Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Criminal law

1. Robbery
2. business is a property (pldt)
a. sale of business, bulk sales law
b. its movable, not among those listed as immovable
c. telephone calls are considered intangible thing and are capable of
appropriation; they are personal properties
d. PLDT not the owner of those voices
e. Business is the object of theft
3. Theft
a. There is no frustrated theft, only attempted and consummated
(Valenzuela v People)
b. Performed all acts of execution: only frustrated or consummated
i. Test: look at the definition of the crime
1. Theft: taking = possession
2. Before Valenzuela, 2 group of decisions
a. Valenzuela: Crime is produced, it is complete,
the moment accused was able to take
possession of the property
b. Gain realized is not the element of theft, the
element is the intent to gain
4. qualified theft
a. distinction between theft and estafa by misappropriation
i. in theft, the offender takes the thing
ii. in estafa, the offender receives the thing
Estafa by misappropriation
Abuse of confidence
Personal property is entrusted
Juridical possession is transferred

Qualified Theft
Abuse of confidence
Material possession is transferred

iii. abuse of confidence: there must be trust,

1. for there to be abuse of confidence, there must be first
iv. Real test: what kind of possession is transferred?
1. if only material possession is transferred, it is
qualified theft and not estafa (physical custody)
a. no right over the property except to hold it
b. cannot use the property
i. ex: ask a friend to pay money to
ii. cruz v people
1. marketing manager-material
2. if Sales manager, payment of
sales and he has commission,

iii. bank tellers

2. if juridical possession is transferred, the
conversion of the property would result in the crime
of estafa.

a. Not all about deceit, there are other kinds of estafa
Art 315 (1)
b. Second kind of estafa under no1: estafa by
conversion/misappropriation [breach of confidence]
i. Essence of malversation, difference: malversation is
committed by public officer
1. Patrolman A: malversation; B: estafa
a. A confiscated an unlicensed gun, it became
public property, A is accountable for it. Had an
obligation to return it
b. B confiscated a licensed gun.
ii. Frequently committed by people
iii. Elements: P [TACO]CI
1. P personal property received
a. T Trust (deposit)
b. A Administration
c. C commission [agents]
d. O Obligation involving duty to return
[innominate contracts]
2. C conversion
a. Nakinabang? Not needed.
b. Need not benefit from it
c. Conversion = disposing
d. If theres no benefit, there may still be
conversion [2nd definition]
i. Dispose of property without any rights
[as if it was your own attributes of
ii. Real essence of ownership: to dispose, if
you give it away, you no longer own the
3. I injury
a. Who must be injured?
i. Prejudice of another
ii. Does not exactly say to the prejudice of
the owner.
b. Is the element of injury satisfied if the
immediate victim of the fraud is not the owner
of the goods misappropriated?
c. Ex: American and Filipino company. American
company orders 10,000 dresses from FC. AC
paid down payment to M (who was supposed to

transfer money to FC). FC did not receive

payment. AC filed estafa by misappropriation
against M. M contended that AC was no longer
the owner of the money. Court said, injury need
not be sustained by the owner. Injury may be
suffered by another person (prejudice of
another) (Salazar v People)
d. Injury need not be permanent [temporary
disturbance of property rights]
iv. Receipt: under certain juridical relations, not only material
possession (difference between qualified theft and estafa)
v. Is demand an element of estafa? 2 groups of
1. NO. estafa does not depend on the fact that a request
for a return of the money is first made.
a. Only a rule of evidence.
b. Tubb v people (concepcion), 1957
i. Failure to account, upon demand for
the funds or property, is circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation.
c. Salazar case
i. Demand was an issue. Ruled that it is
not an element
ii. Ratio decidendi
2. Today, SC decisions provide that demand is an
a. Serenos decision, but discussion on demand is
in passing
b. Just an obiter
vi. Trust receipts law
1. Trust receipt estafa
a. Gonzales v HSBC, 2007
b. In the nature of malum prohibitum
c. Failure of the entrustee to turn over the
proceeds of the sale of the goods, covered by
the trust receipt, to the entruster or to return
said goods if they were not disposed of is estafa
under Art 315(1)(b) of the RPC in relation to
xxx, without intent to defraud
2. money market transaction no estafa, loan
a. market dealing in standardized short term
credit instruments where lenders and
borrowers do not deal directly with each other
but through a middleman or dealer in the open
market (Sesbreno v CA, 1995).
i. Not covered by PDIC, not insured

ii. You are appointing the bank as the

dealer. Bank will be the one to find the
iii. Lender does not have direct relations
with the borrower
iv. Lender cannot sue the bank of estafa
because money market transaction is a
contract of loan
v. If a custodian of credit instrument
(deposit, not loan, thus liable for estafa)
3. stock transaction no estafa
4. sales on credit no estafa
a. ownership is transferred. An owner cannot
commit estafa
5. Sales on trial basis no estafa
a. when the would be buyer decided to retain the
goods, he comes the owner. Owner cannot be
guilty of defrauding himself.
6. Cash advance
a. A loan advanced to you. borrower becomes the
7. Novation
a. Defense?
b. GR: novation is not one of the causes to
extinguish criminal liability under art 89. But
novation which took place before institution of
criminal action prevents incipient criminal
liability [mariano v people].
c. Like a condom.
d. Prevents the rising of criminal liability. But
once criminal action is filed [preliminary
investigation], novation will not extinguish
e. Extension of payment is not novation because
old obligation subsists.
c. Estafa by taking undue advantage of a signature in
i. Art 171 (3): falsification
Not entrusted
entrusted; wrote something
Janitor who found the
Assistant to whom the blank
blank paper
was entrusted to
No confidence
There was abuse of confidence
Art 315 (2)
d. Estafa through false pretense

i. Art 315(2)a
1. The act of soliciting a client despite previous
knowledge of several complaints against his employer
for failure to deliver the motor vehicle that was the
subject of the agreement, is tantamount to estafa
2. Misrepresented that he owns 14 hectares. In truth, he
only has a pending application for sales patent on over
a 4 hectares of land
a. Where only intent to cause damage is present,
aside from deceit, only attempted estafa is
committed. [lateo v people]
b. No damage, thus attempted estafa [Wrong!
according to lecturer]
i. Meron ng damage, ngbayad na yung
3. Joson v people, 2008: pyramiding scams
4. Illegal recruitment
e. Estafa by issuing a bounding check
i. Art 315(2)d
If pre existing obligation
[utang, loan], dishonor or
check is not estafa but only

Element: Limited to payment
of a simultaneous obligation

Test: transaction is for payment simultaneous obligation

1. The consideration why the owner parted with the
2. Check is the inducement or consideration why the
offended party parted with his goods.

Art 316
f. Selling property free from all liens and encumbrances
i. Art 316(2)
ii. Llamas v ca
1. No damage inflicted on the buyer; claimant had
possession and control of the land even as the cases
were being heard. Possession and right to exercise
dominion was not disturbed.
a. Classified into 2 categories [People v malngan]
i. Destructive: a320 RPC, RA 7659 (heinous crime)
1. Structures, public of private
2. Hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircrafts,

3. Other military government or commercial

ii. Simple arson: PD 1613
1. Not included in art 320
2. Houses, dwellings, - no overlapping
a. Residential house, even if there were other
residential houses and people got killed
b. The only item that did not appear in 7659
3. government buildings, ??
4. farms, mills, plantations,
5. railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other
industrial establishments
a. Pag sinunog mo yung airport, simple arson;
pag yung aircraft, destructive
b. Complex crime of arson with homicide?
i. NONE [people v cedenio, people v malngan]
ii. Primary intent will prevail:
1. If main objective is burning but death results by
reason or on occasion of arson, ARSON, homicide
is absorbed
2. Intended to kill and used burning as the means to kill,
3. If objective is to kill, and in order to hide the killing,
Art 332
7. Exempts certain relatives from theft estafa and malicious
a. Spouses, ascendants and descendants and relatives by affinity in the
same liner are the first relatives enumerated in the law
i. Relatives by affinity in the same line
1. May include a son-in-law [decendant by affinity]
2. Daughter in law, parent in law
b. Intestate estate of Manolita Gonzales v sato, 2012
i. Son-in-law, wife already died. Asked mother in law to sign
SPA to sell properties of the dead wife. Complex crime:
estafa thru falsification of public document
ii. 2 views in American jurisprudence:
1. terminated affinity
a. terminated upon death, unless there is a child.
b. Relation is a fiction of law
2. Continuing affinity
a. Whether or not there is an issue, death of
spouse will not terminate relationship
iii. Philippines: continuing affinity

iv. But Art 332, not applicable to complex crime

Crimes against chastity [CASACAW]
Concubinage, adultery, seduction, acts of lasc, corruption of minor,
abduction, white slave trade
8. Concubinage
a. Committed by a husband; concubine [liable by association]
i. Keeping a mistress in a conjugal dwelling
ii. Having a sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstance
1. Not found in adultery
2. Motel: not scandalous
3. But if a married woman goes to motel with another
man = adultery! [double standards]
4. Once a week in hotels and motels - not scandalous
iii. Cohabiting with another woman in any other place
1. Temporary sexual communication, does not fall
within this category
b. Before expandend jurisdiction act, concubinage is within
jurisdiction of MTC, adultery is within jurisdiction of RTC
i. Adultery: danger of introducing a child of another man in the
9. Adultery
a. Committed by a married woman; paramour [liable by association]
b. Jurisdictional: Only the offended spouse can prosecute
concubinage and adultery. Cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
Offended spouse must include spouse and the paramour if both are
c. Pilapil v ibay-somera, 1989
i. There was already divorce. Reason for art 26,2 of FC.
Foreigner can no longer file adultery against ex filipino
d. Pardon and consent are defenses in adultery and concubinage; but
NOT pari delicto.
i. Consent: even before the infidelity occurs
ii. Pardon: after infidelity occurs
iii. In pari delicto: only applicable in civil law; but it has an
effect in legal separation (not criminal)
10. Seduction
a. Elements:
i. Below 18, above 12 (if below 12, statutory rape)
ii. Virgin
1. Virgin not in a physical sense; virginity: virtuous
iii. Legal and Moral ascendency on the part of the offender
iv. There was sexual intercourse

1. It is a rape, but there was consent given by offended

party. Consent, however, is not intelligent consent.
b. Offenders [GATE], [PHD], [AB]
i. Rape: abuse of authority is a circumstance of rape now
c. Simple seduction
i. Single, widow of good reputation, broken promise of
ii. But! Fraudulent machination is a circumstance of rape
11. Acts of lasciviousness
a. May be committed against minor or adults
b. Short of rape
c. Different from Attempted rape
i. With intent to lie
d. RA 7610
i. Sexual abuse of a minor
1. Lascivious conduct and
2. Subjected to other sexual abuse
a. Engages in lascivious conduct for money profit
or other consideration
b. Under coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group
ii. To bring within coverage of RA 7610: must be subjected to
other sexual abuse; if not only within RPC, acts AOL.
12.Forcible abduction
a. Taking away of a woman with lewd design
i. Age and virginity are not requirements
ii. Lewd design does not necessarily raping a woman
1. Unchaste desire
iii. If offender rapes woman, forcible abduction with rape
[complex crime]
iv. If raped for 3 times, 4 crimes committed: forcible abduction
with rape, 3 counts of rape. [People v jose, pp v bacalso]
b. Sweetheart case:
i. Look at the intent: if taking of the woman is merely
incidental and the primary intent is to have carnal
knowledge, it is rape [garces v people]. Forcible abduction is
absorbed by rape
c. Civil liability of a persons guilty of RAS
i. Indemnification
ii. Acknowledgement of offspring unless the law should prevent
him from doing so.
1. Judge should compel acknowledgement
2. If law prevents so: cannot compel
a. Multiple rape
i. Cannot be certain who is the father

b. Offender is a married man although offended is

single [pp v barranco, pp v de guzman, pp v
i. But theres no law to support[lecturer]
c. Offended woman is married because the child
is conclusively the child of her real husband.
iii. In all cases, to support the offspring
Crimes against civil status of a person
13.Abandonment of child
a. To lose filiation: under this title
b. For reason other than to lose filiation: crime under title 9, crimes
against security and personal liberty
a. How committed
i. Before prior marriage is legally dissolved
ii. Before absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead
by means of a judicial declaration
b. Before prior marriage is legally dissolved
i. Annulment
ii. Declaration of nullity of marriage
1. Void ab initio
2. Judicial declaration needed [a40, fc]
a. Does not agree [lecturer], its anomalous. Ex.
Father married his daughter, should have been
administrative or summary proceeding
c. Declaration of nullity came before filing of the information
i. The fact that the first marriage was declared null and void at
the time of the filling of the bigamy case is inconsequential.
The reckoning time is when the second marriage was
ii. parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that
their marriage is void even if such be the fact [Teves v pp,
d. absentee spouse [manuel v pp, 2005]
15.premature marriage
a. a widow who marries within 301 days from the date of death of her
b. prevent confusion in filiation and paternity
c. wait for 302 days!
16. Performance of illegal marriage
a. 177 v 352
b. authorized officer solemnized marriage even though he knows that
marriage is illegal [brother and sister]
c. if officer is not authorized = 177

17. imprudence
a. test: prudent man foresee harm to another person as a reasonable
consequence of the course about to be pursued.
i. Law imposes on the doer the duty to take precaution against
the mischievous results of the act. Failure to do so,
constitutes negligence [leny villa case]
b. 2 kinds of negligence
i. reckless: damage is immediate or the danger is clearly
manifest of when there is absent of simplest precaution
ii. simple: damage is not immediate
c. element: there must be damage
d. imprudence is a single crime. It cannot be split into two, two
resulting injuries cannot be complexed
i. [ivler case] it is the act [mental attitude] that is
being penalized, not the resulting injuries.
ii. Essence lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent
e. Does art 48 apply to 365: NO! [ivler]
f. Reckless imprudence regardless of imposable fine is within
jurisdiction of MTC
i. Hit and run is not an element of reckless imprudence, it
merely raises the penalty to prison mayor. but it is an
element of abandonment of ones own victim under art
275(2) RTC, no probation [Lamera].