CRIMES AGAINST

PROPERTY
ART 119-332
 Art. 319. Removal, sale
or pledge of mortgaged
property

THIS CRIME INVOLVES THE

VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF
THE CHATTEL MORTGAGE BY
DISPOSING THE THING UNDER
SUCH MORTGAGE WHILE IT IS
Sample Footer Text SUBSISTING. 2
 Acts Punished:
1. Knowingly removing any
personal property mortgaged
under the Chattel Mortgage Law
to any province or city other than
the one in which it was located at
the time of execution of the
mortgage, without the written
consent of the mortgagee or his
executors, administrators, or
assigns.
Note: any person can be the
offender
Elements:
1. That the personal property is mortgaged under the
Chattel Mortgage Law
2. That the offender knows that such property is so
mortgaged
3. That he removes such mortgaged personal property to
any province or city other than the one in which it was
located at the time of the execution of the mortgage.
4. That the removal is permanent
5. That there is no written consent of the mortgagee or his
executors, administrators, or assigns to such removal.
3
 Acts Punished:
2. Selling or pledging 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.
Elements:
1. That personal property is already
pledged under the terms of the Chattel
Mortgage Law
3. That the offender, who is the mortgagor
of such property, sells or pledges the same
or any part thereof.
3. That there is no 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.
4
IMPORTANT NOTES:

The chattel mortgage must be valid Removal of the mortgaged personal

and subsisting. property must be coupled with intent to
defraud.

If the chattel mortgage is not

registered, there is no violation of Real property can be subject to chattel
Art. 319. mortgage by way of an agreement

Filing a civil action for collection, not

for foreclosure of chattel mortgage, Chattel mortgage may give rise to
relieves the accused of criminal estafa by means of deceit.
responsibility.
 Chattel Mortgage Vs Estafa
Basis Chattel Mortgage Estafa (Art 316, RPC)
As to property involved Personal property. Real property

As to commission Selling or pledging of personal property already
pledged or mortgaged is committed by the mere
failure to obtain the consent of the mortgagee in
writing even if the offender should inform the
purchaser that the thing sold is mortgaged
It is sufficient that the real property
mortgaged be sold as free, even
though the vendor may have
obtained consent of the mortgagee in
writing.

As to purpose To protect the mortgagee To protect the purchaser, whether the

first or the second

6
 Arson

MALICIOUS
DESTRUCTION OF
PROPERTY BY MEANS OF
FIRE.

Sample Footer Text 7

 Kinds of Arson

1. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ART

320, AS AMENDED BY R.A.
NO. 7659)
2. SIMPLE ARSON (SEC. 1, P.D.
NO. 1613)
3. OTHER CASES OF ARSON
(SEC 3, P.D. NO. 1613)
8
 DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ART 320, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 7659)
“ART. 320. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON. – THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH
SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON ANY PERSON WHO SHALL BURN:

a. ONE (1) OR MORE BUILDINGS OR EDIFICES, CONSEQUENT TO ONE SINGLE ACT OF

BURNING, OR AS A RESULT OF SIMULTANEOUS BURNINGS, COMMITTED ON SEVERAL
OR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

B. ANY BUILDING OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, DEVOTED TO THE PUBLIC IN

GENERAL OR WHERE PEOPLE USUALLY GATHER OR CONGREGATE FOR A DEFINITE
PURPOSE SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, OFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OR
BUSINESS, PRIVATE TRANSACTION, COMMERCE, TRADE, WORKSHOP, MEETINGS AND
CONFERENCES, OR MERELY INCIDENTAL TO A DEFINITE PURPOSE SUCH AS BUT NOT
LIMITED TO HOTELS, MOTELS, TRANSIENT DWELLINGS, PUBLIC CONVEYANCES OR STOPS
OR TERMINALS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE OFFENDER HAD KNOWLEDGE9 THAT
THERE ARE PERSONS IN SAID BUILDING OR EDIFICE AT THE TIME IT IS SET ON FIRE AND
REGARDLESS ALSO OF WHETHER THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY INHABITED OR NOT.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ART 320, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 7659)

C. ANY TRAIN OR LOCOMOTIVE, SHIP OR VESSEL, AIRSHIP OR AIRPLANE,

DEVOTED TO TRANSPORTATION OR CONVEYANCE, OR FOR PUBLIC USE,
ENTERTAINMENT OR LEISURE.

D. ANY BUILDING, FACTORY, WAREHOUSE INSTALLATION AND ANY

APPURTENANCES THERETO, WHICH ARE DEVOTED TO THE SERVICE OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES.

E. ANY BUILDING THE BURNING OF WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF

CONCEALING OR DESTROYING EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER VIOLATION OF LAW,
OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING BANKRUPTCY OR DEFRAUDING 10

CREDITORS OR TO COLLECT FROM INSURANCE.

 DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ART 320, AS AMENDED BY R.A.
NO. 7659)

2. IRRESPECTIVE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE

ENUMERATED QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PENALTY OF
RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH SHALL LIKEWISE BE IMPOSED
WHEN THE ARSON IS PERPETRATED OR COMMITTED BY TWO (2)
OR MORE PERSONS OR BY A GROUP OF PERSONS, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THEIR PURPOSE IS MERELY TO BURN OR DESTROY THE
BUILDING OR THE BURNING MERELY CONSTITUTES AN OVERT ACT
IN THE COMMISSION OR ANOTHER VIOLATION OF LAW.
11
 DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ART 320, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 7659)

3. THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH SHALL ALSO

BE IMPOSED UPON ANY PERSON WHO SHALL BURN:
a. ANY ARSENAL, SHIPYARD, STOREHOUSE OR MILITARY POWDER
OR FIREWORKS FACTORY, ORDNANCE, STOREHOUSE, ARCHIVES
OR GENERAL MUSEUM OF THE GOVERNMENT.
b. IN AN INHABITED PLACE, ANY STOREHOUSE OR FACTORY OF
INFLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS.
**IF AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE COMMISSION OF ANY OF THE
ACTS PENALIZED UNDER THIS ARTICLE, DEATH RESULTS, THE
MANDATORY PENALTY OF DEATH SHALL BE IMPOSED. 12
 PROBLEM:
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?
ANS: 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).
13
 SIMPLE ARSON (SEC. 1, P.D. NO. 1613)

SECTION 1. ARSON. ANY PERSON WHO BURNS

OR SETS FIRE TO THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER
SHALL BE PUNISHED BY PRISION MAYOR.

THE SAME PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED

WHEN A PERSON SETS FIRE TO HIS OWN
PROPERTY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
EXPOSE TO DANGER THE LIFE OR PROPERTY
OF ANOTHER. 14
OTHER CASES OF ARSON (SEC 3, P.D. NO. 1613)
SECTION 3. OTHER CASES OF ARSON. THE PENALTY OF
RECLUSION TEMPORAL TO RECLUSION PERPETUA SHALL BE
IMPOSED IF THE PROPERTY BURNED IS ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
1. ANY BUILDING USED AS OFFICES OF THE GOVERNMENT OR
ANY OF ITS AGENCIES;
2. ANY INHABITED HOUSE OR DWELLING;
3. ANY INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT, SHIPYARD, OIL WELL OR
MINE SHAFT, PLATFORM OR TUNNEL;
5. ANY PLANTATION, FARM, PASTURELAND, GROWING CROP,
GRAIN FIELD, ORCHARD, BAMBOO GROVE OR FOREST;
6. ANY RICE MILL, SUGAR MILL, CANE MILL OR MILL CENTRAL;
AND 15

7. ANY RAILWAY OR BUS STATION, AIRPORT, WHARF OR

 DESTRUCTIVE ARSON VS SIMPLE
ARSON
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON ARE
CHARACTERIZED AS HEINOUS
CRIMES FOR BEING GRIEVOUS,
ODIOUS, AND HATEFUL OFFENSES
WHICH, BY REASON OF THEIR
INHERENT OR MANIFEST
WICKEDNESS, VICIOUSNESS,
ATROCITY, AND PERVERSITY ARE
REPUGNANT AND OUTRAGEOUS TO
THE COMMON STANDARDS AND
NORMS OF DECENCY AND
MORALITY IN A JUST, CIVILIZED,
SIMPLE ARSON ARE CRIMES
WITH A LESSER DEGREE OF
PERVERSITY AND
VICIOUSNESS THAT THE LAW
PUNISHES WITH A LESSER
PENALTY. THEY ARE LESS
SIGNIFICANT SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND
NATIONAL SECURITY
IMPLICATIONS. 16

AND ORDERED SOCIETY

 •SECTION 4. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES IN ARSON. THE PENALTY IN
ANY CASE OF ARSON SHALL BE IMPOSED IN
ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD;
1. IF COMMITTED WITH INTENT TO GAIN;
P.D. NO. 1613
2. IF COMMITTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF
AMENDING ANOTHER;
THE LAW 3. IF THE OFFENDER IS MOTIVATED BY SPITE
OR HATRED TOWARDS THE OWNER OR
ON ARSON OCCUPANT OF THE PROPERTY BURNED;
4. IF COMMITTED BY A SYNDICATE.
**THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED BY A
SYNDICATE IF ITS IS PLANNED OR CARRIED
17

OUT BY A GROUP OF THREE (3) OR MORE

PERSONS.
 •SECTION 5. WHERE DEATH
RESULTS FROM ARSON. IF BY
P.D. NO. 1613 REASON OF OR ON THE
AMENDING OCCASION OF THE ARSON
THE LAW DEATH RESULTS, THE
ON ARSON PENALTY OF RECLUSION
PERPETUA TO DEATH SHALL
BE IMPOSED.
18
 P.D. NO. 1613 AMENDING THE LAW ON ARSON
SECTION 6. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ARSON. ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ARSON:
1. IF THE FIRE STARTED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN MORE THAN ONE PART OF
THE BUILDING OR ESTABLISHMENT.
2. IF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES OR MATERIALS
ARE STORED WITHIN THE BUILDING NOT NECESSARY IN THE BUSINESS OF
THE OFFENDER NOR FOR HOUSEHOLD US.
3. IF GASOLINE, KEROSENE, PETROLEUM OR OTHER FLAMMABLE OR
COMBUSTIBLE SUBSTANCES OR MATERIALS SOAKED THEREWITH OR
CONTAINERS THEREOF, OR ANY MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, CHEMICAL,
OR ELECTRONIC CONTRIVANCE DESIGNED TO START A FIRE, OR ASHES OR
19
TRACES OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING ARE FOUND IN THE RUINS OR
PREMISES OF THE BURNED BUILDING OR PROPERTY.
 P.D. NO. 1613 AMENDING THE LAW ON ARSON
4. IF THE BUILDING OR PROPERTY IS INSURED FOR
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN ITS ACTUAL VALUE AT THE TIME
OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY.
5. IF DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE CORRESPONDING FIRE
INSURANCE POLICY MORE THAN TWO FIRES HAVE OCCURRED
IN THE SAME OR OTHER PREMISES OWNED OR UNDER THE
CONTROL OF THE OFFENDER AND/OR INSURED.
6. IF SHORTLY BEFORE THE FIRE, A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF
THE EFFECTS INSURED AND STORED IN A BUILDING OR
PROPERTY HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE PREMISES
EXCEPT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS.
7. IF A DEMAND FOR MONEY OR OTHER VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION WAS MADE BEFORE THE FIRE IN EXCHANGE
20
FOR THE DESISTANCE OF THE OFFENDER OR FOR THE SAFETY
OF THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM.
 P.D. NO. 1613 AMENDING THE LAW ON ARSON
SECTION 7. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARSON. CONSPIRACY TO
COMMIT ARSON SHALL BE PUNISHED BY PRISION MAYOR IN ITS
MINIMUM PERIOD.

SECTION 8. CONFISCATION OF OBJECT OF ARSON. THE BUILDING

WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF ARSON INCLUDING THE LAND ON
WHICH IT IS SITUATED SHALL BE CONFISCATED AND
ESCHEATED TO THE STATE, UNLESS THE OWNER THEREOF CAN
PROVE THAT HE HAS NO PARTICIPATION IN NOR KNOWLEDGE
OF SUCH ARSON DESPITE THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE ON
HIS PART. 21
 ELEMENTS:
1. THE OFFENDER CAUSES DESTRUCTION
2. DESTRUCTION IS CAUSED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
MEANS:
a. EXPLOSIONS
ART. 324.
b. DISCHARGE OF ELECTRIC CURRENT
CRIMES c. INUNDATION, SINKING OR STRANDING OF A VESSEL, OR
INVOLVING INTENTIONAL DAMAGING OF THE ENGINE OF SAID VESSEL

DESTRUCTIO d. TAKING UP THE RAILS FROM THE RAILWAY TRACK

e. MALICIOUSLY CHANGING RAILWAY SIGNALS FOR THE
N SAFETY OF MOVING TRAINS
f. DESTROYING TELEGRAPH WIRES AND TELEGRAPH POST, OR
THOSE OF ANY OTHER SYSTEM
22
g. USING ANY OTHER AGENCY OR MEANS OF DESTRUCTION
AS EFFECTIVE AS THOSE ABOVE MENTIONED.
 When is there attempted, frustrated, or
consummated arson?

Is there a complex crime of arson with

homicide?
23
 ARSON, DISTINGUISHED FROM
HOMICIDE/MURDER
Acts Crime Committed
1. If the main objective is the burning of the building or
edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of ARSON
arson.
2. If, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill a
particular person who may be in the building or edifice, when
fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal MURDER

3. If the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and

in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to TWO SEPARATE CRIME –
as means to cover up the killing HOMICIDE/MURDER AND
ARSON
24
 Malicious Mischief
IT IS THE WILLFUL DAMAGING
OF ANOTHER’S PROPERTY FOR
THE SAKE OF CAUSING DAMAGE
DUE TO HATE, REVENGE, OR
OTHER EVIL MOTIVE.

25
Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. – Any person
who shall deliberately cause to the property of another any damage
not falling within the terms of the next preceding, chapter shall be
guilty of malicious mischief.

Elements:

1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another

2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving
destruction.
3. That the act of damaging another’s property be committed merely for the
sake of damaging it. 26
 Can it be committed through
negligence?

Ans: No, because the offender should

act under the impulse of a specific
desire to inflict injury to another.
27
 PROBLEM
THERE WAS A COLLISION
BETWEEN THE SIDE VIEW
MIRRORS OF TWO (2) VEHICLES.
IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER,
THE WIFE AND THE DAUGHTER
OF A ALIGHTED FROM THE CRV
AND CONFRONTED B. A, IN VIEW
OF THE HOSTILE ATTITUDE OF B,
SUMMONED HIS WIFE AND
DAUGHTER TO ENTER THE CRV
AND WHILE THEY WERE IN THE
PROCESS OF DOING SO, B
MOVED AND ACCELERATED HIS
VITARA BACKWARD AS IF TO HIT
THEM. WAS THERE MALICIOUS
ANS: YES. THE HITTING OF THE
BACK PORTION OF THE CRV BY
B WAS CLEARLY DELIBERATE.
THE ACT OF DAMAGING THE
REAR BUMPER OF THE CRV
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ARSON
OR OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTION. WHEN THE
VITARA BUMPED THE CRV, B
WAS VENTING OUT HIS ANGER
AND HATE AS A RESULT OF A
HEATED ENCOUNTER BETWEEN
HIM AND A. 28
 Problem
ANS: YES. MARIO’S CONVICTION
Mario was hired by the PNB as caretaker of its lot FOR MALICIOUS MISCHIEF MUST BE
situated in Balanga, Bataan. Consequently, Mario put
SUSTAINED. AS TO THE THIRD
up on the said lot a sign which reads “no trespassing,
PNB property” to ward off squatters. Despite the
ELEMENT, MARIO WAS NOT
sign, Julita, believing that the said lot was owned by JUSTIFIED IN SUMMARILY AND
her grandparents, constructed a nipa Hut thereon. EXTRAJUDICIALLY DEMOLISHING
Hence, Mario, together with four others, tore down JULITA’S NIPA HUT. AS IT IS, MARIO
and demolished Julita’s Hut. She thus filed with the PROCEEDED, NOT SO MUCH TO
MTC a criminal complaint for malicious mischief. SAFEGUARD THE LOT, AS IT IS TO
Mario admitted that he deliberately demolished VENT OUT HIS ANGER AND EXPRESS
Julita’s nipa hut but he contends that the third HIS DISGUST OVER THE “NO
element of crime of malicious mischief, i.e., that the TRESPASSING” SIGN HE PLACED
act of damaging another's property be committed THEREON. INDEED, HIS ACT OF
merely for the sake of damaging it, is not present in
SUMMARILY DEMOLISHING THE
this case. He maintains that the demolition of the
nipa hut is for the purpose of safeguarding the
HOUSE SMACKS OFF HIS PLEASURE
interests of his employer. Was the court correct and IN CAUSING DAMAGE TO IT.
29

convicting Mario of malicious mischief?

 Art. 328. Special cases of malicious mischief.

Punishable acts:

1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of the public functions.

2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance.
3. Spreading any infections among cattle; and
4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National
Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or
any other thing used in common by the public.
30
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE 1ST CASE OF QUALIFIED
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF AND SEDITION?

31

Problem
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.
ANS: 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 32
RESENTMENT OR AN EVIL
MOTIVE.
 ART. 329. OTHER MISCHIEFS
• BY ARRESTO MENOR
• BY ARRESTO • BY ARRESTO OR FINE NOT LESS
MAYOR IN ITS MAYOR IN ITS THAN THE VALUE OF
MEDIUM AND MINIMUM AND THE DAMAGE
MAXIMUM MEDIUM PERIODS, CAUSED AND NOT
PERIODS, IF THE IF THE VALUE IS MORE THAN
P40,000.00, IF THE
VALUE OF THE OVER P40,000.00
AMOUNT INVOLVED
DAMAGE CAUSED BOT DOES NOT DOES NOT EXCEED
EXCEEDS EXCEED P40,000.00 OR
P200,000.00 P200,000.00 CANNOT BE
ESTIMATED.
33
Ex 1. A groom who allowed a horse under his care to die of
hunger as an act of revenge against its owner is guilty of
malicious mischief and the penalty is based on the value of
the horse.

Ex. 2. Scattering human excrement in the

public building.
34
 Art. 330. DAMAGE AND
OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS
OF COMMUNICATION

THIS CRIME INVOLVES

IMPAIRMENT OF RAILWAY,
TELEGRAPH, OR
TELEPHONE LINES.

Sample Footer Text 35

IMPORTANT NOTES:

Damage and obstruction to means

of communication

It should not be removing rails

from railway track to cause
destruction

Not applicable when the telegraph or

telephone lines do not pertain to railways
 When is the crime qualified?

Ans: This crime would be qualified if

the damage results in any derailment of
cars, collision, or other accident.
37
 When a person/s are killed,what
crime/s is/are committed?

Ans: *If there is no intent to kill, it is “ damages

to means of communication” with homicide.

* If there is intent to kill, and damaging the

railways was the means to accomplish the
criminal purpose, it is murder.
38
 ART 331. DESTROYING OR
DAMAGING STATUES,
PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR
PAINTINGS

THIS CRIME INVOLVES

DAMAGE TO STATUES AND
OTHER USEFUL AND
ORNAMENTAL PUBLIC
MONUMENTS.
Sample Footer Text 39
 ART. 332. PERSON EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. SPOUSES, ASCENDANTS AND
DESCENDANTS OR RELATIVES
BY AFFINITY IN THE SAME CRIMES: REASON:
LINE THE LAW
• THEFT RECOGNIZED THE
2. WIDOWED SPOUSE –
PROPERTY OF DECEASED • SWINDLING PRESUMED CO-
SPOUSE BEFORE THE SAME OWNERSHIP OF THE
SHALL HAVE PASSED INTO (ESTAFA) PROPERTY BETWEEN
POSSESSION OF ANOTHER THE OFFENDER AND
3. BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND
• MALICIOUS THE OFFENDED
BROTHERS-IN-LAW AND MISCHIEF PARTY
40
SISTER-IN-LAW, IF LIVING
TOGETHER
 ARSON VS DESTRUCTION VS MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Malicious Mischief Other Destruction
1. Causing damage to obstruct the A. Explosions
performance of the public Arson B. Discharge of electric current
functions. C. Inundation, sinking or stranding of a
MALICIOUS
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive vessel, or intentional damaging of the
DESTRUCTION OF engine of said vessel
substance.
PROPERTY BY D. Taking up the rails from the railway
3. Spreading any infections among MEANS OF FIRE. track
cattle; and
E. Maliciously changing railway signals
4. Causing damage to the property of for the safety of moving trains
the National Museum or National F. Destroying telegraph wires and
Library, or to any archive or telegraph post, or those of any other
registry, waterworks, road, system
promenade, or any other thing used G. Using any other agency or41 means of
in common by the public. destruction as effective as those above
mentioned.
IMPORTANT NOTES:

No criminal liability, only civil Stepfather, adopted father, natural

liability children, concubine, paramour,
included.

If any of the crime is complexed

with another crime (theft thru This article also applies to common-
falsification), art 332 is not law spouses
applicable.

The exemption does not apply to

strangers participating in the
commission of the offense.
 PROBLEM:
"A" AND "B" ARE BROTHERS-IN- ANS: A, IN SPITE OF HIS
LAW LIVING TOGETHER IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH B CANNOT
SAME HOUSE. "A“ COMMITTED CLAIM EXEMPTION FROM
ESTAFA THROUGH CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
FALSIFICATION OF A FROM THE CRIME COMMITTED.
THE ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT PROVIDED IN ART. 332 OF THE
AGAINST "B". PROSECUTED REVISED PENAL CODE REFERS
FOR THIS OFFENSE. "A" TO THEFT, ESTAFA AND
CLAIMED THAT BECAUSE OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. ESTAFA
THEIR RELATIONSHIP, THE THROUGH FALSIFICATION AS A
LIABILITY THAT HE HAD COMPLEX CRIME IS NOT
INCLUDED. IF AT ALL, A IS STILL
INCURRED WAS ONLY CIVIL, LIABLE FOR FALSIFICATION OF A
NOT CRIMINAL. DECIDE THE COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT.
43

CASE WITH REASONS.

 PROBLEM: ANS: ONLY A IS CRIMINALLY
LIABLE, B, BEING THE SON OF C,
"A", A STRANGER, AND "B", THE OWNER OF THE PALAY, IS
SON OF "C", CONNIVED NOT LIABLE, BECAUSE OF
WITH EACH OTHER IN RELATIONSHIP, WHICH IN CASES
OF THEFT, ESTAFA, AND
STEALING "C’S” PALAY. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF IS AN
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE. (ART 332,
MAY "A" AND "B" BE HELD
R.P.C.) THE TERM "THEFT“
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR INCLUDES QUALIFIED THEFT, AS
THEFT OF PALAY? IT IS UNDERSTOOD IN ITS
GENERIC SENSE.
44
 THANK YOU

Sample Footer Text 45