CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW (2ND PART) December 05, 2022

CASE: People vs. Comiling

As the robbers were leaving, the responding officer was shot. The defense claims that they cannot be
convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide because the killing happened when robbery was
already accomplished. The Court in this agree did not agree with their contention. Since robbery with
homicide is a special complex crime, it is enough that in order to sustain a conviction for this crime, the
killing, which is designated as homicide, has a direct relation to the robbery, regardless of whether the
latter takes place before or after the killing or even if the death occurred by accident. For as long as the
killing occurs during or because of the heist, even if the killing is merely accidental, robbery with
homicide is committed. The killing is committed on the occasion of robbery.

CASE: People vs Hijada – The Court ruled that in a crime of robbery, robbery cannot be complexed with
multiple homicide even if in the commission of robbery, multiple killing has occurred. The crime
committed is robbery with homicide even if there are several killings, murder, physical injuries, and
rape. The other crimes absorbed

CASE: People vs Ulep

Q: What is the common issue relevant?

The cases above involved shooting and many victims. Some died while other survived.

The nature of the special complex crime known as robbery with homicide is further explained by the
doctrine in these cases.

People vs Villagracia – the accused was charged of robbery with rape. The trial court ruled that the
accused is guilty.

 Q: What happened first? It was the taking which happened first in the house of the victim and
after which they had carnal knowledge with the wife. She was gang raped outside, a few blocks
away from home. The Court still considered this as robbery with rape since the rape was
committed in the occasion of rape. However, there is no robbery with multiple rape since this is
a special complex crime of rape. This is regardless of several rape committed.

People vs. Naag – Here, the accused waited for the singer in a club, took her and violated her really
badly. She was raped and her stuff was taken by the accused. He was charged with robbery with
homicide. The real intent is to rape her but as an afterthought, the accused robbed her.

 Is this still robbery with rape?

There is no longer robbery in this case because she was badly beaten such that there was no
need of committing violence in order to accomplish the taking. What was committed was rape
and theft.
People vs. Sultan – you cannot aggravate the special complex crime with the additional felonies
committed together. For example, robbery with rape and there is gang rape, can you appreciate the
additional counts of rape to aggravate rape? NO!

 NO! The Court ruled that given the nature of the aggravating circumstances in Art. 14, the list is
exclusive. It does not provide a general provision that would allow you to apply by analogy
aggravating circumstances unlike the mitigating circumstances for paragraph 10 says analogous
circumstances. While it may sound unfair because of the additional wrongs committed, you
cannot appreciate it anymore because aggravating circumstances do not have analogous
circumstances.

There are 4 special aggravating circumstances under Article 295 – robbery with physical injuries

1) ROBBERY COMMITTED IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND – the definition of this

aggravating circumstance is just the same as that provided under Art. Article 14.

2) ROBBERY COMMITTED WITH USE OF FIREARM ON A STREET, ROAD OR ALLEY

Note: The circumstances are special aggravating and they do not need to concur. Either one of these
circumstances will aggravate robbery with violence or intimidation against persons involving physical
injuries from par. 3 to 5. REMEMBER THIS BECAUSE UNDER ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS, IT
WILL BE DIFFERENT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH UNINHABITED PLACE WITH A BAND.

 If the robbery is committed with a band and a person is killed.

Q: What will you do with a band? ---it will not be appreciated as a special aggravating
circumstance because of par. 1. Thus, special aggravating circumstance only applies to
paragraph 3, 4, and 5, in relation to physical injuries.

Article 302
 When you go to robbery with force upon things, under Article 302, band and uninhabited place
must concur or both must be present.
 When you talk about robbery in band, this is still robbery with intimidation = when more than 3
armed malefactors, this is without prejudice to liability for illegal possession of illegal firearm
(Section 28 and 29)

When you go to PD 532, YOU ALSO HEAR THE WORD BAND. These are different because this one
relates to robbery in band, which falls under robbery with use of violence and intimidation
against persons.

Art. 297

ARTICLE 297

 STAGES OF FELONIES
 COMBINES FRUSTRATED OR ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH CONSUMMATED HOMICIDE
  If the robbery is consummated and the homicide is consummated, that would be the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294
 If the robbery is attempted or frustrated and the homicide is also attempted or frustrated, then
that still does not fall under Art. 297 unless intent to kill is proven. Otherwise, you can call it
robbery in relation to physical injuries sustained.
 Article 297 specifically tells us that robbery whether attempted or frustrated and the homicide is
consummated. If both consummated, then special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Kinds of Robbery

Trigger words: hurting a person, damaging an item

Robbery by the use of force upon things

Q: How does the RPC categorized this kind of robbery?

DEPENDS ON WHERE, WHAT PLACE you robbed!

 The most severe is in an inhabited place, dwelling place, public building

 The concept of an uninhabited place is not the one in Art. 14, simply means IT IS NOT USED AS A
DWELLING
 Under Art. 14, when you talk about uninhabited place, it means a place where rescue is remote.
Hence, Article 299 is a more severe form of robbery with force upon things, a public building, a
church. Whereas, in Article 302, what u robbed is an uninhabited place- a private building.
 Remember the places in relation to robbery by use of force upon things

Article 300 – Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band (should concur)

Note: can only be a special aggravating circumstance if the two are together.

Q: When it comes to the arms, does it have to be licensed?

Similar to violence or intimidation against person

Article 303 – Robbery of cereals, fruits or firewood in an uninhabited place or a private building

Article 304 – Possession of picklocks or similar tools

Article 305. False keys (may involve real key)

People vs. Fransdilla

If both robberies are committed, at the same time robbery with force upon things is also committed.
They destroyed things and hurt people inside

Q: What felony or felonies are commited?

In this case of Fransdilla, the Supreme Court clearly said that now there is a complex crime (Article 48). If
TWO KINDS OF ROBBERY HAPPENED, THE COURT SAID THAT IT WILL BE A COMPLEX CRIME. This is
robbery in an inhabited house by armed persons and robbery with violence or intimidation against
persons. Since this is considered as complex crime under Article 48, then the rule is that the maximum
penalty to be imposed would be that which is most severe between the two. Logic apparently tell you
that when u hurt someone that is obviously more severe than destroying a door. But, robbery with force
upon things is committed in two ways (inhabited house and uninhabited house). So, the SC, in explaining
that it can be complexed, is the fact that while we believe that violence against person is more severe,
the penalties show that it is not. So, this is a situation where there is robbery in an inhabited house
(dwelling). This is more severely punished, therefore, it can be complexed.

-Fransdilla case presents a problem of two modes of robbery committed at the same time. Understand
how it can be complexed.

BRIGANDAGE

3 laws

1) Brigandage
2) Robbery by a Band
3) PD 532

People vs Puno – The driver in this case took his employer for a joyride with an accomplice. They
extorted money from her. She ended up issuing checks. Originally, they were charged with kidnapping
with ransom because they took her and extorted money from her. But, the SC said that it is not. The trial
court convicted them of robbery committed in a highway. The Supreme Court did not agree. The first
rule is that it is not that the robbery was committed on a highway that you will call it either brigandage,
highway robbery, or PD 532. It would still depend on how it is done and intention. This case is simple
robbery with violence and force upon things. It is very clear that they just wanted to get money from her
and they really focused on her. That is just robbery with violence or intimidation against person. It does
not mean that robbery happened on the highway it is robbery, highway robbery or brigandage.

Q: What is the difference between robbery and brigandage and PD 532?

Brigandage under PD 532 talks about indiscriminate acts wrongful acts committed on the highway. Here
is a group of people. They planned together to commit acts including kidnapping and extortion. That is
similar with PD 532 and brigandage. When u talk about robbery by a band committed on a highway, it is
not indiscriminate. It involves specific victim. The clear intent is that they have a specific plan to take
from a particular person. So, if it is indiscriminate then you either call it brigandage or PD 532?. The
question now is if PD 532 amended the RPC? Not in the sense that it has changed the concept of
brigandage. It may have increased the penalty to that extent but both can subsist. Brigandage is still
under the RPC while PD 532 does not require a band. Brigandage does require a band. DIFFERENCE

The case of Puno is a very good reading because the SC made a distinction between brigandage,
robbery, kidnapping with ransom and PD 532.
 THEFT

Article 310 - Qualified theft  PNEALTY IS DOUBLED!

WHO and WHAT is taken

-if it is a motor vehicle taken, it will fall under anti-carnapping act (many modes)

-Anti Cattle Rustling law  it does not have to be the whole cow but it can be the skin of the cow,
meat…READ PLS! Since it is cattle, it will be from the bovine family. But, after checking, can you include a
goat? Hehe!

Taking Bicycle not motorized. How about electric bikes?

Theft

In relation to robbery with force upon things. Robbery with force upon things still involve acts of
violence but the object of which are things. But the RPC is very clear on what you have done. You
destroyed something to gain entry.

Art 299- Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship.

Two parts

1) How u entered
-breaking can be constructive force because if u look at par. 4 (using fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public authority).  YOU DID NOT USE ACTUAL FORCE ONLY
CONSTRUCTIVE FORCE

Q: In robbery with force upon things, does it always involve act of force?

NO! Under par. 4 of Art. 299 of the RPC, there is what we call as constructive force.

Note: You might think that a thing need to be destroyed in order to call it as robbery with force upon
things.

Paragraph a – explains how u gained entry

Paragraph b – the premise is that you legally entered the premises. When then did u commit force?

You lawfully entered and destroyed the cabinet.

Illustration: You saw a jewelry box inside a house, then u take it with you outside of the house
and destroyed it.

Article 308 – Who are liable for theft

Finders keepers is illegal – if you failed to return something of value, it is theft

Q: Article 310 -Qualified theft vs Article 308 – theft?

Par. 3 of theft Article 308 says that you have hunt, fish, gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
products. Under qualified theft, you take a coconut from a plantation, fish from a fishpond or on an
occasion of a calamity.

Note: The subject matter of qualified theft in relation to ordinary theft.

ESTAFA

Q: Theft vs Robbery vs Estafa?

In theft and robbery, there is unlawful taking and intent to gain personal property. In estafa, there is no
unlawful taking but there is intent to gain and the subject matter is still personal property. There is no
unlawful taking because of the use of deceit or fraud. What was wrong then was the way by which the
way property was received in estafa.

Article 315 – Swindling or estafa

2 modes of committing estafa

1) Unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence

2) Committed false pretenses and fraudulent acts – prior or simultaneously the transaction with
the commission of fraud. There is no relationship, no need to be faithful but u used deceit.

Paragraph 1a vs Paragraph 2b – Look similar because they both involved quality. But, if you look at
paragraph a, you have the obligation to deliver, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or
illegal consideration. What you did here is that you delivered something of poor quality. In Paragraph
2b, you alter the quality, fineness, weight of anything that has something to do with your business. You
are selling things that have been altered.

In Paragraph 1a, there is a relationship and you have to an obligation to deliver something. On the other
hand, in Paragraph b, you are pretending to be selling of good quality but is not.

NOTE: Most common form of estafa is 1b. – contract of agency, commission –

Illustration: Contract of agency for selling such as jewelry. The offended party is in the business
of selling jewelry. The accused offered to sell jewelry on commission. But, instead of selling it or
giving the proceeds, he/she misappropriated either the jewelry or the proceeds of jewelry
(MISAPPROPRIATING OR CONVERTING). There is a relationship and you acquired an object
through an agreement, most common of which is to sell. Instead of complying with your
obligation you misappropriated for your personal purposes.

NOTE: Par 1c – signature in blank – falsification

Q: What is the difference?

Under falsification, you make it appear that the person did an act when in fact he did not do it or a
person did an act but you altered act and made it appear that it was his intention. Now, when it comes
to signature in blank at the bottom of the document, you took it, and filled it up for the purpose of gain.
Is this falsification or estafa?

PRINCIPLE: Gain is the purpose of estafa. So, you are already familiar with estafa through falsification.
But, if you are talking about falsification of a private document by a private individual, you do not have
the complex crime because of the common element of damage.

A signature in blank can still involve falsification and not estafa.

Paragraph 2a – using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power. – most common are real
estate broker. They can pretend to be authorized broker or own lands. They were able to get your
money.

Paragraph c – pretending to have bribed a government employee without prejudice to the action for
calumny

The supplier of an LGU would tell the purchasing officer. “I already spoke to the Governor and he told e
that you have to make me win this bid.”  2 felonies are committed  the governor can sue the
supplier for libel

Paragraph d – postdating a check

Two laws:

1. Revised Penal Code

2. BP Bilang 22

You are both committing the same act. You are committing the same act in both the RPC and BP Bilang
22. But, we must remember the BP Bilang 22 is malum prohibitum. Estafa is malum in se. If you issue a
check and it is dishonored, you can both be sued for estafa for postdating a check which has no funds
and you can be charged at the same time under BP 22. The difference is that under estafa there is a valid
defense that there is no intent to defraud. How do you know that? The check was only issued as
payment but only to guarantee a pre-existing obligation.

Example: When you buy a motorcycle, the company might require you to open a current account so you
can issue for them postdated checks that will mature on a specific date of each month until you are fully
paid with your installment.

 Q: If a check is dishonored and not paid, are you liable for estafa?
NO! The check was actually a form of guarantee. It merely guarantee a pre-existing obligation.
This is a defense. But, are you liable for BP 22 for bouncing check because it is a malum
prohibitum. If a check bounces, you will be liable under BP 22 and it would not matter what your
intention was.
PERIODS: There are two periods: The time when you have to make good the check
 5 days - estafa
 3 days – BP Bilang 22
 90-day period – make sure that your account is funded for a period of 90 days
from the time you issued the check. In relation to this, under the Negotiable
Instruments Law, when does the check become stale? After 6 months
  If the offended party to whom the check is issued, allows the check to get
stale, it would no longer be your problem. But, if it is within the 90 day period,
and encashes it, you must make sure you have fund with respect to that.

Q: Is demand necessary? As a rule, yes! But there are exceptions to this especially if
there is a contract which talks about a period.

Q: What kind of demand is necessary? When you talk about postdated checks, then
you are talking about notice of dishonor. Until the accused received a notice of
dishonor, then there is no knowledge that indeed the check bounced. Also, in
estafa, there must be a demand before you can actually pay.

Concept of novation and estafa

For example the act where the accused misappropriated or converted the thing
subject of the offense. Is it possible that the criminal liability can be extinguished?

Yes! By novation. If you can convert the obligation into a civil one. How? You talk to
the accused to give you back the money worth 50k, proceeds of the jewelry. Then
the accused said that he has no money. The accused executes a promissory note.
That is novation and the transaction changed into a loan so there is no more
criminal liability except if the estafa case has already been filed. No amount od
novation will allow the liability to be extinguished. NOVATION MUST HAPPEN
BEFORE THE ESTAFA CASE IS FILED.

Relate estafa to syndicated estafa and illegal recruitment  under LABOR LAW,
Migrant Workers Act

In syndicated estafa, the numbers are important (large scale vs. syndicated). Also
remember that it has also something to do with the nature of the transaction. –
when you are offering and pyramiding.

Trafficking!  next discussion

END