Title Ten Chapter Seven – CHATTEL MORTGAGE

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERAL Property

Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery
Section One – Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed
in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the
use of firearm on a street, road or alley
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred
by the members thereof
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence
or intimidation
Section Two – Robbery by the use of force upon things
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a
band
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public
building, or building dedicated to religious
worship and their dependencies
Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a
private building
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in
an uninhabited place or private building
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools
Article 305. False keys
Chapter Two – BRIGANDAGE
Chapter Eight – ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTION (REPEALED BY PD 1613 and RA 7659)
Article 320. Destructive arson
Article 321. Other forms of arson
Article 322. Cases of arson not included in the
preceding articles
Article 323. Arson of property of small value
Article 324. Crimes involving destruction
Article 325. Burning one’s own property as means to
commit arson
Article 326. Setting fire to property exclusively owned
by the offender
Article 326-A. In cases where death resulted as a
consequence of arson
Article 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson
Chapter Nine – MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief
Article 329. Other mischiefs
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication
Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public
monuments or paintings
Chapter Ten – EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABLITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Article 333. Persons exempt from criminal liability

Article 306. Who are brigands

Article 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery

Chapter Three – THEFT Elements of robbery in general:

Article 308. Who are liable for theft 1. There is personal property belonging to
Article 309. Penalties another;
Article 310. Qualified theft
2. There is unlawful taking of that property;
Article 311. Theft of the property of the National
Library and National Museum 3. The taking must be with intent to gain; and
4. There is violence against or intimidation of
Chapter Four – USURPATION any person, or force upon anything.

Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation The property taken must be personal property, for if
of real rights in property real property is occupied or real right is usurped
Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks by means of violence against or intimidation of
person, the crime is USURPATION.
Chapter Five – CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
The phrase “belonging to another” means that the
Article 314. Fraudulent insolvency property taken does not belong to the offender.
The person from whom the property is taken
Chapter Six – SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS need not be the owner. Possession of the
property is sufficient.
Article 315. Swindling (Estafa) The unlawful taking of personal property is an
Article 316. Other forms of swindling essential part of the crime of robbery. Where the
Article 317. Swindling a minor
taking was lawful and the unlawful
Article 318. Other deceits

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

108
 misappropriation was subsequent to such taking,
the crime is ESTAFA or MALVERSATION.
UNLAWFUL TAKING – when complete?
a) as to robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
o from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if the
culprit has had no opportunity to
dispose of the same
b) as to robbery with force upon things
o the thing must be taken out of the
building, or the place broken into, to
consummate the crime (note: this is
purely based on reyes’s opinion)
“Taking” as an element of robbery, means depriving
the offended party of ownership of the thing
taken with the character of permanency.
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful
taking of personal property.
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of
personal property GRAVE COERCION if there is
violence used.
The element of “personal property belonging to
another” and that of “intent to gain” must
concur.
The violence, as an element of robbery, must be
against the person of the offended party, not
upon the thing taken.
As for intimidation, it need not be threat of bodily
harm. It could be a threat of paying a fine or
closing the offended party’s shop.
GENERAL RULE: The violence or intimidation must
be present before the taking of personal
property is complete. It is not necessary that
violence of intimidation should be present from
the very beginning.
EXCEPTION: When the violence results in – (1)
homicide, (2) rape, (3) intentional mutilation, or
(4) any of the serious physical injuries under par
1 & 2 of Art 263 – the taking of personal property
is robbery complexed with any of those crimes
under Art 294, even if the taking was already
complete when the violence was used by the
offender.
Distinctions between effects of employment of
violence against or intimidation of person
and those of use of force upon things:
Whenever violence against or intimidation of any
person is used, the taking of personal
property belonging to another is always
robbery. If only force upon things, the
taking is robbery only if the force is used
either to enter the building or to break
doors, wardrobes, chests or any other kind
of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle
inside the building or to force them open
outside after taking the same from the
building.
In robbery with violence against or intimidation
of any person, the value of the personal
property taken is immaterial. The penalty
depends (a) on the result of the violence
used ie homicide, rape, intentional mutilation
etc, and (b) on the existence of intimidation
only. In robbery with force upon things,
committed in an inhabited house, public
building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship, the penalty is based (a) on the
value of the property taken, and (b) on
whether or not the offenders carry arms. If
committed in an uninhabited building, the
penalty is based only on the value of the
property taken.
Napolis vs. CA
Facts: Nicanor Napolis, with several co-accused, entered
the house of the Penaflor spouses by breaking a wall of a
store, and forcing the door of the house adjacent to the
store open. Once inside, the accused used violence against
the husband and initimidation against the wife, enabling
them to get away with P2557 in cash and goods. They were
convicted of robbery by armed men in an inhabited place.
Held: The crime is considered a complex one under Art 48,
where the penalty for the most serious offence in its max
period should be imposed. Otherwise, there will exist an
absurd situation where the concurrence of a graver offence
results in the reduction of the penalty.
People vs. Biruar
There is no law or jurisprudence which requires the
presentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that it
had been taken away.
People vs. Salas
Salas was last seen with the victim at 3:00am. At 6:00, the
victim’s body was found in a canal. Her purse, alleged to
contain P2,000 and jewelry were missing. No one witnessed
the robbery, much less the killing. Is the crime committed
homicide or robbery with homicide?
HELD: Robbery with Homicide. In this special complex
crime against property, Homicide is incidental to the
robbery, which is the main purpose of the
criminal. The onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the taking
of personal property with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to
another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus
lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the
generic sense, was committed."
While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talens
was robbed at the time she was killed, we may conclude
from four circumstances that the robbery occasioned her
killing: (1) Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake.
(2) The appellant knew that victim was winning. (3) The
victim was last seen alive with appellant. (4) The victim's
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
109
purse containing her money and earrings were missing from acts of the offender. Although proof of motive for the
her body when found. crime is essential when the evidence of the robbery is
These circumstances logically lead to the inescapable circumstantial, intent to gain or animus lucrandi may be
conclusion that appellant should be liable not just of presumed from the furtive taking of useful property
simple homicide, but robbery with homicide pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal
a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. The
People v. Del Rosario, 359 SCRA 166 (2001) intent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawful
taking. In the case at bar, the act of taking the victim's
wristwatch by one of the accused Cergontes while accused-
FACTS: Del Rosario stole six pieces of
appellant Reyes poked a knife behind him sufficiently gave
jewelry belonging to Paragua. He then pawned and sold
rise to the presumption.
the same. Also, on the occasion of the said robbery, Del
The detailed narration of how the victim was
Rosario hit Paraguas niece, Racquel, with a hard object,
forcibly divested of the wristwatch by accused Cergontes
strangled her and and tied the the latter’s neck of with a
and stabbed at the back by accused-appellant cannot be
Cat-V wire which resulted to her death shortly thereafter.
taken lightly on the argument that the attackers owned the
Del Rsoario admitted in court that he needed money to
wristwatch and they attacked the victim solely on their
marry his common-law wife. The RTC convicted del Rosario
desire to retrieve it. In any event, in robbery by the taking
of the crime of robbery with homicide. Del Rosario
of property through intimidation or violence, it is not
contends that it is essential to prove the intent to rob and
necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the
that the intent to rob must come first before the killing
personal property be the owner thereof. Article 293 of the
transpired.
Revised Penal Code employs the phrase "belonging to
another" and this has been interpreted to merely require
HELD: Animus lucrandi or intent to gain, is an
that the property taken does not belong to the offender.
internal act which can be established through the overt
Actual possession of the property by the person
acts of the offender. Although proof as to motive for the
dispossessed thereof suffices. In fact, it has been held that
crime is essential when the evidence of the theft is
robbery may be committed against a bailee or a person
circumstantial, the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is the
who himself has stolen it. So long as there is
usual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking of
apoderamiento of personal property from another against
useful property appertaining to another, unless special
the latter's will through violence or intimidation, with
circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the
animo de lucro, robbery is the offense imputable to the
perpetrator. ". . . (T)he intent to gain may be presumed
offender. If the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason
from the proven unlawful taking." Intent to gain (animus
of the robbery, the offense is converted into the composite
lucrandi) is presumed to be alleged in an information
crime of robbery with homicide.
where it is charged that there was unlawful taking
(apoderamiento) and appropriation by the offender of the
People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (2002)
things subject of the robbery.
In this case, it was apparent that the reason why
FACTS: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, and
Del Rosario stole the jewelry of Paragua was because he
Edgardo Batocan sporting ski masks, bonnests and gloves,
intended to gain by them. He had already admitted that he
brandishing handguns and knife barged into the room of
needed money to marry his common-law wife. The court
Director Rosas who was watching television together with
also stated that “if gaining through unlawful means was
his adopted son, Norman and his friend Gabilo. They
farthest from the mind of the accused, why then did he
threatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo to give the location
pawn and sell the jewelry he had taken from Paragua…
of their money and valuables, which they eventually took.
It is immaterial whether the killing transpired
They dragged Gabilo downstairs with them. Upon Nerio’s
before or after the robbery. In the crime of robbery with
instructions, Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which caused
homicide, the homicide may precede robbery or may occur
the latter’s death. After the incident, Edgar Suela
after robbery. What is essential is that there is a nexus, an
demanded P20,000.00 from Rosas for an information
intimate connection between robbery and the killing
regarding the robbery. The RTC found Edgar Suela guilty
whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, or
of robbery for demanding P200,000 as payment for
whether both crimes be committed at the same time.
information on the robbery-slay case.
People v. Reyes, 399 SCRA 528 (2003)
HELD: With respect to the charge of robbery for
demanding P200,000 as payment for information on the
FACTS: Cergontes forcibly took the wristwatch of
robbery-slay case, the Court held that Edgar Suela should
Solis while Reyes stabbed the latter at the back resulting to
be acquitted. The OSG explained: "Simple robbery is
his death. The victim’s gold necklace, one gold ring, all of
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
an undetermined value, and a wallet containing
persons as distinguished from the use of force upon things,
unspecified amount of cash were also taken from him.
but the extent of the violence or intimidation does not fall
Reyes was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
under pars. 1 to 4 of Article 294 (Revised Penal Code)
Appellant now contends that the animus lucrandi was not
"Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the prosecution failed to
sufficiently established as the taking of the watch could
prove that appellant, Edgar Suela employed force or
have been a mere afterthought and the real intent of the
intimidation on private complainant Rosas by instilling fear
malefactors was to inflict injuries upon the victim.
in his mind so as to compel the latter to cough out the
Moreover, there was no evidence of ownership of the
amount of P200,000.00. Instead, what was established was
wristwatch, as it may have belonged to the two persons
that he had agreed to give the P200,000.00 in exchange for
who attacked the victim
information regarding the identity and whereabouts of
those who robbed him and killed his friend. There was no
HELD: The court held that appellants contention
showing that appellant Edgar Suela had exerted
is devoid of merit. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an
intimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to give
internal act which can be established through the overt

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

110
the money. Instead, what is clear was that the giving of the
money was done not out of fear but because it was a
choice private complainant opted because he wanted to
get the information being offered to him for the
consideration of P200,000.00. In fact, the money was
delivered not due to fear but for the purpose of possibly
having a lead in solving the case and to possibly bring the
culprit to justice (ibid.). As such, the elements of simple
robbery have not been established in the instant case,
hence, appellant Edgar Suela should be acquitted of that
charge." However, Edgar is still guilty as principal of the
complex crime of robber with homicide for robbing the
house of Rosas and for Gabil’o death.
Bar Questions
Robbery (1996)
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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
Robbery under RPC (2000)
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. 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.
Robbery under RPC (2001)
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.
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Acts punished:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery
(taking of personal property belonging to another
with intent to gain), the crime of homicide is
committed;
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson;
3. When by reason of on occasion of such robbery,
any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted;
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any
of the physical injuries resulting in the loss of the
use of speech or the power to hear or to smell,
or the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a
leg or the loss of the use of any such member or
incapacity for the work in which the injured
person is theretofore habitually engaged is
inflicted;
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
unnecessary for the commission of the crime;
6. When in the course of its execution, the offender
shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery
any of the physical injuries in consequence of
which the person injured becomes deformed or
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
111
 loses any other member of his body or loses the
sue thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in which he is
habitually engaged for more than 90 days or the
person injured becomes ill or incapacitated for
labor for more than 30 days;
7. If the violence employed by the offender does
not cause any of the serious physical injuries
defined in Article 263, or if the offender employs
intimidation only.
The crime defined in this article is a special complex
crime. Thus, Art 48 no longer applies.
“on the occasion” = “in the course of”
“by reason” = “because of”
Robbery with homicide
Robbery and homicide are separate offences, when
the homicide was not committed “on the
occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery.
Where the original design comprehends robbery,
and homicide is perpetrated by reason or on the
occasion of the consummation of the former, the
crime committed is robbery with homicide.
There is no such crime as robbery with murder.
The treachery which attended the commission of
the crime must be considered not qualifying but
merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.
An intent to take personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain must precede the
killing.
The crime is robbery with homicide, even if the
motive of the offenders was that of robbery as
well as vengeance.
Homicide may precede robbery or may occur after
robbery.
It is immaterial that the death of a person
supervened by mere accident, provided that the
homicide be produced by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery.
Killing a person to escape after the commission of
robbery is robbery with homicide.
There is still robbery with homicide even if the
person killed is another robber or an
innocent bystander. Thus, the person
killed need not be the person robbed.
An accessory to robbery with homicide must have
knowledge and complicity as to the homicide as
well in order to be charged with the same
offence. Otherwise, if the accessory had no
knowledge of the homicide, he may only be
charged with robbery.
People vs. Mangulabnan
Facts: During the robbery, one of the accused climbed on
a table and fired at the ceiling, where the victim was
hiding. The shots caused the victim’s death.
Held: It is immaterial that death supervened by mere
accident. “By reason or on occasion of” means it is only
the result obtained, without reference to or distinction as
to circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in
the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into
consideration.
People vs. Calixtro
When death results, the crime is still robbery with
homicide, regardless of the circumstances, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime.
People vs. Pecato
Whenever a homicide has been committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those
who took part as principals in the commission of the crime
are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide although they did not actually take
part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
People vs. Tapales
When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of
robbery, should rape be considered an aggravating
circumstance? YES. Rapes, wanton robbery for personal
gain and other forms of cruelties are condemned and their
perpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstances
of ignominy and deliberately augmenting unnecessary
wrongs.
Poeple vs. Quinones
There is no such crime as robbery with multiple homicide.
There is only the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, regardless of the fact that 3 persons were killed
in the commission of the crime. In robbery, all homicides
and murders are merged in the composite. As such, the
single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed only once even if multiple killings accompanied
the robbery.
People vs. Faigano
Nely was suddenly roused from her sleep by Carmelo
Faigano, a worker at a nearby construction project. He was
in black T-shirt but was no longer wearing pants or
underwear. He poked a 29-inch balisong at her neck and
threatened to kill her and the children beside her. Then
forcibly tore her nightie, raised her pair of brassieres above
her breasts and pulled her to the edge of the king-size
wooden bed. He spread her thighs apart against her will
and inserted his organ into hers. He had sexual intercourse
with her. After satisfying his lust, Faigano then put on his
short pants and ordered Nely to bring out her money. He
took Nely's money, her husband's wristwatch and two rings.
TC found him guilty of the special complex crime of
robbery with rape
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
112
HELD: SC found him guilty of the separate crimes of
robbery and rape. If the intention of the accused was to
rob but rape was also committed even before the
asportation the crime is robbery with rape. But if the
original plan was to rape but the accused after committing
the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity
presented itself, the offenses should be viewed as separate
and distinct. To be liable for the special complex crime of
robbery with rape the intent to take personal property of
another must precede the rape. Under the circumstances,
SC is convinced that when Faigano entered the victim's
house he only had in mind sexual gratification. The taking
of the cash and pieces of jewelry against Nely's will appears
to be an afterthought.
People v. Reyes, 427 SCRA 28 (2004)
FACTS: Dr. Aurora Lagrada, a spinster of about
70 years old, lived alone in her 2-storey house. Reyes’
house was about 4-5 meters away from the doctor's house.
Reyes was able to gain entry into the house of Lagrada
without the latter knowing. Armed with a bolo, Reyes stole
one Rolex wristwatch, 1 gold bracelet, 1 gold ring with
birthstone of Jade, 1 Pass Book from Lagrada. On the
occasion of the said robbery, Reyes stabbed Lagrada
several times in the different parts of her body directly
causing her death. The trial court convicted Reyes of
robbery with homicide.
HELD: To sustain a conviction of the accused for
robbery with homicide, the prosecution is burdened to
prove the essential elements of the crime. The accused
must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing
robbery, the homicide being committed either by reason
of or on occasion of the robbery. The homicide may
precede robbery or may occur thereafter. What is essential
is that there is a nexus, an intrinsic connection between
the robbery and the killing. The latter may be done prior to
or subsequent to the former. However, the intent to
commit robbery must precede the taking of the victim's
life. Furthermore, the constituted crimes of robbery and
homicide must be consummated.
A homicide is considered as having been
committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery
when the motive of the offender in killing the victim is to
deprive the latter of his property, to eliminate an obstacle
to the crime, to protect his possession of the loot, to
eliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended or
to insure his escape from the scene of the crime.
Appellant stated that he barged into the house of
the victim to rob her, and that he stabbed the victim when
she was about to shout and because he was drunk. The
appellant then took the victim's money and personal
belongings and fled from the scene of the crime. The trial
court correctly convicted the appellant of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Hernandez, 432 SCRA 104 (2004)
FACTS: Catapang and Hernandez dragged 72 year-
old Natividad Mendoza, in the direction of a forested area
where there were also mango and coconut trees. The two
took the money and jewelry of Natividad while she was
lying on the ground. Thereafter, Catapang and Hernandez
strangled Natividad to death with the use of a white rope
made of buri/vine string.
HELD: The Court held that appellant is guilty of
robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659.
The court further held that, in robbery with
homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is
to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit
robbery must precede the taking of human life. The
homicide may take place before, during or after the
robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has
to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of
robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or
simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime,
namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.
People v. Milliam, 324 SCRA 155 (2000)
FACTS: Demarayo, a member of the 15th Infantry
Battalion, Philippine Army, was leisurely pacing along
Quezon Street, Iloilo City, when Roberto and Ricky both
surnamed Martin blocked his path. Without any provocation
coming from the soldier, Ricky drew his firearm and fired
at Demarayo, hitting the latter’s left hand. A brief struggle
among the three (3) men ensued which caused the victim
to fall down. As Roberto pulled away he warded off
Demarayo by kicking him on the waist. While the victim
was sprawled on the ground Roberto aimed his rifle at
Demarayo's chest and pulled the trigger. Roberto fired
another shot hitting Demarayo on the same spot. After the
brutal slaying, the assailants nonchalantly walked away
with Demarayo's M-16. The lower court ruled that the crime
committed was Robbery with Homicide.
HELD: In People v. Salazar, accused-appellants
stabbed a security guard and thereafter took away his gun.
It was ruled that since the prosecution failed to establish
that the homicide was committed by reason or on the
occasion of stealing the security guard's firearm, both of
them could only be convicted of the separate crimes of
Homicide and Theft.
The records are bereft of any evidence to prove
that the asportation of Demarayo's service firearm was the
prime motive of accused-appellants. Although it may be
true that they were seen grabbing the gun from the victim
as the latter was lying prone on the ground, it could be
possible that it was done to prevent him from retaliating as
he was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshot
wound. The taking of the gun might have been an
afterthought and not the real purpose of the crime. It can
therefore be seen that the prosecution failed to establish
convincingly that the homicide was committed for the
purpose or on the occasion of robbing the victim. As such,
accused-appellants should properly be convicted of the
separate offenses of Homicide and Theft, which were both
duly proved.
People v. Ranis, 389 SCRA 45 (2002)
FACTS: While Marivic and Ben with their baby
were watching television in their bedroom, Murphy and
Sabiyon, both armed with bladed weapons, suddenly
entered their unlocked bedroom. Murphy poked a knife at
her neck while Ernesto straddled on top of Ben who was
then lying in bed. Murphy asked for the proceeds of the
land Ben sold and some jewelry but Marivic told him that
they only had P2,000 in their possession. Murphy then took
the P2,000 and several pieces of luxury watches and
jewelry. After taking the money and jewelry, both accused
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
113
tied her hands and those of Ben with electric cord and then
they went out of the house, taking Ben with them. The
body of Ben was later found lying about five to ten meters
from the house with a cloth in the mouth, blood stains on
the body, and hack wounds on his right nape and mouth.
Ben was brought to the hospital but he was proclaimed
dead on arrival.
HELD: In charging robbery with homicide, the
onus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personal
property with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking
is characterized by animus lucrandi; (d) on the occasion of
the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide,
which is used in the generic sense, has been committed. In
this case, Marivic Rodelas positively identified appellants
Ernesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy as the two persons who
entered her bedroom. Using sharp, bladed weapons,
appellants demanded and took money, watches, and
jewelry belonging to the victim, Ben Hernandez.
Thereafter, Hernandez was found stabbed to death. The
Court ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Gonzales, 382 SCRA 694 (2002)
FACTS: Nicanor Suralta was having drinks with
his visitors in their house when two armed men, one
carrying a gun and the other a knife, suddenly entered the
house through the kitchen door. The one carrying a gun had
a bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed, while
the other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face
covered with a handkerchief. The knife-wielder held
Chona, the third child of the Suralta spouses, and
announced a holdup. All persons in the house were ordered
to go inside the bedroom, about 2 meters away from the
sala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun and
money from Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun,
but asked his wife, Carolita, to give money to the
holduppers. Carolita gave P2,100.00, which was intended
to be deposited in the bank, to the knife-wielder, who
placed it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder ransacked
the cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325.00,
which was intended for the school expenses of the Suralta
children. In addition, he took the family's Sanyo cassette
recorder and some clothes. The holduppers also divested
one of the guests of his Seiko diver's wristwatch and then
left. As the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rang
out. Nicanor was heard moaning. Nicanor eventually died.
HELD: After reviewing the records of this case,
the court ruled that the prosecution evidence establishes
the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. A
conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of the
following elements: (a) the taking of personal property
with violence or intimidation against persons or with force
upon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c)
the taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain);
and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason
thereof, homicide in its generic sense is committed. The
offense becomes the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide under Art. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the
victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
All elements are present in the case at bar.
People v. Torres, 359 SCRA 761 (2001)
FACTS: Vicente Galanao, his sons Julian and
Macky and Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with their
employer, Boloy , to buy copra and abaca. They were on
board a truck driven by Boloy. On the way, they were
stopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the road.
Torres approached the left side of the truck, went up the
truck, and shot Boloy once. After shooting, two persons
armed with guns appeared from nowhere and approached
the back of the truck and told them to lie face downward.
The two persons came from the portion where bamboos
grew by the side of the road. Afterwards the men ran
towards the mountainside with the victims bag containing
P500,000.00, the victims necklace, ring and his wristwatch.
HELD: Robbery with homicide is a special
complex crime against property. Homicide is incidental to
the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. In
charging robbery with homicide, the onus probandi is to
establish: xxx… xxx… (d) on the occasion of the robbery or
by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in
the generic sense, was committed. The phrase "by reason"
covers homicide committed before or after the taking of
personal property of another, as long as the motive of the
offender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprive
the victim of his personal property which is sought to be
accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or in
killing a person after the robbery to do away with a witness
or to defend the possession of the stolen property. Thus, it
matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of
the personal properties of the victim. What is essential in
robbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation and
intimate connection between robbery and killing, whether
both crimes be committed at the same time. The Court
ruled that all elements of robbery with homicide are
present in this case.
People v. Maxion, 361 SCRA 414 (2001)
FACTS: Himor, a teller at the United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB), walked across the street towards the
Hi-Top Supermarket, to pick up the cash deposit of the
supermarket amounting to P1,464,644.75. After issuing the
deposit slip, he placed the money inside a duffle bag and
padlocked the bag. Thereafter, he called the bank to send
his security escort. UCPB sent security escort Gargaceran.
While Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the street
going back to the bank. Maxion and another man suddenly
emerged and walked towards them. Maxion was in front of
Gargaceran while the second stayed behind him. Both of
them aimed their guns at Gargaceran. The man behind
Gargaceran immediately took Gargaceran's handgun, and
shortly thereafter, Maxion shot Gargaceran at close range
hitting him on the chest eventually causing his death.
Himor attempted to run with the bag towards the bank but
he was stopped by the armed men who ordered him to
release the bag. With their guns pointed at him, Himor
tossed the bag containing the money to them and ran back
to the supermarket.
HELD: There is no question that the original and
principal intention of the two armed men was to get the
money of Hi-Top Supermarket. This is evident from the
testimony of teller Himor that as soon as the two men
stopped him from running towards the bank, they shouted
to release the bag containing the money. As the robbery
resulted in the killing of the security guard Gargaceran, the
offense committed by the malefactors is indubitably the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In
robbery with homicide, what is essential is that there be "a
direct relation, an intimate connection between robbery
and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
114
to the former or whether both crime be committed at the
same time.
People v. Consejero, 352 SCRA 276 (2001)
FACTS: While they were fishing, Accused
Consajero, a CAFGU member and Malapit, armed with an
M-14, asked Castillo and Usigan if they were the ones
exacting quota from the Barangay captain. The two replied
in the negative. Consajero then asked Castillo and Usigan
to accompany them to a nearby store. They then killed
Castillo and Usigan. Thereafter, they took the Briggs and
Straton engine of the motorized banca ridden by Castillo
and Usigan which is owned by Israel. Castillo was found
lying on the ground, face down, drenched in his own blood
with hands tied at the back. Twenty meters away lay the
dead body of Usigan, who sustained thirty-one stab and
hack wounds on the different parts of his body.
HELD: The criminal acts of accused-appellant
constitute not a complex crime of robbery with homicide,
but three separate offenses: 1. Murder, for the killing of
Modesto Castillo, 2. Homicide, for the death of Dionisio
Usigan; and 3. Theft, for the unlawful taking of the Briggs
and Straton engine of the motorized banca.
In People v. Amania, the Court had occasion to
rule that in robbery with homicide, the killing must have
been directly connected with the robbery. It is necessary
that there must have been an intent on the part of the
offenders to commit robbery from the outset and, on
occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. The
original design must have been robbery, and the homicide,
even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, must
have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with a
view to consummate the robbery. The taking of the
property should not be merely an afterthought which arose
subsequent to the killing.
In the present case, it does not appear that the
primary purpose of accused-appellant in accosting the two
deceased was to rob the engine of the motorized banca.
From all indications, accused-appellant, a CAFGU member,
was primarily interested in taking the life of the two
deceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from the
Barangay captain, and the taking of the subject engine was
merely an afterthought that arouse subsequent to the
killing of the victims.
People v. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95
FACTS: Carlos Deveza, erstwhile member of the
PNP arrived at the Cartimar Plaza Market to fetch his wife,
Estella, who was then closing the family chain of stalls for
the day. Upon arrival, Carlos parked his Toyota Tamaraw
vehicle in front of the stall. Immediately thereafter, Estella
approached Carlos, who was still at the driver's seat, and
handed him a black leather bag which contained
P300,000.00 cash, pieces of jewelry and checks. As Estella
left to make a phone call, Carlos alighted from the
Tamaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle with
both arms resting on the vehicle's window. Legaspi, coming
from the front of the vehicle position himself 2½ meters
away from Deveza, level and poke a gun wrapped in a
piece of cloth or towel at the latter’s nape and eventually
pull the trigger. Deveza fell on the pavement. The gunman
then picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casually
walked away from the scene of the crime.
While conversing with other tricycle drivers,
Wilfredo Dazo heard the gunshot prompting him to dart his
eyes toward the direction of the gunfire where he saw
Deveza stooping and about to fall. Pitying the victim,
Dazo hid behind a post and waited in ambush for Legaspi
and the latter’s companion, Franco. In so doing, Dazo
intended to seize and stop Legaspi who was then holding a
gun, but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmed
Franco by the waist. Thereafter, Dazo and Franco wrestled
causing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing Legaspi to
take an aim and shoot at Dazo twice. At the height of the
struggle between Dazo and Franco, shots were fired by
Legaspi, one bullet hitting Dazo on the right jaw.
HELD: Obviously, the killing of Carlos Deveza and
the shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reason
of or on the occasion of the robbery. Thus, the physical
injuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in the
crime of robbery with homicide. Taken in its entirety, the
overt acts of accused-appellant Legaspi prove that the lone
motive for the killing of Deveza and the shooting of Dazo
was for the purpose of consummating and ensuring the
success of the robbery.
In the final analysis, the shooting of Dazo was
done in order to defend the possession of the stolen
property. It was therefore an act which tended to insure
the successful termination of the robbery and secure to the
robber the possession and enjoyment of the goods taken.
Accused-appellant's argument that the element of "taking"
was not proved is thus unavailing in the face of Tulod's
testimony.
People v. Temanel, 341 SCRA 319 (2000)
FACTS: Renato Sucilan, his wife Adelina,
daughter Liezl, and brother Romeo were eating dinner in
Renato's house. After dinner, Adelina prepared for bed
while Renato played with Liezl. Romeo went home to his
own hut situated five meters away. Suddenly, a stone was
hurled into Renato's house hitting the petromax lamp.
Immediately, brothers Jose and Eddie Temanel entered the
house. Jose poked Renato with a bladed weapon while
Eddie ordered Adelina to take out their money and
valuables. Later, cohorts of the Temanels entered the hut.
Osis grabbed Liezl, and held a knife against her. Terrified,
Adelina put the valuables in an empty milk can and placed
the same outside the door. Efren Temanel, who was
outside the hut, took the can. The intruders tied the
couple. When Renato and Adelina were able to free
themselves, the former stepped out of the house and was
shocked to find his brother, Romeo, dead with several stab
wounds in the neck and his intestines exposed. The pieces
of jewelry he usually wore, were no longer on his body.
HELD: All the elements of robbery with homicide
concur in this case. The properties taken consisted of
pieces of jewelry, a radio, rice, money and other
valuables, all of which clearly belonged to the Sucilans.
The properties were violently taken and intent to gain can
be presumed from the unlawful taking. In addition, Romeo
Sucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery.
Where homicide is perpetrated with a view to
rob, the offense is robbery with homicide. But if robbery
was an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide,
there are two distinct offenses. Here, the killing was
committed in the course of the robbery. The fact that it
was Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants, Eddie and
Jose Temanel, who stabbed Romeo is of no moment. In
People v. Mendoza, if all accused take part in a robbery
resulting in death, all of them shall be held liable for
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
115
robbery with homicide in the absence of proof that they
prevented the killing.
People v. Cruz, 380 SCRA 13 (2002)
FACTS: Donato Cruz, who was high on drugs,
entered the house of the Robleses, and sat on a sofa near
the kitchen. While seated on the sofa, Laura saw
respondent and she became hysterical and started
shouting. Thinking that he will be assaulted by Laura, Cruz
went inside the house, got hold of a pointed object and
stabbed to death Laura Robles and her 5-year old daughter,
Lara. Thereafter, he ransacked the cabinet of the Robleses
taking away a Minolta camera, a wedding ring and
P8,000.00 in cash, as well as an undetermined amount of
US dollars. The RTC convicted Cruz of two (2) counts of
murder and one (1) count of theft. Appellant argues that
he should have been charged with the crime of robbery
with homicide.
HELD: The Court held that the argument of the
Appellant is without merit. The special complex crime of
robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against
property, and not against persons, homicide being a mere
incident of the robbery with the latter being the main
purpose and object of the criminal (People vs. Navales, 266
SCRA 569 [1997]). In the case at bar, the evidence on
record shows that appellant stole the camera and cash only
as an afterthought. His primary purpose was to kill Laura
and her 5-year old daughter, Lara, after he panicked.
Hence, the prosecution was correct when it did not charge
appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000)
FACTS: Maria Abendaño was engaged in business.
She had a store, operated a passenger jeepney and
engaged in the buy and sale of palay. Her sister Romualda
also had a store. Accused Nelson was Maria's store helper.
Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda in her
store during palay season. The other accused Maximo
Velarde was known to Romualda because she met him at a
birthday party held at Maria's house. The three accused
were friends. Maximo, Tito and Nelson conceived the plan
to hold-up Maria while drinking in front of Romualda's store
because Maximo needed money for his fare to Manila.
Maximo, Tito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepney
of Maria and upon reaching an uninhabited place. Maximo
poked a gun at the driver and shot him. He also shot Maria
at the neck when the latter shouted. Nelson and Tito
alighted from the jeepney. Nelson went to the left front
side of the jeepney, while Tito approached the right front
side of the jeepney, in the process stepping on the sleeping
John-John who was then awakened. The boy stood up and
said, "You will see I will tell my father that you killed my
mother." To avoid being identified by the boy, Tito told
Maximo to kill the boy. Maximo then took hold of the boy's
hair and slashed his neck. Tito took Maria's money and
divided it, each accused receiving about seven thousand
(P7,000.00) pesos from the loot.
HELD: The crime committed is the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and
penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The
trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with
homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged
in the information. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is
used in its generic sense, embracing not only the act which
results in death but also all other acts producing anything
short of death. Neither is the nature of the offense altered
by the number of killings in connection with the robbery.
The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the
robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situation
where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense,
robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way
that robbery with multiple killings would be.
People v. Dinamling, 379 SCRA 107 (2002)
FACTS: Marilyn Pajarillo was in their house
lying down in bed with her 2-year old daughter. Seated
beside her was 11-year old Rosemarie Malalay, who was
waiting for her father Rogelio. Rogelio was then in the
patio, outside the house, drinking gin with Marilyn's
husband Charlie Pajarillo and Deogracias Acosta. Suddenly,
Orlando Dinamling entered their house and poked a long
gun at Marilyn's forehead, ordered her to lie prone on the
ground. Marilyn merely sat down. Dinamman, with a short
firearm, entered their sari-sari store, searched their
belongings and took more or less P1,500.00 in cash
representing her sales, two (rims of Champion cigarettes,
one dozen cans of sardines and one pack of Juicy Fruit
chewing gum. Outside, Fernando Dinamling and Linnam
poked guns at the heads of Rogelio and Deogracias, who
were then lying prostrate on the ground.. After a while,
Rogelio and Deogaracias were shot to death. The trial
court's ruled that Orlando and Fenando Dinamling,
Diinamman and Linnam are guilty of "robbery with double
homicide"
HELD: Accused-appellants' crime is robbery with
homicide. The trial court's denomination of the offense as
"robbery with double homicide" is erroneous. It is settled
that regardless of the number of homicides committed, the
crime should still be denominated as robbery with
homicide. The number of persons killed is immaterial and
does not increase the penalty prescribed by Article 294 of
the Revised Penal Code. Stated differently, the homicides
or murders and physical injuries, irrespective of their
numbers, committed on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Daniela, 401 SCRA 519 (2002)
FACTS: Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis came to
the house of Ronito and his common-law wife, Maria Fe to
borrow money. Manuel, Jose, and Ronito then had a
drinking spree. Later, Manuel armed with a .38 caliber gun,
entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe and poked the
said gun on Maria Fe. Jose, armed with a knife followed
Manuel to the bedroom. Upon Manuel’s order Jose tied the
hands of Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape on her
mouth. Jose also tied the hands of Marife’s cousin, Leo.
Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace,
rings and earrings. Manuel demanded that she give them
her money but Maria Fe told them that she had used her
money to pay her partners in the fish vending business.
Manuel and Jose did not believe Maria Fe and ransacked
the room but failed to find money. Manuel then threatened
to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria
Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to
surrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money
from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and
Jose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
116
with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered
Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed
the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on
different parts of his body. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt
of his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the
latter's wristwatch and ring. Manuel then raped Julifer, a
househelp of Marife.
HELD: The law does not require that the sole
motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide
by reason or on the occasion thereof. In People vs. Tidula,
et al., this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends
to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction
for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In
People v. Damaso, the Court held that the fact that the
intent of the felons was tempered with a desire also to
avenge grievances against the victim killed, does not
negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for
robbery with homicide.
A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper
even if the homicide is committed before, during or after
the commission of the robbery. The homicide may be
committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by
mere accident. Even if two or more persons are killed and a
woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on
another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is
only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
What is primordial is the result obtained without reference
or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime.
Robbery with homicide is committed even if the
victim of the robbery is different from the victim of
homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery. It is not even necessary
that the victim of the robbery is the very person the
malefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of the
special complex crime, the robbery itself must be proved
as conclusively as any other element of the crime. It may
be true that the original intent of appellant Manuel was to
borrow again money from Ronito and Maria Fe but later on
conspired with Jose and robbed the couple of their money
and pieces of jewelry, and on the occasion thereof, killed
Ronito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of robbery
with homicide.
People v. Napalit, 396 SCRA 687 (2003)
FACTS:A group of more than six armed men
including Napalit barged into the Tondo General Hospital.
One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guard
and announced a hold-up. Simultaneously, Napalit pointed
a gun at, and grabbed the firearm of, another security
guard. Four members of the group then entered the
cashier's office of the hospital and ordered the employees
to lie down on the floor. One of them pointed a gun at the
cashier, Alonzo, and ordered him to open the vault. Before
Alonzo could do as instructed, he was searched for
weapons in the course of which his wallet containing
P450.00 in cash was taken. Alonzo then opened the vault
which the four emptied of P1,010,274.90 in cash. While the
four malefactors were at the cashier's office, another
security guard, Gomez, who was manning the hospital gate
was disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside the
hospital premises, and shot twice by one of the armed
men. The four armed men who emptied the vault then
rushed out of the hospital and one of them also shot Gomez
who had by then collapsed on the ground. Two of them
headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castor
which was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in front
of the hospital. One of the duo ordered the passenger at
the front seat to get off the vehicle. The other, after
forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fled
with his companion. The RTC found Napalit guilty of
robbery with homicide and violation of R. A. 6539 (the
Anti-Carnapping Act), respectively. Napalit argues that
assuming that he had indeed participated in the incident,
he should only be held liable for robbery and not for the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
HELD: In a long line of cases, the Court has ruled
that whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or
on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as
principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide,
unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide. (People v. Lago, 358 SCRA 550 (2001),
People v. Liad, 355 SCRA 11 (2001), People v. Pedroso, 336
SCRA 163)
People v. Lara (2006)
The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that
appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide in
Criminal Case No. 97-13706. There is nothing in the
records that would show that the principal purpose of
appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun (Serial No.
9600942). It must be emphasized that when the victim and
appellant met and had a heated argument, the absence of
the intent to rob on the part of the appellant was
apparent. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim.
Appellant’s act of taking the shotgun was not for the
purpose of robbing the victim, but to protect himself from
the victim. No one would in one’s right mind just leave a
firearm lying around after being in a heated argument with
another person. Having failed to establish that
appellant’s original criminal design was robbery, appellant
could only be convicted of the separate crimes of either
murder or homicide, as the case may be, and theft.
Bar Questions
Robbery w/ force upon things (2000)
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.
Robbery w/ Homicide - R.A. No. 7659 (2005)
Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They
learned that Jose won P500,000.00 in the lotto, and decided
to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away
from Jose’s house and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry
surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose
who was then having his dinner. Henry found the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
117
P500,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline
from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts.
Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200 meters
away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods
recovered the P500,000.00. Mario and Henry were charged
with and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the
aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime.
Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he
was not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that
Henry killed the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery,
as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with
Henry to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry,
likewise, moved to reconsider the decision, asserting that he
is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide with no
aggravating circumstance, considering that he and Mario did
not benefit from the P500,000.00. He further alleged that
arson is a felony and not an aggravating circumstance;
dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with
homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the
house of Jose was lighted at the time he was killed. Resolve
with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry.
(7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mario is not correct. Mario conspired and acted in concert
with Henry to commit robbery. Hence, the act of one is the
act of all and the extent of the specific participation of each
individual conspirator becomes secondary, each being held
liable for the criminal deed(s) executed by another or others.
As a conspirator, Mario casts his lot with his fellow
conspirators and becomes liable to any third person who
may get killed in the course of implementing the criminal
design. (People v. Punzalan, et al.. G.R. No. 78853,
November 8, 1991) Henry is incorrect, since he acquired
possession of the money. The crime of robbery with force
and intimidation is consummated when the robber acquires
possession of the property, even if for a short time. It is no
defense that they had no opportunity to dispose of or benefit
from the money taken. (People v. Salvilia, et al., G.R. No.
88163, April 26, 1990) Since the crime in robbery with force
and intimidation against persons (robbery with homicide),
dwelling is aggravating. Arson, which accompanied the crime
of robbery with homicide is absorbed (Art. 294, RFC as
amended by R.A. No. 7659) and is not aggravating because
the RPC does not provide that such crime is an aggravating
circumstance. (People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5,
2000) Nighttime, likewise, is not aggravating. There is no
showing that the same was purposely sought by the
offenders to facilitate the commission of the crime or
impunity.
Robbery w/ Homicide (1996)
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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(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)
Robbery w/ Homicide (1998)
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%)
SUGGESTED 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.
Robbery w/ Homicide (2003)
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:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
118
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.
Robbery w/ Homicide; Special Complex Crime (1995)
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.
Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and
Ronnie.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
Robbery; Homicide; Arson (1995)
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.
SUGGESTED 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.
Robbery with rape
Like in robbery with homicide, the offender must have
the intent to take the personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain, and
such intent must precede the rape.
There is no such crime as robbery with
attempted rape. It must be consummated.
Otherwise, they are separate offences.
When the taking of personal property of a woman is
an independent act following defendant’s failure
to consummate the rape, there are two distinct
crimes committed: attempted rape and theft.
Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of
robbery will not increase the penalty. All acts of
rape on that occasion being integrated in one
composite crime.
When the taking of property after the rape is not with
intent to gain, there is neither theft nor robbery
committed.
The civil liability for rape in robbery with rape has
been set at P50,000.
When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission
of robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide
and rape under par 1 of Art 294, the rape to be
considered as an aggravating circumstance only.
(note: this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal, Pp vs
Basca, and Pp vs Villa. but i disagree with this
ruling based on moral grounds and lack of legal
basis. how could rape be merely an aggravating
circumstance?)
People vs. Patola
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
119
Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art
294 par 2, not under RPC 335 on qualified rape.
People vs. Dinola
Facts: Dinola saw victim Marilyn’s watch after he had
raped her. She refused to give him the watch so he took if
forcibly from her and left. Dinola was convicted of robbery
with rape.
Held: The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as
2 separate offences. If the original design was to commit
rape but the accused after committing rape also committed
robbery (more of an afterthought, even accidental)
because the opportunity presented itself, the criminal act
should be viewed as 2 distinct offences. If the intention of
the accused was to commit robbery but rape was also
committed even before the robbery, the crime of robbery
with rape was committed.
People vs Moreno
Facts: Accused Moreno, Deloria and Maniquez robbed the
Mohnani spouses. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa while
Maniquez raped househelp Mary Ann. Moreno was
convicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez, robbery
with rape.
Held: Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of
robbery only. Ruling was correct.
People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302 (2000)
FACTS: Locsin Fabon, alias "Loklok," entered
the home of 64 year-old, Bonifacia Lasquite and forcibly
took the victim’s money amounting to P25,000.00. On the
occasion of the robbery, Fabon raped Lasquite. Thereafter,
Fabon strangled and stabbed Lasquite with a knife resulting
to her death. The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery with
Homicide and Rape, penalized under Article 294, number 1
of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659.
HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated the
crime committed as "robbery with homicide and rape."
When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
is accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional
mutilation, such additional offense is treated as an
aggravating circumstance which would result in the
imposition of the maximum penalty of death. The Court
cited the case of People vs. Lascuna, where it was held
that “We agree with the Solicitor General's observation
that the crime committed was erroneously designated as
robbery with homicide, rape and physical injuries. The
proper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated by
rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission
of robbery, it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code which applies, the rape to be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. . . .
People v. Domingo, 383 SCRA 43 (2002)
FACTS: Appellant Domingo Temporal, Pedro,
Valdez, and Rivera went to the house of Spouses Valentin
and Clara Gabertan, armed with a piece of bamboo, 2x2
piece of wood, ipil-ipil posts and bolo, They assaulted and
clubbed Valentin with their weapons, weakening and
injuring him. Eventually they stole from the Gabertan
spouses cash in the amount of P5,350.00, 1 ladies gold
Seiko watch, 9 turkeys, and 2 chickens. Thereafter, while
Rivera guarded Valentin, the four accused took turns in
raping Carla outside the house where she was forcibly laid
on the cogon grass. RTC found appellant guilty of robbery
with multiple rape.
HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellant
of robbery with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape.
In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the true
intent of the accused must first be determined, because
their intent determines the offense they committed. To
sustain a conviction for robbery with rape, it is imperative
that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. To
support a conviction therefor, proof of the rape alone is
not sufficient. Robbery with rape occurs when the
following elements are present: (1) personal property is
taken with violence or intimidation against persons, (2) the
property taken belongs to another, (3) the taking is done
with animo lucrandi, and (4) the robbery is accompanied by
rape.
In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are
present. The contemporaneous acts of appellant and his
co-accused stress the fact that they were initially
motivated by animus lucrandi. They first demanded guns,
moneys and animals from Valentin Gabertan. Apparently, it
was only when they entered the house and saw his wife
when they thought of raping her.The prosecution likewise
established that appellant and his co-accused took
chickens, a watch and money from complainants through
violence.
People v. Verceles, 388 SCRA 515 (2002)
FACTS: Accused Verceles alias "Baldog",
Corpuz, Soriano alias "Merto", Ramos and Soriano entered
the house of Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the
grills of the window. Once inside, they took away 1 colored
T.V., 1 VHS, assorted jewelries, 1 alarm clock and 1 radio
cassettes. In the course of the robbery, Soriano,
succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolito
while the others just stood outside the door and did
nothing to prevent Soriano.
HELD: Once conspiracy is established between
two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery,
they would be both equally culpable for the rape
committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery,
unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent
the other from committing the rape. The rule in this
jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a
consequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all those
who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime
of robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in
the rape. Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Robbery with Rape punished under Article 294
(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Moreno, 374 SCRA 667 (2002)
The special complex crime of robbery with rape
defined in Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, employs the
clause "when the robbery shall have been accompanied
with rape." In other words, to be liable for such crime, the
offender must have the intent to take the personal
property of another under circumstances that makes the
taking one of robbery, and such intent must precede the
rape. If the original plan was to commit rape, but the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
120
accused after committing the rape also committed robbery
when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery should
be viewed as a separate and distinct crime.
A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this
case convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separate
offenses of rape and theft, and not the special complex
crime of robbery with rape. Immediately after ROGELIO put
his arms around MARITES and directed the knife at her
neck, he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABC
Commercial Complex and removed her clothes. These acts
clearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexual
gratification. This intent was further established by the
fact that when MARITES offered to give her ring to
ROGELIO, the latter did not take it and instead replied,
"Mamaya na iyan"; "That will come later on because I will
give it back to you but you have to follow me first." Again,
when ROGELIO removed his pants, MARITES told him to get
her bag if he needed money; but ROGELIO replied "I do not
need money." After giving vent to his lustful desire, he
snatched the victim's shoulder bag, which was then on her
right foot, and then he ran away. Clearly then, the taking
of personal property was not the original evil plan of
ROGELIO. It was an afterthought following the rape.
Significantly, the constitutive element of
violence or intimidation against persons in robbery was not
present at the time of the snatching of the shoulder bag of
MARITES. The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIO
against the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact of
the taking of the bag. It was for the purpose of
accomplishing his lustful desire. Hence, it cannot be
considered for the purpose of classifying the crime as
robbery. Accused-appellant may thus be held liable for
simple theft only, in addition to the crime of rape.
People v. Seguis, 349 SCRA 547 (2001)
FACTS: Seguis a.k.a. Junior, Estebe a.k.a.
Dodong, Doquila a.k.a. Lolong, r Canico, Gibertas, dela
Cruz, and a certain John Doe took turns in raping Juliet
Magamayo at the house of his friend where she stayed for
the night. One of the said accused took her gold ring,
bracelet and cash though Juliet can not pinpoint who
specifically did it among the many accused. The RTC finds
each of the accused, Adriano guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principal of the crime of simple rape under Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code
HELD: It is to be noted that the accused in this
case were originally indicted for the felony of robbery with
multiple rape, a special complex crime punishable under
Art. 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and which is
committed "when the robbery shall have been accompanied
by rape." The said provision, needless to say, covers cases
of multiple rapes. This is primarily due to the fact that the
juridical concept of this crime does not limit the
consummation of rape against one single victim or to one
single act, making other rapes in excess of that number as
separate, independent offense or offenses. All the rapes
are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is
robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the
robbery. It does not matter too whether the rape occurred
before, during, or after the robbery.
Still and all, this does not change the nature of
the felony. It is essentially a crime against property. To
sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the robbery itself
must be conclusively established; just as the fact that it
was the accused who committed it be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution must be able to
demonstrate the level of their participation with legal and
moral certainty, including the existence of a conspiracy, if
any. Otherwise, those who were charged should be
acquitted, at least for the robbery. Proof of the rape alone
is not sufficient to support a conviction for the crime of
robbery with rape.
The lower court's finding of the accused’non-
participation in the robbery does not mean that they are
totally guiltless. They will still be held accountable for
whatever unlawful acts they may have committed, and for
which acts they were charged. In a criminal action for
robbery with rape, where the prosecution failed to prove
the robo or the participation of the accused in it, the latter
may still be convicted for the rape. The trial court’s ruling
that the appellants had carnal knowledge of the private
complainant by using force and intimidation, convicting
them of one count of rape each because there was no
showing that they conspired or assisted each other in
committing those rapes is affirmed.
People v. Gano, 353 SCRA 126 (2001)
Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The question
that needs to be resolved is whether the “multiplicity of
homicides” could be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. For sometime, this ticklish issue has been
the subject of conflicting views by this Court when it held
in some cases that the additional rapes/homicides
committed on the occasion of robbery would not increase
the penalty, while in other cases it ruled that the
“multiplicity of rapes/homicides” committed could be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. But in People
v. Regala this Court spoke with finality on the matter —
It should be noted that there is no law providing
that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be
considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration
of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the
enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding
mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph
(paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in
the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery
with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with
multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the
legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of
the offender and no person should be brought within its
terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
This case is singular in its barbarity and
nauseating in the manner with which the accused, bolo in
hand, butchered his preys. Notwithstanding the viciousness
with which he perpetrated the offense, we are constrained
to apply the principle laid down in People v. Regala, and
accordingly, the two (2) other killings contrary to the ruling
of the trial court, should not be appreciated as aggravating
circumstances. Gano is guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
People v. Regala, 329 SCRA 707 (2000)
FACTS: Sixteen-year old, Nerissa Tagala, and her
grandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping, when
appellant Armando Regala and his two other companions
entered the former's house. Regala and his companions
entered the house through the kitchen by removing the
pieces of wood under the stove. Regala went to the room
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
121
of Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun on
them, one after the other. Nerissa and her grandmother
were hogtied by appellant and his companions. Thereafter,
Nerissa was raped by twice by Regala in bed and in the
kitchen. After the rape, appellant and his two companions
counted the money which they took from the "aparador.
Appellant and his companions then ran away with P3,000 in
cash, 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches.
HELD: It should be noted that there is no law
providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should
be considered as aggravating circumstance. The
enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14
of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the
enumeration in Article 13 of the same code regarding
mitigating circumstances where there is a specific
paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous
circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in.
the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery
with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with
multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the
legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of
the offender and no person should be brought within its
terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
Requisites of robbery under 2nd case of par 4 Art 294:
1) that any of the physical injuries defined in par 3
& 4 Art 263 was inflicted in the course of the
robbery, and
2) that any of them was inflicted upon any person
not responsible for the commission of the
robbery.
Bar Questions
Robbery w/ Rape (1999)
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.
Robbery w/ Rape; Conspiracy (2004)
Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They
entered her house by breaking one of the windows in her
house. After taking her personal properties and as they were
about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA
was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her
bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD.
What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is
the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite
crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense
under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Although the
conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery
and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were
present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-
conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from
committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the
commission of the rape by their co-conspirator XA.
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same,
as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape
accompanying the robbery is just a component.
Robbery; Rape (1997)
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?
SUGGESTED 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.
Robbery with violence or intimidation
 Violence or intimidation need not be present
before or at the exact moment when the object is
taken. It may enter at any time before the
owner is finally deprived of his property.
 Intimidation exists when the acts executed or
words uttered by the ofender are capable of
producing fear in the person threatened.
 In robbery with intimidation, there must be acts
done by the accused which, either by their own
nature or by reason of the circumstances under
which they are executed, inspire fear in the
person against whom they are directed.
 Difference between threats to extort
money and robbery thru intimidation:
o In robbery, the intimidation is actual and
immediate; in threats, the intimidation is
conditional or future.
o In robbery, the intimidation is personal; in
threats, it may be thru an intermediary.
o In threats, the intimidation may refer to the
person, honor or property of the offended
party or that of his family; in robbery, the
intimidation is directed only to the person of
the victim.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
122
 o In robbery, the gain of the culprit is
immediate; in threats, the gain is not
immediate.
 Difference between robbery with violence
and grave coercion:
o In both crimes, there is violence used by the
offender.
o In robbery, there is intent to gain; no such
requirement in grave coercion. In grave
coercion, the intent is to compel another to
do something against his will.
 Difference between robbery and bribery:
o It is robbery when the victim did not commit
a crime; it is bribery when the victim has
committed a crime and gives money or gift
to avoid arrest or prosecution.
o In robbery, the victim is deprived of his
money or property by force or intimidation;
in bribery, he parts with his money or
property voluntarily.
Robbery w/ Intimidation vs. Theft (2002)
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.
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries,
committed in an uninhabited place and by a
band, or with the use of firearm on a street,
road or alley
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
person is qualified if it is committed:
1. In an uninhabited place;
2. By a band;
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor
vehicle, or airship;
4. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a
train, or in any manner taking the passengers
thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances; or
5. On a street, road, highway or alley, and the
intimidation is made with the use of firearms, the
offender shall be punished by the maximum
periods of the proper penalties prescribed in
Article 294.
Any of these qualifying circumstances must be alleged
in the information and proved during the trial.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only
robbery on a street, road, highway or alley.
Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or
robbery with rape, or robbery with serious
physical injuries under par 1 of Art 263. (note:
the circumstances and applicability of Art 295 are
very specific so please note them.)
People vs. Sevilla
Facts: The accused detained several persons as hostages in
a store they robbed. The police launched an offensive. In
the ensuing gunfight, the hostages suffered physical
injuries. One of the hostages eventually had to have her
leg amputated. The accused were convicted of the complex
crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious
illegal detention. Should the crime of serious illegal
detention be prosecuted as a separate offence?
Held: NO. The detention of the victims was a necessary
means to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery.
The victims were not held as a security to facilitate their
escape or to insure their security against the police, but
deliberately, as a means of extortion of the amount asked.
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty
incurred by the members thereof
Requisites for liability for the acts of the other
members of the band:
1. He was a member of the band;
2. He was present at the commission of a robbery
by that band;
3. The other members of the band committed an
assault;
4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault.
 When the robbery was not committed by a band,
the robber who did not take part in the assault
by another is not liable for that assault.
 When the robbery was not by a band and
homicide was not determined by the accused
when they plotted the crime, the one who did not
participate in the killing is liable for robbery only.
It is only when the robbery is in band that
all those present in the commission of the
robbery may be punished for any of the
assaults which any of its members might
commit.
 But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide
and robbery, all the conspirators, even if less
than 4 armed men, are liable for the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide.
 Art 296 is not applicable to principal by
inducement, who was not present at the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
123
 commission of the robbery, if the agreement was
only to commit robbery. The article speaks of
more than 3 armed malefactors who “takes part
in the commission of the robbery” and member
of a band “who is present at the commission of a
robbery by a band.” Thus, a principal by
inducement, who did not go with the band at the
place of the commission of the robbery, is not
liable for robbery with homicide, but only for
robbery in band, there being no evidence that he
gave instructions to kill the victim or intended
that this should be done.
 When there was conspiracy for robbery only but
homicide was also committed on the occasion
thereof, all members of the band are liable for
robbery with homicide.
 Whenever homicide is committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery,
all those who took part in the commission of the
robbery are also guilty as principals in the crime
of homicide unless it appears that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
 Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold a
member of the band liable for robbery with
homicide actually committed by the other
members of the band.
 There is no crime as “robbery with
homicide in band.” The circumstance of
band becomes an ordinary aggravating
circumstance to robbery with homicide.
 In robbery by a band, all are liable for any
assault committed by the band, unless the
others attempted to prevent the assault.
 The members of the band liable for the assault
must be present at the commission of the
robbery, not necessarily at the commission of the
assault.
People vs. Apduhan
Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and was
sentenced to death because the court considered the use
of unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance
under Art 296. SC rejected this. SC believes that: (1) Art
296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Art
295 on robbery in band, (2) RPC 295 is explicitly limited to
scope to pars. 3, 4, 5 of Art 294, and (3) par 3, 4, 5 of Art
294 does not include cases where homicide, rape,
intentional mutilation, impotence, imbecility, blindness
and insanity occurred by reason or on the occasion of
accompanying robbery. Thus, since Apduhan was convicted
of robbery with homicide under par 1 Art 294, Art 296 in
relation to par 3, 4, 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. Hence,
the use of an unlicensed firearm should not have been
considered as a special aggravating circumstance.
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances
 “Homicide” here is used in a generic sense.
It includes multiple homicides, murder, parricide,
infanticide, etc.
 The penalty is the same, whether the
robbery is attempted or frustrated.
 “Unless the homicide committed shall
deserve a higher penalty under the Code” may
be illustrated as follows: In an attempted or
frustrated robbery, the killing of the victim is
qualified by treachery or relationship. The proper
penalty for murder or parricide shall be imposed
because it is more severe.
 This is also a special complex crime, thus,
not governed by Art 48.
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of
violence or intimidation
Elements:
1. Offender has intent to defraud another;
2. Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver
any public instrument or document.
3. The compulsion is by means of violence or
intimidation.
 If the violence used resulted in the death of the
person to be defrauded, the crime is robbery with
homicide.
 If the execution of deeds by means of violence is
only in the attempted or frustrated stage and the
violence used resulted in the death of the person
to be defrauded, the penalty imposed shall be
those under Art 297.
 This article applies even if the document signed,
executed or delivered is a private or commercial
document.
 Art 298 is not applicable if the document is
void.
 When the offended party is under obligation to
sign, execute or deliver the document under the
law, there is no robbery. But there will be
COERCION if violence is used in compelling the
offended party to sign or deliver the document.
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or
public building or edifice devoted to worship
Elements under subdivision (a):
1. Offender entered an inhabited house, public
building or edifice devoted to religious worship;
2. The entrance was effected by any of the
following means:
a. Through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress;
b. By breaking any wall, roof or floor, or
breaking any door or window;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
124
 c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar
tools; or
d. By using any fictitious name or pretending
the exercise of public authority.
3. Once inside the building, offender took personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain.
Elements under subdivision (b):
1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public
building, or edifice devoted to religious worship,
regardless of the circumstances under which he
entered it;
2. Offender takes personal property belonging to
another, with intent to gain, under any of the
following circumstances:
a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests,
or any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle; or
b. By taking such furniture or objects away to
be broken or forced open outside the place
of the robbery.
Subdivision (a)
There must be evidence or the facts must show that
the accused entered the dwelling house or
building by any of the means enumerated in
subdiv (a).
In entering the building, the offender must have an
intention to take personal property.
The place entered must be a house or building; thus,
entering an automobile does not fall under this
article.
“Inhabited house” = any shelter, ship or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons
even though the inhabitants thereof are
temporarily absent therefrom when the robbery
is committed.
“Public building” = every building owned by the govt
or belonging to a private person but used or
rented by the govt, although temporarily
unoccupied by the same.
Any of the 4 means described in subdiv (a) must be
resorted to by the offender to enter a house or
building, not to get out.
The whole body of the culprit must be inside the
building to constitute entering.
The genuine key must be stolen, not taken by force
or with intimidation from the owner. In the latter
case, it becomes robbery with intimidation of
person.
It is only THEFT when the false key is used to open
wardrobe or locked receptacle or drawer or inside
door.
The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to
exercise authority must be to enter the building.
Subdivision (b)
Entrance into the building by any of the means in
subdiv (a) is not required in robbery under subdiv
(b).
The term “door” in par 1 subdiv (b) refers only to
“doors, lids or opening sheets” of furniture or
other portable receptacles; not to inside doors of
house or building.
A person who carries away a sealed box or receptacle
for the purpose of breaking the same and taking
out its contents outside the place of robbery is
guilty of consummated robbery even though he
does not succeed in opening the box.
A person who opens by force a certain locked or
sealed receptacle which has been confided in his
custody and takes the money contained therein is
guilty of ESTAFA, not robbery.
The weapon carried by the offender must not have
been used to intimidate a person, for the reason
that once the circumstance of intimidation enters
in the commission of the crime, it is sufficient to
remove the offence from Art 299 and place it
within the purview of Art 294.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
125
The liability for carrying arms while robbing an
inhabited house is extended to each of the
offenders who take part in the robbery, even if
some of them do not carry arms.
People vs. Jaranilla
Facts: Accused took 6 fighting cocks from a coop located
in Babylon’s backyard. The door of the coop was broken.
They were intercepted by a police officer who was shot by
one of the accused. They were convicted by robbery with
homicide.
Held: The killing of the police officer was not by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery, hence only the person who
shot such officer should be liable for the killing.
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place
and by a band
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or
edifice devoted to religious worship is qualified
when committed by a band AND in an
uninhabited place. The 2 qualifications must
concur.
The inhabited house, public building, or edifice
devoted to religious worship must be located in
an uninhabited place.
Robbery with force upon things, in order to be
qualified, must be committed in an uninhabited
place AND by a band; while robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons must
be committed in an uninhabited place OR by a
band.
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public
building, or building dedicated to religious
worship and their dependencies
3 requisites for “dependencies”: (1) must be
contiguous to the building, (2) must have an
interior entrance connected therewith, and (3)
must form part of the whole.
Orchards or other lands used for cultivation or
production are not included in the term
“dependencies”.
Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or
in a private building
Elements:
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a
building which was not a dwelling house, not a
public building, or not an edifice devoted to
religious worship;
2. Any of the following circumstances was present:
a. The entrance was effected through an
opening not intended for entrance or egress;
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window
was broken;
c. The entrance was effected through the use
of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools;
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or
closed furniture or receptacle was broken; or
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed,
even if the same be broken open elsewhere.
3. Offender took therefrom personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain.
 “uninhabited place” = uninhabited
building
 The information must allege that
the store was used and occupied as a dwelling;
otherwise, the robbery should be considered as
having been perpetrated in an uninhabited place
under Art 302.
 “building” = includes any kind of
structure used for storage or safekeeping of
personal property, such as freight car and
warehouse.
 The use of fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public authority is not
a means of entering the building under this
article, because the place is uninhabited.
 The receptacle must be “closed” or
“sealed”. Thus, if a person opened without
breaking a closed but not locked chest and took
personal property therefrom, it is only THEFT.
 Penalty is based only on value of
property taken.
 If the store is used as a dwelling of
1 or more persons, the robbery committed
therein would be considered as committed in an
inhabited house under Art 299.
 If the store was not actually
occupied at the time the robbery took place and
was not used as a dwelling, since the owner lived
in a separate house, the robbery committed
therein is punished under Art 302.
 If the store is located on the ground
floor of the house belonging to the owner of the
store, having an interior entrance connected
therewith, it is a dependency of an inhabited
house and the robbery committed therein is
punished under the last par of Art 299.
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or
firewood in an uninhabited place or private
building
Penalty is one degree lower if cereals, fruits or
firewood are taken in robbery with force upon
things.
“cereal” = palay or other seedlings
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
126
The palay must be kept by the owner as “seedling” or
taken for that purpose by the robbers.
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar
tools
Elements:
1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or
similar tools;
2. Such picklock or similar tools are especially
adopted to the commission of robbery;
3. Offender does not have lawful cause for such
possession.
Article 305. False keys
False keys include the following:
1. Tools mentioned in Article 304;
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
3. Any key other than those intended by the owner
for use in the lock forcibly opened by the
offender.
Carnapping
R.A. 6539
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. —
"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or
by using force upon things.
"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other
than muscular power using the public highways, but
excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers,
sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts,
amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public
highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and
tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used
exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any
number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be
propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be
classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing,
scratching, altering or changing of the original factory-
inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever any motor
vehicle is found to have a serial number on its motor engine,
engine block or chassis which is different from that which is
listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor
vehicles imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle
shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered with
serial number.
"Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by
means of painting. There is repainting whenever the new
color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as
registered in the Land Transportation Commission.
"Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in
order to replace its entire body with a new body.
"Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes in the
shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle.
"Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by
part, of a motor vehicle.
"Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole
engine of a motor vehicle by separating the motor engine
and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle.
SECTION 3. Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine
Block and Chassis. — Within one year after the approval of
this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor
vehicle or parts thereof in knock down condition shall
register with the Land Transportation Commission the motor
vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in his name or in
the name of the real owner who shall be readily available to
answer any claim over the registered motor vehicle engine,
engine block or chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the
Land Transportation Commission shall be considered as
untaxed importation or coming from an illegal source or
carnapped, and shall be confiscated in favor of the
Government.
All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities
are required to register their cars with the local police
without paying any charges.
SECTION 4. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle Engines,
Engine Blocks and Chassis. — The Land Transportation
Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles,
specifying therein their type, make and serial numbers and
stating therein the names and addresses of their present
and previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries
made thereon shall be furnished the Philippine Constabulary
and all Land Transportation Commission regional, provincial
and city branch offices: Provided, That all Land
Transportation Commission regional, provincial and city
branch offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all
registration of motor vehicles to the main office and to the
Philippine Constabulary.
SECTION 5. Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance,
Substitution or Replacement of a Motor Vehicle Engine,
Engine Block or Chassis. — Every sale, transfer, conveyance,
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine,
engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered
with the Land Transportation Commission. Motor vehicles
assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with
motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not
registered with the Land Transportation Commission shall
not be issued certificates of registration and shall be
considered as untaxed imported motor vehicles or motor
vehicles carnapped or proceeding from illegal sources.
SECTION 6. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. — Any
person seeking the original registration of a motor vehicle,
whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
127
acquired from a registered owner, shall within one week
after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the
acquisition thereof from the registered owner, apply to the
Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle
for registration with the Land Transportation Commission.
The Philippine Constabulary shall, upon receipt of the
application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts
are in the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor
vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered
parts is not in that list, the Philippine Constabulary shall
forthwith issue a certificate of clearance. Upon presentation
of the certificate of clearance from the Philippine
Constabulary and after verification of the registration of the
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the
permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks
and chassis, the Land Transportation Commission shall
register the motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws,
rules and regulations.
SECTION 14. Penalty for Carnapping. — Any person who
is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in
Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of
motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not
less than fourteen years and eight months and not more
than seventeen years and four months, when the
carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of
persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not
less than seventeen years and four months and not more
than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by
means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or
force upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment to
death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant
of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of
the carnapping.
SECTION 15. Aliens. — Aliens convicted under the
provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after
service of sentence without further proceedings by the
Deportation Board.
People vs. Dela Cruz
The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when
there is taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which
belonged to another, without the latter’s consent or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things.
Izon vs. People
A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle, which is defined as
any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular
power using public highways. Public highways are those
free for the use of every person, thus not limited to a
national road connecting various towns.
Anti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide
(1998)
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a
Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on
the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed himto go
near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted
from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several
times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene taking the
motorcycle with him. What crime or crimes did Raul commit?
|5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with
homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended,
considering that the killing "in the course or "on the occasion
of a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763).
A motorcycle is included in the definition of a "motor vehicle"
in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the
tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to take the motorcycle.
The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by
Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539. The killing of Samuel is not
a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.
Highway Robbery
P.D. 532
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — The following terms
shall mean and be understood, as follows:
a. Philippine Waters. — It shall refer to all bodies of
water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays
around, between and connecting each of the Islands of
the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth,
breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters
belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title,
including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
b. Vessel. — Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of
passengers and cargo from one place to another
through Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and
types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
c. Philippine Highway. — It shall refer to any road, street,
passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or
railway or railroad within the Philippines used by
persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the
movement or circulation of persons or transportation of
goods, articles, or property or both.
d. Piracy. — Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or
the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its
cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value
thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things, committed by any
person, including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall
be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be
considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter
provided.
e. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The seizure of any
person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful
purposes, or the taking away of the property of another
by means of violence against or intimidation of person
or force upon things of other unlawful means,
committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.
SECTION 3. Penalties. — Any person who commits piracy
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
128

or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined, shall,
upon conviction by competent court be punished by:
Piracy. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
and maximum periods shall be imposed. If physical
injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on
the occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed. If rape, murder or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or
when the offenders abandoned the victims without
means of saving themselves, or when the seizure is
accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its minimum period shall be imposed. If
physical injuries or other crimes are committed during
or on the occasion of the commission of robbery or
brigandage, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. If
kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or
homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on the
occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall be
imposed.
SECTION 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or
abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. — Any
person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them
information about the movement of police or other peace
officers of the government, or acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives
any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery
or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the
principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the
Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the
acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly,
unless the contrary is proven.
People vs. Puno
Accused held up Mrs Sarmiento in her car at gunpoint.
They were able to extort P7000 in cash and P100,000 in
check. Was highway robbery committed? NO. We should
not adopt the literal interpretation that all types of taking
of property as long as committed in a highway would be
covered by PD 532.
People vs. Pulusan
Facts: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the
McArthur highway. Of the 6 passengers, the only woman,
Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at a
talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbed
on after the other. They were convicted of robbery with
homicide although they were charged with highway
robbery. What was the crime committed?
Held: Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery.
Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accused
were organised for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. In this case, there was no proof that the
4 accused previously attempted to commit armed
robberies.
Bar Questions
Robbery vs. Highway Robbery (2000)
Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No.
532 from Robbery committed on a highway. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
Highway Robbery (2001)
Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and
Robbery Division of the Western Police District and assigned
to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less
familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the
movements of container vans, as well as the mobile police
patrols, from the pier area to the different export processing
zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave
valuable and detailed information on these matters to a
group interested in those shipments in said container vans.
On several instances, using the said information as their
basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the
vans. Prior to their sale to "fences" in Banawe, Quezon City
and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang Informs Sgt, Chan who
then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the
valuable items and disposes of them through his own
sources or "fences". When the highjackers were traced on
one occasion and arrested, upon custodial investigation, they
implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all,
including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his
defense, claimed that he should not be charged as a
principal but only as an accessory after the fact under P.D.
532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Act of 1972. Is the contention of
Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain, (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable
because by express provision of P.D. 532, Section 4, a
person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects
highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information
about the movement of police officers or acquires or receives
property taken by brigands, or who directly or indirectly
abets the commission of highway robbery/brigandage, shall
be considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and
punished in accordance with the rules in the Revised Penal
Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan that he should be charged
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
129
only as accessory after the fact is not tenable because he
was a principal participant in the commission of the crime
and in pursuing the criminal design. An accessory after the
fact involves himself in the commission of a crime only after
the crime had already been consummated, not before, For
his criminal participation in the execution of the highjacking
of the container vans, Sgt. Chan is a co-principal by
indispensable cooperation.
Cattle Rustling
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 533
THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974
What is cattle rustling?
Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or
scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of
the above-mentioned animals 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 the owner/raiser.
Large cattle - as herein used shall include the cow, carabao,
horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member of the
bovine family.
Owner/raiser- shall include the herdsman, caretaker,
employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the
raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession
of such large cattle.
Duty of the owner/raiser
 before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the
age of six months, register the same with the office of the
city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised.
Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle.
No person, partnership, association, corporation or entity
shall engage in the business of buy and sell of large cattle
without first securing a permit for the said purpose from the
Provincial Commander of the province where it shall conduct
such business and the city/municipal treasurer of the place
of residence of such person, partnership, association,
corporation or entity. The permit shall only be valid in such
province.
Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle.
Any person, partnership, association, corporation or entity
desiring to ship or transport large cattle, its hides, or meat,
from one province to another shall secure a permit for such
purpose from the Provincial Commander of the province
where the large cattle is registered. Before issuance of the
permit herein prescribed, the Provincial Commander shall
require the submission of the certificate of ownership as
prescribed in Section 3 hereof, a certification from the
Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large cattle,
hides or meat are free from any disease; and such other
documents or records as may be necessary. Shipment of
large cattle, its hides or meat from one city/municipality to
another within the same province may be done upon
securing permit from the city/municipal treasurer of the
place of origin.
Presumption of Cattle Rustling. — Every person having
in his possession, control or custody of large cattle shall,
upon demand by competent authorities, exhibit the
documents prescribed in the preceding sections. Failure to
exhibit the required documents shall be prima facie evidence
that the large cattle in his possession, control or custody
are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling.
Penalties Imposed
Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined
shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved, be
punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is
committed without violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things.
If the offense is committed with violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things, the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed.
If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the
occasion of the commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
When the offender is a government official or employee, he
shall, in addition to the foregoing penalty, be disqualified
from voting or being voted upon in any election/referendum
and from holding any public office or employment.
When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported
immediately upon the completion of the service of his
sentence without further proceedings.
Taer vs. CA
Facts: Co-accused Manocatcat, arrived at the Taer’s
hourse at 2am with 2 male carabaos. Manocatcat asked
Taer to tend the carabaos for him. 10 days later, the
owners of the carabaos, arrived at Taer’s house to retrieve
the carabaos. What was Taer’s participation in the crime?
Held: Taer was an accessory because he employed the
carabaos in his farm. An accessory is someone who,
having knowledge of the commission of the crime, without
having participated as a principal or an accomplice, takes
part subsequent to its commission by profiting himself by
the effects of the crime.
Ordonio vs. CA
Facts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. When Pajunar
inquired abt his cow, Ordonio denied seeing it. The cow
was eventually found in Ordonio’s possession, but Ordonio
claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by
his brother Agustin, such that Pajunar had to enlist the aid
of the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow.
Held: The law reads “taking away by any means,
methods or schemes.” Ordonio’s stubborn insistence that
the calf belonged to his brother, when he knew fully well
that it belonged to Pajunar, is the essence cattle rustling.
The perpetrator’s intent to gain is then inferred from his
deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper
person, knowing that the property does not belong to him.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
130

BRIGANDAGE
a crime committed by more than 3 armed persons
who form a band of robbers for the purpose of
committing robbery in the highway or kidnapping
persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain
ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by
means of force and violence.
Article 306. Who are brigands
Elements of brigandage:
1. There are least four armed persons;
2. They formed a band of robbers;
3. The purpose is any of the following:
a. To commit robbery in the highway;
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom; or
c. To attain by means of force and violence any
other purpose.
It must be a band of robbers. Thus, a band of
dissidents or oppositionists will not qualify.
The purpose of the band must be (1) to commit
robbery in the highway, (2) to kidnap persons for
the purpose of extortion or obtaining ransom, or
(3) any other purpose to be attained by means of
force and violence. To contrast, In case of
robbery by a band, the purpose of the offenders
is only to commit robbery, not necessarily in the
highway.
If any of the arms carried by any of a group of
persons be an unlicensed firearm, is shall be
presumed that said persons are highway
robbers or brigands, and in case of conviction,
the penalty shall be imposed in the max period.
The arms carried by the members of the band of
robbers may be any deadly weapon.
The only things to prove are:
b) that there is an organisation of more than 3
armed persons forming a band of robbers
c) that the purpose of the band is any of those
enumerated in Art 306
d) that they went upon the highway or roamed
upon the country for that purpose
e) that the accused is a member of such band.
“highway” = includes city streets as well as roads
outside the cities.
If the agreement among more than 3 armed men was
to commit only a particular robbery , the offence
is not brigandage, but only robbery in band.
In brigandage, the mere formation of a band for any
of the purposes mentioned in the law is
sufficient; in robbery in band, it is necessary to
prove that the band actually committed robbery,
as a mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not
punishable.
Article 307. Aiding and abetting a band of
brigands
Elements:
1. There is a band of brigands;
2. Offender knows the band to be of brigands;
3. Offender does any of the following acts:
a. He in any manner aids, abets or protects
such band of brigands;
b. He gives them information of the
movements of the police or other peace
officers of the government; or
c. He acquires or receives the property taken
by such brigands.
 It shall be presumed that the person performing
any of the acts provided in this article has
performed them knowingly, unless contrary is
proven.
THEFT
committed by any person who, with intent to gain but
without violence against or intimidation of persons
nor force upon things, shall take personal property of
another without the latter’s consent.
Article 308. Who are liable for theft
Persons liable:
1. Those who with intent to gain, but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, take personal property of
another without the latter’s consent;
2. Those who having found lost property, fails to
deliver the same to the local authorities or to its
owner;
3. Those who, after having maliciously damaged the
property of another, remove or make use of the
fruits or objects of the damage caused by them;
4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field
where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and, without the consent of its owner,
hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits,
cereals or other forest or farm products.
Elements:
1. There is taking of personal property;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking was done with intent to gain;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
131
4. The taking was done without the consent of the
owner;
5. The taking is accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons of
force upon things.
 “taking”  taking away or carrying away;
thus, theft is consummated when the culprits
were able to take possession of the thing taken
by them. It is not an indispensable element of
theft that the thief carry, more or less far away,
the thing taken by him from its owner.
 As of 2007, the Court held that asportation
is complete from the moment the offender
had full possession of the thing, even if he
did not have an opportunity to dispose of
the same..
 animus lucandi = intent to gain
 The taking in theft must have the character
of permanency. Thus, the offender must have
the intention of making himself the owner of the
thing taken.
 The unlawful taking may occur at or soon
after the transfer of physical possession (not
juridical possession) of the thing to the
offender. The actual transfer of possession may
not always and by itself constitute the unlawful
taking, but an act done soon thereafter by
the offender which may result in unlawful taking
or asportation. In such case, the article is
deemed to have been taken also, although in the
beginning, it was in fact given to, and received
by, the offender.
Illustration: Tina gave Rey her rolex watch for
the purpose of having it examined since Rey has
a pawnshop. Rey subsequently appropriated it
rolex watch with intent to gain and without
consent of Tina. – This is THEFT.
 But if the accused received the thing from
another person in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under a quasi-contract or a
contract of bailment, and later misappropriated
or converted the thing to the prejudice of
another, the crime is ESTAFA, because under
those transactions, the juridical possession of
the thing is transferred to the offender. (note:
thus, the distinction between juridical and mere
physical possession is important.)
 Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful
taking of personal property belonging to another.
 There is theft even if accused did not take
them for his own use.
 It is not necessary that there was real or
actual gain on the part of the offender. It is
enough that on taking them, he was then
actuated by the desire or intent to gain.
 For robbery to exist, it is necessary that
there should be a taking against the will of the
owner; for theft, it suffices that consent on the
part of the owner is lacking.
 It is not robbery when violence is for a
reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking.
 When goods were lost at the same time, in
the same place, and on the same occasion , the
person in possession of part of the missing
property is presumed to be the thief of the entire
property.
 The presumption regarding possession of
stolen property does not exclusively refer to
actual physical possession thereof but may
include prior unexplained possession. In any
case, for the presumption to work, the property
must be recently stolen. Thus, if it was stolen a
long time ago, the presumption will not lie.
 Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate
failure to deliver the lost property to the proper
person.
 Finder of hidden treasure who
misappropriated the share pertaining to the
owner of the property is guilty of theft as regards
that share.
People vs. Gulinao
Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. Gulinao went back to get
Dr Chua’s diamond ring. He was convicted of illegal
possession and robbery. SC ruled that he is guilty of
THEFT, not robbery. The taking of the ring was just an
afterthought. Violence used in killing Dr Chua had no
bearing on the taking of the ring.
Santos vs. People
Penalosa gave car to Santos to be repaired. Owner wanted
to claim it back but Santos could not be found. Convicted
of estafa in RTC then CA convicted him of qualified theft.
SC rule that he is guilty of THEFT, not estafa as the latter
requires that the offender has juridical possession of the
thing and then it is converted for his own personal use.
Not qualified theft as the fact that the car was taken was
not alleged in the information therefore it can only be seen
as an aggravating circumstance.
Lucas v. CA, 389 SCRA 749 (2002)
FACTS: Lucas was convicted by the RTC together
with Wilfredo Navarro for stealing one stereo component, a
14-inch colored TV, an electric fan, twenty-three (23)
pieces of cassette tapes, one (1) box of car toys, four (4)
pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls, cash of P20,000.00 and
jewelry worth P10,000.00, valued at P100,000.00 all
belonging to Luisito Tuazon. The said robbery took place
when Luisito was at work. After the robbery, Lucas,
Navarro and one Lovena escaped on board a tricycle.
HELD: To sustain a conviction for theft, the
following elements must be present: (1) personal property
of another person must be taken without the latter's
consent; (2) the act of taking the personal property of
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
132
another must be done without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons nor force upon things; and, (3)
there must be an intention to gain from the taking of
another person's personal property. Appellant are guilty of
theft.
Gan v. People (2007)
The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable for
the charges on the ground that he was not caught in
possession of the missing funds. This is clutching at straws.
To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not an
element of the corpus delicti in theft. Corpus delicti
means the “body or substance of the crime, and, in its
primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been
actually committed.” In theft, corpus delicti has two
elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the
owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. In the
case before us, these two elements were established. The
amounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner took
them without authority to do so
Valenzuela v. People (2007)
The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been
designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao,
Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language in
Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the “free
disposition of the items stolen” is in any way determinative
of whether the crime of theft has been produced. The
Court thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code,
there is no crime of frustrated theft.
Bar Questions
Robbery; Homicide; Arson (1995)
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.
SUGGESTED 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.
Robbery; Rape (1997)
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?
SUGGESTED 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.
Theft (1998)
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%]
SUGGESTED 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.
Theft (2001)
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
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
133
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).
Article 309. Penalties
The basis of the penalty in theft is (1) the value of the
thing stolen and in some cases (2) the value and
also the nature of the property taken, or (3) the
circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit
to commit the crime.
If there is no available evidence to prove the value of
the stolen property or that the prosecution failed
to prove it, the court should impose the minimum
penalty corresponding to theft.
Theft of Electricity, Illegal Water, Electric or
Telephone Connections
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 401 March 1, 1974
PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF
WATER, ELECTRICAL OR TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS,
THE USE OF TAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL
METERS, AND OTHER ACTS
Who are punishable? -- any person who:
installs any water, electrical or telephone connection
without previous authority from the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System, the Manila
Electric Company or the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company, as the case may be;
tampers and/or uses tampered water or electrical
meters or jumpers or other devices whereby water
or electricity is stolen; steals or pilfers water
and/or electric meters or water, electric and/or
telephone wires;
knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water and/or
electrical meters as well as stolen or pilfered
water, electrical and/or telephone wires.
R.A. 7832
Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/
Materials Pilferage Act of 1994
Acts punishable
Illegal Use of Electricity (§2)
(a) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection
with overhead lines, service drops, or other
electric service wires, without previous authority
or consent of the private electric utility or rural
electric cooperative concerned;
(b) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection to
the existing electric service facilities of any duly
registered consumer without the latter's or the
electric utility's consent or authority;
(c) Tamper, install or use a tampered electrical meter,
jumper, current reversing transformer, shorting or
shunting wire, loop connection or any other device
which interferes with the proper or accurate
registry or metering of electric current or
otherwise results in its diversion in a manner
whereby electricity is stolen or wasted;
(d) Damage or destroy an electric meter, equipment,
wire or conduit or allow any of them to be so
damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the
proper or accurate metering of electric current;
and
(e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of
electric service obtained through any of the acts
mentioned in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d)
above.
Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and Materials
(§3)
Cut, saw, slice, separate, split, severe, smelt, or
remove any electric power transmission
line/material or meter from a tower, pole, or any
other installation or place of installation or any
other place or site where it may be rightfully or
lawfully stored, deposited, kept, stocked,
inventoried, situated or located, without the
consent of the owner, whether or not the act is
done for profit or gain;
Take, carry away or remove or transfer, with or without
the use of a motor vehicle or other means of
conveyance, any electric power transmission
line/material or meter from a tower, pole, any
other installation or place of installation, or any
place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully
stored, deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried,
situated or located without the consent of the
owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or
gain;
Store, possess or otherwise keep in his premises,
custody or control, any electric power transmission
line/material or meter without the consent of the
owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or
gain; and
Load, carry, ship or move from one place to another,
whether by land, air or sea, any electrical power
transmission line/material, whether or not the act
is done for profit or gain, without first securing a
clearance/permit for the said purpose from its
owner or the National Power Corporation (NPC) or
its regional office concerned, as the case may be.
Presumptions
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
134
For illegal use of electricity:
The presence of any of the following circumstances shall
constitute prima facie evidence of illegal use of
electricity by the person benefited thereby, and shall
be the basis for:
the immediate disconnection by the electric utility to
such person after due notice,
the holding of a preliminary investigation by the
prosecutor and the subsequent filing in court of
the pertinent information, and
the lifting of any temporary restraining order or
injunction which may have been issued against a
private electric utility or rural electric cooperative
Circumstances:
The presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of the
electric meter, or at the back or any other part of said
meter;
The presence inside the electric meter of salt, sugar and
other elements that could result in the inaccurate
registration of the meter's internal parts to prevent its
accurate registration of consumption of electricity;
The existence of any wiring connection which affects the
normal operation or registration of the electric meter;
The presence of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on the
meter, or mutilated, altered or tampered meter
recording chart or graph, or computerized chart, graph,
or log;
The presence in any part of the building or its premises
which is subject to the control of the consumer or on
the electric meter, of a current reversing transformer,
jumper, shorting and/or shunting wire, and/or loop
connection or any other similar device;
The mutilation, alteration, reconnection, disconnection,
bypassing or tampering of instruments, transformers,
and accessories;
The destruction of, or attempt to destroy, any integral
accessory of the metering device box which encases an
electric meter, or its metering accessories; and
The acceptance of money and/or other valuable
consideration by any officer of employee of the electric
utility concerned or the making of such an offer to any
such officer or employee for not reporting the presence
of any of the circumstances enumerated above. The
discovery of any of the foregoing circumstances, in
order to constitute prima facie evidence, must be
personally witnessed and attested to by an
officer of the law or a duly authorized
representative of the Energy Regulatory Board
(ERB).
For theft of electric power transmission lines and materials
The possession or custody of electric power
transmission line/material by any person, natural or juridical,
not engaged in the transformation, transmission or
distribution of electric power, or in the manufacture of such
electric power transmission line/material shall be prima facie
evidence that such line/material is the fruit of the offense of
theft of electric power transmission lines and materials, and
therefore such line/material may be confiscated from the
person in possession, control or custody thereof.
RA 8041
An Act to Address the National Water Crisis and For
Other Purposes
Sec. 8. Anti-Pilferage. - It is hereby declared unlawful for
any person to:
Destroy, damage or interfere with any canal, raceway, ditch,
lock, pier, inlet, crib, bulkhead, dam, gate, service,
reservoir, aqueduct, water mains, water distribution
pipes, conduit, pipes, wire benchmark, monument, or
other works, appliance, machinery buildings, or
property of any water utility entity, whether public or
private;
Do any malicious act which shall injuriously affect the
quantity or quality of the water or sewage flow of any
waterworks and/or sewerage system, or the supply,
conveyance, measurement, or regulation thereof,
including the prevention of, or interference with any
authorized person engaged in the discharge of duties
connected therewith;
Prevent, obstruct, and interfere with the survey, works, and
construction of access road and water mains and
distribution network and any related works of the utility
entity.
Tap, make, or cause to be made any connection with water
lines without prior authority or consent from the water
utility concerned;
Tamper, install or use tampered water meters, sticks,
magnets, reversing water meters, shortening of vane
wheels and other devices to steal water or interfere
with accurate registry or metering of water usage, or
otherwise result in its diversion in a manner whereby
water is stolen or wasted;
Use or receive the direct benefit of water service with
knowledge that diversion, tampering, or illegal
connection existed at the time of that use, or that the
use or receipt was otherwise without the authorization
of the water utility;
Steal or pilfer water meters, main lines, pipes and related or
ancillary facilities;
Steal water for profit or resale;
Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters; and
Knowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the
above.
Penalties:
imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years and a fine
not exceeding double the amount of the value of the
water stolen or the value of the damaged facilities
If the offender is assisted in the commission of the crime by
a plumber, officer or employee of the water utility
concerned, the said employee, officer or plumber shall
be punished by imprisonment of two (2) years to six
(6) years
 If the water is stolen for profit or resale, the offender
shall be punished imprisonment from six (6) to twelve
(12) years.
Illegal Fishing
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8550
An Act Providing For The Development, Management
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
135
 And Conservation Of The Fisheries And Aquatic
Resources, Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto,
And For Other Purposes
What acts are punishable?
1. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other
Unauthorized Fisheries Activities
(a) exploiting, breeding fish in Philippine waters without a
license
 Discovery of any person in an area where he has no
permit or registration papers for a fishing vessel shall
constitute a prima facie presumption that the person and/or
vessel is engaged in unauthorized fishing: BUT, fishing for
daily food sustenance or for leisure which is not for
commercial, occupation or livelihood purposes may be
allowed.
(b) fishing by commercial fishing vessels in fishery
management areas declared as over exploited
(c) engaging in any commercial fishing activity in municipal
waters when not listed in the registry of municipal fisherfolk
2. Poaching in Philippine Waters
(a) foreign person fishing or operating a fishing vessel in
Philippine waters
 The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine waters
shall constitute a prima facie evidence that the vessel is
engaged in fishing in Philippine waters.
3. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or Poisonous
Substance, and/or Electricity
(a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of electricity,
explosives, noxious or poisonous substance such as sodium
cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas, which will kill,
stupefy, disable or render unconscious fish or fishery species
 The Department, subject to safeguards and conditions
deemed necessary and endorsement from the concerned
LGUs, may allow, for research, educational or scientific
purposes only, the use of electricity, poisonous or noxious
substances to catch, take or gather fish or fishery species:
 The use of poisonous or noxious substances to eradicate
predators in fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific
practices and without causing adverse environmental impact
in neighboring waters and grounds shall not be construed as
illegal fishing.
(b) dealing in fish illegally caught
 The discovery of explosives or equipment for electro-
fishing in any fishing vessel or in the possession of any
fishworker shall constitute prima facie evidence, that the
same was used for fishing in violation of this Code.
 The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed
with the use of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances
or by electricity shall constitute prima facie evidence that the
fisherfolk, operator, boat official or fishworker is fishing with
the use thereof.
(c) Mere possession of explosive, noxious or poisonous
substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing
(d) Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonous
substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing
 Penalty is without prejudice to the filing of separate
criminal cases when the use of the same result to physical
injury or loss of human life.
4. Use of Fine Mesh Net
(a) fishing using nets with mesh smaller than that which may
be fixed by the Department
 Prohibition shall not apply to the gathering of fry and such
species which by their nature are small but already mature
to be identified in the implementing rules and regulations by
the Department.
5. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and Bays and
Other Fishery Management Areas
(a) fishing in municipal waters and in all bays as well as
other fishery management areas using active fishing gears
6. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation
(a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and semi-precious
corals, whether raw or in processed form, except for
scientific or research purposes.
 The confiscated corals shall either be returned to the sea
or donated to schools and museums for educational or
scientific purposes or disposed through other means.
7. Ban on Muro-Ami, Other Methods and Gear Destructive
to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat
(a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs,
seagrass beds, and other fishery marine life habitat as may
be determined by the Department
(b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation, and such
similar gear and methods that require diving, other physical
or mechanical acts to pound the coral reefs and other habitat
to entrap, gather or catch fish and other fishery species
(c) gathering, selling or exporting white sand, silica, pebbles
and other substances which make up any marine habitat
8. Illegal Use of Superlights
(a) fishing with the use of superlights in municipal waters or
in violation of the rules and regulations which may be
promulgated by the Department on the use of superlights
outside municipal waters
9. Conversion of Mangroves
(a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for any other
purposes
10. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season
11. Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge and Sanctuaries
12. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered
Species
13. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners
 However, catching of sabalo and other breeders/spawners
for local breeding purposes or scientific or research purposes
may be allowed subject to guidelines to be promulgated by
the Department.
14. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry
15. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species
16. Violation of Catch Ceilings
17. Aquatic Pollution
18. Other violations
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
136
 Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards
Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all Fishponds,
Fish Pens and Fish Cages
Gathering and Marketing of Shell Fish which is sexually
mature or below the minimum size or above the
maximum quantities prescribed for the particular
species
Obstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb of Tide in
any Stream, River, Lake or Bay
Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps, Fish
Pens and Fish Cages without a license/permit
19. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Employing
Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew
20. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of
anadromous, catadromous and other migratory species, in
areas including, but not limited to river mouths and estuaries
within a distance determined by the concerned FARMCs
21. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer
Hizon vs. CA
Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that tested
positive for sodium cyanide. The accused were convicted
for illegal fishing using poisonous substances under PD 703,
which creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when any
fish taken is positive for poisonous substances. Petitioners
question the legality of the presumption. SC held that the
presumption is only prima facie hence, rebuttable by
competent evidence.
Illegal Fishing - PD 704 (1996)
Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the
police and agents of the Fisheries Commission, it was
indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were
caught with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the three
vendors were criminally charged with the violation of Section
33 of P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to
knowingly possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish which
have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three
vendors claimed that they bought the fish from a fishing
boat which they duly identified. The prosecution however
claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held
liable for the offense as they were the ones caught in
possession of the fish illegally caught. On the basis of the
above facts, if you were the judge, would you convict the
three fish vendors? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the
judge. Mere possession of such fish without knowledge of
the fact that the same were caught with the use of
explosives does not by itself render the seller-possessor
criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the act penalized
in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes
the possession, dealing in or selling of such fish only when
"knowingly" done that the fish were caught with the use of
explosives; hence criminal intent is essential. The
claim by the fish vendors that they only bought the fish
from fishing boats which they "duly identified", renders
their possession of such fish innocent unless the
prosecution could prove that they have knowledge that
explosives were used in catching such fish, and the accused
had knowledge thereof.
Article 310. Qualified theft
Theft is qualified if:
1. Committed by a domestic servant;
2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail
matter, or large cattle;
4. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of a plantation;
5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery; or
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.
Penalties for qualified theft are now next HIGHER BY
2 DEGREES.
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. it is
not necessary to prove grave abuse of
confidence.
The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must
be allegation in the information and proof of a
relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship
or vigilance, between the accused and the
offended party, that has created a high degree of
confidence between them, which the accused
abused.
The grave abuse of confidence need not be
premeditated. Its presence in the commission of
theft is sufficient.
The confidence gravely abused must be that existing
between offended party and the offender.
Empelis vs. IAC
4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from a
plantation. They dropped the coconuts after being seen by
the owner. They were convicted of qualified theft. SC
held that they are guilty only of FRUSTRATED QUALIFIED
THEFT as they were not able to carry away the coconuts
from the plantation that is the gravamen of the offence
under Art 310.
People vs. Cañales
Facts: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. They
stole a truck and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from the
company. They were tasked to deliver the prawns to the
pier using the truck. The truck, however, was
subsequently recovered. Was there qualified theft as to
the recovered truck?
Held: The recovery of the stolen motor vehicle does not
mean that the crime of qualified theft was not
consummated. Neither will it diminish the criminal
responsibility of appellant. In People v. Carpio: The gist
of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
137
and asportation of property, animo lucrandi, and with
intent to deprive the true owner of the possession
thereof. The act of asportation in this case was
undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thief
to profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived the
true owner of the possession of the entire automobile, the
offense of larceny comprised the whole car. The fact that
the accused stripped the car of its tires and abandoned the
machine in a distant part of the city did not make the
appellant any less liable for the larceny of the automobile.
The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his
right of possession were complete as to the entire car; and
the fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly to
abandon the machine in no wise limits their criminal
responsibility to the particular parts of the car that were
appropriate and subsequently used by the appellant upon
his own car.
People v. Reynaldo Bago (2000)
FACTS: Reynaldo Bago was an employee of
Azkcon Metal Industries from 1988-1992. From 1991 to
1992, he served as team leader at the cutting department
under the supervision of the Material Comptroller who kept
track of all the materials coming in and going out of the
company’s plant in Kalookan City. Azkcon has a business
arrangement with Power Construction Supply Company
(Power Construction) whereby Azkcon buys cold rolled
sheets from the latter. These cold rolled sheets are also
cut by Power Construction for a fee and Azkcon converts
them into drums or containers. Bago’s job was to go to
Power Construction’s establishment in Quezon City to
oversee the cutting of the cold rolled sheets and ensure
their delivery to Azkcon using the trucks sent by Hilo. Bago
was discovered to have participated in the theft of
materials worth P192,000.00. The trial court found him
guilty of qualified theft.
HELD: The trial court correctly found that
appellant was a trusted employee of Azkcon. He was in-
charge of overseeing the cutting of the materials at Power
Construction and ensuring their delivery to Azkcon. Due to
this trust, he succeeded in withdrawing from the said
supplier the cold rolled sheets. The materials he took from
the supplier on March 23, 1992 could not be found in the
premises of Azkcon and there was no evidence that he
delivered them on said date or on any other day
thereafter. Inexplicably, appellant presented the third
receipt (Invoice No. 51111) dated March 23, 1992 for
stamping only on April 21, 1992. The reasonable conclusion
is that he asported the materials.
Clearly, all the elements of theft were
established, to wit: (1) there was a taking of personal
property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the
taking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking
was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was
accomplished without violence or intimidation against the
person or force upon things. As the theft was committed
with grave abuse of confidence, appellant is guilty of
qualified theft.
People v. Luisito Bustinera (2004)
FACTS: ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as a
taxi driver. It was agreed that appellant would drive the
taxi from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., after which he would
return it to ESC Transport's garage and remit the boundary
fee in the amount of P780.00 per day. On December 25,
1996, appellant admittedly reported for work and drove
the taxi, but he did not return it on the same day as he was
supposed to. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. On
January 9, 1997, Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transport
and revealed that the taxi had been abandoned. ESC was
able to recovered. The trial court found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of qualified theft.
HELD: Bustinera was convicted of qualified theft
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. However,
Article 310 has been modified, with respect to certain
vehicles, by Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwise
known as "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING
CARNAPPING."
When statutes are in pari materia or when they
relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of
persons or things, or cover the same specific or particular
subject matter, or have the same purpose or object, the
rule dictates that they should be construed together
The elements of the crime of theft as provided
for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that
there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property
belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent
to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of
the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without
the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things.
Theft is qualified when any of the following
circumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by a
domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave
abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a
motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property
stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a
plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
On the other hand, Section 2 of Republic Act No.
6539, as amended defines "carnapping" as "the taking, with
intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking
of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking
is without the consent of the owner or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force
upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain.
Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a
motorized vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in theft,
robbery and carnapping being the same. From the
foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful
taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and
not the provisions of qualified theft which would apply.
Jonathan D. Cariaga v. Court of Appeals (2001)
FACTS: "Luis Miguel Aboitiz was the Systems
Analyst of the Davao Light & Power Company, Inc. (DLPC),
whose duty was to devise means to prevent losses due to
waste, pilferage or theft of company property. He received
reports that some private electricians were engaged in the
clandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. He
initiated a covert operation to discover the method and to
capture one of the culprits. Using an undercover agent, the
group was brought down and Jonathan Cariaga was charged
and found guilty of qualified by grave abuse of confidence
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
138
 HELD: The defense, verily, anchors itself on the
bare denial of petitioner of the specific acts imputed by
the prosecution against him. Certainly, this negative
assertion cannot prevail over the unimpeached testimony
of the prosecution witness describing in sufficient detail
the active participation of petitioner in the commission of
the crime charged. We note that the information alleged
that petitioner was an employee of DLPC; that he had
access to the electrical supplies of said company; and that
with grave abuse of confidence, he stole electrical
materials belonging to DLPC. The prosecution established
that petitioner who was permanently assigned as driver of
Truck "S-143" had charge of all the DLPC equipment and
supplies kept in his vehicle, including lightning arresters,
cut-out and wires, which were generally used for the
installation of transformers and power lines; and
specifically stored therein for emergency operations at
night when the stockroom is closed. While the mere
circumstance that the petitioner is an employee or laborer
of DLPC does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law requires to designate
the crime as qualified theft, it has been held that access to
the place where the taking took place or access to the
stolen items changes the complexion of the crime
committed to that of qualified theft.
People v Ruben Sison (2000)
FACTS: Ruben Sison first joined the Auditing
Department of the Philippine Commercial International
Bank (PCIB) in December 1977. He rose from the ranks and
was promoted to the position of Assistant Manager and
concurrently held the position of Branch Operation Officer.
As such, he was assigned to different branches until his last
detail at the PCIB Luneta Branch in February 1991. He was
the primary control officer directly responsible for the day
to day operations of the branch, including custody of the
cash vault. Sison facilitated the crediting of two (2)
fictitious remittances in the amounts of P3,250,000.00 and
P4,755,000.00 in favor of Solid Realty Development
Corporation, an equally fictitious account, and then later
the withdrawal of P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB Luneta
Branch. He was charged and found guilty of qualified theft.
HELD: The appeal has no merit. The trial court
correctly convicted appellant of Qualified Theft on the
basis of circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, the
combination of all the incriminating facts proven by the
prosecution and the logical inferences derived therefrom
leave no doubt in Our mind that appellant, with grave
abuse of confidence, conceived and accomplished the theft
of P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch.
The crime perpetuated by appellant against his
employer, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank
(PCIB), is qualified theft. Appellant could not have
committed the crime had he not been holding the position
of Luneta Branch Operation Officer which gave him not
only sole access to the bank vault but also control of the
access of all bank employees in that branch, except the
Branch Manager, to confidential and highly delicate
computerized security systems designed to safeguard,
among others, the integrity of telegraphic fund transfers
and account names of bank clients. The management of the
PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its
Luneta Branch Operation Officer, and it was this trust and
confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the
damage and prejudice of PCIB in the amount of
P6,000,000.00.
Asuncion Roque v People (2004)
FACTS: Asuncion Roque was a teller of the Basa
Air Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA). She
was found to have taken money from several of the
depositors. Unable to return the money, she was charged
with qualified theft and covicted. Roque argued that since
the money was lawfully received by her and later
misappropriated she was guilty only of estafa.
HELD: In the present case, what is involved is the
possession of money in the capacity of a bank teller. In
People v. Locson this Court considered deposits received by
a teller in behalf of a bank as being only in the material
possession of the teller. This interpretation applies with
equal force to money received by a bank teller at the
beginning of a business day for the purpose of servicing
withdrawals. Such is only material possession. Juridical
possession remains with the bank. In line with the
reasoning of the Court in several cases, beginning with
People v. De Vera, if the teller appropriates the money for
personal gain then the felony committed is theft and not
estafa. Further, since the teller occupies a position of
confidence, and the bank places money in the teller's
possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, the
felony of qualified theft would be committed.
Astudillo v. People (2006)
Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees of
Western does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law requires. The
element of grave abuse of confidence requires that
there be a relation of independence, guardianship or
vigilance between the petitioners and Western.
Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive
payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping,
preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely assisted
customers in making a purchase and in demonstrating the
merchandise to prospective buyers. While they had access
to the merchandise, they had no access to the cashier’s
booth or to the cash payments subject of the offense.
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
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
139
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).
Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)
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.
Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)
73 of 86
A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in
Bulacan. Among the first to arrive at the scene of the
Bar Questions
Theft; Qualified Theft (2006)
1. Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara
Watershed and Reservoir when he noticed a big pile of cut
logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted
around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante
coming out of the gate with some more newly-cut logs. He
apprehended and charged them with the proper offense.
What is that offense? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offense is Qualified Theft under Sec. 68 of P.D. 705,
amending P.D. No. 330, which penalizes any person who
directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products from any of the public
forest. The Balara Watershed is protected by the cited laws.
2. During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial
proper, Rene and Dante contended that if they were to be
held liable, their liability should be limited only to the newly-
cut logs found in their possession but not to those found
outside the gate. If you were the judge, what will be your
ruling? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention is untenable, the presence of the newly cut
logs outside the gate is circumstantial evidence, which, if
unrebutted, establishes that they are the offenders who
gathered the same.
Theft; Stages of Execution (1998)
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%]
SUGGESTED 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.
Theft; Stages of Execution (2000)
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.
Illegal Logging
P.D. 330
PenalizingTimber Smuggling or
Illegal Cutting of Logs
SECTION 1. Any person, whether natural or juridical, who
directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products, either from any of the
public forest, forest reserves and other kinds of public
forests, whether under license or lease, or from any privately
owned forest lands in violation of existing laws, rules and
regulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualified theft as
defined and penalized under Articles 308, 309 and 310 of
the Revised Penal Code; Provided, That if the offender is a
corporation, firm, partnership or association, the penalty
shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers, as the
case may be, of the corporation, firm, partnership or
association, and if such guilty officer or officers are aliens, in
addition to the penalty herein prescribed, he or they shall be
deported without further proceedings on the part of the
Commissioned of Immigration and Deportation.
P.D. 705
The Forestry Reform Code (as amended)
SECTION 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber
or other products without license. — Any person who shall
cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and
disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any
authority under a license agreement, lease, license or
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
140
permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and
punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC; Provided,
That in the case of partnership, association or corporation,
the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering or collecting
shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in
addition to the penalty, be deported without further
proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation.
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the
government of the timber or forest products to cut,
gathered, collected or removed, and the machinery,
equipment, implements and tools used therein, and the
forfeiture of his improvements in the area.
The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement,
lease, license or permit and perpetual disqualification from
acquiring any such privilege shall be imposed upon any
licensee, lessee, or permittee who cuts timber from the
licensed or leased area of another, without prejudice to
whatever civil action the latter may bring against the
offender.
Mustang Lumber Inc vs. CA
Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber is
actually processed forest raw materials or just processed
timber. Therefore, lumber is necessarily included in
timber as the law makes no distinction.
Fencing
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
What is fencing?
“Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain
for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or
in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or
anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft.
"Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or
partnership or other organization who/which commits the
act of fencing.
Presumption of Fencing.
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles
is required
All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and
sell of any good, article, item, object of anything of
value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier
thereof, shall before offering the same for sale to the
public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from
the station commander of the Integrated National
Police in the town or city where such store,
establishment or entity is located.
Penalties imposed
Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder
indicated:
a. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the
property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but
the total penalty which may be imposed shall not
exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall
be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory
penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised
Penal Code shall also be imposed.
b. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, if the value of the property
robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not
exceeding 12,000 pesos.
c. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, if the value of the property
involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding
6,000 pesos.
d. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the
value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not
exceeding 200 pesos.
e. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period, if such value is over five (5) pesos but not
exceeding 50 pesos.
f. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
Article 311. Theft of the property of the
National Library and National Museum
 Theft of the property on National
Library and Museum has a fixed penalty
regardless of its value.
Article 312. Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property
Acts punishable:
1. Taking possession of any real property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons;
2. Usurping any real rights in property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons.
Elements:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
141
1. That the offender
a. takes possession of any real property or
b. usurps any real rights in property
2. That the real property or real right belongs to
another
3. That violence against or intimidation of persons is
used by the offender in occupying real property
or usurping real rights in property
4. That there is intent to gain.
The real property or real right must belong to another
If defendant who took possession of the land
using violence or intimidation has shown he is owner
of the land in question and complainant was a mere
possessor, Art 312 DOES NOT apply.
If at all, the crime is: grave coercion
Usurpation of Real Right, example:
Accused, who had lost a case in a cadastral
proceeding, took possession of the land adjudicated
in favor of the offended party and harvested the
palay, by means of threats and intimidation.
If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of
strategy or stealth) , only CIVIL LIABILITY exists
Violence or intimidation must be DURING the
occupation or usurpation.
Art 312 DOES NOT apply when the violence or
intimidation only took place SUBSEQUENT to the
entry into property
Example: if accused ALREADY OCCUPPIED the
land, and when the administrator of such land told
him to leave, but accused threatened administrator he
would "kill anyone who would drive me away" or
chased administrator away with bolo.
Article 312 does NOT apply in case of open defiance
of a writ of execution issued in a forcible entry case
Reason: Accused did not secure the possession of
the land by means of violence or intimidation. The
refusal (violent or not) of the accused to comply with
writ of execution is a DISTINCT OFFENSE: contempt
of court under the Rules of Court.
Criminal Action for occupation of real property NOT A
BAR for civil action for forcible entry
Reason: Causes of action are different!
Article 312 does NOT provide for a penalty, it only
provides for a fine.
 IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physical injuries
inflicted as a result of the acts of violence.
Distinguished from theft or robbery:
Usurpation Theft/robbery
There is intent to gain
Occupation or usurpation There is taking or
asportation
Real property or real right Personal property taken
Conchita Quinao v People (2000)
FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao,
together with their other close relatives appeared on the
property of Francisco and Bienvenido Del Monte. While
there, with the use of force, violence and intimidation,
usurped and took possession of the landholding, claiming
that the same is their inheritance from their ascendants
further they gathered coconuts and made them into copra.
Thus, Bienvenido Del Monte was forcibly driven out by the
accused from their landholding and was threatened that he
should not return lest harm befall him. He was thus forced
to seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine National
Police. In the trial court, defendants asserted a calim over
the land despite the fact that a prior judicial decision
declared the Del Montes as the rightful owners.
Resultantly, defendants were found guilty of usurpation of
real property.
HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the
decision rendered by the trial court convicting her of the
crime of usurpation of real property was not based on
"speculations, surmises and conjectures" but clearly on the
evidence on record and in accordance with the applicable
law. The requisites of usurpation are that the accused took
possession of another's real property or usurped real rights
in another's property; that the possession or usurpation was
committed with violence or intimidation and that the
accused had animo lucrandi. In order to sustain a
conviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales," the proof
must show that the real property occupied or usurped
belongs, not to the occupant or usurper, but to some third
person, and that the possession of the usurper was
obtained by means of intimidation or violence done to the
person ousted of possession of the property.
More explicitly, in Castrodes vs. Cubelo, the
Court stated that the elements of the offense are (1)
occupation of another's real properly or usurpation of a real
right belonging to another person; (2) violence or
intimidation should be employed in possessing the real
property or in usurping the real right, and (3) the accused
should be animated by the intent to gain.
Bar Questions
Usurpation of Real
Rights (1996)
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
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
142
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.
SUGGESTED 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 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.)
Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks
Elements:
1. That there be boundary marks or monuments of
towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks
intended to designate the boundaries of the
same
2. The offender alters said boundary marks
Intent to gain NOT necessary.
The mere alteration of the boundary marks or
monuments intended to designate the boundaries of
towns, provinces, or estate is punishable.
"Alter": General and indefinite meaning.
Includes:
a. destruction of stone monument
b. taking it to another place or
c. removing a fence
Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency
Elements:
1. That the offender is a debtor
2. Obligation is due and payable
3. He absconds with his property
4. There is prejudice to his creditors
Illustration of Fraudulent Insolvency:
Defendant became indebted to several merchants
in Cebu. Judgment was rendered against him and
execution issued. He owned several parcels of real
property which he transferred to another to place
them beyond the reach of his creditors. The
considerations in the deed of sale were all fictitious.
Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required
Concealment of property not sufficient if the
debtor-accused has some other property with which
to satisfy his obligation.
Being a merchant is not an element of this offense. It
only makes the penalty higher
Real property may be involved
"Absond"- does not require that the debtor should
depart and physically conceal his property. Hence,
real property may be the subject of fraudulent
insolvency.
Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of the
offender
Example: Wife of accused helped prepare documents
to abscond with his property. Such participation does
NOT prove her complicity in the fraud, since it was
the creditors of her husband (not HER creditors) who
were defrauded.
Distinguished from Insolvency Law:
Insolvency Law: requires that the criminal act be
committed AFTER the institution of insolvency
proceedings
Fraudulent insolvency: no need for defendant to
be adjudged bankrupt or insolvent.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
143

Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)
P.D. 2018
Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic
Sabotage
Acts punishable
1. Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-
holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and
punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. The
Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law
enforcement officers may initiate complaints under this
Article.
2. Illegal recruitment when committed by a
syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage and shall be
penalized in accordance with Article 39 of the Labor
Code
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one
another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
transaction, enterprise or scheme.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.
Powers of Minister of Labor and Employment (now
Secretary of DOLE)
The Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly
authorized representatives shall have the power to cause
the arrest and detention of such non-license or non-
holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that
his activities constitute a danger to national security and
public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-
seekers.
The Minister shall order the search of the
office or premises and seizure of documents
paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in
illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies,
establishment and entities found to be engaged in the
recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without
having been licensed or authorized to do so.
Three general ways of committing Estafa:
1. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
2. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
3. through fraudulent means
Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL:
1. That the accused defrauded another by
a. abuse of confidence or
b. by means of deceit
2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to
a. the offended party or
b. third person
* As seen above, DECEIT is NOT an essential
requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence
* As to second general element of DAMAGE, it should
be capable of pecuniary estimation, since amount of
the damage is the basis of the penalty.
* intent of defrauding another is always an element
* no estafa through negligence
-Estafa through Abuse of Confidence-
I. Article 315, Paragraph 1 (a): Estafa
with unfaithfulness by altering the
substance, quantity, or quality of
anything of value
Elements:
1. That the offender has an onerous obligation to
deliver something of value
2. That he alters its substance, quantity, or quality
3. That damage or prejudice is caused by another
 There must be an onerous obligation
If the thing delivered had not yet been fully paid or
just partially paid, NO ESTAFA even if there was
alteration  Ratio: there was no damage to talk
about
 When there is no agreement as to the quality of
the thing to be delivered, delivery of a thing
unacceptable to the complainant is NOT estafa.
 Even though such obligation be based on an
immoral or illegal consideration. Estafa may
arise even if the thing to be delivered is not
subject of lawful commerce (ex. opium)
II. Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b):
misappropriating or converting money,
goods, or other personal property OR
denying having received such money,
goods, or other personal property
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
144
Elements:
1. That money, goods, or other personal property
be received by the offender in
a. trust (Trust Receipts Law)
b. on commission
c. for administration
d. under any obligation involving duty to return
the very same thing
2. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of
such property by the offender OR (b) denial of
such receipt
3. There is prejudice to another
4. Demand was made by the offended to the
offender
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 115 January 29, 1973
PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUST
RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS
"Trust Receipt" -- shall refer to the written or printed
document signed by the entrustee in favor of the entruster
containing terms and conditions substantially complying with
the provisions of this Decree. No further formality of
execution or authentication shall be necessary to the validity
of a trust receipt.
What constitutes a trust receipt transaction?
A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by and
between a person referred to as the entruster, and another
person referred to as entrustee, whereby the entruster,
who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over
certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases
the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's
execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed
document called a "trust receipt" wherein the entrustee
binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or
instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise
dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the
obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof
to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as
appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or
instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise
disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions
specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes
substantially equivalent to any of the following:
1. In the case of goods or documents,
a) to sell the goods or procure their sale; or
b) to manufacture or process the goods with the
purpose of ultimate sale: Provided, That, in the
case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the
purpose of manufacturing or processing before its
ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its title
over the goods whether in its original or processed
form until the entrustee has complied fully with his
obligation under the trust receipt; or
c) to load, unload, ship or tranship or otherwise deal
with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to
their sale; or
2. In the case of instruments,
a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange;
or
b) to deliver them to a principal; or
c) to effect the consummation of some
transactions involving delivery to a depository or
register; or
d) to effect their presentation, collection or
renewal
NOTE: The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a
person in the business of selling goods, documents or
instruments for profit who, at the outset of the transaction,
has, as against the buyer, general property rights in such
goods, documents or instruments, or who sells the same to
the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as
security for the payment of the purchase price, does not
constitute a trust receipt transaction.
Allied Banking v. Ordonez
PBM got equipment from bank and executed trust receipt
agreement (TRA) -- acknowledged bank's ownership of
equipment and PBM's obligation to turn over the proceeds
of the sale of said equipments. Sec. Of Justice said that
since PBM would not be selling the equipment but would
just be using them, there was no violation of PD 115.
HELD: PD 115 applies to ALL trust receipt transactions.
Therefore, the fact that the goods were just to be used by
PBM and not to be sold is of no importance. Any violation of
the TRA is punished (Geof's notes in Comm: wrong SC
decision!  )
Lee vs. Rodil
Lee executed TRA for the purchase of materials but
misappropriated the value of the goods for personal use.
Charged with estafa under PD 115. Challenged the validity
of the law saying that a violation of PD 115 is NOT estafa
and that the law violates non-imprisonment for debts
clause of the Constitution.
HELD: Sec 13 of PD 115 explicitly states that the failure to
give back the proceeds or return the goods of estafa is
punishable. No violation of the Constitution as the loan is
separate from the trust receipt. What is punished is the
violation of the trust receipt and not the non-payment of
the loan.
 The 4th element is not necessary where there is
evidence of misappropriation of goods by the
defendant
 Check is included in the word "money"
 Money/goods must be received by the offender.
Otherwise, crime is THEFT (taking without
consent of owner)
 hence, offender must have material AND juridical
possession of the thing
 JURIDICAL POSSESSION: means a possession
which gives the transferee a right over the thing
which the transferee may set up even against the
owner.
 "involving the duty to return the same" includes
a. quasi-contracts and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
145
b. contract of bailment: deposit, lease, account upon demand, is circumstantial evidence
commodatum, pledge of misappropriation.
 but NOT contract of loan! Loan of money is
mutuum. Ownership was transferred.  ‘Even though such obligation be totally or
 Contract of sale (ownership is transferred at partially guaranteed by a bond’ – a security
the time of delivery): executed by the agent to answer for damages
a) if thing sold not delivered and advance etc. does not relieve him from criminal liability,
payment not returned, only CIVIL for this undertaking refers only to his civil
LIABILITY liability.
b) if buyer did not pay the price to owner,  The gravity of the crime of Estafa is determined
only CIVIL LIABILITY also on the basis of the amount not returned before
the institution of criminal action.
Key: if no obligation to return the very same thing,
only Civil liability Estafa with abuse of Theft
confidence
 No estafa when the money or other personal Offender acquires the Offender acquires only
property received is NOT to be used for a juridical possession of the material possession of the
property property
particular purpose.
Offender receives the thing Offender takes the thing
 Novation of contract from one of agency to one from the offended party from the offended party
of sale or to one of loan relieves defendant from
the incipient criminal liability under the first  Additional test: In theft, upon
contract delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner
 But granting extension of time is not
expects an immediate return of the thing to him
novation, nor is acceptance of a PN for
money misappropriated Estafa with abuse of Malversation
 Also, the novation theory may perhaps apply confidence
prior to the filing of the criminal information The offenders are entrusted with funds or property
in court by the State prosecutors, because Both are continuing offenses
up to that time, the original trust relation The funds or property are Involves public funds or
may be converted by the parties into an always private property
ordinary creditor-debtor relation. The offender is a private Offender is usually a public
individual or a public officer officer who is accountable
 "conversion" – thing was devoted for a purpose who is not accountable for for public funds or property
public funds or property
different from that agreed upon, as if the thing
The crime is committed by The crime is committed by
were the accused's own (ex. depositary pledged misappropriating, converting appropriating, taking or
the thing deposited) or denying having received misappropriating or
 "misappropriation" - using an amount for money, goods or other consenting, or through
personal purposes personal property abandonment or negligence,
 Right of agent to deduct commission from permitting any other person
amounts collected: IF AUTHORIZED to retain to take the public funds or
commission, no estafa. property

 "to the prejudice of another"- not necessarily the
owner of the property
 Partnerships:
 Where a partner sold partnership property
and misappropriates the selling price only
gives rise to civil obligation only (it is a debt
due to a partner as part of partnership
funds)
 Partner given money to be used for a
specific purpose then misappropriated it 
estafa
 A co-owner is not liable for estafa during the
subsistence of the co-ownership
 Art 314 par 1 (b) is the ONLY kind of estafa
where demand is necessary. Although it is not
required by law, it is necessary because failure to
 Private individual allegedly in
conspiracy with public officer in a prosecution of
the latter for malversation, may still be held liable
for Estafa even if the public officer was acquitted.
 Misappropriation of firearms
received by a policeman is Estafa, if it is not
involved in the commission of a crime. It is
malversation, if it is involved in the commission
of a crime.
Saddul v. CA
Saddul was authorized to sell some car parts. 20% of the
proceeds from sale would go to AMPI.
HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Saddul did not receive the
parts from AMPI in trust (received it from another party
which was the owner of the parts). Saddul did not convert

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

146
it for personal use. Failure to deliver the proceeds did not 3. other similar deceits
cause damage to AMPI, as it was not the owner of the
parts. Also, AMPI did not demand return of the parts.
 fictitious name: when a person found a
pawnshop ticket in the name of another and,
using the name of that person, redeemed the
jewelry

 Pretending to possess power: "pretend to be a

magician who can find gold, but pay me to find
III. Article 315, par 1, (c): estafa by taking
the gold under your house" trick.
undue advantage of the signature of
the offended party in blank
 Pretending to possess influence: I have
connections in Malacañang so pay me if you
Elements:
wanna get your documents approved" trick
1. That the paper with the signature of the offended
party be in blank
 Estafa by means of deceit vs. theft: juridical/
2. That the offended party should have delivered it
legal possession is still transferred to offender in
to the offender
case of estafa. But it is transferred through
3. That above the signature, a document is written
deceit.
by offender without authority to do so
4. That the document so written creates a liability
of, or causes damage to the offended party or
any third person
V. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (b): by
altering quality, fineness, or weight of
 The paper with the signature in blank MUST BE
anything pertaining to his art or
DELIVERED by the offended party to the offender
business
(otherwise, crime is falsification of instrument)
 Example: A gives B, a jeweler, a diamond to be
made into a ring. B changed the stone with one
-Estafa by Deceit-
of lower quality.
 Manipulation of Scale: violation of Revised
Elements of Estafa by means of deceit:
Administrative Code
1. There must be a false pretense, fraudulent
act or fraudulent means;
VI. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (c):
2. Such false pretense, fraudulent act or
pretending to have bribed any
fraudulent means must be made or executed
Government employee
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud;
 Person would ask money from another for the
3. The offended party must have relied on the
alleged purpose of bribing a government
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
employee but just pocketed the money after
means, that is, he was induced to part with his
money or property because of the false pretense,
 "without prejudice to an action for calumny" : the
fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
offender may also be charged with defamation
4. As a result thereof, the offended party
which the government employee allegedly bribed
suffered damage.
may deem proper to bring against the offender

IV. Article 315, par 2, (a)

VII. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (d):
postdating a check in payment of an
Three ways of committing estafa under this provision:
obligation when the offender had no
1. using fictitious name
funds in the bank, or his funds were
2. falsely pretending to possess
not sufficient to cover the amount
a. power
b. influence
Elements:
c. qualifications
1. That the offender postdated a check, or issued a
d. property
check in payment of an obligation
e. credit
2. That such postdating or issuing was done when:
f. agency
a. offender had no funds or
g. business or imaginary transactions

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

147
 b. funds deposited were not sufficient
 check must be genuine and not falsified,
otherwise, it is estafa under paragraph 2(a), not
2(d) (example: signing a check with a fictitious
name and falsely pretending said check could be
encashed)
 the issuance of a check is NOT for a pre existing
obligation. It MUST be for an obligation
contracted at the time of the issuance or delivery
of the check.
 When check is issued in substitution of a
promissory note, it is in payment of a pre
existing obligation
 When the check is issued by a guarantor,
there is no Estafa because it is not in
payment of an obligation.
 Prima facie evidence of deceit: failure of the
drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three days
from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the
payee or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
 otherwise, if drawer is able to fund within 3
days from notice of dishonoring, not liable
for estafa
VIII. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa by
obtaining food or accommodation at a
hotel, etc
Three ways of committing estafa under the this
provision:
1. By obtaining food, refreshment, or
accommodation at a hotel, etc. without paying
therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or
manager thereof.
2. By obtaining credit at any of said establishments
by the use of false pretenses
3. By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any
part of his baggage from any of said
establishments after obtaining credit, food,
refreshment, or accommodation therein, without
paying therefor.
IX. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa by
inducing another to sign any document
Elements:
1. That the offender induced the offended party to
sign a document.
2. That deceit be employed to make him sign the
document
3. That the offended party personally signed the
document
4. That prejudice be caused
 There must be inducement:
 if the offended party was willing to sign
although there was deceit as to the
character or contents of the document
(because the contents are different from
those which the offended party told the
accused to state in the document) crime is
falsification
 accused should make statements tending to
mislead the complainant as to the character of
the document executed by him.
X. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (b): Estafa by
resorting to some fraudulent practice
to insure success in gambling
XI. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa by
removing, concealing, or destroying
documents
Elements:
1. That there be court record, office files,
documents or any other papers
2. That the offender removed, concealed or
destroyed any of them
3. That the offender had intent to defraud another
 If no intent to defraud, the act of destroying
court record will be malicious mischief
 Examples:
1. Concealing document: A person who concealed a
document evidencing a deposit of P2,600 which
came into his possession when he offered to
collect the deposit is guilty of estafa.
2. Destroying documents: Destruction of a PN given
back to the maker to be replaced with a new one
to renew the loan, without making a new
promissory note is estafa because by destroying
the old one, the offended party was dispossessed
of the evidence of a debt.
 In a very old case, it was ruled that the act of
destroying a PN, given to cover losses in
gambling, by the maker thereof, is Estafa.
However, there was a dissenting opinion which
stated that such PN is void and of no value,
hence it cannot be the subject of estafa.
Estafa under par. 3 (c) Infidelity in the custody
of documents
Manner of committing offenses is the same
The offender is a private The offender is a public
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
148
individual or even a public
officer who is not officially
entrusted with the
documents
There is intent to defraud
officer who is officially
entrusted with the document
Intent to defraud not an
element in this crime
appear that certain deposits were made. When the account
was closed, discrepancies were found between the ledger
and the account. Abujuela charged as accomplice to estafa
through falsification of commercial documents
HELD: NOT guilty. Abujuela NOT aware of the fraudulent
plans of Balo. Knowledge of criminal intent is essential to
be an accomplice in estafa.

Final Notes on Estafa:

 The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa with
abuse of confidence under an information
alleging estafa by means of deceit.
 If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence,
there is no estafa, even if there is damage. There
is only civil liability.
 There CAN be a complex crime of theft and
estafa, when the former is a necessary means to
commit the latter. C, with intent to gain, took the
pawnshop tickets without the consent of A
(Theft). By redeeming the jewels by means of
the tickets, C also committed estafa, using a
fictitious name.
 The basis of the penalty for estafa is the amount
or value of the property misappropriated BEFORE
the institution of the criminal action. Hence,
partial payment made subsequent to the
commission of estafa does not reduce the
amount misappropriated which is the basis of the
penalty.
 A private person who procures a loan by means
of deceit through a falsified public document of
mortgage, but who effects full settlement of the
loan within the period agreed upon, does not
commit the crime of Estafa, there being no
disturbance of proprietary rights and no person
defrauded thereby. The crime committed is only
falsification of public document.
 "Prejudice" consists in:
1. The offended party being deprived of his money
or property as a result of the fraud
2. Disturbance in property rights
3. Temporary prejudice
Celino vs. CA
Accused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of a
dwarf. They were able to make the victim allow them to
dig in the victim's backyard and extort some funds from him
with the promise that it would grow into a big amount.
HELD: GUILTY of estafa by false pretense, having
pretended to have special powers and fooled the extremely
stupid victim.
Abujuela vs. People
Balo offered financial assistance to Abujuela by virtue of
some insurance proceeds that Balo would receive from his
father. Balo borrowed Abujuela's passbook and made it
Koh Tieng Heng vs. People
Heng deposited two checks worth P18,060 each issued by a
certain Dyaico. Then he withdrew several times from the
account. Diayco questioned the withdrawals. Heng was
finally caught trying to withdraw again.
HELD: Possession and utterance of a falsified check gives
rise to the presumption that the possessor is the forger of
the check. Attempted estafa correct as he was caught
trying to withdraw.
People vs. Ong
Ong deposits checks then withdraws from the deposited
accounts on the same day without waiting for the required
5-day clearance period for checks. The drawee banks
subsequently dishonored deposited checks.
HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Ong had no knowledge of lack
of funds, checks not issued in payment of an obligation as
required by the RPC. Lastly, Ong did not employ deceit in
withdrawing the money as the bank waived the 5-day
clearance period for its preferred customers where Ong
was one of those.
Llamado vs. CA
Gaw delivered to accused the amount of P180,000.00, with
the assurance of Aida Tan, the secretary of the accused in
the corporation, that it will be repaid plus interests and a
share in the profits of the corporation, if any. Upon
delivery of the money, accused Ricardo Llamado and
Jacinto Pascual signed a postdated Philippine Trust
Company Check in the presence of Gaw. Gaw deposited
the check in his current account, which the drawee bank
dishonored later informed Gaw that said check because
payment was stopped, and that the check was drawn
against insufficient funds. Gaw was also notified by the
bank that his current account was debited because of the
dishonor of the said check. After trial on the merits, the
trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused of
violation of Batas Pambansa No. 22.
HELD: Llamado denies knowledge of the issuance of the
check without sufficient funds and involvement in the
transaction with Gaw. However, knowledge involves a
state of mind difficult to establish. Thus, the statute itself
creates a prima facie presumption, i.e., that the drawer
had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit
with the bank at the time of the issuance and on the
check's presentment for payment. Llamado failed to rebut
the presumption by paying the amount of the check within
five (5) banking days from notice of the dishonor. His claim
that he signed the check in blank which allegedly is
common business practice, is hardly a defense. If as he
claims, he signed the check in blank, he made himself

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

149
prone to being charged with violation of BP 22. It became
incumbent upon him to prove his defenses. As Treasurer of
the corporation who signed the check in his capacity as an
officer of the corporation, lack of involvement in the
negotiation for the transaction is not a defense.
The check was issued for an actual valuable consideration,
which Gaw handed to Aida Tan, a secretary in petitioner's
office. In fact, Llamado admits that Gaw made an
investment in said amount with Pan-Asia Finance
Corporation. Llamado contends that the money which Gaw
gave the corporation was intended for investment which
they agreed will be returned to Gaw with interests, only if
the project became successful. But then, if this were true,
the check need not have been issued because a receipt and
their written agreement would have sufficed.
True, it is common practice in commercial transactions to
require debtors to issue checks on which creditors must
rely as guarantee of payment, or as evidence of
indebtedness, if not a mode of payment. But to determine
the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and
conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith
the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of
checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in
trade and in banking communities. So, what the law
punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of
issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
Lu Hayco vs. CA
Lu Hayco had a special power of attorney from Lu Chiong
Sun to manage the Units Optical Supply Company. The
SPOA also authorized Lu Hayco “To deposit and withdraw
funds in the name of the company.”
Lu Hayco deposited P139,000 paid by customers of the
Units Optical, not in the company's banks but in his own
personal accounts. After 2 demand letters were ignored, a
criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public
document was filed against Lu Hayco.
To make a very long story short, the first case of estafa
was dismissed but many more ensued (as many as 75
counts, I think). Eventually, he was convicted. Lu Hayco
argues, among others, that there is no estafa since the
element of misappropriation or conversion was not proven.
HELD: The disturbance in property rights caused by
misappropriation, though only temporary, is itself sufficient
to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 315(l -b) of
the RPC. In U.S. v. Goyenechea (8 Phil. 117), the defendant
pledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough & Co. to the
American Loan Company. Because of said act, the
typewriter was seized by the police, and taken into court.
Throughout the trial, McCullough & Co. was placed in a
doubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. [The
SC] held that: “McCullough & Co. at least suffered
disturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter and
in the possession thereof. This fact, by itself, and without
it being necessary to deal with any other considerations of
material fact herein, always constitutes real and actual
damage, and is positive enough under rule of law to
produce one of the elements constituting the offense, the
crime of estafa.”
In the case at bar, there was a disturbance in the property
rights of Lu Chiong Sun. While the funds received by Lu
Hayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts, Lu
Chiong Sun and Units Optical could not dispose of the said
amounts. At least, this could be considered as a temporary
prejudice suffered by Lu Chiong Sun, which is sufficient to
constitute conversion in the context of Art. 315 (1-b) of the
RPC.
Salcedo vs. CA
Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan
Guaranty Company, Inc. at Iligan City, which was engaged
in the business of property insurance. Said company had
been suspended from operating and eventually closed by
the Insurance Commissioner since February 21, 1968.
Salcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order but
he deliberately concealed the same from complainant
Ponce when he issued on March 18, 1968 a P50,000 fire
insurance policy unto the complainant, and collected
Pl,095.80 as premium. Eventually, the City Court of Iligan
City convicted Salcedo of estafa.
HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan
Guarantee. When he signed and issued the policy and
collected the premium thereof, he had knowledge that his
company was no longer authorized to conduct insurance
business. This knowledge makes him liable under paragraph
2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC which provides that:
“2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of
other similar deceits.”
To secure a conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art.
315 of the RPC, the following requisites must concur:
 that the accused made false pretenses or
fraudulent representations as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary
 that such false premises or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or
property, and that as result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
All these requisites are present in this case. The deliberate
concealment by Salcedo of the fact that his company was
no longer authorized to engage in the business of insurance
when he signed and issued the fire insurance policy and
collected the premium payment constitutes false
representations or false pretenses, upon which the
complainant relied when he paid the premium.
People v. Remullo, 383 SCRA 93 (2002)
FACTS: Quinsaat, Cadacio, and Mejia went to
appellant's house sometime in March 1993, where Remullo
told them she was recruiting factory workers for Malaysia.
Remullo told them to fill up application forms and to go to
the office of Jamila and Co., the recruitment agency where
Remullo allegedly worked. Remullo also required each
applicant to submit a passport, pictures, and clearance from
the NBI; and then to undergo a medical examination ‘The
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
150
three were then asked by Remullo to pay a placement fee of
P15,000 for each applicant, which they did. No receipts were
issued for said payments. At the time of their supposed
departure, an immigration officer at the airport told the
victims they lacked a requirement imposed by the POEA.
Their passports were cancelled and their boarding passes
marked "offloaded". Evelyn Landrito, vice president and
general manager of Jamila later certified that appellant was
not authorized to receive payments on behalf of Jamila.
HELD: In this case, appellant clearly defrauded
private complainants by deceiving them into believing that
she had the power and authority to send them on jobs
abroad. By virtue of appellant's false representations,
private complainants each parted with their hard-earned
money. Each complainant paid P15,000 as recruitment fee
to appellant, who then appropriated the money for her own
use and benefit, but failed utterly to provide overseas job
placements to the complainants. In a classic rigmarole,
complainants were provided defective visas, brought to the
airport with their passports and tickets, only to be
offloaded that day, but with promises to be booked in a
plane flight on another day. The recruits wait in vain for
weeks, months, even years, only to realize they were
gypped, as no jobs await them abroad. No clearer cases of
estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant
should be held criminally responsible.
Through conversion or
misappropriation
Crisanto Lee v. People (2005)
FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in the
trading of animal feeds. Robert Crisanto Lee was the
corporation's sales manager from early 90's to 1994. In the
course of Lee's employment therewith, he was able to bring
in Ocean Feed Mills as a client. Having "personally found"
Ocean Feed Mills, he handled said account. Transactions
between the two companies were then coursed through
Lee, so that it was upon the latter's instructions that Ocean
Feed Mills addressed its payments through telegraphic
transfers to either "Atoz Trading and/or Robert Lee" or
"Robert Lee".
When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in
1994, Atoz audited some of the accounts handled by him. It
was then that Atoz discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaid
account in the amount of P318,672.00. Atoz thus notified
Ocean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was no longer connected
with the corporation, and advised it to verify its accounts.
Promptly preparing a certification and summary of
payments, Ocean Feed Mills informed Atoz that they have
already fully settled their accounts and even made
overpayments. Atoz filed several cases of estafa against
Lee, and the trial court found him guilty.
HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are
as follows: a) that money, goods or other personal property
is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or
for administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; b) that
there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender; or denial on his part of such
receipt; c) that such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another.
The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as used
in the aforequoted law connote an act of using or disposing
of another's property as if it were one's own or of devoting
it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
"misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or
benefit, not only the conversion to one's personal
advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without a right. Misappropriation or
conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
Demand is not an element of the felony or a
condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint
for estafa. Indeed, the accused may be convicted of the
felony under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code if the prosecution proved misappropriation or
conversion by the accused of the money or property
subject of the Information. In a prosecution for estafa,
demand is not necessary where there is evidence of
misappropriation or conversion. However, failure to
account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust,
is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Jorge Salazar v. People (2004)
FACTS: Skiva International, Inc. is a New York-
based corporation which imports clothes from the
Philippines through its buying agent, Olivier (Philippines)
Inc. Aurora Manufacturing & Development Corporation
(“Aurora”) and Uni-Group Inc. (“Uni-Group”) are domestic
corporations which supply finished clothes to Skiva. Mr.
Werner Lettmayr is the President of both Aurora and Uni-
Group while the petitioner, Jorge Salazar, is the Vice-
President and Treasurer of Uni-Group and a consultant of
Aurora.
In December 1985, Skiva informed Olivier that it
needs ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January
1986. Olivier, in turn, contacted Aurora and Uni-Group to
supply the jeans. Thus, a Purchase Contract was issued by
Olivier to Uni-Group wherein Uni-Group was to supply 700
dozens of Ladies Jeans payable by means of a letter of
credit at sight.
On January 7, 1986, the parties agreed that Skiva
will advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount of
US$41,300.00 (then equivalent to P850,370.00 at the
exchange rate of P20.59 to US$1.00) as Aurora/Uni-Group
did not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials to
manufacture the jeans. It was also agreed that the amount
advanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its order
of 700 dozens of ladies jeans. Skiva remitted the funds by
way of telegraphic transfer from its bank in New York, the
Israel Discount Bank, to the joint account of Mr. and Mrs.
Jorge Salazar and Mr. and Mrs. Werner Lettmayr at Citibank
N.A.
Mr. Jorge Salazar withdrew money from the
dollar account converted it into pesos and purchased cloth
for the manufacture of 300 dozens of ladies jeans. The
balance was allegedly returned by him. However, the
balance was later found missing. Resultantly Aurora/Uni-
Group failed to produce the 700 dozens of ladies jeans
resulting in a suit against them. Salazar was charged and
convicted. His conviction was upheld even by the Supreme
Court. However in this Motion for Reconsideration, the SC
reversed and held he was innocent.
HELD: We find merit in the new motion. The
elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money,
goods or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for administration,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
151
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same; (b) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property
by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (c)
that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (d) there is demand by the
offended party to the offender.
We reiterate that the contract between Skiva and
Aurora was one of sale. After the perfection of the contract
of sale, Mr. Werner Lettmayr, representing Aurora/Uni-
Group, requested Skiva for advance payment in order to
procure the raw materials needed for the 700-dozen ladies’
jeans. It was also Mr. Lettmayr who suggested that the
advance payment be made to the joint account of himself
and his wife, together with petitioner and his wife. As
requested, $41,300.00 was transmitted by Skiva as advance
payment. Despite the payment, there was delay in the
performance of contract on the part of Aurora/Uni-Group.
Petitioner and the OSG contend that under these facts,
Skiva has no cause to complain that petitioner committed
estafa. We agree. In Abeto vs. People, we held that “an
advance payment is subject to the disposal of the
vendee. If the transaction fails, the obligation to return
the advance payment ensues but this obligation is civil
and not of criminal nature.” In fine, the remedy of Skiva
against Aurora/Uni-Group for breaching its contract is a
civil, not a criminal suit.
Virgie Serona v Court of Appeals (2002)
FACTS: Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces of
jewelry to Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis. By
oral agreement of the parties, petitioner shall remit
payment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold to
Quilatan, both within 30 days from receipt of the items.
Upon petitioner's failure to pay, Quilatan required her to
execute an acknowledgment receipt indicating their
agreement and the total amount due. Unknown to
Quilatan, Serona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to one
Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission basis.
Serona was not able to collect payment from Labrador,
which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to
Quilatan. After demand, Quilatan filed a complaint with
the prosecutor and Serona was charged with estafa. The
trial court found her guilty.
HELD: Serona did not ipso facto commit the
crime of estafa through conversion or misappropriation by
delivering the jewelry to a sub-agent for sale on
commission basis. We are unable to agree with the lower
courts' conclusion that this fact alone is sufficient ground
for holding that petitioner disposed of the jewelry "as if it
were hers, thereby committing conversion and a clear
breach of trust." It must be pointed out that the law on
agency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by an
agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of an
express agreement to the contrary between the agent and
the principal. In the case at bar, the appointment of
Labrador as petitioner's sub-agent was not expressly
prohibited by Quilatan in the acknowledgement receipt.
Neither does it appear that Serona was verbally forbidden
by Quilatan from passing on the jewelry to another person
before the acknowledgment receipt was executed or at any
other time. Thus, it cannot be said that Serona 's act of
entrusting the jewelry to Labrador is characterized by
abuse of confidence because such an act was not
proscribed and is, in fact, legally sanctioned.
Cristeta Chua Burce v Court of Appeals (2000)
FACTS: After finding a shortage of P150,000.00 in
the vault of Metrobank, Calapan Branch, several
investigations were carried out, all of them concluded that
the person primarily responsible was the bank’s Cash
Custodian, Cristeta Chua-Burce. She was found guilty of
estafa by the trial court.
HELD: Petitioner herein being a mere cash
custodian had no juridical possession over the missing
funds. Hence, the element of juridical possession being
absent, petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of
estafa under Article 315, No. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal
Code.
When the money, goods, or any other personal
property is received by the offender from the offended
party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for
administration, the offender acquires both material or
physical possession and juridical possession of the thing
received. Juridical possession means a possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which the
transferee may set up even against the owner. In this case,
petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily
responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of the
cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller,
both being mere bank employees.
In People v. Locson, the receiving teller of a bank
misappropriated the money received by him for the bank.
He was found liable for qualified theft on the theory that
the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank.
We explained in Locson that —
"The money was in the possession of the
defendant as receiving teller of the bank, and the
possession of the defendant was the possession of the
bank. When the defendant, with grave abuse of
confidence, removed the money and appropriated it to his
own use without the consent of the bank, there was the
taking or apoderamiento contemplated in the definition of
the crime of theft."
In the subsequent case of Guzman v. Court of
Appeals, 28 a travelling sales agent misappropriated or
failed to return to his principal the proceeds of things or
goods he was commissioned or authorized to sell. He was,
however, found liable for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of
the Revised Penal Code, and not qualified theft. In the
Guzman case, we explained the distinction between
possession of a bank teller and an agent for purposes of
determining criminal liability —
"The case cited by the Court of Appeals (People
vs. Locson, 57 Phil. 325), in support of its theory that
appellant only had the material possession of the
merchandise he was selling for his principal, or their
proceeds, is not in point. In said case, the receiving teller
of a bank who misappropriated money received by him for
the bank, was held guilty of qualified theft on the theory
that the possession of the teller is the possession of the
bank. There is an essential distinction between the
possession by a receiving teller of funds received from third
persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the
proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in
agency by his principal. In the former case, payment by
third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself;
the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds
received, and has no independent right or title to retain or
possess the same as against the bank. An agent, on the
other hand, can even assert, as against his own principal,
an independent, autonomous, right to retain money or
goods received in consequence of the agency; as when the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
152
principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made,
and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault
(Article 1915, [N]ew Civil Code; Article 1730, old)."
Through false pretenses,
fraudulent acts or means
People v Francisco Hernandez (2002)
FACTS: Eight (8) informations for syndicated
and large scale illegal recruitment and eight (8)
informations for estafa were filed against accused-
appellants, spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl.
The evidence for the prosecution consisted of
the testimonies of private complainants; a certification
from the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) that Karl Reichl and Yolanda
Gutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities were
neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit
workers for overseas employment; the receipts for the
payment made by private complainants; and two
documents signed by the Reichl spouses where they
admitted that they promised to secure Austrian tourist
visas for private complainants and that they would
return all the expenses incurred by them if they are not
able to leave by March 24, 1993, 3 and where Karl
Reichl pledged to refund to private complainants the
total sum of P1,388,924.00 representing the amounts
they paid for the processing of their papers. The
defense interposed denial and alibi. The trial court
convicted accused-appellants of one (1) count of illegal
recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa.
HELD: SC upheld the trial court stating that,
the prosecution also proved the guilt of accused-
appellants for the crime of estafa. A person who is
convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be
convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the Revised
Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are
present.
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the
Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely
pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud. The offended party must have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the
accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damages.
It has been proved in this case that accused-appellants
represented themselves to private complainants to
have the capacity to send domestic helpers to Italy,
although they did not have any authority or license. It
is by this representation that they induced private
complainants to pay a placement fee of P150,000.00.
Such act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2)
of the Revised Penal Code.
Roberto Erquiaga vs Court of Appeals ( 2001)
FACTS: Honesta Bal is a businesswoman who
owned a bookstore. Sometime in May 1989, she was
contacted by Manuel Dayandante @ Manny Cruz who
offered to buy her land in Pili, Camarines Sur. He told
Honesta that the company he represented was
interested in purchasing her property. Her daughter
and she met Dayandante and a certain Lawas (Rodolfo
Sevilla) at the Aristocrat Hotel. They said they worked
as field purchasing representative and field purchasing
head, respectively, of the Taiwanese Marine Products.
They persuaded Honesta to purchase cans of a marine
preservative which, could be bought for P1,500 each
from a certain peddler. In turn, they would buy these
cans from her at P2,000 each.
The following day, May 20, 1989 Glenn
Orosco, appeared at Honesta's store and introduced
himself as an agent, a.k.a. "Rey," who sold said marine
preservative. Honesta purchased a can which she sold
to Dayandante for P1,900. The following day, May 21,
Orosco brought five more cans which Honesta bought
and eventually sold to Lawas. It was during this
transaction that petitioner Roberto Erquiaga, a.k.a.
"Mr. Guerrerro," was introduced to Honesta to ascertain
whether the cans of marine preservative were genuine
or not.
On May 24, Orosco delivered 215 cans to
Honesta. Encouraged by the huge profits from her
previous transactions, she purchased all 215 cans for
P322,500. She borrowed the money from a Jose Bichara
at 10% interest on the advice of Erquiaga who lent her
P5,000.00 as deposit or earnest money and who
promised to shoulder the 10% interest of her loan. Soon
after the payment, Lawas, Dayandante, Erquiaga, and
Orosco vanished. Realizing that she was conned,
Honesta reported the incident to the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) which, upon examination of the
contents of the cans, discovered that these were
nothing more than starch.
On December 4, 1989, an Information for
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised
Penal Code, was filed against Roberto Erquiaga, Glenn
Orosco, Pastor Lawas and Manuel Dayandante.
HELD: That petitioners had conspired with
each other must be viewed not in isolation from but in
relation to an alleged plot, a sting, or "con operation"
known as "negosyo" of their group. Further, whether
such a well-planned confidence operation resulted in
the consummated crime of estafa, however, must be
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt.
The elements of estafa or swindling under
paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code 18 are the following:
1. That there must be a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means.
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
3. That the offended party must have relied
on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means, that is, he was induced to part with his money
or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means.
4. That as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
Erquiaga misrepresented himself as a
"verifier" of the contents of the cans. He encouraged
Honesta to borrow money. Petitioner Orosco
misrepresented himself as a seller of marine
preservative. They used aliases, Erquiaga as "Mr.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
153
Guerrero"; and Orosco as "Rey". Honesta fell for these
misrepresentations and the lure of profits offered by
petitioners made her borrow money upon their
inducement, and then petitioners disappeared from the
scene after taking the money from her.
Elsa Jose v People [G.R. No. 148371. August 12,
2004.]
FACTS: 24 November 1994, Regie Ramos del
Rosario went with her aunt Yolanda B. Bautista to the
office of Elsa Ramos. They asked Ramos whether she
was a travel agent. Ramos told del Rosario that she
was a ‘professional travel agent’ and would assist her
in going to Japan, as the former had ‘several
connection(s) at the Japanese Embassy.’ Ramos stated
she could help in the processing of passport, visa and
round trip ticket.
Del Rosario gave P30,000.00 ‘as initial
payment and another P17,000.00 at a later date.
Ramos assured them that the visa would be obtained
soon and the P17,000.00 was in payment of the round
trip ticket. Further, Ramos asked for another
P57,000.00 stating that part of the money would be
used to expedite the release of the visa. They were
assured that she would be able to leave for Japan with
her mother. All these payments were accompanied by a
written receipt. Thereafter, Del Rosario kept following
up her papers with Ramos who insisted on her prior
assurances that the visa would soon be released. Del
Rosario thereafter filed a case for estafa against
Ramos, the RTC found her guilty as did the Court of
Appeals.
HELD: Deceit refers to a “false
representation of a matter of fact (whether by words
or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed)
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”
On record are, on the one hand, the pieces of
evidence submitted by the People of the Philippines
establishing how petitioner held herself out as a
professional travel agent who could process and obtain
for private respondent a passport, as well as a round-
trip ticket to and a visa for Japan. This charade
convinced the latter and her family to part with their
P104,000. On the other hand is the testimony of
petitioner denying she ever made such
misrepresentation.
The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused made false pretenses as to her
qualifications and the transactions she had purportedly
entered into as a professional travel agent, who could
assist in processing private respondent’s travel papers.
Undisputedly, she was not a travel agent. Neither was
she licensed to engage in the business of travel agency.
I ndeed, private respondent has shown her
gullibility and perhaps even foolishness in believing
petitioner and in consequently parting with her
P104,000; Others more sensible might not have done so
in a similar situation. But such naivete cannot absolve
petitioner of criminal liability. It has been established
with moral certainty that she intentionally committed a
crime in violation of the law enacted precisely to
protect not only the wary and the wily, but more so the
gullible and the guileless.
Eliza Pablo v People (2004]
FACTS: The complainant Evangeline Bates
was approached by Eliza Pablo and Felomina Jacobe
and Victoria Roberto Bates. Eliza introduced Victoria
and Felomina to her. The three convinced her to
contribute P330,000.00 as her share in the payment of
the back taxes due on a parcel of land owned by the
late Pulmano Molintas in Baguio City, and once the title
is validated she will be assigned a 2,500-square meter
portion of the land. Because Eliza is her townmate and
since Victoria assured her that her son is married to a
daughter of Pulmano, she agreed.
Evangeline gave more than P330,000.00, or
the total amount of P332,000.00, because the three
accused represented to her that they needed expenses
in following up the papers of the land.
Subsequently, Evangeline found out that instead of
paying for the back taxes and validation of the
property, the three accused divided the money among
themselves. Evangeline demanded the return of her
money and the three accused executed their respective
promissory notes. Failing to pay, Evangeline filed a
criminal complaint against them.
HELD: Deceit is defined as the false
representation of a matter of fact, whether by words
or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. False
pretense is any deceitful practice or device by which
another is led to part with the property in the thing
taken.
The deceit or false pretense employed by
petitioners is the fact that they assured complainant
that the amount of P330,000.00 delivered to them and
accused Victoria by Evangeline was to pay the back
taxes of a certain parcel of land so that a title may be
secured and complainant will be given 2,500 square
meters of the subject land.
The failure of petitioners and accused Roberto in not
paying the back taxes and in misappropriating the money to
their own personal use, constitute the crime of Estafa.
Even if the land exists, the crime of Estafa is committed
when petitioners and accused Roberto convinced
complainant to part with her money on the basis of their
assurance that they will pay the back taxes due on the land
so as to secure a title over the land and a portion thereof
titled in the name of complainant.
Bouncing Checks
BP 22
People v Grace Flores (2002)
FACTS: Grace Flores issued a check in
payment of one (1) man's ring with a 5.8 ct. diamond
from Pacita Del Rosario. The check was dishonored and
payment thereof refused for the reason "ACCOUNT
CLOSED", notwithstanding due notice to her of such
dishonor of said check, failed and refused to deposit
the necessary amount of said check. Cases for Estafa
and violation of B.P 22 were filed. The RTC found
Flores guilty.
HELD: The elements of estafa, as defined
under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
154
amended by Republic Act No. 4885, are: (1) that the
offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or
issuance; (2) that at the time of the issuance of the
check, the offender had no funds in the bank or the
funds deposited were insufficient to cover the amount
of the check; and (3) that the payee has been
defrauded. 10
These elements are present in this case.
Accused-appellant admitted that she issued PCIB Check
No. 558574, dated October 20, 1992, for P662,250.00
to Pacita G. Del Rosario. 11 The check was issued as
payment for a ring and the P250.00 transportation fare
which accused-appellant received from complainant.
The fraudulent intent of accused-appellant
had been proven to exist at the time of the issuance of
the check. She misrepresented to complainant that she
was financially stable and that her business was
flourishing. In reality, however, accused-appellant had
no funds sufficient to cover the check she issued to
complainant. It is thus clear that she obtained the
amounts of P662,000.00 and P250.00 through deceit. As
already stated, the account was closed on the very
date of the postdated check issued to complainant.
People v Alexander Dinglasan (2002)
FACTS: Alexander Dinglasan was the owner
and operator of Alexander Transport, while private
complainant Charles Q. Sia is the owner of Schanika
Enterprises engaged in retailing nylon tires. Dinglasan
issued three checks as payment for tire purchases.
When the checks fell due, Sia deposited them, but the
drawee bank, Banco de Oro, dishonored these for
insufficiency of funds. He then tried to call Dinglasan
several times, but his calls were unanswered. Sia, with
the assistance of a lawyer, then sent appellant a
demand letter. All he got were promises that appellant
would pay the amounts due, 13 finally prompting him
to hale appellant to court. Dinglasan vigorously denied
any intent to deceive or defraud Sia. He vehemently
insisted that his refusal to pay Sia was primarily due to
the poor quality of the tires sold him by the latter. The
trial court convicted Dinglasan.
HELD: Dinglasan was charged and convicted
of estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal
Code. 22 The elements of the offense are: (1)
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued;
(2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check; (3)
knowledge on the part of the offender of such
circumstances; and (4) damage to the complainant.
The first element of the offense requires that the
dishonored check must have been postdated or issued
at the time the obligation was contracted. In other
words, the date the obligation was entered into, being
the very date the check was issued or postdated, is a
material ingredient of the offense. Hence, not only
must said date be specifically and particularly alleged
in the information, it must be proved as alleged.
In the present case, the prosecution's
evidence clearly and categorically shows that there was
no transaction between the parties on July 30, 1994,
for which Check No. 029014 was issued. In other words,
no obligation was contracted on July 30, 1994, for
which Check No. 029014 was allegedly postdated by
appellant. The situation obtains similarly regarding
Check No. 029020. Again, there was no obligation
contracted by the parties on July 24, 1994 for which
appellant allegedly postdated another check.
Evidently, the first element of the offense was neither
correctly alleged nor proven by the prosecution.
Hence, appellant cannot be charged much less found
guilty of estafa with respect to Checks Nos. 029014 and
029020.
People v Aloma Reyes (2005)
FACTS: Aloma Reyes, together with her
daughter, issued Jules Alabastro a check for
rediscounting. He was allegedly lured to part with his
money due to their seeming honest representations
that the check was good and would never bounce.
However, when the check was presented to the drawee
bank for encashment, the same was dishonored for the
reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and after having been
notified by such dishonor said accused failed and
refused to redeem said check despite repeated
demands.
HELD: Appellant avers that the subject
check does not fall within the meaning of Section 185
of the Negotiable Instruments Law which defines a
"check" as a "bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable
on demand." First, the NOW check is drawn against the
savings, not the current account, of appellant. Second,
it is payable only to a specific person or the "payee"
and is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to
"CASH." Appellant quotes the restriction written on the
face of a NOW check:
"NOW" shall be payable only to a specific
person, natural or juridical. It is not valid when made
payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when [i]ndorsed by
the payee to another person. Only the payee can
encash this "NOW" with the drawee bank or deposit it in
his account with the drawee bank or with any other
bank.
Appellant posits that this condition strips the
subject check the character of negotiability. Hence, it
is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable
Instruments Law, and not the "check" contemplated in
Criminal Law.
We disagree.
Section X223 of the Manual of Regulations for
Banks defines Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW)
Accounts as interest-bearing deposit accounts that
combine the payable on demand feature of checks and
the investment feature of savings accounts.
The fact that a NOW check shall be payable
only to a specific person, and not valid when made
payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when indorsed by
the payee to another person, is inconsequential. The
same restriction is produced when a check is crossed:
only the payee named in the check may deposit it in his
bank account. If a third person accepts a cross check
and pays cash for its value despite the warning of the
crossing, he cannot be considered in good faith and
thus not a holder in due course. The purpose of the
crossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed by
the rightful payee only. Yet, despite the restriction on
the negotiability of cross checks, we held that they are
negotiable instruments.
To be sure, negotiability is not the gravamen
of the crime of estafa through bouncing checks. It is
the fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuing
a worthless check that is penalized.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
155
 Deceit, to constitute estafa, should be the
efficient cause of defraudation. It must have been
committed either prior or simultaneous with the
defraudation complained of. There must be
concomitance: the issuance of a check should be the
means to obtain money or property from the payee.
Hence, a check issued in payment of a pre-existing
obligation does not constitute estafa even if there is no
fund in the bank to cover the amount of the check.
Manuel Nagrampa v People (2002)
FACTS: Nagrampa issued 2 checks (Php75,000
each) to Fedcor Trading Corp represented by Federico
Santander on August 31, 1989 and September 30, 1989
drawn against the Security Bank . When said checks
were presented to the bank for payment, the same
were dishonored for the reason that the drawer did not
have any funds therein. Despite notice of dishonor
thereof, Nagrampa failed and refused to redeem or
make good said checks, 2 cases were filed against him.
The trial court found Nagrampa guilty of two counts of
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law and sentencing
him to suffer imprisonment for two years and pay
FEDCOR P150,000.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court
of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.
No. 18082. Upon noticing that the 30 September 1993
Decision of the trial court did not resolve the issue of
petitioner's liability for estafa, the Court of Appeals
issued on 19 May 1998 a resolution 18 ordering the
return of the entire records of the case to the trial
court for the latter to decide the estafa case against
petitioner.
HELD: We l sustain the conviction for the
crime of estafa. Settled is the rule that, to constitute
estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of
defraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to,
or simultaneous with, the act of fraud. The offender
must be able to obtain money or property from the
offended party because of the issuance of the check, or
the person to whom the check was delivered would not
have parted with his money or property had there been
no check issued to him. Stated otherwise, the check
should have been issued as an inducement for the
surrender by the party deceived of his money or
property, and not in payment of a pre-existing
obligation.
People v. Rica Cuyugan (2002)
FACTS: Rica G. Cuyugan issued to Norma
Abagat several checks in payment of supplies she
wanted to buy for the Philippine Armed Forces. When
the checks were presented for payment, they were all
dishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn against
insufficient funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED.
Despite repeated demands, appellant failed to make
good the checks, which constrained the Abagat spouses
to file a complaint for estafa against Cuyugan. Cuygan
claimed that the Abagat spousesand she were partners
in obtaining construction projects with the Philippine
Army. She issued postdated checks as proof that the
Abagat spouses had invested their money with her. She
claimed that she was the industrial partner as she did
all the legwork in getting the projects. They then
shared in the profits after deducting all the
miscellaneous expenses.
The trial court found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of estafa committed by means of
false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, that
is by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment
of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient
to cover the amount of the check.
HELD: We find the appeal meritorious. The
transaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses,
in our view, was one for a loan of money to be used by
appellant in her business and she issued checks to
guarantee the payment of the loan. As such, she has
the obligation to make good the payment of the money
borrowed by her. But such obligation is civil in
character and in the absence of fraud, no criminal
liability under the Revised Penal Code arises from the
mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of
repayment.
Pio TImbal v Court of Appeals (2001)
FACTS: A husband was held by the court a
quo accountable for estafa through false pretense on
account of a check issued by his wife. Judy I. Bigornia
delivered hog meat to the spouses Timbal at their stall
located at the Farmer's Market. In payment, Maritess
Timbal issued in favor of Bigornia a check for
P80,716.00. The husband- Pio Timbal was present when
the check was issued and handed over by his wife
Maritess to Bigornia. When the latter presented the
check to the bank for encashment, it was dishonored
on the ground that the account was closed. Pio Timbal
contended that he had no active participation in the
business of his wife and claimed that when the check
was issued by his wife he was manning his own
restaurant.
HELD: The petition has merit. The decision of
the trial court, as well as that of the appellate court,
would reveal that the main basis used in convicting
petitioner was the fact of his presence at the time of
the issuance of the check by his wife. Nothing else was
shown nor reflected in the appealed decision that could
indicate any overt act on the part of petitioner that
would even remotely suggest that he had a hand in
dealing with Bigornia. Timbal’s mere presence at the
scene of a crime would not by itself establish
conspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an act or
series of acts, participated in the commission of fraud
to the damage of the complainant.
People v. Ernst Holzer (2000)
FACTS: Ernst Holzer et al were the owners of
MGF ELECTRONICS SATELLITE SUPPLY, a business
engaged in selling and installing satellite antenna
system. They installed a system in the house of
Bernhard Forster. Forster was not satisfied with the
satellite antenna installed and the equipment which
came with it which he thought were second-hand.
Moreover, he wanted a bigger antenna. He was assured
by accused-appellant Holzer that should new
equipment arrive from abroad, the used equipment
would be replaced and another antenna would be
given.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
156
 Holzer informed complainant that new
equipment had arrived in Manila. His money, however,
was not enough to secure the release of the equipment
from the Bureau of Customs. For this reason, he asked
complainant to lend him P100,000.00. Complainant
agreed and issued a check for P100,000.00 to accused-
appellant Holzer. In exchange, the latter issued a post
dated check. Before the due date, accused-appellant
Holzer asked the complainant not to deposit the check
on August 1, 1995. Four days later, accused-appellant
again asked the latter not to deposit the check because
the money from Switzerland to cover the check had not
yet arrived.
Despite the request, however, complainant
deposited the check on August 9, 1995. As to be
expected, the check was dishonored for having been
drawn against insufficient funds. On the same day,
complainant filed a complaint for estafa
HELD: In view of the amendment of Art.
315(2)(d) by R.A. No. 4885, the following are no longer
elements of estafa:
1. knowledge of the drawer that he has no
funds in the bank or that the funds deposited
by him are not sufficient.
2. failure to inform the payee of such
circumstance 18
The drawer of the dishonored check is given
three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to
deposit the amount necessary to cover the check.
Otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit will
arise which must then be overcome by the accused.
People v. Ojeda (2004)
FACTS: Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics
(telas) from complainant Ruby Chua. For the three
years approximately she transacted business with Chua,
appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics
she bought. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased
from Chua various fabrics and textile materials worth
P228,306 for which she issued 22 postdated checks
bearing different dates and amounts.
The 22 checks were all dishonored. Demands
were allegedly made to make good the dishonored
checks, to no avail. Estafa and BP 22 charges were
thereafter filed against Ojeda. The trial court
convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined
and penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her to
reclusion perpetua. The trial court also convicted
appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing
checks. However, the court a quo held her guilty of
only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued.
HELD: Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of
the RPC, as amended by RA 4885, 20 the elements of
estafa are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is
issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. Deceit and
damage are essential elements of the offense and must
be established by satisfactory proof to warrant
conviction. Thus, the drawer of the dishonored check is
given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor
to cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a prima
facie presumption of deceit arises.
The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this
case. The prima facie presumption of deceit was
successfully rebutted by appellant's evidence of good
faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check. Good
faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor's
offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. In
this case, the debtor not only made arrangements for
payment; as complainant herself categorically stated,
the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of
the dishonored checks.
It must be noted that our Revised Penal Code
was enacted to penalize unlawful acts accompanied by
evil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. The
principal consideration is the existence of malicious
intent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence
and intent which together make up the "criminal mind"
behind the "criminal act." Thus, to constitute a crime,
the act must, generally and in most cases, be
accompanied by a criminal intent. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. No crime is committed if the
mind of the person performing the act complained of is
innocent. As we held in Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan:
XXX
The rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana,
although this case involved falsification of public
documents and estafa:
"Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an
unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when
the criminal mind is wanting."
American jurisprudence echoes the same
principle. It adheres to the view that criminal intent in
embezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as to
the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into,
and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the
person doing the act is innocent or if there is no
wrongful purpose.
The accused may thus prove that he acted in
good faith and that he had no intention to convert the
money or goods for his personal benefit. We are
convinced that appellant was able to prove the absence
of criminal intent in her transactions with Chua. Had
her intention been tainted with malice and deceit,
appellant would not have exerted extraordinary effort
to pay the complainant, given her own business and
financial reverses.
People v. Dimalanta (2004)
FACTS: Josefina Dimalanta who was then
employed at the Caloocan City Engineer's Office, called
up complainant Elvira D. Abarca on the telephone to
express her desire to purchase jewelry. Complainant
went to Dimalanta’s house where the latter purchased
twelve pairs of jewelry. In payment thereof, appellant
issued twelve postdated checks with the representation
that the same will be sufficiently funded on their
respective maturity dates.
The first check issued by Dimalanta was
honored and paid by the drawee bank. However, the
remaining eleven checks were all returned unpaid since
the account was closed. On demand Dimalanta failed to
make good on the checks. The trial court convicted
Dimalanta of Estafa.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
157
 HELD: Damage and deceit are essential
elements of the offense and must be established with
satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The false
pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to
or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check.
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish
beyond a shadow of a doubt that appellant employed
deceit. Its evidence was overcome by the defense's
proof that the pieces of jewelry were not purchased by
appellant for her own use; rather the same were
merely given to her for resale.
We find that appellant acted in good faith
during the transaction. After the first check was
dishonored, she exerted best efforts to make good the
value of the check, albeit only to the extent of
P25,000.00. Good faith is a defense to a charge of
Estafa by postdating a check. This may be manifested
by appellant's act of offering to make arrangements
with complainant as to the manner of payment.
BP 22
An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and
Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or
Credit and For Other Purposes
Section 1
BP 22 may be violated in TWO ways
Elements of the offense defined in the first paragraph of
Section 1:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply
on account or for value
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the
check knows at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of such check in full upon its presentment
4. That the check
a. is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank
for insufficiency of funds or credit, or
b. would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason ,
ordered the bank to stop payment
Elements of the offense defined in the second paragraph of
Section 1:
1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of 90 days from the date appearing
thereon
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank
 Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check, not the
payment of the obligation. The law has made the mere
act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum
 BP 22 vs. Estafa under Article 315 par 2 (d):
1. Unlike estafa, element of DAMAGE is NOT
REQUIRED in BP 22
2. Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has DECEIT as an
element. BP 22 does NOT require such element.
3. Also, the mere fact of postdating or issuing a
check when the drawer had no or insufficient
funds in the bank makes someone liable under
Article 315 par 2(d) of estafa. BP 22, 1 st paragraph
requires knowledge of insufficient funds.
 The check may be drawn and issued to "apply on
account of for value": BP 22 does not make a
distinction as to whether the bad check is issued in
payment of an obligation or to merely guarantee an
obligation
 Illustration for Section 1, par 1, element 4:
There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check;
so the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment; and it
appeared that the drawer knew at the time that the check
was issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. In
this case, NO VIOLATION OF BP 22!
Even if the check would have been dishonored for
insufficiency of funds had he not ordered the bank to stop
payment, there was a VALID reason (wrong payee) for
ordering the bank to stop payment.
 BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn by a
corporation, company, or entity: the person/s who
ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of such drawer
Section 2
Section establishes a prima facie evidence of "knowledge of
insufficiency ": when payment of the check is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds / credit when the check
is presented within 90 days from the date of such check
Exception:
a. when the maker or drawer pays the holder thereof of
the amount due thereon or
b. makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee
of such check within 5 banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawee
Section 3
Section 3 requires the drawee
1. in case where drawee refuses to pay the check to the
holder:
 Write, print, or stamp on the check or to be attached
thereto the reason for dishonoring.
2. in case drawee bank received an order to stop
payment, it should state in the notice that there were
no sufficient funds in or credit with it for the payment
in full of the check, if such be the fact.
Introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored
check with the drawer's refusal to pay indicated thereon or
attached thereto is prima facie evidence of:
1. the making or issuance of the check
2. the due presentment to the drawee for payment and
the dishonor thereof; and
3. the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the
reason indicated thereto
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
158

Nievas vs. Dacuycuy
Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored. He
was charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. 1 count
of violation of BP 22. Nievas invokes double jeopardy.
HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses.
Estafa needs deceit and damage, not for pre-existing
obligations, crime against poperty and is mala in se. BP 22:
deceit and damage not required because mere issuance
gives presumption of guilt, can be for a pre-existing debt,
crime against public order and is mala prohibitum.
People vs. Gorospe
Parulan paid check in Bulacan. Check was forwarded in BPI
Pampanga, then dishonored. Case was filed in Pampanga
but was dismissed, as the court had no jurisdiction on the
case.
HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction! Violation of BP
22 AND estafa are transitory crimes. Deceit happened in
Pampanga where it was uttered/delivered while the
damage was done in Bulacan where it was issued.
Que vs. People
Que issued checks in Quezon City. Checks were used to pay
for the purchase made in Sta. Mesa. Checks were issued
NOT to pay for an obligation but just to guarantee
payment. Checks later dishonored.
HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction.
Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT
important as law does not distinguish-- included as long as
it was an issued check that subsequently bounced.
People vs. Nitafan
Lim issued a memorandum check that was subsequently
dishonored.
HELD: Memorandum Check (one used as evidence for a
debt) falls within coverage of BP 22. Memorandum check is
NOT a PN.
Lim Lao vs. CA
Lim was an officer in a company where she signed checks,
while it was her superior who filled the blanks. Check
which she signed as issuer was dishonored. Convicted for
violating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds when check is issued.
HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable by
contrary evidence. Also, no notice of the dishonor was
given to her; notice only given to the employer which is not
sufficient as law requires personal notice.
Idos vs. CA
Idos and Alarilla had a partnership that was terminated
with each entitled to P1.8M each. Idos issued 4 postdated
checks - 1 was dishonored.
HELD: Not guilty as the check was NOT issued for a debt
but as a collateral or evidence of the other partners share.
Sycip vs. CA
Accused here bought a townhouse unit from FRC. Accused
issued 48 postdated checks for the balance. However, due
to the defects and incomplete features of the unit, accused
suspended payments. FRC however continued to present
the checks for payment thus always forcing him to issue
stop order payments. The bank then advised accused to
just close the account in order to save on hefty bank
charges upon every stop order. It is here that 6 checks
were presented by FRC but were dishonored. Accused
convicted under BP22.
HELD: Accused not guilty. 2nd element of BP22 (knowledge
by the issuer of the check that he does not have sufficient
funds) not proven. Proven that there was sufficient funds in
the account and that it was closed not for insufficiency but
upon the banks advice to save on charges.
Other statutes can be used as a valid defense under BP22.
CAB, PD957 that governs sales of townhouses allows the
buyer to suspend payments until the developer has
complied with its obligations to properly furnish the unit.
BP22 and PD957 must be construed together in order to
harmonize their application.
Article 316. Other forms of swindling
I. Paragraph 1: By conveying, selling,
encumbering, or mortgaging any real
property, pretending to be the owner of
the same.
Elements:
1. That the thing be real property, such as a parcel
of land or a building
2. That the offender who is not the owner of said
property should represent that he is the owner
thereof
3. That the offender should have executed acts of
ownership (selling, leasing, encumbering, or
mortgaging the real property)
4. That the act be made to the prejudice of
a. the owner or
b. a third person
Example:
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the
same parcel of land to C, representing to the latter
that he (A) was the owner thereof. At the time he
sold the land to C, A was no longer the owner of the
property.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
159

The thing disposed of must be real property
If property is chattel: ESTAFA!
There must be EXISTING real property
If accused sold non-existent land, he is guilty of
estafa by means of false pretenses.
Deceit consisting in false pretense
Article 316 only penalizes only those who
PRETEND to be the owner of property. Where the
accused CLAIMS to be the owner, especially if he has
a Certificate of Title, there was no pretension
even if his ownership is defective and later
compelled to return the property to the person found
to be the true owner of the property.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second
purchaser and the damage is incurred by the first
purchaser, there is violation of Art 316 par 1.
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the
same parcel of land to C, representing to the latter
that he (A) was still the owner thereof. C registered
the sale in his favor. Consequence: B lost the
property due to non-registration in his favor.
Hence, damage fell on B, the first purchaser,
while deceit was practiced against C, second
purchaser. A will still be liable under Art 316 par 1 if B
files a crim case.
Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient. There
must be actual damage. In fact, fine prescribed is
based on the damage caused
Art 316 par 1 vs. Art 315 par 2(a)
Art 316 par 1: the offender exercises acts of
ownership over the property as part of the false
representation. On the other hand, Art 315 par 2(a)
does not need this circumstance.
II. Paragraph 2: By disposing of real
property as free from encumbrance,
although such encumbrance be not
recorded.
Elements:
1. That the thing disposed be real property
2. That the offender knew that the real property
was encumbered, whether the encumbrance be
recorded or not.
3. That there must be express representation by the
offender that the real property is free from
encumbrance
4. That the act of disposing real property be made
to the damage of another
Example:
A mortgaged his property to B. Later, A,
misrepresenting that the property is free from
encumbrance, mortgaged it again, this time to C.
But if C knew that the property had already been
mortgaged to B, C cannot complain, as there is
neither deceit nor fraud.
"Shall dispose of the same"
The act constituting the offense is the DISPOSING
of the real property FALSELY REPRESENTING that it is
free from encumbrance.
"Shall dispose": includes encumbering or
mortgaging.
"Encumbrance": every right or interest in the land
existing in favor of third persons
 Mortgage
 Ordinary lease
 Attachment
 Lien of a judgment
 Execution sale
The offended party must have been deceived, that is,
he would not have granted the loan had he known
that the property was already encumbered.
When the loan HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED
when defendant later offered the property as security
for the payment of the loan, Article 316, par 2 is NOT
applicable
Conflicting jurisprudence: "Although such
encumbrance be not recorded"
Notwithstanding this phrase, some cases held that
the encumbrance must be legally constituted! In
these cases, since the encumbrances were NOT
registered, accused were acquitted.
Thing disposed must be REAL property
If the thing encumbered and disposed is personal
property, Article 319 applies (punishing one who sells
or pledges personal property already subject to
encumbrance.)
Real property may be registered under any system of
registration
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
160
 This paragraph applies whether the property is
registered under the Spanish system or under the
Land Registration Act.
III. Paragraph 3: By wrongful taking by the
owner of his personal property from its
lawful possessor
Elements:
1. That the offender is owner of personal property
2. That the personal property is in the lawful
possession of another
3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its
lawful possessor.
4. That prejudice is caused to the possessor or third
person
Example:
Accused pawned his watch to complainant. Later,
pretending to redeem watch, accused asked offended
party to give him the watch. Once getting hold of his
watch, he ran away without paying the loan.
Note: not theft an owner cannot be held guilty
of theft of his own property.
Offender owner of personal property
If third person and his purpose in taking it is to
return it to the owner, the crime is THEFT.
In lawful possession of another
Finder of a lost thing is NOT a lawful possessor, it
being the obligation of a finder to give the thing to
the owner or to the authorities.
"Wrongful taking"
If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1)
VIOLENCE, and (2) WITH INTENT TO GAIN/ CHARGE
THE BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE the crime is ROBBERY.
If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1)
VIOLENCE and (2) WITHOUT INTENT TO GAIN,
crime is GRAVE COERCION
If owner took the thing (1) without consent and
knowledge of possessor and (2) later charged
possessor of the value of the property, crime is
ESTAFA.
"To the prejudice of possessor or third person"
Example: A pledged his watch to B, his dorm mate
to secure a loan of P3000. One night, A took the
watch from the drawer of B without B's consent and
knowledge and used it for the night. A returned later
and was about to put back the watch in the drawer
when B surprised A (Bulaga!!!)
Is A liable under 316, par 3? NO. THERE WAS NO
DAMAGE CAUSED TO B.
IV. By executing any fictitious contract to
the prejudice of another
Elements:
1. Fictitious contract
2. Damage to another
Example:
A person who simulates (consideration is
fictitious) a conveyance to another for the purpose of
defrauding a creditor.
Note: The example above may become a crime of
fraudulent insolvency (Art 314) if the conveyance is
real and made for a consideration.
V. By accepting any compensation for
services not rendered or for labor not
performed
Elements:
1. Compensation wrongfully received (accepting
compensation for service not rendered nor
performed)
2. Malicious failure to return the compensation
wrongfully received (fraud)
There must be fraud in this crime, otherwise, it will
only be a case of solutio indebiti under the Civil Code.
VI. Paragraph 6: By selling, mortgaging, or
encumbering real property or
properties with which the offender
guaranteed the fulfillment of his
obligation as surety
Elements:
1. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
161
2. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such
obligation with his real property/properties
3. That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other
manner encumbers said real property
4. That such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is
a. without express authority from the court
b. made before the cancellation of his bond, or
c. made before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him
 There must be damage caused under
this article.
Article 317. Swindling a minor
pay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the car
was already repossessed. Villaflor was convicted of Estafa.
HELD: Gulty of Estafa as there was deceit – he represented
self as the owner of the car and failed to reveal that the
car was already mortgaged.
Veloso vs. CA
District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that led to
the disbursement of 23 checks for a project that was
anomalous. He was convicted of Estafa.
HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure the
veracity of the documents. He was negligent as he
approved the vouchers that had mistakes which were
detectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor.

Elements:
1. That the offender takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1689
2. That he induces such minor to:
Increasing The Penalty For Certain Forms Of Swindling Or
a. assume an obligation Estafa
b. to give release, or
c. to execute a transfer of any property right Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other
3. That the consideration is forms of swindling as defined RPC 315 and 316 shall be
a. some loan of money punished by life imprisonment to death if the swindling
b. credit, or (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or
c. other personal property more persons formed with the intention of carrying out the
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme,
4. That the transaction is to the detriment of such
and the defraudation results in the misappropriation of
minor. money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural
banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers
Note: Only personal property, since a minor can not association, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations
convey real property from the general public.

When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the

penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.
Article 318. Other deceits

Elements: Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of

A. mortgaged property
1. By defrauding or damaging another
2. by any other deceit not mentioned in the Elements:
proceeding articles 2 Acts punishable:
A.
B. 1. That personal property is validly mortgaged
1. By interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling under the Chattel Mortgage Law
fortunes, or by taking advantage of the credulity 2. That the offender knows that such property is so
of the public in any other similar manner mortgaged
2. For profit or gain 3. That he removes such mortgaged personal
3. Damage to others property to any province or city other than the
one in which it was located at the time of the
Note: As in other cases of estafa, DAMAGE should execution of the mortgage
always be present. 4. That the removal is permanent
5. That there is no written consent of the mortgage
or his executors, administrators or assigns to
Villaflor vs. CA such removal
Villaflor borrowed P1,000, in turn he offered his car as
B.
collateral (Chattel mortgage instituted). Villaflor failed to

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

162
1. That personal property is already pledged under
the Chattel Mortgage Law
2. That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such
property, sells or pledges the same or any part
thereof
3. Such sale/pledge is without the consent of the
mortgagee which is
i. written
ii. at the back of the mortgage and
iii. noted on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting
It is essential that the chattel mortgage be valid
and subsisting. If the chattel mortgage does not
contain an affidavit of good faith and/or is not
registered, it is VOID and CANNOT be a basis for
criminal prosecution under Art 319.
Persons Liable
Even third persons who removed the property to
another province or city are liable because the
offender is "ANY PERSON who shall knowingly
remove…"
The removal of the mortgaged property must be
coupled with INTENT TO DEFRAUD.
No violation of Article 319 if the removal was
justified.
Filing a civil action for collection, not for foreclosure of
chattel mortgage, relieves the accused of criminal
responsibility. (based on a CA case)
If the mortgagee elected to file a suit for
collection (not foreclosure), there can be no violation
of Article 319 anymore since the mortgage as a basis
of relief has already been abandoned by the suit for
collection.
House (generally considered as immovable) may be a
subject of chattel mortgage by agreement of the
parties
Article 319 par 2 also contemplates a second
mortgage.
Damage to the mortgagee is not essential.
Estafa (316, disposing Removal, sale or pledge
encumbered property) of mortgaged property
Mortgaged property is sold in disposed of in both cases
Real property Personal property
Property must be sold as Property sold without
free and unencumbered consent of the mortgagee in
writing, even if buyer is
informed that property is
mortgaged
Purpose of law: to protect Purpose of law: to protect
the purchaser the mortgagee
Articles 320 to 326-B. Arson (repealed or
amended by PD 1613 and PD 1744)
Kinds of arson;
1. Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree
No. 1613;
2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659;
3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 1613.
P.D. 1613
Amending the Law on Arson
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.
SECTION 2. Destructive Arson. — The penalty of Reclusion
Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua shall
be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
1. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where
explosives, inflammable or combustible materials are
stored.
2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any
edifice devoted to culture, education or social services.
3. Any church or place of worship or other building where
people usually assemble.
4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft,
or conveyance for transportation of persons or
property.
5. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any
legislative, judicial, administrative or other official
proceedings.
6. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing
tenement, shopping center, public or private market,
theater or movie house or any similar place or building.
7. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not,
situated in a populated or congested area.
(NOTE: SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R.A. 7659 AMENDING
ART. 320)
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;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing
crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill
central; and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
163
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse.
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;
2. If committed for the benefit of another;
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or
hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property
burned;
4. If committed by a syndicate.
The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons.
SECTION 5. Where Death Results from Arson. — If by
reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.
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 use.
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 traces of any of the foregoing are
found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or
property.
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 for the
desistance of the offender or for the safety of the
person or property of the victim.
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 on his part.
Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659
Article 320. Destructive Arson. — The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death shall be imposed
upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to
one single act of burning, or as result of simultaneous
burnings, or committed on several or different
occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to
the use of 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,
worship, meetings and conferences, or merely
incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited
to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public
conveyance or stops or terminals, regardless of
whether the offender had knowledge 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.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or
airplane, devoted to transportation or convenience, or
public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any
appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the
service of public utilities.
5. 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 creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated
qualifying circumstances, the penalty of 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 edifice, or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall
burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or
fireworks factory, ordnance storehouse, archives or
general museum of the government.
2. 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 or injury results, or any
valuable documents, equipment, machineries, apparatus, or
other valuable properties were burned or destroyed, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are P.D.
1613 and Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659. The
provisions of P.D. 1613 that are inconsistent with R.A.
7659 (such as Section 2 on destructive arson) are
DEEMED REPEALED)
Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson
A person, intending to burn a building, collects some
rags, soaks them in gasoline and places them beside
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
164
the wooden wall. When he is about to light a match
to set fire to the rags, he is discovered by another
who chases him away.
1. Attempted arson: the crime committed in the
above scenario is attempted arson, because the
offender commences the commission of the
crime directly by overt acts but does not perform
all the acts of execution (the setting of fire to the
rags) due to timely intervention.
2. Frustrated arson: if the person is able to set
fire to the rags but the fire was put out before
any part of the building was burned.
3. Consummated arson:
a. any charring (CHARING! Whiz na lang, 'day!)
of the wood of the building. Not necessary
that the wood should be ablaze, sufficient
that the fiber of the wood is destroyed
b. mere scorching or discoloration by heat NOT
consummated
c. Setting fire to the contents of the building is
already consummated arson (setting fire to a
building) even if no part of the building was
burned.
d. However small a portion of the building is
BURNED, there is consummated arson.
In attempted arson, it is not necessary that there be a
fire
Look at the facts if there was intent to burn.
Sec 3, par 2, PD 1613
If the property burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling, it is not required that the house be occupied
and that the offender knew it when the house was
burned.
No complex crime of arson with homicide
PD 1613: if by reason or on occasion or arson,
death results, homicide is absorbed and the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to Death is imposed.
Sec 6, PD 1613, 7 Circumstances constituting prima
facie evidence of arson
Standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted,
any of those circumstance is sufficient to establish the
fact of arson.
Article 327. Who are liable for 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 mere for the sake of damaging it
* 3rd element presupposes that offender acted due to
hate, revenge, or other evil motive. Sometimes,
offender also inspired by the mere pleasure of
destroying things.
"Shall deliberately cause to the property of another
any damage"
This means that the offender should act under this
impulse of specific desire to inflict injury to another.
HENCE, malicious mischief CANNOT be
committed through NEGLIGENCE. Malice and
negligence are essentially incompatible.
"Damage" covers both loss and diminution.
If no malice, only civil liability for damages.
Damaging of property must not result from crime.
Example: damage done as a result of another
crime- accused chased opponent around the house to
kill him and along the way broke various objects.
If after damaging the property, offender removes/
uses objects of the damage, crime is THEFT
Caballen vs. DAR
Albeit Abajon’s previous arrangement with the former
owner of the property, Caballes, the new owner, asked
Abajon to vacate the premises where his house was and
where he had planted corn, bananas, and camote. They
had a confrontation over this issue, but reached no
agreement. Abajon then harvested the bananas and
jackfruit. As the harvesting was done without her consent,
Caballes charged him for malicious mischief.
HELD: The essential element of the crime of malicious
mischief which is “damage deliberately caused to the
property of another” is absent because Abajon merely cut
his own plantings. Case was dismissed.
People v. Acosta (2000)
FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year old
mason. He used to be a good friend of Almanzor
"Elmer" Montesclaros, the grandson of private
complainant, Filomena M. Marigomen. On February 27,
1996, Montesclaros, in the belief that Acosta and his
wife were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him,
stormed the house of Acosta and burned their clothes,
furniture, and appliances. Thereafter Acosta attempted
to burn down the house of Marigomen. He was charged
with arson and found guilty.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
165
 HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony to
have tried to burn the house of Marigomen. In
prosecutions for arson, proof of the crime charged is
complete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus
delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and
(2) the identity of the defendants as the one
responsible for the crime. Corpus delicti means the
substance of the crime, it is the fact that a crime has
actually been committed. In arson, the corpus delicti
rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare
occurrence of the fire and of its having been
intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated
testimony of a single witness, if credible, may be
enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant
conviction.
People v. Oliva (2000)
FACTS: Avelino Manguba and his family were
sleeping in their house. Avelino went out of the house
to urinate. He saw Ferigel Oliva set the roof of their
house on fire with a lighted match. While the fire razed
Avelino's house, Ferigel and three others, Dominador
Oliva, Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo watched at a
distance of about five (5) meters. One of the
neighbors, Benjamin Estrellon went to the nearby river
and fetched water with a pail. As Benjamin was helping
put out the fire, he was shot by Ferigel at close range.
The gunshot wound caused Benjamin's death. The cases
for arson and murder were tried jointly. Only Oliva was
found guilty.
HELD: We find no reversible error and affirm
the conviction. When Ferigel burned Avelino's house,
the law applicable was P.D. No. 1613. 35 Under Section
3 (2) of the law, the penalty of reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property
burned is "any inhabited house or dwelling." Under the
amendment, it is the fact that the house burned is
inhabited that qualifies the crime. There is no need to
prove that the accused had actual knowledge that the
house was inhabited. Under Section 3 (2) of
Presidential Decree No. 1613, the elements of arson
are: (1) that there is intentional burning; and (2) that
what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling. The records show that when Ferigel willfully
set fire to the roof of Avelino's house, Avelino's wife
and children were asleep therein.
Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in
prosecutions for felonies and offenses. Corpus delicti is
the body or substance of the crime. It refers to the fact
that a crime has been actually committed. Corpus
delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that
may be proved by the testimonies of witnesses. In
arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the
bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been
intentionally caused. The uncorroborated testimony of
a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to
prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.
Here, corpus delicti of the arson was duly proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
a. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions
- distinguished from sedition: the element of
public and tumultuous uprising is not present
in Art 328
- but, BOTH have intent to obstruct the
performance or public function
b. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
c. Spreading any infection or contagion among
cattle
d. 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.
Article 329. Other mischiefs
Poignant Example:
People v. Dumlao where accused scattered around
the municipal building coconut husks containing
human excrements.
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means
of communication
Example: damaging railways, telegraph or telephone
lines
The telegraph and telephone lines must pertain to a
railway system!
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars,
collision or other accident, a higher penalty shall be
imposed
Question: What crime is committed IF as a result of
the damage caused to the railway, certain passengers
of the train are killed?
Answer: It depends
A. If no intent to kill: crime is damages to means of
communication with homicide
B. If with intent to kill: murder (cf. Article 248, par
3)
Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues,
public monuments, or paintings

No notes, 
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief
Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal
Special cases of malicious mischief/"Qualified
liability
Malicious Mischief" are:
Crimes involved in the exemption:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

166
1. Theft
2. Swindling (estafa)
3. Malicious mischief

 does not include robbery or estafa through

falsification
 reason for exemption: presumed co-ownership

Persons exempted from criminal liability only liablefor

CIVIL liabilities):
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line

2. Widowed spouse with respect to the property

which belonged to the deceased spouse before
the same passed into the possession of another

3. Brothers and sisters and brothers and sister-in-

law IF LIVING TOGETHER

 Article 332 only applies when BOTH the offender

and offended party are relatives as enumerated
in the provision.
 Does not apply to strangers who participated in
the crime.
 Stepfather, adopted child, paramours, common-
law spouses INCLUDED

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

167