Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Marzalado vs. People, the Court held that an owners act to prevent damage to
his unit which the lessee has left justifies his alleged trespass to the dwelling.
Title X Crimes against property
People vs. Puno PD 532 (Highway Robbery), Robbery with intimidation and
threat, simple robbery
The essence of brigandage under the Code as a crime of depredation wherein the
unlawful acts are directed not only against specific, intended or preconceived
victims, but against any and all prospective victims anywhere on the highway
and whosoever they may potentially be, is the same as the concept of brigandage
which is maintained in Presidential Decree No. 532
If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery
in band if there are at least four armed participants.
People vs. de Guzman Fencing vs. Robbery, Filing for the crime of fencing
In People vs. de Guzman, the Court ruled that the crimes of robbery and fencing
are two distinct offenses. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have
participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise
involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime
of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be
consummated. Thus, the complaint for fencing must be filed in the jurisdiction of
where the alleged act of fencing has occurred and not necessarily where the
previous robbery took place.
In People vs. Regala, the Court ruled that additional rapes committed on the
same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty because there is no law
providing that additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the RPC is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of
the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a specific
paragraph providing for analogous circumstances.
In People vs. Garcia, the court held that in crimes of unlawful taking of property
through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary that the person unlawfully
divested of the personal property be the owner thereof. What is simply required
is that the property does not belong to the offender. Actual possession of the
property by the person disposed suffices.
In Santos vs. People, the Court held that a vehicle carnapped when it was
initially given to him in trust through repairs constitutes theft instead of Estafa.
The difference between theft and Estafa is that in theft the thing is taken while
in Estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own user or
benefit. If the person was entrusted only with the material or physical or de facto
possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if
he has juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes
Estafa.
In Cruz vs. People, the Court considered the use of position to commit theft as a
circumstance tantamount to grave abuse of confidence which qualifies theft.
In People vs. Juliano, the Court held that acceptance within the 3 day period to
fund bounced checks of new replacement checks negate the element of deceit
required to charge for Estafa for the issuance of the first checks.
In Sycsip vs. CA, the Court held that a buyers reliance on his right to suspend
payment until a developer had fulfilled is obligations to the buyer is a valid
defence against purported violation of BP 22.
In Bax vs. People, the Court held that in prosecuting for BP 22, the prosecution
must prove that the complainant has been served actual written notice and after
5 days thereof, the complainant has failed to pay the holder the amount due or to
make arrangements for its payment.
In other words: In Bax vs. People, the absence of proof that the accused received
written notice of dishonour of the checks, a prosecution for violation of BP 22
cannot prosper
In Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs People, the Court held that for the purpose of
exemption from criminal liability given under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code, relationship by affinity created between surviving spouse and blood
relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the
marriage which created the affinity. (the same with article 11, artice 13(5),
article 20)
In Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs People, the Court held that the coverage of
article 332 is strictly limited to felonies of simple crimes of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief and not to crimes complexed with other crimes such as theft
through falsification or estafa through falsification.
In Milla vs. People, the Court held that novation does not extinguish an act of
swindling which was already incurred.
reckless disregard when the accused did not verify the information on which he
based his writing.
Trend 1st time libel cases for members of the media = fine
Villanueva vs. People Slight oral defamation, slight slander by deed
In the case of Villaueva vs. People, the Court modified grave oral defamation and
grave slander by deed decision to slight oral defamation and slight slander by
deed when it found that the person had committed such acts in the heat of anger,
with some provocation on the part of the offended party