Sunteți pe pagina 1din 25

Chapter I: Robbery in General

Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of Robbery


Article 294 - With Violence or Intimidation of Persons
Article 295 - Robbery with Physical Injuries, in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band
Article 296 - Definition of a Band and Penalty Incurred by the Members Thereof
Article 297 - Attempted and Frustrated Robbery with Homicide
Article 298 - Execution of Deeds through Violence or Intimidation
Article 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or Edifice Devoted to Worship
Article 300 - Robbery in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band
Article 302 -In an Uninhabited Place or Private Building
Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or Firewood in an Inhabited Place or Private Building
Article 304 - Possession of Picklock or Similar Tools
Article 305 - Defines False Keys

Chapter 2: Brigandage
Article 306 - Who Are Brigands
Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting a Band of Brigands

Chapter 3: Theft
Article 308 - Who Are Liable for Theft
Article 309 Penalties
Article 310 - Qualified Theft
Article 311 - Theft of the Property of the National Library and National Museum

Chapter 4: Usurpation
Article 312 - Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
Article 313 - Altering Boundaries or Landmarks

Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency


Article 314 - Fraudulent Insolvency

Chapter 6: Swindling
Article 315 Estafa
Article 316 - Other Forms of Swindling
Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor
Article 318 - Other Deceits

Chapter 7: Chattel mortgage


Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or Pledge of Mortgaged Property

Chapter 8: Arson and other Crimes involving Destruction

Chapter 9: Malicious mischief


Article 327 - Who Are Responsible
Article 328 - Special Cases of Malicious Mischief
Article 329 - Other Mischiefs
Article 330 - Damage and Obstruction to Means of Communication
Article 331 - Destroying or Damaging Statues, Public Monuments or Paintings

Chapter 10: Exemption from Criminal Liability


Article 332 - Exemption from Criminal Liability in Crimes Against Property.

Chapter I Robbery in General

Art. 293 Who Are Guilty of Robbery


Elements of Robbery in General:
Personal property
Belonging to another
There be Unlawful taking
With Intent to gain
Violence against or intimidation of any person OR force upon anything

The property taken must be personal, if real property/right is usurped the crime is usurpation (Art. 312).

Prohibitive articles may be the subject of robbery, e.g., opium

From the moment the offender gains possession of the object, even without the chance to dispose of the same, the unlawful
taking is complete.

Taking: depriving the offended party of possession of the thing taken with the character of permanency.

Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking. It cannot be established by direct evidence, except in case of confession.

It is not necessary that violence or intimidation is present from the beginning. The violence or intimidation at any time before
asportation is complete, the taking of property is qualified to robbery.

Art. 294 With Violence or Intimidation of Persons


Acts punished under:
When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, Homicide is committed. (Robbery with Homicide)
When the robbery is accompanied by Rape or

Intentional Mutilation or Arson. (Robbery with Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with Arson)
When by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the Physical Injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency, or
blindness is inflicted.

When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the Physical Injuries resulting in the loss of the use of speech or the
power to hear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or the loss of the use of any such
member, or incapacity for the work in which the injured person is theretofore habitually engaged is inflicted.

If the Violence or Intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery is carried to a degree clearly Unnecessary for
the commission of the crime.

When in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for the commission of
the robbery any of the Physical Injuries in consequence of which the person injured becomes deformed or loses any
other member of his body or loses the use thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in
which he is habitually engaged for labor for more than 30 days

If the violence employed by the offender does not cause any of the serious physical injuries defined in Art. 263, or if the
offender employs intimidation only.

The crime defined in this article is a special complex crime.

On the occasion and by reason mean that homicide or serious physical injuries must be committed in the course or
because of the robbery.

The violence must be against the person, not upon the thing taken. It must be present before the taking of personal property
is complete.
Homicide is used in its generic sense, as to include parricide and murder. Hence, there is no robbery with murder. The crime
is still robbery with homicide even if, in the course of the robbery, the person killed was another robber or a bystander.

Even if the rape was committed in another place, it is still robbery with rape. When the taking of personal property of a woman
is an independent act following defendants failure to consummate the rape, there are two distinct crimes committed: attempted
rape and theft. Additional rape committed on the same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty.

Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of personal property grave coercion if there is violence used (Art. 286).

If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) and force upon things (299/302) co-exist, it will be considered as violation of Art
294 because it is more serious than in Art 299/302.

BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the complex crime should be imputed for
the higher penalty to be imposed without sacrificing the principle that robbery w/ violence against persons is more severe than
that w/ force upon things. [Napolis v. CA (1972)]

When the taking of the victims gun was to prevent the victim from retaliating, then the crimes committed are theft and homicide
not robbery with homicide. [People v. Millian (2000)]

Art. 295 Robbery with Physical Injuries, in an Uninhabited Place and By a Band
Robbery with violence against or intimidation or persons is qualified when it is committed:
In an Uninhabited place, or
By a Band, or
By Attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or airship, or
By Entering the passengers compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the
respective conveyances, or

On a Street, road, highway, or alley, AND the intimidation is made with the use of firearms, the offender shall be punished by
the maximum periods of the proper penalties in Art. 294.

It cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance.

The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery on a street, road, highway, or alley.

Any of these qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial.

The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery on a street, road, highway or alley.

Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with serious physical injuries under par 1 of
Art 263.

NOTE: the circumstances and applicability of Art 295 are very specific

Art. 296 Definition of a Band and Penalty Incurred by the Members Thereof

Outline of Art. 296:

When at least 4 armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it is deemed committed by a band.

When any of the arms used in the commission of robbery is not licensed, penalty upon all the malefactors shall be the
maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal possession of such
firearms.

Any member of a band who was present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of
the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the crime.
Requisites for Liability for the acts of the other members:
Member of the band.
Present at the commission of the robbery.
Other members committed an assault.
He did not attempt to prevent assault.

Conspiracy is presumed when robbery is by band.

When the robbery was not committed by a band, the robber who did not take part in the assault by another is not liable for that
assault.

When the robbery was not by a band and homicide was not determined by the accused when they plotted the crime, the one
who did not participate in the killing is liable for robbery only. It is only when the robbery is in band that all those present in the
commission of the robbery may be punished for any of the assaults which any of its members might commit.

But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide and robbery, all the conspirators, even if less than 4 armed men, are liable for
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement, who was not present at the commission of the robbery, if the agreement
was only to commit robbery.

The article speaks of more than 3 armed malefactors who takes part in the commission of the robbery and member of a band
who is present at the commission of a robbery by a band. Thus, a principal by inducement, who did not go with the band at
the place of the commission of the robbery, is not liable for robbery with homicide, but only for robbery in band, there being no
evidence that he gave instructions to kill the victim or intended that this should be done.

When there was conspiracy for robbery only but homicide was also committed on the occasion thereof, all members of the
band are liable for robbery with homicide.

Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the
commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals in the crime of homicide unless it appears that they endeavored to
prevent the homicide.

Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold a member of the band liable for robbery with homicide actually committed by the
other members of the band.

There is no crime as robbery with homicide in band.

Band is only ordinary aggravating circumstance in robbery w/ homicide

In order that special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm be appreciated, it is condition sine qua non that offense
charged be robbery by a band under Art 295.

Pursuant to Art 295, circumstance of a band is qualifying only in robbery under par 3, 4 & 5 of Art 294.

Hence, Art. 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with serious physical injuries under
par. 1 of Art. 263.

Special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm is inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery
with physical injuries, committed by a band. [People v. Apduhan]

Art. 297 Attempted and Frustrated Robbery with Homicide

Homicide includes multiple homicides, murder, parricide, or even infanticide.

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

Robbery with homicide and attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide are special complex crimes, not governed by Art. 48,
but by the special provisions of Arts.294 & 297, respectively.

There is only one crime of attempted robbery with homicide even if slight physical injuries were inflicted on other persons on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery.

Art. 298 Execution of Deeds Through Violence or Intimidation


Elements:
Offender has Intent to defraud another
Offender Compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or document
Compulsion is by means of Violence or Intimidation.

If the violence resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded, crime is robbery with homicide and shall be penalized under
Art 294 par. 1.

Art. 298 applies to private or commercial document, but it does not apply if document is void.

When the offended party is under obligation to sign, execute or deliver the document under the law, it is not robbery but
coercion.

BY FORCE UPON THINGS

Robbery by the use of force upon things is committed only when either:

Offender entered a House or Building by any of the means specified in Art. 299 or Art. 302, or
Even if there was no entrance by any of those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest, or any other kind of locked or closed or
sealed furniture or receptacle in the house or building, or he took it away to be broken or forced open outside.

Art. 299 Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or Edifice Devoted to Worship
Elements of robbery with force upon things under SUBDIVISION (A):
Offender entered
Inhabited House
Public Building
Edifice devoted to Religious Worship

Entrance was effected by any of the following means:

Through an opening Not intended for entrance or egress;

By Breaking any wall, roof, or floor, or door or window;

By using False keys, picklocks or similar tools; or

By using any Fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.


That once inside the building, the offender Took personal property belonging to another with intent to gain.

There must be evidence that accused entered the dwelling house or building by any of the means enumerated in subdivision
(a). In entering the building, there must be the intent to take personal property.

Inhabited house: any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons even though the inhabitants
thereof are temporarily absent when the robbery is committed.

Public building: every building owned by the Government or belonging to a private person but used or rented by the
Government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.

Any of the four means described in subdivision (a) must be resorted to enter a house or building, not to get out otherwise it is
only theft. The whole body of the culprit must be inside the building to constitute entering.

Illustration: If the culprit had entered the house through an open door, and the owner, not knowing that the culprit was inside,
closed and locked the door from the outside and left, and the culprit, after taking personal property in the house, went out
through the window, it is only theft, not robbery.

Breaking: means entering the building. The force used in this means must be actual, as distinguished from that in the other
means which is only constructive force.

False keys: genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys other than those intended for use in the lock forcibly opened by
the offender. The genuine key must be stolen, not taken by force or with intimidation, from the owner.

If false key is used to open wardrobe or locked receptacle or drawer or inside door it is only theft

Elements of robbery with force upon things under SUBDIVISION (B) of Art. 299:

Offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship, regardless of the circumstances
under which he entered it.

Offender takes personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, under any of the following circumstances.

Breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle; or

Taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery.

Entrance into the building by any of the means mentioned in subdivision (a) is not required in robbery under subdivision (b)

The term door in par. 1, subdivision (b) of Art. 299, refers only to doors, lids or opening sheets of furniture or other portable
receptaclesnot to inside doors of house or building.

Breaking the keyhole of the door of a wardrobe, which is locked, is breaking a locked furniture.

It is theft, if the locked or sealed receptacle is not forced open in the building where it is kept or taken from to be broken outside.

The penalty depends on the value of property taken and on whether or not offender carries arm. Arms carried must not be used
to intimidate. Liability for carrying arms is extended to all those who participated in the robbery, including those without arms.

The provision punishes more severely the robbery in a house used as a dwelling than that committed in an uninhabited place,
because of the possibility that the inhabitants in the former might suffer bodily harm during the robbery.

Art. 301 What is an Uninhabited House, Public Building Dedicated to Religious Worship and Their Dependencies:
Even if the occupant was absent during the robbery, the place is still inhabited if the place was ordinarily inhabited and
intended as a dwelling.

Dependencies: all interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries or inclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice,
having an interior entrance connected therewith, and which form part of the whole (Art. 301, par. 2).

Requisites:
Contiguous to the building;
Interior entrance connected therewith;
Form part of the whole.

Orchards and lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the term dependencies (Art. 301, par. 3).

Art. 300 Robbery in an Uninhabited Place and By a Band

or

A Closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same be broken open elsewhere.

With intent to gain, the offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another.

Building: includes any kind of structure used for storage or safekeeping of personal property, such as
(a) freight car ad (b) warehouse.

Entrance through an opening not intended for entrance or egress is not necessary, if there is breaking of wardrobe, chest, or
sealed or closed furniture or receptacle, or removal thereof to be broken open elsewhere.

Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.

Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authorities is not covered under this article.

A receptacle is a container, which must be closed or sealed.


Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice to religious worship is qualified when committed by a
band and located in an uninhabited place.

See discussion on Art. 296 for definition of band.

Art. 302 In an Uninhabited Place or Private Building


Elements:
Offender entered an Uninhabited place or a building which was not a dwelling house, not a public building, or not
an edifice devoted to religious worship.
That any of the following circumstances was present:
Entrance was effected through an opening Not intended for entrance or egress;
A Wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was broken
Entrance was effected through the use of False keys, picklocks or other similar tools;
A Door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was broken;
Penalty is based only on value of property taken.

Robbery in a store

ARTICLE 303 - ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR FIREWOOD IN AN INHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE


BUILDING

The penalty is one degree lower only when robbery is committed by use of force upon things, without intimidation or
violence against a person.

Cereals are seedlings which are the immediate product of the soil. The palay must be kept by the owner as seedling
or taken for that purpose by the robbers.

Art. 304 Possession of Picklock or Similar Tools


Elements:
Offender has in his possession Picklocks or similar tools;
Such picklock or similar tools are especially Adopted to the commission of robbery;
Offender does Not have lawful cause for such possession.

Art. 305 Defines False Keys


TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
Tools mentioned in Article 304;
Genuine keys Stolen from the owner;
Any key other than those intended by the owner for Use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.

Chapter 2 Brigandage (Articles 306-307)

Art. 306 Who Are Brigands


Elements of Brigandage:
There be at least 4 armed persons
They Formed a band of robbers
The Purpose is any of the following:
To commit Robbery in the highway; or
To Kidnap for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom; or
To Attain by means of force and violence any other purpose.

Presumption of law as to brigandage: all are presumed highway robbers or brigands, if any of them carries
unlicensed firearm.

The arms carried may be any deadly weapon.

The main object of the law is to prevent the formation of band of robbers.

The term highway includes city streets.

The following must be proved:

Organization of more than 3 armed persons forming a band of robbers

Purpose of the band is any of those enumerated in Art. 306.


That they went upon the highway or roamed upon the country for that purpose.
That the accused is a member of such band.

Art. 307 Aiding and Abetting a Band of Brigands


Elements:
There is a Band of brigands
Offender Knows the band to be of brigands
Offender Does any of the following acts:
He in any manner Aids, abets or protects such band of brigands; or
He gives them Information of the movements of the police or other peace officers; or
He Acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands.

It is presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has performed them knowingly,
unless the contrary is proven.

Any person who aids or protects highway robbers or abets the commission of highway robbery or brigandage shall
be considered as an accomplice.

See Special Law: PD 532 Anti-Piracy And Anti-


Highway Robbery

It is necessary to prove that the intention and purpose of the accused was to commit robbery indiscriminately and
such robbery is committed on any Philippine Highway. [People v. Pulusan (1998)]

Chapter 3 Theft

Art. 308 Who Are Liable For Theft


Elements of Theft:
Taking of personal property
That Belongs to another
With Intent to gain.
Without the Consent of the owner.
Accomplished Without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

Theft: committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latters consent.

Persons liable for theft:


Those who,
with intent to gain,
without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
take,
personal property,
of another,
without the latters consent.
Those who,
having found lost property,
fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner.
Those who,
after having maliciously damaged the property of another,
remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them.

Those who,
enter an inclosed estate or field where
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and, without the consent of its owner,
hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products.

The theft is consummated & taking completed once the culprit is able to place the thing taken under his control, and
in such a situation that he could dispose of it at once.

In accordance with the definition in Art 308, there is no frustrated theft. The offender has either complete control of
the property (consummated) or without (attempted). Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of personal
property belonging to another. [Valenzuela v. People (2007)]

If a person takes property of another, believing it to be his own, presumption of intent to gain is rebutted. Hence, he is
not guilty of theft.

If one takes personal property openly and avowedly under claim of title made in good faith, he is not guilty of theft
even though claim of ownership is later found to be untenable.

If possession was only material or physical, the crime is THEFT. If possession was juridical, crime is
ESTAFA.

Selling share of a partner or co-owner is not theft.


Actual or real gain is not necessary in theft.

The consent contemplated in this article refers to consent freely given, and not mere lack of opposition by owner of
the property taken.

It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking.

Gulinao shot Dr. Chua and left. Then he went back & took Dr. Chuas diamond ring. The crime was Theft and not
robbery. Circumstances show that the taking was merely an afterthought. Violence used in killing Dr. Chua had no
bearing on the taking of the ring.[People v. Gulinao, (1989)]

Properties were taken after accused has already carried out his primary criminal intent of killing the victim.
Considering that the victim was already heavily wounded when his properties were taken, there was no need to
employ violence against or intimidation against his person. Hence, accused can only be held guilty of the separate
offense of theft.[People vs Basao (1999)]

One in possession of part of recently stolen property is presumed to be thief of all.

Lost property: embraces loss by stealing or by act of the owner or by a person other than the owner, or through
some casual occurrence.

It is necessary to prove the following in order to establish theft by failure to deliver or return lost property:

Time of the seizure of the thing

It was a lost property belonging to another; and

That the accused having had the opportunity to return or deliver the lost property to its owner or to the local
authorities, refrained from doing so.

The law does not require knowledge of the owner of the property.

Elements of hunting, fishing or gathering fruits, etc., in enclosed estate:


That there is an enclosed estate or a field, where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another

Offender enters the same


Offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products in the estate or field;
and

That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without the consent of the owner.

Art. 309 Penalties


The basis of the penalty in theft is
the value of the thing stolen, or
the value and nature of the property taken, or the circumstances that impelled the culprit to commit the crime.

If there is no evidence of the value of the property stolen, the court should impose the minimum penalty
corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00. The court may also take judicial notice of its value in the proper
cases.

Art. 310 Qualified Theft


Theft is qualified if:
Committed by a Domestic servant
Committed with Grave abuse of confidence
The property stolen is
motor vehicle,
mail matter, or
large cattle

The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a:


plantation
The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery
The property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance.

The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher.

Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. Theres no need to prove grave abuse of discretion.
The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must be allegation in the information and proof of a relation, by
reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance, between the accused and the offended party that has created a
high degree of confidence between them, which the accused abused.

Theft of any material, spare part, product or article by employees and laborers is heavily punished under
PD 133.

Motor vehicle: all vehicles propelled by power, other than muscular power. Theft of motor vehicle may now fall
under the anti-carnapping law.

When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy by burning it, the crime is arson.

If a private individual took a letter containing postal money order it is qualified theft. If it was the postmaster, to
whom the letter was delivered, the crime would be infidelity in the custody of documents.

Regarding the theft of coconuts and fish, what matters is not the execution, but the location where it is taken. It
should be in the plantation or in the fishpond.

RA 6539: ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW

Carnapping: taking, with intent to gain, of motor vehicle belonging to another without the latters consent or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by force upon things (Izon v. People, 1981)

Motor Vehicle: any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are public, not exclusively for private use
(Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)

PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW

Cattle rustling: taking away by means, methods or schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any large
cattle whether or not for profit, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of person or force
upon things. It includes killing of large cattle, taking its meat or hide without the consent of owner/raiser.

Large cattle: include cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, other domesticated member of bovine family. A goat is not
included because it is not large (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)

Presumption: Every person in possession of large cattle shall upon demand by competent authorities exhibit required
documents. Failure to do so is prima facie evidence that large cattle in possession are fruits of crime of cattle rustling

Killing of owner is absorbed in cattle rustling (Boado,

Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)

Considering that the gravamen of the crime is the taking or killing of large cattle or taking its meat or hide without the
consent of the owner or raiser, conviction for the same need only be supported by the fact of taking without the cattle
owners consent. There is a disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of
a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. [Ernesto Pil-ey vs. People (2007)]

Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. [People v. Dizon-Pamintuan]

Robbery/theft and fencing are separate and distinct offenses.

Art. 311 Theft of the Property of the National Library and National Museum

Theft of property of the National Museum and National Library has a fixed penalty regardless of its value. But if it was
with grave abuse of confidence, the penalty for qualified theft shall be imposed.

Chapter 4 Usurpation

Art. 312 Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property

PD 704: ILLEGAL FISHING


Prima facie presumption of illegal fishing when:

Explosive, obnoxious or poisonous substance or equipment or device for electric fishing are found in the fishing boat
or in the possession of fisherman; or
When fish caught with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by electricity are found in a
fishing boat

PD 1612: ANTI-FENCING LAW


Fencing:
the act of any person who,
with intent to gain for himself or for another,

shall buy, receive, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or dispose of, or shall buy and sell or in any other manner deal in

any article, item, object, or anything of value


which he knows, or should be known to him,
to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Elements:
Robbery or theft has been committed.

The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object, or
anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime.
The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or another.

Acts punishable under Art. 312:

Taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons

Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.

Elements:

Offender takes possession of any real property OR usurps any real rights in property
Real property or real rights belong to another

Violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying real property or usurping real rights in
property.

There is intent to gain.

If no violence or intimidation only civil liability exists. Violence or intimidation must be the means used in occupying
real property or in usurping real rights.

Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or intimidation took place subsequent to the entry into the property.

Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of the writ of execution issued in the forcible entry case.

Criminal action for usurpation of real property is not a bar to civil action for forcible entry.

RA 947 punishes entering or occupying public agricultural land including lands granted to private individuals.

Art. 313 - Altering Boundaries or Landmarks


Elements:
That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same.
That the offender alters said boundary marks.

Provision does not require intent to gain.


The word alter may include:
destruction of stone monument
taking it to another place
removing a fence

Chapter 5 Culpable Insolvency

Art. 314 Fraudulent Insolvency


Elements:
That the offender is a debtor; that is, he has obligations due and payable
That he absconds with his property
That there be prejudice to his creditors.

Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required. Even if the debtor disposes of his property, unless it is shown that it
has actually prejudiced his creditor, conviction will not lie.

Fraudulent concealment of property is not sufficient if the debtor has some property with which to satisfy his
obligation.

Abscond: does not require that the debtor should depart and physically conceal his property. Real property could
be the subject matter of Art. 314.

The person prejudiced must be creditor of the offender.

Chapter 6 Swindling and Other Deceits

Art. 315 Estafa


Elements of Estafa in General:
That the accused defrauded another
by abuse of confidence; or
by means of deceit; and

That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.

Through

With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence (315 par. 1(a) (b) (c))

Estafa by means of fraudulent acts (315 Par. 2(A) (B) (C)(D) (E) ; BP22):

Through other fraudulent means (315 par 3(a) (b) (c) )

With Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence (315 par. 1(a) (b) (c))

Par 1(a): Altering substance, quantity or quality of object subject of obligation to deliver

Elements:

Offender has an Onerous obligation to deliver something of value.

That he Alters its substance, quantity, or quality

That Damage or prejudice is caused to another.

Deceit is NOT an essential element of estafa with abuse of confidence.

Damage or prejudice must be capable of estimation, because it is the basis of the penalty.

Delivery of anything of value must be by virtue of an onerous obligation to do so.

When the fraud committed consists in the adulteration or mixing of some extraneous substance in an article of food
so as to lower its quantity, it may be a violation of the Pure Food Law.

Its not estafa if the thing delivered is not acceptable to the complainant when there is no agreement as to its
quality.

Estafa may arise even if thing delivered is not subject of lawful commerce, such as opium.

Par.1(b): Misappropriation and Conversion

Elements:

That Money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or in commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;

There be Misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such
receipt;

That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the Prejudice of another; and

That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.


The 4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of goods by the defendant.

Check is included in the word money.

Money, goods or other personal property must be received by the offender under certain kinds of transaction
transferring juridical possession to him.

The offender acquires both physical possession and juridical possession when the thing received by the offender
from the offended party
in trust, or
on commission, or
for administration,

Juridical possession: means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which he may invoke
even as against the owner.

When the delivery of a chattel does not transfer juridical possession/title, it is presumed that the possession/title of
the thing remain w/ owner.

Failure to turn over to the bank the proceeds of sale of goods covered by trust receipts is estafa.

The phrase or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, includes quasi-
contracts and certain contracts of bailment. The obligation to return the thing must be contractual but without
transferring to accused ownership of the thing.

When ownership is transferred to recipient, his failure to return it results in civil liability only.

Applicable Civil Code provisions:

Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon actual or constructive delivery
thereof.

Art. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as
proof of the perfection of the contract.

In estafa with abuse of confidence under par. (b), subdivision 1 of Art. 315, the thing received must be returned if
there is an obligation to return it.

If no obligation to return there is only civil liability.

No estafa when:

Transaction sale fails. There is no estafa if the accused refused to return the advance payment.

The money or personal property received by accused is not to be used for a particular purpose or to be returned.

Thing received under a contract of sale on credit

Payment by students to the school for the value of materials broken is not mere deposit.

Novation of contract of agency to one of sale, or to one of loan, relieves defendant from incipient criminal liability
under the first contract.

He exerted all efforts to retrieve dump truck, albeit belatedly and to no avail. His ineptitude should not be confused
with criminal intent. Criminal intent is required for the conviction of Estafa. Earnest effort to comply with obligation is a
defense against estafa.
[Manahan vs CA (1996)]

3 Ways Of Committing Estafa With Abuse Of Confidence Under Art. 315 Par. (B):
Misappropriating the thing received.
Converting the thing received.
Denying that the thing was received.

Misappropriating: means to own, to take something for one's own benefit.

Converting: Using or disposing of anothers property as if it were ones own.

Conversion: presupposes that the thing has been devoted to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.
The fact that an agent sold the thing received on commission for a lower price than the one fixed, does not constitute
estafa (US v Torres).

The law does not distinguish between temporary and permanent misappropriations.

No estafa under Art. 315 par (b) when there is neither misappropriation nor conversion.

Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts

If agent is authorized to retain his commission out of the amounts he collected, there is no estafa.

Otherwise he is guilty of estafa, because his right to commission does not make the agent a co-owner of money

3rd element of estafa with abuse of confidence is that the conversion, or denial by offender resulted in the prejudice
of the offended party.

To the prejudice of another: not necessarily of the owner of the property.

General rule: Partners are not liable for estafa of money or property received for the partnership when the
business commenced and profits accrued. Failure of partner to account for partnership funds may give rise to civil
obligation only, not estafa.

Exception: when a partner misappropriates the share of another partner in the profits, the act constitutes estafa.

A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is liable if, after the termination of the co-ownership, he misappropriates
the thing which has become the exclusive property of the other.

But when the money or property had been received by a partner for specific purpose and he misappropriated it, there
is estafa.

Under the 4th element of estafa with abuse of confidence demand may be required.

In estafa by means of deceit, demand is not needed, because the offender obtains the thing wrongfully from the
start. In estafa with abuse of confidence, the offender receives the thing under a lawful transaction.

Demand is not required by law, but it may be necessary, because failure to account upon demand is circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation. Presumption arises only when the explanation of the accused is absolutely devoid of
merit.

The mere failure to return the thing received for safekeeping or under any other obligation w/ the duty to return the
same or deliver the value thereof to the owner could only give rise to a civil action and does not constitute the crime
of estafa.

There is no estafa through negligence.

The gravity of the crime of estafa is based on the amount not returned before the institution of the criminal action.

Test to distinguish theft from estafa: In theft, upon the delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner expects a
return of the thing to him.

General rule: When the owner does not expect the immediate return of the thing he delivered to the accused, the
misappropriation of the same is estafa.

Exception: When the offender received the thing from the offended party, with the obligation to deliver it to a third
person and, instead of doing so, misappropriated it to the prejudice of the owner, the crime committed is qualified
theft.

Sale of thing received to be pledged for owner is theft, when the intent to appropriate existed at the time it was
received.

There is no estafa through There can be negligence. malversation through abandonment or negligence.

When in prosecution for malversation the public officer is acquitted, the private individual in conspiracy w/ him may
be held liable for estafa, depending on the nature of the funds.

Misappropriation of firearms received by a police

ESTAFA: if it is not involved in the commission of a crime


MALVERSATION: if it is involved in the commission of a crime.
(3)

Par.1(c): Taking advantage of signature in blank

Elements:

Paper with the signature of the offended party be in Blank.

Offended party should have Delivered it to the offender.

That above the signature of the offended party a Document is written by the offender without authority to do so.

That the document so written Creates a liability of, or causes damage to, the offended party or any third person.

Estafa by Means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts (315 par. 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e); BP22):

Elements of estafa by means of deceit:

There must be a False pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means.

That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed Prior to or Simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud.

Offended party must have Relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced
to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.

As a result thereof, the offended party Suffered damage.

The acts must be fraudulent. Acts must be founded on, deceit, trick, or cheat, and such must be made prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.

In false pretenses the deceit consists in the use of deceitful words, in fraudulent acts the deceit consists principally in
deceitful acts. The fraudulent acts must be performed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.

The offender must be able to obtain something from the offended party because of the fraudulent acts.

Knowledge of criminal intent of the principal is essential to be convicted as an accomplice in Estafa through
falsification of commercial document. There must be knowing assistance in the execution of the offense. [Abejuela vs
People (1991)]

In the case where a tenant-landowner relationship exists between the parties, the jurisdiction for the prosecution of
the crime Estafa is not divested from the RTC; though the matter before us apparently presents an agrarian dispute,
the RTC cannot shirk from its duty to adjudicate on the merits a criminal case initially filed before it, based on the law
and evidence presented, in order to determine whether an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged.

In a tenant-landowner relationship, it was incumbent upon the tenant to hold in trust and, eventually, account for the
share in the harvest appertaining to the landowner, failing which the tenant could be held liable for misappropriation.

As correctly pointed out by the respondents, share tenancy has been outlawed for being contrary to public policy as
early as 1963, with the passage of R.A. 3844. What prevails today, under R.A. 6657, is agricultural leasehold tenancy
relationship, and all instances of share tenancy have been automatically converted into leasehold tenancy. In such a
relationship, the tenants obligation is simply to pay rentals, not to deliver the landowners share.

Given this dispensation, the petitioners allegation that the respondents misappropriated the landowners share of the
harvest as contained in the information

is untenable. Accordingly, the respondents cannot be held liable under Article 315, paragraph 4, No. 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code. [People v. Vanzuela (2008)]

It is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa. The
reason, therefore, is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se.

In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative.
Petitioners claim that she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she merely tried to help the
complainants secure a tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal recruitment, it being enough that she gave
the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad; consequently she is also held
liable for the violation of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a). [Lapasaran v. People (2009)]

Par 2(a): Using fictitious name or false pretenses at power, influence or other similar deceits

Ways of committing the offense:


By using fictitious name;
By falsely pretending to possess:
power,
influence,
qualifications,
property,
credit,
agency,
business or imaginary transactions;
By means of other similar deceits..

For estafa under Art. 315 par. 2(a), it is indispensable that the false statement or fraudulent representation of the
accused,

be made prior to, or, at least simultaneously with,

the delivery of the thing by the complainant. It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent representation
constitutes the cause or only motive which induced the complainant to part with the thing. If there be no such prior or
simultaneous false statement or fraudulent representation, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent
and suspicious it may appear, cannot serve as a basis for prosecution for the class of estafa.

A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for estafa.

In estafa by means of deceit under Art. 315 2(a), there must be evidence that the pretense of the accused is false.
Without such proof, criminal intent to deceive cannot be inferred. Fraud must be proved with clear and positive
evidence.

Where commission salesman took back the machines from prospective customers and misappropriated them, it is
theft, not estafa.

Estafa through false pretenses made in writing is only a simple crime of estafa, not a complex crime of estafa through
falsification.

Manipulation of scale is punished under the Revised Administrative Code

Par 2(b): by altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to art or business

Par. 2(c): by pretending to have bribed any government employee

Person would ask money from another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government employee but just pocketed
the money.

Par 2(d): By postdating a check or issuing a bouncing check

Elements:

Offender Postdated a check, or issued a check in payment of an obligation;

Such postdating or issuing a check was done when the offender had No funds in the bank, or his funds deposited
therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.

The check must be genuine, and not falsified.

The check must be postdated or for an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance and delivery of the check and
not for pre-existing obligation.

Exception:

When postdated checks are issued and intended by the parties only as promissory notes
When the check is issued by a guarantor
The accused must be able to obtain something from the offended party by means of the check he issues and
delivers.

The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or no funds in the bank to cover the check at the time he postdated or
issued a check, is sufficient to make him liable for estafa.

RA 48851 deleted the phrase the offender knowing at the time he had no funds in the bank:

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWO, PARAGRAPH (d), ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN OF ACT
NUMBERED THIRTY-EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED
PENAL CODE. (re: issuance of checks.)
Section 1. Section Two, Paragraph (d), Article Three hundred fifteen of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and
fifteen is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:

the failure of the drawer to deposit the amount needed to cover his check

within 3 days from receipt of notice of dishonor of check for lack or insufficiency of funds
shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by postdating or issuing a check. One who got hold of a check issued by
another, knowing that the drawer had no sufficient funds in the bank, and used the same in the purchase of goods, is
guilty of estafa.
[People v. Isleta]

PD 8182 applies only to estafa under par 2(d) of Art. 315, and does not apply to other forms of estafa.
[People v Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95]

Hence, the penalty prescribed in PD 818, not the penalty provided for in Art. 315, should be imposed when the estafa
committed is covered by par 2(d) of Art. 315.

Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing crime.

See Special Law: BP 22 (Anti-Bouncing Checks Law)

"(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of
the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima
facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act."

Section 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Approved: June 17, 1967
2
AMENDING ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE BY INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA
COMMITTED BY

MEANS OF BOUNCING CHECKS


Section 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in
paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, shall be punished
by:

1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but not exceed 22,000 pesos,
and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty which may be imposed shall in no case
exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua;

2nd. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not
exceed 12,000 pesos;

3rd. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period, if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000
pesos; and, 4th. By prision mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos.
Section 2. This decree shall take effect immediately.

Estafa Through Other Fraudulent Means (315 Par 3

(a) (b) (c))


Par 3 (a): By inducing another, through deceit, to
sign any document

Elements:

Offender Induced the offended party to sign a document.

That deceit be Employed to make him sign the document.

Offended party Personally signed the document.

That Prejudice be caused.

Offender must induce the offended party to sign the document. If offended party is willing from the start to sign the
document, because the contents are different from those which the offended told the accused to state in the
document, the crime is falsification.

There can be no conviction for estafa in the absence of proof that defendant made statements tending to mislead
complainant.

Par.3 (b): By resorting to some fraudulent practice to ensure success in a gambling game

Par.3 (c): By removing, concealing or destroying any court record, office files, document or any other papers

Elements:

That there be court Record, office files, documents or any other papers

If there is no malicious intent to defraud, the destruction of court record is malicious mischief.

Elements of deceit and abuse of confidence may co-exist.

If there is neither deceit nor abuse of confidence, its not estafa, even if there is damage. There is only civil liability.

Double jeopardy does not apply because RPC is a distinct crime from BP 22. Deceit and damage are essential
elements of RPC, which are not required in BP 22. [Nierras vs Dacuycuy (1990)]

The element of damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation may consist in:
The offended party being deprived of his money or property, as result of the fraud;
Disturbance in property right; or
Temporary prejudice

Payment subsequent to the commission of estafa does not extinguish criminal liability or reduce the penalty.

The crime of estafa is not obliterated by acceptance of promissory note.

A private person who procures a loan by means of deceit through a falsified public document of mortgage, but paid
loan within the period agreed upon, is not guilty of estafa but only falsification of a public document.

Accused cannot be convicted of estafa with abuse of confidence if charged w/ estafa by means of deceit

Art. 316 Other Forms of Swindling and Deceits


Par 1. By conveying, selling, encumbering, or mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the owner of the same
Elements:
That the thing be Immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building.
Offender who is not the owner of said property should Represent that he is the owner thereof.
Offender should have Executed an act of ownership (selling, encumbering or mortgaging the real property).
Act be made to Prejudice of the owner or a third person.

The thing disposed of must be real property. If its chattel, crime is Estafa.

There must be existing real property.

Even if the deceit is practiced against the second purchaser but damage is incurred by the first purchaser, there is
violation of par.1 of Art. 316.

Since the penalty is based on the value of the damage there must be actual damage caused.
Par. 2. By disposing of real property as free from encumbrance, although such encumbrance be not recorded

Elements:
That the thing disposed of be Real property.
Offender Knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or not.

There must be Express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance.

Act of disposing of the real property be made to the Damage of another.

Act constituting the offense is disposing of the real property representing that it is free from encumbrance.

Dispose: includes encumbering or mortgaging.

Encumbrance: includes every right or interest in the land which exists in favor of third persons.

The offended party would not have granted the loan had he known that the property was already encumbered. When
the loan had already been granted when defendant offered the property as security for the loan, Art. 316 par. 2 is not
applicable.

Usurious loan with equitable mortgage is not an encumbrance on the property.

If 3rd element not established, there is no crime.

There must be damage caused. It is not necessary that act prejudice the owner of the land.

The omitted phrase as free from encumbrance in par 2 of Art. 316 is the basis of the ruling that silence as to such
encumbrance does not involve a crime.

Par. 3. By wrongfully taking by the owner of his personal property from its lawful possessor

Elements:
Offender is the Owner of personal property.

Said property is in the Lawful possession of another.


Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor.

Prejudice is thereby caused to the lawful possessor or third person.

Offender must wrongfully take the personal property from the lawful possessor. Wrongfully take does not include the
use of violence, intimidation. If the thing is taken by means of violence, without intent to gain, it is not estafa, but
grave coercion.

If the owner took the personal property from its lawful possessor without the latters knowledge and later charged him
with the value of the property, the crime is theft. If there is intent to charge the bailee with its value, the crime is
robbery. [US v Albao]

Par. 4. By executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another.

Illustration: A person who simulates a conveyance of his property to another, to defraud his creditors. If the
conveyance is real and not simulated, the crime is fraudulent insolvency.

Par. 5. By accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labor not performed

Elements:

Accepting a compensation given to accused for service not rendered

Malicious failure to return the compensation wrongfully received (fraud).

There must be fraud. Otherwise, it will only be solutio indebiti, with civil obligation to return the wrong payment.

If the money in payment of a debt was delivered to a wrong person, Art. 316 par 5 is not applicable.
In case the person who received it later refused or failed to return it to the owner of the money, Art. 315 subdivision
1(b) is applicable.

Par. 6. By selling, mortgaging or encumbering real property or properties with which the offender guaranteed the
fulfilment of his obligation as surety

Elements:

Offender is a Surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action.


He Guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property or properties.

He Sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner encumbers said real property.
That such sale, mortgage, or encumbrance is

Without express authority from the court, or

Made Before the cancellation of his bond, or

Before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him.

There must be damage caused under Art. 316.

Art. 317 Swindling of a Minor


Elements:
That the offender Takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor.
That he induces such minor
to Assume an obligation, or
to Give release, or
to Execute a transfer of any property right.

That the consideration is


some Loan of money,
Credit, or
Other Personal property.

That the transaction is to the Detriment of such minor.

Real property is not included because only money, credit and personal property are enumerated, and because a
minor cannot convey real property without judicial authority.

Art. 318 Other Deceits


Other deceits are:
By Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles.
By Interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public
in any other manner, for profit or gain.

Any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall under this article. As in other cases of estafa, damage to the offended
party is required.

The deceits in this article include false pretenses and fraudulent acts.

Chattel Mortgage

The object of the Chattel Mortgage Law is to give the necessary sanction to the statute, so that mortgage debtors
may be deterred from violating its provisions and mortgage creditors may be protected against loss of inconvenience
from wrongful removal or sale of mortgaged property.

Chapter 7 Chattel Mortgage

Art. 319 Removal, Sale, or Pledge of Mortgaged Property


Acts punishable under Art. 319:
By knowingly removing any personal property mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law to any province or city
other than the one in which it was located at the time of execution of the mortgage, without the written consent of
the mortgagee or his executors, administrators or assigns.
By selling or pledging personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of the Chattel
Mortgage Law, without the consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the
record thereof in the office of the register of deeds of the province where such property is located.
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting.

If chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of good faith and is not registered, it is void and cannot be
prosecuted under Art 319

Elements of knowingly removing mortgaged personal property:

Personal property is mortgaged under the Chatter Mortgage Law.


Offender knows that such property is so mortgaged.

He removes such mortgaged personal property to any province or city other than the one in which it was located at
the time of the execution of the mortgage.
That the removal is permanent.

That there is no written consent of the mortgagee or his executors, administrators or assigns to such removal.

A person other than the mortgagor who removed the property to another province, knowing it to be mortgaged, may
be liable. The removal of the mortgaged personal property must be coupled with intent to defraud.

No felonious intent if transfer of personal property is due to change of residence.

If the mortgagee opted to file for collection, not foreclosure, abandoning the mortgage as basis for relief, the removal
of property to another province is not a violation of Art 319 par1.

In estafa, the property involved is real property. In sale of mortgaged property, it is personal property.

Elements of selling or pledging personal property already pledged:

That personal property is already pledged under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such property, sells or pledges the same or any part thereof.

That there is no consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the
office of the register of deeds.

The consent of the mortgagee must be


in writing,
on the back of the mortgage, and
noted on the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds.

Damage is NOT essential.

Chattel mortgage may give rise to estafa by means of deceit.

In both there is selling of a mortgaged property.

Chapter 8 Arson and Other Crimes Involving Destruction


Kinds of Arson:
Arson (PD 1613, Sec. 1)

Destructive arson (Art. 320, as amended by RA 7659)


Other cases of arson (Sec. 3, PD 1613)

Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson Attempted arson: A person, intending to burn a wooden
structure, collects some rags, soaks them in gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall of the building.
When he about to light a match to set fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who chases him away. In
attempted arson, it is not necessary that there be a fire.

Frustrated arson: If that person is able to light or set fire to the rags, but the fire was put out before any part of the
building was burned.

Consummated arson: If before the fire was put out, it had burned a part of the building.

If the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling, it is not required that the house be occupied by one or
more persons and the offender knew it when the house was burned.
No complex crime of arson with homicide. If by reason of or on the occasion of arson death results, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. Homicide is absorbed.

Any of 7 circumstances in Sec. 6 of PD 1613 is sufficient to establish fact of arson if unexplained.

How is the crime of Arson proved?

In the prosecution for Arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes:

the corpus delicti, i.e., a fire because of criminal agency; and


the identity of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime.

In Arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionally
caused. [Gonzales, Jr. v. People, GR No. 159950, Feb. 12, 2007]

PD 1613, 1. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON

SEC. 2. Destructive ArsonThe penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua shall
be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:

Any ammunition factory and other establishment where explosives, inflammable or combustible materials are
stored.
Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any edifice devoted to culture, education or social services.

Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually assemble.

Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft, or conveyance for transportation of persons or property.

Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial, or administrative or other official proceeding.

Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping center, public or private market, theater
or movie house or any similar place or building.

Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated or congested area.

SEC. 3. Other Cases of ArsonThe penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the
property burned is any of the following:

Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies

Any inhabited house or dwelling

Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel

Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central

Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse

Article 320, RPC, as amended, with respect to destructive arson, and the provisions of PD 1613 respecting other
cases of arson provide only one penalty for the commission of arson, whether destructive or otherwise, where death
results therefrom. The raison detre is that arson is itself the end and death is simply the consequence.

In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated
whether arson, murder, or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the
occasion of arson, the crime is simply Arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the
main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means
to accomplish such goal, the crime committed is Murder only; and lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill a
particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to as means to cover up the
killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed Homicide/Murder and Arson

Chapter 9 - Malicious Mischief

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: It is the willful causing of damage to anothers property for the sake of causing damage
because of hate, revenge or other evil motive.

Art. 327 Who Are Responsible


Elements of Malicious Mischief:
Offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another.
Such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction
Act of damaging anothers property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it.

If there is no malice in causing damage, the obligation to pay for the damages is only civil (Art. 2176)

Damage means not only loss but also diminution of what is a mans own. Thus, damage to anothers house includes
defacing it. [People v Asido]

Art. 328 Special Cases of Malicious Mischief

Art. 331 Destroying or Damaging Statues, Public Monuments or Paintings

The penalty is lower if the thing destroyed is a public painting, rather than a public monument.
Special cases of malicious mischief: (qualified malicious mischief)

causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions


using any poisonous or corrosive substance

Spreading infection or contagion among cattle

causing damage to property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public.

Art. 329 Other Mischiefs

Other mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are punished based on value of the damage caused.

If the amount involved cannot be estimated, the penalty of arresto menor of fine not exceeding P200 is fixed by law.

When several persons scattered coconut remnants which contained human excrement on the stairs and floor of the municipal
building, including its interior, the crime committed is malicious mischief under Art. 329. [People v Dumlao]

Art. 330 Damage and Obstruction to Means of Communication

Chapter 10 Exemption from Criminal Liability

Art. 332 Exemption from Criminal Liability in Crimes Against Property

Crimes involved in the exemption:


Theft
Swindling (estafa)
Malicious mischief

If the crime is robbery, exemption does not lie.


Persons exempt from criminal liability:
Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed into the
possession of another.
Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

The law recognizes the presumed co-ownership of the property between the offender and the offended party. There is no
criminal, but only civil liability.

Art. 332 does not apply to a stranger who participates in the commission of the crime.

Committed by damaging any railway, telegraph, or telephone lines. If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars,
collision, or other accident, a higher penalty shall be imposed. (Qualifying Circumstance)

Telegraph/phone lines must pertain to railways.

Q: What is the crime when, as a result of the damage caused to railway, certain passengers of the train are killed?

A: It depends. Art. 330 says without prejudice to the criminal liability of the offender for other consequences of his criminal act.

If there is no intent to kill, the crime is damages to means to means of communication with homicide because of the first
paragraph of Art. 4 and Art. 48.

If there is intent to kill, and damaging the railways was the means to accomplish the criminal purpose, the crime is murder

Stepfather and stepmother are included as ascendants by affinity. [People v Alvarez; People v Adame]

Guevarra: An adopted or natural child should also be considered as included in the term descendants and a concubine or
paramour within the term spouses.

Art. 332 also applies to common-law spouses. [Art. 144, CC; People v Constantino]

Jurisprudence

THEFT

The fact that beans (subject of the crime were sacks of beans) were scattered on the floor inside and in front of the stall of
petitioner and in the parking lot does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that petitioner is the perpetrator of the crime.

This cannot be equated with the principle of law that a person in possession or control of stolen goods is presumed to be the
author of the larceny. Absent proof of any stolen property in the possession of a person, as in the case at bar, no presumption
of guilt can arise. The place was a market and presumably, petitioner was not the only vendor of beans.

Where the proven facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence
and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused.
[Aoas v. People (2008)]

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
It is clear that the place of the commission of the crime was a residential and commercial building located in an urban and
populated area. This qualifying circumstance places the offense squarely within the ambit of Section 2(7) of P.D. 1613, and
converts it to destructive arson.

It was also established that the subject building was insured against fire for an amount substantially more than its market value,
a fact that has given rise to the unrebutted prima facie evidence of arson, as provided in Section 6 of P.D. 1613. [Amora v.
People (2008)]

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

Does not include taking the gun to shoot its previous holder. The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that appellant
committed the crime of robbery with homicide. There is nothing in the records that would show that the principal purpose of
appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun (Serial No. 9600942).

It must be emphasized that when the victim and appellant met and had a heated argument, the absence of the intent to rob on
the part of the appellant was apparent. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim. Appellants act of taking the shotgun was not
for the purpose of robbing the victim, but to protect himself from the victim.

No one would in ones right mind just leave a firearm lying around after being in a heated argument with another person.

Having failed to establish that appellants original criminal design was robbery, appellant could only be convicted of the separate
crimes of either murder or homicide, as the case may be, and theft. [People vs. Lara]

ROBBERY WITH RAPE

If the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape was committed even before the asportation, the crime is the special complex
crime of Robbery with Rape. So long as the intent of the accused is to rob, rape may be committed before, during or after the
robbery. But if the primary intent ofthe accused was to rape and his taking away the belongings of the victim was only a mere
afterthought, two separate felonies are committed: Rape and Theft or Robbery depending upon the circumstances surrounding
the unlawful taking. [People v. Naag, GR No. 1361394, Feb. 15, 2001]

QUALIFIED THEFT (Abuse of Confidence)

Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees of Western does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and
intimacy that the law requires.

The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that there be a relation of independence, guardianship or vigilance between
the petitioners and Western.

Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping, preparation and issuance of
invoices. They merely assisted customers in making a purchase and in demonstrating the merchandise to prospective buyers.
While they had access to the merchandise, they had no access to the cashiers booth or to the cash payments subject of the
offense. [Astudillo vs. People(2006)]

THEFT (Corpus Delicti)

The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable for the charges on the ground that he was not caught in possession of the
missing funds. This is clutching at straws. To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not an element of the corpus
delicti in theft.

Corpus delicti means the body or substance of the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been
actually committed.

In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely:


that the property was lost by the owner, and
that it was lost by felonious taking.

In the case before us, these two elements were established. The amounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner took
them without authority to do so. [Gan vs. People(2007)]

THEFT; Attempted or Consummated only

The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and
Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the free disposition of the
items stolen is in any way determinative of whether the crime of theft has been produced. We thus conclude that under the
Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft.[Valenzuela vs. People (2007)]

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; (Absorption Theory applied)

Attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on the occasion of the robbery, as in this case, is absorbed in the
crime of Robbery with Homicide which is a special complex crime that remains fundamentally the same regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed in connection with the robbery. [People v. Cabbab, Jr.(2007)]

ESTAFA; Essence of Misappropriation

The words convert and misappropriate connote an act of using or disposing of anothers property as if it were ones own or
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for ones own use includes not only
conversion to ones personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without any right. [Tan vs.
People]
ESTAFA (Sale of jewelry; Failure to return)

In an agency for the sale of jewelries, as in the present case, it is the agents duty to return the jewelry upon demand of the
owner and failure to do so is evidence of conversion of the property by the agent. In other words, the demand for the return of
the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
However, this presumption is rebuttable. If the accused is able to satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the thing delivered
in trust or to account for the money, he may not be held liable for estafa. [People v. Manantan]

ADDITIONAL NOTES

THEFT

Presumption of thievery -- possession of stolen goods [People vs. Dela Cruz (2000)]

No frustrated theft; Either attempted or consummated only [Valenzuela vs. People (2007)]

QUALIFIED THEFT
Related Laws
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA 6539);
Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD 533);
Heavier Penalties for Thefts by Employees and Laborers (PD 133);
Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act (RA 7832);

Some LGUs have anti-Cable Television Theft Ordinances.


Theft of Forestry Products (PD 330);
Theft of Minerals/Ores (PD 581);

Cases:

Theft by bank teller considered Qualified Theft

[Roque vs. People(2004)]

Grave abuse of confidence, requirements

[Astudillo vs. People(2006)]

Carnapping vs. Qualified Theft [People vs. Bustinera(2004)]

ESTAFA

Conversion/Misappropriation, explained [Lee vs. People (2005)]

Estafa may coincide with Illegal recruitment

[People vs. Hernandez (2002)]

Deceit/False Pretense, explained [Pablo vs. People (2004)]

SYNDICATED ESTAFA/Economic Sabotage (Presidential Decree No. 1689)Ponzi scheme; Pyramid Scams

Case:

Soliciting funds from and eventually defrauding the general public constitutes syndicated estafa amounting to economic
sabotage [People vs. Balasa (1998)]

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW


Modes of committing violations of BP 22;
Presumptions/Evidentiary Rules

Cases:

Rule of Preference in BP 22 violations: Court may impose imprisonment or a fine [Bernardo vs. People (2007)]

Only a full payment of the face value of the second check at the time of its presentment or during the five-day grace period
could exonerate one from criminal liability. [Macalalag vs. People (2006)]

See Also:
PD 1612: Anti-Fencing Law
BP 22: Bouncing Check Law
RA 6539: Anti-Carnapping Act
RA 9372: Human Security Act
PD 1613: Anti-Arson Law