Article 293 Who are guilty of Robbery?

a. Classification of robbery when both violence or intimidation and force upon things are
present.
Cases: US vs. Turla, 38 Phil. 346 (GR No. 13441) July 15, 1918
People vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 89 (GR No. L-32752-3) January 21, 1977
Napolis vs. CA, 43 SCRA 301 (GR No. L-28865) February 28, 1972, a later case. It
is a complex crime of Robbery with violence/ intimidation of person, with Robbery with
Force upon things.

CASE: Napolis vs. CA

Doctrine In US vs Turla and Pp vs Baluyot

that where robbery, though committed in an inhabited house, is

characterized by intimidation, this factor "supplies the controlling
qualification," so that the law to apply is article 294 and not article 299 of the
Revised Penal Code. This is on the theory that "robbery which is
characterized by violence or intimidation against the person is evidently
graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things, because
where violence or intimidation against the person is present there is greater
disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual." (U.S.
vs. Turla, 38 Phil. 346; People vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 89.) And this view is
followed even where, as in the present case, the penalty to be applied under
article 294 is lighter than that which would result from the application of
article 299. ... . 3

Article 294 Robbery with violence against/intimidation of persons

a. The meaning of the phrase when by reason or on occasion of the robbery other
crimes may precede or occur of the robbery, provided that the intent to take personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain must precede the killing. (People vs.
Elizaga. 86 Phil 364, GR No. L-2487; People vs. Glore, 87 Phil 739, GR No. L-2928)
The term homicide is used in the generic sense, and the complex crime contemplated
therein comprehends not only robbery with homicide in its restricted sense, but also with
robbery with murder.
b. Several circumstances constituting robbery
-with homicide
-with rape
-with intimidation
c. Robbery with violence distinguished from robbery with grave coercion (Art. 286; Art 210)

There is no animus lucrandi or no intent to gain in Grave coercion while there is animus
lucrandi with robbery.
d. Robbery and bribery, distinguished

Article 295 Qualifying aggravating circumstances in certain cases of robbery

Person injured shall have lost the power to hear or to smell or shall
have lost an eye, hand, foot, an arm, leg or shall have lost the use

of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the

work in which he was habitually engaged. (Art. 263)
Violence and intimidation employed in the commission of robbery
shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the
commission of the crime. Or when the offender shall have inflicted
upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the
physical injuries covered by 3 and 4 of Art. 263.
In other cases.
a)
b)
c)
d)

In an unhabited place
By a band
By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship
By entering the passengers compartments in a train, or in any
manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in their
respective conveyances

Article 296 Definition of band and penalty incurred by the members

a. Definition of the term band

When atleast four armed malefactors took part in the commission of robbery, it is
committed by a band.

Article 297 Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances;
combinations;
Article 298 Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation
a. Distinguished from Grave Coercion
Article 299 Robbery in an inhabited house, or public building, or edifice devoted to worship
a. Paragraph (a), subparagraph (2) Breaking of any door or window outside door or
window
Cases: People vs. Fernandez, 58 Phil 678
People vs. Lising, CR No. 62 OG 6819, cited on Reyes
Article 306 & 307 Brigandage; who are brigands; aiding and abetting a band of brigands, as
amended by PD No. 532
Case: People vs. Isabelo Puno
Article 308 & 309 Theft
a.) Theft under paragraph 1, Article 308 not limited to actual finder, but also to finder in
law (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil 720, GR No. 19786)
b.) No crime called Frustrated Theft
Case: Valenzuela vs. People, GR No. 160188, June 26, 2002
c.) Diversion of telephone call, theft under PD No. 401.
Case: Laurel vs. Abrogar & PLDT, GR No. 155076, January 13, 2009
Article 310 Qualified Theft

Case: People vs. Olivia Cristobal, GR No. 159450, March 30, 2011
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua for 40 years plus accessory penalty of death under Article 40,
RPC
Case: Cenzon vs. Abad Santos, GR No. 164337, June 27, 2006 Bailable Offense
Rf. RA No. 6539 The Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972
a.) When the taking of motor vehicle is carnapping:
Case: People vs. Bustinera, GR No 148233
b.) When constitutes qualified theft:
Case: People vs. Isaac, 96 Phil 937, GR No. L-7561
c.) When constitutes Estafa:
Case: People vs. Noveno, et.al., CA No. 46 OG 163
d.) When robbery:
Case: People vs. Bustinera, supra
RA No. 705 as amended by RA No 8550 Fish taken from a fishpond or fishery;
Defines illegal fishing
Case: People vs. Renecio Vegara, GR No. 110286, April 2, 1997
PD No. 533 Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974
a.) Large cattle, defined meaning belonging to the bovine faily
PD No. 1612 The Anti-Fencing Law
a.) The term fencing, defined
Article 312 Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights.
Case: Conchita Quinao vs. People, et.al., GR No. 139603, July 14, 2000
Article 315 Estafa
a. Kinds
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
2. By means of any of the following pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud
3. Through fraudulent means
b. P.D. No. 115 The trust receipt law
1. True nature of the trust receipt law
Case: Anthony Ng vs. People, GR No. 173905, April 23, 2010
c. Paragraph 1(b)
1. In contracts of bailment, such as contract of deposits Case: People vs. Campos, C.A, 40 O.G., Supp. 12, 7
2. Obligation to return item(s) received
Cases:
Gloria Ocampo-Paule vs. C.A. & People, G.R. No. 145872, February 2,
2002
Virgil Serona vs. C.A., et.al. GR No. 130423, November 18, 2002
d. There is no estafa through negligence
Case: People vs. Nepomuceno, C.A. No. 46OG 6135
e. B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Check Law)
f. Estafa by postdating a check

1. Elements Case: People vs Mario Myrno Tan, G.R. No. 120672, August 17,
2000(Quisambing, J.)
2. Notice of dishonor required (with regard to check dishonors due to
. Case:
People vs. Cora Abella Ojeda, G.R. No. 104238-58, June 3, 2004. Corona, J.
3. Check drawn from closed account; is presentment to the bank necessary?
Case: Lopez vs People, GR No. 166810
g. P.D. 1689 (Defining Syndicated Estafa)
Case: People vs Pricilla Balasa, et.al., GR No. 106357, 108601-02, September 3,
1998
Article 316 Other forms of swindling
a. Paragraph 3 By wrongfully taking by the owner his personal property from its lawful
possessor; distinguished from Grave Coercion (Article 286). Cf: US vs. Mena, 11 Phil.
543
b. Paragraph 4 By executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another. But
compare to Article 314 (Fraudulent Insolvency). Cf: People vs. Tan Diong, et.al., 50
SCRA 538
Article 318 Other deceits
Case: Jaime Guinhawa vs People, GR No. 162822, August 25, 2005. The false or
fraudulent representation by a seller that what he offers or sells is brand new (when
in fact, it is not), is one of the deceitful acts under paragraph 1.
Article 319 Removal, sale or pledge or mortgage property
a. Chattel mortgage must be registered
b. Exceptions to paragraph 2(2): Filing a civil action for collection, not for foreclosure of
chattel mortgage, relieves the accused of criminal responsibility, under paragraph 2
Case: People vs. Mata., CA., 58 O.G. 6287
Article 320 Destructive Arson/ PD 1613 (Simple Arson)
Case: People vs. Nestor G. Soriano, GR No. 142565, July 29, 2003. Bellosillo, J.
[Destructive Arson (Article 320, RPC), distinguished from simple arson (other cases
of Arson, PD 1613)]
-People vs. Gutierrez y Cortez. GR No. 100699, July 5, 1999
Article 332 Persons exempt from criminal liability
Only civil liability if the crimes are theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed by
certain persons a. Step father, adopted father, natural children, concubine, paramour included.
Cases: People vs. Alvarez, 52 SCRA 65
People vs. Constantino, CA 60 OG 3605
XI. TITLE ELEVEN Crimes Against Chastity
Article 333 Who are guilty of adultery (women)
a. Essence of adultery; gist of adultery
b. Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery
Case: People vs Zapata and Bondoc, 88 Phil. 688
c. An act of intercourse subsequent to adulterous conduct is an implied pardon.
Case: People vs. Muguerza, et.al., 13 CA Rep. 1079

Article 334 Concubinage (men)

a. A married man is not liable for concubinage for mere sexual relations with a woman not
his wife
Case: People vs. Santos, et.al., CA 45 OG 2116

Article 336 Acts of lasciviousness

a. Victim upon other persons means persons of either sex (People vs. Franco, CA 53
OG 410)
b. Element act of lewdness or lasciviousness; intent to lie or have intercourse with the
offended party (People vs. Tayaba, 62 Phil 559)
Article 337 Qualified seduction a. Offenders in qualified seduction: 1.) Those who abuse their authorities; 2.) Those who
abused confidence reposed in them; 3.) Those who abuse their relationship
Article 338 Simple seduction a. Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise of marriage (People vs Iman, 62
Phil. 92)
- Inducement of a fictitious marriage ceremony (US vs. Sarmiento, 27 Phil. 121)
- Consent to sexual intercourse from carnal lust, and the intercourse is from mutual
desire, there was no seduction (US vs Sarmiento, 27 Phil. 121)
Article 342 Forcible Abduction
a. Meaning by abduction is meant by the taking away of a woman from her house or the
place where she may be for the purpose of carrying her to another place with intent to
marry or to corrupt her.
(People vs. Crisostomo, 46 Phil. 780)
- Offender is liable for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under Article
48 in relation to Articles 335 & 342, RPC
- It is kidnapping and serious illegal detention if rape occurs thereafter, not motivated
by lewd designs (People vs. Crisostomo, 46 Phil. 775)
Article 343 Consented abduction abduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age,
carried out with her consent and with lewd designs.
a. Purpose to prescribe punishment for the disgrace to her family and the alarm caused
therein by the disappearance of the one who is, by her age and sex, susceptible to
cajolery and deceit (US vs. Reyes, 20 Phil.510)
b. Consented abduction with rape, if there is sexual intercourse (People vs. Amante, 49
Phil. 679)
c. When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no deceit and the girl voluntarily went
with the man, there is no crime committed even if they had sexual intercourse (People
vs. Palisoc, 6 CA Rep. 65)
Article 344 Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts
of lasciviousness.
a. Adultery and concubinage cannot be instituted without 1) including both the guilty
parties, if they are both alive; 2) nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders
b. Seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness cannot be prosecuted 1) except upon
a complaint of the offended party, or her parents, grandparents, or guardian; 2) nor, in

any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as
the case may be.
c. In cases of section, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness, the marriage of the offender
with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already
imposed upon him.
1. This applies to the co-principals, accomplices, and accessories after the fact of
the above-mentioned crimes.
2. Compare to Article 266 C effect of pardon the subsequent valid marriage
between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or
the penalty imposed.
Article 345 Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity
1. Paragraph 2 to acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so
doing
Cases: People vs. Bayani, GR No. 120894 (prohibition against acknowledgment of the
offspring when offender is married. Cf: Article 176, Family Code)
People vs. Pedro de Leon, et.al., GR No. L-2094, April 1950
XII. Title Twelve Crimes against the Civil Status of Persons

1. Art 347 Simulation of births, substitution f one child for anther, and concealment or
abandonment of legitimate child
a. Object the creation of false, or the causing of the loss of the civil status
2. Art 349 Bigamy, how committed
a. Validity of second marriage is a prejudicial question to evaluate for bigamy (Merced
vs Diez, et al. 109 Phil 155, GR No L-15315, 26 August 1960)
b. Case: Tenebro vs CA, GR No. 150958, 18 Feb 2004 second marriage annulled on
the ground of psychological incapacity does not avoid charge for bigamy.

XIII. Title Thirteen Crimes Against Honor

Article 353 Definition of Libel
a. Art 354 Requirements for publicity
i. RA No 4200 Anti-Wiretapping Act
Case: Gaanan vs IAC, GR No 69809, 16 Oct 1986
b. Art 355 Libel by means of writing or similar means
i. Case: People v Casten, et al CA-GR No. 07924-CR, 13 December 1974
c. Art 360 Persons responsible and _______
d. Art 361 Proof of the truth
i. Meaning of publicity
ii. There must be malice (a) malice in fact malice or ill-will must be proved; (b)
malice in law may be taken for granted in view of the grossness (?) of the
imputation (People vs Andrada, 37 OG 1783)
iii. Identification of the offended party is required (Corpus vs Cuadermo Sr, L16969, 30 April 1966)
iv. Case: Rogelio Pader vs People, 8 Feb 2000 (Justice Pardo) Utterance against a
lawyer, slight oral defamation only, 3 conditions present)
v. Art 354, second par the term public officers include public figures
vi. Definition of actual malice that public officials must prove in order to
successfully sue for libel
vii. Does the actual malice rule required of public officials to prove in libel also
apply to public figures

viii. Venue of libel through the internet Case: Bonifacio et al vs CA, GR No

184800, 5 May 2010, Jan 14, 19 (Carpio Morales, J) Venue of libel through
internet, printed and first published must not be same as first published and
accused.
Article 363 Incriminating innocent person
e. Cf Sec 24 RA6245 (Planting of Evidence)
f. Section 29, RA9165 (Planting of Evidence)
g. Sec 38 RA10591 (Liability for Planting Evidence)
XIV. Quasi-offenses
1. Art 365 Imprudence and Negligence

-End-