Title TenCRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERALArticle 293.

Who are guilty of robberySection One Robbery with violence against orintimidation of personsArticle 294. Robbery with violence against orintimidation of personsArticle 295. Robbery with physical injuries,committed in an uninhabited place and by aband, or with the use of firearm on a street,road or alleyArticle 296. Definition of a band and penaltyincurred by the members thereof Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robberycommitted under certain circumstancesArticle 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidationSection Two Robbery by the use of force uponthingsArticle 299. Robbery in an inhabited house orpublic building or edifice devoted to worshipArticle 300. Robbery in an uninhabited placeand by a bandArticle 301. What is an inhabited house, publicbuilding, or building dedicated to religiousworship and their dependenciesArticle 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place orin a private buildingArticle 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, orfirewood in an uninhabited place or privatebuildingArticle 304. Possession of picklocks or similartoolsArticle 305. False keysChapter Two BRIGANDAGEArticle 306. Who are brigandsArticle 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigandsChapter Three THEFTArticle 308. Who are liable for theftArticle 309. PenaltiesArticle 310. Qualified theftArticle 311. Theft of the property of the NationalLibrary and National MuseumChapter Four USURPATIONArticle 312. Occupation of real property orusurpationof real rights in propertyArticle 313. Altering boundaries or landmarksChapter Five CULPABLE INSOLVENCYArticle 314. Fraudulent insolvencyChapter Six SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITSArticle 315. Swindling (Estafa)Article 316. Other forms of swindlingArticle 317. Swindling a minorArticle 318. Other deceitsChapter Seven CHATTEL MORTGAGEArticle 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgagedPropertyChapter Eight ARSON AND OTHER CRIMESINVOLVING DESTRUCTION (REPEALEDBY PD 1613 and RA 7659)Article 320. Destructive arsonArticle 321. Other forms of arsonArticle 322. Cases of arson not included in thepreceding articlesArticle 323. Arson of property of small valueArticle 324. Crimes involving destructionArticle 325. Burning ones own property asmeans tocommit arsonArticle 326. Setting fire to property exclusivelyownedby the offenderArticle 326-A. In cases where death resulted as aconsequence of arsonArticle 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arsonChapter Nine MALICIOUS MISCHIEFArticle 327. Who are liable for maliciousmischief Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief Article 329. Other mischiefsArticle 330. Damage and obstruction to meansof communicationArticle 331. Destroying or damaging statues,publicmonuments or paintingsChapter Ten EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABLITYIN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTYArticle 333. Persons exempt from criminalliability Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery Elements of robbery in general: 1. There is personal

property belonging toanother ; 2. There is unlawful taking of thatproperty; 3. The taking must be with intent to gain ;and4.There is violence against orintimidation of any person, or force uponanything. The property taken must be personal property,for if real property is occupied or real rightis usurped by means of violence against orintimidation of person, the crime isUSURPATION. The phrase belonging to another means thatthe property taken does not belong to theoffender. The person from whom theproperty is taken need not be the owner. Possession of the property issufficient . The unlawful taking of personal property is anessential part of the crime of robbery.Where the taking was lawful and theunlawful misappropriation was subsequentto such taking, the crime is ESTAFA orMALVERSATION. UNLAWFUL TAKING when complete? a)as to robbery with violence against orintimidation of persons o from the moment theoffender gains possession of thething, even if the culprit has had noopportunity to dispose of the sameb)as to robbery with force upon things o the thing must betaken out of the building, or theplace broken into, to consummatethe crime (note: this is purelybased on reyess opinion)Taking as an element of robbery, meansdepriving the offended party of ownershipof the thing taken with the character of

permanency . Intent to gain is presumed from theunlawful taking of personal property. Absence of intent to gain will make the takingof personal property GRAVE COERCION if there is violence used. The element of personal property belonging toanother and that of intent to gain mustconcur. The violence, as an element of robbery, mustbe against the person of the offendedparty, not upon the thing taken.As for intimidation, it need not be threat of bodily harm. It could be a threat of payinga fine or closing the offended partys shop. GENERAL RULE: The violence or intimidationmust be present before the taking of personal property is complete. It is notnecessary that violence of intimidationshould be present from the very beginning. EXCEPTION: When the violence results in (1) homicide, (2) rape, (3) intentionalmutilation, or (4) any of the seriousphysical injuries under par 1 & 2 of Art 263 the taking of personal property is robberycomplexed with any of those crimes underArt 294, even if the taking was already

complete when the violence was used bythe 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 intimidationof any person is used, the taking of personal property belonging to anotheris always robbery. If only force uponthings, the taking is robbery only

if

theforce is used either to enter thebuilding or to break doors, wardrobes,chests or any other kind of locked orsealed furniture or receptacle insidethe building or to force them openoutside after taking the same from thebuilding.In robbery with violence against orintimidation of any person, the value of the personal property taken isimmaterial. The penalty depends (a)on the result of the violence used iehomicide, rape, intentional mutilationetc, and (b) on the existence of intimidation only. In robbery with forceupon things, committed in an inhabitedhouse, public building, or edificedevoted to religious worship, thepenalty is based (a) on the value of theproperty taken, and (b) on whether ornot the offenders carry arms. If committed in an uninhabited building,the penalty is based only on the valueof the property taken. Napolis vs. CAFacts: Nicanor Napolis, with several co-accused, enteredthe house of the Penaflor spouses by breaking a wall of astore, and forcing the door of the house adjacent to thestore open. Once inside, the accused used violence againstthe husband and initimidation against the wife, enablingthem to get away with P2557 in cash and goods. They wereconvicted 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 maxperiod should be imposed. Otherwise, there will exist anabsurd situation where the concurrence of a graver offenceresults in the reduction of the penalty. People vs. Biruar There is no law or jurisprudence which requires thepresentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that ithad been taken away. People vs. Salas

Salas was last seen with the victim at 3:00am. At 6:00, thevictims body was found in a canal. Her purse, alleged tocontain P2,000 and jewelry were missing. No one witnessedthe robbery, much less the killing. Is the crime committedhomicide or robbery with homicide? HELD : Robbery with Homicide. In this special complexcrime against property, Homicide is incidental to therobbery, which is the main purpose of thecriminal. The onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the takingof personal property with the use of violence orintimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs toanother; (c) the taking is characterized with animuslucrandi

; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or byreason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in thegeneric sense, was committed."While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talenswas robbed at the time she was killed, we may concludefrom four circumstances that the robbery occasioned herkilling: (1) Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake.(2) The appellant knew that victim was winning. (3) Thevictim was last seen alive with appellant. (4) The victim'spurse containing her money and earrings were missing fromher body when found.These circumstances logically lead to the inescapableconclusion that appellant should be liable not just ofsimple homicide, but robbery with homicide People v. Del Rosario, 359 SCRA 166 (2001) FACTS: Del Rosario stole six pieces ofjewelry belonging to Paragua. He then pawned and soldthe same. Also, on the occasion of the said robbery, DelRosario hit Paraguas niece, Racquel, with a hard object,strangled her and and tied the the latters neck of with aCat-V wire which resulted to her death shortly thereafter.Del Rsoario admitted in court that he needed money tomarry his common-law wife. The RTC convicted del Rosarioof the crime of robbery with homicide. Del Rosariocontends that it is essential to prove the intent to rob andthat the intent to rob must come first before the killingtranspired.HELD: Animus lucrandi or intent to gain, is aninternal act which can be established through the overtacts of the offender. Although proof as to motive for thecrime is essential when the evidence of the theft iscircumstantial, the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is theusual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking ofuseful property appertaining to another, unless specialcircumstances reveal a different intent on the part of theperpetrator. ". . . (T)he intent to gain may be presumedfrom the proven unlawful taking." Intent to gain (animuslucrandi) is presumed to be alleged in an informationwhere it is charged that there was unlawful taking(apoderamiento) and appropriation by the offender of thethings subject of the robbery.In this case, it was apparent that the reason whyDel Rosario stole the jewelry of Paragua was because heintended to gain by them. He had already admitted that heneeded money to marry his common-law wife. The courtalso stated that if gaining through unlawful means wasfarthest from the mind of the accused, why then did hepawn and sell the jewelry he had taken from ParaguaIt is immaterial whether the killing transpiredbefore or after the robbery. In the crime of robbery withhomicide, the homicide may precede robbery or may occurafter robbery. What is essential is that there is a nexus, anintimate connection between robbery and the killing

whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, orwhether both crimes be committed at the same time. People v. Reyes, 399 SCRA 528 (2003) FACTS: Cergontes forcibly took the wristwatch ofSolis while Reyes stabbed the latter at the back resulting tohis death. The victims gold necklace, one gold ring, all ofan undetermined value, and a wallet containingunspecified amount of cash were also taken from him.Reyes was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide.Appellant now contends that the animus lucrandi was notsufficiently established as the taking of the watch couldhave been a mere afterthought and the real intent of

themalefactors was to inflict injuries upon the victim.Moreover, there was no evidence of ownership of thewristwatch, as it may have belonged to the two personswho attacked the victimHELD: The court held that appellants contentionis devoid of merit. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is aninternal act which can be established through the overtacts of the offender. Although proof of motive for thecrime is essential when the evidence of the robbery iscircumstantial, intent to gain or animus lucrandi may bepresumed from the furtive taking of useful propertypertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveala different intent on the part of the perpetrator. Theintent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawfultaking. In the case at bar, the act of taking the victim'swristwatch by one of the accused Cergontes while accused-appellant Reyes poked a knife behind him sufficiently gaverise to the presumption.The detailed narration of how the victim wasforcibly divested of the wristwatch by accused Cergontesand stabbed at the back by accused-appellant cannot betaken lightly on the argument that the attackers owned thewristwatch and they attacked the victim solely on theirdesire to retrieve it. In any event, in robbery by the takingof property through intimidation or violence, it is notnecessary that the person unlawfully divested of thepersonal property be the owner thereof. Article 293 of theRevised Penal Code employs the phrase "belonging toanother" and this has been interpreted to merely requirethat the property taken does not belong to the offender.Actual possession of the property by the persondispossessed thereof suffices. In fact, it has been held thatrobbery may be committed against a bailee or a personwho himself has stolen it. So long as there isapoderamiento of personal property from another againstthe latter's will through violence or intimidation, withanimo de lucro, robbery is the offense imputable to theoffender. If the victim is killed on the occasion or by reasonof the robbery, the offense is converted into the compositecrime of robbery with homicide. People v. Suela,373 SCRA 163 (2002) FACTS: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, andEdgardo Batocan sporting ski masks, bonnests and gloves,brandishing handguns and knife barged into the room ofDirector Rosas who was watching television together withhis adopted son, Norman and his friend Gabilo. Theythreatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo to give the locationof their money and valuables, which they eventually took.They dragged Gabilo downstairs with them. Upon Neriosinstructions, Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which causedthe latters death. After the incident, Edgar Suelademanded P20,000.00 from Rosas for an information regarding the robbery. The RTC found Edgar Suela guiltyof robbery for demanding P200,000 as payment forinformation on the robbery-slay case.HELD: With respect to the charge of robbery fordemanding P200,000 as payment for information on therobbery-slay case, the Court held that Edgar Suela shouldbe acquitted. The OSG explained: "Simple robbery iscommitted by means of violence against or intimidation ofpersons as distinguished from the use of force upon things,but the extent of the violence or intimidation does not fallunder pars. 1 to 4 of Article 294 (Revised Penal Code)"Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the prosecution failed toprove that appellant, Edgar Suela employed force orintimidation on private complainant Rosas by instilling fearin his mind so as to compel the latter to cough out

theamount of P200,000.00. Instead, what was established wasthat he had agreed to give the P200,000.00 in exchange forinformation regarding the identity and whereabouts ofthose who robbed him and killed his friend. There was noshowing that appellant Edgar Suela had exertedintimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to givethe money. Instead, what is clear was that the giving of themoney was done not out of fear but because it was achoice private complainant opted because he wanted toget the information being offered to him for theconsideration of P200,000.00. In fact, the money wasdelivered not due to fear but for the purpose of possiblyhaving a lead in solving the case and to possibly bring theculprit to justice (ibid.). As such, the elements of simplerobbery have not been established in the instant case,hence, appellant Edgar Suela should be acquitted of thatcharge." However, Edgar is still guilty as principal of thecomplex crime of robber with homicide for robbing thehouse of Rosas and for Gabilo death. Article 294. Robbery with violenceagainst or intimidation of persons Acts punished:1.When by reason or on occasion of therobbery (taking of personal propertybelonging to another with intent to gain),the crime of homicide is committed;2.When the robbery is accompanied by rapeor intentional mutilation or arson;3.When by reason of on occasion of suchrobbery, any of the physical injuriesresulting in insanity, imbecility, impotencyor blindness is inflicted;4.When by reason or on occasion of robbery,any of the physical injuries resulting in theloss of the use of speech or the power tohear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, ahand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or the loss of the use of any such member or incapacityfor the work in which the injured person istheretofore habitually engaged is inflicted;5.If the violence or intimidation employed inthe commission of the robbery is carried toa degree unnecessary for the commissionof the crime; 6.When in the course of its execution, theoffender shall have inflicted upon anyperson not responsible for the commissionof the robbery any of the physical injuriesin consequence of which the person injuredbecomes deformed or loses any othermember of his body or loses the suethereof or becomes ill or incapacitated forthe performance of the work in which he ishabitually engaged for more than 90 daysor the person injured becomes ill orincapacitated for labor for more than 30days;7.If the violence employed by the offenderdoes not cause any of the serious physicalinjuries defined in Article 263, or if theoffender employs intimidation only. The crime defined in this article is a specialcomplex crime . Thus, Art 48 no longerapplies.on the occasion = in the course ofby reason = because of Robbery with homicide Robbery and homicide are separate offences ,when the homicide was not committed onthe occasion or by reason of therobbery.Where the original design

comprehendsrobbery, and homicide is perpetrated byreason or on the occasion of theconsummation of the former, the crimecommitted is robbery with homicide. There is no such crime as robbery withmurder . The treachery which attendedthe commission of the crime must beconsidered not qualifying but merely as ageneric aggravating circumstance.An intent to take personal property belongingto another with intent to gain must precedethe killing. The crime is robbery with homicide, even if themotive of the offenders was that of robberyas well as vengeance.Homicide may precede robbery or may occurafter robbery.It is immaterial that the death of a person supervened by mere accident , providedthat the homicide be produced by reasonor on the occasion of the robbery.Killing a person to escape after the commissionof robbery is robbery with homicide. There is still robbery with homicide evenif the person killed is another robberor an innocent bystander. Thus, theperson killed need not be the personrobbed.

An accessory to robbery with homicide musthave knowledge and complicity as to thehomicide as well in order to be chargedwith the same offence. Otherwise, if theaccessory had no knowledge of thehomicide, he may only be charged withrobbery. People vs. MangulabnanFacts : During the robbery, one of the accused climbed ona table and fired at the ceiling, where the victim washiding. The shots caused the victims death. Held : It is immaterial that death supervened by mereaccident. By reason or on occasion of means it is onlythe result obtained, without reference to or distinction asto circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening inthe commission of the crime, that has to be taken intoconsideration. People vs. Calixtro When death results, the crime is still robbery withhomicide, regardless of the circumstances, modes orpersons intervening in the commission of the crime.

People vs. Pecato Whenever a homicide has been committed as aconsequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all thosewho took part as principals in the commission of the crimeare also guilty as principals in the special complex crime ofrobbery with homicide although they did not actually takepart in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that theyendeavored to prevent the homicide. People vs. Tapales When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission ofrobbery, should rape be considered an aggravatingcircumstance? YES. Rapes, wanton robbery for personalgain and other forms of cruelties are condemned and theirperpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstancesof ignominy and deliberately augmenting unnecessarywrongs. Poeple vs. Quinones There is no such crime as robbery with multiple homicide.There is only the special complex crime of robbery withhomicide, regardless of the fact that 3 persons were killedin the commission of the crime. In robbery, all homicidesand murders are merged in the composite. As such, thesingle indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua should beimposed only once even if multiple killings accompaniedthe robbery. People vs. Faigano Nely was suddenly roused from her sleep by CarmeloFaigano, a worker at a nearby construction project. He wasin black T-shirt but was no longer wearing pants orunderwear. He poked a 29-inch balisong at her neck and threatened to kill her and the children beside her. Thenforcibly tore her nightie, raised her pair of brassieres aboveher breasts and pulled her to the edge of the king-sizewooden bed. He spread her thighs apart against her willand inserted his organ into hers. He had sexual intercoursewith her. After satisfying his lust, Faigano then put on hisshort pants and ordered Nely to bring out her money. Hetook Nely's money, her husband's wristwatch and two rings.TC found him guilty of the special complex crime ofrobbery with rape HELD : SC found him guilty of the separate crimes ofrobbery and rape. If the intention of the accused was torob but rape was also committed even before theasportation the crime is robbery with rape. But if theoriginal plan was to rape but the accused after committingthe rape also committed robbery when the opportunitypresented itself, the offenses should be viewed as separateand distinct. To be liable for the special complex crime ofrobbery with rape the intent to take personal property ofanother must

precede the rape. Under the circumstances,SC is convinced that when Faigano entered the victim'shouse he only had in mind sexual gratification. The takingof the cash and pieces of jewelry against Nely's will appearsto be an afterthought. People v. Reyes, 427 SCRA 28 (2004) FACTS: Dr. Aurora Lagrada, a spinster of about70 years old, lived alone in her 2-storey house. Reyeshouse was about 4-5 meters away from the doctor's house.Reyes was able to gain entry into the house of Lagradawithout the latter knowing. Armed with a bolo, Reyes stoleone Rolex wristwatch, 1 gold bracelet, 1 gold ring withbirthstone of Jade, 1 Pass Book from Lagrada. On theoccasion of the said robbery, Reyes stabbed Lagradaseveral times in the different parts of her body directlycausing her death. The trial court convicted Reyes ofrobbery with homicide.HELD: To sustain a conviction of the accused forrobbery with homicide, the prosecution is burdened toprove the essential elements of the crime. The accusedmust be shown to have the principal purpose of committingrobbery, the homicide being committed either by reasonof or on occasion of the robbery. The homicide mayprecede robbery or may occur thereafter. What is essentialis that there is a nexus, an intrinsic connection betweenthe robbery and the killing. The latter may be done prior toor subsequent to the former. However, the intent tocommit robbery must precede the taking of the victim'slife. Furthermore, the constituted crimes of robbery andhomicide must be consummated.A homicide is considered as having beencommitted on the occasion or by reason of the robberywhen the motive of the offender in killing the victim is todeprive the latter of his property, to eliminate an obstacleto the crime, to protect his possession of the loot, toeliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended orto insure his escape from the scene of the crime.Appellant stated that he barged into the house ofthe victim to rob her, and that he stabbed the victim whenshe was about to shout and because he was drunk. Theappellant then took the victim's money and personalbelongings and fled from the scene of the crime. The trialcourt correctly convicted the appellant of robbery withhomicide.

FACTS: Catapang and Hernandez dragged 72 year-old Natividad Mendoza, in the direction of a forested areawhere there were also mango and coconut trees. The twotook the money and jewelry of Natividad while she waslying on the ground. Thereafter, Catapang and Hernandezstrangled Natividad to death with the use of a white ropemade of buri/vine string.HELD: The Court held that appellant is guilty ofrobbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 ofthe Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.7659.The court further held that, in robbery withhomicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor isto commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on theoccasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commitrobbery must precede the taking of human life. Thehomicide may take place before, during or after therobbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference ordistinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes orpersons intervening in the commission of the crime that hasto be taken into consideration. There is no such felony ofrobbery with homicide through reckless imprudence orsimple 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 InfantryBattalion, Philippine Army, was leisurely pacing alongQuezon Street, Iloilo City, when Roberto and Ricky bothsurnamed Martin blocked his path. Without any provocationcoming from the soldier, Ricky drew his firearm and firedat Demarayo, hitting the latters left hand. A brief struggleamong the three (3) men ensued which caused the victimto fall down. As Roberto pulled away he warded offDemarayo by kicking him on the waist. While the victimwas sprawled on the ground Roberto aimed his rifle atDemarayo's chest and pulled the trigger. Roberto firedanother shot hitting Demarayo on the same spot. After thebrutal slaying, the assailants nonchalantly walked awaywith Demarayo's M-16. The lower court ruled that the crimecommitted was Robbery with Homicide.HELD: In People v. Salazar, accused-appellantsstabbed a security guard and thereafter took away his gun.It was ruled that since the prosecution failed to establishthat the homicide was committed by reason or on theoccasion of stealing the security guard's firearm, both ofthem could only be convicted of the separate crimes ofHomicide and Theft.The records are bereft of any evidence to provethat the asportation of Demarayo's service firearm was theprime motive of accused-appellants. Although it may betrue that they were seen grabbing the gun from the victimas the latter was lying prone on the ground, it could bepossible that it was done to prevent him from retaliating ashe was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshotwound. The taking of the gun might have been anafterthought and not the real purpose of the crime. It cantherefore be seen that the prosecution failed to establishconvincingly that the homicide was committed for thepurpose or on the occasion of robbing the victim. As such,accused-appellants should properly be convicted of theseparate offenses of Homicide and Theft, which were bothduly proved. People v. Ranis, 389 SCRA 45 (2002) FACTS: While Marivic and Ben with their babywere watching television in their bedroom, Murphy andSabiyon, both armed with bladed weapons, suddenlyentered their unlocked bedroom. Murphy poked a knife ather neck while Ernesto straddled on top of Ben who wasthen lying in bed. Murphy asked for the proceeds of theland Ben sold and some jewelry but Marivic told him thatthey only had P2,000 in their possession. Murphy then tookthe P2,000 and several pieces of luxury watches andjewelry. After taking the money and jewelry, both accusedtied her hands and those of Ben with electric cord and thenthey went out of the house, taking Ben with them. Thebody of Ben was later found lying about five to ten metersfrom the house with a cloth in the mouth, blood stains onthe body, and hack wounds on his right nape and mouth.Ben was brought to the hospital but he was proclaimeddead on arrival.HELD: In charging robbery with homicide, theonus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personalproperty with the use of violence or intimidation against aperson; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the takingis characterized by animus lucrandi; (d) on the occasion ofthe robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide,which is used in the generic sense, has been committed. Inthis case, Marivic Rodelas positively identified appellantsErnesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy as the two persons whoentered her bedroom. Using sharp, bladed weapons,appellants demanded and took money, watches, andjewelry belonging to the victim, Ben Hernandez.Thereafter, Hernandez was found stabbed to death. TheCourt ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery withhomicide.

People v. Gonzales, 382 SCRA 694 (2002) FACTS: Nicanor Suralta was having drinks withhis visitors in their house when two armed men, onecarrying a gun and the other a knife, suddenly entered thehouse through the kitchen door. The one carrying a gun hada bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed, whilethe other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his facecovered with a handkerchief. The knife-wielder heldChona, the third child of the Suralta spouses, andannounced a holdup. All persons in the house were orderedto go inside the bedroom, about 2 meters away from thesala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun andmoney from Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun,but asked his wife, Carolita, to give money to theholduppers. Carolita gave P2,100.00, which was intendedto be deposited in the bank, to the knifewielder, whoplaced it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder ransackedthe cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325.00,which was intended for the school expenses of the Suraltachildren. In addition, he took the family's Sanyo cassetterecorder and some clothes. The holduppers also divestedone of the guests of his Seiko diver's wristwatch and thenleft. As the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rangout. Nicanor was heard moaning. Nicanor eventually died.HELD: After reviewing the records of this case,the court ruled that the prosecution evidence establishesthe guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Aconviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of thefollowing elements: (a) the taking of personal propertywith violence or intimidation against persons or with forceupon 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 reasonthereof, homicide in its generic sense is committed. Theoffense becomes the special complex crime of robbery withhomicide under Art. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if thevictim 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 andMacky and Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with theiremployer, Boloy , to buy copra and abaca. They were onboard a truck driven by Boloy. On the way, they werestopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the road.Torres approached the left side of the truck, went up thetruck, and shot Boloy once. After shooting, two personsarmed with guns appeared from nowhere and approachedthe back of the truck and told them to lie face downward.The two persons came from the portion where bamboosgrew by the side of the road. Afterwards the men rantowards the mountainside with the victims bag containingP500,000.00, the victims necklace, ring and his wristwatch.HELD: Robbery with homicide is a specialcomplex crime against property. Homicide is incidental tothe robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. Incharging robbery with homicide, the onus probandi is toestablish: xxx xxx (d) on the occasion of the robbery orby reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used inthe generic sense, was committed. The phrase "by reason"covers homicide committed before or after the taking ofpersonal property of another, as long as the motive of theoffender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprivethe victim of his personal property which is sought to beaccomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or inkilling a person after the robbery to do away with a witnessor to defend the possession of the stolen property. Thus, itmatters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking ofthe personal properties of the victim. What is

essential inrobbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation andintimate connection between robbery and killing, whetherboth crimes be committed at the same time. The Courtruled that all elements of robbery with homicide arepresent in this case. People v. Maxion, 361 SCRA 414 (2001) FACTS:Himor, a teller at the United CoconutPlanters Bank (UCPB), walked across the street towards theHi-Top Supermarket, to pick up the cash deposit of thesupermarket amounting to P1,464,644.75. After issuing thedeposit slip, he placed the money inside a duffle bag andpadlocked the bag. Thereafter, he called the bank to sendhis security escort. UCPB sent security escort Gargaceran.While Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the streetgoing back to the bank. Maxion and another man suddenlyemerged and walked towards them. Maxion was in front ofGargaceran while the second stayed behind him. Both ofthem aimed their guns at Gargaceran. The man behindGargaceran immediately took Gargaceran's handgun, andshortly thereafter, Maxion shot Gargaceran at close rangehitting him on the chest eventually causing his death.Himor attempted to run with the bag towards the bank but HELD: There is no question that the original andprincipal intention of the two armed men was to get themoney of Hi-Top Supermarket. This is evident from thetestimony of teller Himor that as soon as the two menstopped him from running towards the bank, they shoutedto release the bag containing the money. As the robberyresulted in the killing of the security guard Gargaceran, theoffense committed by the malefactors is indubitably thespecial complex crime of robbery with homicide. Inrobbery with homicide, what is essential is that there be "adirect relation, an intimate connection between robberyand the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequentto the former or whether both crime be committed at thesame time. People v. Consejero, 352 SCRA 276 (2001) FACTS: While they were fishing, AccusedConsajero, a CAFGU member and Malapit, armed with anM-14, asked Castillo and Usigan if they were the onesexacting quota from the Barangay captain. The two repliedin the negative. Consajero then asked Castillo and Usiganto accompany them to a nearby store. They then killedCastillo and Usigan. Thereafter, they took the Briggs andStraton engine of the motorized banca ridden by Castilloand Usigan which is owned by Israel. Castillo was foundlying on the ground, face down, drenched in his own bloodwith hands tied at the back. Twenty meters away lay thedead body of Usigan, who sustained thirty-one stab andhack wounds on the different parts of his body.HELD: The criminal acts of accused-appellantconstitute not a complex crime of robbery with homicide,but three separate offenses: 1. Murder, for the killing ofModesto Castillo, 2. Homicide, for the death of DionisioUsigan; and 3. Theft, for the unlawful taking of the Briggsand Straton engine of the motorized banca.In People v. Amania, the Court had occasion torule that in robbery with homicide, the killing must havebeen directly connected with the robbery. It is necessarythat there must have been an intent on the part of theoffenders to commit robbery from the outset and, onoccasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. Theoriginal design must have been robbery, and the homicide,even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, musthave a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with aview to consummate the robbery. The taking of theproperty should not be merely an afterthought which

arosesubsequent to the killing.In the present case, it does not appear that theprimary purpose of accused-appellant in accosting the twodeceased 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 twodeceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from theBarangay captain, and the taking of the subject engine wasmerely an afterthought that arouse subsequent to thekilling of the victims. People v. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95 FACTS: Carlos Deveza, erstwhile member of thePNP arrived at the Cartimar Plaza Market to fetch his wife

left to make a phone call, Carlos alighted from theTamaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle withboth arms resting on the vehicle's window. Legaspi, comingfrom the front of the vehicle position himself 2 metersaway from Deveza, level and poke a gun wrapped in apiece of cloth or towel at the latters nape and eventuallypull the trigger. Deveza fell on the pavement. The gunmanthen picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casuallywalked away from the scene of the crime.While conversing with other tricycle drivers,Wilfredo Dazo heard the gunshot prompting him to dart hiseyes toward the direction of the gunfire where he sawDeveza stooping and about to fall. Pitying the victim,Dazo hid behind a post and waited in ambush for Legaspiand the latters companion, Franco. In so doing, Dazointended to seize and stop Legaspi who was then holding agun, but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmedFranco by the waist. Thereafter, Dazo and Franco wrestledcausing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing Legaspi totake an aim and shoot at Dazo twice. At the height of thestruggle between Dazo and Franco, shots were fired byLegaspi, one bullet hitting Dazo on the right jaw.HELD: Obviously, the killing of Carlos Deveza andthe shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reasonof or on the occasion of the robbery. Thus, the physicalinjuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in thecrime of robbery with homicide. Taken in its entirety, theovert acts of accused-appellant Legaspi prove that the lonemotive for the killing of Deveza and the shooting of Dazowas for the purpose of consummating and ensuring thesuccess of the robbery.In the final analysis, the shooting of Dazo wasdone in order to defend the possession of the stolenproperty. It was therefore an act which tended to insurethe successful termination of the robbery and secure to therobber 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'stestimony. People v. Temanel, 341 SCRA 319 (2000) FACTS: Renato Sucilan, his wife Adelina,daughter Liezl, and brother Romeo were eating dinner inRenato's house. After dinner, Adelina prepared for bedwhile Renato played with Liezl. Romeo went home to hisown hut situated five meters away. Suddenly, a stone washurled into Renato's house hitting the petromax lamp.Immediately, brothers Jose and Eddie Temanel entered thehouse. Jose poked Renato with a bladed weapon whileEddie ordered Adelina to take out their money andvaluables. 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 placedthe same outside the door. Efren

Temanel, who wasoutside the hut, took the can. The intruders tied thecouple. When Renato and Adelina were able to freethemselves, the former stepped out of the house and wasshocked to find his brother, Romeo, dead with several stabwounds in the neck and his intestines exposed. The piecesof jewelry he usually wore, were no longer on his body.HELD: All the elements of robbery with homicideconcur in this case. The properties taken consisted ofpieces of jewelry, a radio, rice, money and othervaluables, all of which clearly belonged to the Sucilans.The properties were violently taken and intent to gain canbe presumed from the unlawful taking. In addition, Romeo Sucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of therobbery.Where homicide is perpetrated with a view torob, the offense is robbery with homicide. But if robberywas an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide,there are two distinct offenses. Here, the killing wascommitted in the course of the robbery. The fact that itwas Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants, Eddie andJose Temanel, who stabbed Romeo is of no moment. In People v. Mendoza , if all accused take part in a robberyresulting in death, all of them shall be held liable forrobbery with homicide in the absence of proof that theyprevented 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 nearthe kitchen. While seated on the sofa, Laura sawrespondent and she became hysterical and startedshouting. Thinking that he will be assaulted by Laura, Cruzwent inside the house, got hold of a pointed object andstabbed to death Laura Robles and her 5-year old daughter,Lara. Thereafter, he ransacked the cabinet of the Roblesestaking away a Minolta camera, a wedding ring andP8,000.00 in cash, as well as an undetermined amount ofUS dollars. The RTC convicted Cruz of two (2) counts ofmurder and one (1) count of theft. Appellant argues thathe should have been charged with the crime of robberywith homicide.HELD: The Court held that the argument of theAppellant is without merit. The special complex crime ofrobbery with homicide is primarily a crime againstproperty, and not against persons, homicide being a mereincident of the robbery with the latter being the mainpurpose and object of the criminal (People vs. Navales, 266SCRA 569 [1997 ]). In the case at bar, the evidence onrecord shows that appellant stole the camera and cash onlyas an afterthought. His primary purpose was to kill Lauraand her 5-year old daughter, Lara, after he panicked.Hence, the prosecution was correct when it did not chargeappellant with the special complex crime of robbery withhomicide. People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000) FACTS: Maria Abendao was engaged in business.She had a store, operated a passenger jeepney andengaged in the buy and sale of palay. Her sister Romualdaalso had a store. Accused Nelson was Maria's store helper.Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda in herstore during palay season.

The other accused MaximoVelarde was known to Romualda because she met him at abirthday party held at Maria's house. The three accusedwere friends. Maximo, Tito and Nelson conceived the planto hold-up Maria while drinking in front of Romualda's storebecause Maximo needed money for his fare to Manila.Maximo, Tito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepneyof Maria and upon reaching an uninhabited place. Maximopoked a gun at the driver and shot him. He also shot Mariaat the neck when the latter shouted. Nelson and Titoalighted from the jeepney. Nelson went to the left frontside of the jeepney, while Tito approached the right frontside of the jeepney, in the process stepping on the sleepingJohn-John who was then awakened. The boy stood up andsaid, "You will see I will tell my father that you killed mymother." To avoid being identified by the boy, Tito told

Maximo to kill the boy. Maximo then took hold of the boy'shair and slashed his neck. Tito took Maria's money anddivided it, each accused receiving about seven thousand(P7,000.00) pesos from the loot.HELD: The crime committed is the specialcomplex crime of robbery with homicide defined andpenalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Thetrial court correctly considered the crime as robbery withhomicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as chargedin the information. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) isused in its generic sense, embracing not only the act whichresults in death but also all other acts producing anythingshort of death. Neither is the nature of the offense alteredby the number of killings in connection with the robbery.The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of therobbery is only appreciated as an aggravatingcircumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situationwhere, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense,robbery with one killing would be treated in the same waythat robbery with multiple killings would be. People v. Dinamling, 379 SCRA 107 (2002) FACTS:Marilyn Pajarillo was in their houselying down in bed with her 2-year old daughter. Seatedbeside her was 11-year old Rosemarie Malalay, who waswaiting for her father Rogelio. Rogelio was then in thepatio, outside the house, drinking gin with Marilyn'shusband Charlie Pajarillo and Deogracias Acosta. Suddenly,Orlando Dinamling entered their house and poked a longgun at Marilyn's forehead, ordered her to lie prone on theground. Marilyn merely sat down. Dinamman, with a shortfirearm, entered their sari-sari store, searched theirbelongings and took more or less P1,500.00 in cashrepresenting her sales, two (rims of Champion cigarettes,one dozen cans of sardines and one pack of Juicy Fruitchewing gum. Outside, Fernando Dinamling and Linnampoked guns at the heads of Rogelio and Deogracias, whowere then lying prostrate on the ground.. After a while,Rogelio and Deogaracias were shot to death. The trialcourt's ruled that Orlando and Fenando Dinamling,Diinamman and Linnam are guilty of "robbery with doublehomicide"HELD: Accused-appellants' crime is robbery withhomicide. The trial court's denomination of the offense as"robbery with double homicide" is erroneous. It is settledthat regardless of the number of homicides committed, thecrime should still be denominated as robbery withhomicide. The number of persons killed is immaterial anddoes not increase the penalty prescribed by Article 294 ofthe Revised Penal Code. Stated differently, the homicidesor murders and physical injuries, irrespective of theirnumbers, committed on the occasion or by reason of therobbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery withhomicide.

People v. Daniela, 401 SCRA 519 (2002) FACTS: Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis came tothe house of Ronito and his common-law wife, Maria Fe toborrow money. Manuel, Jose, and Ronito then had adrinking spree. Later, Manuel armed with a .38 caliber gun,entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe and poked thesaid gun on Maria Fe. Jose, armed with a knife followedManuel to the bedroom. Upon Manuels order Jose tied thehands of Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape on hermouth. Jose also tied the hands of Marifes cousin, Leo. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace,rings and earrings. Manuel demanded that she give themher money but Maria Fe told them that she had used hermoney to pay her partners in the fish vending business.Manuel and Jose did not believe Maria Fe and ransackedthe room but failed to find money. Manuel then threatenedto explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill MariaFe, her family and their househelps if she refused tosurrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the moneyfrom her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel andJose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronitowith it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, coveredRonito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbedthe latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito ondifferent parts of his body. Manuel hit Ronito with the buttof his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took thelatter's wristwatch and ring. Manuel then raped Julifer, ahousehelp of Marife.HELD: The law does not require that the solemotive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicideby reason or on the occasion thereof. In People vs. Tidula,et al., this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intendsto kill and rob another, it does not preclude his convictionfor the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In People v. Damaso, the Court held that the fact that theintent of the felons was tempered with a desire also toavenge grievances against the victim killed, does notnegate the conviction of the accused and punishment forrobbery with homicide.A conviction for robbery with homicide is propereven if the homicide is committed before, during or afterthe commission of the robbery. The homicide may becommitted by the actor at the spur of the moment or bymere accident. Even if two or more persons are killed and awoman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted onanother, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there isonly one special complex crime of robbery with homicide.What is primordial is the result obtained without referenceor distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes orpersons intervening in the commission of the crime.Robbery with homicide is committed even if thevictim of the robbery is different from the victim ofhomicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reasonor on the occasion of the robbery. It is not even necessarythat the victim of the robbery is the very person themalefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of thespecial complex crime, the robbery itself must be provedas conclusively as any other element of the crime. It maybe true that the original intent of appellant Manuel was toborrow again money from Ronito and Maria Fe but later onconspired with Jose and robbed the couple of their moneyand pieces of jewelry, and on the occasion thereof, killedRonito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of robberywith homicide. People v. Napalit, 396 SCRA 687 (2003)

FACTS:A group of more than six armed menincluding Napalit barged into the Tondo General Hospital.One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guardand announced a hold-up. Simultaneously, Napalit pointeda gun at, and grabbed the firearm of, another securityguard. Four members of the group then entered thecashier's office of the hospital and ordered the employeesto lie down on the floor. One of them pointed a gun at thecashier, Alonzo, and ordered him to open the vault. BeforeAlonzo could do as instructed, he was searched for

weapons in the course of which his wallet containingP450.00 in cash was taken. Alonzo then opened the vaultwhich the four emptied of P1,010,274.90 in cash. While thefour malefactors were at the cashier's office, anothersecurity guard, Gomez, who was manning the hospital gatewas disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside thehospital premises, and shot twice by one of the armedmen. The four armed men who emptied the vault thenrushed out of the hospital and one of them also shot Gomezwho had by then collapsed on the ground. Two of themheaded toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castorwhich was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in frontof the hospital. One of the duo ordered the passenger atthe front seat to get off the vehicle. The other, afterforcing Castor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fledwith his companion. The RTC found Napalit guilty ofrobbery with homicide and violation of R. A. 6539 (theAnti-Carnapping Act), respectively. Napalit argues thatassuming that he had indeed participated in the incident,he should only be held liable for robbery and not for thespecial complex crime of robbery with homicide.HELD: In a long line of cases, the Court has ruledthat whenever homicide is committed as a consequence oron the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part asprincipals in the robbery will also be held guilty asprincipals in the special complex crime of robbery withhomicide although they did not take part in the homicide,unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to preventthe homicide. (People v. Lago, 358 SCRA 550 (2001),People v. Liad, 355 SCRA 11 (2001), People v. Pedroso, 336SCRA 163) People v. Lara (2006) The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals thatappellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide inCriminal Case No. 97-13706. There is nothing in therecords that would show that the principal purpose ofappellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun (Serial No.9600942). It must be emphasized that when the victim andappellant met and had a heated argument, the absence ofthe intent to rob on the part of the appellant wasapparent. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim.Appellants act of taking the shotgun was not for thepurpose of robbing the victim, but to protect

himself fromthe victim. No one would in ones right mind just leave afirearm lying around after being in a heated argument withanother person. Having failed to establish thatappellants original criminal design was robbery, appellantcould only be convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or homicide, as the case may be, and theft . Robbery with rape Like in robbery with homicide, the offendermust have the intent to take the personalproperty belonging to another with intentto gain, and such intent must precede therape. There is no such crime as robbery withattempted rape. It must beconsummated. Otherwise, they areseparate offences.When the taking of personal property of awoman is an independent act followingdefendants failure to consummate therape, there are two distinct crimescommitted: attempted rape and theft.Additional rapes committed on the sameoccasion of robbery will not increase thepenalty. All acts of rape on that occasionbeing integrated in one composite crime.When the taking of property after the rape isnot with intent to gain, there is neithertheft nor robbery committed. The civil liability for rape in robbery with rapehas been set at P50,000.When rape and homicide co-exist in thecommission of robbery, the crime isrobbery with homicide and rape under par1 of Art 294, the rape to be considered asan aggravating circumstance only. (note:this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal, Pp vsBasca, and Pp vs Villa. but i disagree withthis ruling based on moral grounds and lack of legal basis. how could rape bemerely an aggravating circumstance?) People vs. Patola Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art294 par 2, not under RPC 335 on qualified rape. People vs. DinolaFacts: Dinola saw victim Marilyns watch after he hadraped her. She refused to give him the watch so he took ifforcibly from her and left. Dinola was convicted of robberywith rape. Held : The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as2 separate offences. If the original design was to commitrape but the accused after committing rape also committedrobbery (more of an afterthought, even accidental)because the opportunity presented itself, the criminal actshould be viewed as 2 distinct offences. If the intention ofthe accused was to commit robbery but rape was alsocommitted even before the robbery, the crime of robberywith rape was committed.

People vs MorenoFacts: Accused Moreno, Deloria and Maniquez robbed theMohnani spouses. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa whileManiquez raped househelp Mary Ann. Moreno wasconvicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez, robberywith rape. Held : Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty ofrobbery only. Ruling was correct. People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302 (2000) FACTS:Locsin Fabon, alias "Loklok," enteredthe home of 64 year-old, Bonifacia Lasquite and forciblytook the victims money amounting to P25,000.00. On theoccasion of the robbery, Fabon raped Lasquite. Thereafter,Fabon strangled and stabbed Lasquite with a knife resulting C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer117

to her death. The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery withHomicide and Rape, penalized under Article 294, number 1of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659. HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated thecrime committed as "robbery with homicide and rape."When the special complex crime of robbery with homicideis accompanied by another offense like rape or intentionalmutilation, such additional offense is treated as anaggravating circumstance which would result in theimposition of the maximum penalty of death. The Courtcited the case of People vs. Lascuna, where it was heldthat We agree with the Solicitor General's observationthat the crime committed was erroneously designated asrobbery with homicide, rape and physical injuries. Theproper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated byrape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commissionof robbery, it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of theRevised Penal Code which applies, the rape to beconsidered 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 Valentinand Clara Gabertan, armed with a piece of bamboo, 2x2piece of wood, ipil-ipil posts and bolo, They assaulted andclubbed Valentin with their weapons, weakening andinjuring him. Eventually they stole from the Gabertanspouses cash in the amount of P5,350.00, 1 ladies goldSeiko watch, 9 turkeys, and 2 chickens. Thereafter, whileRivera guarded Valentin, the four accused took turns inraping Carla outside the house where she was forcibly laidon the cogon grass. RTC found appellant guilty of robberywith multiple rape.HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellantof robbery with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape.In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the trueintent of the accused must first be determined, becausetheir intent determines the offense they committed. Tosustain a conviction for robbery with rape, it is imperativethat the robbery itself must be conclusively

established. Tosupport a conviction therefor, proof of the rape alone isnot sufficient. Robbery with rape occurs when thefollowing elements are present: (1) personal property istaken with violence or intimidation against persons, (2) theproperty taken belongs to another, (3) the taking is donewith animo lucrandi, and (4) the robbery is accompanied byrape.In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements arepresent. The contemporaneous acts of appellant and hisco-accused stress the fact that they were initiallymotivated by animus lucrandi. They first demanded guns,moneys and animals from Valentin Gabertan. Apparently, itwas only when they entered the house and saw his wifewhen they thought of raping her.The prosecution likewiseestablished that appellant and his co-accused tookchickens, a watch and money from complainants throughviolence. People v. Verceles, 388 SCRA 515 (2002) FACTS:Accused Verceles alias "Baldog",Corpuz, Soriano alias "Merto", Ramos and Soriano enteredthe house of Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying thegrills of the window. Once inside, they took away 1 coloredT.V., 1 VHS, assorted jewelries, 1 alarm clock and 1 radiocassettes. In the course of the robbery, Soriano,succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolitowhile the others just stood outside the door and didnothing to prevent Soriano.HELD: Once conspiracy is established betweentwo accused in the commission of the crime of robbery,they would be both equally culpable for the rapecommitted by one of them on the occasion of the robbery,unless any of them proves that he endeavored to preventthe other from committing the rape. The rule in thisjurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as aconsequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all thosewho took part therein are liable as principals of the crimeof robbery with rape, although not all of them took part inthe rape. Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt ofthe 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 rapedefined in Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, employs theclause "when the robbery shall have been accompaniedwith rape." In other words, to be liable for such crime, theoffender must have the intent to take the personalproperty of another under circumstances that makes thetaking one of robbery, and such intent must precede therape. If the original plan was to commit rape, but theaccused after committing the rape also committed robberywhen the opportunity presented itself, the robbery shouldbe viewed as a separate and distinct crime.A painstaking assessment of the evidence in thiscase convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separateoffenses of rape and theft, and not the special complexcrime of robbery with rape. Immediately after ROGELIO puthis arms around MARITES and directed the knife at herneck, he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABCCommercial Complex and removed her clothes. These actsclearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexualgratification. This intent was further established by thefact that when MARITES offered to give her ring toROGELIO, the latter did not take it and instead replied,"Mamaya na iyan"; "That will come later on because I willgive it back to you but you have to follow me first." Again,when ROGELIO removed his pants, MARITES told him to gether bag if he needed money; but ROGELIO replied "I do notneed money." After giving vent to his lustful desire, hesnatched the victim's shoulder bag, which was then on herright foot, and then he ran

away. Clearly then, the takingof personal property was not the original evil plan ofROGELIO. It was an afterthought following the rape.Significantly, the constitutive element ofviolence or intimidation against persons in robbery was notpresent at the time of the snatching of the shoulder bag ofMARITES. The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIOagainst the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact ofthe taking of the bag. It was for the purpose ofaccomplishing his lustful desire. Hence, it cannot beconsidered for the purpose of classifying the crime asrobbery. Accused-appellant may thus be held liable forsimple 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, delaCruz, and a certain John Doe took turns in raping JulietMagamayo 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 whospecifically did it among the many accused. The RTC findseach of the accused, Adriano guilty beyond reasonabledoubt as principal of the crime of simple rape under Article335 of the Revised Penal CodeHELD: It is to be noted that the accused in thiscase were originally indicted for the felony of robbery withmultiple rape, a special complex crime punishable underArt. 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and which iscommitted "when the robbery shall have been accompaniedby rape." The said provision, needless to say, covers casesof multiple rapes. This is primarily due to the fact that thejuridical concept of this crime does not limit theconsummation of rape against one single victim or to onesingle act, making other rapes in excess of that number asseparate, independent offense or offenses. All the rapesare merged in the composite, integrated whole that isrobbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied therobbery. It does not matter too whether the rape occurredbefore, during, or after the robbery.Still and all, this does not change the nature ofthe felony. It is essentially a crime against property. Tosustain a conviction, it is imperative that the robbery itselfmust be conclusively established; just as the fact that itwas the accused who committed it be proved beyondreasonable doubt. The prosecution must be able todemonstrate the level of their participation with legal andmoral certainty, including the existence of a conspiracy, ifany. Otherwise, those who were charged should beacquitted, at least for the robbery. Proof of the rape aloneis not sufficient to support a conviction for the crime ofrobbery with rape.The lower court's finding of the accusednon-participation in the robbery does not mean that they aretotally guiltless. They will still be held accountable forwhatever unlawful acts they may have committed, and forwhich acts they were charged. In a criminal action forrobbery with rape, where the prosecution failed to provethe robo or the participation of the accused in it, the lattermay still be convicted for the rape. The trial courts rulingthat the appellants had carnal knowledge of the privatecomplainant by using force and intimidation, convictingthem of one count of rape each because there was noshowing that they conspired or assisted each other incommitting those rapes is affirmed. People v. Gano, 353 SCRA 126 (2001)

Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) personsby reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The questionthat needs to be resolved is whether the multiplicity ofhomicides could be appreciated as an aggravatingcircumstance. For sometime, this ticklish issue has beenthe subject of conflicting views by this Court when it heldin some cases that the additional rapes/homicidescommitted on the occasion of robbery would not increasethe penalty, while in other cases it ruled that themultiplicity of rapes/homicides committed could beappreciated as an aggravating circumstance. But in Peoplev. Regala this Court spoke with finality on the matter It should be noted that there is no law providingthat the additional rape/s or homicide/s should beconsidered as aggravating circumstance. The enumerationof aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of theRevised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to theenumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regardingmitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph(paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances.It is true that the additional rapes (or killings inthe case of multiple homicide on the occasion of therobbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" wherefrom the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robberywith one rape would be on the same level as robbery withmultiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with thelegislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor ofthe offender and no person should be brought within itsterms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.This case is singular in its barbarity andnauseating in the manner with which the accused, bolo inhand, butchered his preys. Notwithstanding the viciousnesswith which he perpetrated the offense, we are constrainedto apply the principle laid down in People v. Regala, andaccordingly, the two (2) other killings contrary to the rulingof the trial court, should not be appreciated as aggravatingcircumstances. Gano is guilty of Robbery with Homicide. People v. Regala, 329 SCRA 707 (2000 )FACTS: Sixteen-year old, Nerissa Tagala, and hergrandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping, whenappellant Armando Regala and his two other companionsentered the former's house. Regala and his companionsentered the house through the kitchen by removing thepieces of wood under the stove. Regala went to the roomof Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun onthem, one after the other. Nerissa and her grandmotherwere hogtied by appellant and his companions. Thereafter,Nerissa was raped by twice by Regala in bed and in thekitchen. After the rape, appellant and his two companionscounted the money which they took from the "aparador.Appellant and his companions then ran away with P3,000 incash, 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches.HELD: It should be noted that there is no lawproviding that the additional rape/s or homicide/s shouldbe considered as aggravating circumstance. Theenumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to theenumeration in Article 13 of the same code regardingmitigating circumstances where there is a specificparagraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogouscircumstances.It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in.the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of therobbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" wherefrom the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robberywith one rape would be on the same level as robbery withmultiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with thelegislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor ofthe offender and no person should be brought within itsterms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. Requisites of robbery under 2nd

case of par 4Art 294:1)that any of thephysical injuries defined in par 3 & 4 Art263 was inflicted in the course of therobbery, and2)that any of them was inflicted upon any person not

responsible for the commission of therobbery. Robbery with violence or intimidation

Violence or intimidation need not bepresent before or at the exact moment when the object is taken. It may enter atany time before the owner is finallydeprived of his property .

Intimidation exists when the actsexecuted or words uttered by the ofenderare capable of producing fear in the personthreatened.

In robbery with intimidation, theremust be acts done by the accused which,either by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances under which they areexecuted, inspire fear in the person againstwhom they are directed.

Difference between threats toextort money and robbery thruintimidation: o In robbery, the intimidation is actual and immediate ; in threats, theintimidation is conditional

or future . o In robbery, the intimidation is personal ; in threats, it may be thru anintermediary . o In threats, the intimidation mayrefer to the person, honor or propertyof the offended party or that of hisfamily; in robbery, the intimidation isdirected only to the person of thevictim. o In robbery, the gain of theculprit is immediate ; in threats, thegain is not immediate.

Difference between robbery withviolence and grave coercion: o In both crimes, there isviolence used by the offender. o In robbery, there is intent togain; no such requirement in gravecoercion. In grave coercion, the intentis to compel another to do somethingagainst his will.

Difference between robbery and bribery: o

It is robbery when the victimdid not commit a crime; it is briberywhen the victim has committed a crimeand gives money or gift to avoid arrestor prosecution. o In robbery, the victim isdeprived of his money or property byforce or intimidation; in bribery, heparts with his money or propertyvoluntarily. Article 295. Robbery with physicalinjuries, committed in an uninhabitedplace and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley Robbery with violence against or intimidationof 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 compartmentsin a train, or in any manner taking thepassengers thereof by surprise in therespective conveyances; or5.On a street, road, highway or alley, and theintimidation is made with the use of firearms, the offender shall be punished bythe maximum periods of the properpenalties prescribed in Article 294.Any of these qualifying circumstances must bealleged in the information and provedduring the trial. The intimidation with the use of firearmqualifies only robbery on a street, road,highway or alley.Art 295 does not apply to robbery withhomicide, or robbery with rape, or robberywith 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 ina store they robbed. The police launched an offensive. Inthe ensuing gunfight, the hostages suffered physicalinjuries. One of the hostages eventually had to have herleg amputated. The accused were convicted of the complexcrime of robbery with serious physical injuries and seriousillegal detention. Should the crime of serious illegaldetention be prosecuted as a separate offence? Held : NO. The detention of the victims was a necessarymeans to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery.The victims were not held as a security to facilitate theirescape or to insure their security against the police, butdeliberately, as a means of extortion of the amount asked. Article 296. Definition of a band andpenalty incurred by the members thereof Requisites for liability for the acts of the othermembers of the band:1. He was a member of the band;

2.He was present at the commission of arobbery by that band;3.The other members of the band committedan assault;4.He did not attempt to prevent the assault.

When the robbery was not committedby a band, the robber who did not take partin the assault by another is not liable forthat assault.

When the robbery was not by a bandand homicide was not determined by theaccused when they plotted the crime, theone who did not participate in the killing isliable for robbery only. It is only whenthe robbery is in band that all thosepresent in the commission of therobbery may be punished for any of the assaults which any of its membersmight commit.

But when there is conspiracy to commithomicide and robbery, all the conspirators,even if less than 4 armed men, are liablefor the special complex crime of robberywith homicide.

Art 296 is not applicable to principal byinducement, who was not present at thecommission of the robbery, if theagreement was only to commit robbery. The article speaks of more than 3 armedmalefactors who takes part in thecommission of the robbery and member of a band who is present at the commissionof a robbery by a band. Thus, a principalby inducement, who did not go with theband at the place of the commission of therobbery, is not liable for robbery withhomicide, but only for robbery in band,there being no evidence that he gaveinstructions to kill the victim or intendedthat this should be done.

When there was conspiracy for robberyonly but homicide was also committed onthe occasion thereof, all members of theband are liable for robbery with homicide.

Whenever homicide is committed as aconsequence of or on the occasion of arobbery, all those who took part in thecommission of the robbery are also guiltyas principals in the crime of homicideunless it appears that they endeavored toprevent the homicide.

Proof of conspiracy is not essential tohold a member of the band liable forrobbery with homicide actually committedby the other members of the band.

There is no crime as robbery withhomicide in band.

The circumstanceof band becomes an ordinaryaggravating circumstance to robberywith homicide.

In robbery by a band, all are liable forany assault committed by the band, unless the others attempted to preventthe assault.

The members of the band liable for theassault must be present at the commissionof the robbery, not necessarily at thecommission of the assault. People vs. Apduhan Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and wassentenced to death because the court considered the useof unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstanceunder Art 296. SC rejected this. SC believes that: (1) Art296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Art295 on robbery in band, (2) RPC 295 is explicitly limited toscope to pars. 3, 4, 5 of Art 294, and (3) par 3, 4, 5 of Art294 does not include cases where homicide, rape,intentional mutilation, impotence, imbecility, blindnessand insanity occurred by reason or on the occasion ofaccompanying robbery. Thus, since Apduhan was convictedof robbery with homicide under par 1 Art 294, Art 296 inrelation to par 3, 4, 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. Hence,the use of an unlicensed firearm should not have beenconsidered as a special aggravating circumstance. Article 297. Attempted and frustratedrobbery committed under certaincircumstances

Homicide here is used in a genericsense. It includes multiple homicides,murder, parricide, infanticide, etc.

The penalty is the same, whether therobbery is attempted or frustrated.

Unless the homicide committed shalldeserve a higher penalty under the Codemay be illustrated as follows: In anattempted or frustrated robbery, the killingof the victim is qualified by treachery orrelationship. The proper penalty formurder or parricide shall be imposedbecause it is more severe.

This is also a special complex crime ,thus, not governed by Art 48. Article 298. Execution of deeds by meansof violence or intimidation Elements:1.Offender has intent to defraud another;2.Offender compels him to sign, execute, ordeliver any public instrument or document.3.The compulsion is by means of violence orintimidation.

If the violence used resulted in thedeath of the person to be defrauded, thecrime is robbery with homicide.

If the execution of deeds by means of violence is only in the attempted orfrustrated stage and the violence usedresulted in the death of the person to bedefrauded, the penalty imposed shall bethose under Art 297.

This article applies even if thedocument signed, executed or delivered isa private or commercial document.

Art 298 is not applicable if thedocument is void.

When the offended party is underobligation to sign, execute or deliver thedocument under the law, there is norobbery. But there will be COERCION if violence is used in compelling the offendedparty to sign or deliver the document. Article 299. Robbery in an inhabitedhouse or public building or edificedevoted to worship

Elements under subdivision (a):1.Offender entered an inhabited house,public building or edifice devoted toreligious worship; 2. The entrance was effected by any of thefollowing means:a.Through an opening not intended forentrance or egress;b.By breaking any wall, roof or floor, orbreaking any door or window;c.By using false keys, picklocks or similartools; ord.By using any fictitious name orpretending the exercise of publicauthority.3.Once inside the building, offender tookpersonal property belonging to anotherwith intent to gain.Elements under subdivision (b):1.Offender is inside a dwelling house, publicbuilding, or edifice devoted to religiousworship, regardless of the circumstancesunder which he entered it;2.Offender takes personal property belongingto another, with intent to gain, under anyof the following circumstances:a.By the breaking of doors, wardrobes,chests, or any other kind of locked orsealed furniture or receptacle; orb.By taking such furniture or objectsaway to be broken or forced openoutside the place of the robbery. Subdivision (a) There must be evidence or the facts must showthat the accused entered the dwellinghouse or building by any of the meansenumerated in subdiv (a).In entering the building, the offender musthave an intention to take personalproperty. The place entered must be a house or building;thus, entering an automobile does not fallunder this article.Inhabited house = any shelter, ship or vesselconstituting the dwelling of one or morepersons even though the inhabitantsthereof are temporarily absent therefromwhen the robbery is committed.

Public building = every building owned bythe govt or belonging to a private personbut used or rented by the govt, althoughtemporarily 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 insidethe building to constitute entering. The genuine key must be stolen, not taken byforce or with intimidation from the owner.In the latter case, it becomes robbery withintimidation of person.It is only THEFT when the false key is used toopen wardrobe or locked receptacle ordrawer or inside door. The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise authority must be toenter the building. Subdivision (b) Entrance into the building by any of the meansin subdiv (a) is not required in robberyunder subdiv (b). The term door in par 1 subdiv (b) refers onlyto doors, lids or opening sheets of furniture or other portable receptacles

; notto inside doors of house or building.A person who carries away a sealed box orreceptacle for the purpose of breaking thesame and taking out its contents outsidethe place of robbery is guilty of consummated robbery even though hedoes not succeed in opening the box.A person who opens by force a certain lockedor sealed receptacle which has been confided in his custody and takes themoney contained therein is guilty of ESTAFA, not robbery. The weapon carried by the offender must nothave been used to intimidate a person, forthe reason that once the circumstance of intimidation enters in the commission of the crime, it is sufficient to remove theoffence from Art 299 and place it within thepurview of Art 294. The liability for carrying arms while robbing aninhabited house is extended to each of theoffenders 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 locatedin Babylons backyard. The door of the coop was broken.They were intercepted by a police officer who was shot byone of the accused. They were convicted by robbery withhomicide. Held : The killing of the police officer was not by reason oron the occasion of the robbery, hence only the person whoshot such officer should be liable for the killing. Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabitedplace and by a band Robbery in an inhabited house, public buildingor edifice devoted to religious worship isqualified when committed by a band AND in an uninhabited place. The 2qualifications must concur. The inhabited house, public building, or edificedevoted to religious worship must belocated in an uninhabited place.Robbery with force upon things , in order to bequalified, must be committed in anuninhabited place AND by a band; whilerobbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

must be committedin an uninhabited place OR by a band. Article 301. What is an inhabited house,public building, or building dedicated toreligious worship and their dependencies 3 requisites for dependencies: (1) must be contiguous to the building, (2) must havean interior entrance connected therewith,and (3) must form part of the whole .Orchards or other lands used for cultivation orproduction are not included in the termdependencies. Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabitedplace or in a private building Elements:1.Offender entered an uninhabited place or abuilding which was not a dwelling house,not a public building, or not an edificedevoted to religious worship;2.Any of the following circumstances waspresent:a.The entrance was effected through anopening not intended for entrance oregress;b.A wall, roof, floor, or outside door orwindow was broken;c.The entrance was effected through theuse of false keys, picklocks or othersimilar tools;d.A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealedor closed furniture or receptacle wasbroken; ore.A closed or sealed receptacle wasremoved, even if the same be brokenopen else 3.Offender took therefrom personal propertybelonging to another with intent to gain.

uninhabited place =uninhabited building

The information must allegethat the store was used and occupied as adwelling; otherwise, the robbery should beconsidered as having been perpetrated inan uninhabited place under Art 302.

building = includes any kindof structure used for storage orsafekeeping of personal property, such asfreight car and warehouse.

The use of fictitious name orpretending the exercise of public authorityis not a means of entering the buildingunder this article, because the place isuninhabited.

The receptacle must beclosed or sealed. Thus, if a personopened without breaking a closed but notlocked chest and took personal propertytherefrom, it is only THEFT.

Penalty is based only on valueof property taken.

If the store is used as a dwelling of 1 or more persons, the robberycommitted therein would be considered ascommitted in an inhabited house under Art299.

If the store was not actuallyoccupied at the time the robbery tookplace and was not used as a dwelling, sincethe owner lived in a separate house, therobbery committed therein is punishedunder Art 302.

If the store is located on theground floor of the house belonging to theowner of the store, having an interiorentrance connected therewith, it is a dependency of an inhabited house and therobbery committed therein is punishedunder the last par of Art 299. Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, orfirewood in an uninhabited place orprivate building Penalty is one degree lower if cereals, fruits orfirewood are taken in robbery with forceupon things. cereal = palay or other seedlings The palay must be kept by the owner asseedling or taken for that purpose by therobbers.

Article 304. Possession of picklocks orsimilar tools Elements:1.Offender has in his possession picklocks orsimilar tools;2.Such picklock or similar tools are especiallyadopted to the commission of robbery;3.Offender does not have lawful cause forsuch 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 theowner for use in the lock forcibly openedby the offender. Carnapping R.A. 6539Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. "Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of amotor vehicle belonging to another without thelatter's consent, or by means of violence against orintimidation of persons, or by using force uponthings."Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by anypower other than muscular power using the publichighways, 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 runonly on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers andtraction engines of all kinds used exclusively foragricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelledby attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classifiedas separate motor vehicle with no power rating."Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is theerasing, scratching, altering or changing of theoriginal factory-inscribed serial number on the motorvehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motorvehicle. Whenever any motor vehicle is found tohave a serial number on its motor engine, engineblock or chassis which is different from that which islisted in the records of the Bureau of Customs formotor vehicles imported into the Philippines, thatmotor vehicle shall be considered to have a defacedor tampered with serial number."Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicleby means of painting. There is repainting wheneverthe new color of a motor vehicle is different from its

color as registered in the Land TransportationCommission."Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motorvehicle in order to replace its entire body with a newbody."Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes inthe shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle."Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece orpart by part, of a motor vehicle."Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of thewhole engine of a motor vehicle by separating themotor engine and its parts from the body of themotor vehicle. SECTION 3.

Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine,Engine Block and Chassis. Within one year afterthe approval of this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof in knockdown condition shall register with the Land Transportation Commission the motor vehicleengine, engine block and chassis in his name or inthe name of the real owner who shall be readilyavailable to answer any claim over the registeredmotor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, engine blocksand chassis not registered with the Land Transportation Commission shall be considered asuntaxed importation or coming from an illegal sourceor carnapped, and shall be confiscated in favor of theGovernment.All owners of motor vehicles in all cities andmunicipalities are required to register their cars withthe local police without paying any charges. SECTION 4. Permanent Registry of Motor VehicleEngines, Engine Blocks and Chassis. The Land Transportation Commission shall keep a permanentregistry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks andchassis of all motor vehicles, specifying therein theirtype, make and serial numbers and stating thereinthe names and addresses of their present andprevious owners. Copies of the registry and of allentries made thereon shall be furnished thePhilippine Constabulary and all Land TransportationCommission regional, provincial and city branchoffices: Provided, That all Land TransportationCommission regional, provincial and city branchoffices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of allregistration of motor vehicles to the main office andto the Philippine Constabulary. SECTION 5. Registration of Sale, Transfer,Conveyance, Substitution or Replacement of a MotorVehicle Engine, Engine Block or Chassis. Everysale, transfer, conveyance, substitution orreplacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine blockor chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered withthe Land Transportation Commission. Motor vehiclesassembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacementwith motor vehicle engines, engine blocks andchassis not registered with the Land TransportationCommission shall not be issued certificates of registration and shall be considered as untaxedimported motor vehicles or motor vehiclescarnapped or proceeding from illegal sources. SECTION 6. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. Any person seeking the original registration of amotor vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is newlyassembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registeredowner, shall within one week after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisitionthereof from the registered owner, apply to thePhilippine Constabulary for clearance of the motorvehicle for registration with the Land TransportationCommission. The Philippine Constabulary shall, uponreceipt of the application, verify if the motor vehicleor its numbered parts are in the list of carnappedmotor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If themotor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not inthat list, the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwithissue a certificate of clearance. Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance from the PhilippineConstabulary and after verification of the registrationof the motor vehicle engine, engine block andchassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicleengines,

engine blocks and chassis, the Land Transportation Commission shall register the motorvehicle in accordance with existing laws, rules andregulations. SECTION 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any personwho is found guilty of carnapping, as this term isdefined in Section two of this Act, shall, irrespectiveof the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished byimprisonment for not less than fourteen years andeight months and not more than seventeen yearsand four months, when the carnapping is committedwithout violence or intimidation of persons, or forceupon things; and by imprisonment for not less thanseventeen years and four months and not more thanthirty years, when the carnapping is committed bymeans of violence against or intimidation of anyperson, or force upon things; and the penalty of lifeimprisonment to death shall be imposed when theowner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motorvehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping. SECTION 15. Aliens. Aliens convicted under theprovisions of this Act shall be deported immediatelyafter service of sentence without further proceedingsby the Deportation Board. People vs. Dela Cruz The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed whenthere is taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle whichbelonged to another, without the latters consent or bymeans of violence against or intimidation of persons, or byusing force upon things. Izon vs. People A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle, which is defined asany vehicle propelled by any power other than muscularpower using public highways. Public highways are thosefree for the use of every person, thus not limited to anational road connecting various towns. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer125

Highway Robbery P.D. 532Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. The followingterms 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 ordimension, and all other waters belonging to thePhilippines by historic or legal title, includingterritorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves,and other submarine areas over which thePhilippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.b.Vessel. Any vessel or watercraft used fortransport of passengers and cargo from oneplace to another through Philippine Waters. Itshall include all kinds and types of vessels orboats used in fishing.c.Philippine Highway. It shall refer to any road,street, passage, highway and bridges or otherparts thereof, or railway or railroad within thePhilippines used by persons, or vehicles, orlocomotives or trains for the movement orcirculation of persons or transportation of goods,articles, or property or both. d. Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of anyvessel, or the taking away of the whole or partthereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personalbelongings of its complement or passengers,irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons orforce upon things, committed by any person,including a passenger or member of thecomplement of said vessel, in Philippine waters,shall be considered as piracy. The offendersshall be considered as pirates and punished ashereinafter provided.e.Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or otherunlawful purposes, or the taking away of theproperty of another by means of violenceagainst or intimidation of person or force uponthings of other unlawful means, committed byany person on any Philippine Highway. SECTION 3. Penalties. Any person who commitspiracy or highway robbery/brigandage as hereindefined, shall, upon conviction by competent courtbe punished by:Piracy. The penalty of reclusion tempora l in itsmedium and maximum periods shall beimposed. If physical injuries or other crimes arecommitted as a result or on the occasionthereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shallbe imposed. If rape, murder or homicide iscommitted as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when the offenders abandoned thevictims without means of saving themselves, orwhen the seizure is accomplished by firing uponor boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period shallbe imposed. If physical injuries or other crimesare committed during or on the occasion of thecommission of robbery or brigandage, thepenalty of reclusion temporal in its medium andmaximum periods shall be imposed. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder

orhomicide, or rape is committed as a result or onthe occasion thereof, the penalty of death shallbe imposed. SECTION 4. Aiding pirates or highwayrobbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highwayrobbery/brigandage. Any person who knowinglyand in any manner aids or protects pirates orhighway robbers/brigands, such as giving theminformation about the movement of police or otherpeace officers of the government, or acquires orreceives property taken by such pirates or brigandsor in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; orany person who directly or indirectly abets thecommission of piracy or highway robbery orbrigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished inaccordance with the Rules prescribed by the RevisedPenal Code.It shall be presumed that any person who does anyof the acts provided in this Section has performedthem 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 incheck. Was highway robbery committed? NO. We shouldnot adopt the literal interpretation that all types of takingof property as long as committed in a highway would becovered by PD 532. People vs. PulusanFacts : Accused held up a passenger jeep along theMcArthur highway. Of the 6 passengers, the only woman,Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at atalahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbedon after the other. They were convicted of robbery withhomicide although they were charged with highwayrobbery. What was the crime committed? Held : Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery.Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accusedwere organised for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately . In this case, there was no proof that the4 accused previously attempted to commit armedrobberies. Cattle Rustling PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 533THE 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 theowner/raiser, of any of the above-mentioned animalswhether or not for profit or gain, or

whethercommitted with or without violence against orintimidation of any person or force upon things. Itincludes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meator hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.Large cattle - as herein used shall include the cow,carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticatedmember of the bovine family. Owner/raiser- shall include the herdsman, caretaker,employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged inthe raising of large cattle or other persons in lawfulpossession of such large cattle.Duty of the owner/raiser

before the large cattle belonging to him shallattain the age of six months, register the same withthe office of the city/municipal treasurer where suchlarge cattle are raised. Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle. No person, partnership, association, corporation orentity shall engage in the business of buy and sell of large cattle without first securing a permit for thesaid purpose from the Provincial Commander of theprovince where it shall conduct such business andthe city/municipal treasurer of the place of residenceof such person, partnership, association, corporationor entity. The permit shall only be valid in suchprovince. Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle. Any person, partnership, association, corporation orentity desiring to ship or transport large cattle, itshides, or meat, from one province to another shallsecure a permit for such purpose from the ProvincialCommander of the province where the large cattle isregistered. Before issuance of the permit hereinprescribed, the Provincial Commander shall requirethe submission of the certificate of ownership asprescribed in Section 3 hereof, a certification fromthe Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that suchlarge cattle, hides or meat are free from any disease;and such other documents or records as may benecessary. Shipment of large cattle, its hides or meatfrom one city/municipality to another within thesame province may be done upon securing permitfrom the city/municipal treasurer of the place of origin. Presumption of Cattle Rustling . Every personhaving in his possession, control or custody of largecattle shall, upon demand by competent authorities,exhibit the documents prescribed in the precedingsections. Failure to exhibit the required documentsshall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle inhis possession, control or custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling. Penalties Imposed Any person convicted of cattle rustling as hereindefined shall, irrespective of the value of the largecattle involved, be punished by prision mayor in itsmaximum period to reclusion temporal in its mediumperiod if the offense is committed without violenceagainst or intimidation of persons or force uponthings.If the offense is committed with violence against orintimidation of persons or force upon things, thepenalty of

reclusion temporal in its maximum periodto reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result oron the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling,the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall beimposed.When the offender is a government official oremployee, he shall, in addition to the foregoingpenalty, be disqualified from voting or being votedupon in any election/referendum and from holdingany public office or employment.When the offender is an alien, he shall be deportedimmediately upon the completion of the service of his sentence without further proceedings. Taer vs. CAFacts : Co-accused Manocatcat, arrived at the Taershourse at 2am with 2 male carabaos. Manocatcat askedTaer to tend the carabaos for him. 10 days later, theowners of the carabaos, arrived at Taers house to retrievethe carabaos. What was Taers participation in the crime? Held : Taer was an accessory because he employed thecarabaos in his farm. An accessory is someone who,having knowledge of the commission of the crime, withouthaving participated as a principal or an accomplice, takespart subsequent to its commission by profiting himself bythe effects of the crime. Ordonio vs. CAFacts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. When Pajunarinquired abt his cow, Ordonio denied seeing it. The cowwas eventually found in Ordonios possession, but Ordonioclaimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him byhis brother Agustin, such that Pajunar had to enlist the aidof the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow. Held : The law reads taking away by any means,methods or schemes. Ordonios stubborn insistence thatthe calf belonged to his brother, when he knew fully wellthat it belonged to Pajunar, is the essence cattle rustling.The perpetrators intent to gain is then inferred from hisdeliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the properperson, knowing that the property does not belong to him. BRIGANDAGE

a crime committed by more than 3 armedpersons who form a band of robbers for thepurpose of committing robbery in the highwayor kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer127

purpose to be attained by means of force andviolence. 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; orc.To attain by means of force andviolence 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 commitrobbery in the highway, (2) to kidnappersons for the purpose of extortion orobtaining ransom, or (3) any other purposeto be attained by means of force andviolence. To contrast, In case of robbery by a band , the purpose of the offenders isonly to commit robbery, not necessarily inthe highway.If any of the arms carried by any of a group of persons be an unlicensed firearm , is shallbe presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands , and in caseof conviction, the penalty shall be imposedin the max period. The arms carried by the members of the bandof robbers may be any deadly weapon.

The only things to prove are: b)that there is anorganisation of more than 3 armedpersons forming a band of robbersc)that the purpose of the band is any of those enumerated inArt 306d)that they went uponthe highway or roamed upon thecountry for that purposee)that the accused is amember of such band.highway = includes city streets as well asroads outside the cities.If the agreement among more than 3 armedmen was to commit only a particular robbery , the offence is not brigandage, butonly robbery in band.In brigandage, the mere formation of a band for any of the purposes mentioned in thelaw is sufficient; in robbery in band, it isnecessary to prove that the band actually committed robbery, as a mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable . Article 307. Aiding and abetting a bandof 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 orprotects such band of brigands;b.He gives them information of themovements of the police or otherpeace officers of the government; orc.He acquires or receives the propertytaken by such brigands.

It shall be presumed that the personperforming any of the acts provided in thisarticle has performed them knowingly ,unless contrary is proven. THEFT committed by any person who, with intent togain but without violence against orintimidation of persons nor force upon things,shall take personal property of another withoutthe latters consent. Article 308. Who are liable for theft Persons liable:1.Those who with intent to gain, but withoutviolence against or intimidation of personsnor force upon things, take personalproperty of another without the lattersconsent;2.Those

who having found lost property, failsto deliver the same to the local authoritiesor to its owner;3.Those who, after having maliciouslydamaged the property of another, removeor make use of the fruits or objects of thedamage caused by them;4.Those who enter an enclosed estate or afield where trespass is forbidden or whichbelongs to another and, without theconsent of its owner, hunt or fish upon thesame or gather fruits, cereals or otherforest 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;4.The taking was done without the consent of the owner;

5.The taking is accomplished without the useof violence against or intimidation of persons of force upon things.

taking taking away or carrying away ; thus, theft is consummated whenthe culprits were able to take possession of the thing taken by them. It is not anindispensable element of theft that thethief carry, more or less far away, the thingtaken by him from its owner.

As of 2007, the Court held that asportation is complete from the

moment the offender had fullpossession of the thing, even if he didnot have an opportunity to dispose of the same. .

animus lucandi = intent to gain

The taking in theft must have thecharacter of permanency. Thus, theoffender must have the intention of makinghimself the owner of the thing taken.

The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after the transfer of physicalpossession

(not juridical possession) of the thing to the offender. The actualtransfer of possession may not always andby itself constitute the unlawful taking, but an act done soon thereafter by theoffender which may result in unlawfultaking or asportation. In such case, thearticle 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 watchfor the purpose of having it examined sinceRey has a pawnshop. Rey subsequentlyappropriated it rolex watch with intent togain and without consent of Tina. This is THEFT.

But if the accused received the thingfrom another person in trust or oncommission, or for administration, or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment

,and later misappropriated or converted thething to the prejudice of another, the crimeis ESTAFA, because under thosetransactions, the juridical possession of the thing is transferred to the offender. (note: thus, the distinction between juridical and mere physical possession isimportant.)

Intent to gain is presumed from theunlawful taking of personal propertybelonging to another.

There is theft even if accused did nottake them for his own use.

It is not necessary that there was realor actual gain on the part of the offender.It is enough that on taking them, he wasthen actuated by the desire or intent togain.

For robbery to exist, it is necessarythat there should be a taking against thewill 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 areason entirely foreign to the fact of taking.

When goods were lost at the sametime, in the same place, and on the sameoccasion

, the person in possession of partof the missing property is presumed to bethe thief of the entire property.

The presumption regarding possessionof stolen property does not exclusivelyrefer to actual physical possession thereof but may include prior unexplained possession . In any case, for thepresumption to work, the property must berecently stolen. Thus, if it was stolen along time ago , the presumption will not lie.

Intent to gain is inferred fromdeliberate failure to deliver the lostproperty to the proper person.

Finder of hidden treasure whomisappropriated the share pertaining tothe owner of the property is guilty of theftas regards that share. People vs. Gulinao Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. Gulinao went back to getDr Chuas diamond ring. He was convicted of illegalpossession and robbery. SC ruled that he is guilty ofTHEFT, not robbery. The taking of the ring was just an afterthought . Violence used in killing Dr Chua had nobearing on the taking of the ring. Santos vs. People Penalosa gave car to Santos to be repaired. Owner wantedto claim it back but Santos could not be found. Convictedof estafa in RTC then CA convicted him of qualified theft.SC rule that he is guilty of THEFT, not estafa as the latterrequires that the offender has juridical possession of thething and then it is converted for his own personal use.Not qualified theft as the fact that the car was taken wasnot alleged in the information therefore it can only be seenas an aggravating circumstance. Lucas v. CA, 389 SCRA 749 (2002) FACTS: Lucas was convicted by the RTC togetherwith Wilfredo Navarro for stealing one stereo component, a14-inch colored TV, an electric fan, twenty-three (23)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer129

pieces of cassette tapes, one (1) box of car toys, four (4)pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls, cash of P20,000.00 andjewelry worth P10,000.00, valued at P100,000.00 allbelonging to Luisito Tuazon. The said robbery took placewhen Luisito was at work. After the robbery, Lucas,Navarro and one Lovena

escaped

on board a tricycle.HELD: To sustain a conviction for theft, thefollowing elements must be present: (1) personal propertyof another person must be taken without the latter'sconsent; (2) the act of taking the personal property ofanother must be done without the use of violence againstor intimidation of persons nor force upon things; and, (3)there must be an intention to gain from the taking ofanother person's personal property. Appellant are guilty oftheft. Gan v. People (2007) The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable forthe charges on the ground that he was not caught inpossession of the missing funds. This is clutching at straws.To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not anelement of the corpus delicti in theft. Corpus delicti means the body or substance of the crime, and, in itsprimary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has beenactually committed. In theft, corpus delicti has twoelements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by theowner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. In thecase before us, these two elements were established. Theamounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner tookthem without authority to do so Valenzuela v. People (2007) The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not beendesigned in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao,Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language inArticle 308 that expressly or impliedly

allows that the freedisposition of the items stolen is in any way determinativeof whether the crime of theft has been produced. TheCourt thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code,there is no crime of frustrated theft. Article 309. Penalties The basis of the penalty in theft is (1) the valueof the thing stolen and in some cases (2)the value and also the nature of theproperty taken, or (3) the circumstances orcauses that impelled the culprit to committhe crime.If there is no available evidence to prove thevalue of the stolen property or that theprosecution failed to prove it, the courtshould impose the minimum penaltycorresponding to theft. Theft of Electricity, Illegal Water, Electricor Telephone Connections PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 401 March 1, 1974PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZEDINSTALLATION OF WATER, ELECTRICAL ORTELEPHONE CONNECTIONS, THE USE OFTAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL METERS,AND OTHER ACTS Who are punishable? -- any person who:installs any water, electrical or telephoneconnection without previous authority fromthe Metropolitan Waterworks and SewerageSystem, the Manila Electric Company or thePhilippine Long Distance TelephoneCompany, as the case may be;tampers and/or uses tampered water orelectrical meters or jumpers or otherdevices whereby water or electricity isstolen; steals or pilfers water and/or electricmeters or water, electric and/or telephonewires;knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered waterand/or electrical meters as well as stolen orpilfered water, electrical and/or telephonewires. R.A. 7832Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994Acts punishable Illegal Use of Electricity (2)(a)Tap, make or cause to be made anyconnection with overhead lines, servicedrops, or other electric service wires,without previous authority or consent of theprivate electric utility or rural electriccooperative concerned;(b)Tap, make or cause to be made anyconnection to the existing electric servicefacilities of any duly registered consumerwithout the latter's or the electric utility'sconsent or authority;(c)Tamper, install or use a tampered electricalmeter, jumper, current reversingtransformer, shorting or shunting wire, loopconnection or any other device whichinterferes with the proper or accurateregistry or metering of electric current orotherwise results in its diversion in amanner whereby electricity is stolen orwasted;(d)Damage or destroy an electric meter,equipment, wire or conduit or allow any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as tointerfere with the proper or accuratemetering of electric current; and(e)Knowingly use or receive the direct benefitof electric service obtained through any of the acts mentioned in subsections (a), (b),(c), and (d) above. Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines andMaterials (3)Cut, saw, slice, separate, split, severe, smelt, or

remove any electric power transmissionline/material or meter from a tower, pole, orany other installation or place of installationor any other place or site where it may berightfully or lawfully stored,

deposited, kept,stocked, inventoried, situated or located,without the consent of the owner, whetheror not the act is done for profit or gain; Take, carry away or remove or transfer, with orwithout the use of a motor vehicle or othermeans of conveyance, any electric powertransmission line/material or meter from atower, pole, any other installation or placeof installation, or any place or site where itmay be rightfully or lawfully stored,deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried,situated or located without the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is donefor profit or gain;Store, possess or otherwise keep in hispremises, custody or control, any electricpower transmission line/material or meterwithout the consent of the owner, whetheror not the act is done for profit or gain; andLoad, carry, ship or move from one place toanother, whether by land, air or sea, anyelectrical power transmission line/material,whether or not the act is done for profit orgain, without first securing aclearance/permit for the said purpose fromits owner or the National Power Corporation(NPC) or its regional office concerned, as thecase may be. Presumptions For illegal use of electricity: The presence of any of the following circumstancesshall constitute prima facie evidence of illegaluse of electricity by the person benefitedthereby , and shall be the basis for:the immediate disconnection by the electricutility to such person after due notice,the holding of a preliminary investigation by theprosecutor and the subsequent filing incourt of the pertinent information, andthe lifting of any temporary restraining order orinjunction which may have been issuedagainst a private electric utility or ruralelectric cooperativeCircumstances: The presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of the electric meter, or at the back or any otherpart of said meter; The presence inside the electric meter of salt, sugarand other elements that could result in theinaccurate registration of the meter's internalparts to prevent its accurate registration of consumption of electricity; The existence of any wiring connection which affectsthe normal operation or registration of theelectric meter; The presence of a tampered, broken, or fake seal onthe meter, or mutilated, altered or tamperedmeter recording chart or graph, or computerizedchart, graph, or log; The presence in any part of the building or itspremises which is subject to the control of theconsumer or on the electric meter, of a currentreversing transformer, jumper, shorting and/orshunting wire, and/or loop connection or anyother similar device; The mutilation, alteration, reconnection,disconnection, bypassing or tampering of instruments, transformers, and accessories; The destruction of, or attempt to destroy, anyintegral accessory of the metering device boxwhich encases an electric meter, or its meteringaccessories; and The acceptance of money and/or other valuableconsideration by any officer of employee of theelectric utility concerned or the making of suchan offer to any such officer or employee for notreporting the presence of any of thecircumstances enumerated above. Thediscovery of any of the foregoing circumstances,in order to constitute prima facie evidence, must be personally witnessed and attestedto by an officer of the law or a dulyauthorized representative of the EnergyRegulatory Board (ERB). For theft of electric power transmission lines andmaterials The possession or custody of electric powertransmission line/material by any person, natural or juridical, not engaged in the

transformation,transmission or distribution of electric power, or inthe manufacture of such electric power transmissionline/material shall be prima facie evidence that suchline/material is the fruit of the offense of theft of electric power transmission lines and materials, andtherefore such line/material may be confiscated fromthe person in possession, control or custody thereof. RA 8041An Act to Address the National Water Crisisand For Other Purposes Sec. 8. Anti-Pilferage. - It is hereby declared unlawfulfor any person to:Destroy, damage or interfere with any canal,raceway, ditch, lock, pier, inlet, crib, bulkhead,dam, gate, service, reservoir, aqueduct, watermains, water distribution pipes, conduit, pipes,wire benchmark, monument, or other works,appliance, machinery buildings, or property of any water utility entity, whether public orprivate;Do any malicious act which shall injuriously affect thequantity or quality of the water or sewage flowof any waterworks and/or sewerage system, orthe supply, conveyance, measurement, orregulation thereof, including the prevention of,or interference with any authorized personengaged in the discharge of duties connectedtherewith;Prevent, obstruct, and interfere with the survey,works, and construction of access road andwater mains and distribution network and any C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer131

related works of the utility entity. Tap, make, or cause to be made any connection withwater lines without prior authority or consentfrom 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 orinterfere with accurate registry or metering of water usage, or otherwise result in its diversionin a manner whereby water is stolen or wasted;Use or receive the direct benefit of water servicewith knowledge that diversion, tampering, orillegal connection existed at the time of thatuse, or that the use or receipt was otherwisewithout the authorization of the water utility;Steal or pilfer water meters, main lines, pipes andrelated or ancillary facilities;Steal water for profit or resale;Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters;andKnowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the above.Penalties:imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years anda fine not exceeding double the amount of thevalue of the water stolen or the value of thedamaged facilitiesIf the offender is assisted in the commission of thecrime by a plumber, officer or employee of thewater utility concerned, the said employee,officer or plumber shall be punished byimprisonment of two (2) years to six (6) years If the water is stolen for profit or resale, theoffender shall be punished imprisonment fromsix (6) to twelve (12) years. Illegal Fishing

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8550An Act Providing For The Development,Management And Conservation Of TheFisheries And Aquatic Resources, IntegratingAll Laws Pertinent Thereto, And For OtherPurposesWhat acts are punishable? 1. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in OtherUnauthorized Fisheries Activities(a) exploiting, breeding fish in Philippine waterswithout a license

Discovery of any person in an area where he hasno permit or registration papers for a fishing vesselshall constitute a prima facie presumption that theperson and/or vessel is engaged in unauthorizedfishing: BUT, fishing for daily food sustenance or forleisure which is not for commercial, occupation orlivelihood purposes may be allowed.(b) fishing by commercial fishing vessels in fisherymanagement areas declared as over exploited(c) engaging in any commercial fishing activity inmunicipal waters when not listed in the registry of municipal fisherfolk2. Poaching in Philippine Waters(a) foreign person fishing or operating a fishingvessel in Philippine waters

The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippinewaters shall constitute a prima facie evidence thatthe vessel is engaged in fishing in Philippine waters.3. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious orPoisonous Substance, and/or Electricity (a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of electricity, explosives, noxious or poisonoussubstance such as sodium cyanide in the Philippinefishery areas, which will kill, stupefy, disable orrender unconscious fish or fishery species

The Department, subject to safeguards andconditions deemed necessary and endorsement fromthe 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 toeradicate predators in fishponds in accordance withaccepted scientific practices and without causingadverse environmental impact in neighboring watersand grounds shall not be construed as illegal fishing.(b) dealing in fish illegally caught

The discovery of explosives or equipment forelectro-fishing in any fishing vessel or in thepossession of any fishworker shall constitute primafacie evidence, that the same was used for fishing inviolation of this Code.

The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caughtor killed with the use of explosive, noxious orpoisonous substances or by electricity shallconstitute prima facie evidence that the fisherfolk,operator, boat official or fishworker is fishing with theuse thereof.(c) Mere possession of explosive, noxious orpoisonous substances or electrofishing devices forillegal fishing(d) Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonoussubstances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing

Penalty is without prejudice to the filing of separate criminal cases when the use of the sameresult to physical injury or loss of human life.4. Use of Fine Mesh Net (a) fishing using nets with mesh smaller than thatwhich may be fixed by the Department

Prohibition shall not apply to the gathering of fryand such species which by their nature are small butalready mature to be identified in the implementingrules and regulations by the Department.5. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters andBays and Other Fishery Management Areas(a) fishing in municipal waters and in all bays as wellas other fishery management areas using activefishing gears6. 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 tothe sea or donated to schools and museums for

educational or scientific purposes or disposedthrough other means.7. Ban on Muro-Ami

, Other Methods and GearDestructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat(a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs,seagrass beds, and other fishery marine life habitatas may be determined by the Department(b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation, andsuch similar gear and methods that require diving,other physical or mechanical acts to pound the coralreefs and other habitat to entrap, gather or catch fishand other fishery species(c) gathering, selling or exporting white sand, silica,pebbles and other substances which make up anymarine habitat8. Illegal Use of Superlights (a) fishing with the use of superlights in municipalwaters or in violation of the rules and regulationswhich may be promulgated by the Department onthe use of superlights outside municipal waters9. Conversion of Mangroves (a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for anyother purposes10. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season11. Fishing in Fishery Reserves , Refuge andSanctuaries12. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species13. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders /Spawners

However, catching of sabalo and otherbreeders/spawners for local breeding purposes orscientific or research purposes may be allowedsubject to guidelines to be promulgated by theDepartment.14. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry15. Importation or Exportation of Fish or FisherySpecies16. Violation of Catch Ceilings 17.

Aquatic Pollution 18. Other violationsFailure to Comply with Minimum SafetyStandardsFailure to Conduct a Yearly Report on allFishponds, Fish Pens and Fish CagesGathering and Marketing of Shell Fish which issexually mature or below the minimum sizeor above the maximum quantitiesprescribed for the particular speciesObstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb of Tide in any Stream, River, Lake or BayConstruction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps,Fish Pens and Fish Cages without alicense/permit19. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators EmployingUnlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew20. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of anadromous, catadromous and other migratoryspecies, in areas including, but not limited to rivermouths and estuaries within a distance determinedby the concerned FARMCs21. Obstruction to Fishery Law EnforcementOfficer Hizon vs. CA Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that testedpositive for sodium cyanide. The accused were convictedfor illegal fishing using poisonous substances under PD 703,which creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when anyfish taken is positive for poisonous substances. Petitionersquestion the legality of the presumption. SC held that thepresumption is only prima facie hence, rebuttable bycompetent evidence. 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, mailmatter, or large cattle;4.The property stolen consists of coconutstaken from the premises of a plantation;5.The property stolen is fish taken from afishpond or fishery; or6.If property is taken on the occasion of fire,earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, orany other calamity, vehicular accident, orcivil disturbance.Penalties for qualified theft are now nextHIGHER 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 informationand proof of a relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance

,between the accused and the offendedparty, that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which theaccused abused. The grave abuse of confidence need not bepremeditated. Its presence in thecommission of theft is sufficient. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer133

The confidence gravely abused must be thatexisting between offended party and theoffender . Empelis vs. IAC 4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from aplantation. They dropped the coconuts after being seen bythe owner. They were convicted of qualified theft. SCheld that they are guilty only of FRUSTRATED QUALIFIEDTHEFT as they were not able to carry away the coconutsfrom the plantation that is the gravamen of the offenceunder Art 310. People vs. CaalesFacts: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. Theystole a truck and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from thecompany. They were tasked to deliver the prawns to thepier using the truck. The truck, however, wassubsequently recovered. Was there qualified theft as tothe recovered truck? Held: The recovery of the stolen motor vehicle does notmean that the crime of qualified theft was notconsummated. Neither will it diminish the criminalresponsibility of appellant. In People v. Carpio : The gistof the offense of larceny consists in the furtive takingand asportation of property, animo lucrandi , and withintent to deprive the true owner of the possessionthereof. The act of asportation in this case wasundoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thiefto profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived thetrue owner of the possession of the entire automobile, theoffense of larceny comprised the whole car. The fact thatthe accused stripped the car of its tires and abandoned themachine in a distant part of the city did not make theappellant any less liable

for the larceny of the automobile.The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon hisright of possession were complete as to the entire car; andthe fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly toabandon the machine in no wise limits their criminalresponsibility to the particular parts of the car that wereappropriate and subsequently used by the appellant uponhis own car. People v. Reynaldo Bago (2000) FACTS: Reynaldo Bago was an employee ofAzkcon Metal Industries from 1988-1992. From 1991 to1992, he served as team leader at the cutting departmentunder the supervision of the Material Comptroller who kepttrack of all the materials coming in and going out of thecompanys plant in Kalookan City. Azkcon has a businessarrangement with Power Construction Supply Company(Power Construction) whereby Azkcon buys cold rolledsheets from the latter. These cold rolled sheets are alsocut by Power Construction for a fee and Azkcon convertsthem into drums or containers. Bagos job was to go toPower Constructions establishment in Quezon City tooversee the cutting of the cold rolled sheets and ensuretheir delivery to Azkcon using the trucks sent by Hilo. Bagowas discovered to have participated in the theft ofmaterials worth P192,000.00. The trial court found himguilty of qualified theft.HELD: The trial court correctly found thatappellant was a trusted employee of Azkcon. He was in-charge of overseeing the cutting of the materials at PowerConstruction and ensuring their delivery to Azkcon. Due tothis trust, he succeeded in withdrawing from the saidsupplier the cold rolled sheets. The materials he took fromthe supplier on March 23, 1992 could not be found in thepremises of Azkcon and there was no evidence that hedelivered them on said date or on any other daythereafter. Inexplicably, appellant presented the thirdreceipt (Invoice No. 51111) dated March 23, 1992 forstamping only on April 21, 1992. The reasonable conclusionis that he asported the materials.Clearly, all the elements of theft wereestablished, to wit: (1) there was a taking of personalproperty; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) thetaking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the takingwas done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking wasaccomplished without violence or intimidation against theperson or force upon things. As the theft was committedwith grave abuse of confidence, appellant is guilty ofqualified theft. People v. Luisito Bustinera (2004) FACTS: ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as ataxi driver. It was agreed that appellant would drive thetaxi from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., after which he wouldreturn it to ESC Transport's garage and remit the boundaryfee in the amount of P780.00 per day. On December 25,1996, appellant admittedly reported for work and drovethe taxi, but he did not return it on the same day as he wassupposed to. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. OnJanuary 9, 1997, Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transportand revealed that the taxi had been abandoned. ESC wasable to recovered. The trial court found him guilty beyondreasonable doubt of qualified theft.HELD: Bustinera was convicted of qualified theftunder Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amendedfor the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. However,Article 310 has been modified, with respect to certainvehicles, by Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwiseknown as "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZINGCARNAPPING."When statutes are in pari materia or when theyrelate to the same person or thing, or to the same class ofpersons or things, or cover the same specific or particularsubject matter, or have the same purpose or object, therule dictates that they should be construed togetherThe elements of the crime of theft as providedfor in

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) thatthere be taking of personal property; (2) that said propertybelongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intentto gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent ofthe owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished withoutthe use of violence against or intimidation of persons orforce upon things.Theft is qualified when any of the followingcircumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by adomestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with graveabuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either amotor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the propertystolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of aplantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from afishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the

occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, orany 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, withintent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to anotherwithout the latter's consent, or by means of violenceagainst or intimidation of persons, or by using force uponthings." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the takingof a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the takingis without the consent of the owner or by means ofviolence against or intimidation of persons or by using forceupon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain.Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of amotorized vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in theft,robbery and carnapping being the same. From theforegoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawfultaking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law andnot the provisions of qualified theft which would apply. Jonathan D. Cariaga v. Court of Appeals (2001) FACTS: "Luis Miguel Aboitiz was the SystemsAnalyst of the Davao Light & Power Company, Inc. (DLPC),whose duty was to devise means to prevent losses due towaste, pilferage or theft of company property. He receivedreports that some private electricians were engaged in theclandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. Heinitiated a covert operation to discover the method and tocapture one of the culprits. Using an undercover agent, thegroup was brought down and Jonathan Cariaga was chargedand found guilty of qualified by grave abuse of confidenceHELD: The defense, verily, anchors itself on thebare denial of petitioner of the specific acts imputed bythe prosecution against him. Certainly, this negativeassertion cannot prevail over the unimpeached testimonyof the prosecution witness describing in sufficient detailthe active participation of petitioner in the commission ofthe crime charged. We note that the information allegedthat petitioner was an employee of DLPC; that he hadaccess to the electrical supplies of said company; and thatwith grave abuse of confidence, he stole electricalmaterials belonging to DLPC. The prosecution establishedthat petitioner who was permanently assigned as driver ofTruck "S143" had charge of all the DLPC equipment andsupplies kept in his vehicle, including lightning arresters,cut-out and wires, which were generally used for theinstallation of transformers and power lines; andspecifically stored therein for emergency operations atnight when the stockroom is closed. While the merecircumstance that the petitioner is an employee or laborerof DLPC does not suffice to create the relation ofconfidence and intimacy that the law requires to designatethe crime as qualified theft, it has been held that access tothe place where the taking took place or access to thestolen items changes the complexion of the crimecommitted to that of qualified theft.

People v Ruben Sison (2000) FACTS: Ruben Sison first joined the AuditingDepartment of the Philippine Commercial InternationalBank (PCIB) in December 1977. He rose from the ranks andwas promoted to the position of Assistant Manager andconcurrently held the position of Branch Operation Officer.As such, he was assigned to different branches until his lastdetail at the PCIB Luneta Branch in February 1991. He wasthe primary control officer directly responsible for the dayto day operations of the branch, including custody of thecash vault. Sison facilitated the crediting of two (2)fictitious remittances in the amounts of P3,250,000.00 andP4,755,000.00 in favor of Solid Realty DevelopmentCorporation, an equally fictitious account, and then laterthe withdrawal of P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB LunetaBranch. He was charged and found guilty of qualified theft.HELD: The appeal has no merit. The trial courtcorrectly convicted appellant of Qualified Theft on thebasis of circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, thecombination of all the incriminating facts proven by theprosecution and the logical inferences derived therefromleave no doubt in Our mind that appellant, with graveabuse of confidence, conceived and accomplished the theftof P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch.The crime perpetuated by appellant against hisemployer, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank(PCIB), is qualified theft. Appellant could not havecommitted the crime had he not been holding the positionof Luneta Branch Operation Officer which gave him notonly sole access to the bank vault but also control of theaccess of all bank employees in that branch, except theBranch Manager, to confidential and highly delicatecomputerized security systems designed to safeguard,among others, the integrity of telegraphic fund transfersand account names of bank clients. The management of thePCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as itsLuneta Branch Operation Officer, and it was this trust andconfidence which he exploited to enrich himself to thedamage and prejudice of PCIB in the amount ofP6,000,000.00. Asuncion Roque v People (2004) FACTS: Asuncion Roque was a teller of the BasaAir Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA). Shewas found to have taken money from several of thedepositors. Unable to return the money, she was chargedwith qualified theft and covicted. Roque argued that sincethe money was lawfully received by her and latermisappropriated she was guilty only of estafa.HELD: In the present case, what is involved is thepossession of money in the capacity of a bank teller. InPeople v. Locson this Court considered deposits received bya teller in behalf of a bank as being only in the materialpossession of the teller. This interpretation applies withequal force to money received by a bank teller at thebeginning of a business day for the purpose of servicingwithdrawals. Such is only material possession. Juridicalpossession remains with the bank. In line with thereasoning of the Court in several cases, beginning withPeople v. De Vera, if the teller appropriates the money forpersonal gain then the felony committed is theft and notestafa. Further, since the teller occupies a position ofconfidence, and the bank places money in the teller'spossession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, thefelony of qualified theft would be committed. Astudillo v. People (2006)

Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees ofWestern does not suffice to create the relation ofconfidence and intimacy that the law requires. Theelement of grave abuse of confidence requires thatthere be a relation of independence, guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and Western. Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer135

payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping,preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely assistedcustomers in making a purchase and in demonstrating themerchandise to prospective buyers. While they had accessto the merchandise, they had no access to the cashiersbooth or to the cash payments subject of the offense. Illegal Logging P.D. 330PenalizingTimber Smuggling orIllegal Cutting of LogsSECTION 1. Any person, whether natural or juridical, who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers,removes, or smuggles timber, or other forestproducts, either from any of the public forest, forestreserves and other kinds of public forests, whetherunder license or lease, or from any privately ownedforest lands in violation of existing laws, rules andregulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualifiedtheft as defined and penalized under Articles 308,309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code; Provided, That if the offender is a corporation, firm, partnershipor association, the penalty shall be imposed upon theguilty officer or officers, as the case may be, of thecorporation, firm, partnership or association, and if such guilty officer or officers are aliens, in addition tothe penalty herein prescribed, he or they shall bedeported without further proceedings on the part of the Commissioned of Immigration and Deportation. P.D. 705The Forestry Reform Code (as amended)SECTION 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collectingtimber or other products without license. Anyperson who shall cut, gather, collect, or removetimber or other forest products from any forest land,or timber from alienable and disposable public lands,or from private lands, without any authority under alicense agreement, lease, license or permit, shall beguilty of qualified theft as defined and punishedunder Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC; Provided, That in the case of partnership, association orcorporation, the officers who ordered the cutting,gathering or collecting shall be liable, and if suchofficers are aliens, they shall, in addition to thepenalty, be deported without further proceedings onthe part of the Commission on Immigration andDeportation. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favorof the government of the timber or forest products tocut, gathered, collected or removed, and themachinery, equipment, implements and tools usedtherein, and the forfeiture of his improvements in thearea. The same penalty plus cancellation of his licenseagreement, lease, license or permit and perpetualdisqualification from acquiring any such privilegeshall be imposed upon any licensee, lessee,

orpermittee who cuts timber from the licensed orleased area of another, without prejudice towhatever civil action the latter may bring against theoffender. Mustang Lumber Inc vs. CA Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber isactually processed forest raw materials or just processedtimber. Therefore, lumber is necessarily included intimber as the law makes no distinction . Fencing PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979What is fencing? Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent togain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, orshall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in anyarticle, item, object or anything of value which heknows, or should be known to him, to have beenderived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery ortheft."Fence" includes any person, firm, associationcorporation or partnership or other organizationwho/which commits the act of fencing. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, oranything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second HandArticles is required All stores, establishments or entities dealing in thebuy and sell of any good, article, item, object of anything of value obtained from an unlicenseddealer or supplier thereof, shall before offeringthe same for sale to the public, secure thenecessary clearance or permit from the stationcommander of the Integrated National Police inthe town or city where such store,establishment or entity is located. Penalties imposed Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished ashereunder indicated: a. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesosbut not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, thepenalty provided in this paragraph shall beimposed in its maximum period, adding one yearfor each additional 10,000 pesos; but the totalpenalty which may be imposed shall not exceedtwenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall betermed reclusion temporal and the accessorypenalty pertaining thereto provided in theRevised Penal Code shall also be imposed.

b.The penalty of prision correccional in itsmedium and maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.c.The penalty of prision correccional in itsminimum and medium periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesosbut not exceeding 6,000 pesos.d.The penalty of arresto mayor in its mediumperiod to prision correccional in its minimumperiod, if the value of the property involved isover 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.e.The penalty of arresto mayor in its mediumperiod, if such value is over five (5) pesos butnot exceeding 50 pesos. f. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimumperiod, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos. Article 311. Theft of the property of theNational Library and National Museum

Theft of the property onNational Library and Museum has a fixedpenalty regardless of its value. Article 312. Occupation of real propertyor usurpation of real rights in property Acts punishable:1.Taking possession of any real propertybelonging to another by means of violenceagainst or intimidation of persons;2.Usurping any real rights in propertybelonging to another by means of violenceagainst or intimidation of persons.Elements:1.That the offender a. takes possession of any real property or b. usurps any real rights inproperty 2. That the real property or real right belongsto another 3.

That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying real property or usurping realrights in property 4. That there is intent to gain . The real property or real right must belong toanother

If defendant who took possession of theland using violence or intimidation has shownhe is owner of the land in question andcomplainant was a mere possessor, Art 312DOES NOT apply.If at all, the crime is: grave coercionUsurpation of Real Right, example:Accused, who had lost a case in a cadastralproceeding, took possession of the landadjudicated in favor of the offended party andharvested the palay, by means of threats andintimidation.If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of strategy or stealth) , only CIVIL LIABILITY existsViolence or intimidation must be DURING theoccupation or usurpation.Art 312 DOES NOT apply when the violenceor intimidation only took place SUBSEQUENT tothe entry into propertyExample: if accused ALREADY OCCUPPIEDthe land, and when the administrator of suchland told him to leave, but accused threatenedadministrator he would "kill anyone who woulddrive me away" or chased administrator awaywith bolo.Article 312 does NOT apply in case of opendefiance of a writ of execution issued in aforcible entry caseReason: Accused did not secure thepossession of the land by means of violence orintimidation. The refusal (violent or not) of theaccused to comply with writ of execution is aDISTINCT OFFENSE: contempt of court underthe Rules of Court.Criminal Action for occupation of real propertyNOT A BAR for civil action for forcible entryReason: Causes of action are different!Article 312 does NOT provide for a penalty, itonly provides for a fine.

IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physicalinjuries inflicted as a result of the acts of violence.Distinguished from theft or robbery: UsurpationTheft/robbery C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer137

There is intent to gainOccupation or usurpationThere is taking orasportationReal property or realrightPersonal property taken Conchita Quinao v People (2000) FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao,together with their other close relatives appeared on theproperty of Francisco and Bienvenido Del Monte. Whilethere, with the use of force, violence and intimidation,usurped and took possession of the landholding, claimingthat the same is their inheritance from their ascendantsfurther they gathered coconuts and made them into copra.Thus, Bienvenido Del Monte was forcibly driven out by theaccused from their landholding and was threatened that heshould not return lest harm befall him. He was thus forcedto seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine NationalPolice. In the trial court, defendants asserted a calim overthe land despite the fact that a prior judicial decisiondeclared the Del Montes as the rightful owners.Resultantly, defendants were found guilty of usurpation ofreal property.HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation, thedecision rendered by the trial court convicting her of thecrime of usurpation of real property was not based on"speculations, surmises and conjectures" but clearly on theevidence on record and in accordance with the applicablelaw. The requisites of usurpation are that the accused tookpossession of another's real property or usurped real rightsin another's property; that the possession or usurpation wascommitted with violence or intimidation and that theaccused had animo lucrandi. In order to sustain aconviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales," the proofmust show that the real property occupied or usurpedbelongs, not to the occupant or usurper, but to some thirdperson, and that the possession of the usurper wasobtained by means of intimidation or violence done to theperson ousted of possession of the property.More explicitly, in Castrodes vs. Cubelo, theCourt stated that the elements of the offense are (1)occupation of another's real properly or usurpation of a realright belonging to another person; (2) violence orintimidation should be employed in possessing the realproperty or in usurping the real right, and (3) the accusedshould be animated by the intent to gain. Article 313. Altering boundaries orlandmarks Elements:1.That there be boundary marks ormonuments of towns, provinces, orestates, or any other marks intended todesignate the boundaries of the same 2.

The offender alters said boundary marksIntent to gain NOT necessary. The mere alteration of the boundary marksor monuments intended to designate theboundaries of towns, provinces, or estate ispunishable."Alter": General and indefinite meaning.Includes:a.destruction of stone monumentb.taking it to another place orc.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 severalmerchants in Cebu. Judgment was renderedagainst him and execution issued. He ownedseveral parcels of real property which hetransferred to another to place them beyondthe reach of his creditors. The considerations inthe deed of sale were all fictitious.Actual prejudice, not intention alone, isrequiredConcealment of property not sufficient if thedebtor-accused has some other property withwhich to satisfy his obligation.Being a merchant is not an element of thisoffense. It only makes the penalty higherReal property may be involved"Absond"- does not require that the debtorshould depart and physically conceal hisproperty. Hence, real property may be thesubject of fraudulent insolvency.Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of theoffenderExample: Wife of accused helped preparedocuments to

abscond with his property. Suchparticipation does NOT prove her complicity inthe fraud, since it was the creditors of herhusband (not HER creditors) who weredefrauded.Distinguished from Insolvency Law:Insolvency Law: requires that the criminalact be committed AFTER the institution of insolvency proceedings

Fraudulent insolvency: no need fordefendant to be adjudged bankrupt orinsolvent. Article 315. Swindling (Estafa) P.D. 2018Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic SabotageActs punishable 1. Any recruitment activities, including theprohibited practices enumerated under Article34 of the Labor Code, to be undertaken bynon-licensees or non-holders of authorityshall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. The Ministryof Labor and Employment or any lawenforcement officers may initiate complaintsunder this Article. 2. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall beconsidered an offense involving economicsabotage and shall be penalized in accordancewith Article 39 of the Labor Code Illegal recruitment is deemed committedby a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/orconfederating with one another in carrying outany unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise orscheme. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed inlarge scale if committed against three (3) ormore persons individually or as a group. Powers of Minister of Labor and Employment(now Secretary of DOLE) The Minister of Labor and Employment orhis duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of suchnon-license or non-holder of authority if afterinvestigation it is determined that his activitiesconstitute a danger to national security and publicorder or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The Minister shall

order the search of theoffice or premises and seizure of documentsparaphernalia, properties and other implements usedin illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishment and entities found to beengaged in the recruitment of workers for overseasemployment, without having been licensed orauthorized to do so. Three general ways of committing Estafa:1.with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence2.by means of false pretenses or fraudulentacts3.through fraudulent meansElements 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 toa.the offended party orb.third person* As seen above, DECEIT is NOT an essentialrequisite of estafa with abuse of confidence* As to second general element of DAMAGE, itshould be capable of pecuniary estimation,since amount of the damage is the basis of thepenalty.* intent of defrauding another is always anelement* no estafa through negligence -Estafa through Abuse of ConfidenceI. Article 315, Paragraph 1 (a):Estafa with unfaithfulness byaltering the substance, quantity,or quality of anything of value

Elements:1.That the offender has an onerousobligation to deliver something of value2.That he alters its substance, quantity, orquality3.That damage or prejudice is caused byanother There must be an onerous obligationIf the thing delivered had not yet been fullypaid or just partially paid, NO ESTAFA even if there was alteration

Ratio: there was nodamage to talk about When there is no agreement as to thequality of the thing to be delivered, C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer139

delivery of a thing unacceptable to thecomplainant is NOT estafa. Even though such obligation be based onan immoral or illegal consideration. Estafamay arise even if the thing to be deliveredis not subject of lawful commerce (ex.opium) II.Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b):misappropriating or convertingmoney, goods, or other personalproperty OR denying havingreceived such money, goods, orother personal property Elements:1.That money, goods, or other personalproperty be received by the offender ina.trust (Trust Receipts Law)b.on commissionc.for administrationd.under any obligation involvingduty to return the very same thing 2. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of such property by the offender OR (b) denial

of such receipt3.There is prejudice to another4.Demand was made by the offended to theoffender PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 115 January 29,1973PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUSTRECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS"Trust Receipt" -- shall refer to the written orprinted document signed by the entrustee in favor of the entruster containing terms and conditionssubstantially complying with the provisions of thisDecree. No further formality of execution orauthentication shall be necessary to the validity of atrust receipt.What constitutes a trust receipt transaction?A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by andbetween a person referred to as the entruster , andanother person referred to as entrustee , wherebythe entruster, who owns or holds absolute title orsecurity interests over certain specified goods,documents or instruments, releases the same to thepossession of the entrustee upon the latter'sexecution and delivery to the entruster of a signeddocument called a "trust receipt" wherein theentrustee binds himself to hold the designatedgoods, documents or instruments in trust for theentruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of thegoods, documents or instruments with the obligationto turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof tothe extent of the amount owing to the entruster or asappears in the trust receipt or the goods, documentsor instruments themselves if they are unsold or nototherwise disposed of, in accordance with the termsand conditions specified in the trust receipt, or forother purposes substantially equivalent to any of thefollowing: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 withthe purpose of ultimate sale: Provided , That, in the case of goods delivered undertrust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before itsultimate sale, the entruster shall retain itstitle over the goods whether in its original orprocessed form until the entrustee hascomplied fully with his obligation under thetrust receipt; orc) to load, unload, ship or tranship orotherwise deal with them in a mannerpreliminary or necessary to their sale; or2. In the case of instruments

,a)to sell or procure their sale orexchange; orb)to deliver them to a principal; orc)to effect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to adepository or register; ord)to effect their presentation,collection or renewal NOTE : The sale of goods, documents or instrumentsby a person in the business of selling goods,documents or instruments for profit who, at theoutset of the transaction, has, as against the buyer,general property rights in such goods, documents orinstruments, or who sells the same to the buyer oncredit, retaining title or other interest as security forthe payment of the purchase price, does notconstitute a trust receipt transaction. Allied Banking v. Ordonez PBM got equipment from bank and executed trust receiptagreement (TRA) -- acknowledged bank's ownership ofequipment and PBM's obligation to turn over the proceedsof the sale of said equipments. Sec. Of Justice said thatsince PBM would not be selling the equipment but wouldjust 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 byPBM and not to be sold is of no importance. Any violation ofthe TRA is punished (Geof's notes in Comm: wrong SCdecision!

) Lee vs. Rodil Lee executed TRA for the purchase of materials butmisappropriated the value of the goods for personal use.Charged with estafa under PD 115. Challenged the validityof the law saying that a violation of PD 115 is NOT estafaand that the law violates non-imprisonment for debtsclause of the Constitution.

Both are continuing offenses The funds or propertyare always privateInvolves public funds orproperty The offender is a privateindividual or a publicofficer who is notaccountable for publicfunds or propertyOffender is usually apublic officer who isaccountable for publicfunds or property The crime is committedby misappropriating,converting or denyinghaving received money,goods or other personalproperty The crime is committedby appropriating, takingor misappropriating orconsenting, or throughabandonment ornegligence, permittingany other person to takethe public funds orproperty Private individual allegedly inconspiracy with public officer in aprosecution of the latter for malversation,may still be held liable for Estafa even if the public officer was acquitted.

 Misappropriation of firearmsreceived by a policeman is Estafa, if it isnot involved in the commission of a crime.It is malversation, if it is involved in thecommission of a crime. Saddul v. CA Saddul was authorized to sell some car parts. 20% of theproceeds from sale would go to AMPI.HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Saddul did not receive theparts from AMPI in trust (received it from another partywhich was the owner of the parts). Saddul did not convertit for personal use. Failure to deliver the proceeds did notcause damage to AMPI, as it was not the owner of theparts. Also, AMPI did not demand return of the parts. III.Article 315, par 1, (c): estafa bytaking undue advantage of thesignature of the offended party inblank Elements:1.That the paper with the signature of theoffended party be in blank2.That the offended party should havedelivered it to the offender3.That above the signature, a document iswritten by offender without authority to doso 4. That the document so written creates aliability of, or causes damage to theoffended party or any third person The paper with the signature in blank MUSTBE DELIVERED by the offended party to theoffender (otherwise, crime is falsification of instrument) -Estafa by DeceitElements of Estafa by means of deceit:1.There must be a false pretense,fraudulent act or fraudulent means;2.Such false pretense, fraudulent act orfraudulent means must be made orexecuted prior to or simultaneously withthe commission of the fraud;3.The offended party must have relied onthe false pretense, fraudulent act, orfraudulent means, that is, he was inducedto part with his money or property becauseof the false pretense, fraudulent act orfraudulent means;4.As a result thereof, the offended partysuffered damage. IV.Article 315, par 2, (a) Three ways of committing estafa under thisprovision:1.using fictitious name2.falsely pretending to possessa.powerb.influencec.qualificationsd.propertye.creditf.agencyg.business or imaginarytransactions3.other similar deceits

fictitious name: when a person found apawnshop ticket in the name of anotherand, using the name of that person,redeemed the jewelry Pretending to possess power: "pretend tobe a magician who can find gold, but payme to find the gold under your house"trick. Pretending to possess influence: I haveconnections in Malacaang so pay me if you wanna get your documents approved"trick Estafa by means of deceit vs. theft: juridical/ legal possession is still transferred C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer142

to offender in case of estafa. But it istransferred through deceit. V.Article 315, Paragraph 2 (b): byaltering quality, fineness, orweight of anything pertaining tohis art or business Example: A gives B, a jeweler, a diamondto be made into a ring. B changed thestone with one of lower quality. Manipulation of Scale: violation of RevisedAdministrative Code VI.Article 315, Paragraph 2 (c):pretending to have bribed anyGovernment employee Person would ask money from another forthe alleged purpose of bribing agovernment employee but just pocketedthe money after "without prejudice to an action forcalumny" : the offender may also becharged with defamation which thegovernment employee allegedly bribedmay deem proper to bring against theoffender

VII.Article 315, Paragraph 2 (d):postdating a check in payment of an obligation when the offenderhad no funds in the bank, or hisfunds were not sufficient to coverthe amount Elements:1.That the offender postdated a check, orissued a check in payment of an obligation2.That such postdating or issuing was donewhen:a.offender had no funds orb.funds deposited were notsufficient check must be genuine and not falsified,otherwise, it is estafa under paragraph2(a), not 2(d) (example: signing a checkwith a fictitious name and falselypretending said check could be encashed) the issuance of a check is NOT for a preexisting obligation. It MUST be for anobligation contracted at the time of theissuance or delivery of the check.

When check is issued insubstitution of a promissory note, it isin payment of a pre existing obligation

When the check is issued by aguarantor, there is no Estafa because itis not in payment of an obligation. Prima facie evidence of deceit: failure of the drawer of the check to deposit theamount necessary to cover his checkwithin three days from receipt of noticefrom the bank and/or the payee or holderthat said check has been dishonored forlack or insufficiency of funds

otherwise, if drawer is able tofund within 3 days from notice of dishonoring, not liable for estafa VIII. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (e):Estafa by obtaining food oraccommodation at a hotel, etc Three ways of committing estafa under the thisprovision:1.By obtaining food, refreshment, oraccommodation at a hotel, etc. withoutpaying therefor, with intent to defraud theproprietor or manager thereof.2.By obtaining credit at any of saidestablishments by the use of falsepretenses3.By abandoning or surreptitiously removingany part of his baggage from any of saidestablishments after obtaining credit, food,refreshment, or accommodation therein,without paying therefor. IX.Article 315, Paragraph 3 (a):Estafa by inducing another to signany document

Elements:1.That the offender induced the offendedparty to sign a document.2.That deceit be employed to make him signthe document3.That the offended party personally signedthe document4.That prejudice be caused There must be inducement:

if the offended party waswilling to sign although there wasdeceit as to the character or contentsof the document (because the contentsare different from those which theoffended party told the accused to C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer143

state in the document)

crime isfalsification accused should make statements tendingto mislead the complainant as to thecharacter of the document executed byhim. X.Article 315, Paragraph 3 (b):Estafa by resorting to somefraudulent practice to insuresuccess in gamblingXI.Article 315, Paragraph 3 (c): Estafaby removing, concealing, ordestroying documents Elements:1.That there be court record, office files,documents or any other papers2.That the offender removed, concealed ordestroyed any of them3.That the offender had intent to defraudanother If no intent to defraud, the act of destroying court record will be maliciousmischief Examples: 1. Concealing document : A person whoconcealed a document evidencing adeposit of P2,600 which came into hispossession when he offered to collect thedeposit is guilty of estafa.

2. Destroying documents : Destruction of a PNgiven back to the maker to be replacedwith a new one to renew the loan, withoutmaking a new promissory note is estafabecause by destroying the old one, theoffended party was dispossessed of theevidence of a debt. In a very old case, it was ruled that the actof destroying a PN, given to cover losses ingambling, by the maker thereof, is Estafa.However, there was a dissenting opinionwhich stated that such PN is void and of novalue, hence it cannot be the subject of estafa. Estafa under par. 3 (c)Infidelity in thecustody of documents Manner of committing offenses is the same The offender is a privateindividual or even apublic officer who is not The offender is a publicofficer who is officiallyentrusted with theofficially entrusted withthe documentsdocument There is intent to defraudIntent to defraud not anelement in this crime Final Notes on Estafa: The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa with abuse of confidence under aninformation alleging estafa by means of deceit. If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence, there is no estafa, even if thereis damage. There is only civil liability. There CAN be a complex crime of theft andestafa, when the former is a necessarymeans to commit the latter. C, with intentto gain, took the pawnshop tickets withoutthe consent of A (Theft). By redeeming the jewels by means of the tickets, C alsocommitted estafa, using a fictitious name. The basis of the penalty for estafa is theamount or value of the propertymisappropriated BEFORE the institution of the criminal action. Hence, partial paymentmade subsequent to the commission of estafa does not reduce the amountmisappropriated which is the basis of thepenalty. A private person who procures a loan bymeans of deceit through a falsified publicdocument of mortgage, but who effects fullsettlement of the loan within the periodagreed upon, does not commit

the crime of Estafa, there being no disturbance of proprietary rights and no person defraudedthereby. The crime committed is onlyfalsification of public document. "Prejudice" consists in:1.The offended party being deprived of hismoney or property as a result of the fraud2.Disturbance in property rights3.Temporary prejudice Celino vs. CA Accused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of adwarf. They were able to make the victim allow them todig in the victim's backyard and extort some funds from himwith the promise that it would grow into a big amount.HELD: GUILTY of estafa by false pretense, havingpretended to have special powers and fooled the extremelystupid victim. Abujuela vs. People Balo offered financial assistance to Abujuela by virtue ofsome insurance proceeds that Balo would receive from his father. Balo borrowed Abujuela's passbook and made itappear that certain deposits were made. When the accountwas closed, discrepancies were found between the ledgerand the account. Abujuela charged as accomplice to estafathrough falsification of commercial documentsHELD: NOT guilty. Abujuela NOT aware of the fraudulentplans of Balo. Knowledge of criminal intent is essential tobe an accomplice in estafa. Koh Tieng Heng vs. People Heng deposited two checks worth P18,060 each issued by acertain Dyaico. Then he withdrew several times from theaccount. Diayco questioned the withdrawals. Heng wasfinally caught trying to withdraw again.HELD: Possession and utterance of a falsified check givesrise to the presumption that the possessor is the forger ofthe check. Attempted estafa correct as he was caughttrying to withdraw. People vs. Ong Ong deposits checks then withdraws from the depositedaccounts on the same day without waiting for the required5-day clearance period for checks. The drawee bankssubsequently dishonored deposited checks.HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Ong had no knowledge of lackof funds, checks not issued in payment of an obligation asrequired by the RPC. Lastly, Ong did not employ deceit inwithdrawing the money as the bank waived the 5-dayclearance period for its preferred customers where Ongwas one of those. Llamado vs. CA

Gaw delivered to accused the amount of P180,000.00, withthe assurance of Aida Tan, the secretary of the accused inthe corporation, that it will be repaid plus interests and ashare in the profits of the corporation, if any. Upondelivery of the money, accused Ricardo Llamado andJacinto Pascual signed a postdated Philippine TrustCompany Check in the presence of Gaw. Gaw depositedthe check in his current account, which the drawee bankdishonored later informed Gaw that said check becausepayment was stopped, and that the check was drawnagainst insufficient funds. Gaw was also notified by thebank that his current account was debited because of thedishonor of the said check. After trial on the merits, thetrial court rendered judgment convicting the accused ofviolation of Batas Pambansa No. 22.HELD: Llamado denies knowledge of the issuance of thecheck without sufficient funds and involvement in thetransaction with Gaw. However, knowledge involves astate of mind difficult to establish. Thus, the statute itselfcreates a prima facie presumption, i.e., that the drawerhad knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or creditwith the bank at the time of the issuance and on thecheck's presentment for payment. Llamado failed to rebutthe presumption by paying the amount of the check withinfive (5) banking days from notice of the dishonor. His claimthat he signed the check in blank which allegedly iscommon business practice, is hardly a defense. If as heclaims, he signed the check in blank, he made himselfprone to being charged with violation of BP 22. It becameincumbent upon him to prove his defenses. As Treasurer ofthe corporation who signed the check in his capacity as anofficer of the corporation, lack of involvement in thenegotiation 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'soffice. In fact, Llamado admits that Gaw made aninvestment in said amount with Pan-Asia FinanceCorporation. Llamado contends that the money which Gawgave the corporation was intended for investment whichthey agreed will be returned to Gaw with interests, only ifthe project became successful. But then, if this were true,the check need not have been issued because a receipt andtheir written agreement would have sufficed.True, it is common practice in commercial transactions torequire debtors to issue checks on which creditors mustrely as guarantee of payment, or as evidence ofindebtedness, if not a mode of payment. But to determinethe reason for which checks are issued, or the terms andconditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faiththe public reposes in the stability and commercial value ofchecks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc intrade and in banking communities. So, what the lawpunishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not thepurpose for which it was issued nor the terms andconditions 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 ChiongSun to manage the Units Optical Supply Company. TheSPOA also authorized Lu Hayco To deposit and withdrawfunds in the name of the company.Lu Hayco deposited P139,000 paid by customers of theUnits Optical, not in the company's banks but in his ownpersonal accounts. After 2 demand letters were ignored, acriminal complaint for

estafa thru falsification of a publicdocument 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 75counts, I think). Eventually, he was convicted. Lu Haycoargues, among others, that there is no estafa since theelement of misappropriation or conversion was not proven.HELD: The disturbance in property rights caused bymisappropriation, though only temporary, is itself sufficientto constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 315(l -b) ofthe RPC. In U.S. v. Goyenechea (8 Phil. 117), the defendantpledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough & Co. to theAmerican Loan Company. Because of said act, thetypewriter was seized by the police, and taken into court.Throughout the trial, McCullough & Co. was placed in adoubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. [TheSC] held that: McCullough & Co. at least suffereddisturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter andin the possession thereof. This fact, by itself, and withoutit being necessary to deal with any other considerations ofmaterial fact herein, always constitutes real and actualdamage, and is positive enough under rule of law toproduce one of the elements constituting the offense, thecrime of estafa . C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer145

In the case at bar, there was a disturbance in the propertyrights of Lu Chiong Sun. While the funds received by LuHayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts, LuChiong Sun and Units Optical could not dispose of the saidamounts. At least, this could be considered as a temporaryprejudice suffered by Lu Chiong Sun, which is sufficient toconstitute conversion in the context of Art. 315 (1-b) of theRPC. Salcedo vs. CA Salcedo was the local branch manager of ManhattanGuaranty Company, Inc. at Iligan City, which was engagedin the business of property insurance. Said company hadbeen suspended from operating and eventually closed bythe Insurance Commissioner since February 21, 1968.Salcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order buthe deliberately concealed the same from complainantPonce when he

issued on March 18, 1968 a P50,000 fireinsurance policy unto the complainant, and collectedPl,095.80 as premium. Eventually, the City Court of IliganCity convicted Salcedo of estafa .HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of ManhattanGuarantee. When he signed and issued the policy andcollected the premium thereof, he had knowledge that hiscompany was no longer authorized to conduct insurancebusiness. This knowledge makes him liable under paragraph2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC which provides that:2. By means of any of the following false pretenses orfraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously withthe commission of the fraud:(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending topossess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means ofother 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 orfraudulent representations as to his power, influence,qualifications, property, credit, agency, business orimaginary that such false premises or fraudulentrepresentations constitute the very cause whichinduced the offended party to part with his money orproperty, and that as result thereof, the offendedparty suffered damage.All these requisites are present in this case. The deliberateconcealment by Salcedo of the fact that his company wasno longer authorized to engage in the business of insurancewhen he signed and issued the fire insurance policy andcollected the premium payment constitutes falserepresentations or false pretenses, upon which thecomplainant relied when he paid the premium. People v. Remullo, 383 SCRA 93 (2002) FACTS: Quinsaat, Cadacio, and Mejia went toappellant's house sometime in March 1993, whereRemullo told them she was recruiting factory workersfor Malaysia. Remullo told them to fill up applicationforms and to go to the office of Jamila and Co., therecruitment agency where Remullo allegedly worked.Remullo also required each applicant to submit apassport, pictures, and clearance from the NBI; andthen to undergo a medical examination The threewere then asked by Remullo to pay a placement feeof P15,000 for each applicant, which they did. Noreceipts were issued for said payments. At the timeof their supposed departure, an immigration officerat the airport told the victims they lacked arequirement imposed by the POEA. Their passportswere cancelled and their boarding passes marked"offloaded". Evelyn Landrito, vice president andgeneral manager of Jamila later certified thatappellant was not authorized to receive payments onbehalf of Jamila.

HELD: In this case, appellant clearly defraudedprivate complainants by deceiving them into believing thatshe had the power and authority to send them on jobsabroad. By virtue of appellant's false representations,private complainants each parted with their hard-earnedmoney. Each complainant paid P15,000 as recruitment feeto appellant, who then appropriated the money for her ownuse and benefit, but failed utterly to provide overseas jobplacements to the complainants. In a classic rigmarole,complainants were provided defective visas, brought to theairport with their passports and tickets, only to beoffloaded that day, but with promises to be booked in aplane flight on another day. The recruits wait in vain forweeks, months, even years, only to realize they weregypped, as no jobs await them abroad. No clearer cases ofestafa could be imagined than those for which appellantshould be held criminally responsible.

Through conversion or misappropriation Crisanto Lee v. People (2005) FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in thetrading of animal feeds. Robert Crisanto Lee was thecorporation's sales manager from early 90's to 1994. In thecourse of Lee's employment therewith, he was able to bringin Ocean Feed Mills as a client. Having "personally found"Ocean Feed Mills, he handled said account. Transactionsbetween the two companies were then coursed throughLee, so that it was upon the latter's instructions that OceanFeed Mills addressed its payments through telegraphictransfers to either "Atoz Trading and/or Robert Lee" or"Robert Lee".When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in1994, Atoz audited some of the accounts handled by him. Itwas then that Atoz discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaidaccount in the amount of P318,672.00. Atoz thus notifiedOcean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was no longer connectedwith the corporation, and advised it to verify its accounts.Promptly preparing a certification and summary ofpayments, Ocean Feed Mills informed Atoz that they havealready fully settled their accounts and even madeoverpayments. Atoz filed several cases of estafa againstLee, and the trial court found him guilty.HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence areas follows: a) that money, goods or other personal propertyis received by the offender in trust, or on commission, orfor administration, or under any other obligation involvingthe duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; b) thatthere be misappropriation or conversion of such money orproperty by the offender; or denial on his part of such

receipt; c) that such misappropriation or conversion ordenial is to the prejudice of another.The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as usedin the aforequoted law connote an act of using or disposingof another's property as if it were one's own or of devotingit to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To"misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use orbenefit, not only the conversion to one's personaladvantage but also every attempt to dispose of theproperty of another without a right. Misappropriation orconversion may be proved by the prosecution by directevidence or by circumstantial

evidence.Demand is not an element of the felony or acondition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaintfor estafa. Indeed, the accused may be convicted of thefelony under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RevisedPenal Code if the prosecution proved misappropriation orconversion by the accused of the money or propertysubject of the Information. In a prosecution for estafa,demand is not necessary where there is evidence ofmisappropriation or conversion. However, failure toaccount 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 thePhilippines through its buying agent, Olivier (Philippines)Inc. Aurora Manufacturing & Development Corporation(Aurora) and Uni-Group Inc. (Uni-Group) are domesticcorporations 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 ofAurora.In December 1985, Skiva informed Olivier that itneeds ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January1986. Olivier, in turn, contacted Aurora and Uni-Group tosupply the jeans. Thus, a Purchase Contract was issued byOlivier to Uni-Group wherein Uni-Group was to supply 700dozens of Ladies Jeans payable by means of a letter ofcredit at sight.On January 7, 1986, the parties agreed that Skivawill advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount ofUS$41,300.00 (then equivalent to P850,370.00 at theexchange rate of P20.59 to US$1.00) as Aurora/Uni-Groupdid not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials tomanufacture the jeans. It was also agreed that the amountadvanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its orderof 700 dozens of ladies jeans. Skiva remitted the funds byway of telegraphic transfer from its bank in New York, theIsrael Discount Bank, to the joint account of Mr. and Mrs.Jorge Salazar and Mr. and Mrs. Werner Lettmayr at CitibankN.A.Mr. Jorge Salazar withdrew money from thedollar account converted it into pesos and purchased clothfor the manufacture of 300 dozens of ladies jeans. Thebalance was allegedly returned by him. However, thebalance was later found missing. Resultantly Aurora/Uni-Group failed to produce the 700 dozens of ladies jeansresulting in a suit against them. Salazar was charged andconvicted. His conviction was upheld even by the SupremeCourt. However in this Motion for Reconsideration, the SCreversed and held he was innocent.HELD: We find merit in the new motion. Theelements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of theRevised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money,goods or other personal property is received by theoffender in trust or on commission, or for administration,or under any other obligation involving the duty to makedelivery of or to return the same; (b) that there bemisappropriation or conversion of such money or propertyby the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (c)that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to theprejudice of another; and (d) there is demand by theoffended party to the offender.We reiterate that the contract between Skiva andAurora was one of sale. After the perfection of the contractof sale, Mr. Werner Lettmayr, representing Aurora/Uni-Group, requested Skiva for advance payment in order toprocure the raw materials needed for the 700-dozen ladiesjeans. It was also Mr. Lettmayr who suggested that theadvance payment be made to the joint account of himselfand his wife, together with petitioner and his wife. Asrequested, $41,300.00 was transmitted by Skiva as advancepayment. Despite the payment, there was delay in theperformance 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 committedestafa. We agree. In Abeto vs. People, we held that anadvance payment is subject to the disposal of thevendee. If the transaction fails, the obligation to returnthe advance payment ensues but this obligation is civiland not of criminal nature. In fine, the remedy of Skivaagainst Aurora/Uni-Group for breaching its contract is acivil, not a criminal suit. Virgie Serona v Court of Appeals (2002) FACTS: Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces ofjewelry to Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis. Byoral agreement of the parties, petitioner shall remitpayment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold toQuilatan, both within 30 days from receipt of the items.Upon petitioner's failure to pay, Quilatan required her toexecute an acknowledgment receipt indicating theiragreement and the total amount due. Unknown toQuilatan, Serona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to oneMarichu 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 toQuilatan. After demand, Quilatan filed a complaint withthe prosecutor and Serona was charged with estafa. Thetrial court found her guilty.HELD: Serona did not ipso facto commit thecrime of estafa through conversion or misappropriation bydelivering the jewelry to a sub-agent for sale oncommission basis. We are unable to agree with the lowercourts' conclusion that this fact alone is sufficient groundfor holding that petitioner disposed of the jewelry "as if itwere hers, thereby committing conversion and a clearbreach of trust." It must be pointed out that the law onagency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by anagent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of anexpress agreement to the contrary between the agent andthe principal. In the case at bar, the appointment ofLabrador as petitioner's sub-agent was not expresslyprohibited by Quilatan in the acknowledgement receipt.Neither does it appear that Serona was verbally forbiddenby Quilatan from passing on the jewelry to another personbefore the acknowledgment receipt was executed or at any C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer147

other time. Thus, it cannot be said that Serona 's act ofentrusting the jewelry to Labrador is characterized byabuse of confidence because such an act was notproscribed and is, in fact, legally sanctioned. Cristeta Chua Burce v Court of Appeals (2000) FACTS: After finding a shortage of P150,000.00 inthe vault of Metrobank, Calapan Branch, severalinvestigations were carried out, all of them concluded thatthe person primarily responsible was the banks CashCustodian, Cristeta Chua-Burce. She was found guilty ofestafa by the trial court.HELD: Petitioner herein being a mere cashcustodian had no juridical possession over the missingfunds. Hence, the element of juridical possession beingabsent, petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime ofestafa under Article 315, No. 1 (b) of the Revised PenalCode.When the money, goods, or any other

personalproperty is received by the offender from the offendedparty (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) foradministration, the offender acquires both material orphysical possession and juridical possession of the thingreceived. Juridical possession means a possession whichgives the transferee a right over the thing which thetransferee may set up even against the owner. In this case,petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarilyresponsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of thecash 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 bankmisappropriated the money received by him for the bank.He was found liable for qualified theft on the theory thatthe possession of the teller is the possession of the bank.We explained in Locson that "The money was in the possession of thedefendant as receiving teller of the bank, and thepossession of the defendant was the possession of thebank. When the defendant, with grave abuse ofconfidence, removed the money and appropriated it to hisown use without the consent of the bank, there was thetaking or apoderamiento contemplated in the definition ofthe crime of theft."In the subsequent case of Guzman v. Court ofAppeals, 28 a travelling sales agent misappropriated orfailed to return to his principal the proceeds of things orgoods he was commissioned or authorized to sell. He was,however, found liable for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) ofthe Revised Penal Code, and not qualified theft. In theGuzman case, we explained the distinction betweenpossession of a bank teller and an agent for purposes ofdetermining criminal liability "The case cited by the Court of Appeals (Peoplevs. Locson, 57 Phil. 325), in support of its theory thatappellant only had the material possession of themerchandise he was selling for his principal, or theirproceeds, is not in point. In said case, the receiving tellerof a bank who misappropriated money received by him forthe bank, was held guilty of qualified theft on the theorythat the possession of the teller is the possession of thebank. There is an essential distinction between thepossession by a receiving teller of funds received from thirdpersons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives theproceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him inagency by his principal. In the former case, payment bythird persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself;the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the fundsreceived, and has no independent right or title to retain orpossess the same as against the bank. An agent, on theother hand, can even assert, as against his own principal,an independent, autonomous, right to retain money orgoods received in consequence of the agency; as when theprincipal 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 syndicatedand 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 ofthe testimonies of private complainants; a certificationfrom the Philippine Overseas EmploymentAdministration (POEA) that Karl Reichl and YolandaGutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities wereneither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruitworkers for overseas employment; the receipts for thepayment made by private complainants; and twodocuments signed by the Reichl spouses where theyadmitted that they promised to secure Austrian touristvisas for private complainants and that they wouldreturn all the expenses incurred by them if they are notable to leave by March 24, 1993, 3 and where KarlReichl pledged to refund to private complainants thetotal sum of

P1,388,924.00 representing the amountsthey paid for the processing of their papers. Thedefense interposed denial and alibi. The trial courtconvicted accused-appellants of one (1) count of illegalrecruitment 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 isconvicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, beconvicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the RevisedPenal Code provided the elements of estafa arepresent.Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of theRevised Penal Code is committed by any person whodefrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falselypretends to possess power, influence, qualifications,property, credit, agency, business or imaginarytransactions, or by means of similar deceits executedprior to or simultaneously with the commission of thefraud. The offended party must have relied on the falsepretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of theaccused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offendedparty suffered damages.It has been proved in this case that accused-appellantsrepresented themselves to private complainants tohave the capacity to send domestic helpers to Italy,although they did not have any authority or license. Itis by this representation that they induced privatecomplainants 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 whoowned a bookstore. Sometime in May 1989, she wascontacted by Manuel Dayandante @ Manny Cruz whooffered to buy her land in Pili, Camarines Sur. He toldHonesta that the company he represented wasinterested in purchasing her property. Her daughterand she met Dayandante and a certain Lawas (RodolfoSevilla) at the Aristocrat Hotel. They said they workedas field purchasing representative and field purchasinghead, respectively, of the Taiwanese Marine Products.They persuaded Honesta to purchase cans of a marinepreservative which, could be bought for P1,500 eachfrom a certain peddler. In turn, they would buy thesecans from her at P2,000 each.The following day, May 20, 1989 GlennOrosco, appeared at Honesta's store and introducedhimself as an agent, a.k.a. "Rey," who sold said marinepreservative. Honesta purchased a can which she soldto Dayandante for P1,900. The following day, May 21,Orosco brought five more cans which Honesta boughtand eventually sold to Lawas. It was during thistransaction that petitioner Roberto Erquiaga, a.k.a."Mr. Guerrerro," was introduced to Honesta to ascertainwhether the cans of marine preservative were genuineor not.On May 24, Orosco delivered 215 cans toHonesta. Encouraged by the huge profits from herprevious transactions, she purchased all 215 cans forP322,500. She borrowed the money from a Jose Bicharaat 10% interest on the advice of Erquiaga who lent herP5,000.00 as deposit or earnest money and whopromised to shoulder the 10% interest of her loan. Soonafter the payment, Lawas, Dayandante, Erquiaga, andOrosco vanished. Realizing that she was conned,Honesta reported the incident to the National Bureauof Investigation (NBI) which, upon examination of thecontents of the cans, discovered that these werenothing more than starch.On December 4, 1989, an Information forEstafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the RevisedPenal Code, was filed against Roberto Erquiaga, GlennOrosco, Pastor Lawas and Manuel Dayandante.HELD: That petitioners had conspired witheach other must be viewed not in isolation from but inrelation to an alleged plot, a sting, or "con

operation"known as "negosyo" of their group. Further, whethersuch a well-planned confidence operation resulted inthe consummated crime of estafa, however, must beestablished by the prosecution beyond reasonabledoubt.The elements of estafa or swindling underparagraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised PenalCode 18 are the following:1. That there must be a false pretense,fraudulent act or fraudulent means.2. That such false pretense, fraudulent actor fraudulent means must be made or executed prior toor simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.3. That the offended party must have reliedon the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulentmeans, that is, he was induced to part with his moneyor property because of the false pretense, fraudulentact, or fraudulent means.4. That as a result thereof, the offendedparty suffered damage.Erquiaga misrepresented himself as a"verifier" of the contents of the cans. He encouragedHonesta to borrow money. Petitioner Oroscomisrepresented himself as a seller of marinepreservative. They used aliases, Erquiaga as "Mr.Guerrero"; and Orosco as "Rey". Honesta fell for thesemisrepresentations and the lure of profits offered bypetitioners made her borrow money upon theirinducement, and then petitioners disappeared from thescene after taking the money from her. Elsa Jose v People [G.R. No. 148371. August 12,2004.] FACTS: 24 November 1994, Regie Ramos delRosario went with her aunt Yolanda B. Bautista to theoffice of Elsa Ramos. They asked Ramos whether shewas a travel agent. Ramos told del Rosario that shewas a professional travel agent and would assist herin going to Japan, as the former had severalconnection(s) at the Japanese Embassy. Ramos statedshe could help in the processing of passport, visa andround trip ticket.Del Rosario gave P30,000.00 as initialpayment and another P17,000.00 at a later date.Ramos assured them that the visa would be obtainedsoon and the P17,000.00 was in payment of the roundtrip ticket. Further, Ramos asked for anotherP57,000.00 stating that part of the money would beused to expedite the release of the visa. They wereassured that she would be able to leave for Japan withher mother. All these payments were accompanied by awritten receipt. Thereafter, Del Rosario kept followingup her papers with Ramos who insisted on her priorassurances that the visa would soon be released. DelRosario thereafter filed a case for estafa againstRamos, the RTC found her guilty as did the Court ofAppeals.HELD: Deceit refers to a falserepresentation of a matter of fact (whether by wordsor conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or byconcealment of that which should have been disclosed)which deceives or is intended to deceive another sothat he shall act upon it to his legal injury.On record are, on the one hand, the pieces ofevidence submitted by the People of the Philippinesestablishing how petitioner held herself out as aprofessional travel agent who could process and obtainfor private respondent a passport, as well as a round-trip ticket to and a visa for Japan. This charadeconvinced the latter and her family to part with theirP104,000. On the other hand is the testimony ofpetitioner denying she ever made suchmisrepresentation.The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubtthat the accused made false pretenses as to herqualifications and the transactions she had purportedlyentered into as a professional travel agent, who couldassist in processing private respondents travel papers.Undisputedly, she was not a travel agent. Neither wasshe licensed to engage in the business of travel agency.Indeed, private respondent has shown hergullibility and perhaps even foolishness in believingpetitioner and in consequently parting with herP104,000;

Others more sensible might not have done soin a similar situation. But such naivete cannot absolvepetitioner of criminal liability. It has been established C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer149

with moral certainty that she intentionally committed acrime in violation of the law enacted precisely toprotect not only the wary and the wily, but more so thegullible and the guileless. Eliza Pablo v People (2004] FACTS: The complainant Evangeline Bateswas approached by Eliza Pablo and Felomina Jacobeand Victoria Roberto Bates. Eliza introduced Victoriaand Felomina to her. The three convinced her tocontribute P330,000.00 as her share in the payment ofthe back taxes due on a parcel of land owned by thelate Pulmano Molintas in Baguio City, and once the titleis validated she will be assigned a 2,500square meterportion of the land. Because Eliza is her townmate andsince Victoria assured her that her son is married to adaughter of Pulmano, she agreed.Evangeline gave more than P330,000.00, orthe total amount of P332,000.00, because the threeaccused represented to her that they needed expensesin following up the papers of the land.Subsequently, Evangeline found out that instead ofpaying for the back taxes and validation of theproperty, the three accused divided the money amongthemselves. Evangeline demanded the return of hermoney and the three accused executed their respectivepromissory notes. Failing to pay, Evangeline filed acriminal complaint against them.HELD: Deceit is defined as the falserepresentation of a matter of fact, whether by wordsor conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or byconcealment of that which should have been disclosedwhich deceives or is intended to deceive another sothat he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Falsepretense is any deceitful practice or device by whichanother is led to part with the property in the thingtaken.The deceit or false pretense employed bypetitioners is the fact that they assured complainantthat the amount of P330,000.00 delivered to them andaccused Victoria by Evangeline was to pay the backtaxes of a certain parcel of land so that a title may besecured and complainant will be given 2,500 squaremeters of the subject land.The failure of petitioners and accused Roberto in notpaying the back taxes and in misappropriating the money totheir own personal use, constitute the crime of Estafa.Even if the land exists, the crime of Estafa is committedwhen petitioners and accused Roberto convincedcomplainant to part with her money on the basis of theirassurance that they will pay the back taxes due on the landso as to secure a title over the land and a portion thereoftitled in the name of complainant. Bouncing Checks BP 22 People v Grace Flores (2002) FACTS: Grace Flores issued a check inpayment of one (1) man's ring with a 5.8 ct. diamondfrom Pacita Del Rosario. The check was dishonored andpayment thereof refused for the reason "ACCOUNTCLOSED", notwithstanding due notice to her of suchdishonor of said check, failed and refused to depositthe

necessary amount of said check. Cases for Estafaand violation of B.P 22 were filed. The RTC foundFlores guilty.HELD: The elements of estafa, as definedunder Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code andamended by Republic Act No. 4885, are: (1) that theoffender postdated or issued a check in payment of anobligation contracted at the time of the postdating orissuance; (2) that at the time of the issuance of thecheck, the offender had no funds in the bank or thefunds deposited were insufficient to cover the amountof the check; and (3) that the payee has beendefrauded. 10These elements are present in this case.Accused-appellant admitted that she issued PCIB CheckNo. 558574, dated October 20, 1992, for P662,250.00to Pacita G. Del Rosario. 11 The check was issued aspayment for a ring and the P250.00 transportation farewhich accused-appellant received from complainant.The fraudulent intent of accused-appellanthad been proven to exist at the time of the issuance ofthe check. She misrepresented to complainant that shewas financially stable and that her business wasflourishing. In reality, however, accused-appellant hadno funds sufficient to cover the check she issued tocomplainant. It is thus clear that she obtained theamounts of P662,000.00 and P250.00 through deceit. Asalready stated, the account was closed on the verydate of the postdated check issued to complainant. People v Alexander Dinglasan (2002) FACTS: Alexander Dinglasan was the ownerand operator of Alexander Transport, while privatecomplainant Charles Q. Sia is the owner of SchanikaEnterprises engaged in retailing nylon tires. Dinglasanissued three checks as payment for tire purchases.When the checks fell due, Sia deposited them, but thedrawee bank, Banco de Oro, dishonored these forinsufficiency of funds. He then tried to call Dinglasanseveral times, but his calls were unanswered. Sia, withthe assistance of a lawyer, then sent appellant ademand letter. All he got were promises that appellantwould pay the amounts due, 13 finally prompting himto hale appellant to court. Dinglasan vigorously deniedany intent to deceive or defraud Sia. He vehementlyinsisted that his refusal to pay Sia was primarily due tothe poor quality of the tires sold him by the latter. Thetrial court convicted Dinglasan.HELD: Dinglasan was charged and convictedof estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised PenalCode. 22 The elements of the offense are: (1)postdating or issuing a check in payment of anobligation 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 suchcircumstances; and (4) damage to the complainant.The first element of the offense requires that thedishonored check must have been postdated or issuedat the time the obligation was contracted. In otherwords, the date the obligation was entered into, beingthe very date the check was issued or postdated, is amaterial ingredient of the offense. Hence, not onlymust said date be specifically and particularly allegedin the information, it must be proved as alleged.

In the present case, the prosecution'sevidence clearly and categorically shows that there wasno 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, forwhich Check No. 029014 was allegedly postdated byappellant. The situation obtains similarly regardingCheck No. 029020. Again, there was no

obligationcontracted by the parties on July 24, 1994 for whichappellant allegedly postdated another check.Evidently, the first element of the offense was neithercorrectly alleged nor proven by the prosecution.Hence, appellant cannot be charged much less foundguilty of estafa with respect to Checks Nos. 029014 and029020. People v Aloma Reyes (2005) FACTS: Aloma Reyes, together with herdaughter, issued Jules Alabastro a check forrediscounting. He was allegedly lured to part with hismoney due to their seeming honest representationsthat the check was good and would never bounce.However, when the check was presented to the draweebank for encashment, the same was dishonored for thereason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and after having beennotified by such dishonor said accused failed andrefused to redeem said check despite repeateddemands.HELD: Appellant avers that the subjectcheck does not fall within the meaning of Section 185of the Negotiable Instruments Law which defines a"check" as a "bill of exchange drawn on a bank payableon demand." First, the NOW check is drawn against thesavings, 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 theface of a NOW check:"NOW" shall be payable only to a specificperson, natural or juridical. It is not valid when madepayable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when [i]ndorsed bythe payee to another person. Only the payee canencash this "NOW" with the drawee bank or deposit it inhis account with the drawee bank or with any otherbank.Appellant posits that this condition strips thesubject check the character of negotiability. Hence, itis not a negotiable instrument under the NegotiableInstruments Law, and not the "check" contemplated inCriminal Law.We disagree.Section X223 of the Manual of Regulations forBanks defines Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW)Accounts as interest-bearing deposit accounts thatcombine the payable on demand feature of checks andthe investment feature of savings accounts.The fact that a NOW check shall be payableonly to a specific person, and not valid when madepayable to "BEARER" or to "CASH" or when indorsed bythe payee to another person, is inconsequential. Thesame restriction is produced when a check is crossed:only the payee named in the check may deposit it in hisbank account. If a third person accepts a cross checkand pays cash for its value despite the warning of thecrossing, he cannot be considered in good faith andthus not a holder in due course. The purpose of thecrossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed bythe rightful payee only. Yet, despite the restriction onthe negotiability of cross checks, we held that they arenegotiable instruments.To be sure, negotiability is not the gravamenof the crime of estafa through bouncing checks. It isthe fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuinga worthless check that is penalized.Deceit, to constitute estafa, should be theefficient cause of defraudation. It must have beencommitted either prior or simultaneous with thedefraudation complained of. There must beconcomitance: the issuance of a check should be themeans to obtain money or property from the payee.Hence, a check issued in payment of a pre-existingobligation does not constitute estafa even if there is nofund in the bank to cover the amount of the check. Manuel Nagrampa v People (2002) FACTS: Nagrampa issued 2 checks (Php75,000each) to Fedcor Trading Corp represented by FedericoSantander on August 31, 1989 and September 30, 1989drawn against the Security Bank . When

said checkswere presented to the bank for payment, the samewere dishonored for the reason that the drawer did nothave any funds therein. Despite notice of dishonorthereof, Nagrampa failed and refused to redeem ormake good said checks, 2 cases were filed against him.The trial court found Nagrampa guilty of two counts ofviolation of the Bouncing Checks Law and sentencinghim to suffer imprisonment for two years and payFEDCOR P150,000.Petitioner appealed the decision to the Courtof Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.No. 18082. Upon noticing that the 30 September 1993Decision of the trial court did not resolve the issue ofpetitioner's liability for estafa, the Court of Appealsissued on 19 May 1998 a resolution 18 ordering thereturn of the entire records of the case to the trialcourt for the latter to decide the estafa case againstpetitioner.HELD: We l sustain the conviction for thecrime of estafa. Settled is the rule that, to constituteestafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check inpayment of an obligation must be the efficient cause ofdefraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to,or simultaneous with, the act of fraud. The offendermust be able to obtain money or property from theoffended party because of the issuance of the check, orthe person to whom the check was delivered would nothave parted with his money or property had there beenno check issued to him. Stated otherwise, the checkshould have been issued as an inducement for thesurrender by the party deceived of his money orproperty, and not in payment of a pre-existingobligation. People v. Rica Cuyugan (2002) FACTS: Rica G. Cuyugan issued to NormaAbagat several checks in payment of supplies shewanted to buy for the Philippine Armed Forces. Whenthe checks were presented for payment, they were alldishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn againstinsufficient funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED.Despite repeated demands, appellant failed to makegood the checks, which constrained the Abagat spousesto file a complaint for estafa against Cuyugan. Cuygan C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer151

claimed that the Abagat spousesand she were partnersin obtaining construction projects with the PhilippineArmy. She issued postdated checks as proof that theAbagat spouses had invested their money with her. Sheclaimed that she was the industrial partner as she didall the legwork in getting the projects. They thenshared in the profits after deducting all themiscellaneous expenses.The trial court found appellant guilty beyondreasonable doubt of estafa committed by means offalse pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to orsimultaneously with the commission of the fraud, thatis by postdating a check or issuing a check in paymentof an obligation when the offender had no funds in thebank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficientto cover the amount of the check.HELD: We find the appeal meritorious. Thetransaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses,in our view, was one for a loan of money to be used byappellant in her business and she issued checks toguarantee the payment of the loan. As such, she hasthe obligation to make good the payment of the moneyborrowed by her. But such obligation is civil incharacter and in the absence of fraud, no criminalliability under the Revised Penal Code arises from themere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee ofrepayment. Pio TImbal v Court of Appeals (2001)

FACTS: A husband was held by the court aquo accountable for estafa through false pretense onaccount of a check issued by his wife. Judy I. Bigorniadelivered hog meat to the spouses Timbal at their stalllocated at the Farmer's Market. In payment, MaritessTimbal issued in favor of Bigornia a check forP80,716.00. The husband- Pio Timbal was present whenthe check was issued and handed over by his wifeMaritess to Bigornia. When the latter presented thecheck to the bank for encashment, it was dishonoredon the ground that the account was closed. Pio Timbalcontended that he had no active participation in thebusiness of his wife and claimed that when the checkwas issued by his wife he was manning his ownrestaurant.HELD: The petition has merit. The decision ofthe trial court, as well as that of the appellate court,would reveal that the main basis used in convictingpetitioner was the fact of his presence at the time ofthe issuance of the check by his wife. Nothing else wasshown nor reflected in the appealed decision that couldindicate any overt act on the part of petitioner thatwould even remotely suggest that he had a hand indealing with Bigornia. Timbals mere presence at thescene of a crime would not by itself establishconspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an act orseries of acts, participated in the commission of fraudto the damage of the complainant. People v. Ernst Holzer (2000) FACTS: Ernst Holzer et al were the owners ofMGF ELECTRONICS SATELLITE SUPPLY, a businessengaged in selling and installing satellite antennasystem. They installed a system in the house ofBernhard Forster. Forster was not satisfied with thesatellite antenna installed and the equipment whichcame with it which he thought were second-hand.Moreover, he wanted a bigger antenna. He was assuredby accusedappellant Holzer that should newequipment arrive from abroad, the used equipmentwould be replaced and another antenna would begiven.Holzer informed complainant that newequipment had arrived in Manila. His money, however,was not enough to secure the release of the equipmentfrom the Bureau of Customs. For this reason, he askedcomplainant to lend him P100,000.00. Complainantagreed and issued a check for P100,000.00 to accused-appellant Holzer. In exchange, the latter issued a postdated check. Before the due date, accused-appellantHolzer asked the complainant not to deposit the checkon August 1, 1995. Four days later, accused-appellantagain asked the latter not to deposit the check becausethe money from Switzerland to cover the check had notyet arrived.Despite the request, however, complainantdeposited the check on August 9, 1995. As to beexpected, the check was dishonored for having beendrawn against insufficient funds. On the same day,complainant filed a complaint for estafaHELD: In view of the amendment of Art.315(2)(d) by R.A. No. 4885, the following are no longerelements of estafa:1. knowledge of the drawer that he has nofunds in the bank or that the funds depositedby him are not sufficient.2. failure to inform the payee of suchcircumstance 18The drawer of the dishonored check is giventhree days from receipt of the notice of dishonor todeposit the amount necessary to cover the check.Otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit willarise 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 threeyears approximately she transacted business with Chua,appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabricsshe bought. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchasedfrom Chua various fabrics and textile

materials worthP228,306 for which she issued 22 postdated checksbearing different dates and amounts.The 22 checks were all dishonored. Demandswere allegedly made to make good the dishonoredchecks, to no avail. Estafa and BP 22 charges werethereafter filed against Ojeda. The trial courtconvicted appellant of the crime of estafa as definedand penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 ofthe Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her toreclusion perpetua. The trial court also convictedappellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncingchecks. However, the court a quo held her guilty ofonly 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued.HELD: Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 ofthe RPC, as amended by RA 4885, 20 the elements ofestafa are: (1) a check is postdated or issued inpayment of an obligation contracted at the time it isissued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. Deceit anddamage are essential elements of the offense and mustbe established by satisfactory proof to warrantconviction. Thus, the drawer of the dishonored check isgiven three days from receipt of the notice of dishonorto cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a primafacie presumption of deceit arises.The prosecution failed to prove deceit in thiscase. The prima facie presumption of deceit wassuccessfully rebutted by appellant's evidence of goodfaith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check. Goodfaith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor'soffer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. Inthis case, the debtor not only made arrangements forpayment; as complainant herself categorically stated,the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount ofthe dishonored checks.It must be noted that our Revised Penal Codewas enacted to penalize unlawful acts accompanied byevil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. Theprincipal consideration is the existence of maliciousintent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligenceand 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, beaccompanied by a criminal intent. Actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea. No crime is committed if themind of the person performing the act complained of isinnocent. As we held in Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan:XXXThe rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana,although this case involved falsification of publicdocuments and estafa:"Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with anunlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime whenthe criminal mind is wanting."American jurisprudence echoes the sameprinciple. It adheres to the view that criminal intent inembezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as tothe legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into,and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of theperson doing the act is innocent or if there is nowrongful purpose.The accused may thus prove that he acted ingood faith and that he had no intention to convert themoney or goods for his personal benefit. We areconvinced that appellant was able to prove the absenceof criminal intent in her transactions with Chua. Hadher intention been tainted with malice and deceit,appellant would not have exerted extraordinary effortto pay the complainant, given her own business andfinancial reverses. People v. Dimalanta (2004) FACTS: Josefina Dimalanta who was thenemployed at the Caloocan City Engineer's Office, calledup complainant Elvira D. Abarca on the telephone toexpress her desire to purchase jewelry. Complainantwent to Dimalantas house where the latter purchasedtwelve pairs of jewelry. In payment thereof, appellantissued twelve postdated checks with the representationthat the same will be

sufficiently funded on theirrespective maturity dates.The first check issued by Dimalanta washonored and paid by the drawee bank. However, theremaining eleven checks were all returned unpaid sincethe account was closed. On demand Dimalanta failed tomake good on the checks. The trial court convictedDimalanta of Estafa.HELD: Damage and deceit are essentialelements of the offense and must be established withsatisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The falsepretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior toor simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check.In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establishbeyond a shadow of a doubt that appellant employeddeceit. Its evidence was overcome by the defense'sproof that the pieces of jewelry were not purchased byappellant for her own use; rather the same weremerely given to her for resale.We find that appellant acted in good faithduring the transaction. After the first check wasdishonored, she exerted best efforts to make good thevalue of the check, albeit only to the extent ofP25,000.00. Good faith is a defense to a charge ofEstafa by postdating a check. This may be manifestedby appellant's act of offering to make arrangementswith complainant as to the manner of payment. BP 22An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing andIssuance of a Check Without Sufficient Fundsor Credit and For Other Purposes Section 1 BP 22 may be violated in TWO waysElements of the offense defined in the firstparagraph 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 issuesthe check knows at the time of issue

that hedoes not have sufficient funds in or credit withthe drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment4.That the checka.is subsequently dishonored by thedrawee bank for insufficiency of funds orcredit, or b. would have been dishonored forthe same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason , ordered the bankto stop paymentElements of the offense defined in the secondparagraph of Section 1: 1. That a person has sufficient funds in or creditwith the drawee bank when he makes or drawsand issues a check 2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or tomaintain a credit to cover the full amount of thecheck if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon 3.That the check is dishonored by the draweebank C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer153

Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check, notthe payment of the obligation. The law has madethe mere act of issuing a bum check a malumprohibitum

 BP 22 vs. Estafa under Article 315 par 2(d): 1.Unlike estafa, element of DAMAGEis NOT REQUIRED in BP 222.Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa hasDECEIT as an element. BP 22 does NOTrequire such element. 3. Also, the mere fact of postdating orissuing a check when the drawer had no orinsufficient funds in the bank makessomeone liable under Article 315 par 2(d) of estafa. BP 22, 1 st paragraph requiresknowledge of insufficient funds. The check may be drawn and issued to "applyon account of for value": BP 22 does not make adistinction as to whether the bad check is issuedin payment of an obligation or to merelyguarantee an obligation Illustration for Section 1, par 1, element 4: There was a mistake in naming the payee of thecheck; so the drawer ordered the bank to stoppayment; and it appeared that the drawer knew atthe time that the check was issued that he had nosufficient funds in the bank. In this case, NOVIOLATION OF BP 22!Even if the check would have been dishonored forinsufficiency of funds had he not ordered the bank tostop payment, there was a VALID reason (wrongpayee) for ordering the bank to stop payment. BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn bya corporation, company, or entity: the person/swho ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of such drawer Section 2 Section establishes a prima facie evidence of "knowledge of insufficiency ": when payment of thecheck is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds / credit when the check ispresented within

90 days from the date of suchcheckException:a.when the maker or drawer pays the holderthereof of the amount due thereon orb.makes arrangements for payment in full by thedrawee of such check within 5 banking daysafter receiving notice that such check has notbeen paid by the drawee Section 3 Section 3 requires the drawee1.in case where drawee refuses to pay the checkto the holder:

Write, print, or stamp on the check or to beattached thereto the reason for dishonoring.2.in case drawee bank received an order to stoppayment, it should state in the notice that therewere no sufficient funds in or credit with it forthe payment in full of the check, if such be thefact.Introduction in evidence of any unpaid anddishonored check with the drawer's refusal to payindicated thereon or attached thereto is prima facieevidence of:1.the making or issuance of the check2.the due presentment to the drawee for paymentand the dishonor thereof; and3.the fact that the check was properly dishonoredfor the reason indicated thereto Nievas vs. Dacuycuy Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored. Hewas charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. 1 countof 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-existingobligations, crime against poperty and is mala in se. BP 22:deceit and damage not required because mere issuancegives 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 BPIPampanga, then dishonored. Case was filed in Pampangabut was dismissed, as the court had no jurisdiction on thecase.HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction! Violation of BP22 AND estafa are transitory crimes. Deceit happened inPampanga where it was uttered/delivered while thedamage was done in Bulacan where it was issued. Que vs. People Que issued checks in Quezon City. Checks were used to payfor the purchase made in Sta. Mesa. Checks were issuedNOT to pay for an obligation but just to guaranteepayment. Checks later dishonored.HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction.Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOTimportant as law does not distinguish-- included as long asit was an issued check that subsequently bounced. People vs. Nitafan

Lim issued a memorandum check that was subsequentlydishonored.HELD: Memorandum Check (one used as evidence for adebt) falls within coverage of BP 22. Memorandum check isNOT 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. Checkwhich she signed as issuer was dishonored. Convicted forviolating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledgeof the insufficiency of funds when check is issued.HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge of theinsufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable bycontrary evidence. Also, no notice of the dishonor wasgiven to her; notice only given to the employer which is notsufficient as law requires personal notice. Idos vs. CA Idos and Alarilla had a partnership that was terminatedwith each entitled to P1.8M each. Idos issued 4 postdatedchecks - 1 was dishonored.HELD: Not guilty as the check was NOT issued for a debtbut as a collateral or evidence of the other partners share. Sycip vs. CA Accused here bought a townhouse unit from FRC. Accusedissued 48 postdated checks for the balance. However, dueto the defects and incomplete features of the unit, accusedsuspended payments. FRC however continued to presentthe checks for payment thus always forcing him to issuestop order payments. The bank then advised accused tojust close the account in order to save on hefty bankcharges upon every stop order. It is here that 6 checkswere presented by FRC but were dishonored. Accusedconvicted under BP22.HELD: Accused not guilty. 2 nd element of BP22 (knowledgeby the issuer of the check that he does not have sufficientfunds) not proven. Proven that there was sufficient funds inthe account and that it was closed not for insufficiency butupon 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 thebuyer to suspend payments until the developer hascomplied with its obligations to properly furnish the unit.BP22 and PD957 must be construed together in order toharmonize their application. Article 316. Other forms of swindling I. Paragraph 1: By conveying,selling, encumbering, ormortgaging any real property,pretending to be the owner of thesame. Elements:

1. That the thing be real property , such as aparcel of land or a building 2. That the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he isthe owner thereof 3. That the offender should have executed acts of ownership (selling, leasing,encumbering, or mortgaging the realproperty) 4. That the act be made to the prejudice of a.the owner orb.a third personExample:A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A soldthe same parcel of land to C, representing tothe latter that he (A) was the owner thereof. Atthe time he sold the land to C, A was no longerthe owner of the property. The thing disposed of must be real propertyIf property is chattel: ESTAFA! There must be EXISTING real propertyIf accused sold non-existent land, he isguilty of estafa by means of false pretenses.Deceit consisting in false pretenseArticle 316 only penalizes only those whoPRETEND to be the owner of property. Wherethe accused CLAIMS to be the owner, especiallyif he has a Certificate of Title, there was nopretension even if his ownership isdefective and later compelled to return theproperty to the person found to be the trueowner of the property.Even if the deceit is practiced against thesecond purchaser and the damage is incurredby the first purchaser, there is violation of Art316 par 1.A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold thesame parcel of land to C, representing to thelatter that he (A) was still the owner thereof. Cregistered the sale in his favor. Consequence:B lost the property due to non-registration inhis favor. Hence, damage fell on B, the firstpurchaser, while deceit was practiced againstC, second purchaser. A will still be liable

underArt 316 par 1 if B files a crim case.Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient. There must be actual damage. In fact, fineprescribed is based on the damage caused C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer155

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 thefalse representation. On the other hand, Art315 par 2(a) does not need this circumstance. II.Paragraph 2: By disposing of realproperty as free fromencumbrance, although suchencumbrance be not recorded. Elements:1.That the thing disposed be real property2.That the offender knew that the realproperty was encumbered, whether theencumbrance be recorded or not. 3. That there must be express representationby the offender that the real property isfree from encumbrance4.That the act of disposing real property bemade to the damage of anotherExample:A mortgaged his property to B. Later, A,misrepresenting that the property is free fromencumbrance, mortgaged it again, this time toC.But if C knew that the property had alreadybeen mortgaged to B, C cannot complain, asthere is neither deceit nor fraud."Shall dispose of the same"The act constituting the offense is theDISPOSING of the real property FALSELYREPRESENTING that it is free fromencumbrance."Shall dispose": includes encumbering ormortgaging."Encumbrance": every right or interest inthe 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 hadhe known that the property was alreadyencumbered.When the loan HAD ALREADY BEENGRANTED when defendant later offered theproperty as security for the payment of theloan, Article 316, par 2 is NOT applicableConflicting jurisprudence: " Although such

encumbrance be not recorded "

Notwithstanding this phrase, some casesheld that the encumbrance must be legallyconstituted! In these cases, since theencumbrances were NOT registered, accusedwere acquitted. Thing disposed must be REAL propertyIf the thing encumbered and disposed ispersonal property, Article 319 applies(punishing one who sells or pledges personalproperty already subject to encumbrance.)Real property may be registered under anysystem of registrationThis paragraph applies whether theproperty is registered under the Spanishsystem or under the Land Registration Act. III.Paragraph 3: By wrongful takingby the owner of his personalproperty from its lawful possessor Elements:1.That the offender is owner of personalproperty2.That the personal property is in the lawfulpossession of another3.That the offender wrongfully takes it fromits lawful possessor.4.That prejudice is caused to the possessoror third personExample: Accused pawned his watch to complainant.Later, pretending to redeem watch, accusedasked offended party to give him the watch.Once getting hold of his watch, he ran awaywithout paying the loan.Note: not theft

an owner cannot be heldguilty of theft of his own property.Offender owner of personal propertyIf third person and his purpose in taking it isto return it to the owner, the crime is THEFT.In lawful possession of anotherFinder of a lost thing is NOT a lawfulpossessor, it being the obligation of a finder to

give the thing to the owner or to theauthorities."Wrongful taking"If owner takes the thing from a baileethrough (1) VIOLENCE, and (2) WITH INTENT TOGAIN/ CHARGE THE BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE thecrime is ROBBERY.If owner takes the thing from a baileethrough (1) VIOLENCE and (2) WITHOUTINTENT TO GAIN, crime is GRAVE COERCIONIf owner took the thing (1) without consentand knowledge of possessor and (2) latercharged 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, hisdorm mate to secure a

loan of P3000. Onenight, A took the watch from the drawer of Bwithout B's consent and knowledge and used itfor the night. A returned later and was about toput back the watch in the drawer when Bsurprised A (Bulaga!!!)Is A liable under 316, par 3? NO. THEREWAS NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO B. IV.By executing any fictitiouscontract to the prejudice of another Elements:1.Fictitious contract2.Damage to anotherExample:A person who simulates (consideration isfictitious) a conveyance to another for thepurpose of defrauding a creditor.Note: The example above may become a crimeof fraudulent insolvency (Art 314) if theconveyance is real and made for aconsideration . V.By accepting any compensation forservices not rendered or for labornot performed Elements:1.Compensation wrongfully received(accepting compensation for service notrendered nor performed) 2. Malicious failure to return thecompensation wrongfully received (fraud) There must be fraud in this crime, otherwise, itwill only be a case of solutio indebiti under theCivil Code. VI.Paragraph 6: By selling,mortgaging, or encumbering realproperty or properties with whichthe offender guaranteed thefulfillment of his obligation assurety Elements:1.That the offender is a surety in a bondgiven in a criminal or civil action. 2. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of suchobligation with his real property/properties3.That he sells, mortgages, or, in any othermanner encumbers said real property4.That such sale, mortgage or encumbranceisa.without express authority from thecourtb.made before the cancellation of hisbond, orc.made before being relieved from theobligation contracted by him There must be damage causedunder this article. Article 317. Swindling a minor Elements:1.That the offender takes advantage of theinexperience or emotions or feelings of aminor.2.That he induces such minor to:a.assume an obligationb.to give release, orc.to execute a

transfer of anyproperty right3.That the consideration isa.some loan of moneyb.credit, orc.other personal property4.That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer157

Note: Only personal property, since a minorcan not convey real property Article 318. Other deceits Elements:A.1.By defrauding or damaging another2.by any other deceit not mentioned in theproceeding articlesB.1.By interpreting dreams, making forecasts,telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any othersimilar manner2.For profit or gain3.Damage to othersNote: As in other cases of estafa, DAMAGEshould always be present. Villaflor vs. CA Villaflor borrowed P1,000, in turn he offered his car ascollateral (Chattel mortgage instituted). Villaflor failed topay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the carwas already repossessed. Villaflor was convicted of Estafa.HELD: Gulty of Estafa as there was deceit he representedself as the owner of the car and failed to reveal that thecar was already mortgaged. Veloso vs. CA District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that led tothe disbursement of 23 checks for a project that wasanomalous. He was convicted of Estafa.HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure theveracity of the documents. He was negligent as heapproved the vouchers that had mistakes which weredetectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1689 Increasing The Penalty For Certain Forms Of Swindling Or EstafaAny person or persons who shall commit estafa orother forms of swindling as defined RPC 315 and 316shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if theswindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with theintention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act,transaction, enterprise or scheme, and thedefraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", orfarmers association, or of funds solicited bycorporations/associations from the general public.When not committed by a syndicate as abovedefined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusiontemporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of thefraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.

Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property Elements:2 Acts punishable:A.1.That personal property is validlymortgaged under the Chattel MortgageLaw2.That the offender knows that such propertyis so mortgaged3.That he removes such mortgaged personalproperty to any province or city other thanthe one in which it was located at the timeof the execution of the mortgage4.That the removal is permanent5.That there is no written consent of themortgage or his executors, administratorsor assigns to such removalB.1.That personal property is already pledgedunder the Chattel Mortgage Law2.That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such property, sells or pledges the same orany part thereof 3. Such sale/pledge is without the consent of the mortgagee which isi.writtenii.at the back of the mortgage andiii.noted on the record thereof in theoffice of the register of deedsChattel mortgage must be valid and subsistingIt is essential that the chattel mortgage bevalid and subsisting. If the chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of good faith and/or is not registered , it is VOID andCANNOT be a basis for criminal prosecutionunder Art 319.Persons LiableEven third persons who removed theproperty to another province or city are liablebecause the offender is "ANY PERSON whoshall knowingly remove" The removal of the mortgaged property mustbe coupled with INTENT TO DEFRAUD. No violation of Article 319 if the removalwas justified.Filing a civil action for collection, not forforeclosure of chattel mortgage, relieves theaccused of criminal responsibility. (based on aCA case)If the mortgagee elected to file a suit forcollection (not foreclosure), there can be noviolation of Article 319 anymore since themortgage as a basis of relief has already beenabandoned by the suit for collection.House (generally considered as immovable)may be a subject of chattel mortgage byagreement of the partiesArticle 319 par 2 also contemplates a secondmortgage.Damage to the mortgagee is not essential. Estafa (316, disposingencumbered property)Removal, sale orpledge of mortgagedproperty Mortgaged property is sold in disposed of in bothcasesReal propertyPersonal propertyProperty must be sold asfree and unencumberedProperty sold withoutconsent of themortgagee in writing,even if buyer is

informedthat property ismortgagedPurpose of law: toprotect the purchaserPurpose of law: toprotect the mortgagee Articles 320 to 326-B. Arson (repealed oramended by PD 1613 and PD 1744) Kinds of arson; 1. Arson, under Section 1 of PresidentialDecree No. 1613 ; 2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended byRepublic Act No. 7659; 3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1613 . P.D. 1613Amending the Law on ArsonSECTION 1. Arson. Any person who burns or setsfire to the property of another shall be punished byPrision Mayor. The same penalty shall be imposed when a personsets fire to his own property under circumstanceswhich expose to danger the life or property of another.

SECTION 2. Destructive Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period toReclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the propertyburned is any of the following:1.Any ammunition factory and other establishmentwhere explosives, inflammable or combustiblematerials are stored.2.Any archive, museum, whether public or private,or any edifice devoted to culture, education orsocial services.3.Any church or place of worship or other buildingwhere people usually assemble.4.Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel orwatercraft, or conveyance for transportation of persons or property.5.Any building where evidence is kept for use inany legislative, judicial, administrative or otherofficial

proceedings.6.Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house,housing tenement, shopping center, public orprivate market, theater or movie house or anysimilar 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. 7659AMENDING ART. 320) SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall beimposed if the property burned is any of thefollowing:1.Any building used as offices of thegovernment 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 groveor forest;5.Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill ormill central; and6.Any railway or bus station, airport,wharf or warehouse. SECTION 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances inArson. The penalty in any case of arson shall beimposed 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 orhatred towards the owner or occupant of theproperty burned;4.If committed by a syndicate. The offense is committed by a syndicate if its isplanned or carried out by a group of three (3) ormore persons. SECTION 5.

Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of the arsondeath results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua todeath shall be imposed. SECTION 6.

Prima Facie Evidence of Arson. Any of the following circumstances shall constituteprima facie evidence of arson: C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer159

1.If the fire started simultaneously in more thanone part of the building or establishment.2.If substantial amount of flammable substancesor materials are stored within the building notnecessary in the business of the offender nor forhousehold use.3.If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or otherflammable or combustible substances ormaterials soaked therewith or containersthereof, or any mechanical, electrical, chemical,or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire,or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing arefound in the ruins or premises of the burnedbuilding or property.4.If the building or property is insured forsubstantially more than its actual value at thetime of the issuance of the policy.5.If during the lifetime of the corresponding fireinsurance policy more than two fires haveoccurred in the same or other premises ownedor under the control of the offender and/orinsured.6.If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a building orproperty had been withdrawn from the premisesexcept in the ordinary course of business.7.If a demand for money or other valuableconsideration was made before the fire inexchange for the desistance of the offender orfor the safety of the person or property of thevictim. SECTION 7. Conspiracy to Commit Arson. Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished byPrision Mayor in its minimum period. SECTION 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. - Thebuilding which is the object of arson including theland on which it is situated shall be confiscated andescheated to the State, unless the owner thereof canprove that he has no participation in nor knowledgeof 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 deathshall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:1.One (1) or more buildings or edifices,consequent to one single act of burning, or asresult of simultaneous burnings, or committedon several or different occasions.2.Any building of public or private ownership,devoted to the use of the public in general, orwhere people usually gather or congregate for adefinite purpose such as but not limited toofficial governmental function or business,private transaction, commerce, trade, worship,meetings and conferences, or merely incidentalto a definite purpose such as but not limited tohotels, motels, transient dwellings, publicconveyance or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that thereare persons in said building or edifice at the timeit is set on fire, and regardless also of whetherthe building is actually inhabited or not.3.Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship orairplane, devoted to transportation orconvenience, or public use, entertainment orleisure.4.Any building, factory, warehouse installation andany appurtenances thereto, which are devotedto the service of public utilities.5.Any building, the burning of which is for thepurpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors orto collect from insurance.Irrespective of the application of the aboveenumerated qualifying circumstances, thepenalty of death shall likewise be imposed whenthe arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2)or more persons or by a group of persons,regardless of whether their purpose is

merely toburn or destroy the building or the edifice, or theburning merely constitutes an overt act in thecommission or another violation of law. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximumperiod to death shall also be imposed upon anyperson who shall burn:1.Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or militarypowder or fireworks factory, ordnancestorehouse, archives or general museum of thegovernment.2.In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factoryof inflammable or explosive materials.If as a consequence of the commission of any of theacts penalized under this Article, death or injuryresults, or any valuable documents, equipment,machineries, apparatus, or other valuable propertieswere burned or destroyed, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. NOTE: The laws on arson in force today areP.D. 1613 and Article 320 as amended by R.A.7659. The provisions of P.D. 1613 that areinconsistent with R.A. 7659 (such as Section 2on destructive arson) are DEEMED REPEALED)Attempted, Frustrated, and ConsummatedArsonA person, intending to burn a building, collectssome rags, soaks them in gasoline and placesthem beside the wooden wall. When he isabout to light a match to set fire to the rags, heis discovered by another who chases him away. 1. Attempted arson : the crime committed inthe above scenario is attempted arson,because the offender commences thecommission of the crime directly by overtacts 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 toset fire to the rags but the fire was put outbefore any part of the building was burned. 3. Consummated arson :a.any charring (CHARING! Whizna lang, 'day!) of the wood of thebuilding. Not necessary that the woodshould be ablaze, sufficient that thefiber of the wood is destroyed b. mere scorching or discolorationby heat NOT consummated c.Setting fire to the contents of the building is already consummatedarson (setting fire to a building) even if no part of the building was burned.d.However small a portion of thebuilding is BURNED, there

isconsummated arson.In attempted arson, it is not necessary thatthere be a fireLook at the facts if there was intent to burn.Sec 3, par 2, PD 1613If the property burned is an inhabited houseor dwelling, it is not required that the house beoccupied and that the offender knew it whenthe house was burned.No complex crime of arson with homicidePD 1613: if by reason or on occasion orarson, death results, homicide is absorbed andthe penalty of reclusion perpetua to Death isimposed.Sec 6, PD 1613, 7 Circumstances constitutingprima facie evidence of arsonStanding alone, unexplained oruncontradicted, any of those circumstance issufficient to establish the fact of arson. Article 327. Who are liable for maliciousmischief Elements:1.That the offender deliberately causeddamage to the property of another2.That such act does not constitute arson orother crimes involving destruction3.That the act of damaging another'sproperty be committed mere for the sakeof damaging it* 3 rd element presupposes that offender acteddue to hate, revenge, or other evil motive.Sometimes, offender also inspired by the merepleasure of destroying things."Shall deliberately cause to the property of another any damage"This means that the offender should actunder this impulse of specific desire to inflictinjury to another. HENCE, malicious mischief CANNOT be committed throughNEGLIGENCE . Malice and negligence areessentially incompatible."Damage" covers both loss and diminution.If no malice, only civil liability for damages.Damaging of property must not result fromcrime.Example: damage done as a result of another crime- accused chased opponentaround the house to kill him and along the waybroke various objects.If after damaging the property, offenderremoves/ uses objects of the damage, crime is THEFT Caballen vs. DAR Albeit Abajons previous arrangement with the formerowner of the property, Caballes, the new owner, askedAbajon to vacate the premises where his house was andwhere he had planted corn, bananas, and camote. Theyhad a confrontation over this issue, but reached noagreement. Abajon then harvested the bananas andjackfruit. As the harvesting was done without her consent,Caballes charged him for malicious mischief.HELD: The essential element of the crime of maliciousmischief which is damage deliberately caused to theproperty of another is absent because Abajon merely cuthis own plantings. Case was dismissed. People v. Acosta (2000)

FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year oldmason. He used to be a good friend of Almanzor"Elmer" Montesclaros, the grandson of privatecomplainant, Filomena M. Marigomen. On February 27,1996, Montesclaros, in the belief that Acosta and hiswife were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him,stormed the house of Acosta and burned their clothes,furniture, and appliances. Thereafter Acosta attemptedto burn down the house of Marigomen. He was chargedwith arson and found guilty.HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony tohave tried to burn the house of Marigomen. Inprosecutions for arson, proof of the crime charged iscomplete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer161

delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and(2) the identity of the defendants as the oneresponsible for the crime. Corpus delicti means thesubstance of the crime, it is the fact that a crime hasactually been committed. In arson, the corpus delictirule is generally satisfied by proof of the bareoccurrence of the fire and of its having beenintentionally caused. Even the uncorroboratedtestimony of a single witness, if credible, may beenough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrantconviction. People v. Oliva (2000) FACTS: Avelino Manguba and his family weresleeping in their house. Avelino went out of the houseto urinate. He saw Ferigel Oliva set the roof of theirhouse on fire with a lighted match. While the fire razedAvelino's house, Ferigel and three others, DominadorOliva, Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo watched at adistance of about five (5) meters. One of theneighbors, Benjamin Estrellon went to the nearby riverand fetched water with a pail. As Benjamin was helpingput out the fire, he was shot by Ferigel at close range.The gunshot wound caused Benjamin's death. The casesfor arson and murder were tried jointly. Only Oliva wasfound guilty.HELD: We find no reversible error and affirmthe conviction. When Ferigel burned Avelino's house,the law applicable was P.D. No. 1613. 35 Under Section3 (2) of the law, the penalty of reclusion temporal toreclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the propertyburned is "any inhabited house or dwelling." Under theamendment, it is the fact that the house burned isinhabited that qualifies the crime. There is no need toprove that the accused had actual knowledge that thehouse was inhabited. Under Section 3 (2) ofPresidential Decree No. 1613, the elements of arsonare: (1) that there is intentional burning; and (2) thatwhat is intentionally burned is an inhabited house ordwelling. The records show that when Ferigel willfullyset fire to the roof of Avelino's house, Avelino's wifeand children were asleep therein.Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable inprosecutions for felonies and offenses. Corpus delicti isthe body or substance of the crime. It refers to the factthat a crime has been actually committed. Corpusdelicti is the fact of the commission of the crime thatmay be proved by the testimonies of witnesses. Inarson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of thebare occurrence of the fire and of its having beenintentionally caused. The uncorroborated testimony ofa single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough toprove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.Here, corpus delicti of the arson was duly provenbeyond reasonable doubt.

Article 328. Special cases of maliciousmischief Special cases of malicious mischief/"QualifiedMalicious Mischief" are:a.Causing damage to obstruct theperformance of public functions distinguished from sedition: theelement of public and tumultuousuprising is not present in Art 328 but, BOTH have intent toobstruct the performance or publicfunctionb.Using any poisonous or corrosivesubstancec.Spreading any infection or contagionamong cattled.Causing damage to the property of theNational Museum or National Library, or toany archive or registry, waterworks, road,promenade, or any other thing used INCOMMON by the public. Article 329. Other mischiefs Poignant Example: People v. Dumlao where accused scatteredaround the municipal building coconut huskscontaining human excrements. Article 330. Damage and obstruction tomeans of communication Example: damaging railways, telegraph ortelephone 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 higherpenalty shall be imposedQuestion: What crime is committed IF as aresult of the damage caused to the railway,certain passengers of the train are killed?Answer: It dependsA.If no intent to kill: crime is damages tomeans of communication with homicideB.If with intent to kill: murder (cf. Article 248,par 3) Article 331. Destroying or damagingstatues, public monuments, or paintings No notes,

Article 332. Persons exempt fromcriminal liability Crimes involved in the exemption:1.Theft

2.Swindling (estafa)3.Malicious mischief does not include robbery or estafa throughfalsification reason for exemption: presumed co-ownershipPersons exempted from criminal liability onlyliablefor CIVIL liabilities):1.Spouses, ascendants and descendants, orrelatives by affinity in the same line2.Widowed spouse with respect to theproperty which belonged to the deceasedspouse before the same passed into thepossession of another3.Brothers and sisters and brothers andsister-in-law IF LIVING TOGETHER Article 332 only applies when BOTH theoffender and offended party are relativesas enumerated in the provision. Does not apply to strangers whoparticipated in the crime. Stepfather, adopted child, paramours,common-law spouses INCLUDED