Criminology Lecture

Series CRIMINAL LAW

(BOOK 2 OF RPC)
Crimes against
Property
CHRISTIAN G DOMINGO, MSCJ,
CST, EORA
INSTRUCTOR
ROBBERY INVESTIGATION
(Crimes Against Property)
 ROBBERY INVESTIGATION

• ROBBERY is the taking of personal property of another with intent

to gain, by means of violence against persons or intimidation of
persons or using force upon things.

NOTE: The subject of robbery is personal property only. Under the Law on Property, personal
properties are those movable properties. Hence, if the object involved is immovable or real
property, the accused may have committed some other crime but not robbery.
Ex. electric fan, laptop, cellphone, jewelry, TV, pig, chicken

PERSONAL PROPERTIES NOT COVERED BY ROBBERY

Cars - covered by RA 6539 “Anti-Carnapping Law”
Cows, Cattles, Horses - covered by PD 533 “Anti-Cattle Rustling Law”
 WAYS OF COMMITTING ROBBERY
 BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE
AGAINST PERSONS OR
INTIMIDATION
Ex.
1. Robbery Hold-up
2. Robbery Snatching
3. Robbery Extortion
4. Robbery with Homicide
5. Robbery with Arson
6. Robbery with Rape
 BY USING FORCE UPON
THINGS
Can be committed in the ff places;
1. Inhabited place
2. Public building
3. Edifice devoted to religious
worships
4. Uninhabited place
5. Private building
 ROBBERY HOLD-UP

• A and B while walking towards home were approached by X.

The latter who is armed with a gun declared hold-up while
poking the said gun upon A. X demanded for their wallet and
cell phones which A and B immediately heeded and gave the
same to him for fear of their lives. X with intent to gain,
employed intimidation in taking the personal property of A and
B, thus, he is liable for Robbery by means of intimidation of
persons or Robbery hold-up in police parlance.
 ROBBERY SNATCHING

• Maria is waiting for her friend in awaiting shed. Suddenly,

Tonio grabbed the gold necklace she was wearing and run
towards an alley. Maria sustained employed violence in
snatching the necklace of Maria, hence; he is liable for
Robbery by means of violence against persons or
Probbery snatching.
 ROBBERY EXTORTION

• Aling Nene was operating a small sari-sari store along the

street of their barrio. X, Y and Z were known to be lazy bones
in their barrio. One day X, Y and Z approached Aling Nene and
threatened her that they will ransack her store and hurt her if
she will not give them a weekly pay of P1,000.00. Aleng Nene
heeded to their demand for fear of her life and property. X, Y
and Z with intent to gain, employed intimidation in extorting
money from Aling Nene, thus, they are liable for Robbery by
means of intimidation of persons or Robbery extortion.
 ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

• Robbery with homicide is a Special Complex Crime, the word

“homicide” is used in its generic sense, thus; it includes all
kinds of killing regardless of the number of dead victim or
dead assailants. There are no crimes of Robbery with murder,
robbery with multiple homicide, robbery with Attempted or
frustrated homicide.
• Ex.
A, B and C robbed the house of M. In the course of robbery, C
killed E and F, the children of M. A, B and C are liable for
Robbery with Homicide. There is no such crime of Robbery
with Multiple homicide.
 NOTE WELL:
• The original purpose of the culprit must be Robbery and
the homicide is committed incidental to the
consummation of the Robbery. Thus, if the original
intention of the assailants is to kill the victim and the
taking of personal property was merely an after-thought
after the victim dies, there is no Special Complex Crimes
of Robbery with Homicide but two separate crimes of
Murder and theft or Homicide and theft.
 NO FRUSTRATED ROBBERY AND THEFT

• The moment the robber or thief comes in possession of

the property even for a short time, taking is already
complete, thus; robbery is consummated upon
possession of the property.
ENTRY OF HOUSE THROUGH AN OPENING NOT INTENDED FOR ENTRANCE OR EGRESS

• Mario with intent to gain took the laptop of Ana inside the
house of the latter by entering through the closed window
by opening the same without destroying it. Mario is liable
for robbery with force upon things. He entered the house of
Ana through an opening not intended for entrance or exit.
ENTRY OF HOUSE BY BREAKING OF WALL, ROOF,
FLOOR,
OR BREAKING OF DOOR OR WINDOWS
(The breaking should be used for entrance of the house and not for escaping)

• X entered the house of Y by breaking the main door. Once inside,

X with intent to gain took the LCD TV. X is liable for robbery with
force upon things by breaking the door to gain entry.

• QUERY: Supposed X entered the house through the main door

without breaking it since it was left unlocked and thereafter took
the LCD TV of Y. Is X liable for robbery with force upon things?
 Answer
• NO, X entered the house without breaking the main door. A door is an
opening intended for entrance or exit, thus; it did not fall under any of the
requisites to constitute robbery with force upon thngs. X is liable for theft.
• QUERY: If X entered the house through the main door without breaking since
it was left open thereafter, took the LCD TV, however when he is supposed
to leave, Y arrived, thus, X was forced to pass at the back door which was
locked by breaking it. Is X liable for robbery with force upon things at this
time?
ANSWER
• No, to be liable for robbery with force upon things, the breaking of doors, walls, windows
and roof should be for purposes of gaining entry into the house. In the instant case, the
breaking of back door is for purposes of escaping which is not a requisite in robbery with
force upon things. X is liable for theft.
 BY USING FALSE KEYS, PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR TOOLS
(False keys are those imitations of the original but it also includes original
stolen from the owner and any keys other than those intended by the owner
for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender)

• X entered the house of Y thorugh the main door by opening it with

ATM card. X forcibly inserted his ATM card to open the door lock
without breaking the door. Upon entry, he took the pieces of jewelry
placed on top of the table. X is liable for robbery with force upon things
by using ATM card. Such is within similar tools contemplated by the
law.
 BY USING FICTITIOUS NAME OR PRETENDING THE EXERCISE OF
PUBLIC AUTHORITY

• M went to the house of N and pretended to be a police officer

and wanted to solicit donations for his incoming schooling. N
permitted M to enter his house. While inside the house, he
took valuable personal belongings of N. M is liable for robbery
with force upon things by pretending to be a police officer.
 NO FORCE UPON THINGS IN
Gaining Entry of the House,
Building or any Edifice devoted
to Religious worship but when
inside the house the
wrongdoers took personal
properties;
1. By breaking doors, wardrobes, chests, or
any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle.
2. By taking such furniture or objects away to
be broken or forced open outside the place of
Robbery.
SITUATION
• Ben entered the house of
Romnick through its
maindoor which was closed
but left unlocked. While
inside, Ben destroys the
locked drawer, thereafter he
took the pieces of jewelry.
Ben is liable for robbery with
force upon things. Although
there was no force upon
things in entering the house,
the breaking of locked drawer
constitutes force upon things.
 ROBBERY VS. THEFT
ROBBERY THEFT

Taking of personal property

BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE belonging to another
AGAINST PERSONS OR Taking is done with intent to gain
INTIMIDATION Taking is without the consent of the
owner
BY USING FORCE UPON THINGS Taking is accomplished without of
violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things
 THEFT VS. QUALIFIED THEFT
THEFT
 Taking of personal property belonging to
another
 Taking is done with intent to gain
 Taking is without the consent of the owner
 Taking is accomplished without of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things
QUALIFIED THEFT
 Penalty for the crime is 2 degrees higher if
committed:
1. By a domestic servant
2. With grave abuse of authority
3. If the property stolen is a mail matter
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of the plantation
5. If the property stolen consists of fish taken
from a fishpond or a fishery
6. If the property is taken on the ocassion of
fire, earthquake, volcanic eruption or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance
 PERSONS WHO FOUND LOST
PROPERTY
• Any person who found lost property must return or deliver the same to the
owner if known, if not, deliver it to the authorities. Otherwise, such person is
presumed to be the thief. Thus, the burden of proof lies on him to prove the
fact of his possession.

Ex.
M, a passenger of a Taxi left his laptop at the back seat of the car. Q, the
taxi driver noticed it only when he was about to park. Instead of returning it to
the owner or to the authorities, he gave it to his son. Q is liable for theft. Q has
the obligation to deliver the item to M if possible, but if not, he should
surrender it to the authorities.
 PERSONS WHO MAKE USE OF THE OBJECT OR
FRUITS OF THE DAMAGED PROPERTY CAUSED
BY HIM
• Any person who after having maliciously damage the property of another shall
make use of the fruits or objects of the damaged property caused by him is
also liable for theft.

Ex.
The pig of Mang Ambo entered the farm of Kiko and destroyed the mongo
crop of the latter. As a consequence, Kiko got furious, thus, he hacked the pig
with a bolo. The pig dies as a result. What crime is committed by Kiko if any?
 ANSWER
• Kiko is liable for malicious mischief by killing the pig of Mang Ambo because of hatred.

QUERY
• Supposing that after killing the pig, Kiko makes use of its meat by keeping it in his
refrigerator and coocked some, will Kiko be still liable for malicious mischief?

ANSWER

• No, this time, Kiko is liable for theft because he makes use of the fruits or object or the meat
of the pig.
 REMEMBER THE FF;
 Article 294–Robbery with violence or intimidation of persons

 Article 295–Robbery with physical injuries committed in an uninhabited place and by band
or the use of firearm on a street.

 Article 297–Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances.

 Article 298–Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation

 Article 299–Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship

 Article 302–Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building

 Article 303–Robbery of cereals, fruits or firewood in uninhabited place or private building.

 ESTAFA (SWINDLING)
(An act to defraud another)

• ELEMENTS

1. The accused defrauded another person.

2. That such person was defrauded by abuse of confidence or by

means of deceit.

3. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is

caused to the offended party or third party.
 SITUATION

• X, Y and Z went to a bar for a drinking spree. X, Y and Z ordered drinks as

well as variety of foods knowing fully well that they had no money. After
eating all the foods and imbibing all the drinks, the waiter gave them
their bills and asked for the payment. However, X, Y and Z were not able
to pay such since all of them are cashless. X, Y and Z are liable for Estafa
for obtaining foods and drinks without paying therefore and with intent
to defraud the proprietor since they knew beforehand that they had no
money.
 Anti-Fencing Law of 1979
(Presidential Decree 1612)
Fencing - is the act of any person; who, with intent to gain, for himself
or for another shall buy, posses, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or in any
other deal on any articles, items, objects or anything of value which he
knows to have been derived form the proceeds of crime or robbery or
theft.

Fence – include any person, firm, organization, association, or

corporation or partnership and other organization who commits the act
of fencing.
 Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974
(Presidential Decree 533)

Cattle Rustling – is the taking away by any means, methods or

scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of the
above animals (cow, carabao, horse, mule or other domesticated
member of the bovine family) whether or not for profit or gain, or
whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation
of any person or force upon things. It includes the killing of large
cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of
owner/raiser.
ANY QUESTIONS?
 End of Presentation

THANK YOU...