.00 when actually it is only P400. The landowner paid as told. In order
that the landowner will not discover the excess, the teller made it appear in the original of
the official receipt to be given to the landowner that P500.00 was paid but in the duplicate
left with him, the true amount of P400.00 was stated. Thereafter, the teller
misappropriated the entire amount of P500.00. Assuming that you are the investigating
fiscal, what crime will you file against the teller? State your reasons.
Answer
As investigating fiscal, I would file against the teller three crimes, to wit: (1)
illegal exaction or estafa, (2) falsification of public document, and (3) malversation. By
telling the landowner that his real estate tax due was P500.00 which was paid, when
actually it was only P400.00 the teller of the provincial treasurer's office collected an
amount bigger than that authorized by law. The teller is a public officer and in view of his
duties is entrusted with the collection of taxes. Illegal exaction is committed. The total
amount of P500.00 was paid in the concept of tax and forms a part of the public funds.
The misappropriation of P500.00 would constitute malversation of public funds since the
one prejudiced is the government (People v. Policher, 60 Phil. 771). However, if
the teller by means of deceit, collected the sum of P500.00 to misappropriate the excess
of P100.00, estafa and not illegal exaction is committed (U.S. Lopez, et al, 10 Phil. 480).
The falsification of the original of the official receipt is an independent crime since it was
committed in order that the landowner would not discover the excess. The
misappropriation of the P400 being paid as a tax is malversation.
Art 315; Estafa; defense of ownership
2002 No XII.
A sold a washing machine to B on credit, with the understanding that B could
return the appliance within two weeks if, after testing the same, B decided not to buy it.
Two weeks lapsed without B returning the appliance. A found out that B had sold the
washing machine to a third party- Is B liable for estafa? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, B is not liable for estafa because he is not just an entrustee of the washing
machine which he sold; he is the owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the washing
machine to him. The sale being on credit, B as buyer is only liable for the unpaid price
of the washing machine; his obligation is only a civil obligation. There is no felonious
misappropriation that could constitute estafa.
Art 315; Estafa; defense of ownership
1996 No. 10;
On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corporation received from Maricar the
sum of P500,000 as money market placement for sixty days at fifteen (15) per cent
interest, and the President of said Corporation issued a check covering the amount
including the interest due thereon, postdated May 30, 1995. On the maturity date,
however, Orpheus Financing Corporation failed to deliver back Mari-car's money
placement with the corresponding interest earned, notwithstanding repeated demands
upon said Corporation to comply with its commitment.
 Did the President of Orpheus Financing Corporation incur any criminal liability
for estafa for reason of the nonpayment of the money market placement? Explain.
Answer:
No, the President of the financing corporation does not incur criminal
liability for estafa because a money market transaction partakes of the nature of a loan,
such that nonpayment thereof would not give rise to estafa through misappropriation or
conversion. In money market placement, there is transfer of ownership of the money to
be invested and therefore the liability for Its return is civil in nature (Perez vs. Court of
Appeals, 127 SCRA 636; Sebreno vs. Court of Appeals etal, G.R. 84096, 26 Jan 95).
Art 315; Estafa; effect of novation
1984 No. 10
Does novation or compromise affect the criminal liability of a person accused of
estafa? Explain.
Answer:
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma,
Novation or compromise does not affect criminal liability of the offender or
accused. So, partial payment or extension of time to pay the amount misappropriated or
acceptance of a promissory note for payment of the amount involved does not extinguish
criminal liability, because a criminal offense is committed against the people and the
offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for
the commission of the offense.
But if the compromise is executed before a criminal action is instituted or where
the amount misappropriated was converted into a contract of loan and the accused was
made to acknowledge the debt, there is novation of contract so as to extinguish any
incipient criminal liability of the accused; but the novation must be expressed and must
refer only to the incipient criminal liability.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
Novation or compromise does not affect the criminal liability of a person accused
of estafa if it occurs after the filing of the criminal action in court. So, partial payment or
extension of time to pay the amount misappropriated does not extinguish criminal
liability because a criminal offense is committed against the People and the offended
party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the
commission of the offense. (People vs. Gervacio L 7705 Dec. 24, 1957).
But if the compromise is executed before a criminal action is instituted as where
the amount misappropriated was converted into a contract of loan and the accused was
made to acknowledge the debt, there is novation of contract so as to extinguish any
incipient criminal liability of the accused but the novation must be expressed and must
refer only to the incipient criminal liability. It prevents the rise of criminal liability as
long as it occurs prior to the filing of the criminal information (Guingona Jr. vs. City
Fiscal et al of Manila L-64750, Jan. 30, 1984, 127 SCRA 201).
Art 315; Estafa; pre-existing obligation
1976 No. X-b
 X purchased from Y, owner of a grocery store merchandise, worth P600.00. He
signed a promissory note for the amount of P500.00 payable on or before October 30,
1976. On the date of the maturity of the promissory note, X gave a check with the bank,
the same was dishonored for lack of funds. Is X liable for estafa?
Answer
X is not liable for estafa. The check was issued off the date of the maturity of a
promissory note for P500.00. It was issued therefore in payment of a pre- existing
obligation, and since X did not obtained anything by the issuance of the said check, even
if dishonored for insufficiency of funds, estafa is not committed. (People vs. Canlas, CA
38 O.G. 1032). A bouncing check which is issued in payment of a debt at a pre-existing
obligation is still a defense inspite of the amendment of par. 2(d) Art. 315, RPC by R.A.
4885. (People vs. Cua, CA No. 16841-CR, March 2, 1976), To constitute estafa under the
law as amended, the check dishonored for lack of funds must be issued at the time of
contracting the obligation in payment thereof. (People vs. Teodorico, CA 69 O.G. 4928).
The Department of Justice in a July 1976 opinion adheres to this view, in a directive to
all prosecuting officers for compliance, unless a different doctrine is established by the
Supreme Court.
Dissenting Opinion of SEN, PADILLA. — The mere issuance of check without
sufficient funds is estafa.
Art 315; Estafa; violation of PD 115
1995 No. 8:
Julio obtained a letter of credit from a local bank in order to import auto tires from
Japan. To secure payment of his letter of credit, Julio executed a trust receipt in favor of
the bank. Upon arrival of the tires, Julio sold them but did not deliver the proceeds to the
bank.
Julio was charged with estafa under P.D. No. 115 which makes the violation of a
trust receipt agreement punishable as estafa under Art. 315, par. (1), subpar. (b), of the
Revised Penal Code. Julio contended that P.D. No. 115 was unconstitutional because it
violated the Bill of Rights provision against imprisonment for non-payment of debt.
Rule on the contention of Julio, Discuss fully. Answer:
Such contention is invalid. A trust receipt arrangement doesn't involve merely a
simple loan transaction but includes likewise a security feature where the creditor bank
extends financial assistance to the debtor-importer in return for the collateral or security
title as to the goods or merchandise being purchased or imported. The title of the bank to
the security is the one sought to be protected and not the loan which is a separate and
distinct agreement. What is being penalized under P,D. No. 115 is the misuse or
misappropriation of the goods or proceeds realized from the sale of the goods, documents
or Instruments which are being held in trust for the entrustee-banks. In other words, the
law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods
to the prejudice of the other, and hence there is no violation of the right against
imprisonment for non-payment of debt. (People vs. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 725)
Art 315; Estafa; violation of PD 115
1983 No. 1
 A imported lychees, covering its payment with a letter of credit he obtained from
a bank under a trust receipt arrangement. Upon arrival of the goods, he sold all of them
but did not turn over the proceeds to the bank, despite demands for him to do so. What
crime, if any, did A commits? Why?
Answer
Estafa thru misappropriation. Presidential Decree No. 115 provides that the
misappropriation of the proceeds realized from the sale of goods released under a trust
receipt is estafa under par. L(b) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The reason is
that the bank who has advanced the payment of the imported lychees under a letter of
credit obtained by the importer continues to be vested with the ownership of the goods
until the proceeds of the sale have been turned over to the bank. (Samo vs. People L-
17603-04, May 31, 1962) Presidential Decree No. 115 provides further that the failure of
the importer to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods under a trust receipt
arrangement to the extent of the amount owning to the bank is estafa.
Art 315; Estafa; violation of PD115
1985 No. 15
Garcia, an importer, succeeded in convincing his bank to release his importation
under a trust receipt agreement he signed last January 15, 1985. Upon maturity of the
trust receipts on February 5, 1985, Garcia paid the bank in check which was however
dishonored. Informed of the said dishonor, Garcia paid only 60% of the amount of his
check and refused to pay the balance despite demands.
(A) On the basis of the foregoing facts, what may Garcia be prosecuted for?
Reasons.
(B) What is the effect of the 50% payment made by Garcia on his criminal
liability? Discuss.
Answer:
(A) Garcia should be prosecuted for the violation of the terms of a trust receipt
which is punished in P.D. No. 115 as estafa through misappropriation or conversion.
Under the trust receipt agreement, Garcia was under obligation upon, maturity thereof to
turn over to the bank the proceeds of the sale of the imported goods, document or
instrument or to return the said goods, documents or instrument if not sold. Failure to
comply with this obligation shall constitute estafa under Art. 315, Par. 1 (b) of the
Revised Penal Code. Since Garcia paid only 50% of the amount, he will be liable for
estafa regarding the balance of 50%.
Art 319; Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property
1981 No. 11
"O" is the owner of a car. He mortgaged it to "B" under the Chattel Mortgage Law
to secure a loan of P2,000.00 that he had obtained from "B". The lawyer of "B" who had
prepared the document for him forgot to register it in the office of the Register of Deeds.
"O" sold the car to "C" as free from liens and encumbrances but failed to pay to "B" the
loan of P2,000.00 on its date of maturity.
Prosecuted for violation of paragraph two of Article 319 of the Revised Penal
Code (Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property), is "O" criminally liable for this
offense? Why?
 Answer
"O" cannot be criminally liable under Art. 319 of the Revised Penal Code, par. 2,
which provides:
"Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge personal property already pledged or
any part thereof under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent of the
mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in. the
Office of the Register of Deeds of the Province where such property is located."
From this provision it is clear that the first mortgage must be recorded in the
Register of Deeds because the consent of the first mortgage must be written at the back
of the second mortgage and noted on the record thereof, (which refers to the first
mortgage) in the Register of Deeds. Selling the thing already mortgaged as free from
liens and encumbrances constitutes estafa. (People vs. Alvarez, 45 Phil. 472).
Art 320; Arson
1980 No. XIV
At about 11:30 A.M., "W" noticed that the nipa roof of their house was on fire. He
got up to get water with which to extinguish the fire. While putting out the fire "W"
noticed "X" near the house carrying a pole to the end of which was attached a rug soaked
with gasoline. "W", shouted "fire! tire" and started to put out the fire. With the help of
some neighbors, "W" succeeded in put-ting out the fire but only after a small portion of
the roof had been burned.
Is "X" liable for frustrated or consummated arson?
Answer
X will be liable for consummated arson. The mere burning of a portion of the
house, which in the problem is the nipa roof, is consummated arson. All the elements of
the acts of execution and accomplishment are present (People vs. Hernandez, 54 Phil.
122). It cannot be frustrated arson because in frustrated arson the offender sets on fire
gasoline soaked rags to burn a building but the fire is put out by a cause independent of
the will of the offender before any portion of the building is burned. (U.S. vs. Valdez, 39
Phil. 240).
Art 320; Arson
1987 No. IV:
Ricardo secured the services of Atty. Juanito to defend him in an arson case
pending in court. Juanito asked his client what actually happened. Ricardo informed his
lawyer that Sing Hua, owner of a department store, hired him to burn the store
because Sing Hua was losing heavily and wanted to get the insurance on the store.
Ricardo said that Sing Hua paid him P5,000.00, and promised an additional 10% of the
proceeds of the P10,000,000.00 fire insurance once this was collected from the insurance
company. He further said that Sing Hua's claim for payment of the tire insurance was still
pending and its approval depended on the outcome of the arson case. This meant that the
ABC Insurance Company would pay the claim should Ricardo be acquitted in the arson
case. Then he would also get the 10% share of the fire insurance proceeds. He told lawyer
Juanito that by depending him in the arson case, the latter would be helping collect the
10% which would amount of P1,000,000.00. After hearing Ricardo's story, Atty. Juanito
told him he could not further give him professional advice or services and so Ricardo
left. That same day, Juanito went to the NBI
and told the NBI what Ricardo narrated him. The NBI alerted ABC Insurance Company
which immediately denied the claim for payment of insurance and filed a complaint for
attempted estafa through arson against Sing Hua and Ricardo.
(a) Did Juanito commit any crime?
(b) Would the situation be different if at the time Ricardo secured the
professional services of Juanito, ABC Insurance Company had already paid Sing Hua the
insurance and the latter had in turn paid Ricardo 10% "thereof?
Answer:
a) Juanito did not commit any crime. By telling Ricardo that he could not
give him professional advice or services, after being informed that the owner of the
department store hired him to burn the store because it was losing heavily and wanted to
get the insurance on the store, and that he was paid already P5,000 with a promise of an
additional 10% of the proceeds of the P10,000,000 fire insurance once collected from the
insurance company, Atty. Juanito complied with his obligation as a lawyer to report to
the authorities whatever knowledge he has regarding the commission of a crime.
b) Juanito will be liable as an accessory because by accepting 10% of the
insurance proceeds even in payment of the professional services, he profited or assisted
the principal, Ricardo, to profit from the proceeds of the commission of the crime,
Art 320; Arson & Murder
1985 No, 17
B set the house of A on fire by way of revenge against the latter. B did not know
that A was inside. A died because of the fire,
(A) What crime or crimes did B commit?
(B) Suppose B knew that A was inside, what crime or crimes did B commit?
(C) Suppose before setting it on fire, B entered the house and killed A. Then B
set the house on fire to hide the body of A. What crime or crimes did B commit?
Explain your answers.
Answer:
(A) B will be liable for the special complex crime of arson with homicide as
provided in Presidential Decree No. 1613, because the death resulted from the arson. The
case of People v. Paterno (L-2665, March 6, 1960)—that the arson absorbed the death, is
no longer controlling.
(B) If B knew that A was in the house when it was set on fire, the crime will be
murder. The fire is the qualifying circumstance.
(C) If B killed A before the house was set on fire, two crimes are committed,
murder and arson. The arson was committed to conceal the crime of murder.
Art 320; Arson & Murder (through use of fire) & Homicide
1989 No. 14:
Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in Barangay Damayan. On one
occasion, Diego called Pablo to come down from his house in order to ask
him why he got his (Diego's) plow without permission. One word led to another. Diego,
in a fit of anger, unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to death. Pablo's 9-year old son,
Mario, who was inside the house, saw the killing of his father. Afraid that he might also
be killed by Diego, Mario covered himself with a blanket and hid in a corner of the
house. To conceal the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablo's body inside the house and
burned it, Mario was also burned to death. What crime or crimes did Diego commit?
Answer:
Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide for the death of Pablo and (2) the
special complex crime of arson with homicide as provided in PD 1613 for the burning of
the house and the death of Mario.
The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide, the killing not being attended by
any of the qualifying circumstances of murder. It was killing in the course of a quarrel.
The burning of the house to conceal the killing of Pablo is a separate crime. Were
it not for the death of Mario, this separate offense would have been arson. But inside the
house was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is under PD No. 1613, because the
death resulted from the arson. If by reason or on the occasion of the arson, death results,
the offense is the special complex or arson with homicide (Sec. 5, PD 1613, which
expressly repealed Art. 320 and consequently the ruling case therein, People v. Paterno
(L-2665, March 6, 1950).
If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house when he set it on fire, the crime
committed, instead of arson, would be MURDER, with fire as the qualifying
circumstance.
Art 320; Arson; Robbery; homicide
1995 No. 12:
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable
savings. Knowing him to be "loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him
to poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money
which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by
his friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge on the three cheats.
Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions
to drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already
sound asleep he hacked all of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled
through the pockets of his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran
away but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day police
investigators found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the
caretaker of the resort.
After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the
complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery.
Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully.
Answer:
No, Harry was net properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three
(3) separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson.
Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was
considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit the crime and the
actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means which weakened the
defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were
drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of murder
with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings.
Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is
still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another
separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the
two (2) previous offenses he committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze
did not qualify Harry's crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is
no such crime.
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with
quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3)
separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.
Art 320; Destructive arson
1994 No. 6:
Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila.
She wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So,
she insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for
monetary consideration, to bum her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds.
Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss.
1) What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit?
2) What is their respective criminal liability?
Answer:
1) Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they
collectively caused the destruction of property by means of fire under the circumstances
which exposed to danger the life or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as amended
by RA No. 7659).
Art 320; Destructive Arson
2000 No XVIII
c) One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario
Cortez. Later that evening, at about 11 o'clock, Eddie passed by the house of Mario
carrying a plastic bag containing gasoline, threw the bag at the house of Mario who was
inside the house watching television, and then lit it. The front wall of the house started
blazing and some neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith, Mario poured water on the
burning portion of the house. Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire under control
before any great damage could be inflicted and before the flames have extensively
spread. Only a portion of the house was burned. Discuss Eddie's liability, (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. It is destructive
arson because fire was resorted to in destroying the house of Mario
which is an inhabited house or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the house
was in fact already burned although not totally. In arson, it is not required that the
premises be totally burned for the crime to be consummated. It is enough that the
premises suffer destruction by burning.
Art 328; Malicious mischief
1976 No. X-a
X is a housemaid in the house of Y. After being scolded several times by the
master of the house, she put rat poison on the food of Y's dog, as a result of which the
dog died. What crime was committed by X? Reason.
Answer
X committed special malicious mischief. The death of the dog is due to the
administration of rat poison in its food. The poisonous substance was hence used by
X to kill a domestic animal of her master. (Art. 328, RPC). The act was done
intentionally and deliberately and the means employed is not fire or any means involving
destruction, for the sake of killing the dog, as she was actuated by resentment or an evil
motive.
Art 328; Malicious mischief
1989 No. 19:
"A" is married to the sister of "B", and the three (3) live together in a house
located a Caloocan City. On several occasions, "B's" dog would bark at "A" everytime he
arrives at past midnight. One time, after arriving in the house at around 2 o'clock in the
morning, "BY" dog barked continuously at "A." In a fit of anger, "A" entered the house,
took a bolo and killed the dog. What crime was committed and what is liability of "A?"
Explain.
Answer:
The crime committed by A is malicious mischief. The elements of this are:
(1) the offender caused damages to the property of other
(2) the damage caused did not constitute arson or any other crime
involving destruction and
(3) the damage was caused by the offender (Caballes vs. DAR, GR 78214,
5 Dec. 88).
A's act of killing the dog is characterized by malice, it being a product of anger
and resentment.
However, A is exempt from criminal liability for the crime committed by him
because he is the brother-in-law of the offended party and they are both living together
under the same roof. Under Art. 332 of the RPC, no criminal, but only civil, liability shall
result from the commission of the crime of THEFT, SWINDLING or MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF committed or caused mutually by among others, brothers and sisters and
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
Art 332; Absolutory cause
1980 No. I
(a) "A", a stranger, and "B", son of "C", connived with each other in
stealing "C's" carabao.
May "A" and "B" be held criminally liable for Theft of Large Cattle?
Answer
(a) Only A is criminally liable, B, being the son of C, the owner of the carabao,
is not liable, because of relationship, which in cases of theft, estafa and malicious
mischief is an absolutory cause. (Art 332, R.P.C.) The term "theft" includes qualified
theft, as it is understood in its generic sense. (People vs. Marciano, CA-G.R. 13818-R,
April 21, 1956.)
However, under Presidential Decree No. 533 the stealing of a carabao is punished
as cattle rustling, in which case A and B will be criminally liable because of conspiracy.
Relationship is not an absolutory cause.
Art 332; Absolutory cause
1981 No, 7
"A" and "B" are brothers-in-law living together in the same house. "A" committed
Estafa through Falsification of a Commercial Document against "B".
Prosecuted for this offense. "A" claimed that because of their relationship the
liability that he had incurred was only civil, not criminal.
 Decide the case with reasons.
Answer
A, in spite of his relationship with B cannot claim exemption from criminal
responsibility from the crime committed. The absolutory cause provided in Art. 332 of
the Revised Penal Code refers to theft, estafa and malicious mischief. Estafa through
falsification as A complex crime is not included. If at all, A is still liable for
falsification of a commercial document.
Art 332; Absolutory cause; applicability to common law
spouses 1980 No. I
(b) Hilario, common-law husband of Gloria, stole the wrist watch of the latter
valued at P2,QOO.OO.
May Hilario be held criminally liable for the crime of Theft?
Answer
(b) Hilario cannot be criminally liable for theft of the wrist watch of his
common-law wife. The term "spouse" in Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code
embraces common law relationship. (People vs. Constantino, CA 60 O.G. 3603).
The properties acquired by common-law spouses are governed by the rules of co-
ownership. A co-owner cannot commit theft. (U.S. vs. Canta, 6 Phil. 342.)