Crimes against Property
Classify it according to the type of property stolen.
Definition of theft
Elements: Taking of personal property with intent to gain and there is no violence or
intimidation involved
Robbery – dapat may violence or intimidation
THEFT
Personal property - consists of two things
1. Under civil code, real property particular enumeration. Also describes personal
property. If not real property, personal property siya. If not enumerated,
personal properly. Laurel vs. Abrogar, Worldwideweb
PLDT – international calls are being stolen, business is being stolen.
Laurel – long distance charges (issue)
Personal property – use of their facilities. Although those things cannot be taken away, it
is capable of taking. PLDT can be deprived of their enjoyment of the earnings. There is an
effect of the owner of the property. Prejudice sa property kahit hindi taken away from
him.
Also applied in cases of gas – cannot be taken away but can be transferred to one place to
another same with electricity with the use of jumper. In that case theft of electricity.
Can be appropriated – it can be also personal property
Two fold
1. Not real property + capable of appropriation
Valenzuela vs. People – nailabas na sa grocery yung tide detergent dun sila hinuli ng
guard.
Before Valenzuela, there are confusion.
Part of “taking” – there must be the ability to dispose of the property. So hindi lang
kailangan na nasakanya dapat may opportunity to dispose of it.
But in Valenzuela, so long as the property is in his possession regardless of he has the
ability to dispose of it or not there is already theft. Constructive possession
There are situations when the offender does not possess the property yet but he has
already control of it. The answer would be YES. So long as there is a disturbance of the
property, taking is already consummated.
Example: Offender points a gun at X. Says I want you to tell you driver to bring a bag filled
with money and bring it here. Because of threat and intimidation X said to the driver. The
robber said don’t bring it here but leave it at the street. At the point where driver is
possessing the money to deliver, the robbery is already consummated. The robber has
already control over the money. If iniwan sa street kahit iba yung kumuha hindi yung
robber, robbery is already consummated.
In a similar matter, when someone sees something. A bike outside the house of the
owner, the offender takes it and rides in the subdivision. Then returned it. Theft is already
consummated. Kahit hindi alam ng owner, theft is already consummated even though the
property is returned.
“intent to gain”
Sa bike example, was there intent to gain in contemplation of robbery and theft. It is
enough that the offender enjoyed the property. Or benefited its use. As long as
napakinabangan niya. Kahit temporary at nireturn niya. The value does not matter. It only
matters in the penalty. Kahit papel lang, walang value, theft padin.
In some of the cases assigned, snatching bag or necklace. Does it amount to robbery? The
court said no. There must be violence, intimidation, force upon THINGS.
“Force upon things” – breaking of a wall, door, floor,, window, fictitious name, false keys
So if something is stolen, snatches, grabs, its not automatic na robbery. Kailangan
mapakita na in the taking, force and violence is used.
Robbery = Theft + violence, intimidation, force upon things
Go back to theft
Art 308.
Something is taken or failure to return
X lost his wallet. A found it and does not return. There is theft.
Qualified theft
1. grave abuse of confidence
Someone is already entrusted with the property, relationship of trust and confidence bet
the owner and the person who has possession of the property and takes it. Example:
Cashiers. If cashier steals money, its qualified theft. Another example, domestic servant.
“Taking” in robbery and theft – personal property need not actually owned. Pwedeng
hindi siya may ari, nautusan lang tas naholdap there is still robbery. It is not required that
the offended party is the legal owner.

But what if it is the owner trying to recover the property? If the owner steals it with or
without violence, will it amount to robbery? NO. Because there is no intent to gain. But
there is still liability, Art 316, lawful owner takes personal property from the lawful
possessor.
Owner, he owns the watch. Owner lends the watch to Y for 50K for 1 month. After 1
month, Y does not return. Owner points a gun to Y to recover his watch. IT IS NOT
ROBBERY. But he is liable Art 316. Kahit wala violence, kahit ini-snatch lang, Art 316 padin.
ROBBERY = Theft + force upon things, intimidation, violence.
1. Robbery with violence and intimidation
2. Robbery with force upon thigns
Art 294
1st par = by reason or occasion of robbery homicide, rape, serious physical injuries, etc.
“By reason or occasion of robbery”
Original intent of offenders is to take something away
Taking is a mere afterthgouht, it is not robbery.
Example: Offender comes across the victim, and the victim is asleep. He takes away
something from the victim. That’s not robbery because he did not employ violence or
intimidation.
Another example:
294 contemplates when the offender has already intent to gain. Killing someone because
he wants to rob. So long as the intent is to rob. The homicide, rape, etc. Then it will be
robbery with serious physical injuries, robbery with rape. It will fall under the 1 st
paragraph of 294.
It does not matter who the person killed is. Ex. Police shot one robber. The liability of the
other robbers is still robbery with homicide. Similar in rape, even if the one raped is one
of the robbers, it will still be robbery with rape.
Pano kung marami yung namatay, will it be robbery with homicide and 4 counts of
homicide? NO. It will still be robbery with homicide. Others will be absorbed.
If for example, robbery is committed and rape. Not charged with a separate robbery then
separate rape. It will be complexed, robbery with rape.
In the cases, people vs sultan. May pinatay tas nirape. What can we do? What about the
rape and homicide that is committed? Sapat na ba yun na robbery with homicide or
robbery with rape.
Can you treat the killing with ignominy? NO. Unlike in mitigating circumstances, the list is
exclusive.
Example: Robbery with homicide. 5 yung pinatay. Robbery with homicide yung charge.
And you treat the other 4 robbery with homicide ignomy. KULANG
Also note that in robbery with homicide, the person killed was one of the persons in
parricide. It will still be robbery with homicide not parricide. The “homicide” contemplates
parricide, infanticide, etc. It is generic.
Example: the rape happens before the robbery and it was the real intent of the offenders.
After raping the victim, robs the victim. Then that will be two separate crimes. It could be
a separate crime of rape and theft because there is no violence.
Basta importante is the intent. Intent to rob.
What if for example the offender declares the robbery. Tas binigay ni victim. Tas nung
nakay robber na nanlaban yung victim. Napatay si victim. It will still be robbery with
homicide. It is still part of the fact that the offender is taking the offended party’s things.
Par 2 contemplates paragraph 2 of serious physical injuries
Par 2 contemplates paragraph 3 of serious physical injuries
When you look at paragraph 4, if it uses the word “inflicted upon the person not
responsible for its commission”. Serious physical injuries dito dapat hindi upon the
robbers. If the injuries inflicted upon one of the robbers, two separate crimes, crime of
simple robbery plus serious physical injuries in par 4 of art 263. Kung yung injuries
inflicted upon the person responsible, and the injuries fall upon par 3 and 4 of 263, two
separate crimes. Take note of that distinction.
Paragraph 5 – simple robbery. Robbery committed without any of the situations in the 4
paragraphs. Example: offender inflicted on the offended party less serious physical
injuries or slight physical injuries, sinampal sinapak pero not serious enough. It will fall
under simple robbery under 294. It absorbs the less serious physical injuries. Charge is
only simple robbery.
295 and 296 makes reference to situations which would aggravate to 294. 295
contemplates the robbery is done in an uninhabited place, by a band, etc. It will
aggravate. If example, committed by a band, it will not be offset.
But take note 295 only applies to par 3 4 5. In so far as par 1 2 is concerned, hindi
applicable. Generic aggravating circumstance sa par 1 2. Robbery in an uninhabited place,
still generic aggravating can be offset. But robbery with serious physical injuries falling
under par 3 committed by a band. The aggravating circumstance will apply, but cannot be
offset by a mitigating circumstance.
The title – “in an uninhabited place and in a band” it is “or” The two does not need to
concur. Kahit isa lang.
Definition of a “band”
Robbery with homicide is committed by a band – all are liable robbery with homicide kahit
wala sa loob ng bahay. Not only because of conspiracy but also because art 4 par 1
contemplates situations kahit hindi intended. The proximate cause is the robbery. All of
them will be liable. One way for a person in a band or even in conspiracy to be exempt if
one of the offenders tries to stop the rape or killing. Even if he is not successful, he will be
exempted to the rape or homicide committed.
Art 297 – attempted or frustrated robbery with Homicide.
Insofar as theft is concerned, there is no frustrated theft.
If the difference of theft and robbery is the violence, can it still be implied that there is
also no frustrated robbery?
View ni atty, there is no frustrated robbery.
So for Art 297, attempted robbery with homicide lang
Another difference, homicide is not as generic as 294. In 294 kapag may homicide,
covered and murder, infanticide, etc. But in 297 there are penalties, kung infanticide yung
penalty for infanticide and imposed. If murder, penalty for murder. But the charged is still
attempted robbery with homicide.
298 – take note of the elements
Other kind of robbery is robbery with force upon things. In 294, robbery with force and
intimidation.
“Force upon things”
This refers the circumstances enumerated in 299. Entrance through a window, breaking a
door, etc. Similar to your aggravating circumstance. So hindi na pwede maging
aggravating circumstance. It is inherent in the crime. It is also necessary that the entrance
is the entire body.
What must be broken here are the external doors. That’s the main door, not the internal
doors.
X and Y live together. Y breaks the door to the room to steal something. That’s not
robbery with force upon things. That is only theft.
What if it is an apartment, may main door pero may separate main doors sila. X breaks
the door of unit 2 occupied by B. Is that robbery with force upon things? YES. Because
that door is used as an entry in that particular house. That is covered.
Robbery in an uninhabited house – “dwelling”
Inherent and dwelling sa robbery in an uninhabited house through force upon things.
“False keys, picklocks” – there is a particular provision defining them
“force upon things” – technical definition
Also includes constructive force, pretending to be a public authority – did not use force
upon things. It is still covered.
He did not break anything to enter the house. The door is open. He enters finds a jewelry
box. Breaks jewelry breaks. Force upon things. Even if he brings it outside to be broken
outside, force upon things padin. Consummated na ang crime.
Take note that the things taken outside must be sealed. So if not sealed hindi siya
macocover ng par 2. Locked of sealed furniture dapat.
Counterpart 295 is art 300.
Art 300 aggravates 299. Unlike in 295, the circumstance of uninhabited place AND by a
band must both concur. Art 300 as applied to 299, dapat BOTH.
301 defines uninhabited house. Take note the dependencies, structures which are
connected to the main building. Also the exclusions, greenhouse, etc. Kahit nakaconnect,
hindi considered as dependencies.
302 opposite of 299. Contemplates uninhabited place or private building. Take note of the
circumstances which will fall under this. So kapag hindi uninhabited house, dependencies,
religious worships, etc. it will fall under 302.
Possession of picklocks. Mere possession even if not used gives liability.
If it is used for the crime, then it is absorbed.
Take note in theft, value of the thing stolen.
Qualified theft – theft of motor vehicles.
Under anti carnapping law, definds what a motor vehicle is. Particular vehicles such as
tractors, etc. If it is not defined under the anti carnapping law, it would fall under qualified
theft. Kapag ninakaw tas hindi siya defined sa anti carnapping law, then qualified theft. If
it does fall under the motor vehicle under the anti carnapping, then anti carnapping siya.
Anti carnapping both covers with or without violence. So long as it is done without the
consent. If persons are killed during the course of the carnapping, the penalty is higher.
Anti fencing, it applies if there is theft or robbery. Contemplates that a theft and a robbery
is committed. Then the proceeds of the theft or robbery. Fencing provides a presumption.
Prima facie.
Insofar as carnapping is concerned, a person who participates as a fence or conceals, he
will be charged under the anti carnapping law. He will not be liable as an accessory in
carnapping rather he will have his own penalty under the anti carnapping law.
Insofar as real property is concerned. The taking of property contemplates either real or
personal property. Usurpation.
What is stolen is real property? Taking possession of real property or usurping real
property.
Example: X Y Z points a gun demands that a particular property.
Pinatay yung guard, are they liable under usurpation? NO. They are liable under
usurpation and a separate crime of homicide or murder. Two separate crimes.
Culpable insolvency – take note nalang
Art 315. ESTAFA – divided into 3 parts par 1 2 3
Common to the three: There is 1) abuse of confidence and 2) deceit and 3) damage as an
element
Par 1 – with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence employed by the offender by the
offended party.
Altering the substance, quality ought to be delivered.
It’s an onerous obligation, not gratitutous.
Example: A sabi kay B bigyan kita ng 70% alcohol free of charge. Pero ang dineliver niya is
50% alcohol. Is he liable for estafa? NO. The fact that he is giving this alcohol is gratititous.
Walang bayad. Ccompared kapag onerous, X tells Y. Y, I want to be 70% alcohol then X
agrees but 50% ang alcohol. Offender should say “if you want I will deliver 70% alcohol”
then the person accepts. There should be misrepresentation. The goods are less than
what is stated. Then Estafa under par 1.
This also applies when the subject of the transaction is illegal. Such as drugs. Cocaine but
delivers milk cocaine. Still liable under estafa. It does not distinguish whether illegal or
not.
Par 1 b Misappropriating.
Offended party entrusts something like jewelry. I want this jewelry then sell it and all the
proceeds should be given to him after. The relationship between A and B known as an
agency. Principal may ari, B yung magbebenta. In that case, what if A runs away from the
jewelry, denies the jewelry, or fails to remit the money, may liability ba si B? YES. Estafa
under Par 1 b. Pano kung kinuha yung jewelry at hindi binalik. Isnt that theft? You have to
differentiate theft and estafa. Dito papasok yung concept of material possession vs
juridical possession. The formula, if offender has mere material possession and takes it
away the liability is theft. If the offender has material possession and juridical and takes it
away, it is estafa.
Theft = MP + taking away
Estafa = MP+ JP + taking away
Example: X has a car rental business. Z nagrent, X okay daw tas send the money then
deliver the car. Nagbayad si Z kay X. Sabi ni X kay Y na empleyado, etong kotse dalhin kay
Z ideliver. Y instead of delivering it to Z, takes it away. Breaks away the car, Chop chop tas
binenta. Liability of Y? Carnapping, theft of motor vehicle. NOT ESTAFA. Material
possession only. Hindi sakanya yung kotse. Rights of the property remain vested to X, the
owner. Hindi pwede tumanggi si Y na hindi ibabalik yung kotse, kasi material possession
only.
Example: dinelever kay Z. Pero si Z hindi binalik yung kotse. Binenta ang kotse. IN this
case, it is not carnapping, because may contract of lease siya kay X na irerent niya. Z has
juridical possession of the car. X hindi pwede sabihin na kahith indi pa tapos ang 3 months
ibalik mon a yan. Z can refused kasi 3 months yung contract nila. Z has rights. They have a
juridical contract based on lease.
Parehas din sa jewelry na example. May juridical possession siya.
Pano kung may element of ownership? Not fungible. Like sand, pwede palitan ng sand na
iba.
Example: X will deliver to Y the amount of 10k in 1k bills. X delivers to Y. X loans Y 10k. Y
siyempre gagastusin niya yun. At the end of the month hindi siya nagbayad, sabi ni X
magbayad na. Hindi siya nagbayad. Is he liable for estafa? NO. Hindi niya kailangan ibalik
yung SAME bills na pinahiram. Here, si Y, he has juridical possession because there is a
contract of loan. Civil liability ONLY. Kapag hindi mabalik ang utang.
Civil liability ONLY = MP + JP + Ownership
Pero kapag si X nilapitan si Y kung meron siyang special 1k bills. Pinahiram ni Y para i-
display sa museum yung EXACT na 1k bills. Hindi binalik ni X. Liability? ESTAFA.
Ownership is not passed onto him. Because the bills are not to be spent.
The subject of their agreement is the actual thing. Hindi yung value. The object are the
bills ITSELF. His obligation is to return the very same thing. Dahil hindi binalik, liable siya
for estafa under 1b.
Example: Tinanggi niya na natanggap niya yung pera. That is already estafa. Despite the
fact that it is delivered to him.
Some of the variations here refer to agents and principal.
Principal = may ari, lawful possessor, pinagkakatiwala sa agent
Principal owns jewelry 50k nilapitan si agent, sinabi niya ibenta tas return and 50k. Kung
hindi mabenta, ibalik yung hindi nabenta pero yung mga nabenta ibigay ang pera. Im
giving you 3 months to do this. Binigay kay agent. Agent binenta. Dalawa hindi mabenta.
Ang niremit lang niya is 30k pero hindi binalik yung remaining jewelry. Liable for estafa?
YES. Hindi binalik.
Same scenario: Agent binenta ng hulugan. 5k per month. Is the fact that he sold it for
installment estafa? NO. wala naman instruction si principal na bawal ang installment.
Absent terms, he can sell it on installment basta mabalik ang lahat.
Pano kung sabihin na kailangan mabenta pero bawal installment. Pero si agent binenta ng
installment. Liable for estafa? YES. He violated the terms. He treated the jewelry as if
sakanya yun.
Same scenario: binigay ni agent sa ibangtao para ibenta. Merong sub agent. Liable for
estafa? NO. wala naming prohibition na bawal ang sub agent. He did not violate any
terms.
Pero kapag sinabi ni principal na siya lang dapat ang magbenta bawal ang sub agent. Yun
ang may liability. He treated it as if his own.
Lee vs. People. Demand is not necessary for liability to be incurred under par 1 b. Is
demand still necessary kung may period? There are situations when demand is not
necessary such as with a period. Kung demand is useless, di na kailangan ng demand.
As a matter of practicality, as practice, demand should still be made to prove liability.
Insofar as lee vs people is concerned, demand is not necessary.
Par 1 c – contemplates a situation when offender binigyan ni offended party na pirma
pero blank paper. Finill up-an niya.
Example: X is the owner of a parcel of land. Nag iwan siya ng paper na blank pero may
pirma. Binigay kay Y. Pero si Y finill up-an niya not with accordance sa sinabi ni X. He is
liable for estafa Par 1 c. Not falsification.
Falsification – he signs the paper making it appear na yung owner talaga yung nagsign dun
sa paper. Damage is not required.
For estafa, damage is required.
Par 2. – important is prior to or simultaneous to the commission of the fraud.
Par 2 d – postdating a check
Estafa through bouncing checks.
Check here must be one prior to or simultaneous to the obligation.\
Ex: X bili sa grocery. Sabi sa grocery, bayaran niya dito sa check. Grocery ginamit ang
check pero tumalbog. Liable under Par 2 d. Sale. Nag issue ka ng check na alam mong wala
kang pera.
Ex: X may utang kay Y. Nagkita sila, siningil, nag issue ng pera. Nag issue siya ng check
pero tumalbog. Liable for estafa? NO. Because the obligation is already there before the
issuance of check. Liable under BP 22. BP 22 does not care basta nag issue ka at tumalbog,
liable ka. In estafa, hindi ka liable kapag existing na ang obligation.
Ex: X and Y have an agreement. Post dated kung kalian bayaran in cash. Dumating yung
araw, hindi nagbayad. Dineposit yung check, tumlabog. Liable under estafa? NO. Liable
under BP 22. The check is only for guarantee.
“notice of dishonor within 3 days” – before 3 days hindi pa talaga liable sa estafa
BP 22 – 5 banking days
BP 22 – mala prohibita, makes draws or issues a check and at the time he issues the check
it has no value or at the time of the deposit no value. A check is not paid. Because the
offender either knew that he has no funds or at the time it is presented the account is
closed or insufficient. But there are rules: necessity of notice of dishonor. Kung walang
notice of dishonor, hindi magrurun and 5 days. So no liability of BP 22. Notice of dishonor
is part of due process. One that gives the offender the right or privilege to try not incur
criminal liability. And if he is not afforded this, there is no criminal liability. There must be
notice of dishonor.
Kung sa security guard iniwan, hindi pwede. Unless authorized siya. Nagsend thru mail,
enough na ba? NO. hindi napatunayan na siya talaga yung nakakita or nabasa. Therefore,
no criminal liability.
BP 22 – 90 day period. Prima facie case.
What if presented after 5 months? Can still be liable under BP 22. Because under banking
practice, 6 months from the date of the check you can still present the check. After 6
months, hindi na kailangan bayaran ng bank.
Art 316.
Par 1. Opposite of 2a
Par 2. Hindi malinis yung titulo. Pero alam niyang hindi malinis, liable.
Par 3. REVIEW
Art 318. Fortune tellers.
Art 320. ARSON. – destruction of property through fire. Generally, real properties.
Including trains, aircrafts.
Basic rule in arson – if the fire is used to kill and the house is burned. The liability is
murder.
If the intent is to burn and someone is killed. Liability is arson.
People vs. mangyan??
US vs valdez. Merong frustrated arson. Sa totoo lang, medyo Malabo na. If we used the
logic in Valenzuela. More likely, there is no frustrated arson.
Nuevos vs people. Distinction between simple arson and destruction.
Simple arson. PD 1613 sec 3. Kung ano nakalista, simple arson yun. Burning of uninhabited
house
Destructive arson. Art 320 of RPC.
Art 332. Exempted in crimes against property. Only covers theft, estafa, and malicious
mischief and only the relatives enumerated. If acted in conspiracy, that persons are not
included in the exemption. Personal.
Complex crime of estafa thru falsification. Hindi pwede i-invoke ang 332. Kahit namatay
na yung relative na nagbibind thru affinity, you’re still a relative by affinity to your mother
in law. Relationship survives the death of the spouse. Intestate estate Gonzales.
Crimes against public officers
Who are public officers? Art 203. Performance of public functions, election, appointment
Does not make a distinction about the public officer. Even rank n file.
A person who is a public officer is not necessarily a person in authority.
There are some instances even private individuals are included.
Corruption of public officers. Art 212.
Private individuals can also be held liable.
Art 210. Direct bribery. Appears in three forms.
1. Offender enters to an agreement to perform a criminal act which is connected to
his official duties.
Public officer would be liable for the crime he committed: Falsification of
documents, and direct bribery for committing a criminal act in the performance
of his official duties.
It is not necessary he receives a gift. Kung pinangakuan ng 10k, he is still liable.
Anything of value can be considered.
It is consummated upon the acceptance of offer or promise. In the example, he
agrees to falsify the document. Even if he still not falsify the document, the crime
is consummated. As long as he accepts to the offer.
Liability of the offender is separate and distinct in RA 3019
Ex: Public officer is changed with the custody of rendering an unjust decision in
exchange for 10k. He would be liable for knowingly rendenring an unjust decision
and he will also be liable under RA 3019. Liability under RPC, crime of direct
bribery, RA 3019 3a.
If unrelated to his official duties, it will not fall under direct bribery.
Corruption of public officials.
Sec 4 of RA 3019. The person offering the bribe can also be liable under the
provision.
What if the officer does not agree with the bribe? Officer not liable. But the one
who offered will be liable for attempted.
No frustrated. Only attempted and consummated.

Direct bribery =
Corruption of public officials =
RA 3019 3a –
Art. 211. Indirect bribery. - Mere acceptance is enough. Any gift. Exceptions:
Simple gifts on given occasions may be acceptable.
Qualified bribery – police officer entrusted by law enforcement. Crime
committed is the subject of qualified bribery. Reclusion perpetua and/or death
ONLY.
Art 213 – 216.
Art 217. Malversation of public funds.
Similar to estafa 315 1b. In malversation, the offender is entrusted with the
custody of public funds or property. Also similar in theft because there is taking.
Siya yung taong pinagkatiwalaan sa property or funds. If otherwise, the offender
is not one of charged with the custory of funds, he will be liable for theft.
Funds involved must be PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY.
Malversation does provide for a prima facie presumption. If the COA demands the
production of the production of money, that would give rise to prima facie presumption.
Take note that the penalty is determined by the amount. The higher the amount, the
higher the penalty.
Malversation could be committed by a person who intentionally takes the money. But it is
also possible if the accountable person is negligent.
Ex. Cashier who is deployed to an area is task to transfer money to the cash collected in
city hall. The cashier did was buy milk tea then when he came back the money is robbed
in the car. He may be liable for malversation for being negligent. Despite the fact that he
did not profit in the money, by his mere negligence he is still liable.
The other counterpart of malversation is technical malversation. Art 220 illegal use of
public funds or property. Hindi siya ninakaw, hindi siya nawala. Except hindi siya
napakinabangan sa bagay na dapat allocated sakanya.
Ex. Congress budgeted 500k for the seeds for the farmers. But the person in charge in
disbursing the funds bought corn. He is still liable for illegal use. Because the budget
should be for seeds. Despite the fact that the corn will still be given to the farmers, he is
still liable. Even if there is no evil intent.
Art 222. It’s not just public officers are liable. Malversation can be committed by a private
person.
Ex. The BIR in order to collect tax from delinquent tax payers, they may choose to
destraint personal property of non paying tax payers. If the tax payer may ari ng car rental
business, pinarent yung mga kotse to various lessees. The BIR finds the car to A. They can
tell A, the owner of the car is a delinquent tax payer, do not return the car in behalf of the
republic. If A returns the car to the delinquent tax payers, sells it, disposes it, he can be
liable in Art 222.
Provision which allows or makes private individuals liable also in malversation. If they
conspired, etc.
Art 225. Punishes a private individual who allows a prisoner to escape.
Ex. Police sees a crime committed. Two persons robbed a lady. Nahabol yung isa binigay
kay A bantayan daw hahabulin niya yung isang robber. A instead of looking after the
robber, accepts a bribe and allows the robber to escape. A will be liable under Art 225.
Art 235. Maltreatment of prisoners.
If the public officer maltreats him, he inflicts serious physical injuries upon the prisoner for
an act of revenge. Liability of public officer.
1. Maltreatment for maltreatment 235
2. Serious physical injuries. If the offended party dies, he will be charges with the
death.
Anti torture law. Can a person liable for torture can be also liable in maltreatment and
serious physical injuries? YES. Liable for maltreatment, serious physical injuries, anti
torture law.
Art 245. Offended party is always a WOMAN.
Not all woman are covered. Wife daughter sister or relative but not MOTHER.
Special Penal Laws
RA 3019 – section 3 and 4
Provides who are a public officer.
Regarding to various acts under RA 3019 particularly for 3019 sec 3e
3e it punishes two acts – “this provision shall apply to officers…….”
The question arises: Kasama ba yung mga officers na hindi naggragrant ng permit? YES.
The provision is only for EMPHASIS. Even if the public officer is one that does not grant
licenses or permits, kasali sila.
Violation of 3e. Manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross negligence.

Ra 7080 – Plunder
Estrada vs sandiganbayan – Plunder is one of those crimes while it appears to be a special
penal law, it is still mala in se. The acts must be done intentionally. Some are derived in
the RPC. Concepts covered by the RPC.
What differentiates malversation from Plunder? Elements of plunder: 1. Committed by a
public officer or connives either in himself or other public officers, 2. Ill gotten wealth
Section 1d. Acts considered as ill gotten wealth. The law says a series or a combination. As
explained in Estrada vs sandiganbayan, series – that means offender does at least two of
the same act, combination – atleast two of different acts.
It is not enough that there are two acts, but it must be 50 million. If less than 50m, hindi
macoconsider as plunder.
Ex. X is assistant secretary or dpwh, merong project to build a bridge, xxxxx

Macapagal arroyo vs.

Accused must actually benefited from the plunder. It requires two things, 1. Proof of the
mastermind, 2. Benefited from the plunder.

Money laundering. Amended so many times. Basically, it is done in order to make it

appear that money which were the proceeds of an illegal act like malversation robbery is
made to appear in legitimate sources. Malversation makes reference to what we know as
unlawful activities, kidnapping etc. Proceeds of which are the subject of money
laundering. Take note of what are defined as “covered transactions” “suspicious
transactions”. Under the law, covered institutions, banks pawnshops casinos dealers of
precious stones/metals. Covered institutions in relation to covered transactions and
suspicious transactions.
Ex. Nagdeposit ako ng 1m pero ang balance ko lang talaga eh 24k. Required sila i-report
yung transaction na yun sa money laundering. If there’s failure to report, there could be
criminal liability on the part of the bank.
Kidnappers try to make it appear that the money is a from a legitimate sources will be
liable for money laundering on top of the kidnapping.