Title Ten

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERAL
Article 293. Who are guilty o ro!!ery
"ection One # Ro!!ery $ith %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o per&on&
Article 29). Ro!!ery $ith %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o per&on&
Article 29*. Ro!!ery $ith phy&ical in+urie&,
co''itte( in an uninha!ite( place an( !y a
!an(, or $ith the u&e o -rear' on a &treet,
roa( or alley
Article 29.. /e-nition o a !an( an( penalty
incurre( !y the 'e'!er& thereo
Article 290. Atte'pte( an( ru&trate( ro!!ery
co''itte( un(er certain circu'&tance&
Article 291. E2ecution o (ee(& !y 'ean& o
%iolence or inti'i(ation
"ection 3$o # Ro!!ery !y the u&e o orce upon
thing&
Article 299. Ro!!ery in an inha!ite( hou&e or
pu!lic !uil(ing or e(i-ce (e%ote( to $or&hip
Article 344. Ro!!ery in an uninha!ite( place
an( !y a !an(
Article 345. What i& an inha!ite( hou&e, pu!lic
!uil(ing, or !uil(ing (e(icate( to religiou&
$or&hip an( their (epen(encie&
Article 342. Ro!!ery in an uninha!ite( place or
in a pri%ate !uil(ing
Article 343. Ro!!ery o cereal&, ruit&, or
-re$oo( in an uninha!ite( place or pri%ate
!uil(ing
Article 34). 6o&&e&&ion o pic7loc7& or &i'ilar
tool&
Article 34*. 8al&e 7ey&
Chapter 3$o # BRIGAN/AGE
Article 34.. Who are !rigan(&
Article 340. Ai(ing an( a!etting a !an( o
!rigan(&
Chapter 3hree # 39E83
Article 341. Who are lia!le or thet
Article 349. 6enaltie&
Article 354. :uali-e( thet
Article 355. 3het o the property o the National
Li!rary an( National ;u&eu'
Chapter 8our # <"<R6A3ION
Article 352. Occupation o real property or
u&urpation
o real right& in property
Article 353. Altering !oun(arie& or lan('ar7&
Chapter 8i%e # C<L6ABLE IN"OL=ENCY
Article 35). 8rau(ulent in&ol%ency
Chapter "i2 # "WIN/LING AN/ O39ER /ECEI3"
Article 35*. "$in(ling >E&taa?
Article 35.. Other or'& o &$in(ling
Article 350. "$in(ling a 'inor
Article 351. Other (eceit&
Chapter "e%en # C9A33EL ;OR3GAGE
Article 359. Re'o%al, &ale or ple(ge o
'ortgage(
6roperty
Chapter Eight # AR"ON AN/ O39ER CRI;E"
IN=OL=ING /E"3R<C3ION >RE6EALE/
BY 6/ 5.53 an( RA 0.*9?
Article 324. /e&tructi%e ar&on
Article 325. Other or'& o ar&on
Article 322. Ca&e& o ar&on not inclu(e( in the
prece(ing article&
Article 323. Ar&on o property o &'all %alue
Article 32). Cri'e& in%ol%ing (e&truction
Article 32*. Burning one@& o$n property a&
'ean& to
co''it ar&on
Article 32.. "etting -re to property e2clu&i%ely
o$ne(
!y the oAen(er
Article 32.BA. In ca&e& $here (eath re&ulte( a& a
con&eCuence o ar&on
Article 32.BB. 6ri'a acie e%i(ence o ar&on
Chapter Nine # ;ALICIO<" ;I"C9IE8
Article 320. Who are lia!le or 'aliciou&
'i&chie
Article 321. "pecial ca&e& o 'aliciou& 'i&chie
Article 329. Other 'i&chie&
Article 334. /a'age an( o!&truction to 'ean&
o
co''unication
Article 335. /e&troying or (a'aging &tatue&,
pu!lic
'onu'ent& or painting&
Chapter 3en # EDE;63ION 8RO; CRI;INAL LIABLI3Y
IN CRI;E" AGAIN"3 6RO6ER3Y
Article 333. 6er&on& e2e'pt ro' cri'inal
lia!ility
Article 293. Who are guilt o! ro""er
Ele'ent& o ro!!ery in generalE
5. 3here i& personal property belonging to
anotherF
2. 3here i& unlawful taking o that
propertyF
3. 3he ta7ing 'u&t !e with intent to gainF
an(
). 3here i& %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o any per&on, or orce upon
anything.
3he property ta7en 'u&t !e per&onal property,
or i real property i& occupie( or real right
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
108
i& u&urpe( !y 'ean& o %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o per&on, the cri'e i&
<"<R6A3ION.
3he phra&e G!elonging to anotherH 'ean& that
the property ta7en (oe& not !elong to the
oAen(er. 3he per&on ro' $ho' the
property i& ta7en nee( not !e the o$ner.
Po##e##ion o! the $ro$ert i#
#u%cient.
3he unlawful taking o per&onal property i& an
e&&ential part o the cri'e o ro!!ery.
Where the ta7ing $a& la$ul an( the
unla$ul 'i&appropriation $a& &u!&eCuent
to &uch ta7ing, the cri'e i& E"3A8A or
;AL=ER"A3ION.
UNLAWFUL TAKING when complete?
a? a& to ro!!ery $ith %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o per&on&
o from the moment the ofender
gains possession o the thing, e%en
i the culprit ha& ha( no
opportunity to (i&po&e o the &a'e
!? a& to ro!!ery $ith orce upon thing&
o the thing 'u&t !e ta7en out o the
!uil(ing, or the place !ro7en into,
to con&u''ate the cri'e >noteE
thi& i& purely !a&e( on reye&@&
opinion?
G3a7ingH a& an ele'ent o ro!!ery, 'ean&
(epri%ing the oAen(e( party o o$ner&hip
o the thing ta7en $ith the character o
permanency.
Intent to gain i# $re#u&e' !ro& the
unla(!ul ta)ing o! $er#onal $ro$ert.
A!&ence o intent to gain $ill 'a7e the ta7ing
o per&onal property GRA=E COERCION i
there i& %iolence u&e(.
3he ele'ent o Gper&onal property !elonging to
anotherH an( that o Gintent to gainH 'u&t
concur.
3he %iolence, a& an ele'ent o ro!!ery, 'u&t
!e again&t the person o the oAen(e(
party, not upon the thing ta7en.
A& or inti'i(ation, it nee( not !e threat o
!o(ily har'. It coul( !e a threat o paying
a -ne or clo&ing the oAen(e( party@& &hop.
GENERA* R+*E, 3he %iolence or inti'i(ation
'u&t !e pre&ent "e!ore the ta7ing o
per&onal property i& co'plete. It i& not
nece&&ary that %iolence o inti'i(ation
&houl( !e pre&ent ro' the %ery !eginning.
E-CEPTION, When the %iolence re&ult& in
# >5? ho'ici(e, >2? rape, >3? intentional
'utilation, or >)? any o the &eriou&
phy&ical in+urie& un(er par 5 I 2 o Art 2.3
# the ta7ing o per&onal property i& ro!!ery
co'ple2e( $ith any o tho&e cri'e& un(er
Art 29), e%en i the ta7ing $a& alrea(y
co'plete $hen the %iolence $a& u&e( !y
the oAen(er.
Distinctions between efects of
emploment of !iolence a"ainst o#
intimi$ation of pe#son an$ those of
use of fo#ce upon thin"s%
Whene%er %iolence again&t or inti'i(ation
o any per&on i& u&e(, the ta7ing o
per&onal property !elonging to another
i& alwas ro!!ery. I only orce upon
thing&, the ta7ing i& ro!!ery onl if the
orce i& u&e( either to enter the
!uil(ing or to !rea7 (oor&, $ar(ro!e&,
che&t& or any other 7in( o loc7e( or
&eale( urniture or receptacle in&i(e
the !uil(ing or to orce the' open
out&i(e ater ta7ing the &a'e ro' the
!uil(ing.
In ro!!ery $ith %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o any per&on, the %alue o
the per&onal property ta7en i&
i''aterial. 3he penalty (epen(& >a?
on the re&ult o the %iolence u&e( ie
ho'ici(e, rape, intentional 'utilation
etc, an( >!? on the e2i&tence o
inti'i(ation only. In ro!!ery $ith orce
upon thing&, co''itte( in an inha!ite(
hou&e, pu!lic !uil(ing, or e(i-ce
(e%ote( to religiou& $or&hip, the
penalty i& !a&e( >a? on the %alue o the
property ta7en, an( >!? on $hether or
not the oAen(er& carry ar'&. I
co''itte( in an uninha!ite( !uil(ing,
the penalty i& !a&e( only on the %alue
o the property ta7en.
Napolis vs. CA
Facts: Nicanor Napolis, with several co-accused, entered
the house of the Penaflor spouses by breaking a wall of a
store, and forcing the door of the house adjacent to the
store open. Once inside, the accused used violence against
the husband and initimidation against the wife, enabling
them to get away with P2! in cash and goods. "hey were
convicted of robbery by armed men in an inhabited place.
Held# "he crime is considered a comple$ one under %rt &',
where the penalty for the most serious offence in its ma$
period should be imposed. Otherwise, there will e$ist an
absurd situation where the concurrence of a graver offence
results in the reduction of the penalty.
People vs. ir!ar
"here is no law or jurisprudence which re(uires the
presentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that it
had been taken away.
People vs. "alas
)alas was last seen with the victim at *#++am. %t ,#++, the
victim-s body was found in a canal. .er purse, alleged to
contain P2,+++ and jewelry were missing. No one witnessed
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
10#
the robbery, much less the killing. /s the crime committed
homicide or robbery with homicide0
H$L%# 1obbery with .omicide. /n this special comple$
crime against property, .omicide is incidental to the
robbery, which is the main purpose of the
criminal. "he onus probandi is to establish# 23a4 the taking
of personal property with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person5 3b4 the property belongs to
another5 3c4 the taking is characteri6ed with animus
lucrandi5 and 3d4 on the occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the
generic sense, was committed.2
7hile there is indeed no direct proof that 8irginia "alens
was robbed at the time she was killed, we may conclude
from four circumstances that the robbery occasioned her
killing# 394 :oth appellant and victim gambled at the wake.
324 "he appellant knew that victim was winning. 3*4 "he
victim was last seen alive with appellant. 3&4 "he victim;s
purse containing her money and earrings were missing from
her body when found.
"hese circumstances logically lead to the inescapable
conclusion that appellant should be liable not just of
simple homicide, but robbery with homicide
People v. %el Rosario& '5# "CRA 1(( )2001*
<%=")# >el 1osario stole si$ pieces of
jewelry belonging to Paragua. .e then pawned and sold
the same. %lso, on the occasion of the said robbery, >el
1osario hit Paraguas niece, 1ac(uel, with a hard object,
strangled her and and tied the the latter-s neck of with a
=at-8 wire which resulted to her death shortly thereafter.
>el 1soario admitted in court that he needed money to
marry his common-law wife. "he 1"= convicted del 1osario
of the crime of robbery with homicide. >el 1osario
contends that it is essential to prove the intent to rob and
that the intent to rob must come first before the killing
transpired.
.?@># %nimus lucrandi or intent to gain, is an
internal act which can be established through the overt
acts of the offender. %lthough proof as to motive for the
crime is essential when the evidence of the theft is
circumstantial, the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is the
usual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking of
useful property appertaining to another, unless special
circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the
perpetrator. 2. . . 3"4he intent to gain may be presumed
from the proven unlawful taking.2 /ntent to gain 3animus
lucrandi4 is presumed to be alleged in an information
where it is charged that there was unlawful taking
3apoderamiento4 and appropriation by the offender of the
things subject of the robbery.
/n this case, it was apparent that the reason why
>el 1osario stole the jewelry of Paragua was because he
intended to gain by them. .e had already admitted that he
needed money to marry his common-law wife. "he court
also stated that Aif gaining through unlawful means was
farthest from the mind of the accused, why then did he
pawn and sell the jewelry he had taken from ParaguaB
/t is immaterial whether the killing transpired
before or after the robbery. /n the crime of robbery with
homicide, the homicide may precede robbery or may occur
after robbery. 7hat is essential is that there is a ne$us, an
intimate connection between robbery and the killing
whether the latter be prior or subse(uent to the former, or
whether both crimes be committed at the same time.
People v. Re+es& '## "CRA 528 )200'*
<%=")# =ergontes forcibly took the wristwatch of
)olis while 1eyes stabbed the latter at the back resulting to
his death. "he victim-s gold necklace, one gold ring, all of
an undetermined value, and a wallet containing
unspecified amount of cash were also taken from him.
1eyes was found guilty of 1obbery with .omicide.
%ppellant now contends that the animus lucrandi was not
sufficiently established as the taking of the watch could
have been a mere afterthought and the real intent of the
malefactors was to inflict injuries upon the victim.
Coreover, there was no evidence of ownership of the
wristwatch, as it may have belonged to the two persons
who attacked the victim
.?@># "he court held that appellants contention
is devoid of merit. %nimus lucrandi or intent to gain is an
internal act which can be established through the overt
acts of the offender. %lthough proof of motive for the crime
is essential when the evidence of the robbery is
circumstantial, intent to gain or animus lucrandi may be
presumed from the furtive taking of useful property
pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a
different intent on the part of the perpetrator. "he intent
to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawful taking.
/n the case at bar, the act of taking the victim;s wristwatch
by one of the accused =ergontes while accused-appellant
1eyes poked a knife behind him sufficiently gave rise to the
presumption.
"he detailed narration of how the victim was
forcibly divested of the wristwatch by accused =ergontes
and stabbed at the back by accused-appellant cannot be
taken lightly on the argument that the attackers owned the
wristwatch and they attacked the victim solely on their
desire to retrieve it. /n any event, in robbery by the taking
of property through intimidation or violence, it is not
necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the
personal property be the owner thereof. %rticle 2D* of the
1evised Penal =ode employs the phrase 2belonging to
another2 and this has been interpreted to merely re(uire
that the property taken does not belong to the offender.
%ctual possession of the property by the person
dispossessed thereof suffices. /n fact, it has been held that
robbery may be committed against a bailee or a person
who himself has stolen it. )o long as there is
apoderamiento of personal property from another against
the latter;s will through violence or intimidation, with
animo de lucro, robbery is the offense imputable to the
offender. /f the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason
of the robbery, the offense is converted into the composite
crime of robbery with homicide.
People v. "!ela&
',' "CRA 1(' )2002*
<%="): :rothers ?dgar and Nerio )uela, and
?dgardo :atocan sporting ski masks, bonnests and gloves,
brandishing handguns and knife barged into the room of
>irector 1osas who was watching television together with
his adopted son, Norman and his friend Eabilo. "hey
threatened 1osas, Norman and Eabilo to give the location
of their money and valuables, which they eventually took.
"hey dragged Eabilo downstairs with them. Fpon Nerio-s
instructions, :atocan stabbed Eabilo times which caused
the latter-s death. %fter the incident, ?dgar )uela
demanded P2+,+++.++ from 1osas for an information
regarding the robbery. "he 1"= found ?dgar )uela guilty
of robbery for demanding P2++,+++ as payment for
information on the robbery-slay case.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
110
.?@># 7ith respect to the charge of robbery for
demanding P2++,+++ as payment for information on the
robbery-slay case, the =ourt held that ?dgar )uela should
be ac(uitted. "he O)E e$plained# 2)imple robbery is
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons as distinguished from the use of force upon things,
but the e$tent of the violence or intimidation does not fall
under pars. 9 to & of %rticle 2D& 31evised Penal =ode4
2Fnfortunately, in the case at bar, the prosecution failed to
prove that appellant, ?dgar )uela employed force or
intimidation on private complainant 1osas by instilling fear
in his mind so as to compel the latter to cough out the
amount of P2++,+++.++. /nstead, what was established was
that he had agreed to give the P2++,+++.++ in e$change for
information regarding the identity and whereabouts of
those who robbed him and killed his friend. "here was no
showing that appellant ?dgar )uela had e$erted
intimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to give
the money. /nstead, what is clear was that the giving of the
money was done not out of fear but because it was a
choice private complainant opted because he wanted to
get the information being offered to him for the
consideration of P2++,+++.++. /n fact, the money was
delivered not due to fear but for the purpose of possibly
having a lead in solving the case and to possibly bring the
culprit to justice 3ibid.4. %s such, the elements of simple
robbery have not been established in the instant case,
hence, appellant ?dgar )uela should be ac(uitted of that
charge.2 .owever, ?dgar is still guilty as principal of the
comple$ crime of robber with homicide for robbing the
house of 1osas and for Eabil-o death.
Article 29.. Ro""er (ith /iolence
again#t or inti&i'ation o! $er#on#
Act& puni&he(E
5. When !y rea&on or on occa&ion o the
ro!!ery >ta7ing o per&onal property
!elonging to another $ith intent to gain?,
the cri'e o ho'ici(e i& co''itte(F
2. When the ro!!ery i& acco'panie( !y rape
or intentional 'utilation or ar&onF
3. When !y rea&on o on occa&ion o &uch
ro!!ery, any o the phy&ical in+urie&
re&ulting in in&anity, i'!ecility, i'potency
or !lin(ne&& i& inJicte(F
). When !y rea&on or on occa&ion o ro!!ery,
any o the phy&ical in+urie& re&ulting in the
lo&& o the u&e o &peech or the po$er to
hear or to &'ell, or the lo&& o an eye, a
han(, a oot, an ar', or a leg or the lo&& o
the u&e o any &uch 'e'!er or incapacity
or the $or7 in $hich the in+ure( per&on i&
theretoore ha!itually engage( i& inJicte(F
*. I the %iolence or inti'i(ation e'ploye( in
the co''i&&ion o the ro!!ery i& carrie( to
a (egree unnece&&ary or the co''i&&ion
o the cri'eF
.. When in the cour&e o it& e2ecution, the
oAen(er &hall ha%e inJicte( upon any
per&on not re&pon&i!le or the co''i&&ion
o the ro!!ery any o the phy&ical in+urie&
in con&eCuence o $hich the per&on in+ure(
!eco'e& (eor'e( or lo&e& any other
'e'!er o hi& !o(y or lo&e& the &ue
thereo or !eco'e& ill or incapacitate( or
the peror'ance o the $or7 in $hich he i&
ha!itually engage( or 'ore than 94 (ay&
or the per&on in+ure( !eco'e& ill or
incapacitate( or la!or or 'ore than 34
(ay&F
0. I the %iolence e'ploye( !y the oAen(er
(oe& not cau&e any o the &eriou& phy&ical
in+urie& (e-ne( in Article 2.3, or i the
oAen(er e'ploy& inti'i(ation only.
3he cri'e (e-ne( in thi& article i& a special
complex crime. 3hu&, Art )1 no longer
applie&.
Gon the occa&ionH K Gin the cour&e oH
G!y rea&onH K G!ecau&e oH
Ro""er (ith ho&ici'e
Ro!!ery an( ho'ici(e are separate ofences,
$hen the ho'ici(e $a& not co''itte( Gon
the occa&ionH or G!y rea&onH o the ro!!ery.
Where the original 'e#ign co'prehen(&
ro!!ery, an( ho'ici(e i& perpetrate( !y
rea&on or on the occa&ion o the
con&u''ation o the or'er, the cri'e
co''itte( i& ro!!ery $ith ho'ici(e.
There i# no #uch cri&e a# ro""er (ith
&ur'er. 3he treachery $hich atten(e(
the co''i&&ion o the cri'e 'u&t !e
con&i(ere( not Cualiying !ut 'erely a& a
generic aggra%ating circu'&tance.
An intent to ta7e per&onal property !elonging
to another $ith intent to gain 'u&t prece(e
the 7illing.
3he cri'e i& ro!!ery $ith ho'ici(e, e%en i the
'oti%e o the oAen(er& $a& that o ro!!ery
a& $ell a& %engeance.
9o'ici(e 'ay prece(e ro!!ery or 'ay occur
ater ro!!ery.
It i& i''aterial that the (eath o a per&on
supervened by mere accident, pro%i(e(
that the ho'ici(e !e pro(uce( !y rea&on
or on the occa&ion o the ro!!ery.
Lilling a per&on to e&cape ater the co''i&&ion
o ro!!ery i& ro!!ery $ith ho'ici(e.
There i# #till ro""er (ith ho&ici'e e/en
i! the $er#on )ille' i# another ro""er
or an innocent "#tan'er. Thu#0 the
$er#on )ille' nee' not "e the $er#on
ro""e'.
An acce&&ory to ro!!ery $ith ho'ici(e 'u&t
ha%e 7no$le(ge an( co'plicity a& to the
ho'ici(e a& $ell in or(er to !e charge(
$ith the &a'e oAence. Other$i&e, i the
acce&&ory ha( no 7no$le(ge o the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
111
ho'ici(e, he 'ay only !e charge( $ith
ro!!ery.
People vs. -an.!la/nan
Facts# >uring the robbery, one of the accused climbed on a
table and fired at the ceiling, where the victim was hiding.
"he shots caused the victim-s death.
Held# /t is immaterial that death supervened by mere
accident. A:y reason or on occasion ofG means it is onl+
t0e res!lt o/tained& without reference to or distinction as
to circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in
the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into
consideration.
People vs. Cali1tro
7hen death results, the crime is still robbery with
homicide, regardless of the circumstances, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime.
People vs. Pecato
7henever a homicide has been committed as a
conse(uence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those
who took part as principals in the commission of the crime
are also guilty as principals in the special comple$ crime of
robbery with homicide although they did not actually take
part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
People vs. 2apales
7hen rape and homicide co-e$ist in the commission of
robbery, should rape be considered an aggravating
circumstance0 H?). 1apes, wanton robbery for personal
gain and other forms of cruelties are condemned and their
perpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstances
of ignominy and deliberately augmenting unnecessary
wrongs.
Poeple vs. 3!inones
"here is no such crime as robbery with multiple homicide.
"here is only the special comple$ crime of robbery with
homicide, regardless of the fact that * persons were killed
in the commission of the crime. 4n ro//er+& all 0omicides
and m!rders are mer.ed in t0e composite. %s such, the
single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed only once even if multiple killings accompanied
the robbery.
People vs. Fai.ano
Nely was suddenly roused from her sleep by =armelo
<aigano, a worker at a nearby construction project. .e was
in black "-shirt but was no longer wearing pants or
underwear. .e poked a 2D-inch balisong at her neck and
threatened to kill her and the children beside her. "hen
forcibly tore her nightie, raised her pair of brassieres above
her breasts and pulled her to the edge of the king-si6e
wooden bed. .e spread her thighs apart against her will
and inserted his organ into hers. .e had se$ual intercourse
with her. %fter satisfying his lust, <aigano then put on his
short pants and ordered Nely to bring out her money. .e
took Nely;s money, her husband;s wristwatch and two rings.
"= found him guilty of the special comple$ crime of
robbery with rape

H$L%# )= found him guilty of the separate crimes of
robbery and rape. /f the intention of the accused was to
rob but rape was also committed even before the
asportation the crime is robbery with rape. :ut if the
original plan was to rape but the accused after committing
the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity
presented itself, the offenses should be viewed as separate
and distinct. "o be liable for the special comple$ crime of
robbery with rape the intent to take personal property of
another must precede the rape. Fnder the circumstances,
)= is convinced that when <aigano entered the victim;s
house he only had in mind se$ual gratification. "he taking
of the cash and pieces of jewelry against Nely;s will appears
to be an afterthought.
People v. Re+es& 52, "CRA 28 )2005*
<%=")# >r. %urora @agrada, a spinster of about !+
years old, lived alone in her 2-storey house. 1eyes- house
was about &- meters away from the doctor;s house. 1eyes
was able to gain entry into the house of @agrada without
the latter knowing. %rmed with a bolo, 1eyes stole one
1ole$ wristwatch, 9 gold bracelet, 9 gold ring with
birthstone of Iade, 9 Pass :ook from @agrada. On the
occasion of the said robbery, 1eyes stabbed @agrada several
times in the different parts of her body directly causing her
death. "he trial court convicted 1eyes of robbery with
homicide.
.?@># "o sustain a conviction of the accused for
robbery with homicide, the prosecution is burdened to
prove the essential elements of the crime. "he accused
must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing
robbery, the homicide being committed either by reason of
or on occasion of the robbery. "he homicide may precede
robbery or may occur thereafter. 7hat is essential is that
there is a ne$us, an intrinsic connection between the
robbery and the killing. "he latter may be done prior to or
subse(uent to the former. .owever, the intent to commit
robbery must precede the taking of the victim;s life.
<urthermore, the constituted crimes of robbery and
homicide must be consummated.
% homicide is considered as having been
committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery
when the motive of the offender in killing the victim is to
deprive the latter of his property, to eliminate an obstacle
to the crime, to protect his possession of the loot, to
eliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended or
to insure his escape from the scene of the crime.
%ppellant stated that he barged into the house of
the victim to rob her, and that he stabbed the victim when
she was about to shout and because he was drunk. "he
appellant then took the victim;s money and personal
belongings and fled from the scene of the crime. "he trial
court correctly convicted the appellant of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Hernande6& 5'2 "CRA 105 )2005*
<%=")# =atapang and .ernande6 dragged !2 year-
old Natividad Cendo6a, in the direction of a forested area
where there were also mango and coconut trees. "he two
took the money and jewelry of Natividad while she was
lying on the ground. "hereafter, =atapang and .ernande6
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
112
strangled Natividad to death with the use of a white rope
made of buriJvine string.
.?@># "he =ourt held that appellant is guilty of
robbery with homicide under %rticle 2D&, paragraph 9 of
the 1evised Penal =ode, as amended by 1epublic %ct No.
!,D.
"he court further held that, in robbery with
homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is
to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery. "he intent to commit
robbery must precede the taking of human life. "he
homicide may take place before, during or after the
robbery. /t is only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has
to be taken into consideration. "here is no such felony of
robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or
simple negligence. "he constitutive elements of the crime,
namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.
People v. -illiam& '25 "CRA 155 )2000*
<%=")# >emarayo, a member of the 9th /nfantry
:attalion, Philippine %rmy, was leisurely pacing along
Kue6on )treet, /loilo =ity, when 1oberto and 1icky both
surnamed Cartin blocked his path. 7ithout any provocation
coming from the soldier, 1icky drew his firearm and fired at
>emarayo, hitting the latter-s left hand. % brief struggle
among the three 3*4 men ensued which caused the victim
to fall down. %s 1oberto pulled away he warded off
>emarayo by kicking him on the waist. 7hile the victim
was sprawled on the ground 1oberto aimed his rifle at
>emarayo;s chest and pulled the trigger. 1oberto fired
another shot hitting >emarayo on the same spot. %fter the
brutal slaying, the assailants nonchalantly walked away
with >emarayo;s C-9,. "he lower court ruled that the crime
committed was 1obbery with .omicide.
.?@># /n People v. )ala6ar, accused-appellants
stabbed a security guard and thereafter took away his gun.
/t was ruled that since the prosecution failed to establish
that the homicide was committed by reason or on the
occasion of stealing the security guard;s firearm, both of
them could only be convicted of the separate crimes of
.omicide and "heft.
"he records are bereft of any evidence to prove
that the asportation of >emarayo;s service firearm was the
prime motive of accused-appellants. %lthough it may be
true that they were seen grabbing the gun from the victim
as the latter was lying prone on the ground, it could be
possible that it was done to prevent him from retaliating as
he was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshot
wound. "he taking of the gun might have been an
afterthought and not the real purpose of the crime. /t can
therefore be seen that the prosecution failed to establish
convincingly that the homicide was committed for the
purpose or on the occasion of robbing the victim. %s such,
accused-appellants should properly be convicted of the
separate offenses of .omicide and "heft, which were both
duly proved.
People v. Ranis& '8# "CRA 55 )2002*
<%=")# 7hile Carivic and :en with their baby
were watching television in their bedroom, Curphy and
)abiyon, both armed with bladed weapons, suddenly
entered their unlocked bedroom. Curphy poked a knife at
her neck while ?rnesto straddled on top of :en who was
then lying in bed. Curphy asked for the proceeds of the
land :en sold and some jewelry but Carivic told him that
they only had P2,+++ in their possession. Curphy then took
the P2,+++ and several pieces of lu$ury watches and
jewelry. %fter taking the money and jewelry, both accused
tied her hands and those of :en with electric cord and then
they went out of the house, taking :en with them. "he
body of :en was later found lying about five to ten meters
from the house with a cloth in the mouth, blood stains on
the body, and hack wounds on his right nape and mouth.
:en was brought to the hospital but he was proclaimed
dead on arrival.
.?@># /n charging robbery with homicide, the
onus probandi is to establish# 3a4 the taking of personal
property with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person5 3b4 the property belongs to another5 3c4 the taking
is characteri6ed by animus lucrandi5 3d4 on the occasion of
the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide,
which is used in the generic sense, has been committed. /n
this case, Carivic 1odelas positively identified appellants
?rnesto )abiyon and =esario Curphy as the two persons who
entered her bedroom. Fsing sharp, bladed weapons,
appellants demanded and took money, watches, and
jewelry belonging to the victim, :en .ernande6.
"hereafter, .ernande6 was found stabbed to death. "he
=ourt ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery with
homicide.
People v. 7on6ales& '82 "CRA (#5 )2002*
<%=")# Nicanor )uralta was having drinks with his
visitors in their house when two armed men, one carrying a
gun and the other a knife, suddenly entered the house
through the kitchen door. "he one carrying a gun had a
bonnet over his face, with only his eyes e$posed, while the
other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face
covered with a handkerchief. "he knife-wielder held
=hona, the third child of the )uralta spouses, and
announced a holdup. %ll persons in the house were ordered
to go inside the bedroom, about 2 meters away from the
sala. "here, the man with a gun demanded a gun and
money from Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun,
but asked his wife, =arolita, to give money to the
holduppers. =arolita gave P2,9++.++, which was intended
to be deposited in the bank, to the knife-wielder, who
placed it in his pocket. "hen the knife-wielder ransacked
the cabinet and took the remaining amount of P*2.++,
which was intended for the school e$penses of the )uralta
children. /n addition, he took the family;s )anyo cassette
recorder and some clothes. "he holduppers also divested
one of the guests of his )eiko diver;s wristwatch and then
left. %s the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rang
out. Nicanor was heard moaning. Nicanor eventually died.
.?@># %fter reviewing the records of this case,
the court ruled that the prosecution evidence establishes
the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. %
conviction for robbery with homicide re(uires proof of the
following elements# 3a4 the taking of personal property
with violence or intimidation against persons or with force
upon things5 3b4 the property taken belongs to another5 3c4
the taking be done with animus lucrandi 3intent to gain45
and 3d4 on the occasion of the robbery or by reason
thereof, homicide in its generic sense is committed. "he
offense becomes the special comple$ crime of robbery with
homicide under %rt. 2D& 394 of 1evised Penal =ode if the
victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
%ll elements are present in the case at bar.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
11'
People v. 2orres& '5# "CRA ,(1 )2001*
<%=")# 8icente Ealanao, his sons Iulian and
Cacky and Iose all surnamed :ulanao went with their
employer, :oloy , to buy copra and abaca. "hey were on
board a truck driven by :oloy. On the way, they were
stopped by "orres who stood at the left side of the road.
"orres approached the left side of the truck, went up the
truck, and shot :oloy once. %fter shooting, two persons
armed with guns appeared from nowhere and approached
the back of the truck and told them to lie face downward.
"he two persons came from the portion where bamboos
grew by the side of the road. %fterwards the men ran
towards the mountainside with the victims bag containing
P++,+++.++, the victims necklace, ring and his wristwatch.
.?@># 1obbery with homicide is a special
comple$ crime against property. .omicide is incidental to
the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. /n
charging robbery with homicide, the onus probandi is to
establish# $$$B $$$B 3d4 on the occasion of the robbery or
by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in
the generic sense, was committed. "he phrase 2by reason2
covers homicide committed before or after the taking of
personal property of another, as long as the motive of the
offender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprive
the victim of his personal property which is sought to be
accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or in
killing a person after the robbery to do away with a witness
or to defend the possession of the stolen property. "hus, it
matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of
the personal properties of the victim. 7hat is essential in
robbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation and
intimate connection between robbery and killing, whether
both crimes be committed at the same time. "he =ourt
ruled that all elements of robbery with homicide are
present in this case.
People v. -a1ion& '(1 "CRA 515 )2001*
<%=")# .imor, a teller at the Fnited =oconut
Planters :ank 3F=P:4, walked across the street towards the
.i-"op )upermarket, to pick up the cash deposit of the
supermarket amounting to P9,&,&,,&&.!. %fter issuing the
deposit slip, he placed the money inside a duffle bag and
padlocked the bag. "hereafter, he called the bank to send
his security escort. F=P: sent security escort Eargaceran.
7hile .imor and Eargaceran were about to cross the street
going back to the bank. Ca$ion and another man suddenly
emerged and walked towards them. Ca$ion was in front of
Eargaceran while the second stayed behind him. :oth of
them aimed their guns at Eargaceran. "he man behind
Eargaceran immediately took Eargaceran;s handgun, and
shortly thereafter, Ca$ion shot Eargaceran at close range
hitting him on the chest eventually causing his death.
.imor attempted to run with the bag towards the bank but
he was stopped by the armed men who ordered him to
release the bag. 7ith their guns pointed at him, .imor
tossed the bag containing the money to them and ran back
to the supermarket.
.?@># "here is no (uestion that the original and
principal intention of the two armed men was to get the
money of .i-"op )upermarket. "his is evident from the
testimony of teller .imor that as soon as the two men
stopped him from running towards the bank, they shouted
to release the bag containing the money. %s the robbery
resulted in the killing of the security guard Eargaceran, the
offense committed by the malefactors is indubitably the
special comple$ crime of robbery with homicide. /n
robbery with homicide, what is essential is that there be 2a
direct relation, an intimate connection between robbery
and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subse(uent
to the former or whether both crime be committed at the
same time.
People v. Conse8ero& '52 "CRA 2,( )2001*
<%=")# 7hile they were fishing, %ccused
=onsajero, a =%<EF member and Calapit, armed with an
C-9&, asked =astillo and Fsigan if they were the ones
e$acting (uota from the :arangay captain. "he two replied
in the negative. =onsajero then asked =astillo and Fsigan
to accompany them to a nearby store. "hey then killed
=astillo and Fsigan. "hereafter, they took the :riggs and
)traton engine of the motori6ed banca ridden by =astillo
and Fsigan which is owned by /srael. =astillo was found
lying on the ground, face down, drenched in his own blood
with hands tied at the back. "wenty meters away lay the
dead body of Fsigan, who sustained thirty-one stab and
hack wounds on the different parts of his body.
.?@># "he criminal acts of accused-appellant
constitute not a comple$ crime of robbery with homicide,
but three separate offenses# 9. Curder, for the killing of
Codesto =astillo, 2. .omicide, for the death of >ionisio
Fsigan5 and *. "heft, for the unlawful taking of the :riggs
and )traton engine of the motori6ed banca.
/n People v. %mania, the =ourt had occasion to
rule that in robbery with homicide, the killing must have
been directly connected with the robbery. /t is necessary
that there must have been an intent on the part of the
offenders to commit robbery from the outset and, on
occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. "he
original design must have been robbery, and the homicide,
even if it precedes or is subse(uent to the robbery, must
have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with a
view to consummate the robbery. "he taking of the
property should not be merely an afterthought which arose
subse(uent to the killing.
/n the present case, it does not appear that the
primary purpose of accused-appellant in accosting the two
deceased was to rob the engine of the motori6ed banca.
<rom all indications, accused-appellant, a =%<EF member,
was primarily interested in taking the life of the two
deceased whom he suspected of e$acting (uota from the
:arangay captain, and the taking of the subject engine was
merely an afterthought that arouse subse(uent to the
killing of the victims.
People v. Le.aspi& ''1 "CRA #5
<%=")# =arlos >eve6a, erstwhile member of the
PNP arrived at the =artimar Pla6a Carket to fetch his wife,
?stella, who was then closing the family chain of stalls for
the day. Fpon arrival, =arlos parked his "oyota "amaraw
vehicle in front of the stall. /mmediately thereafter, ?stella
approached =arlos, who was still at the driver;s seat, and
handed him a black leather bag which contained
P*++,+++.++ cash, pieces of jewelry and checks. %s ?stella
left to make a phone call, =arlos alighted from the
"amaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle with both
arms resting on the vehicle;s window. @egaspi, coming from
the front of the vehicle position himself 2L meters away
from >eve6a, level and poke a gun wrapped in a piece of
cloth or towel at the latter-s nape and eventually pull the
trigger. >eve6a fell on the pavement. "he gunman then
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
115
picked up >eve6a;s black shoulder bag and casually walked
away from the scene of the crime.
7hile conversing with other tricycle drivers,
7ilfredo >a6o heard the gunshot prompting him to dart his
eyes toward the direction of the gunfire where he saw
>eve6a stooping and about to fall. Pitying the victim,
>a6o hid behind a post and waited in ambush for @egaspi
and the latter-s companion, <ranco. /n so doing, >a6o
intended to sei6e and stop @egaspi who was then holding a
gun, but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmed
<ranco by the waist. "hereafter, >a6o and <ranco wrestled
causing >a6o to fall on his knees and allowing @egaspi to
take an aim and shoot at >a6o twice. %t the height of the
struggle between >a6o and <ranco, shots were fired by
@egaspi, one bullet hitting >a6o on the right jaw.
.?@># Obviously, the killing of =arlos >eve6a and
the shooting of 7ilfredo >a6o were perpetrated by reason
of or on the occasion of the robbery. "hus, the physical
injuries sustained by >a6o are deemed absorbed in the
crime of robbery with homicide. "aken in its entirety, the
overt acts of accused-appellant @egaspi prove that the lone
motive for the killing of >eve6a and the shooting of >a6o
was for the purpose of consummating and ensuring the
success of the robbery.
/n the final analysis, the shooting of >a6o was
done in order to defend the possession of the stolen
property. /t was therefore an act which tended to insure
the successful termination of the robbery and secure to the
robber the possession and enjoyment of the goods taken.
%ccused-appellant;s argument that the element of 2taking2
was not proved is thus unavailing in the face of "ulod;s
testimony.
People v. 2emanel& '51 "CRA '1# )2000*
<%=")# 1enato )ucilan, his wife %delina, daughter
@ie6l, and brother 1omeo were eating dinner in 1enato;s
house. %fter dinner, %delina prepared for bed while 1enato
played with @ie6l. 1omeo went home to his own hut
situated five meters away. )uddenly, a stone was hurled
into 1enato;s house hitting the petroma$ lamp.
/mmediately, brothers Iose and ?ddie "emanel entered the
house. Iose poked 1enato with a bladed weapon while
?ddie ordered %delina to take out their money and
valuables. @ater, cohorts of the "emanels entered the hut.
Osis grabbed @ie6l, and held a knife against her. "errified,
%delina put the valuables in an empty milk can and placed
the same outside the door. ?fren "emanel, who was outside
the hut, took the can. "he intruders tied the couple. 7hen
1enato and %delina were able to free themselves, the
former stepped out of the house and was shocked to find
his brother, 1omeo, dead with several stab wounds in the
neck and his intestines e$posed. "he pieces of jewelry he
usually wore, were no longer on his body.
.?@># %ll the elements of robbery with homicide
concur in this case. "he properties taken consisted of
pieces of jewelry, a radio, rice, money and other valuables,
all of which clearly belonged to the )ucilans. "he
properties were violently taken and intent to gain can be
presumed from the unlawful taking. /n addition, 1omeo
)ucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery.
7here homicide is perpetrated with a view to
rob, the offense is robbery with homicide. :ut if robbery
was an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide,
there are two distinct offenses. .ere, the killing was
committed in the course of the robbery. "he fact that it
was ?fren "emanel and not accused-appellants, ?ddie and
Iose "emanel, who stabbed 1omeo is of no moment. /n
People v. Mendoza, if all accused take part in a robbery
resulting in death, all of them shall be held liable for
robbery with homicide in the absence of proof that they
prevented the killing.
People v. Cr!6& '80 "CRA 1' )2002*
<%=")# >onato =ru6, who was high on drugs,
entered the house of the 1obleses, and sat on a sofa near
the kitchen. 7hile seated on the sofa, @aura saw
respondent and she became hysterical and started
shouting. "hinking that he will be assaulted by @aura, =ru6
went inside the house, got hold of a pointed object and
stabbed to death @aura 1obles and her -year old daughter,
@ara. "hereafter, he ransacked the cabinet of the 1obleses
taking away a Cinolta camera, a wedding ring and
P',+++.++ in cash, as well as an undetermined amount of
F) dollars. "he 1"= convicted =ru6 of two 324 counts of
murder and one 394 count of theft. %ppellant argues that he
should have been charged with the crime of robbery with
homicide.
.?@># "he =ourt held that the argument of the
%ppellant is without merit. "he special comple$ crime of
robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against
property, and not against persons, homicide being a mere
incident of the robbery with the latter being the main
purpose and object of the criminal (People vs. Navales, 266
SCRA 56 !"#M4. /n the case at bar, the evidence on
record shows that appellant stole the camera and cash only
as an afterthought. .is primary purpose was to kill @aura
and her -year old daughter, @ara, after he panicked.
.ence, the prosecution was correct when it did not charge
appellant with the special comple$ crime of robbery with
homicide.
People v. 9!ela& '2' "CRA 58# )2000*
<%=")# Caria %bendaNo was engaged in business.
)he had a store, operated a passenger jeepney and
engaged in the buy and sale of palay. .er sister 1omualda
also had a store. %ccused Nelson was Caria;s store helper.
%ccused "ito Ouela alias 2%nting2 helped 1omualda in her
store during palay season. "he other accused Ca$imo
8elarde was known to 1omualda because she met him at a
birthday party held at Caria;s house. "he three accused
were friends. Ca$imo, "ito and Nelson conceived the plan
to hold-up Caria while drinking in front of 1omualda;s store
because Ca$imo needed money for his fare to Canila.
Ca$imo, "ito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepney
of Caria and upon reaching an uninhabited place. Ca$imo
poked a gun at the driver and shot him. .e also shot Caria
at the neck when the latter shouted. Nelson and "ito
alighted from the jeepney. Nelson went to the left front
side of the jeepney, while "ito approached the right front
side of the jeepney, in the process stepping on the sleeping
Iohn-Iohn who was then awakened. "he boy stood up and
said, 2Hou will see / will tell my father that you killed my
mother.2 "o avoid being identified by the boy, "ito told
Ca$imo to kill the boy. Ca$imo then took hold of the boy;s
hair and slashed his neck. "ito took Caria;s money and
divided it, each accused receiving about seven thousand
3P!,+++.++4 pesos from the loot.
.?@># "he crime committed is the special
comple$ crime of robbery with homicide defined and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
115
penali6ed in %rticle 2D& of the 1evised Penal =ode. "he
trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with
homicide and not 2robbery with triple homicide2 as charged
in the information. "he term 2homicide2 in %rticle 2D&394 is
used in its generic sense, embracing not only the act which
results in death but also all other acts producing anything
short of death. Neither is the nature of the offense altered
by the number of killings in connection with the robbery.
"he multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the
robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. "his would preclude an anomalous situation
where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense,
robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way
that robbery with multiple killings would be.
People v. %inamlin.& ',# "CRA 10, )2002*
<%=")# Carilyn Pajarillo was in their house
lying down in bed with her 2-year old daughter. )eated
beside her was 99-year old 1osemarie Calalay, who was
waiting for her father 1ogelio. 1ogelio was then in the
patio, outside the house, drinking gin with Carilyn;s
husband =harlie Pajarillo and >eogracias %costa. )uddenly,
Orlando >inamling entered their house and poked a long
gun at Carilyn;s forehead, ordered her to lie prone on the
ground. Carilyn merely sat down. >inamman, with a short
firearm, entered their sari-sari store, searched their
belongings and took more or less P9,++.++ in cash
representing her sales, two 3rims of =hampion cigarettes,
one do6en cans of sardines and one pack of Iuicy <ruit
chewing gum. Outside, <ernando >inamling and @innam
poked guns at the heads of 1ogelio and >eogracias, who
were then lying prostrate on the ground.. %fter a while,
1ogelio and >eogaracias were shot to death. "he trial
court;s ruled that Orlando and <enando >inamling,
>iinamman and @innam are guilty of 2robbery with double
homicide2
.?@># %ccused-appellants; crime is robbery with
homicide. "he trial court;s denomination of the offense as
2robbery with double homicide2 is erroneous. /t is settled
that regardless of the number of homicides committed, the
crime should still be denominated as robbery with
homicide. "he number of persons killed is immaterial and
does not increase the penalty prescribed by %rticle 2D& of
the 1evised Penal =ode. )tated differently, the homicides
or murders and physical injuries, irrespective of their
numbers, committed on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with
homicide.
People v. %aniela& 501 "CRA 51# )2002*
<%=")# Canuel >aniela and Iose :aylosis came to
the house of 1onito and his common-law wife, Caria <e to
borrow money. Canuel, Iose, and 1onito then had a
drinking spree. @ater, Canuel armed with a .*' caliber gun,
entered the bedroom of 1onito and Caria <e and poked the
said gun on Caria <e. Iose, armed with a knife followed
Canuel to the bedroom. Fpon Canuel-s order Iose tied the
hands of Caria <e behind her back and put a tape on her
mouth. Iose also tied the hands of Carife-s cousin, @eo.
Iose and Canuel then divested Caria <e of her necklace,
rings and earrings. Canuel demanded that she give them
her money but Caria <e told them that she had used her
money to pay her partners in the fish vending business.
Canuel and Iose did not believe Caria <e and ransacked
the room but failed to find money. Canuel then threatened
to e$plode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Caria
<e, her family and their househelps if she refused to
surrender her money. Petrified, Caria <e took the money
from her waist pouch and gave the same to Canuel and
Iose. Canuel took a blanket and ordered Iose to kill 1onito
with it. Iose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered
1onito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed
the latter several times. Canuel also stabbed 1onito on
different parts of his body. Canuel hit 1onito with the butt
of his gun. Iose slit the throat of 1onito and took the
latter;s wristwatch and ring. Canuel then raped Iulifer, a
househelp of Carife.
.?@># "he law does not re(uire that the sole
motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide
by reason or on the occasion thereof. /n People vs. "idula,
et al., this =ourt ruled that even if the malefactor intends
to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction
for the special comple$ crime of robbery with homicide. /n
People v. $amaso, the =ourt held that the fact that the
intent of the felons was tempered with a desire also to
avenge grievances against the victim killed, does not
negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for
robbery with homicide.
% conviction for robbery with homicide is proper
even if the homicide is committed before, during or after
the commission of the robbery. "he homicide may be
committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by
mere accident. ?ven if two or more persons are killed and a
woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on
another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is
only one special comple$ crime of robbery with homicide.
7hat is primordial is the result obtained without reference
or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime.
1obbery with homicide is committed even if the
victim of the robbery is different from the victim of
homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery. /t is not even necessary
that the victim of the robbery is the very person the
malefactor intended to rob. <or the conviction of the
special comple$ crime, the robbery itself must be proved
as conclusively as any other element of the crime. /t may
be true that the original intent of appellant Canuel was to
borrow again money from 1onito and Caria <e but later on
conspired with Iose and robbed the couple of their money
and pieces of jewelry, and on the occasion thereof, killed
1onito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of robbery
with homicide.
People v. Napalit& '#( "CRA (8, )200'*
<%=")#% group of more than si$ armed men
including Napalit barged into the "ondo Eeneral .ospital.
One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guard
and announced a hold-up. )imultaneously, Napalit pointed
a gun at, and grabbed the firearm of, another security
guard. <our members of the group then entered the
cashier;s office of the hospital and ordered the employees
to lie down on the floor. One of them pointed a gun at the
cashier, %lon6o, and ordered him to open the vault. :efore
%lon6o could do as instructed, he was searched for
weapons in the course of which his wallet containing
P&+.++ in cash was taken. %lon6o then opened the vault
which the four emptied of P9,+9+,2!&.D+ in cash. 7hile the
four malefactors were at the cashier;s office, another
security guard, Eome6, who was manning the hospital gate
was disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside the
hospital premises, and shot twice by one of the armed
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
11(
men. "he four armed men who emptied the vault then
rushed out of the hospital and one of them also shot Eome6
who had by then collapsed on the ground. "wo of them
headed toward a "oyota "amaraw vehicle driven by =astor
which was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in front
of the hospital. One of the duo ordered the passenger at
the front seat to get off the vehicle. "he other, after
forcing =astor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fled
with his companion. "he 1"= found Napalit guilty of
robbery with homicide and violation of 1. %. ,*D 3the %nti-
=arnapping %ct4, respectively. Napalit argues that assuming
that he had indeed participated in the incident, he should
only be held liable for robbery and not for the special
comple$ crime of robbery with homicide.
.?@># /n a long line of cases, the =ourt has ruled
that whenever homicide is committed as a conse(uence or
on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as
principals in the special comple$ crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide,
unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide. 3People v. @ago, *' )=1% + 32++94, People
v. @iad, * )=1% 99 32++94, People v. Pedroso, **, )=1%
9,*4
People v. Lara )200(*
"he =ourt disagrees with the =ourt of %ppeals that
appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide in
=riminal =ase No. D!-9*!+,. "here is nothing in the
records that would show that the principal purpose of
appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun 3)erial No.
D,++D&24. /t must be emphasi6ed 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. %ppellant was not trying to rob the victim.
%ppellant-s 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 one-s right mind just leave a
firearm lying around after being in a heated argument with
another person. %avin& 'ailed to establis( t(at appellant)s
ori&inal criminal desi&n *as robber+, appellant could onl+
be convicted o' t(e separate crimes o' eit(er murder or
(omicide, as t(e case ma+ be, and t(e't.
Ro""er (ith ra$e
Li7e in ro!!ery $ith ho'ici(e, the oAen(er
'u&t ha%e the intent to ta7e the per&onal
property !elonging to another $ith intent
to gain, an( &uch intent 'u&t p#ece$e the
rape.
There i# no #uch cri&e a# ro""er (ith
atte&$te' ra$e. It 'u&t !e
con&u''ate(. Other$i&e, they are
&eparate oAence&.
When the ta7ing o per&onal property o a
$o'an i& an in(epen(ent act ollo$ing
(een(ant@& ailure to con&u''ate the
rape, there are t$o (i&tinct cri'e&
co''itte(E atte'pte( rape an( thet.
A((itional rape& co''itte( on the &a'e
occa&ion o ro!!ery $ill not increa&e the
penalty. All act& o rape on that occa&ion
!eing integrate( in one co'po&ite cri'e.
When the ta7ing o property ater the rape i&
not $ith intent to gain, there i& neither
thet nor ro!!ery co''itte(.
3he ci%il lia!ility or rape in ro!!ery $ith rape
ha& !een &et at 6*4,444.
When rape an( ho'ici(e coBe2i&t in the
co''i&&ion o ro!!ery, the cri'e i&
ro!!ery $ith ho'ici(e an( rape un(er par
5 o Art 29), the rape to !e con&i(ere( a&
an aggra%ating circu'&tance only. (note:
this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal, Pp vs
Basca, and Pp vs illa! but i disagree with
this ruling based on moral grounds and
lack of legal basis! how could rape be
merely an aggravating circumstance"#
People vs. Patola
1obbery committed with rape is punished under 1P= %rt
2D& par 2, not under 1P= ** on (ualified rape.
People vs. %inola
Facts: >inola saw victim Carilyn-s watch after he had
raped her. )he refused to give him the watch so he took if
forcibly from her and left. >inola was convicted of robbery
with rape.
Held# "he crime of robbery and rape should be punished as
2 separate offences. /f the original design was to commit
rape but the accused after committing rape also committed
robbery 3more of an afterthought, even accidental4
because the opportunity presented itself, the criminal act
should be viewed as 2 distinct offences. /f the intention of
the accused was to commit robbery but rape was also
committed even before the robbery, the crime of robbery
with rape was committed.
People vs -oreno
Facts: %ccused Coreno, >eloria and Cani(ue6 robbed the
Cohnani spouses. >eloria raped househelp Narcisa while
Cani(ue6 raped househelp Cary %nn. Coreno was
convicted of robbery while >eloria and Cani(ue6, robbery
with rape.
Held# Coreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of
robbery only. 1uling was correct.
People v. Fa/on& '28 "CRA '02 )2000*
<%=")# @ocsin <abon, alias 2@oklok,2 entered
the home of ,& year-old, :onifacia @as(uite and forcibly
took the victim-s money amounting to P2,+++.++. On the
occasion of the robbery, <abon raped @as(uite. "hereafter,
<abon strangled and stabbed @as(uite with a knife resulting
to her death. "he 1"= convicted <abon of 1obbery with
.omicide and 1ape, penali6ed under %rticle 2D&, number 9
of the 1P=, as amended by 1.%. !,D.

.?@># "he trial court inaccurately designated the
crime committed as 2robbery with homicide and rape.2
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
11,
7hen the special comple$ crime of robbery with homicide
is accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional
mutilation, such additional offense is treated as an
aggravating circumstance which would result in the
imposition of the ma$imum penalty of death. "he =ourt
cited the case of People vs. @ascuna, where it was held
that A7e agree with the )olicitor Eeneral;s observation that
the crime committed was erroneously designated as
robbery with homicide, rape and physical injuries. "he
proper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated by
rape. 7hen rape and homicide co-e$ist in the commission
of robbery, it is the first paragraph of %rticle 2D& of the
1evised Penal =ode which applies, the rape to be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. . . .
People v. %omin.o& '8' "CRA 5' )2002*
<%=")# %ppellant >omingo "emporal, Pedro,
8alde6, and 1ivera went to the house of )pouses 8alentin
and =lara Eabertan, armed with a piece of bamboo, 2$2
piece of wood, ipil-ipil posts and bolo, "hey assaulted and
clubbed 8alentin with their weapons, weakening and
injuring him. ?ventually they stole from the Eabertan
spouses cash in the amount of P,*+.++, 9 ladies gold
)eiko watch, D turkeys, and 2 chickens. "hereafter, while
1ivera guarded 8alentin, the four accused took turns in
raping =arla outside the house where she was forcibly laid
on the cogon grass. 1"= found appellant guilty of robbery
with multiple rape.
.?@># "he 1"= should have convicted appellant
of robbery with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape.
/n the special comple$ crime of robbery with rape, the true
intent of the accused must first be determined, because
their intent determines the offense they committed. "o
sustain a conviction for robbery with rape, it is imperative
that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. "o
support a conviction therefor, proof of the rape alone is not
sufficient. 1obbery with rape occurs when the following
elements are present# 394 personal property is taken with
violence or intimidation against persons, 324 the property
taken belongs to another, 3*4 the taking is done with animo
lucrandi, and 3&4 the robbery is accompanied by rape.
/n the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are
present. "he contemporaneous acts of appellant and his co-
accused stress the fact that they were initially motivated
by animus lucrandi. "hey first demanded guns, moneys and
animals from 8alentin Eabertan. %pparently, it was only
when they entered the house and saw his wife when they
thought of raping her."he prosecution likewise established
that appellant and his co-accused took chickens, a watch
and money from complainants through violence.
People v. :erceles& '88 "CRA 515 )2002*
<%=")# %ccused 8erceles alias 2:aldog2,
=orpu6, )oriano alias 2Certo2, 1amos and )oriano entered
the house of Crs. 1osita Kuilates by forcibly destroying the
grills of the window. Once inside, they took away 9 colored
".8., 9 8.), assorted jewelries, 9 alarm clock and 9 radio
cassettes. /n the course of the robbery, )oriano, succumbed
to lustful desires and raped Caribeth :olito while the
others just stood outside the door and did nothing to
prevent )oriano.
.?@># Once conspiracy is established between
two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery,
they would be both e(ually culpable for the rape
committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery,
unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent
the other from committing the rape. "he rule in this
jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a
conse(uence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who
took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of
robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in
the rape. %ppellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of 1obbery with 1ape punished under %rticle 2D&
394 of the 1evised Penal =ode.
People v. -oreno& ',5 "CRA ((, )2002*
"he special comple$ crime of robbery with rape
defined in %rticle 2D* in relation to paragraph 2 of %rticle
2D& of the 1evised Penal =ode, as amended, employs the
clause 2when the robbery shall have been accompanied
with rape.2 /n other words, to be liable for such crime, the
offender must have the intent to take the personal
property of another under circumstances that makes the
taking one of robbery, and such intent must precede the
rape. /f the original plan was to commit rape, but the
accused after committing the rape also committed robbery
when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery should
be viewed as a separate and distinct crime.
% painstaking assessment of the evidence in this
case convinces us that 1OE?@/O committed two separate
offenses of rape and theft, and not the special comple$
crime of robbery with rape. /mmediately after 1OE?@/O put
his arms around C%1/"?) and directed the knife at her
neck, he dragged Carites to the vacant space in %:=
=ommercial =omple$ and removed her clothes. "hese acts
clearly showed that 1OE?@/O had in mind se$ual
gratification. "his intent was further established by the
fact that when C%1/"?) offered to give her ring to
1OE?@/O, the latter did not take it and instead replied,
2Camaya na iyan25 2"hat will come later on because / will
give it back to you but you have to follow me first.2 %gain,
when 1OE?@/O removed his pants, C%1/"?) told him to get
her bag if he needed money5 but 1OE?@/O replied 2/ do not
need money.2 %fter giving vent to his lustful desire, he
snatched the victim;s shoulder bag, which was then on her
right foot, and then he ran away. =learly then, the taking
of personal property was not the original evil plan of
1OE?@/O. /t was an afterthought following the rape.
)ignificantly, the constitutive element of violence
or intimidation against persons in robbery was not present
at the time of the snatching of the shoulder bag of
C%1/"?). "he force or intimidation e$erted by 1OE?@/O
against the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact of
the taking of the bag. /t was for the purpose of
accomplishing his lustful desire. .ence, it cannot be
considered for the purpose of classifying the crime as
robbery. %ccused-appellant may thus be held liable for
simple theft only, in addition to the crime of rape.
People v. "e.!is& '5# "CRA 55, )2001*
<%=")# )eguis a.k.a. Iunior, ?stebe a.k.a.
>odong, >o(uila a.k.a. @olong, r =anico, Eibertas, dela
=ru6, and a certain Iohn >oe took turns in raping Iuliet
Cagamayo at the house of his friend where she stayed for
the night. One of the said accused took her gold ring,
bracelet and cash though Iuliet can not pinpoint who
specifically did it among the many accused. "he 1"= finds
each of the accused, %driano guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principal of the crime of simple rape under %rticle
** of the 1evised Penal =ode
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
118
.?@># /t is to be noted that the accused in this
case were originally indicted for the felony of robbery with
multiple rape, a special comple$ crime punishable under
%rt. 2D&, par. 9 of the 1evised Penal =ode and which is
committed 2when the robbery shall have been accompanied
by rape.2 "he said provision, needless to say, covers cases
of multiple rapes. "his is primarily due to the fact that the
juridical concept of this crime does not limit the
consummation of rape against one single victim or to one
single act, making other rapes in e$cess of that number as
separate, independent offense or offenses. %ll the rapes
are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is
robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the
robbery. /t does not matter too whether the rape occurred
before, during, or after the robbery.
)till and all, this does not change the nature of
the felony. /t is essentially a crime against property. "o
sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the robbery itself
must be conclusively established5 just as the fact that it
was the accused who committed it be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. "he prosecution must be able to
demonstrate the level of their participation with legal and
moral certainty, including the e$istence of a conspiracy, if
any. Otherwise, those who were charged should be
ac(uitted, at least for the robbery. Proof of the rape alone
is not sufficient to support a conviction for the crime of
robbery with rape.
"he lower court;s finding of the accused-non-
participation in the robbery does not mean that they are
totally guiltless. "hey will still be held accountable for
whatever unlawful acts they may have committed, and for
which acts they were charged. /n a criminal action for
robbery with rape, where the prosecution failed to prove
the robo or the participation of the accused in it, the latter
may still be convicted for the rape. "he trial court-s ruling
that the appellants had carnal knowledge of the private
complainant by using force and intimidation, convicting
them of one count of rape each because there was no
showing that they conspired or assisted each other in
committing those rapes is affirmed.
People v. 7ano& '5' "CRA 12( )2001*
%ccused =astanito Eano killed three 3*4 persons
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. "he (uestion
that needs to be resolved is whether the Amultiplicity of
homicidesG could be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. <or sometime, this ticklish issue has been
the subject of conflicting views by this =ourt when it held
in some cases that the additional rapesJhomicides
committed on the occasion of robbery would not increase
the penalty, while in other cases it ruled that the
Amultiplicity of rapesJhomicidesG committed could be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. :ut in People
v. 1egala this =ourt spoke with finality on the matter P
/t should be noted that there is no law providing
that the additional rapeJs or homicideJs should be
considered as aggravating circumstance. "he enumeration
of aggravating circumstances under %rticle 9& of the
1evised Penal =ode is e$clusive as opposed to the
enumeration in %rticle 9* of the same =ode regarding
mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph
3paragraph 9+4 providing for analogous circumstances.
/t is true that the additional rapes 3or killings in
the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery4 would result in an 2anomalous situation2 where
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery
with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with
multiple rapes. .owever, the remedy lies with the
legislature. % penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within its terms
if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
"his case is singular in its barbarity and
nauseating in the manner with which the accused, bolo in
hand, butchered his preys. Notwithstanding the viciousness
with which he perpetrated the offense, we are constrained
to apply the principle laid down in People v. 1egala, and
accordingly, the two 324 other killings contrary to the ruling
of the trial court, should not be appreciated as aggravating
circumstances. Eano is guilty of 1obbery with .omicide.
People v. Re.ala& '2# "CRA ,0, )20004
<%=")# )i$teen-year old, Nerissa "agala, and her
grandmother =onsuelo %revalo were sleeping, when
appellant %rmando 1egala and his two other companions
entered the former;s house. 1egala and his companions
entered the house through the kitchen by removing the
pieces of wood under the stove. 1egala went to the room
of Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an '-inch gun on
them, one after the other. Nerissa and her grandmother
were hogtied by appellant and his companions. "hereafter,
Nerissa was raped by twice by 1egala in bed and in the
kitchen. %fter the rape, appellant and his two companions
counted the money which they took from the 2aparador.
%ppellant and his companions then ran away with P*,+++ in
cash, 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches.
.?@># /t should be noted that there is no law
providing that the additional rapeJs or homicideJs should
be considered as aggravating circumstance. "he
enumeration of aggravating circumstances under %rticle 9&
of the 1evised Penal =ode is e$clusive as opposed to the
enumeration in %rticle 9* of the same code regarding
mitigating circumstances where there is a specific
paragraph 3paragraph 9+4 providing for analogous
circumstances.
/t is true that the additional rapes 3or killings in.
the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery4 would result in an 2anomalous situation2 where
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery
with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with
multiple rapes. .owever, the remedy lies with the
legislature. % penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within its terms
if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
ReCui&ite& o ro!!ery un(er 2
n(
ca&e o par )
Art 29)E
5? that any o the phy&ical in+urie& (e-ne( in
par 3 I ) Art 2.3 $a& inJicte( in the
cour&e o the ro!!ery, an(
2? that any o the' $a& inJicte( upon any
per&on not re&pon&i!le or the co''i&&ion
o the ro!!ery.
Ro""er (ith /iolence or inti&i'ation
=iolence or inti'i(ation nee( not !e
pre&ent before or at the exact moment
$hen the o!+ect i& ta7en. It 'ay enter at
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
11#
an ti&e "e!ore the o(ner i# 1nall
'e$ri/e' o! hi# $ro$ert.
Inti'i(ation e2i&t& $hen the act& e2ecute(
or $or(& uttere( !y the oen(er are
capa!le o pro(ucing ear in the per&on
threatene(.
In ro!!ery $ith inti'i(ation, there 'u&t !e
act& (one !y the accu&e( $hich, either !y
their o$n nature or !y rea&on o the
circu'&tance& un(er $hich they are
e2ecute(, in&pire ear in the per&on again&t
$ho' they are (irecte(.
Dife#ence between th#eats to e&to#t
mone an$ #obbe# th#u intimi$ation%
o In ro!!ery, the inti'i(ation i& actual
an( immediateF in threat&, the
inti'i(ation i& conditional or future.
o In ro!!ery, the inti'i(ation i& personalF
in threat&, it 'ay !e thru an
intermediary.
o In threat&, the inti'i(ation 'ay reer to
the per&on, honor or property o the
oAen(e( party or that o hi& a'ilyF in
ro!!ery, the inti'i(ation i& (irecte(
only to the per&on o the %icti'.
o In ro!!ery, the gain o the culprit i&
immediateF in threat&, the gain i& not
i''e(iate.
Dife#ence between #obbe# with
!iolence an$ "#a!e coe#cion%
o In !oth cri'e&, there i& %iolence u&e(
!y the oAen(er.
o In ro!!ery, there i& intent to gainF no
&uch reCuire'ent in gra%e coercion. In
gra%e coercion, the intent i& to co'pel
another to (o &o'ething again&t hi&
$ill.
Dife#ence between #obbe# an$
b#ibe#%
o It i& ro!!ery $hen the %icti' (i( not
co''it a cri'eF it i& !ri!ery $hen the
%icti' ha& co''itte( a cri'e an(
gi%e& 'oney or git to a%oi( arre&t or
pro&ecution.
o In ro!!ery, the %icti' i& (epri%e( o hi&
'oney or property !y orce or
inti'i(ationF in !ri!ery, he part& $ith
hi& 'oney or property %oluntarily.
Article 292. Ro""er (ith $h#ical
in3urie#0 co&&itte' in an uninha"ite'
$lace an' " a "an'0 or (ith the u#e o!
1rear& on a #treet0 roa' or alle
Ro!!ery $ith %iolence again&t or inti'i(ation
o per&on i& Cuali-e( i it i& co''itte(E
5. In an uninha!ite( placeF
2. By a !an(F
3. By attac7ing a 'o%ing train, &treet car,
'otor %ehicle, or air&hipF
). By entering the pa&&enger&@ co'part'ent&
in a train, or in any 'anner ta7ing the
pa&&enger& thereo !y &urpri&e in the
re&pecti%e con%eyance&F or
*. On a &treet, roa(, high$ay or alley, an( the
inti'i(ation i& 'a(e $ith the u&e o
-rear'&, the oAen(er &hall !e puni&he( !y
the 'a2i'u' perio(& o the proper
penaltie& pre&cri!e( in Article 29).
Any o the&e Cualiying circu'&tance& 'u&t !e
allege( in the inor'ation an( pro%e(
(uring the trial.
3he inti'i(ation $ith the u&e o -rear'
Cuali-e& only ro!!ery on a &treet, roa(,
high$ay or alley.
Art 29* (oe& not apply to ro!!ery $ith
ho'ici(e, or ro!!ery $ith rape, or ro!!ery
$ith &eriou& phy&ical in+urie& un(er par 5 o
Art 2.3. (note: the circumstances and
applicability of $rt %&' are very speci(c so
please note them!#
Peo$le /#. Se/illa
Facts# "he accused detained several persons as hostages in
a store they robbed. "he police launched an offensive. /n
the ensuing gunfight, the hostages suffered physical
injuries. One of the hostages eventually had to have her
leg amputated. "he accused were convicted of the comple$
crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious
illegal detention. )hould the crime of serious illegal
detention be prosecuted as a separate offence0
Held# NO. "he detention of the victims was a necessary
means to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery. "he
victims were not held as a security to facilitate their
escape or to insure their security against the police, but
deliberately, as a means of e$tortion of the amount asked.
Article 294. 5e1nition o! a "an' an'
$enalt incurre' " the &e&"er# thereo!
ReCui&ite& or lia!ility or the act& o the other
'e'!er& o the !an(E
5. 9e $a& a 'e'!er o the !an(F
2. 9e $a& pre&ent at the co''i&&ion o a
ro!!ery !y that !an(F
3. 3he other 'e'!er& o the !an( co''itte(
an a&&aultF
). 9e (i( not atte'pt to pre%ent the a&&ault.
When the ro!!ery $a& not co''itte( !y a
!an(, the ro!!er $ho (i( not ta7e part in
the a&&ault !y another i& not lia!le or that
a&&ault.
When the ro!!ery $a& not !y a !an( an(
ho'ici(e $a& not (eter'ine( !y the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
120
accu&e( $hen they plotte( the cri'e, the
one $ho (i( not participate in the 7illing i&
lia!le or ro!!ery only. It i# onl (hen
the ro""er i# in "an' that all tho#e
$re#ent in the co&&i##ion o! the
ro""er &a "e $uni#he' !or an o!
the a##ault# (hich an o! it# &e&"er#
&ight co&&it.
But $hen there i& con&piracy to co''it
ho'ici(e an( ro!!ery, all the con&pirator&,
e%en i le&& than ) ar'e( 'en, are lia!le
or the &pecial co'ple2 cri'e o ro!!ery
$ith ho'ici(e.
Art 29. i& not applica!le to principal !y
in(uce'ent, $ho $a& not pre&ent at the
co''i&&ion o the ro!!ery, i the
agree'ent $a& only to co''it ro!!ery.
3he article &pea7& o 'ore than 3 ar'e(
'aleactor& $ho Gta7e& part in the
co''i&&ion o the ro!!eryH an( 'e'!er o
a !an( G$ho i& pre&ent at the co''i&&ion
o a ro!!ery !y a !an(.H 3hu&, a principal
!y in(uce'ent, $ho (i( not go $ith the
!an( at the place o the co''i&&ion o the
ro!!ery, i& not lia!le or ro!!ery $ith
ho'ici(e, !ut only or ro!!ery in !an(,
there !eing no e%i(ence that he ga%e
in&truction& to 7ill the %icti' or inten(e(
that thi& &houl( !e (one.
When there $a& con&piracy or ro!!ery
only !ut ho'ici(e $a& al&o co''itte( on
the occa&ion thereo, all 'e'!er& o the
!an( are lia!le or ro!!ery $ith ho'ici(e.
Whene%er ho'ici(e i& co''itte( a& a
con&eCuence o or on the occa&ion o a
ro!!ery, all tho&e $ho too7 part in the
co''i&&ion o the ro!!ery are al&o guilty
a& principal& in the cri'e o ho'ici(e
unle&& it appear& that they en(ea%ore( to
pre%ent the ho'ici(e.
6roo o con&piracy i& not e&&ential to hol(
a 'e'!er o the !an( lia!le or ro!!ery
$ith ho'ici(e actually co''itte( !y the
other 'e'!er& o the !an(.
There i# no cri&e a# 6ro""er (ith
ho&ici'e in "an'.7 The circu&#tance
o! "an' "eco&e# an or'inar
aggra/ating circu&#tance to ro""er
(ith ho&ici'e.
In ro!!ery !y a !an(, all are lia!le or any
a&&ault co''itte( !y the !an(, unle## the
other& atte'pte( to pre%ent the a&&ault.
3he 'e'!er& o the !an( lia!le or the
a&&ault 'u&t !e pre&ent at the co''i&&ion
o the ro!!ery, not nece&&arily at the
co''i&&ion o the a&&ault.
People vs. Apd!0an
%pduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and was
sentenced to death because the court considered the use
of unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance
under %rt 2D,. )= rejected this. )= believes that# 394 %rt
2D, is e$clusively linked and singularly applicable to %rt 2D
on robbery in band, 324 1P= 2D is e$plicitly limited to
scope to pars. *, &, of %rt 2D&, and 3*4 par *, &, of %rt
2D& does not include cases where homicide, rape,
intentional mutilation, impotence, imbecility, blindness
and insanity occurred by reason or on the occasion of
accompanying robbery. "hus, since %pduhan was convicted
of robbery with homicide under par 9 %rt 2D&, %rt 2D, in
relation to par *, &, of %rt 2D is inapplicable. .ence,
the use of an unlicensed firearm should not have been
considered as a special aggravating circumstance.
Article 298. Atte&$te' an' !ru#trate'
ro""er co&&itte' un'er certain
circu&#tance#
G9o'ici(eH here i& u&e( in a generic
&en&e. It inclu(e& 'ultiple ho'ici(e&,
'ur(er, parrici(e, inantici(e, etc.
3he penalty i& the &a'e, $hether the
ro!!ery i& atte'pte( or ru&trate(.
G<nle&& the ho'ici(e co''itte( &hall
(e&er%e a higher penalty un(er the Co(eH
'ay !e illu&trate( a& ollo$&E In an
atte'pte( or ru&trate( ro!!ery, the 7illing
o the %icti' i& Cuali-e( !y treachery or
relation&hip. 3he proper penalty or
'ur(er or parrici(e &hall !e i'po&e(
!ecau&e it i& 'ore &e%ere.
3hi& i& al&o a special complex crime,
thu&, not go%erne( !y Art )1.

Article 299. E:ecution o! 'ee'# " &ean#
o! /iolence or inti&i'ation
Ele'ent&E
5. OAen(er ha& intent to (erau( anotherF
2. OAen(er co'pel& hi' to &ign, e2ecute, or
(eli%er any pu!lic in&tru'ent or (ocu'ent.
3. 3he co'pul&ion i& !y 'ean& o %iolence or
inti'i(ation.
I the %iolence u&e( re&ulte( in the (eath o
the per&on to !e (erau(e(, the cri'e i&
ro!!ery $ith ho'ici(e.
I the e2ecution o (ee(& !y 'ean& o
%iolence i& only in the atte'pte( or
ru&trate( &tage an( the %iolence u&e(
re&ulte( in the (eath o the per&on to !e
(erau(e(, the penalty i'po&e( &hall !e
tho&e un(er Art 290.
3hi& article applie& e%en i the (ocu'ent
&igne(, e2ecute( or (eli%ere( i& a private
or commercial (ocu'ent.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
121
Art 299 i# not a$$lica"le i! the
'ocu&ent i# /oi'.
When the oAen(e( party i& un(er
o!ligation to &ign, e2ecute or (eli%er the
(ocu'ent un(er the la$, there i& no
ro!!ery. But there $ill !e COERCION i
%iolence i& u&e( in co'pelling the oAen(e(
party to &ign or (eli%er the (ocu'ent.
Article 299. Ro""er in an inha"ite'
hou#e or $u"lic "uil'ing or e'i1ce
'e/ote' to (or#hi$
Ele'ent& un(er &u!(i%i&ion >a?E
5. OAen(er entere( an inha!ite( hou&e,
pu!lic !uil(ing or e(i-ce (e%ote( to
religiou& $or&hipF
2. 3he entrance $a& eAecte( !y any o the
ollo$ing 'ean&E
a. 3hrough an opening not inten(e( or
entrance or egre&&F
!. By !rea7ing any $all, roo or Joor, or
!rea7ing any (oor or $in(o$F
c. By u&ing al&e 7ey&, pic7loc7& or &i'ilar
tool&F or
(. By u&ing any -ctitiou& na'e or
preten(ing the e2erci&e o pu!lic
authority.
3. Once in&i(e the !uil(ing, oAen(er too7
per&onal property !elonging to another
$ith intent to gain.
Ele'ent& un(er &u!(i%i&ion >!?E
5. OAen(er i& in&i(e a ($elling hou&e, pu!lic
!uil(ing, or e(i-ce (e%ote( to religiou&
$or&hip, regar(le&& o the circu'&tance&
un(er $hich he entere( itF
2. OAen(er ta7e& per&onal property !elonging
to another, $ith intent to gain, un(er any
o the ollo$ing circu'&tance&E
a. By the !rea7ing o (oor&, $ar(ro!e&,
che&t&, or any other 7in( o loc7e( or
&eale( urniture or receptacleF or
!. By ta7ing &uch urniture or o!+ect&
a$ay to !e !ro7en or orce( open
out&i(e the place o the ro!!ery.
Su"'i/i#ion ;a<
3here 'u&t !e e%i(ence or the act& 'u&t &ho$
that the accu&e( entere( the ($elling
hou&e or !uil(ing !y any o the 'ean&
enu'erate( in &u!(i% >a?.
In entering the !uil(ing, the oAen(er 'u&t
ha%e an intention to ta7e per&onal
property.
3he place entere( 'u&t !e a hou&e or !uil(ingF
thu&, entering an auto'o!ile (oe& not all
un(er thi& article.
GInha!ite( hou&eH K any &helter, &hip or %e&&el
con&tituting the ($elling o one or 'ore
per&on& e%en though the inha!itant&
thereo are te'porarily a!&ent therero'
$hen the ro!!ery i& co''itte(.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
122
G6u!lic !uil(ingH K e%ery !uil(ing o$ne( !y
the go%t or !elonging to a pri%ate per&on
!ut u&e( or rente( !y the go%t, although
te'porarily unoccupie( !y the &a'e.
Any o the ) 'ean& (e&cri!e( in &u!(i% >a?
'u&t !e re&orte( to !y the oAen(er to
enter a hou&e or !uil(ing, not to get out.
3he $hole !o(y o the culprit 'u&t !e in&i(e
the !uil(ing to con&titute entering.
3he genuine 7ey 'u&t !e &tolen, not ta7en !y
orce or $ith inti'i(ation ro' the o$ner.
In the latter ca&e, it !eco'e& ro!!ery $ith
inti'i(ation o per&on.
It i& only 39E83 $hen the al&e 7ey i& u&e( to
open $ar(ro!e or loc7e( receptacle or
(ra$er or in&i(e (oor.
3he u&e o -ctitiou& na'e or the act o
preten(ing to e2erci&e authority 'u&t !e to
enter the !uil(ing.
Su"'i/i#ion ;"<
Entrance into the !uil(ing !y any o the 'ean&
in &u!(i% >a? i& not reCuire( in ro!!ery
un(er &u!(i% >!?.
3he ter' G(oorH in par 5 &u!(i% >!? reer& only
to G(oor&, li(& or opening &heet&H of
furniture or other portable receptaclesF not
to in&i(e (oor& o hou&e or !uil(ing.
A per&on $ho carrie& a$ay a &eale( !o2 or
receptacle or the purpo&e o !rea7ing the
&a'e an( ta7ing out it& content& out&i(e
the place o ro!!ery i& guilty o
con&u''ate( ro!!ery e%en though he
(oe& not &uccee( in opening the !o2.
A per&on $ho open& !y orce a certain loc7e(
or &eale( receptacle $hich ha& !een
con(ded in his custody an( ta7e& the
'oney containe( therein i& guilty o
E"3A8A, not ro!!ery.
3he $eapon carrie( !y the oAen(er 'u&t not
ha%e !een u&e( to inti'i(ate a per&on, or
the rea&on that once the circumstance of
intimidation enters in the commission of
the crime, it i& &uMcient to re'o%e the
oAence ro' Art 299 an( place it $ithin the
pur%ie$ o Art 29).
3he lia!ility or carrying ar'& $hile ro!!ing an
inha!ite( hou&e i& e2ten(e( to each o the
oAen(er& $ho ta7e part in the ro!!ery,
e%en i &o'e o the' (o not carry ar'&.
Peo$le /#. =aranilla
Facts# %ccused took , fighting cocks from a coop located in
:abylon-s backyard. "he door of the coop was broken.
"hey were intercepted by a police officer who was shot by
one of the accused. "hey were convicted by robbery with
homicide.
Held# "he killing of the police officer was not by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery, hence only the person who
shot such officer should be liable for the killing.
Article 3>>. Ro""er in an uninha"ite'
$lace an' " a "an'
Ro!!ery in an inha!ite( hou&e, pu!lic !uil(ing
or e(i-ce (e%ote( to religiou& $or&hip i&
Cuali-e( $hen co''itte( !y a !an( AN5
in an uninha!ite( place. 3he 2
Cuali-cation& 'u&t concur.
3he inha!ite( hou&e, pu!lic !uil(ing, or e(i-ce
(e%ote( to religiou& $or&hip 'u&t !e
locate( in an uninha!ite( place.
Ro!!ery $ith force upon things, in or(er to !e
Cuali-e(, 'u&t !e co''itte( in an
uninha!ite( place AN5 !y a !an(F $hile
ro!!ery $ith violence against or
intimidation of persons 'u&t !e co''itte(
in an uninha!ite( place OR !y a !an(.
Article 3>?. What i# an inha"ite' hou#e0
$u"lic "uil'ing0 or "uil'ing 'e'icate' to
religiou# (or#hi$ an' their 'e$en'encie#
3 reCui&ite& or G(epen(encie&HE >5? 'u&t !e
contiguous to the !uil(ing, >2? 'u&t ha%e
an interior entrance connecte( there$ith,
an( >3? 'u&t form part of the whole.
Orchar(& or other lan(& u&e( or culti%ation or
pro(uction are not inclu(e( in the ter'
G(epen(encie&H.
Article 3>2. Ro""er in an uninha"ite'
$lace or in a $ri/ate "uil'ing
Ele'ent&E
5. OAen(er entere( an uninha!ite( place or a
!uil(ing $hich $a& not a ($elling hou&e,
not a pu!lic !uil(ing, or not an e(i-ce
(e%ote( to religiou& $or&hipF
2. Any o the ollo$ing circu'&tance& $a&
pre&entE
a. 3he entrance $a& eAecte( through an
opening not inten(e( or entrance or
egre&&F
!. A $all, roo, Joor, or out&i(e (oor or
$in(o$ $a& !ro7enF
c. 3he entrance $a& eAecte( through the
u&e o al&e 7ey&, pic7loc7& or other
&i'ilar tool&F
(. A (oor, $ar(ro!e, che&t, or any &eale(
or clo&e( urniture or receptacle $a&
!ro7enF or
e. A clo&e( or &eale( receptacle $a&
re'o%e(, e%en i the &a'e !e !ro7en
open el&e$here.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
12'
3. OAen(er too7 therero' per&onal property
!elonging to another $ith intent to gain.
Guninha!ite( placeH K
uninha!ite( !uil(ing
3he inor'ation 'u&t allege
that the &tore $a& u&e( an( occupie( a& a
($ellingF other$i&e, the ro!!ery &houl( !e
con&i(ere( a& ha%ing !een perpetrate( in
an uninha!ite( place un(er Art 342.
G!uil(ingH K inclu(e& any 7in(
o &tructure u&e( or &torage or
&ae7eeping o per&onal property, &uch a&
reight car an( $arehou&e.
3he u&e o -ctitiou& na'e or
preten(ing the e2erci&e o pu!lic authority
i& not a 'ean& o entering the !uil(ing
un(er thi& article, !ecau&e the place i&
uninha!ite(.
3he receptacle 'u&t !e
Gclo&e(H or G&eale(H. 3hu&, i a per&on
opene( $ithout !rea7ing a clo&e( !ut not
loc7e( che&t an( too7 per&onal property
therero', it i& only 39E83.
6enalty i& !a&e( only on %alue
o property ta7en.
I the &tore i& u&e( a& a
dwelling o 5 or 'ore per&on&, the ro!!ery
co''itte( therein $oul( !e con&i(ere( a&
co''itte( in an inhabited hou&e un(er Art
299.
I the &tore $a& not actually
occupie( at the ti'e the ro!!ery too7
place an( $a& not u&e( a& a ($elling, &ince
the o$ner li%e( in a &eparate hou&e, the
ro!!ery co''itte( therein i& puni&he(
un(er Art 342.
I the &tore i& locate( on the
groun( Joor o the hou&e !elonging to the
o$ner o the &tore, ha%ing an interior
entrance connecte( there$ith, it i& a
dependency o an inha!ite( hou&e an( the
ro!!ery co''itte( therein i& puni&he(
un(er the la&t par o Art 299.
Article 3>3. Ro""er o! cereal#0 !ruit#0 or
1re(oo' in an uninha"ite' $lace or
$ri/ate "uil'ing
6enalty i& one (egree lo$er i cereal&, ruit& or
-re$oo( are ta7en in ro""er (ith !orce
u$on thing#.
GcerealH K palay or other &ee(ling&
3he palay 'u&t !e 7ept !y the o$ner a&
G&ee(lingH or ta7en or that purpo&e !y the
ro!!er&.
Article 3>.. Po##e##ion o! $ic)loc)# or
#i&ilar tool#
Ele'ent&E
5. OAen(er ha& in hi& po&&e&&ion pic7loc7& or
&i'ilar tool&F
2. "uch pic7loc7 or &i'ilar tool& are e&pecially
a(opte( to the co''i&&ion o ro!!eryF
3. OAen(er (oe& not ha%e la$ul cau&e or
&uch po&&e&&ion.
Article 3>2. @al#e )e#
8al&e 7ey& inclu(e the ollo$ingE
5. 3ool& 'entione( in Article 34)F
2. Genuine 7ey& &tolen ro' the o$nerF
3. Any 7ey other than tho&e inten(e( !y the
o$ner or u&e in the loc7 orci!ly opene(
!y the oAen(er.
'a#nappin"
R.A. 4239
AntiACarna$$ing Act o! ?982
"EC3ION 2. /e-nition o 3er'&. N
OCarnappingO i& the ta7ing, $ith intent to gain, o a
'otor %ehicle !elonging to another $ithout the
latterP& con&ent, or !y 'ean& o %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o per&on&, or !y u&ing orce upon
thing&.
O;otor %ehicleO i& any %ehicle propelle( !y any po$er
other than 'u&cular po$er u&ing the pu!lic
high$ay&, !ut e2cepting roa( roller&, trolley car&,
&treetB&$eeper&, &prin7ler&, la$n 'o$er&, !ull(oQer&,
gra(er&, or7Blit&, a'phi!ian truc7&, an( crane& i
not u&e( on pu!lic high$ay&, %ehicle&, $hich run
only on rail& or trac7&, an( tractor&, trailer& an(
traction engine& o all 7in(& u&e( e2clu&i%ely or
agricultural purpo&e&. 3railer& ha%ing any nu'!er o
$heel&, $hen propelle( or inten(e( to !e propelle(
!y attach'ent to a 'otor %ehicle, &hall !e cla&&i-e(
a& &eparate 'otor %ehicle $ith no po$er rating.
O/eacing or ta'pering $ithO a &erial nu'!er i& the
era&ing, &cratching, altering or changing o the
original actoryBin&cri!e( &erial nu'!er on the 'otor
%ehicle engine, engine !loc7 or cha&&i& o any 'otor
%ehicle. Whene%er any 'otor %ehicle i& oun( to
ha%e a &erial nu'!er on it& 'otor engine, engine
!loc7 or cha&&i& $hich i& (iAerent ro' that $hich i&
li&te( in the recor(& o the Bureau o Cu&to'& or
'otor %ehicle& i'porte( into the 6hilippine&, that
'otor %ehicle &hall !e con&i(ere( to ha%e a (eace(
or ta'pere( $ith &erial nu'!er.
ORepaintingO i& changing the color o a 'otor %ehicle
!y 'ean& o painting. 3here i& repainting $hene%er
the ne$ color o a 'otor %ehicle i& (iAerent ro' it&
color a& regi&tere( in the Lan( 3ran&portation
Co''i&&ion.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
125
OBo(yB!uil(ingO i& a +o! un(erta7en on a 'otor
%ehicle in or(er to replace it& entire !o(y $ith a ne$
!o(y.
ORe'o(ellingO i& the intro(uction o &o'e change& in
the &hape or or' o the !o(y o the 'otor %ehicle.
O/i&'antlingO i& the tearing apart, piece !y piece or
part !y part, o a 'otor %ehicle.
OO%erhaulingO i& the cleaning or repairing o the
$hole engine o a 'otor %ehicle !y &eparating the
'otor engine an( it& part& ro' the !o(y o the
'otor %ehicle.
SECTION 3. Regi&tration o ;otor =ehicle Engine,
Engine Bloc7 an( Cha&&i&. N Within one year ater
the appro%al o thi& Act, e%ery o$ner or po&&e&&or o
unregi&tere( 'otor %ehicle or part& thereo in 7noc7
(o$n con(ition &hall regi&ter $ith the Lan(
3ran&portation Co''i&&ion the 'otor %ehicle engine,
engine !loc7 an( cha&&i& in hi& na'e or in the na'e
o the real o$ner $ho &hall !e rea(ily a%aila!le to
an&$er any clai' o%er the regi&tere( 'otor %ehicle
engine, engine !loc7 or cha&&i&. 3hereater, all 'otor
%ehicle engine&, engine !loc7& an( cha&&i& not
regi&tere( $ith the Lan( 3ran&portation Co''i&&ion
&hall !e con&i(ere( a& unta2e( i'portation or
co'ing ro' an illegal &ource or carnappe(, an( &hall
!e con-&cate( in a%or o the Go%ern'ent.
All o$ner& o 'otor %ehicle& in all citie& an(
'unicipalitie& are reCuire( to regi&ter their car& $ith
the local police $ithout paying any charge&.
SECTION .. 6er'anent Regi&try o ;otor =ehicle
Engine&, Engine Bloc7& an( Cha&&i&. N 3he Lan(
3ran&portation Co''i&&ion &hall 7eep a per'anent
regi&try o 'otor %ehicle engine&, engine !loc7& an(
cha&&i& o all 'otor %ehicle&, &peciying therein their
type, 'a7e an( &erial nu'!er& an( &tating therein
the na'e& an( a((re&&e& o their pre&ent an(
pre%iou& o$ner&. Copie& o the regi&try an( o all
entrie& 'a(e thereon &hall !e urni&he( the
6hilippine Con&ta!ulary an( all Lan( 3ran&portation
Co''i&&ion regional, pro%incial an( city !ranch
oMce&E 6ro%i(e(, 3hat all Lan( 3ran&portation
Co''i&&ion regional, pro%incial an( city !ranch
oMce& are li7e$i&e o!lige( to urni&h copie& o all
regi&tration o 'otor %ehicle& to the 'ain oMce an(
to the 6hilippine Con&ta!ulary.
SECTION 2. Regi&tration o "ale, 3ran&er,
Con%eyance, "u!&titution or Replace'ent o a ;otor
=ehicle Engine, Engine Bloc7 or Cha&&i&. N E%ery
&ale, tran&er, con%eyance, &u!&titution or
replace'ent o a 'otor %ehicle engine, engine !loc7
or cha&&i& o a 'otor %ehicle &hall !e regi&tere( $ith
the Lan( 3ran&portation Co''i&&ion. ;otor %ehicle&
a&&e'!le( an( re!uilt or repaire( !y replace'ent
$ith 'otor %ehicle engine&, engine !loc7& an(
cha&&i& not regi&tere( $ith the Lan( 3ran&portation
Co''i&&ion &hall not !e i&&ue( certi-cate& o
regi&tration an( &hall !e con&i(ere( a& unta2e(
i'porte( 'otor %ehicle& or 'otor %ehicle& carnappe(
or procee(ing ro' illegal &ource&.
SECTION 4. Original Regi&tration o ;otor =ehicle&.
N Any per&on &ee7ing the original regi&tration o a
'otor %ehicle, $hether that 'otor %ehicle i& ne$ly
a&&e'!le( or re!uilt or acCuire( ro' a regi&tere(
o$ner, &hall $ithin one $ee7 ater the co'pletion o
the a&&e'!ly or re!uil(ing +o! or the acCui&ition
thereo ro' the regi&tere( o$ner, apply to the
6hilippine Con&ta!ulary or clearance o the 'otor
%ehicle or regi&tration $ith the Lan( 3ran&portation
Co''i&&ion. 3he 6hilippine Con&ta!ulary &hall, upon
receipt o the application, %eriy i the 'otor %ehicle
or it& nu'!ere( part& are in the li&t o carnappe(
'otor %ehicle& or &tolen 'otor %ehicle part&. I the
'otor %ehicle or any o it& nu'!ere( part& i& not in
that li&t, the 6hilippine Con&ta!ulary &hall orth$ith
i&&ue a certi-cate o clearance. <pon pre&entation o
the certi-cate o clearance ro' the 6hilippine
Con&ta!ulary an( ater %eri-cation o the regi&tration
o the 'otor %ehicle engine, engine !loc7 an(
cha&&i& in the per'anent regi&try o 'otor %ehicle
engine&, engine !loc7& an( cha&&i&, the Lan(
3ran&portation Co''i&&ion &hall regi&ter the 'otor
%ehicle in accor(ance $ith e2i&ting la$&, rule& an(
regulation&.
SECTION ?.. 6enalty or Carnapping. N Any per&on
$ho i& oun( guilty o carnapping, a& thi& ter' i&
(e-ne( in "ection t$o o thi& Act, &hall, irre&pecti%e
o the %alue o 'otor %ehicle ta7en, !e puni&he( !y
i'pri&on'ent or not le&& than ourteen year& an(
eight 'onth& an( not 'ore than &e%enteen year&
an( our 'onth&, $hen the carnapping i& co''itte(
$ithout %iolence or inti'i(ation o per&on&, or orce
upon thing&F an( !y i'pri&on'ent or not le&& than
&e%enteen year& an( our 'onth& an( not 'ore than
thirty year&, $hen the carnapping i& co''itte( !y
'ean& o %iolence again&t or inti'i(ation o any
per&on, or orce upon thing&F an( the penalty o lie
i'pri&on'ent to (eath &hall !e i'po&e( $hen the
o$ner, (ri%er or occupant o the carnappe( 'otor
%ehicle i& 7ille( in the co''i&&ion o the carnapping.
SECTION ?2. Alien&. N Alien& con%icte( un(er the
pro%i&ion& o thi& Act &hall !e (eporte( i''e(iately
ater &er%ice o &entence $ithout urther procee(ing&
!y the /eportation Boar(.
People vs. %ela Cr!6
"he crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when
there is taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which
belonged to another, without the latter-s consent or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things.
46on vs. People
% motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle, which is defined as
any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular
power using public highways. Public highways are those
free for the use of every person, thus not limited to a
national road connecting various towns.
(i"hwa )obbe#
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
125
P.5. 232
AntiAPirac an' AntiABigh(a Ro""er *a( o!
?98.
SECTION 2. /e-nition o 3er'&. N 3he ollo$ing
ter'& &hall 'ean an( !e un(er&too(, a& ollo$&E
a. 6hilippine Water&. N It &hall reer to all !o(ie& o
$ater, &uch a& !ut not li'ite( to, &ea&, gul&,
!ay& aroun(, !et$een an( connecting each o
the I&lan(& o the 6hilippine Archipelago,
irre&pecti%e o it& (epth, !rea(th, length or
(i'en&ion, an( all other $ater& !elonging to the
6hilippine& !y hi&toric or legal title, inclu(ing
territorial &ea, the &eaB!e(, the in&ular &hel%e&,
an( other &u!'arine area& o%er $hich the
6hilippine& ha& &o%ereignty or +uri&(iction.
!. =e&&el. N Any %e&&el or $atercrat u&e( or
tran&port o pa&&enger& an( cargo ro' one
place to another through 6hilippine Water&. It
&hall inclu(e all 7in(& an( type& o %e&&el& or
!oat& u&e( in -&hing.
c. 6hilippine 9igh$ay. N It &hall reer to any roa(,
&treet, pa&&age, high$ay an( !ri(ge& or other
part& thereo, or rail$ay or railroa( $ithin the
6hilippine& u&e( !y per&on&, or %ehicle&, or
loco'oti%e& or train& or the 'o%e'ent or
circulation o per&on& or tran&portation o goo(&,
article&, or property or !oth.
(. 6iracy. N Any attac7 upon or &eiQure o any
%e&&el, or the ta7ing a$ay o the $hole or part
thereo or it& cargo, eCuip'ent, or the per&onal
!elonging& o it& co'ple'ent or pa&&enger&,
irre&pecti%e o the %alue thereo, !y 'ean& o
%iolence again&t or inti'i(ation o per&on& or
orce upon thing&, co''itte( !y any per&on,
inclu(ing a pa&&enger or 'e'!er o the
co'ple'ent o &ai( %e&&el, in 6hilippine $ater&,
&hall !e con&i(ere( a& piracy. 3he oAen(er& &hall
!e con&i(ere( a& pirate& an( puni&he( a&
hereinater pro%i(e(.
e. 9igh$ay Ro!!eryRBrigan(age. N 3he &eiQure o
any per&on or ran&o', e2tortion or other
unla$ul purpo&e&, or the ta7ing a$ay o the
property o another !y 'ean& o %iolence
again&t or inti'i(ation o per&on or orce upon
thing& o other unla$ul 'ean&, co''itte( !y
any per&on on any 6hilippine 9igh$ay.
SECTION 3. 6enaltie&. N Any per&on $ho co''it&
piracy or high$ay ro!!eryR!rigan(age a& herein
(e-ne(, &hall, upon con%iction !y co'petent court
!e puni&he( !yE
6iracy. N 3he penalty o reclusion temporal in it&
'e(iu' an( 'a2i'u' perio(& &hall !e
i'po&e(. I phy&ical in+urie& or other cri'e& are
co''itte( a& a re&ult or on the occa&ion
thereo, the penalty o reclusion perpetua &hall
!e i'po&e(. I rape, 'ur(er or ho'ici(e i&
co''itte( a& a re&ult or on the occa&ion o
piracy, or $hen the oAen(er& a!an(one( the
%icti'& $ithout 'ean& o &a%ing the'&el%e&, or
$hen the &eiQure i& acco'pli&he( !y -ring upon
or !oar(ing a %e&&el, the 'an(atory penalty o
(eath &hall !e i'po&e(.
9igh$ay Ro!!eryRBrigan(age. N 3he penalty o
reclusion temporal in it& 'ini'u' perio( &hall
!e i'po&e(. I phy&ical in+urie& or other cri'e&
are co''itte( (uring or on the occa&ion o the
co''i&&ion o ro!!ery or !rigan(age, the
penalty o reclu&ion te'poral in it& 'e(iu' an(
'a2i'u' perio(& &hall !e i'po&e(. I
7i(napping or ran&o' or e2tortion, or 'ur(er or
ho'ici(e, or rape i& co''itte( a& a re&ult or on
the occa&ion thereo, the penalty o (eath &hall
!e i'po&e(.
SECTION .. Ai(ing pirate& or high$ay
ro!!er&R!rigan(& or a!etting piracy or high$ay
ro!!eryR!rigan(age. N Any per&on $ho 7no$ingly
an( in any 'anner ai(& or protect& pirate& or
high$ay ro!!er&R!rigan(&, &uch a& gi%ing the'
inor'ation a!out the 'o%e'ent o police or other
peace oMcer& o the go%ern'ent, or acCuire& or
recei%e& property ta7en !y &uch pirate& or !rigan(&
or in any 'anner (eri%e& any !ene-t therero'F or
any per&on $ho (irectly or in(irectly a!et& the
co''i&&ion o piracy or high$ay ro!!ery or
!rigan(age, &hall !e con&i(ere( a& an acco'plice o
the principal oAen(er& an( !e puni&he( in
accor(ance $ith the Rule& pre&cri!e( !y the Re%i&e(
6enal Co(e.
It &hall !e pre&u'e( that any per&on $ho (oe& any
o the act& pro%i(e( in thi& "ection ha& peror'e(
the' 7no$ingly, unle&& the contrary i& pro%en.
People vs. P!no
%ccused held up Crs )armiento in her car at gunpoint.
"hey were able to e$tort P!+++ in cash and P9++,+++ in
check. 7as highway robbery committed0 NO. 7e should
not adopt the literal interpretation that all types of taking
of property as long as committed in a highway would be
covered by P> *2.
People vs. P!l!san
Facts# %ccused held up a passenger jeep along the
Cc%rthur highway. Of the , passengers, the only woman,
Carilyn was successively raped by the accused at a
talahiban and & male passengers were clubbed and stabbed
on after the other. "hey were convicted of robbery with
homicide although they were charged with highway
robbery. 7hat was the crime committed0
Held# 1obbery with homicide, not highway robbery.
=onviction under P> *2 re(uires proof that the accused
were organised for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminatel+. /n this case, there was no proof that the
& accused previously attempted to commit armed
robberies.
'attle )ustlin"
PRESI5ENTIA* 5ECREE NO. 233
TBE ANTIACATT*E R+ST*ING *AW O@ ?98.
What i# cattle ru#tlingC
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
12(
Cattle ru&tling i& the ta7ing a$ay !y any 'ean&,
'etho( or &che'e, $ithout the con&ent o the
o$nerRrai&er, o any o the a!o%eB'entione( ani'al&
$hether or not or pro-t or gain, or $hether
co''itte( $ith or $ithout %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o any per&on or orce upon thing&. It
inclu(e& the 7illing o large cattle, or ta7ing it& 'eat
or hi(e $ithout the con&ent o the o$nerRrai&er.
Large cattle B a& herein u&e( &hall inclu(e the co$,
cara!ao, hor&e, 'ule, a&&, or other (o'e&ticate(
'e'!er o the !o%ine a'ily.

O$nerRrai&erB &hall inclu(e the her(&'an, careta7er,
e'ployee or tenant o any -r' or entity engage( in
the rai&ing o large cattle or other per&on& in la$ul
po&&e&&ion o &uch large cattle.
/uty o the o$nerRrai&er
!eore the large cattle !elonging to hi' &hall
attain the age o &i2 'onth&, regi&ter the &a'e $ith
the oMce o the cityR'unicipal trea&urer $here &uch
large cattle are rai&e(.
Per&it to Du an' Sell *arge Cattle.
No per&on, partner&hip, a&&ociation, corporation or
entity &hall engage in the !u&ine&& o !uy an( &ell o
large cattle $ithout -r&t &ecuring a per'it or the
&ai( purpo&e ro' the 6ro%incial Co''an(er o the
pro%ince $here it &hall con(uct &uch !u&ine&& an(
the cityR'unicipal trea&urer o the place o re&i(ence
o &uch per&on, partner&hip, a&&ociation, corporation
or entity. 3he per'it &hall only !e %ali( in &uch
pro%ince.
Clearance !or Shi$&ent o! *arge Cattle.
Any per&on, partner&hip, a&&ociation, corporation or
entity (e&iring to &hip or tran&port large cattle, it&
hi(e&, or 'eat, ro' one pro%ince to another &hall
&ecure a per'it or &uch purpo&e ro' the 6ro%incial
Co''an(er o the pro%ince $here the large cattle i&
regi&tere(. Beore i&&uance o the per'it herein
pre&cri!e(, the 6ro%incial Co''an(er &hall reCuire
the &u!'i&&ion o the certi-cate o o$ner&hip a&
pre&cri!e( in "ection 3 hereo, a certi-cation ro'
the 6ro%incial =eterinarian to the eAect that &uch
large cattle, hi(e& or 'eat are ree ro' any (i&ea&eF
an( &uch other (ocu'ent& or recor(& a& 'ay !e
nece&&ary. "hip'ent o large cattle, it& hi(e& or 'eat
ro' one cityR'unicipality to another $ithin the
&a'e pro%ince 'ay !e (one upon &ecuring per'it
ro' the cityR'unicipal trea&urer o the place o
origin.
Pre#u&$tion o! Cattle Ru#tling. N E%ery per&on
ha%ing in hi& po&&e&&ion, control or cu&to(y o large
cattle &hall, upon (e'an( !y co'petent authoritie&,
e2hi!it the (ocu'ent& pre&cri!e( in the prece(ing
&ection&. 8ailure to e2hi!it the reCuire( (ocu'ent&
&hall !e pri'a acie e%i(ence that the large cattle in
hi& po&&e&&ion, control or cu&to(y are the ruit& o the
cri'e o cattle ru&tling.
Penaltie# I&$o#e'
Any per&on con%icte( o cattle ru&tling a& herein
(e-ne( &hall, irre&pecti%e o the %alue o the large
cattle in%ol%e(, !e puni&he( !y pri&ion 'ayor in it&
'a2i'u' perio( to reclu&ion te'poral in it& 'e(iu'
perio( i the oAen&e i& co''itte( $ithout %iolence
again&t or inti'i(ation o per&on& or orce upon
thing&.
I the oAen&e i& co''itte( $ith %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o per&on& or orce upon thing&, the
penalty o reclu&ion te'poral in it& 'a2i'u' perio(
to reclu&ion perpetua &hall !e i'po&e(.
I a per&on i& &eriou&ly in+ure( or 7ille( a& a re&ult or
on the occa&ion o the co''i&&ion o cattle ru&tling,
the penalty o reclu&ion perpetua to (eath &hall !e
i'po&e(.
When the oAen(er i& a go%ern'ent oMcial or
e'ployee, he &hall, in a((ition to the oregoing
penalty, !e (i&Cuali-e( ro' %oting or !eing %ote(
upon in any electionRreeren(u' an( ro' hol(ing
any pu!lic oMce or e'ploy'ent.
When the oAen(er i& an alien, he &hall !e (eporte(
i''e(iately upon the co'pletion o the &er%ice o
hi& &entence $ithout urther procee(ing&.
2aer vs. CA
Facts# =o-accused Canocatcat, arrived at the "aer-s hourse
at 2am with 2 male carabaos. Canocatcat asked "aer to
tend the carabaos for him. 9+ days later, the owners of the
carabaos, arrived at "aer-s house to retrieve the carabaos.
7hat was "aer-s participation in the crime0
Held# "aer was an accessory because he employed the
carabaos in his farm. %n accessory is someone who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, without having
participated as a principal or an accomplice, takes part
subse(uent to its commission by profiting himself by the
effects of the crime.
;rdonio vs. CA
Facts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. 7hen Pajunar
in(uired abt his cow, Ordonio denied seeing it. "he cow
was eventually found in Ordonio-s possession, but Ordonio
claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by
his brother %gustin, such that Pajunar had to enlist the aid
of the brgy captain and P= soldiers to retrieve his cow.
Held# "he law reads taking away by any means,
methods or schemes. Ordonio-s stubborn insistence that
the calf belonged to his brother, when he knew fully well
that it belonged to Pajunar, is the essence cattle rustling.
"he perpetrator-s intent to gain is then inferred from his
deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper
person, knowing that the property does not belong to him.
DRIGAN5AGE
a cri'e co''itte( !y 'ore than 3 ar'e(
per&on& $ho or' a !an( o ro!!er& or the
purpo&e o co''itting ro!!ery in the high$ay
or 7i(napping per&on& or the purpo&e o
e2tortion or to o!tain ran&o', or or any other
purpo&e to !e attaine( !y 'ean& o orce an(
%iolence.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
12,
Article 3>4. Who are "rigan'#
Ele'ent& o !rigan(ageE
5. 3here are lea&t our ar'e( per&on&F
2. 3hey or'e( a !an( o ro!!er&F
3. 3he purpo&e i& any o the ollo$ingE
a. 3o co''it ro!!ery in the high$ayF
!. 3o 7i(nap per&on& or the purpo&e o
e2tortion or to o!tain ran&o'F or
c. 3o attain !y 'ean& o orce an(
%iolence any other purpo&e.
It 'u&t !e a band of robbers. 3hu&, a !an( o
(i&&i(ent& or oppo&itioni&t& $ill not Cualiy.
3he purpo&e o the !an( 'u&t !e >5? to co''it
ro!!ery in the high$ay, >2? to 7i(nap
per&on& or the purpo&e o e2tortion or
o!taining ran&o', or >3? any other purpo&e
to !e attaine( !y 'ean& o orce an(
%iolence. 3o contra&t, In ca&e o robbery by
a band, the purpo&e o the oAen(er& i& only
to co''it ro!!ery, not nece&&arily in the
high$ay.
I any o the ar'& carrie( !y any o a group o
per&on& !e an unlicensed (rearm, i& &hall
!e $re#u&e' that &ai( per&on& are
highway robbers or brigands, an( in ca&e
o con%iction, the penalty &hall !e i'po&e(
in the 'a2 perio(.
3he ar'& carrie( !y the 'e'!er& o the !an(
o ro!!er& 'ay !e any (ea(ly $eapon.
The onl thin"s to p#o!e a#e%
!? that there i& an organi&ation o 'ore
than 3 ar'e( per&on& or'ing a !an(
o ro!!er&
c? that the purpo&e o the !an( i& any o
tho&e enu'erate( in Art 34.
(? that they $ent upon the high$ay or
roa'e( upon the country or that
purpo&e
e? that the accu&e( i& a 'e'!er o &uch
!an(.
Ghigh$ayH K inclu(e& city &treet& a& $ell a&
roa(& out&i(e the citie&.
I the agree'ent a'ong 'ore than 3 ar'e(
'en $a& to commit only a particular
robbery, the oAence i& not !rigan(age, !ut
only ro!!ery in !an(.
In !rigan(age, the mere formation of a band
for any of the purposes 'entione( in the
la$ i& &uMcientF in ro!!ery in !an(, it i&
nece&&ary to pro%e that the !an( actually
co''itte( ro!!ery, a& a mere conspiracy
to commit robbery is not punishable.
Article 3>8. Ai'ing an' a"etting a "an'
o! "rigan'#
Ele'ent&E
5. 3here i& a !an( o !rigan(&F
2. OAen(er 7no$& the !an( to !e o !rigan(&F
3. OAen(er (oe& any o the ollo$ing act&E
a. 9e in any 'anner ai(&, a!et& or
protect& &uch !an( o !rigan(&F
!. 9e gi%e& the' inor'ation o the
'o%e'ent& o the police or other
peace oMcer& o the go%ern'entF or
c. 9e acCuire& or recei%e& the property
ta7en !y &uch !rigan(&.
It &hall !e pre&u'e( that the per&on
peror'ing any o the act& pro%i(e( in thi&
article ha& peror'e( the' knowingly,
unle&& contrary i& pro%en.
TBE@T
co''itte( !y any per&on $ho, $ith intent to
gain !ut $ithout %iolence again&t or
inti'i(ation o per&on& nor orce upon thing&,
&hall ta7e per&onal property o another $ithout
the latter@& con&ent.
Article 3>9. Who are lia"le !or the!t
6er&on& lia!leE
5. 3ho&e $ho $ith intent to gain, !ut $ithout
%iolence again&t or inti'i(ation o per&on&
nor orce upon thing&, ta7e per&onal
property o another $ithout the latter@&
con&entF
2. 3ho&e $ho ha%ing oun( lo&t property, ail&
to (eli%er the &a'e to the local authoritie&
or to it& o$nerF
3. 3ho&e $ho, ater ha%ing 'aliciou&ly
(a'age( the property o another, re'o%e
or 'a7e u&e o the ruit& or o!+ect& o the
(a'age cau&e( !y the'F
). 3ho&e $ho enter an enclo&e( e&tate or a
-el( $here tre&pa&& i& or!i((en or $hich
!elong& to another an(, $ithout the
con&ent o it& o$ner, hunt or -&h upon the
&a'e or gather ruit&, cereal& or other
ore&t or ar' pro(uct&.
Ele'ent&E
5. 3here i& ta7ing o per&onal propertyF
2. 3he property ta7en !elong& to anotherF
3. 3he ta7ing $a& (one $ith intent to gainF
). 3he ta7ing $a& (one $ithout the con&ent o
the o$nerF
*. 3he ta7ing i& acco'pli&he( $ithout the u&e
o %iolence again&t or inti'i(ation o
per&on& o orce upon thing&.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
128
Gta7ingH ta7ing away or carrying
awayF thu&, thet i& con&u''ate( $hen
the culprit& $ere a!le to ta7e po&&e&&ion o
the thing ta7en !y the'. It i& not an
in(i&pen&a!le ele'ent o thet that the
thie carry, 'ore or le&& ar a$ay, the thing
ta7en !y hi' ro' it& o$ner.
A& o 2440, the Court hel( that
aspo#tation i# co&$lete !ro& the
&o&ent the oEen'er ha' !ull
$o##e##ion o! the thing0 e/en i! he 'i'
not ha/e an o$$ortunit to 'i#$o#e o!
the #a&e..
animus lucan$i K intent to gain
3he taking in thet 'u&t ha%e the
character o per'anency. 3hu&, the
oAen(er 'u&t ha%e the intention o 'a7ing
hi'&el the o$ner o the thing ta7en.
3he unla$ul ta7ing 'ay occur at or
soon afte# the tran&er o $h#ical
$o##e##ion ;not 3uri'ical $o##e##ion<
o the thing to the oAen(er. 3he actual
tran&er o po&&e&&ion 'ay not al$ay& an(
!y it&el con&titute the unla$ul ta7ing, !ut
an act 'one #oon therea!ter !y the
oAen(er $hich 'ay re&ult in unla$ul
ta7ing or a&portation. In &uch ca&e, the
article i& (ee'e( to ha%e !een ta7en al&o,
although in the beginning, it was in fact
given to, and received by, the ofender.
Illu&trationE 3ina ga%e Rey her role2 $atch
or the purpo&e o ha%ing it e2a'ine( &ince
Rey ha& a pa$n&hop. Rey &u!&eCuently
appropriate( it role2 $atch $ith intent to
gain an( $ithout con&ent o 3ina. # 3hi& i&
39E83.
But i the accu&e( received the thing
from another person in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under
a )uasi*contract or a contract of bailment,
an( later 'i&appropriate( or con%erte( the
thing to the pre+u(ice o another, the cri'e
i& E"3A8A, !ecau&e un(er tho&e
tran&action&, the 3uri'ical $o##e##ion o
the thing i& tran&erre( to the oAen(er.
(note: thus, the distinction between
+uridical and mere physical possession is
important!#
Intent to gain i& pre&u'e( ro' the
unla$ul ta7ing o per&onal property
!elonging to another.
3here i& thet e%en i accu&e( (i( not
ta7e the' or hi& o$n u&e.
It i& not nece&&ary that there $a& real
or actual gain on the part o the oAen(er.
It i& enough that on ta7ing the', he $a&
then actuate( !y the (e&ire or intent to
gain.
8or ro!!ery to e2i&t, it i& nece&&ary that
there &houl( !e a taking a"ainst the will
of the ownerF or thet, it &uMce& that
consent on the part of the owner is
lac*in".
It i& not ro!!ery $hen %iolence i& or a
rea&on entirely oreign to the act o ta7ing.
When goo(& $ere lo&t at the same
time, in the same place, and on the same
occasion, the per&on in po&&e&&ion o part
o the 'i&&ing property i& pre&u'e( to !e
the thie o the entire property.
3he pre&u'ption regar(ing po&&e&&ion
o &tolen property (oe& not e2clu&i%ely
reer to actual phy&ical po&&e&&ion thereo
!ut 'ay include prior unexplained
possession. In any ca&e, or the
pre&u'ption to $or7, the property 'u&t !e
recently &tolen. 3hu&, i it $a& &tolen a
long time ago, the pre&u'ption $ill not lie.
Intent to gain i& inerre( ro'
(eli!erate ailure to (eli%er the lo&t
property to the proper per&on.
8in(er o hi((en trea&ure $ho
'i&appropriate( the &hare pertaining to
the o$ner o the property i& guilty o thet
a& regar(& that &hare.
People vs. 7!linao
Eulinao shot >r =hua then left. Eulinao went back to get
>r =hua-s diamond ring. .e was convicted of illegal
possession and robbery. )= ruled that he is guilty of ".?<",
not robbery. "he taking of the ring was just an
a<tert0o!.0t. 8iolence used in killing >r =hua had no
bearing on the taking of the ring.
"antos vs. People
Penalosa gave car to )antos to be repaired. Owner wanted
to claim it back but )antos could not be found. =onvicted
of estafa in 1"= then =% convicted him of (ualified theft.
)= rule that he is guilty of ".?<", not estafa as the latter
re(uires that the offender has juridical possession of the
thing and then it is converted for his own personal use.
Not (ualified theft as the fact that the car was taken was
not alleged in the information therefore it can only be seen
as an aggravating circumstance.
L!cas v. CA& '8# "CRA ,5# )2002*
<%=")# @ucas was convicted by the 1"= together
with 7ilfredo Navarro for stealing one stereo component, a
9&-inch colored "8, an electric fan, twenty-three 32*4
pieces of cassette tapes, one 394 bo$ of car toys, four 3&4
pieces of Pyre$ crystal bowls, cash of P2+,+++.++ and
jewelry worth P9+,+++.++, valued at P9++,+++.++ all
belonging to @uisito "ua6on. "he said robbery took place
when @uisito was at work. %fter the robbery, @ucas, Navarro
and one @ovena escaped on board a tricycle.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
12#
.?@># "o sustain a conviction for theft, the
following elements must be present# 394 personal property
of another person must be taken without the latter;s
consent5 324 the act of taking the personal property of
another must be done without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons nor force upon things5 and, 3*4
there must be an intention to gain from the taking of
another person;s personal property. %ppellant are guilty of
theft.
7an v. People )200,*
"he 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. "his is clutching at straws.
"o be caught in possession of the stolen property is not an
element of the corpus delicti in theft. Corpus delicti
means the Abody or substance of the crime, and, in its
primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been
actually committed.G /n theft, corpus delicti has two
elements, namely# 394 that the property was lost by the
owner, and 324 that it was lost by felonious taking. /n the
case before us, these two elements were established. "he
amounts involved were lost by 7FP because petitioner took
them without authority to do so
:alen6!ela v. People )200,*
"he 1evised Penal =ode provisions on theft have not been
designed in such fashion as to accommodate the %diao,
>ino and ?mpelis rulings. %gain, there is no language in
%rticle *+' that e$pressly or impliedly allows that the Afree
disposition of the items stolenG is in any way determinative
of whether the crime of theft has been produced. "he
=ourt thus concludes that under t(e Revised Penal Code,
t(ere is no crime o' 'rustrated t(e't.
Article 3>9. Penaltie#
3he !a&i& o the penalty in thet i& >5? the %alue
o the thing &tolen an( in &o'e ca&e& >2?
the %alue an( al&o the nature o the
property ta7en, or >3? the circu'&tance& or
cau&e& that i'pelle( the culprit to co''it
the cri'e.
I there i& no a%aila!le e%i(ence to pro%e the
%alue o the &tolen property or that the
pro&ecution aile( to pro%e it, the court
&houl( i'po&e the 'ini'u' penalty
corre&pon(ing to thet.
Theft of +lect#icit, Ille"al Wate#, +lect#ic
o# Telephone 'onnections
PRESI5ENTIA* 5ECREE No. .>? March ?0 ?98.
PENA*IFING TBE +NA+TBORIFE5
INSTA**ATION O@ WATER0 E*ECTRICA* OR
TE*EPBONE CONNECTIONS0 TBE +SE O@
TAMPERE5 WATER OR E*ECTRICA* METERS0
AN5 OTBER ACTS
Who are puni&ha!leS BB any per&on $hoE
in&tall& any $ater, electrical or telephone
connection $ithout pre%iou& authority ro'
the ;etropolitan Water$or7& an( "e$erage
"y&te', the ;anila Electric Co'pany or the
6hilippine Long /i&tance 3elephone
Co'pany, a& the ca&e 'ay !eF
ta'per& an(Ror u&e& ta'pere( $ater or
electrical 'eter& or +u'per& or other
(e%ice& $here!y $ater or electricity i&
&tolenF &teal& or piler& $ater an(Ror electric
'eter& or $ater, electric an(Ror telephone
$ire&F
7no$ingly po&&e&&e& &tolen or pilere( $ater
an(Ror electrical 'eter& a& $ell a& &tolen or
pilere( $ater, electrical an(Ror telephone
$ire&.
R.A. 8932
Anti Electricit an' Electric Tran#&i##ion *ine#G
Material# Pil!erage Act o! ?99.
Act# $uni#ha"le
Illegal <&e o Electricity >T2?
>a? 3ap, 'a7e or cau&e to !e 'a(e any
connection $ith o%erhea( line&, &er%ice
(rop&, or other electric &er%ice $ire&,
$ithout pre%iou& authority or con&ent o the
pri%ate electric utility or rural electric
cooperati%e concerne(F
>!? 3ap, 'a7e or cau&e to !e 'a(e any
connection to the e2i&ting electric &er%ice
acilitie& o any (uly regi&tere( con&u'er
$ithout the latterP& or the electric utilityP&
con&ent or authorityF
>c? 3a'per, in&tall or u&e a ta'pere( electrical
'eter, +u'per, current re%er&ing
tran&or'er, &horting or &hunting $ire, loop
connection or any other (e%ice $hich
interere& $ith the proper or accurate
regi&try or 'etering o electric current or
other$i&e re&ult& in it& (i%er&ion in a
'anner $here!y electricity i& &tolen or
$a&te(F
>(? /a'age or (e&troy an electric 'eter,
eCuip'ent, $ire or con(uit or allo$ any o
the' to !e &o (a'age( or (e&troye( a& to
interere $ith the proper or accurate
'etering o electric currentF an(
>e? Lno$ingly u&e or recei%e the (irect !ene-t
o electric &er%ice o!taine( through any o
the act& 'entione( in &u!&ection& >a?, >!?,
>c?, an( >(? a!o%e.
3het o Electric 6o$er 3ran&'i&&ion Line& an(
;aterial& >T3?
Cut, &a$, &lice, &eparate, &plit, &e%ere, &'elt, or
re'o%e any electric po$er tran&'i&&ion
lineR'aterial or 'eter ro' a to$er, pole, or
any other in&tallation or place o in&tallation
or any other place or &ite $here it 'ay !e
rightully or la$ully &tore(, (epo&ite(, 7ept,
&toc7e(, in%entorie(, &ituate( or locate(,
$ithout the con&ent o the o$ner, $hether
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1'0
or not the act i& (one or pro-t or gainF
3a7e, carry a$ay or re'o%e or tran&er, $ith or
$ithout the u&e o a 'otor %ehicle or other
'ean& o con%eyance, any electric po$er
tran&'i&&ion lineR'aterial or 'eter ro' a
to$er, pole, any other in&tallation or place
o in&tallation, or any place or &ite $here it
'ay !e rightully or la$ully &tore(,
(epo&ite(, 7ept, &toc7e(, in%entorie(,
&ituate( or locate( $ithout the con&ent o
the o$ner, $hether or not the act i& (one
or pro-t or gainF
"tore, po&&e&& or other$i&e 7eep in hi& pre'i&e&,
cu&to(y or control, any electric po$er
tran&'i&&ion lineR'aterial or 'eter $ithout
the con&ent o the o$ner, $hether or not
the act i& (one or pro-t or gainF an(
Loa(, carry, &hip or 'o%e ro' one place to
another, $hether !y lan(, air or &ea, any
electrical po$er tran&'i&&ion lineR'aterial,
$hether or not the act i& (one or pro-t or
gain, $ithout -r&t &ecuring a
clearanceRper'it or the &ai( purpo&e ro'
it& o$ner or the National 6o$er Corporation
>N6C? or it& regional oMce concerne(, a& the
ca&e 'ay !e.
Pre#u&$tion#
8or illegal u&e o electricityE
3he pre&ence o any o the ollo$ing circu'&tance&
&hall con&titute $ri&a !acie e/i'ence o! illegal
u#e o! electricit " the $er#on "ene1te'
there", an( &hall !e the !a&i& orE
the i''e(iate (i&connection !y the electric
utility to &uch per&on ater (ue notice,
the hol(ing o a preli'inary in%e&tigation !y the
pro&ecutor an( the &u!&eCuent -ling in
court o the pertinent inor'ation, an(
the liting o any te'porary re&training or(er or
in+unction $hich 'ay ha%e !een i&&ue(
again&t a pri%ate electric utility or rural
electric cooperati%e
Circu'&tance&E
3he pre&ence o a !ore( hole on the gla&& co%er o
the electric 'eter, or at the !ac7 or any other
part o &ai( 'eterF
3he pre&ence in&i(e the electric 'eter o &alt, &ugar
an( other ele'ent& that coul( re&ult in the
inaccurate regi&tration o the 'eterP& internal
part& to pre%ent it& accurate regi&tration o
con&u'ption o electricityF
3he e2i&tence o any $iring connection $hich aAect&
the nor'al operation or regi&tration o the
electric 'eterF
3he pre&ence o a ta'pere(, !ro7en, or a7e &eal on
the 'eter, or 'utilate(, altere( or ta'pere(
'eter recor(ing chart or graph, or co'puteriQe(
chart, graph, or logF
3he pre&ence in any part o the !uil(ing or it&
pre'i&e& $hich i& &u!+ect to the control o the
con&u'er or on the electric 'eter, o a current
re%er&ing tran&or'er, +u'per, &horting an(Ror
&hunting $ire, an(Ror loop connection or any
other &i'ilar (e%iceF
3he 'utilation, alteration, reconnection,
(i&connection, !ypa&&ing or ta'pering o
in&tru'ent&, tran&or'er&, an( acce&&orie&F
3he (e&truction o, or atte'pt to (e&troy, any
integral acce&&ory o the 'etering (e%ice !o2
$hich enca&e& an electric 'eter, or it& 'etering
acce&&orie&F an(
3he acceptance o 'oney an(Ror other %alua!le
con&i(eration !y any oMcer o e'ployee o the
electric utility concerne( or the 'a7ing o &uch
an oAer to any &uch oMcer or e'ployee or not
reporting the pre&ence o any o the
circu'&tance& enu'erate( a!o%e. 3he
(i&co%ery o any o the oregoing circu'&tance&,
in or(er to con&titute pri'a acie e%i(ence,
&u#t "e $er#onall (itne##e' an' atte#te'
to " an o%cer o! the la( or a 'ul
authoriHe' re$re#entati/e o! the Energ
Regulator Doar' ;ERD<.
8or thet o electric po$er tran&'i&&ion line& an(
'aterial&
3he po&&e&&ion or cu&to(y o electric po$er
tran&'i&&ion lineR'aterial !y any per&on, natural or
+uri(ical, not engage( in the tran&or'ation,
tran&'i&&ion or (i&tri!ution o electric po$er, or in
the 'anuacture o &uch electric po$er tran&'i&&ion
lineR'aterial &hall !e pri'a acie e%i(ence that &uch
lineR'aterial i& the ruit o the oAen&e o thet o
electric po$er tran&'i&&ion line& an( 'aterial&, an(
thereore &uch lineR'aterial 'ay !e con-&cate( ro'
the per&on in po&&e&&ion, control or cu&to(y thereo.
RA 9>.?
An Act to A''re## the National Water Cri#i#
an' @or Other Pur$o#e#
"ec. 1. AntiB6ilerage. B It i& here!y (eclare( unla$ul
or any per&on toE
/e&troy, (a'age or interere $ith any canal,
race$ay, (itch, loc7, pier, inlet, cri!, !ul7hea(,
(a', gate, &er%ice, re&er%oir, aCue(uct, $ater
'ain&, $ater (i&tri!ution pipe&, con(uit, pipe&,
$ire !ench'ar7, 'onu'ent, or other $or7&,
appliance, 'achinery !uil(ing&, or property o
any $ater utility entity, $hether pu!lic or
pri%ateF
/o any 'aliciou& act $hich &hall in+uriou&ly aAect the
Cuantity or Cuality o the $ater or &e$age Jo$
o any $ater$or7& an(Ror &e$erage &y&te', or
the &upply, con%eyance, 'ea&ure'ent, or
regulation thereo, inclu(ing the pre%ention o,
or intererence $ith any authoriQe( per&on
engage( in the (i&charge o (utie& connecte(
there$ithF
6re%ent, o!&truct, an( interere $ith the &ur%ey,
$or7&, an( con&truction o acce&& roa( an(
$ater 'ain& an( (i&tri!ution net$or7 an( any
relate( $or7& o the utility entity.
3ap, 'a7e, or cau&e to !e 'a(e any connection $ith
$ater line& $ithout prior authority or con&ent
ro' the $ater utility concerne(F
3a'per, in&tall or u&e ta'pere( $ater 'eter&, &tic7&,
'agnet&, re%er&ing $ater 'eter&, &hortening o
%ane $heel& an( other (e%ice& to &teal $ater or
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1'1
interere $ith accurate regi&try or 'etering o
$ater u&age, or other$i&e re&ult in it& (i%er&ion
in a 'anner $here!y $ater i& &tolen or $a&te(F
<&e or recei%e the (irect !ene-t o $ater &er%ice $ith
7no$le(ge that (i%er&ion, ta'pering, or illegal
connection e2i&te( at the ti'e o that u&e, or
that the u&e or receipt $a& other$i&e $ithout the
authoriQation o the $ater utilityF
"teal or piler $ater 'eter&, 'ain line&, pipe& an(
relate( or ancillary acilitie&F
"teal $ater or pro-t or re&aleF
Lno$ingly po&&e&& &tolen or ta'pere( $ater 'eter&F
an(
Lno$ingly or $illully allo$ the occurrence o any o
the a!o%e.
6enaltie&E
i'pri&on'ent o &i2 >.? 'onth& to t$o >2? year& an(
a -ne not e2cee(ing (ou!le the a'ount o the
%alue o the $ater &tolen or the %alue o the
(a'age( acilitie&
I the oAen(er i& a&&i&te( in the co''i&&ion o the
cri'e !y a plu'!er, oMcer or e'ployee o the
$ater utility concerne(, the &ai( e'ployee,
oMcer or plu'!er &hall !e puni&he( !y
i'pri&on'ent o t$o >2? year& to &i2 >.? year&
I the $ater i& &tolen or pro-t or re&ale, the
oAen(er &hall !e puni&he( i'pri&on'ent ro'
&i2 >.? to t$el%e >52? year&.
Ille"al Fishin"
REP+D*IC ACT NO. 922>
An Act Pro/i'ing @or The 5e/elo$&ent0
Manage&ent An' Con#er/ation O! The
@i#herie# An' AIuatic Re#ource#0 Integrating
All *a(# Pertinent Thereto0 An' @or Other
Pur$o#e#
What act# are $uni#ha"leC
5. +nauthoriHe' @i#hing or Engaging in Other
<nauthoriQe( 8i&herie& Acti%itie&
>a? e2ploiting, !ree(ing -&h in 6hilippine $ater&
$ithout a licen&e
/i&co%ery o any per&on in an area $here he ha&
no per'it or regi&tration paper& or a -&hing %e&&el
&hall con&titute a pri'a acie pre&u'ption that the
per&on an(Ror %e&&el i& engage( in unauthoriQe(
-&hingE B<3, -&hing or (aily oo( &u&tenance or or
lei&ure $hich i& not or co''ercial, occupation or
li%elihoo( purpo&e& 'ay !e allo$e(.
>!? -&hing !y co''ercial -&hing %e&&el& in -&hery
'anage'ent area& (eclare( a& o%er e2ploite(
>c? engaging in any co''ercial -&hing acti%ity in
'unicipal $ater& $hen not li&te( in the regi&try o
'unicipal -&herol7
2. Poaching in 6hilippine Water&
>a? oreign per&on -&hing or operating a -&hing
%e&&el in 6hilippine $ater&
3he entry o any oreign -&hing %e&&el in 6hilippine
$ater& &hall con&titute a pri'a acie e%i(ence that
the %e&&el i& engage( in -&hing in 6hilippine $ater&.
3. @i#hing Through E:$lo#i/e#0 No:iou# or
Poi#onou# Su"#tance0 an'Gor Electricit
>a? -&hing in 6hilippine $ater& $ith the u&e o
electricity, e2plo&i%e&, no2iou& or poi&onou&
&u!&tance &uch a& &o(iu' cyani(e in the 6hilippine
-&hery area&, $hich $ill 7ill, &tupey, (i&a!le or
ren(er uncon&ciou& -&h or -&hery &pecie&
3he /epart'ent, &u!+ect to &aeguar(& an(
con(ition& (ee'e( nece&&ary an( en(or&e'ent ro'
the concerne( LG<&, 'ay allo$, or re&earch,
e(ucational or &cienti-c purpo&e& only, the u&e o
electricity, poi&onou& or no2iou& &u!&tance& to catch,
ta7e or gather -&h or -&hery &pecie&E
3he u&e o poi&onou& or no2iou& &u!&tance& to
era(icate pre(ator& in -&hpon(& in accor(ance $ith
accepte( &cienti-c practice& an( $ithout cau&ing
a(%er&e en%iron'ental i'pact in neigh!oring $ater&
an( groun(& &hall not !e con&true( a& illegal -&hing.
>!? (ealing in -&h illegally caught
3he (i&co%ery o e2plo&i%e& or eCuip'ent or
electroB-&hing in any -&hing %e&&el or in the
po&&e&&ion o any -&h$or7er &hall con&titute pri'a
acie e%i(ence, that the &a'e $a& u&e( or -&hing in
%iolation o thi& Co(e.
3he (i&co%ery in any -&hing %e&&el o -&h caught
or 7ille( $ith the u&e o e2plo&i%e, no2iou& or
poi&onou& &u!&tance& or !y electricity &hall
con&titute pri'a acie e%i(ence that the -&herol7,
operator, !oat oMcial or -&h$or7er i& -&hing $ith the
u&e thereo.
>c? ;ere po&&e&&ion o e2plo&i%e, no2iou& or
poi&onou& &u!&tance& or electro-&hing (e%ice& or
illegal -&hing
>(? Actual u&e o e2plo&i%e&, no2iou& or poi&onou&
&u!&tance& or electro-&hing (e%ice& or illegal -&hing
6enalty i& $ithout pre+u(ice to the -ling o
&eparate cri'inal ca&e& $hen the u&e o the &a'e
re&ult to phy&ical in+ury or lo&& o hu'an lie.
). <&e o @ine Me#h Net
>a? -&hing u&ing net& $ith 'e&h &'aller than that
$hich 'ay !e -2e( !y the /epart'ent
6rohi!ition &hall not apply to the gathering o ry
an( &uch &pecie& $hich !y their nature are &'all !ut
alrea(y 'ature to !e i(enti-e( in the i'ple'enting
rule& an( regulation& !y the /epart'ent.
*. <&e o Acti/e Gear in the ;unicipal Water& an(
Bay& an( Other 8i&hery ;anage'ent Area&
>a? -&hing in 'unicipal $ater& an( in all !ay& a& $ell
a& other -&hery 'anage'ent area& u&ing acti%e
-&hing gear&
.. Ban on Coral E:$loitation an( E2portation
>a? &elling or e2porting or(inary preciou& an( &e'iB
preciou& coral&, $hether ra$ or in proce&&e( or',
e2cept or &cienti-c or re&earch purpo&e&.
3he con-&cate( coral& &hall either !e returne( to
the &ea or (onate( to &chool& an( 'u&eu'& or
e(ucational or &cienti-c purpo&e& or (i&po&e(
through other 'ean&.
0. Ban on MuroAA&i, Other ;etho(& an( Gear
/e&tructi%e to Coral Ree& an( Other ;arine 9a!itat
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1'2
>a? -&hing $ith gear 'etho( that (e&troy coral ree&,
&eagra&& !e(&, an( other -&hery 'arine lie ha!itat
a& 'ay !e (eter'ine( !y the /epart'ent
>!? u&ing O;uroBA'iO an( any o it& %ariation, an(
&uch &i'ilar gear an( 'etho(& that reCuire (i%ing,
other phy&ical or 'echanical act& to poun( the coral
ree& an( other ha!itat to entrap, gather or catch -&h
an( other -&hery &pecie&
>c? gathering, &elling or e2porting $hite &an(, &ilica,
pe!!le& an( other &u!&tance& $hich 'a7e up any
'arine ha!itat
1. Illegal <&e o Su$erlight#
>a? -&hing $ith the u&e o &uperlight& in 'unicipal
$ater& or in %iolation o the rule& an( regulation&
$hich 'ay !e pro'ulgate( !y the /epart'ent on the
u&e o &uperlight& out&i(e 'unicipal $ater&
9. Con/er#ion o! Mangro/e#
>a? con%erting 'angro%e& into -&hpon(& or or any
other purpo&e&
54. 8i&hing in O/er1#he' Area an( /uring Clo#e'
"ea&on
55. 8i&hing in @i#her Re#er/e#, Reuge an(
"anctuarie&
52. 8i&hing or 3a7ing o Rare, 3hreatene( or
En'angere' "pecie&
53. Capture o "a!alo an( Other Dree'er#R"pa$ner&
9o$e%er, catching o &a!alo an( other
!ree(er&R&pa$ner& or local !ree(ing purpo&e& or
&cienti-c or re&earch purpo&e& 'ay !e allo$e(
&u!+ect to gui(eline& to !e pro'ulgate( !y the
/epart'ent.
5). E2portation o Bree(er&, "pa$ner&, Egg& or 8ry
5*. I'portation or E2portation o 8i&h or 8i&hery
"pecie&
5.. =iolation o Catch Ceiling#
50. AIuatic Pollution
51. Other %iolation&
8ailure to Co'ply $ith ;ini'u' "aety
"tan(ar(&
8ailure to Con(uct a Yearly Report on all
8i&hpon(&, 8i&h 6en& an( 8i&h Cage&
Gathering an( ;ar7eting o "hell 8i&h $hich i&
&e2ually 'ature or !elo$ the 'ini'u' &iQe
or a!o%e the 'a2i'u' Cuantitie&
pre&cri!e( or the particular &pecie&
O!&truction to Na%igation or 8lo$ an( E!! o
3i(e in any "trea', Ri%er, La7e or Bay
Con&truction an( Operation o 8i&h Corral&R3rap&,
8i&h 6en& an( 8i&h Cage& $ithout a
licen&eRper'it
59. Co''ercial 8i&hing =e&&el Operator& E&$loing
+nlicen#e' @i#her!ol) or 8i&h$or7er or Cre$
24. O"#truction o! 5e1ne' Migration Path# o
ana(ro'ou&, cata(ro'ou& an( other 'igratory
&pecie&, in area& inclu(ing, !ut not li'ite( to ri%er
'outh& an( e&tuarie& $ithin a (i&tance (eter'ine(
!y the concerne( 8AR;C&
25. O"#truction to @i#her *a( En!orce&ent
O%cer
Hi6on vs. CA
)ome fish were taken from a fishing boat that tested
positive for sodium cyanide. "he accused were convicted
for illegal fishing using poisonous substances under P> !+*,
which creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when any
fish taken is positive for poisonous substances. Petitioners
(uestion the legality of the presumption. )= held that the
presumption is only prima facie hence, rebuttable by
competent evidence.
Article 3?>. Juali1e' the!t
3het i& Cuali-e( iE
5. Co''itte( !y a (o'e&tic &er%antF
2. Co''itte( $ith gra%e a!u&e o con-(enceF
3. 3he property &tolen i& a 'otor %ehicle, 'ail
'atter, or large cattleF
). 3he property &tolen con&i&t& o coconut&
ta7en ro' the pre'i&e& o a plantationF
*. 3he property &tolen i& -&h ta7en ro' a
-&hpon( or -&heryF or
.. I property i& ta7en on the occa&ion o -re,
earthCua7e, typhoon, %olcanic eruption, or
any other cala'ity, %ehicular acci(ent, or
ci%il (i&tur!ance.
6enaltie& or Cuali-e( thet are no$ ne2t
9IG9ER BY 2 /EGREE".
3het !y (o'e&tic &er%ant i& al$ay& Cuali-e(.
it i& not nece&&ary to pro%e gra%e a!u&e o
con-(ence.
3he a!u&e o con-(ence 'u&t !e gra/e.
3here 'u&t !e allegation in the inor'ation
an( proo o a relation, !y rea&on o
dependence, guardianship or vigilance,
!et$een the accu&e( an( the oAen(e(
party, that ha& create( a high (egree o
con-(ence !et$een the', $hich the
accu&e( a!u&e(.
3he gra%e a!u&e o con-(ence nee( not !e
pre'e(itate(. It& pre&ence in the
co''i&&ion o thet i& &uMcient.
3he con-(ence gra%ely a!u&e( 'u&t !e that
e2i&ting between ofended party and the
ofender.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1''
$mpelis vs. 4AC
& accused were seen carrying away + coconuts from a
plantation. "hey dropped the coconuts after being seen by
the owner. "hey were convicted of (ualified theft. )=
held that they are guilty only of <1F)"1%"?> KF%@/</?>
".?<" as they were not able to carry away the coconuts
from the plantation that is the gravamen of the offence
under %rt *9+.
People vs. Ca=ales
Facts: %ccused are employees of <irst :ase =orp. "hey
stole a truck and !++ cartons of fro6en prawn from the
company. "hey were tasked to deliver the prawns to the
pier using the truck. "he truck, however, was subse(uently
recovered. 7as there (ualified theft as to the recovered
truck0
Held: "he recovery of the stolen motor vehicle does not
mean that the crime of (ualified theft was not
consummated. Neither will it diminish the criminal
responsibility of appellant. /n People v. Carpio# "he .ist
o< t0e o<<ense o< larcen+ consists in t0e <!rtive ta>in.
and asportation o< propert+& animo lucrandi& and wit0
intent to deprive t0e tr!e owner o< t0e possession
t0ereo<. "he act of asportation in this case was
undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thief
to profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived the
true owner of the possession of the entire automobile, the
offense of larceny comprised the whole car. "he fact that
the accused stripped the car of its tires and abandoned the
machine in a distant part of the city did not make the
appellant any less liable for the larceny of the automobile.
"he deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his
right of possession were complete as to the entire car5 and
the fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly to
abandon the machine in no wise limits their criminal
responsibility to the particular parts of the car that were
appropriate and subse(uently used by the appellant upon
his own car.
People v. Re+naldo a.o )2000*
<%=")# 1eynaldo :ago was an employee of %6kcon
Cetal /ndustries from 9D''-9DD2. <rom 9DD9 to 9DD2, he
served as team leader at the cutting department under the
supervision of the Caterial =omptroller who kept track of
all the materials coming in and going out of the company-s
plant in Qalookan =ity. %6kcon has a business arrangement
with Power =onstruction )upply =ompany 3Power
=onstruction4 whereby %6kcon buys cold rolled sheets from
the latter. "hese cold rolled sheets are also cut by Power
=onstruction for a fee and %6kcon converts them into
drums or containers. :ago-s job was to go to Power
=onstruction-s establishment in Kue6on =ity to oversee the
cutting of the cold rolled sheets and ensure their delivery
to %6kcon using the trucks sent by .ilo. :ago was
discovered to have participated in the theft of materials
worth P9D2,+++.++. "he trial court found him guilty of
(ualified theft.
.?@># "he trial court correctly found that
appellant was a trusted employee of %6kcon. .e was in-
charge of overseeing the cutting of the materials at Power
=onstruction and ensuring their delivery to %6kcon. >ue to
this trust, he succeeded in withdrawing from the said
supplier the cold rolled sheets. "he materials he took from
the supplier on Carch 2*, 9DD2 could not be found in the
premises of %6kcon and there was no evidence that he
delivered them on said date or on any other day thereafter.
/ne$plicably, appellant presented the third receipt 3/nvoice
No. 99994 dated Carch 2*, 9DD2 for stamping only on %pril
29, 9DD2. "he reasonable conclusion is that he asported the
materials.
=learly, all the elements of theft were
established, to wit# 394 there was a taking of personal
property5 324 the property belongs to another5 3*4 the
taking was without the consent of the owner5 3&4 the taking
was done with intent to gain5 and 34 the taking was
accomplished without violence or intimidation against the
person or force upon things. %s the theft was committed
with grave abuse of confidence, appellant is guilty of
(ualified theft.
People v. L!isito !stinera )2005*
<%=")# ?)= "ransport hired @uisito :ustinera as a
ta$i driver. /t was agreed that appellant would drive the
ta$i from ,#++ a.m. to 99#++ p.m., after which he would
return it to ?)= "ransport;s garage and remit the boundary
fee in the amount of P!'+.++ per day. On >ecember 2,
9DD,, appellant admittedly reported for work and drove
the ta$i, but he did not return it on the same day as he was
supposed to. "he owner of ?)= reported the ta$i stolen. On
Ianuary D, 9DD!, :ustinera;s wife went to ?)= "ransport and
revealed that the ta$i had been abandoned. ?)= was able
to recovered. "he trial court found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of (ualified theft.
.?@># :ustinera was convicted of (ualified theft
under %rticle *9+ of the 1evised Penal =ode, as amended
for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. .owever, %rticle
*9+ has been modified, with respect to certain vehicles, by
1epublic %ct No. ,*D, as amended, otherwise known as
2%N %=" P1?8?N"/NE %N> P?N%@/O/NE =%1N%PP/NE.2
7hen statutes are in pari materia or when they
relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of
persons or things, or cover the same specific or particular
subject matter, or have the same purpose or object, the
rule dictates that they should be construed together
"he elements of the crime of theft as provided
for in %rticle *+' of the 1evised Penal =ode are# 394 that
there be taking of personal property5 324 that said property
belongs to another5 3*4 that the taking be done with intent
to gain5 3&4 that the taking be done without the consent of
the owner5 and 34 that the taking be accomplished without
the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things.
"heft is (ualified when any of the following
circumstances is present# 394 the theft is committed by a
domestic servant5 324 the theft is committed with grave
abuse of confidence5 3*4 the property stolen is either a
motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle5 3&4 the property
stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a
plantation5 34 the property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery5 and 3,4 the property was taken on the
occasion of fire, earth(uake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
On the other hand, )ection 2 of 1epublic %ct No.
,*D, as amended defines 2carnapping2 as 2the taking, with
intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter;s consent, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.2 "he elements of carnapping are thus# 394 the taking
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1'5
of a motor vehicle which belongs to another5 324 the taking
is without the consent of the owner or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force
upon things5 and 3*4 the taking is done with intent to gain.
=arnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a
motori6ed vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in theft,
robbery and carnapping being the same. <rom the
foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful
taking of a >aewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and
not the provisions of (ualified theft which would apply.
?onat0an %. Caria.a v. Co!rt o< Appeals )2001*
<%=")# 2@uis Ciguel %boiti6 was the )ystems
%nalyst of the >avao @ight R Power =ompany, /nc. 3>@P=4,
whose duty was to devise means to prevent losses due to
waste, pilferage or theft of company property. .e received
reports that some private electricians were engaged in the
clandestine sale of >@P= materials and supplies. .e
initiated a covert operation to discover the method and to
capture one of the culprits. Fsing an undercover agent, the
group was brought down and Ionathan =ariaga was charged
and found guilty of (ualified by grave abuse of confidence
.?@># "he defense, verily, anchors itself on the
bare denial of petitioner of the specific acts imputed by
the prosecution against him. =ertainly, this negative
assertion cannot prevail over the unimpeached testimony
of the prosecution witness describing in sufficient detail
the active participation of petitioner in the commission of
the crime charged. 7e note that the information alleged
that petitioner was an employee of >@P=5 that he had
access to the electrical supplies of said company5 and that
with grave abuse of confidence, he stole electrical
materials belonging to >@P=. "he prosecution established
that petitioner who was permanently assigned as driver of
"ruck 2)-9&*2 had charge of all the >@P= e(uipment and
supplies kept in his vehicle, including lightning arresters,
cut-out and wires, which were generally used for the
installation of transformers and power lines5 and
specifically stored therein for emergency operations at
night when the stockroom is closed. 7hile the mere
circumstance that the petitioner is an employee or laborer
of >@P= does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law re(uires to designate
the crime as (ualified theft, it has been held that access to
the place where the taking took place or access to the
stolen items changes the comple$ion of the crime
committed to that of (ualified theft.
People v R!/en "ison )2000*
<%=")# 1uben )ison first joined the %uditing
>epartment of the Philippine =ommercial /nternational
:ank 3P=/:4 in >ecember 9D!!. .e rose from the ranks and
was promoted to the position of %ssistant Canager and
concurrently held the position of :ranch Operation Officer.
%s such, he was assigned to different branches until his last
detail at the P=/: @uneta :ranch in <ebruary 9DD9. .e was
the primary control officer directly responsible for the day
to day operations of the branch, including custody of the
cash vault. )ison facilitated the crediting of two 324
fictitious remittances in the amounts of P*,2+,+++.++ and
P&,!,+++.++ in favor of )olid 1ealty >evelopment
=orporation, an e(ually fictitious account, and then later
the withdrawal of P,,+++,+++.++ from the P=/: @uneta
:ranch. .e was charged and found guilty of (ualified theft.
.?@># "he appeal has no merit. "he trial court
correctly convicted appellant of Kualified "heft on the
basis of circumstantial evidence. Fltimately, the
combination of all the incriminating facts proven by the
prosecution and the logical inferences derived therefrom
leave no doubt in Our mind that appellant, with grave
abuse of confidence, conceived and accomplished the theft
of P,,+++,+++.++ from the P=/: @uneta :ranch.
"he crime perpetuated by appellant against his
employer, the Philippine =ommercial and /ndustrial :ank
3P=/:4, is (ualified theft. %ppellant could not have
committed the crime had he not been holding the position
of @uneta :ranch Operation Officer which gave him not
only sole access to the bank vault but also control of the
access of all bank employees in that branch, e$cept the
:ranch Canager, to confidential and highly delicate
computeri6ed security systems designed to safeguard,
among others, the integrity of telegraphic fund transfers
and account names of bank clients. "he management of the
P=/: reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its
@uneta :ranch Operation Officer, and it was this trust and
confidence which he e$ploited to enrich himself to the
damage and prejudice of P=/: in the amount of
P,,+++,+++.++.
As!ncion Ro@!e v People )2005*
<%=")# %suncion 1o(ue was a teller of the :asa
%ir :ase )avings and @oan %ssociation /nc. 3:%:)@%4. )he
was found to have taken money from several of the
depositors. Fnable to return the money, she was charged
with (ualified theft and covicted. 1o(ue argued that since
the money was lawfully received by her and later
misappropriated she was guilty only of estafa.
.?@># /n the present case, what is involved is the
possession of money in the capacity of a bank teller. /n
People v. @ocson this =ourt considered deposits received by
a teller in behalf of a bank as being only in the material
possession of the teller. "his interpretation applies with
e(ual force to money received by a bank teller at the
beginning of a business day for the purpose of servicing
withdrawals. )uch is only material possession. Iuridical
possession remains with the bank. /n line with the
reasoning of the =ourt in several cases, beginning with
People v. >e 8era, if the teller appropriates the money for
personal gain then the felony committed is theft and not
estafa. <urther, since the teller occupies a position of
confidence, and the bank places money in the teller;s
possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, the
felony of (ualified theft would be committed.
Ast!dillo v. People )200(*
Cere circumstance that petitioners were employees of
7estern does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law re(uires. 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. "hey had no hand in the safekeeping,
preparation and issuance of invoices. "hey merely assisted
customers in making a purchase and in demonstrating the
merchandise to prospective buyers. 7hile they had access
to the merchandise, they had no access to the cashier-s
booth or to the cash payments subject of the offense.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1'5
Ille"al Lo""in"
P.5. 33>
PenaliHingTi&"er S&uggling or
Illegal Cutting o! *og#
SECTION ?. Any per&on, $hether natural or
+uri(ical, $ho (irectly or in(irectly cut&, gather&,
re'o%e&, or &'uggle& ti'!er, or other ore&t
pro(uct&, either ro' any o the pu!lic ore&t, ore&t
re&er%e& an( other 7in(& o pu!lic ore&t&, $hether
un(er licen&e or lea&e, or ro' any pri%ately o$ne(
ore&t lan(& in %iolation o e2i&ting la$&, rule& an(
regulation &hall !e guilty o the cri'e o Cuali-e(
thet a& (e-ne( an( penaliQe( un(er Article& 341,
349 an( 354 o the Re%i&e( 6enal Co(eF 6ro%i(e(,
3hat i the oAen(er i& a corporation, -r', partner&hip
or a&&ociation, the penalty &hall !e i'po&e( upon the
guilty oMcer or oMcer&, a& the ca&e 'ay !e, o the
corporation, -r', partner&hip or a&&ociation, an( i
&uch guilty oMcer or oMcer& are alien&, in a((ition to
the penalty herein pre&cri!e(, he or they &hall !e
(eporte( $ithout urther procee(ing& on the part o
the Co''i&&ione( o I''igration an( /eportation.
P.5. 8>2
The @ore#tr Re!or& Co'e ;a# a&en'e'<
SECTION 49. Cutting, gathering an(Ror collecting
ti'!er or other pro(uct& $ithout licen&e. N Any
per&on $ho &hall cut, gather, collect, or re'o%e
ti'!er or other ore&t pro(uct& ro' any ore&t lan(,
or ti'!er ro' aliena!le an( (i&po&a!le pu!lic lan(&,
or ro' pri%ate lan(&, $ithout any authority un(er a
licen&e agree'ent, lea&e, licen&e or per'it, &hall !e
guilty o Cuali-e( thet a& (e-ne( an( puni&he(
un(er Article& 349 an( 354 o the R6CF 6ro%i(e(,
3hat in the ca&e o partner&hip, a&&ociation or
corporation, the oMcer& $ho or(ere( the cutting,
gathering or collecting &hall !e lia!le, an( i &uch
oMcer& are alien&, they &hall, in a((ition to the
penalty, !e (eporte( $ithout urther procee(ing& on
the part o the Co''i&&ion on I''igration an(
/eportation.
3he Court &hall urther or(er the con-&cation in a%or
o the go%ern'ent o the ti'!er or ore&t pro(uct& to
cut, gathere(, collecte( or re'o%e(, an( the
'achinery, eCuip'ent, i'ple'ent& an( tool& u&e(
therein, an( the oreiture o hi& i'pro%e'ent& in the
area.
3he &a'e penalty plu& cancellation o hi& licen&e
agree'ent, lea&e, licen&e or per'it an( perpetual
(i&Cuali-cation ro' acCuiring any &uch pri%ilege
&hall !e i'po&e( upon any licen&ee, le&&ee, or
per'ittee $ho cut& ti'!er ro' the licen&e( or
lea&e( area o another, $ithout pre+u(ice to
$hate%er ci%il action the latter 'ay !ring again&t the
oAen(er.
-!stan. L!m/er 4nc vs. CA
7hether lumber is different from timber0 @umber is
actually processed forest raw materials or just processed
timber. "herefore, l!m/er is necessaril+ incl!ded in
tim/er as t0e law ma>es no distinction.
Fencin"
PRESI5ENTIA* 5ECREE NO. ?4?2
ANTIA@ENCING *AW O@ ?989
What i# !encingC
G8encingO i& the act o any per&on $ho, $ith intent to
gain or hi'&el or or another, &hall !uy, recei%e,
po&&e&&, 7eep, acCuire, conceal, &ell or (i&po&e o, or
&hall !uy an( &ell, or in any other 'anner (eal in any
article, ite', o!+ect or anything o %alue $hich he
7no$&, or &houl( !e 7no$n to hi', to ha%e !een
(eri%e( ro' the procee(& o the cri'e o ro!!ery or
thet.
O8enceO inclu(e& any per&on, -r', a&&ociation
corporation or partner&hip or other organiQation
$hoR$hich co''it& the act o encing.
Pre#u&$tion o! @encing.
;ere po&&e&&ion o any goo(, article, ite', o!+ect, or
anything o %alue $hich ha& !een the &u!+ect o
ro!!ery or thie%ery &hall !e pri'a acie e%i(ence o
encing.
ClearanceGPer&it to SellG+#e' Secon' Ban'
Article# i# reIuire'
All &tore&, e&ta!li&h'ent& or entitie& (ealing in the
!uy an( &ell o any goo(, article, ite', o!+ect o
anything o %alue o!taine( ro' an unlicen&e(
(ealer or &upplier thereo, &hall !eore oAering
the &a'e or &ale to the pu!lic, &ecure the
nece&&ary clearance or per'it ro' the &tation
co''an(er o the Integrate( National 6olice in
the to$n or city $here &uch &tore,
e&ta!li&h'ent or entity i& locate(.
Penaltie# i&$o#e'
Any per&on guilty o encing &hall !e puni&he( a&
hereun(er in(icate(E
a. 3he penalty o pri&ion 'ayor, i the %alue o
the property in%ol%e( i& 'ore than 52,444 pe&o&
!ut not e2cee(ing 22,444 pe&o&F i the %alue o
&uch property e2cee(& the latter &u', the
penalty pro%i(e( in thi& paragraph &hall !e
i'po&e( in it& 'a2i'u' perio(, a((ing one year
or each a((itional 54,444 pe&o&F !ut the total
penalty $hich 'ay !e i'po&e( &hall not e2cee(
t$enty year&. In &uch ca&e&, the penalty &hall !e
ter'e( reclu&ion te'poral an( the acce&&ory
penalty pertaining thereto pro%i(e( in the
Re%i&e( 6enal Co(e &hall al&o !e i'po&e(.
!. 3he penalty o pri&ion correccional in it&
'e(iu' an( 'a2i'u' perio(&, i the %alue o
the property ro!!e( or &tolen i& 'ore than .,444
pe&o& !ut not e2cee(ing 52,444 pe&o&.
c. 3he penalty o pri&ion correccional in it&
'ini'u' an( 'e(iu' perio(&, i the %alue o
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1'(
the property in%ol%e( i& 'ore than 244 pe&o&
!ut not e2cee(ing .,444 pe&o&.
(. 3he penalty o arre&to 'ayor in it& 'e(iu'
perio( to pri&ion correccional in it& 'ini'u'
perio(, i the %alue o the property in%ol%e( i&
o%er *4 pe&o& !ut not e2cee(ing 244 pe&o&.
e. 3he penalty o arre&to 'ayor in it& 'e(iu'
perio(, i &uch %alue i& o%er -%e >*? pe&o& !ut
not e2cee(ing *4 pe&o&.
. 3he penalty o arre&to 'ayor in it& 'ini'u'
perio(, i &uch %alue (oe& not e2cee( * pe&o&.
Article 3??. The!t o! the $ro$ert o! the
National *i"rar an' National Mu#eu&
3het o the property on
National Li!rary an( ;u&eu' ha& a -2e(
penalty regar(le&& o it& %alue.
Article 3?2. Occu$ation o! real $ro$ert
or u#ur$ation o! real right# in $ro$ert
Act& puni&ha!leE
5. 3a7ing po&&e&&ion o any real property
!elonging to another !y 'ean& o %iolence
again&t or inti'i(ation o per&on&F
2. <&urping any real right& in property
!elonging to another !y 'ean& o %iolence
again&t or inti'i(ation o per&on&.
Ele'ent&E
,! 3hat the oAen(er
a. ta7e& po&&e&&ion o any real property
or
!. u&urp& any real rights in property
%! 3hat the real property or real right belongs
to another
-! 3hat violence again&t or intimidation o
per&on& i& u&e( !y the oAen(er in
occupying real property or usurping real
right& in property
.! 3hat there i& intent to gain.
3he real property or real right 'u&t !elong to
another
I (een(ant $ho too7 po&&e&&ion o the
lan( u&ing %iolence or inti'i(ation ha& &ho$n
he i& o$ner o the lan( in Cue&tion an(
co'plainant $a& a 'ere po&&e&&or, Art 352
/OE" NO3 apply.
I at all, the cri'e i&E gra%e coercion
<&urpation o Real Right, e2a'pleE
Accu&e(, $ho ha( lo&t a ca&e in a ca(a&tral
procee(ing, too7 po&&e&&ion o the lan(
a(+u(icate( in a%or o the oAen(e( party an(
har%e&te( the palay, !y 'ean& o threat& an(
inti'i(ation.
I no %iolence or inti'i(ation >e2E 'ere u&e o
&trategy or &tealth? , only CI=IL LIABILI3Y e2i&t&
=iolence or inti'i(ation 'u&t !e /<RING the
occupation or u&urpation.
Art 352 /OE" NO3 apply $hen the %iolence
or inti'i(ation only too7 place "<B"E:<EN3 to
the entry into property
E2a'pleE i accu&e( ALREA/Y OCC<66IE/
the lan(, an( $hen the a('ini&trator o &uch
lan( tol( hi' to lea%e, !ut accu&e( threatene(
a('ini&trator he $oul( O7ill anyone $ho $oul(
(ri%e 'e a$ayO or cha&e( a('ini&trator a$ay
$ith !olo.
Article 352 (oe& NO3 apply in ca&e o open
(e-ance o a $rit o e2ecution i&&ue( in a
orci!le entry ca&e
Rea&onE Accu&e( (i( not &ecure the
po&&e&&ion o the lan( !y 'ean& o %iolence or
inti'i(ation. 3he reu&al >%iolent or not? o the
accu&e( to co'ply $ith $rit o e2ecution i& a
/I"3INC3 O88EN"EE conte'pt o court un(er
the Rule& o Court.
Cri'inal Action or occupation o real property
NO3 A BAR or ci%il action or orci!le entry
Rea&onE Cau&e& o action are (iAerentU
Article 352 (oe& NO3 pro%i(e or a penalty, it
only pro%i(e& or a -ne.
IN A//I3ION 3O the penalty or phy&ical
in+urie& inJicte( a& a re&ult o the act& o
%iolence.
/i&tingui&he( ro' thet or ro!!eryE
+#ur$ation The!tGro""er
3here i& intent to gain
Occupation or u&urpation 3here i& ta7ing or
a&portation
Real property or real
right
6er&onal property ta7en
Conc0ita 3!inao v People )2000*
<%=")# )alvador =ases and =onchita Kuinao,
together with their other close relatives appeared on the
property of <rancisco and :ienvenido >el Conte. 7hile
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1',
there, with the use of force, violence and intimidation,
usurped and took possession of the landholding, claiming
that the same is their inheritance from their ascendants
further they gathered coconuts and made them into copra.
"hus, :ienvenido >el Conte was forcibly driven out by the
accused from their landholding and was threatened that he
should not return lest harm befall him. .e was thus forced
to seek assistance from the @apinig Philippine National
Police. /n the trial court, defendants asserted a calim over
the land despite the fact that a prior judicial decision
declared the >el Contes as the rightful owners. 1esultantly,
defendants were found guilty of usurpation of real
property.
.?@># =ontrary to petitioner;s allegation, the
decision rendered by the trial court convicting her of the
crime of usurpation of real property was not based on
2speculations, surmises and conjectures2 but clearly on the
evidence on record and in accordance with the applicable
law. "he re(uisites of usurpation are that the accused took
possession of another;s real property or usurped real rights
in another;s property5 that the possession or usurpation was
committed with violence or intimidation and that the
accused had animo lucrandi. /n order to sustain a
conviction for 2usurpacion de derecho reales,2 the proof
must show that the real property occupied or usurped
belongs, not to the occupant or usurper, but to some third
person, and that the possession of the usurper was
obtained by means of intimidation or violence done to the
person ousted of possession of the property.
Core e$plicitly, in =astrodes vs. =ubelo, the
=ourt stated that the elements of the offense are 394
occupation of another;s real properly or usurpation of a real
right belonging to another person5 324 violence or
intimidation should be employed in possessing the real
property or in usurping the real right, and 3*4 the accused
should be animated by the intent to gain.
Article 3?3. Altering "oun'arie# or
lan'&ar)#
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat there !e !oun(ary 'ar7& or
'onu'ent& o to$n&, pro%ince&, or e&tate&,
or any other 'ar7& inten(e( to (e&ignate
the !oun(arie& o the &a'e
2. 3he oAen(er alters &ai( !oun(ary 'ar7&
Intent to gain NO3 nece&&ary.

3he 'ere alteration o the !oun(ary 'ar7&
or 'onu'ent& inten(e( to (e&ignate the
!oun(arie& o to$n&, pro%ince&, or e&tate i&
puni&ha!le.
OAlterOE General an( in(e-nite 'eaning.
Inclu(e&E
a. (e&truction o &tone 'onu'ent
!. ta7ing it to another place or
c. re'o%ing a ence
Article 3?.. @rau'ulent In#ol/enc
Ele'ent&E
,! 3hat the oAen(er i& a debtor
%! O!ligation i& due and payable
-! 9e absconds $ith hi& property
.! 3here i& pre+udice to his creditors
Illu&tration o 8rau(ulent In&ol%encyE
/een(ant !eca'e in(e!te( to &e%eral
'erchant& in Ce!u. Vu(g'ent $a& ren(ere(
again&t hi' an( e2ecution i&&ue(. 9e o$ne(
&e%eral parcel& o real property $hich he
tran&erre( to another to place the' !eyon(
the reach o hi& cre(itor&. 3he con&i(eration& in
the (ee( o &ale $ere all -ctitiou&.
Actual pre+u(ice, not intention alone, i&
reCuire(
Conceal'ent o property not &uMcient i the
(e!torBaccu&e( ha& &o'e other property $ith
$hich to &ati&y hi& o!ligation.
Being a 'erchant i& not an ele'ent o thi&
oAen&e. It only 'a7e& the penalty higher
Real property 'ay !e in%ol%e(
OA!&on(OB (oe& not reCuire that the (e!tor
&houl( (epart an( phy&ically conceal hi&
property. 9ence, real property 'ay !e the
&u!+ect o rau(ulent in&ol%ency.
6er&on pre+u(ice(E ;<"3 !e the cre(itor o the
oAen(er
E2a'pleE Wie o accu&e( helpe( prepare
(ocu'ent& to a!&con( $ith hi& property. "uch
participation (oe& NO3 pro%e her co'plicity in
the rau(, &ince it $a& the cre(itor& o her
hu&!an( >not 9ER cre(itor&? $ho $ere
(erau(e(.
/i&tingui&he( ro' In&ol%ency La$E
In&ol%ency La$E reCuire& that the cri'inal
act !e co''itte( A83ER the in&titution o
in&ol%ency procee(ing&
8rau(ulent in&ol%encyE no nee( or
(een(ant to !e a(+u(ge( !an7rupt or
in&ol%ent.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1'8
Article 3?2. S(in'ling ;E#ta!a<
P.5. 2>?9
Ma)ing Illegal Recruit&ent a Cri&e o!
Econo&ic Sa"otage
Act# $uni#ha"le
1. Any recruit'ent acti%itie&, inclu(ing the
prohi!ite( practice& enu'erate( un(er Article
3) o the La!or Co(e, to "e un'erta)en "
nonAlicen#ee# or nonAhol'er# o! authorit
#hall "e 'ee&e' illegal an' $uni#ha"le
un(er Article 39 o the La!or Co(e. 3he ;ini&try
o La!or an( E'ploy'ent or any la$
enorce'ent oMcer& 'ay initiate co'plaint&
un(er thi& Article.

2. Illegal recruit'ent $hen co''itte( !y a
#n'icate or in large #cale #hall "e
con#i'ere' an oEen#e in/ol/ing econo&ic
#a"otage an( &hall !e penaliQe( in accor(ance
$ith Article 39 o the La!or Co(e

Illegal recruit&ent i# 'ee&e' co&&itte'
" a #n'icate i carrie( out !y a group o
three >3? or 'ore per&on& con&piring an(Ror
cone(erating $ith one another in carrying out
any unla$ul or illegal tran&action, enterpri&e or
&che'e.
Illegal recruit&ent i# 'ee&e' co&&itte' in
large #cale i co''itte( again&t three >3? or
'ore per&on& in(i%i(ually or a& a group.
Po(er# o! Mini#ter o! *a"or an' E&$lo&ent
;no( Secretar o! 5O*E<
3he ;ini&ter o La!or an( E'ploy'ent or
hi& (uly authoriQe( repre&entati%e& &hall ha%e the
$o(er to cau#e the arre#t an' 'etention o &uch
nonBlicen&e or nonBhol(er o authority i ater
in%e&tigation it i& (eter'ine( that hi& acti%itie&
con&titute a (anger to national &ecurity an( pu!lic
or(er or $ill lea( to urther e2ploitation o +o!B
&ee7er&.
3he ;ini&ter &hall or'er the #earch o! the
o%ce or $re&i#e# an' #eiHure o (ocu'ent&
paraphernalia, propertie& an( other i'ple'ent& u&e(
in illegal recruit'ent acti%itie& an' the clo#ure o
co'panie&, e&ta!li&h'ent an( entitie& oun( to !e
engage( in the recruit'ent o $or7er& or o%er&ea&
e'ploy'ent, $ithout ha%ing !een licen&e( or
authoriQe( to (o &o.
3hree general $ay& o co''itting E&taaE
5. $ith unaithulne&& or a!u&e o con-(ence
2. !y 'ean& o al&e preten&e& or rau(ulent
act&
3. through rau(ulent 'ean&
Ele'ent& o E&taa IN GENERALE
5. 3hat the accu&e( (erau(e( another !y
a! abuse of con(dence or
b! !y 'ean& o deceit
2. 3hat damage or pre+udice capa!le o
pecuniary e&ti'ation i& cau&e( to
a. the oAen(e( party or
!. thir( per&on
W A& &een a!o%e, /ECEI3 i& NO3 an e&&ential
reCui&ite o e&taa $ith a!u&e o con-(ence
W A& to &econ( general ele'ent o /A;AGE, it
&houl( !e capa!le o pecuniary e&ti'ation,
&ince a'ount o the (a'age i& the !a&i& o the
penalty.
W intent o (erau(ing another i& al$ay& an
ele'ent
W no e&taa through negligence
AE#ta!a through A"u#e o! Con1'enceA
I. Article 3?20 Paragra$h ? ;a<, E#ta!a
(ith un!aith!ulne## " altering the
#u"#tance0 Iuantit0 or Iualit o!
anthing o! /alue
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the oAen(er ha& an onerou&
o!ligation to (eli%er &o'ething o %alue
2. 3hat he alter& it& &u!&tance, Cuantity, or
Cuality
3. 3hat (a'age or pre+u(ice i& cau&e( !y
another
3here 'u&t !e an onerou& o!ligation
I the thing (eli%ere( ha( not yet !een ully
pai( or +u&t partially pai(, NO E"3A8A e%en i
there $a& alteration RatioE there $a& no
(a'age to tal7 a!out
When there i& no agree'ent a& to the
Cuality o the thing to !e (eli%ere(,
(eli%ery o a thing unaccepta!le to the
co'plainant i& NO3 e&taa.
E%en though &uch o!ligation !e !a&e( on
an i''oral or illegal con&i(eration. E&taa
'ay ari&e e%en i the thing to !e (eli%ere(
i& not &u!+ect o la$ul co''erce >e2.
opiu'?
II. Article 3?20 Paragra$h ? ;"<,
&i#a$$ro$riating or con/erting
&one0 goo'#0 or other $er#onal
$ro$ert OR 'ening ha/ing
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1'#
recei/e' #uch &one0 goo'#0 or
other $er#onal $ro$ert
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat 'oney, goo(&, or other per&onal
property !e recei%e( !y the oAen(er in
a. tru&t >3ru&t Receipt& La$?
!. on co''i&&ion
c. or a('ini&tration
(. un(er any o!ligation in%ol%ing (uty to
return the %ery &a'e thing
2. 3here i& >a? misappropriation or conversion
o &uch property !y the oAen(er OR >!?
denial o &uch receipt
3. 3here i& pre+u(ice to another
). /e'an( $a& 'a(e !y the oAen(e( to the
oAen(er
PRESI5ENTIA* 5ECREE No. ??2 =anuar 290
?983
PROKI5ING @OR TBE REG+*ATION O@ TR+ST
RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS
LTru#t Recei$tL BB &hall reer to the $ritten or
printe( (ocu'ent &igne( !y the entru&tee in a%or o
the entru&ter containing ter'& an( con(ition&
&u!&tantially co'plying $ith the pro%i&ion& o thi&
/ecree. No urther or'ality o e2ecution or
authentication &hall !e nece&&ary to the %ali(ity o a
tru&t receipt.
What con&titute& a tru&t receipt tran&actionS
A tru&t receipt tran&action i& any tran&action !y an(
!et$een a per&on reerre( to a& the ent#uste#, an(
another per&on reerre( to a& ent#ustee, $here!y
the entru&ter, $ho o$n& or hol(& a!&olute title or
&ecurity intere&t& o%er certain &peci-e( goo(&,
(ocu'ent& or in&tru'ent&, relea&e& the &a'e to the
po&&e&&ion o the entru&tee upon the latterP&
e2ecution an( (eli%ery to the entru&ter o a &igne(
(ocu'ent calle( a Otru&t receiptO $herein the
entru&tee !in(& hi'&el to hol( the (e&ignate(
goo(&, (ocu'ent& or in&tru'ent& in tru&t or the
entru&ter an( to &ell or other$i&e (i&po&e o the
goo(&, (ocu'ent& or in&tru'ent& $ith the o!ligation
to turn o%er to the entru&ter the procee(& thereo to
the e2tent o the a'ount o$ing to the entru&ter or a&
appear& in the tru&t receipt or the goo(&, (ocu'ent&
or in&tru'ent& the'&el%e& i they are un&ol( or not
other$i&e (i&po&e( o, in accor(ance $ith the ter'&
an( con(ition& &peci-e( in the tru&t receipt, or or
other purpo&e& &u!&tantially eCui%alent to any o the
ollo$ingE
5. /n the case of goods or documents,
a? to &ell the goo(& or procure their &aleF or
!? to 'anuacture or proce&& the goo(& $ith
the purpo&e o ulti'ate &aleE Pro/i'e',
3hat, in the ca&e o goo(& (eli%ere( un(er
tru&t receipt or the purpo&e o
'anuacturing or proce&&ing !eore it&
ulti'ate &ale, the entru&ter &hall retain it&
title o%er the goo(& $hether in it& original or
proce&&e( or' until the entru&tee ha&
co'plie( ully $ith hi& o!ligation un(er the
tru&t receiptF or
c? to loa(, unloa(, &hip or tran&hip or
other$i&e (eal $ith the' in a 'anner
preli'inary or nece&&ary to their &aleF or
2. /n the case of instruments,
a? to &ell or procure their &ale or
e2changeF or
!? to (eli%er the' to a principalF or
c? to eAect the con&u''ation o
&o'e tran&action& in%ol%ing (eli%ery to a
(epo&itory or regi&terF or
(? to eAect their pre&entation,
collection or rene$al
NOTEE 3he &ale o goo(&, (ocu'ent& or in&tru'ent&
!y a per&on in the !u&ine&& o &elling goo(&,
(ocu'ent& or in&tru'ent& or pro-t $ho, at the
out&et o the tran&action, ha&, a& again&t the !uyer,
general property right& in &uch goo(&, (ocu'ent& or
in&tru'ent&, or $ho &ell& the &a'e to the !uyer on
cre(it, retaining title or other intere&t a& &ecurity or
the pay'ent o the purcha&e price, (oe& not
con&titute a tru&t receipt tran&action.
Allied an>in. v. ;rdone6
P:C got e(uipment from bank and e$ecuted trust receipt
agreement 3"1%4 -- acknowledged bank;s ownership of
e(uipment and P:C;s obligation to turn over the proceeds
of the sale of said e(uipments. )ec. Of Iustice said that
since P:C would not be selling the e(uipment but would
just be using them, there was no violation of P> 99.
.?@># P> 99 applies to %@@ trust receipt transactions.
"herefore, the fact that the goods were just to be used by
P:C and not to be sold is of no importance. %ny violation of
the "1% is punished 3Eeof;s notes in =omm# wrong )=
decisionS 4
Lee vs. Rodil
@ee e$ecuted "1% for the purchase of materials but
misappropriated the value of the goods for personal use.
=harged with estafa under P> 99. =hallenged the validity
of the law saying that a violation of P> 99 is NO" estafa
and that the law violates non-imprisonment for debts
clause of the =onstitution.
.?@># )ec 9* of P> 99 e$plicitly states that the failure to
give back the proceeds or return the goods of estafa is
punishable. No violation of the =onstitution as the loan is
separate from the trust receipt. 7hat is punished is the
violation of the trust receipt and not the non-payment of
the loan.
3he )
th
ele'ent i& not nece&&ary $here
there i& e%i(ence o 'i&appropriation o
goo(& !y the (een(ant
Chec7 i& inclu(e( in the $or( O'oneyO
;oneyRgoo(& 'u&t !e recei/e' !y the
oAen(er. Other$i&e, cri'e i& 39E83 >ta7ing
$ithout con&ent o o$ner?
hence, oAen(er 'u&t ha%e 'aterial AN/
+uri(ical po&&e&&ion o the thing
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
150
V<RI/ICAL 6O""E""IONE 'ean& a
po&&e&&ion $hich gi%e& the tran&eree a right
o%er the thing $hich the tran&eree 'ay &et up
e%en again&t the o$ner.
Oin%ol%ing the (uty to return the &a'eO
inclu(e&
a. Cua&iBcontract& an(
!. contract o bailmentE (epo&it, lea&e,
co''o(atu', ple(ge
!ut NO3 contract o loanU Loan o
'oney i& mutuum. O$ner&hip $a&
tran&erre(.
Contract o &ale >o$ner&hip i&
tran&erre( at the ti'e o (eli%ery?E
a? i thing &ol( not (eli%ere( an(
a(%ance pay'ent not returne(,
only CI=IL LIABILI3Y
!? i !uyer (i( not pay the price to
o$ner, only CI=IL LIABILI3Y al&o
LeyE i no o!ligation to return the %ery &a'e
thing, only Ci%il lia!ility
No e&taa $hen the 'oney or other
per&onal property recei%e( i& NO3 to !e
u&e( or a particular purpo&e.
No%ation o contract ro' one o agency to
one o &ale or to one o loan relie%e&
(een(ant ro' the incipient cri'inal
lia!ility un(er the -r&t contract
But granting e2ten&ion o ti'e i& not
no%ation, nor i& acceptance o a 6N or
'oney 'i&appropriate(
Al&o, the no%ation theory 'ay perhap&
apply prior to the -ling o the cri'inal
inor'ation in court !y the "tate
pro&ecutor&, !ecau&e up to that ti'e,
the original tru&t relation 'ay !e
con%erte( !y the partie& into an
or(inary cre(itorB(e!tor relation.
Ocon%er&ionO # thing $a& (e%ote( or a
purpo&e (iAerent ro' that agree( upon,
a& i the thing $ere the accu&e(P& o$n >e2.
(epo&itary ple(ge( the thing (epo&ite(?
O'i&appropriationO B u&ing an a'ount or
per&onal purpo&e&
Right o agent to (e(uct co''i&&ion ro'
a'ount& collecte(E I8 A<39ORIXE/ to
retain co''i&&ion, no e&taa.
Oto the pre+u(ice o anotherOB not
nece&&arily the o$ner o the property
6artner&hip&E
Where a partner &ol( partner&hip
property an( 'i&appropriate& the
&elling price only gi%e& ri&e to ci%il
o!ligation only >it i& a (e!t (ue to a
partner a& part o partner&hip un(&?
6artner gi%en 'oney to !e u&e( or a
&peci-c purpo&e then 'i&appropriate(
it e&taa
A coBo$ner i& not lia!le or e&taa (uring
the &u!&i&tence o the coBo$ner&hip
Art 35) par 5 >!? i& the ONLY 7in( o e&taa
$here (e'an( i& nece&&ary. Although it i&
not reCuire( !y la$, it i& nece&&ary
!ecau&e ailure to account upon (e'an(, i&
circu'&tantial e%i(ence o
'i&appropriation.
YE%en though &uch o!ligation !e totally or
partially guarantee( !y a !on(@ # a &ecurity
e2ecute( !y the agent to an&$er or
(a'age& etc. (oe& not relie%e hi' ro'
cri'inal lia!ility, or thi& un(erta7ing reer&
only to hi& ci%il lia!ility.
3he gra%ity o the cri'e o E&taa i&
(eter'ine( on the !a&i& o the a'ount not
returne( !eore the in&titution o cri'inal
action.
E#ta!a (ith a"u#e o!
con1'ence
The!t
OAen(er acCuire& the
+uri(ical po&&e&&ion o
the property
OAen(er acCuire& only
'aterial po&&e&&ion o
the property
OAen(er recei%e& the
thing ro' the oAen(e(
party
OAen(er ta7e& the thing
ro' the oAen(e( party
A((itional te&tE In thet, upon
(eli%ery o the thing to the oAen(er, the
o$ner e2pect& an i''e(iate return o the
thing to hi'
E#ta!a (ith a"u#e o!
con1'ence
Mal/er#ation
3he oAen(er& are entru&te( $ith un(& or property
Both are continuing oAen&e&
3he un(& or property are
al$ay& pri%ate
In%ol%e& pu!lic un(& or
property
3he oAen(er i& a pri%ate
in(i%i(ual or a pu!lic
oMcer $ho i& not
accounta!le or pu!lic
un(& or property
OAen(er i& u&ually a
pu!lic oMcer $ho i&
accounta!le or pu!lic
un(& or property
3he cri'e i& co''itte(
!y 'i&appropriating,
con%erting or (enying
ha%ing recei%e( 'oney,
goo(& or other per&onal
property
3he cri'e i& co''itte(
!y appropriating, ta7ing
or 'i&appropriating or
con&enting, or through
a!an(on'ent or
negligence, per'itting
any other per&on to ta7e
the pu!lic un(& or
property
6ri%ate in(i%i(ual allege(ly in
con&piracy $ith pu!lic oMcer in a
pro&ecution o the latter or 'al%er&ation,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
151
'ay &till !e hel( lia!le or E&taa e%en i
the pu!lic oMcer $a& acCuitte(.
;i&appropriation o -rear'&
recei%e( !y a police'an i& E&taa, i it i&
not in%ol%e( in the co''i&&ion o a cri'e.
It i& 'al%er&ation, i it i& in%ol%e( in the
co''i&&ion o a cri'e.
"add!l v. CA
)addul was authori6ed to sell some car parts. 2+T of the
proceeds from sale would go to %CP/.
.?@># NO" guilty of estafa. )addul did not receive the
parts from %CP/ in trust 3received it from another party
which was the owner of the parts4. )addul did not convert
it for personal use. <ailure to deliver the proceeds did not
cause damage to %CP/, as it was not the owner of the
parts. %lso, %CP/ did not demand return of the parts.
III. Article 3?20 $ar ?0 ;c<, e#ta!a "
ta)ing un'ue a'/antage o! the
#ignature o! the oEen'e' $art in
"lan)
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the paper $ith the &ignature o the
oAen(e( party !e in !lan7
2. 3hat the oAen(e( party &houl( ha%e
(eli%ere( it to the oAen(er
3. 3hat a!o%e the &ignature, a (ocu'ent i&
$ritten !y oAen(er $ithout authority to (o
&o
). 3hat the (ocu'ent &o $ritten create& a
lia!ility o, or cau&e& (a'age to the
oAen(e( party or any thir( per&on
3he paper $ith the &ignature in !lan7 ;<"3
BE /ELI=ERE/ !y the oAen(e( party to the
oAen(er >other$i&e, cri'e i& al&i-cation o
in&tru'ent?
AE#ta!a " 5eceitA
Ele'ent& o E&taa !y 'ean& o (eceitE
5. 3here 'u&t !e a al&e preten&e,
rau(ulent act or rau(ulent 'ean&F
2. "uch al&e preten&e, rau(ulent act or
rau(ulent 'ean& 'u&t !e 'a(e or
e2ecute( prior to or &i'ultaneou&ly $ith
the co''i&&ion o the rau(F
3. 3he oAen(e( party 'u&t ha%e relie( on
the al&e preten&e, rau(ulent act, or
rau(ulent 'ean&, that i&, he $a& in(uce(
to part $ith hi& 'oney or property !ecau&e
o the al&e preten&e, rau(ulent act or
rau(ulent 'ean&F
). A& a re&ult thereo, the oAen(e( party
&uAere( (a'age.
IK. Article 3?20 $ar 20 ;a<
3hree $ay& o co''itting e&taa un(er thi&
pro%i&ionE
5. u&ing -ctitiou& na'e
2. al&ely preten(ing to po&&e&&
a. po$er
!. inJuence
c. Cuali-cation&
(. property
e. cre(it
. agency
g. !u&ine&& or i'aginary tran&action&
3. other &i'ilar (eceit&
-ctitiou& na'eE $hen a per&on oun( a
pa$n&hop tic7et in the na'e o another
an(, u&ing the na'e o that per&on,
re(ee'e( the +e$elry
6reten(ing to po&&e&& po$erE Opreten( to
!e a 'agician $ho can -n( gol(, !ut pay
'e to -n( the gol( un(er your hou&eO
tric7.
6reten(ing to po&&e&& inJuenceE I ha%e
connection& in ;alacaZang &o pay 'e i
you $anna get your (ocu'ent& appro%e(O
tric7
E&taa !y 'ean& o (eceit %&. thetE
+uri(icalR legal po&&e&&ion i& &till tran&erre(
to oAen(er in ca&e o e&taa. But it i&
tran&erre( through (eceit.
K. Article 3?20 Paragra$h 2 ;"<, "
altering Iualit0 1nene##0 or
(eight o! anthing $ertaining to
hi# art or "u#ine##
E2a'pleE A gi%e& B, a +e$eler, a (ia'on(
to !e 'a(e into a ring. B change( the
&tone $ith one o lo$er Cuality.
;anipulation o "caleE %iolation o Re%i&e(
A('ini&trati%e Co(e
KI. Article 3?20 Paragra$h 2 ;c<,
$reten'ing to ha/e "ri"e' an
Go/ern&ent e&$loee
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
152
6er&on $oul( a&7 'oney ro' another or
the allege( purpo&e o !ri!ing a
go%ern'ent e'ployee !ut +u&t poc7ete(
the 'oney ater
O$ithout pre+u(ice to an action or
calu'nyO E the oAen(er 'ay al&o !e
charge( $ith (ea'ation $hich the
go%ern'ent e'ployee allege(ly !ri!e(
'ay (ee' proper to !ring again&t the
oAen(er
KII. Article 3?20 Paragra$h 2 ;'<,
$o#t'ating a chec) in $a&ent o!
an o"ligation (hen the oEen'er
ha' no !un'# in the "an)0 or hi#
!un'# (ere not #u%cient to co/er
the a&ount
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the oAen(er po&t(ate( a chec7, or
i&&ue( a chec7 in pay'ent o an o!ligation
2. 3hat &uch po&t(ating or i&&uing $a& (one
$henE
a. oAen(er ha( no un(& or
!. un(& (epo&ite( $ere not &uMcient
chec7 'u&t !e genuine an( not al&i-e(,
other$i&e, it i& e&taa un(er paragraph
2>a?, not 2>(? >e2a'pleE &igning a chec7
$ith a -ctitiou& na'e an( al&ely
preten(ing &ai( chec7 coul( !e enca&he(?
the i&&uance o a chec7 i& NO3 or a pre
e2i&ting o!ligation. It ;<"3 !e or an
o!ligation contracte( at the ti'e o the
i&&uance or (eli%ery o the chec7.
When chec7 i& i&&ue( in &u!&titution o
a pro'i&&ory note, it i& in pay'ent o a
pre e2i&ting o!ligation
When the chec7 i& i&&ue( !y a
guarantor, there i& no E&taa !ecau&e it
i& not in pay'ent o an o!ligation.
6ri'a acie e%i(ence o (eceitE ailure o
the (ra$er o the chec7 to (epo&it the
a'ount nece&&ary to co%er hi& chec7
$ithin three (ay& ro' receipt o notice
ro' the !an7 an(Ror the payee or hol(er
that &ai( chec7 ha& !een (i&honore( or
lac7 or in&uMciency o un(&
other$i&e, i (ra$er i& a!le to un(
$ithin 3 (ay& ro' notice o
(i&honoring, not lia!le or e&taa
KIII. Article 3?20 Paragra$h 2 ;e<, E#ta!a
" o"taining !oo' or
acco&&o'ation at a hotel0 etc
3hree $ay& o co''itting e&taa un(er the thi&
pro%i&ionE
5. By o!taining oo(, rere&h'ent, or
acco''o(ation at a hotel, etc. $ithout
paying thereor, $ith intent to (erau( the
proprietor or 'anager thereo.
2. By o!taining cre(it at any o &ai(
e&ta!li&h'ent& !y the u&e o al&e
preten&e&
3. By a!an(oning or &urreptitiou&ly re'o%ing
any part o hi& !aggage ro' any o &ai(
e&ta!li&h'ent& ater o!taining cre(it, oo(,
rere&h'ent, or acco''o(ation therein,
$ithout paying thereor.
I-. Article 3?20 Paragra$h 3 ;a<, E#ta!a
" in'ucing another to #ign an
'ocu&ent
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the oAen(er in(uce( the oAen(e(
party to &ign a (ocu'ent.
2. 3hat (eceit !e e'ploye( to 'a7e hi' &ign
the (ocu'ent
3. 3hat the oAen(e( party per&onally &igne(
the (ocu'ent
). 3hat pre+u(ice !e cau&e(
3here 'u&t !e in(uce'entE
i the oAen(e( party $a& $illing to &ign
although there $a& (eceit a& to the
character or content& o the (ocu'ent
>!ecau&e the content& are (iAerent
ro' tho&e $hich the oAen(e( party
tol( the accu&e( to &tate in the
(ocu'ent? cri'e i& al&i-cation
accu&e( &houl( 'a7e &tate'ent& ten(ing
to 'i&lea( the co'plainant a& to the
character o the (ocu'ent e2ecute( !y
hi'.
-. Article 3?20 Paragra$h 3 ;"<,
E#ta!a " re#orting to #o&e
!rau'ulent $ractice to in#ure
#ucce## in ga&"ling
-I. Article 3?20 Paragra$h 3 ;c<, E#ta!a
" re&o/ing0 concealing0 or
'e#troing 'ocu&ent#
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat there !e court recor(, oMce -le&,
(ocu'ent& or any other paper&
2. 3hat the oAen(er re'o%e(, conceale( or
(e&troye( any o the'
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15'
3. 3hat the oAen(er ha( intent to (erau(
another
I no intent to (erau(, the act o
(e&troying court recor( $ill !e 'aliciou&
'i&chie
E2a'ple&E
5. Concealing (ocu'entE A per&on $ho
conceale( a (ocu'ent e%i(encing a
(epo&it o 62,.44 $hich ca'e into hi&
po&&e&&ion $hen he oAere( to collect the
(epo&it i& guilty o e&taa.
2. /e&troying (ocu'ent&E /e&truction o a 6N
gi%en !ac7 to the 'a7er to !e replace(
$ith a ne$ one to rene$ the loan, $ithout
'a7ing a ne$ pro'i&&ory note i& e&taa
!ecau&e !y (e&troying the ol( one, the
oAen(e( party $a& (i&po&&e&&e( o the
e%i(ence o a (e!t.
In a %ery ol( ca&e, it $a& rule( that the act
o (e&troying a 6N, gi%en to co%er lo&&e& in
ga'!ling, !y the 'a7er thereo, i& E&taa.
9o$e%er, there $a& a (i&&enting opinion
$hich &tate( that &uch 6N i& %oi( an( o no
%alue, hence it cannot !e the &u!+ect o
e&taa.
E#ta!a un'er $ar. 3 ;c< In1'elit in the
cu#to' o! 'ocu&ent#
;anner o co''itting oAen&e& i& the &a'e
3he oAen(er i& a pri%ate
in(i%i(ual or e%en a
pu!lic oMcer $ho i& not
oMcially entru&te( $ith
the (ocu'ent&
3he oAen(er i& a pu!lic
oMcer $ho i& oMcially
entru&te( $ith the
(ocu'ent
3here i& intent to (erau( Intent to (erau( not an
ele'ent in thi& cri'e
8inal Note& on E&taaE
3he accu&e( CANNO3 !e con%icte( o
e&taa $ith a!u&e o con-(ence un(er an
inor'ation alleging e&taa !y 'ean& o
(eceit.
I there i& no (eceit an( no a!u&e o
con-(ence, there i& no e&taa, e%en i there
i& (a'age. 3here i& only ci%il lia!ility.
3here CAN !e a co'ple2 cri'e o thet an(
e&taa, $hen the or'er i& a nece&&ary
'ean& to co''it the latter. C, $ith intent
to gain, too7 the pa$n&hop tic7et& $ithout
the con&ent o A >3het?. By re(ee'ing the
+e$el& !y 'ean& o the tic7et&, C al&o
co''itte( e&taa, u&ing a -ctitiou& na'e.
3he !a&i& o the penalty or e&taa i& the
a'ount or %alue o the property
'i&appropriate( BE8ORE the in&titution o
the cri'inal action. 9ence, partial pay'ent
'a(e &u!&eCuent to the co''i&&ion o
e&taa (oe& not re(uce the a'ount
'i&appropriate( $hich i& the !a&i& o the
penalty.
A pri%ate per&on $ho procure& a loan !y
'ean& o (eceit through a al&i-e( pu!lic
(ocu'ent o 'ortgage, !ut $ho eAect& ull
&ettle'ent o the loan $ithin the perio(
agree( upon, (oe& not co''it the cri'e o
E&taa, there !eing no (i&tur!ance o
proprietary right& an( no per&on (erau(e(
there!y. 3he cri'e co''itte( i& only
al&i-cation o pu!lic (ocu'ent.
O6re+u(iceO con&i&t& inE
5. 3he oAen(e( party !eing (epri%e( o hi&
'oney or property a& a re&ult o the rau(
2. /i&tur!ance in property right&
3. 3e'porary pre+u(ice
Celino vs. CA
%ccused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of a
dwarf. "hey were able to make the victim allow them to
dig in the victim;s backyard and e$tort some funds from him
with the promise that it would grow into a big amount.
.?@># EF/@"H of estafa by false pretense, having pretended
to have special powers and fooled the e$tremely stupid
victim.
A/!8!ela vs. People
:alo offered financial assistance to %bujuela by virtue of
some insurance proceeds that :alo would receive from his
father. :alo borrowed %bujuela;s passbook and made it
appear that certain deposits were made. 7hen the account
was closed, discrepancies were found between the ledger
and the account. %bujuela charged as accomplice to estafa
through falsification of commercial documents
.?@># NO" guilty. %bujuela NO" aware of the fraudulent
plans of :alo. Anowled.e o< criminal intent is essential to
be an accomplice in estafa.
Ao0 2ien. Hen. vs. People
.eng deposited two checks worth P9',+,+ each issued by a
certain >yaico. "hen he withdrew several times from the
account. >iayco (uestioned the withdrawals. .eng was
finally caught trying to withdraw again.
.?@># Possession and utterance of a falsified check gives
rise to the presumption that the possessor is the forger of
the check. %ttempted estafa correct as he was caught
trying to withdraw.
People vs. ;n.
Ong deposits checks then withdraws from the deposited
accounts on the same day without waiting for the re(uired
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
155
-day clearance period for checks. "he drawee banks
subse(uently dishonored deposited checks.
.?@># NO" guilty of estafa. Ong had no knowledge of lack
of funds, checks not issued in payment of an obligation as
re(uired by the 1P=. @astly, Ong did not employ deceit in
withdrawing the money as the bank waived the -day
clearance period for its preferred customers where Ong
was one of those.
Llamado vs. CA
Eaw delivered to accused the amount of P9'+,+++.++, with
the assurance of %ida "an, the secretary of the accused in
the corporation, that it will be repaid plus interests and a
share in the profits of the corporation, if any. Fpon delivery
of the money, accused 1icardo @lamado and Iacinto Pascual
signed a postdated Philippine "rust =ompany =heck in the
presence of Eaw. Eaw deposited the check in his current
account, which the drawee bank dishonored later informed
Eaw that said check because payment was stopped, and
that the check was drawn against insufficient funds. Eaw
was also notified by the bank that his current account was
debited because of the dishonor of the said check. %fter
trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment
convicting the accused of violation of :atas Pambansa No.
22.
.?@># @lamado denies knowledge of the issuance of the
check without sufficient funds and involvement in the
transaction with Eaw. .owever, knowledge involves a state
of mind difficult to establish. "hus, the statute itself
creates a prima facie presumption, i.e., that the drawer
had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit
with the bank at the time of the issuance and on the
check;s presentment for payment. @lamado failed to rebut
the presumption by paying the amount of the check within
five 34 banking days from notice of the dishonor. .is claim
that he signed the check in blank which allegedly is
common business practice, is hardly a defense. /f as he
claims, he signed the check in blank, he made himself
prone to being charged with violation of :P 22. /t became
incumbent upon him to prove his defenses. %s "reasurer of
the corporation who signed the check in his capacity as an
officer of the corporation, lack of involvement in the
negotiation for the transaction is not a defense.
"he check was issued for an actual valuable consideration,
which Eaw handed to %ida "an, a secretary in petitioner;s
office. /n fact, @lamado admits that Eaw made an
investment in said amount with Pan-%sia <inance
=orporation. @lamado contends that the money which Eaw
gave the corporation was intended for investment which
they agreed will be returned to Eaw with interests, only if
the project became successful. :ut then, if this were true,
the check need not have been issued because a receipt and
their written agreement would have sufficed.
"rue, it is common practice in commercial transactions to
re(uire debtors to issue checks on which creditors must
rely as guarantee of payment, or as evidence of
indebtedness, if not a mode of payment. :ut to determine
the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and
conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith
the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of
checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in
trade and in banking communities. "o& w0at t0e law
p!nis0es is t0e iss!ance o< a /o!ncin. c0ec> and not t0e
p!rpose <or w0ic0 it was iss!ed nor t0e terms and
conditions relatin. to its iss!ance. 20e mere act o<
iss!in. a wort0less c0ec> is mal!m pro0i/it!m.
L! Ha+co vs. CA
@u .ayco had a special power of attorney from @u =hiong
)un to manage the Fnits Optical )upply =ompany. "he )PO%
also authori6ed @u .ayco A"o deposit and withdraw funds in
the name of the company.G
@u .ayco deposited P9*D,+++ paid by customers of the
Fnits Optical, not in the company;s banks but in his own
personal accounts. %fter 2 demand letters were ignored, a
criminal complaint for esta'a thru falsification of a public
document was filed against @u .ayco.
"o make a very long story short, the first case of esta'a was
dismissed but many more ensued 3as many as ! counts, /
think4. ?ventually, he was convicted. @u .ayco argues,
among others, that there is no esta'a since the element of
misappropriation or conversion was not proven.
.?@># "he disturbance in property rights caused by
misappropriation, though only temporary, is itself sufficient
to constitute injury within the meaning of %rt. *93l -b4 of
the 1P=. /n ,.S. v. -o+enec(ea 3' Phil. 99!4, the defendant
pledged a typewriter belonging to Cc=ullough R =o. to the
%merican @oan =ompany. :ecause of said act, the
typewriter was sei6ed by the police, and taken into court.
"hroughout the trial, Cc=ullough R =o. was placed in a
doubtful position as to its right over the typewriter. U"he
)=M held that# ACc=ullough R =o. at least suffered
disturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter and
in the possession thereof. "his fact, by itself, and without
it being necessary to deal with any other considerations of
material fact herein, always constitutes real and actual
damage, and is positive enough under rule of law to
produce one of the elements constituting the offense, the
crime of esta'a.G
/n the case at bar, there was a disturbance in the property
rights of @u =hiong )un. 7hile the funds received by @u
.ayco were deposited in his personal bank accounts, @u
=hiong )un and Fnits Optical could not dispose of the said
amounts. %t least, this could be considered as a temporary
prejudice suffered by @u =hiong )un, which is sufficient to
constitute conversion in the conte$t of %rt. *9 39-b4 of the
1P=.
"alcedo vs. CA
)alcedo was the local branch manager of Canhattan
Euaranty =ompany, /nc. at /ligan =ity, which was engaged
in the business of property insurance. )aid company had
been suspended from operating and eventually closed by
the /nsurance =ommissioner since <ebruary 29, 9D,'.
)alcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order but
he deliberately concealed the same from complainant
Ponce when he issued on Carch 9', 9D,' a P+,+++ fire
insurance policy unto the complainant, and collected
Pl,+D.'+ as premium. ?ventually, the =ity =ourt of /ligan
=ity convicted )alcedo of esta'a.
.?@># )alcedo was the local branch manager of Canhattan
Euarantee. 7hen he signed and issued the policy and
collected the premium thereof, he had knowledge that his
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
155
company was no longer authori6ed to conduct insurance
business. "his knowledge makes him liable under paragraph
23a4 of %rt. *9 of the 1P= which provides that#
A2. :y means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts e$ecuted prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud#
3a4 :y using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, (ualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions5 or by means of
other similar deceits.G
"o secure a conviction for esta'a under par. 23a4 of %rt. *9
of the 1P=, the following re(uisites must concur#
that the accused made false pretenses or
fraudulent representations as to his power, influence,
(ualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary
that such false premises or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or
property, and that as result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
%ll these re(uisites are present in this case. "he deliberate
concealment by )alcedo of the fact that his company was
no longer authori6ed to engage in the business of insurance
when he signed and issued the fire insurance policy and
collected the premium payment constitutes false
representations or false pretenses, upon which the
complainant relied when he paid the premium.
Peo$le /. Re&ullo0 393 SCRA 93 ;2>>2<
<%=")# :uin&aat, Ca(acio, an( ;e+ia $ent to
appellantP& hou&e &o'eti'e in ;arch 5993, $here
Re'ullo tol( the' &he $a& recruiting actory $or7er&
or ;alay&ia. Re'ullo tol( the' to -ll up application
or'& an( to go to the oMce o Va'ila an( Co., the
recruit'ent agency $here Re'ullo allege(ly $or7e(.
Re'ullo al&o reCuire( each applicant to &u!'it a
pa&&port, picture&, an( clearance ro' the NBIF an(
then to un(ergo a 'e(ical e2a'ination Y3he three
$ere then a&7e( !y Re'ullo to pay a place'ent ee
o 65*,444 or each applicant, $hich they (i(. No
receipt& $ere i&&ue( or &ai( pay'ent&. At the ti'e
o their &uppo&e( (eparture, an i''igration oMcer
at the airport tol( the %icti'& they lac7e( a
reCuire'ent i'po&e( !y the 6OEA. 3heir pa&&port&
$ere cancelle( an( their !oar(ing pa&&e& 'ar7e(
Oo[oa(e(O. E%elyn Lan(rito, %ice pre&i(ent an(
general 'anager o Va'ila later certi-e( that
appellant $a& not authoriQe( to recei%e pay'ent& on
!ehal o Va'ila.
.?@># /n this case, appellant clearly defrauded
private complainants by deceiving them into believing that
she had the power and authority to send them on jobs
abroad. :y virtue of appellant;s false representations,
private complainants each parted with their hard-earned
money. ?ach complainant paid P9,+++ as recruitment fee
to appellant, who then appropriated the money for her own
use and benefit, but failed utterly to provide overseas job
placements to the complainants. /n a classic rigmarole,
complainants were provided defective visas, brought to the
airport with their passports and tickets, only to be
offloaded that day, but with promises to be booked in a
plane flight on another day. "he recruits wait in vain for
weeks, months, even years, only to reali6e they were
gypped, as no jobs await them abroad. No clearer cases of
estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant
should be held criminally responsible.
Th#ou"h con!e#sion o#
misapp#op#iation
Crisanto Lee v. People )2005*
<%=")# %to6 "rading =orporation engaged in the
trading of animal feeds. 1obert =risanto @ee was the
corporation;s sales manager from early D+;s to 9DD&. /n the
course of @ee;s employment therewith, he was able to bring
in Ocean <eed Cills as a client. .aving 2personally found2
Ocean <eed Cills, he handled said account. "ransactions
between the two companies were then coursed through
@ee, so that it was upon the latter;s instructions that Ocean
<eed Cills addressed its payments through telegraphic
transfers to either 2%to6 "rading andJor 1obert @ee2 or
21obert @ee2.
7hen UpetitionerM ceased reporting for work in
9DD&, %to6 audited some of the accounts handled by him. /t
was then that %to6 discovered Ocean <eed Cills; unpaid
account in the amount of P*9',,!2.++. %to6 thus notified
Ocean <eed Cills that UpetitionerM was no longer connected
with the corporation, and advised it to verify its accounts.
Promptly preparing a certification and summary of
payments, Ocean <eed Cills informed %to6 that they have
already fully settled their accounts and even made
overpayments. %to6 filed several cases of estafa against
@ee, and the trial court found him guilty.
.?@># "he elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are
as follows# a4 that money, goods or other personal property
is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or
for administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same5 b4 that
there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender5 or denial on his part of such
receipt5 c4 that such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another.
"he words 2convert2 and 2misappropriate2 as used
in the afore(uoted law connote an act of using or disposing
of another;s property as if it were one;s own or of devoting
it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. "o
2misappropriate2 a thing of value for one;s own use or
benefit, not only the conversion to one;s personal
advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without a right. Cisappropriation or
conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
>emand is not an element of the felony or a
condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint
for estafa. /ndeed, the accused may be convicted of the
felony under %rticle *9, paragraph 93b4 of the 1evised
Penal =ode if the prosecution proved misappropriation or
conversion by the accused of the money or property
subject of the /nformation. /n a prosecution for estafa,
demand is not necessary where there is evidence of
misappropriation or conversion. .owever, failure to
account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust,
is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
?or.e "ala6ar v. People )2005*
<%=")# )kiva /nternational, /nc. is a New Hork-
based corporation which imports clothes from the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15(
Philippines through its buying agent, Olivier 3Philippines4
/nc. %urora Canufacturing R >evelopment =orporation
3A%uroraG4 and Fni-Eroup /nc. 3AFni-EroupG4 are domestic
corporations which supply finished clothes to )kiva. Cr.
7erner @ettmayr is the President of both %urora and Fni-
Eroup while the petitioner, Iorge )ala6ar, is the 8ice-
President and "reasurer of Fni-Eroup and a consultant of
%urora.
/n >ecember 9D', )kiva informed Olivier that it
needs ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in Ianuary
9D',. Olivier, in turn, contacted %urora and Fni-Eroup to
supply the jeans. "hus, a Purchase =ontract was issued by
Olivier to Fni-Eroup wherein Fni-Eroup was to supply !++
do6ens of @adies Ieans payable by means of a letter of
credit at sight.
On Ianuary !, 9D',, the parties agreed that )kiva
will advance to %uroraJFni-Eroup the amount of
F)V&9,*++.++ 3then e(uivalent to P'+,*!+.++ at the
e$change rate of P2+.D to F)V9.++4 as %uroraJFni-Eroup
did not have sufficient funds to secure raw materials to
manufacture the jeans. /t was also agreed that the amount
advanced by )kiva represents advance payment of its order
of !++ do6ens of ladies jeans. )kiva remitted the funds by
way of telegraphic transfer from its bank in New Hork, the
/srael >iscount :ank, to the joint account of Cr. and Crs.
Iorge )ala6ar and Cr. and Crs. 7erner @ettmayr at =itibank
N.%.
Cr. Iorge )ala6ar withdrew money from the dollar
account converted it into pesos and purchased cloth for the
manufacture of *++ do6ens of ladies jeans. "he balance
was allegedly returned by him. .owever, the balance was
later found missing. 1esultantly %uroraJFni-Eroup failed to
produce the !++ do6ens of ladies jeans resulting in a suit
against them. )ala6ar was charged and convicted. .is
conviction was upheld even by the )upreme =ourt.
.owever in this Cotion for 1econsideration, the )=
reversed and held he was innocent.
.?@># 7e find merit in the new motion. "he
elements of estafa under %rticle *9, par. 93b4 of the
1evised Penal =ode are the following# 3a4 that money,
goods or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same5 3b4 that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property
by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt5 3c4
that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another5 and 3d4 there is demand by the
offended party to the offender.
7e reiterate that the contract between )kiva and
%urora was one of sale. %fter the perfection of the contract
of sale, Cr. 7erner @ettmayr, representing %uroraJFni-
Eroup, re(uested )kiva for advance payment in order to
procure the raw materials needed for the !++-do6en ladies-
jeans. /t was also Cr. @ettmayr who suggested that the
advance payment be made to the joint account of himself
and his wife, together with petitioner and his wife. %s
re(uested, V&9,*++.++ was transmitted by )kiva as advance
payment. >espite the payment, there was delay in the
performance of contract on the part of %uroraJFni-Eroup.
Petitioner and the O)E contend that under these facts,
)kiva has no cause to complain that petitioner committed
estafa. 7e agree. /n %beto vs. People, we held that Aan
advance payment is subject to the disposal of the
vendee. f the transaction fails, the obligation to return
the advance payment ensues but this obligation is civil
and not of criminal nature.G /n fine, the remedy of )kiva
against %uroraJFni-Eroup for breaching its contract is a
civil, not a criminal suit.
:ir.ie "erona v Co!rt o< Appeals )2002*
<%=")# @eonida Kuilatan delivered pieces of
jewelry to 8irgie )erona to be sold on commission basis. :y
oral agreement of the parties, petitioner shall remit
payment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold to
Kuilatan, both within *+ days from receipt of the items.
Fpon petitioner;s failure to pay, Kuilatan re(uired her to
e$ecute an acknowledgment receipt indicating their
agreement and the total amount due. Fnknown to
Kuilatan, )erona had earlier entrusted the jewelry to one
Carichu @abrador for the latter to sell on commission basis.
)erona was not able to collect payment from @abrador,
which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to
Kuilatan. %fter demand, Kuilatan filed a complaint with
the prosecutor and )erona was charged with estafa. "he
trial court found her guilty.
.?@># )erona did not ipso facto commit the
crime of estafa through conversion or misappropriation by
delivering the jewelry to a sub-agent for sale on
commission basis. 7e are unable to agree with the lower
courts; conclusion that this fact alone is sufficient ground
for holding that petitioner disposed of the jewelry 2as if it
were hers, thereby committing conversion and a clear
breach of trust.2 /t must be pointed out that the law on
agency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by an
agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of an
e$press agreement to the contrary between the agent and
the principal. /n the case at bar, the appointment of
@abrador as petitioner;s sub-agent was not e$pressly
prohibited by Kuilatan in the acknowledgement receipt.
Neither does it appear that )erona was verbally forbidden
by Kuilatan from passing on the jewelry to another person
before the acknowledgment receipt was e$ecuted or at any
other time. "hus, it cannot be said that )erona ;s act of
entrusting the jewelry to @abrador is characteri6ed by
abuse of confidence because such an act was not
proscribed and is, in fact, legally sanctioned.
Cristeta C0!a !rce v Co!rt o< Appeals )2000*
<%=")# %fter finding a shortage of P9+,+++.++ in
the vault of Cetrobank, =alapan :ranch, several
investigations were carried out, all of them concluded that
the person primarily responsible was the bank-s =ash
=ustodian, =risteta =hua-:urce. )he was found guilty of
estafa by the trial court.
.?@># Petitioner herein being a mere cash
custodian had no juridical possession over the missing
funds. .ence, the element of juridical possession being
absent, petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of
estafa under %rticle *9, No. 9 3b4 of the 1evised Penal
=ode.
7hen the money, goods, or any other personal
property is received by the offender from the offended
party 394 in trust or 324 on commission or 3*4 for
administration, the offender ac(uires both material or
physical possession and juridical possession of the thing
received. Iuridical possession means a possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which the
transferee may set up even against the owner. /n this case,
petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily
responsible for the cash-in-vault. .er possession of the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15,
cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller,
both being mere bank employees.
/n People v. @ocson, the receiving teller of a bank
misappropriated the money received by him for the bank.
.e was found liable for (ualified theft on the theory that
the possession of the teller is the possession of the bank.
7e e$plained in @ocson that P
2"he money was in the possession of the
defendant as receiving teller of the bank, and the
possession of the defendant was the possession of the
bank. 7hen the defendant, with grave abuse of
confidence, removed the money and appropriated it to his
own use without the consent of the bank, there was the
taking or apoderamiento contemplated in the definition of
the crime of theft.2
/n the subse(uent case of Eu6man v. =ourt of
%ppeals, 2' a travelling sales agent misappropriated or
failed to return to his principal the proceeds of things or
goods he was commissioned or authori6ed to sell. .e was,
however, found liable for estafa under %rticle *9 394 3b4 of
the 1evised Penal =ode, and not (ualified theft. /n the
Eu6man case, we e$plained the distinction between
possession of a bank teller and an agent for purposes of
determining criminal liability P
2"he case cited by the =ourt of %ppeals 3People
vs. @ocson, ! Phil. *24, in support of its theory that
appellant only had the material possession of the
merchandise he was selling for his principal, or their
proceeds, is not in point. /n said case, the receiving teller
of a bank who misappropriated money received by him for
the bank, was held guilty of (ualified theft on the theory
that the possession of the teller is the possession of the
bank. "here is an essential distinction between the
possession by a receiving teller of funds received from third
persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the
proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in
agency by his principal. /n the former case, payment by
third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself5
the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds
received, and has no independent right or title to retain or
possess the same as against the bank. %n agent, on the
other hand, can even assert, as against his own principal,
an independent, autonomous, right to retain money or
goods received in conse(uence of the agency5 as when the
principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made,
and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault
3%rticle 9D9, UNMew =ivil =ode5 %rticle 9!*+, old4.2

Th#ou"h false p#etenses,
f#au$ulent acts o# means
People v Francisco Hernande6 )2002*
<%=")# ?ight 3'4 informations for syndicated
and large scale illegal recruitment and eight 3'4
informations for estafa were filed against accused-
appellants, spouses Qarl and Holanda 1eichl.
"he evidence for the prosecution consisted of
the testimonies of private complainants5 a certification
from the Philippine Overseas ?mployment
%dministration 3PO?%4 that Qarl 1eichl and Holanda
Eutierre6 1eichl in their personal capacities were
neither licensed nor authori6ed by the PO?% to recruit
workers for overseas employment5 the receipts for the
payment made by private complainants5 and two
documents signed by the 1eichl spouses where they
admitted that they promised to secure %ustrian tourist
visas for private complainants and that they would
return all the e$penses incurred by them if they are not
able to leave by Carch 2&, 9DD*, * and where Qarl
1eichl pledged to refund to private complainants the
total sum of P9,*'',D2&.++ representing the amounts
they paid for the processing of their papers. "he
defense interposed denial and alibi. "he trial court
convicted accused-appellants of one 394 count of illegal
recruitment in large scale and si$ 3,4 counts of estafa.
.?@># )= upheld the trial court stating that,
the prosecution also proved the guilt of accused-
appellants for the crime of estafa. % person who is
convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be
convicted of estafa under %rt. *9 324 of the 1evised
Penal =ode provided the elements of estafa are
present.
?stafa under %rticle *9, paragraph 2 of the
1evised Penal =ode is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely
pretends to possess power, influence, (ualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of similar deceits e$ecuted
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud. "he offended party must have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the
accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damages.
/t has been proved in this case that accused-appellants
represented themselves to private complainants to
have the capacity to send domestic helpers to /taly,
although they did not have any authority or license. /t
is by this representation that they induced private
complainants to pay a placement fee of P9+,+++.++.
)uch act clearly constitutes estafa under %rticle *9 324
of the 1evised Penal =ode.
Ro/erto $r@!ia.a vs Co!rt o< Appeals ) 2001*
<%=")# .onesta :al is a businesswoman who
owned a bookstore. )ometime in Cay 9D'D, she was
contacted by Canuel >ayandante W Canny =ru6 who
offered to buy her land in Pili, =amarines )ur. .e told
.onesta that the company he represented was
interested in purchasing her property. .er daughter and
she met >ayandante and a certain @awas 31odolfo
)evilla4 at the %ristocrat .otel. "hey said they worked
as field purchasing representative and field purchasing
head, respectively, of the "aiwanese Carine Products.
"hey persuaded .onesta to purchase cans of a marine
preservative which, could be bought for P9,++ each
from a certain peddler. /n turn, they would buy these
cans from her at P2,+++ each.
"he following day, Cay 2+, 9D'D Elenn
Orosco, appeared at .onesta;s store and introduced
himself as an agent, a.k.a. 21ey,2 who sold said marine
preservative. .onesta purchased a can which she sold
to >ayandante for P9,D++. "he following day, Cay 29,
Orosco brought five more cans which .onesta bought
and eventually sold to @awas. /t was during this
transaction that petitioner 1oberto ?r(uiaga, a.k.a.
2Cr. Euerrerro,2 was introduced to .onesta to ascertain
whether the cans of marine preservative were genuine
or not.
On Cay 2&, Orosco delivered 29 cans to
.onesta. ?ncouraged by the huge profits from her
previous transactions, she purchased all 29 cans for
P*22,++. )he borrowed the money from a Iose :ichara
at 9+T interest on the advice of ?r(uiaga who lent her
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
158
P,+++.++ as deposit or earnest money and who
promised to shoulder the 9+T interest of her loan. )oon
after the payment, @awas, >ayandante, ?r(uiaga, and
Orosco vanished. 1eali6ing that she was conned,
.onesta reported the incident to the National :ureau
of /nvestigation 3N:/4 which, upon e$amination of the
contents of the cans, discovered that these were
nothing more than starch.
On >ecember &, 9D'D, an /nformation for
?stafa under %rticle *9, paragraph 2 3a4 of the 1evised
Penal =ode, was filed against 1oberto ?r(uiaga, Elenn
Orosco, Pastor @awas and Canuel >ayandante.
.?@># "hat petitioners had conspired with
each other must be viewed not in isolation from but in
relation to an alleged plot, a sting, or 2con operation2
known as 2negosyo2 of their group. <urther, whether
such a well-planned confidence operation resulted in
the consummated crime of estafa, however, must be
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt.
"he elements of estafa or swindling under
paragraph 2 3a4 of %rticle *9 of the 1evised Penal =ode
9' are the following#
9. "hat there must be a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means.
2. "hat such false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means must be made or e$ecuted prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
*. "hat the 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.
&. "hat as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
?r(uiaga misrepresented himself as a
2verifier2 of the contents of the cans. .e encouraged
.onesta to borrow money. Petitioner Orosco
misrepresented himself as a seller of marine
preservative. "hey used aliases, ?r(uiaga as 2Cr.
Euerrero25 and Orosco as 21ey2. .onesta fell for these
misrepresentations and the lure of profits offered by
petitioners made her borrow money upon their
inducement, and then petitioners disappeared from the
scene after taking the money from her.

$lsa ?ose v People B7.R. No. 158',1. A!.!st 12&
2005.C
<%=")# 2& November 9DD&, 1egie 1amos del
1osario went with her aunt Holanda :. :autista to the
office of ?lsa 1amos. "hey asked 1amos whether she
was a travel agent. 1amos told del 1osario that she
was a Xprofessional travel agent- and would assist her
in going to Iapan, as the former had Xseveral
connection3s4 at the Iapanese ?mbassy.- 1amos stated
she could help in the processing of passport, visa and
round trip ticket.
>el 1osario gave P*+,+++.++ Xas initial
payment and another P9!,+++.++ at a later date.
1amos assured them that the visa would be obtained
soon and the P9!,+++.++ was in payment of the round
trip ticket. <urther, 1amos asked for another
P!,+++.++ stating that part of the money would be
used to e$pedite the release of the visa. "hey were
assured that she would be able to leave for Iapan with
her mother. %ll these payments were accompanied by a
written receipt. "hereafter, >el 1osario kept following
up her papers with 1amos who insisted on her prior
assurances that the visa would soon be released. >el
1osario thereafter filed a case for estafa against
1amos, the 1"= found her guilty as did the =ourt of
%ppeals.
.?@># >eceit refers to a Afalse
representation of a matter of fact 3whether by words
or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed4
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.G
On record are, on the one hand, the pieces of
evidence submitted by the People of the Philippines
establishing how petitioner held herself out as a
professional travel agent who could process and obtain
for private respondent a passport, as well as a round-
trip ticket to and a visa for Iapan. "his charade
convinced the latter and her family to part with their
P9+&,+++. On the other hand is the testimony of
petitioner denying she ever made such
misrepresentation.
"he prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused made false pretenses as to her
(ualifications and the transactions she had purportedly
entered into as a professional travel agent, who could
assist in processing private respondent-s travel papers.
Fndisputedly, she was not a travel agent. Neither was
she licensed to engage in the business of travel agency.
/ ndeed, private respondent has shown her
gullibility and perhaps even foolishness in believing
petitioner and in conse(uently parting with her
P9+&,+++5 Others more sensible might not have done so
in a similar situation. :ut such naivete cannot absolve
petitioner of criminal liability. /t has been established
with moral certainty that she intentionally committed a
crime in violation of the law enacted precisely to
protect not only the wary and the wily, but more so the
gullible and the guileless.
$li6a Pa/lo v People )2005C
<%=")# "he complainant ?vangeline :ates was
approached by ?li6a Pablo and <elomina Iacobe and
8ictoria 1oberto :ates. ?li6a introduced 8ictoria and
<elomina to her. "he three convinced her to contribute
P**+,+++.++ as her share in the payment of the back
ta$es due on a parcel of land owned by the late
Pulmano Colintas in :aguio =ity, and once the title is
validated she will be assigned a 2,++-s(uare meter
portion of the land. :ecause ?li6a is her townmate and
since 8ictoria assured her that her son is married to a
daughter of Pulmano, she agreed.
?vangeline gave more than P**+,+++.++, or
the total amount of P**2,+++.++, because the three
accused represented to her that they needed e$penses
in following up the papers of the land.
)ubse(uently, ?vangeline found out that instead of
paying for the back ta$es and validation of the
property, the three accused divided the money among
themselves. ?vangeline demanded the return of her
money and the three accused e$ecuted their respective
promissory notes. <ailing to pay, ?vangeline filed a
criminal complaint against them.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15#
.?@># >eceit is defined as the false
representation of a matter of fact, whether by words
or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. <alse
pretense is any deceitful practice or device by which
another is led to part with the property in the thing
taken.
"he deceit or false pretense employed by
petitioners is the fact that they assured complainant
that the amount of P**+,+++.++ delivered to them and
accused 8ictoria by ?vangeline was to pay the back
ta$es of a certain parcel of land so that a title may be
secured and complainant will be given 2,++ s(uare
meters of the subject land.
"he failure of petitioners and accused 1oberto in not
paying the back ta$es and in misappropriating the money to
their own personal use, constitute the crime of ?stafa.
?ven if the land e$ists, the crime of ?stafa is committed
when petitioners and accused 1oberto convinced
complainant to part with her money on the basis of their
assurance that they will pay the back ta$es due on the land
so as to secure a title over the land and a portion thereof
titled in the name of complainant.

Douncing Chec)#
BP %%
People v 7race Flores )2002*
<%=")# Erace <lores issued a check in
payment of one 394 man;s ring with a .' ct. diamond
from Pacita >el 1osario. "he check was dishonored and
payment thereof refused for the reason 2%==OFN"
=@O)?>2, notwithstanding due notice to her of such
dishonor of said check, failed and refused to deposit
the necessary amount of said check. =ases for ?stafa
and violation of :.P 22 were filed. "he 1"= found
<lores guilty.
.?@># "he elements of estafa, as defined
under %rt. *9, par. 23d4 of the 1evised Penal =ode and
amended by 1epublic %ct No. &'', are# 394 that the
offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or
issuance5 324 that at the time of the issuance of the
check, the offender had no funds in the bank or the
funds deposited were insufficient to cover the amount
of the check5 and 3*4 that the payee has been
defrauded. 9+
"hese elements are present in this case.
%ccused-appellant admitted that she issued P=/: =heck
No. '!&, dated October 2+, 9DD2, for P,,2,2+.++
to Pacita E. >el 1osario. 99 "he check was issued as
payment for a ring and the P2+.++ transportation fare
which accused-appellant received from complainant.
"he fraudulent intent of accused-appellant
had been proven to e$ist at the time of the issuance of
the check. )he misrepresented to complainant that she
was financially stable and that her business was
flourishing. /n reality, however, accused-appellant had
no funds sufficient to cover the check she issued to
complainant. /t is thus clear that she obtained the
amounts of P,,2,+++.++ and P2+.++ through deceit. %s
already stated, the account was closed on the very
date of the postdated check issued to complainant.
People v Ale1ander %in.lasan )2002*
<%=")# %le$ander >inglasan was the owner
and operator of %le$ander "ransport, while private
complainant =harles K. )ia is the owner of )chanika
?nterprises engaged in retailing nylon tires. >inglasan
issued three checks as payment for tire purchases.
7hen the checks fell due, )ia deposited them, but the
drawee bank, :anco de Oro, dishonored these for
insufficiency of funds. .e then tried to call >inglasan
several times, but his calls were unanswered. )ia, with
the assistance of a lawyer, then sent appellant a
demand letter. %ll he got were promises that appellant
would pay the amounts due, 9* finally prompting him
to hale appellant to court. >inglasan vigorously denied
any intent to deceive or defraud )ia. .e vehemently
insisted that his refusal to pay )ia was primarily due to
the poor (uality of the tires sold him by the latter. "he
trial court convicted >inglasan.
.?@># >inglasan was charged and convicted
of estafa under %rticle *9 324 3d4 of the 1evised Penal
=ode. 22 "he elements of the offense are# 394
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued5
324 lack of sufficient funds to cover the check5 3*4
knowledge on the part of the offender of such
circumstances5 and 3&4 damage to the complainant. "he
first element of the offense re(uires that the
dishonored check must have been postdated or issued
at the time the obligation was contracted. /n other
words, the date the obligation was entered into, being
the very date the check was issued or postdated, is a
material ingredient of the offense. .ence, not only
must said date be specifically and particularly alleged
in the information, it must be proved as alleged.
/n the present case, the prosecution;s
evidence clearly and categorically shows that there was
no transaction between the parties on Iuly *+, 9DD&,
for which =heck No. +2D+9& was issued. /n other words,
no obligation was contracted on Iuly *+, 9DD&, for
which =heck No. +2D+9& was allegedly postdated by
appellant. "he situation obtains similarly regarding
=heck No. +2D+2+. %gain, there was no obligation
contracted by the parties on Iuly 2&, 9DD& for which
appellant allegedly postdated another check. ?vidently,
the first element of the offense was neither correctly
alleged nor proven by the prosecution. .ence,
appellant cannot be charged much less found guilty of
estafa with respect to =hecks Nos. +2D+9& and +2D+2+.
People v Aloma Re+es )2005*
<%=")# %loma 1eyes, together with her
daughter, issued Iules %labastro a check for
rediscounting. .e was allegedly lured to part with his
money due to their seeming honest representations
that the check was good and would never bounce.
.owever, when the check was presented to the drawee
bank for encashment, the same was dishonored for the
reason 2%==OFN" =@O)?>2 and after having been
notified by such dishonor said accused failed and
refused to redeem said check despite repeated
demands.
.?@># %ppellant avers that the subject check
does not fall within the meaning of )ection 9' of the
Negotiable /nstruments @aw which defines a 2check2 as
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
150
a 2bill of e$change drawn on a bank payable on
demand.2 <irst, the NO7 check is drawn against the
savings, not the current account, of appellant. )econd,
it is payable only to a specific person or the 2payee2
and is not valid when made payable to 2:?%1?12 or to
2=%)..2 %ppellant (uotes the restriction written on the
face of a NO7 check#
2NO72 shall be payable only to a specific
person, natural or juridical. /t is not valid when made
payable to 2:?%1?12 or to 2=%).2 or when UiMndorsed by
the payee to another person. Only the payee can
encash this 2NO72 with the drawee bank or deposit it in
his account with the drawee bank or with any other
bank.
%ppellant posits that this condition strips the
subject check the character of negotiability. .ence, it
is not a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable
/nstruments @aw, and not the 2check2 contemplated in
=riminal @aw.
7e disagree.
)ection Y22* of the Canual of 1egulations for
:anks defines Negotiable Order of 7ithdrawal 3NO74
%ccounts as interest-bearing deposit accounts that
combine the payable on demand feature of checks and
the investment feature of savings accounts.
"he fact that a NO7 check shall be payable
only to a specific person, and not valid when made
payable to 2:?%1?12 or to 2=%).2 or when indorsed by
the payee to another person, is inconse(uential. "he
same restriction is produced when a check is crossed#
only the payee named in the check may deposit it in his
bank account. /f a third person accepts a cross check
and pays cash for its value despite the warning of the
crossing, he cannot be considered in good faith and
thus not a holder in due course. "he purpose of the
crossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed by
the rightful payee only. Het, despite the restriction on
the negotiability of cross checks, we held that they are
negotiable instruments.
"o be sure, negotiability is not the gravamen
of the crime of estafa through bouncing checks. /t is
the fraud or deceit employed by the accused in issuing
a worthless check that is penali6ed.
>eceit, to constitute estafa, should be the
efficient cause of defraudation. /t must have been
committed either prior or simultaneous with the
defraudation complained of. "here must be
concomitance# the issuance of a check should be the
means to obtain money or property from the payee.
.ence, a check issued in payment of a pre-e$isting
obligation does not constitute estafa even if there is no
fund in the bank to cover the amount of the check.
-an!el Na.rampa v People )2002*
<%=")# Nagrampa issued 2 checks 3Php!,+++
each4 to <edcor "rading =orp represented by <ederico
)antander on %ugust *9, 9D'D and )eptember *+, 9D'D
drawn against the )ecurity :ank . 7hen said checks
were presented to the bank for payment, the same
were dishonored for the reason that the drawer did not
have any funds therein. >espite notice of dishonor
thereof, Nagrampa failed and refused to redeem or
make good said checks, 2 cases were filed against him.
"he trial court found Nagrampa guilty of two counts of
violation of the :ouncing =hecks @aw and sentencing
him to suffer imprisonment for two years and pay
<?>=O1 P9+,+++.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the =ourt
of %ppeals. "he appeal was docketed as =%-E.1. =1.
No. 9'+'2. Fpon noticing that the *+ )eptember 9DD*
>ecision of the trial court did not resolve the issue of
petitioner;s liability for estafa, the =ourt of %ppeals
issued on 9D Cay 9DD' a resolution 9' ordering the
return of the entire records of the case to the trial
court for the latter to decide the estafa case against
petitioner.
.?@># 7e l sustain the conviction for the
crime of estafa. )ettled is the rule that, to constitute
estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of
defraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to,
or simultaneous with, the act of fraud. "he offender
must be able to obtain money or property from the
offended party because of the issuance of the check, or
the person to whom the check was delivered would not
have parted with his money or property had there been
no check issued to him. )tated otherwise, the check
should have been issued as an inducement for the
surrender by the party deceived of his money or
property, and not in payment of a pre-e$isting
obligation.
People v. Rica C!+!.an )2002*
<%=")# 1ica E. =uyugan issued to Norma
%bagat several checks in payment of supplies she
wanted to buy for the Philippine %rmed <orces. 7hen
the checks were presented for payment, they were all
dishonored either on account of >%/< 3drawn against
insufficient funds4 or for reason of %==OFN" =@O)?>.
>espite repeated demands, appellant failed to make
good the checks, which constrained the %bagat spouses
to file a complaint for estafa against =uyugan. =uygan
claimed that the %bagat spousesand she were partners
in obtaining construction projects with the Philippine
%rmy. )he issued postdated checks as proof that the
%bagat spouses had invested their money with her. )he
claimed that she was the industrial partner as she did
all the legwork in getting the projects. "hey then
shared in the profits after deducting all the
miscellaneous e$penses.
"he trial court found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of estafa committed by means of
false pretenses or fraudulent acts e$ecuted prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, that
is 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.
.?@># 7e find the appeal meritorious. "he
transaction between appellant and the %bagat spouses,
in our view, was one for a loan of money to be used by
appellant in her business and she issued checks to
guarantee the payment of the loan. %s such, she has
the obligation to make good the payment of the money
borrowed by her. :ut such obligation is civil in
character and in the absence of fraud, no criminal
liability under the 1evised Penal =ode arises from the
mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of
repayment.
Pio 24m/al v Co!rt o< Appeals )2001*
<%=")# % husband was held by the court a (uo
accountable for estafa through false pretense on
account of a check issued by his wife. Iudy /. :igornia
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
151
delivered hog meat to the spouses "imbal at their stall
located at the <armer;s Carket. /n payment, Caritess
"imbal issued in favor of :igornia a check for
P'+,!9,.++. "he husband- Pio "imbal was present when
the check was issued and handed over by his wife
Caritess to :igornia. 7hen the latter presented the
check to the bank for encashment, it was dishonored
on the ground that the account was closed. Pio "imbal
contended that he had no active participation in the
business of his wife and claimed that when the check
was issued by his wife he was manning his own
restaurant.
.?@># "he petition has merit. "he decision of
the trial court, as well as that of the appellate court,
would reveal that the main basis used in convicting
petitioner was the fact of his presence at the time of
the issuance of the check by his wife. Nothing else was
shown nor reflected in the appealed decision that could
indicate any overt act on the part of petitioner that
would even remotely suggest that he had a hand in
dealing with :igornia. "imbal-s mere presence at the
scene of a crime would not by itself establish
conspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an act or
series of acts, participated in the commission of fraud
to the damage of the complainant.
People v. $rnst Hol6er )2000*
<%=")# ?rnst .ol6er et al were the owners of
CE< ?@?="1ON/=) )%"?@@/"? )FPP@H, a business
engaged in selling and installing satellite antenna
system. "hey installed a system in the house of
:ernhard <orster. <orster was not satisfied with the
satellite antenna installed and the e(uipment which
came with it which he thought were second-hand.
Coreover, he wanted a bigger antenna. .e was assured
by accused-appellant .ol6er that should new
e(uipment arrive from abroad, the used e(uipment
would be replaced and another antenna would be
given.
.ol6er informed complainant that new
e(uipment had arrived in Canila. .is money, however,
was not enough to secure the release of the e(uipment
from the :ureau of =ustoms. <or this reason, he asked
complainant to lend him P9++,+++.++. =omplainant
agreed and issued a check for P9++,+++.++ to accused-
appellant .ol6er. /n e$change, the latter issued a post
dated check. :efore the due date, accused-appellant
.ol6er asked the complainant not to deposit the check
on %ugust 9, 9DD. <our days later, accused-appellant
again asked the latter not to deposit the check because
the money from )wit6erland to cover the check had not
yet arrived.
>espite the re(uest, however, complainant
deposited the check on %ugust D, 9DD. %s to be
e$pected, the check was dishonored for having been
drawn against insufficient funds. On the same day,
complainant filed a complaint for estafa
.?@># /n view of the amendment of %rt.
*93243d4 by 1.%. No. &'', the following are no longer
elements of estafa#
9. knowledge of the drawer that he has no
funds in the bank or that the funds deposited
by him are not sufficient.
2. failure to inform the payee of such
circumstance 9'
"he drawer of the dishonored check is given
three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to
deposit the amount necessary to cover the check.
Otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit will
arise which must then be overcome by the accused.
People v. ;8eda )2005*
<%=")# =ora %bella Ojeda used to buy fabrics
3telas4 from complainant 1uby =hua. <or the three
years appro$imately she transacted business with =hua,
appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics
she bought. On November , 9D'*, appellant purchased
from =hua various fabrics and te$tile materials worth
P22',*+, for which she issued 22 postdated checks
bearing different dates and amounts.
"he 22 checks were all dishonored. >emands
were allegedly made to make good the dishonored
checks, to no avail. ?stafa and :P 22 charges were
thereafter filed against Ojeda. "he trial court
convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined
and penali6ed under paragraph 23d4 of %rticle *9 of
the 1evised Penal =ode 31P=4, and sentenced her to
reclusion perpetua. "he trial court also convicted
appellant of violation of :P 22 for issuing bouncing
checks. .owever, the court a (uo held her guilty of
only 9& counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued.
.?@># Fnder paragraph 23d4 of %rticle *9 of
the 1P=, as amended by 1% &'', 2+ the elements of
estafa are# 394 a check is postdated or issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is
issued5 324 lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check5 3*4 damage to the payee thereof. >eceit and
damage are essential elements of the offense and must
be established by satisfactory proof to warrant
conviction. "hus, the drawer of the dishonored check is
given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor
to cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a prima
facie presumption of deceit arises.
"he prosecution failed to prove deceit in this
case. "he prima facie presumption of deceit was
successfully rebutted by appellant;s evidence of good
faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check. Eood
faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor;s
offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor. /n
this case, the debtor not only made arrangements for
payment5 as complainant herself categorically stated,
the debtor-appellant fully paid the entire amount of
the dishonored checks.
/t must be noted that our 1evised Penal =ode
was enacted to penali6e unlawful acts accompanied by
evil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. "he
principal consideration is the e$istence of malicious
intent. "here is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence
and intent which together make up the 2criminal mind2
behind the 2criminal act.2 "hus, to constitute a crime,
the act must, generally and in most cases, be
accompanied by a criminal intent. %ctus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. No crime is committed if the
mind of the person performing the act complained of is
innocent. %s we held in "abuena vs. )andiganbayan#
YYY
"he rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana,
although this case involved falsification of public
documents and estafa#
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
152
2Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an
unlawful act for there to be a crime. %ctus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. "here can be no crime when
the criminal mind is wanting.2
%merican jurisprudence echoes the same
principle. /t adheres to the view that criminal intent in
embe66lement is not based on technical mistakes as to
the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into,
and there can be no embe66lement if the mind of the
person doing the act is innocent or if there is no
wrongful purpose.
"he accused may thus prove that he acted in
good faith and that he had no intention to convert the
money or goods for his personal benefit. 7e are
convinced that appellant was able to prove the absence
of criminal intent in her transactions with =hua. .ad
her intention been tainted with malice and deceit,
appellant would not have e$erted e$traordinary effort
to pay the complainant, given her own business and
financial reverses.
People v. %imalanta )2005*
<%=")# Iosefina >imalanta who was then
employed at the =aloocan =ity ?ngineer;s Office, called
up complainant ?lvira >. %barca on the telephone to
e$press her desire to purchase jewelry. =omplainant
went to >imalanta-s house where the latter purchased
twelve pairs of jewelry. /n payment thereof, appellant
issued twelve postdated checks with the representation
that the same will be sufficiently funded on their
respective maturity dates.
"he first check issued by >imalanta was
honored and paid by the drawee bank. .owever, the
remaining eleven checks were all returned unpaid since
the account was closed. On demand >imalanta failed to
make good on the checks. "he trial court convicted
>imalanta of ?stafa.
.?@># >amage and deceit are essential
elements of the offense and must be established with
satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. "he false
pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to
or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad check.
/n the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish
beyond a shadow of a doubt that appellant employed
deceit. /ts evidence was overcome by the defense;s
proof that the pieces of jewelry were not purchased by
appellant for her own use5 rather the same were
merely given to her for resale.
7e find that appellant acted in good faith
during the transaction. %fter the first check was
dishonored, she e$erted best efforts to make good the
value of the check, albeit only to the e$tent of
P2,+++.++. Eood faith is a defense to a charge of
?stafa by postdating a check. "his may be manifested
by appellant;s act of offering to make arrangements
with complainant as to the manner of payment.
DP 22
An Act PenaliHing the Ma)ing or 5ra(ing an'
I##uance o! a Chec) Without Su%cient @un'# or
Cre'it an' @or Other Pur$o#e#
-ection .
B6 22 'ay !e %iolate( in 3WO $ay&
Ele'ent& o the oAen&e (e-ne( in the -r&t paragraph
o "ection 5E
,! 3hat a per&on 'a7e& or (ra$& and i&&ue& any
chec7
%! 3hat the chec7 i& 'a(e or (ra$n an( i&&ue( to
apply on account or for value
-! 3hat the per&on $ho 'a7e& or (ra$& an( i&&ue&
the chec7 knows at the time of issue that he
(oe& not ha%e &uMcient un(& in or cre(it $ith
the (ra$ee !an7 for the payment of such check
in full upon it& pre&ent'ent
.! 3hat the chec7
a. i& &u!&eCuently (i&honore( !y the (ra$ee
!an7 or in&uMciency o un(& or cre(it, or
!. $oul( ha%e !een (i&honore( or the &a'e
rea&on ha( not the (ra$er, without any
valid reason, or(ere( the !an7 to &top
pay'ent
Ele'ent& o the oAen&e (e-ne( in the &econ(
paragraph o "ection 5E
,! 3hat a per&on ha& &uMcient un(& in or cre(it
$ith the (ra$ee !an7 when he 'a7e& or (ra$&
an( i&&ue& a chec7
%! 3hat he ail& to 7eep &uMcient un(& or to
'aintain a cre(it to co%er the full a'ount o the
chec7 i pre&ente( within a period of &0 days
ro' the (ate appearing thereon
-! 3hat the chec7 i& (i&honore( !y the (ra$ee
!an7
Gra%a'en o B6 22E i&&uance o the chec7, not
the pay'ent o the o!ligation. 3he la$ ha& 'a(e
the 'ere act o i&&uing a !u' chec7 a 'alu'
prohi!itu'
DP 22 /#. E#ta!a un'er Article 3?2 $ar 2
;'<,
5. <nli7e e&taa, ele'ent o /A;AGE i& NO3
RE:<IRE/ in B6 22
2. Article 35* par 2 >(? o e&taa ha& /ECEI3 a&
an ele'ent. B6 22 (oe& NO3 reCuire &uch
ele'ent.
3. Al&o, the 'ere act o po&t(ating or i&&uing
a chec7 $hen the (ra$er ha( no or
in&uMcient un(& in the !an7 'a7e&
&o'eone lia!le un(er Article 35* par 2>(? o
e&taa. B6 22, 5
&t
paragraph reCuire&
7no$le(ge o in&uMcient un(&.
3he chec7 'ay !e (ra$n an( i&&ue( to Oapply
on account o or %alueOE B6 22 (oe& not 'a7e a
(i&tinction a& to $hether the !a( chec7 i& i&&ue(
in pay'ent o an o!ligation or to 'erely
guarantee an o!ligation
Illu&tration or "ection 5, par 5, ele'ent )E
3here $a& a 'i&ta7e in na'ing the payee o the
chec7F &o the (ra$er or(ere( the !an7 to &top
pay'entF an( it appeare( that the (ra$er 7ne$ at
the ti'e that the chec7 $a& i&&ue( that he ha( no
&uMcient un(& in the !an7. In thi& ca&e, NO
=IOLA3ION O8 B6 22U
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15'
E%en i the chec7 $oul( ha%e !een (i&honore( or
in&uMciency o un(& ha( he not or(ere( the !an7 to
&top pay'ent, there $a& a =ALI/ rea&on >$rong
payee? or or(ering the !an7 to &top pay'ent.
B6 22E per&on lia!le $hen the chec7 i& (ra$n !y
a corporation, co'pany, or entityE the per&onR&
$ho AC3<ALLY "IGNE/ the chec7 in !ehal o
&uch (ra$er
-ection /
"ection e&ta!li&he& a prima facie evidence of
1knowledge of insu2ciency OE $hen pay'ent o the
chec7 i& reu&e( !y the (ra$ee !ecau&e o
in&uMcient un(& R cre(it $hen the chec7 i&
pre&ente( (ithin 94 (ay& ro' the (ate o &uch
chec7
E2ceptionE
a. $hen the 'a7er or (ra$er pay& the hol(er
thereo o the a'ount (ue thereon or
!. 'a7e& arrange'ent& or pay'ent in ull !y the
(ra$ee o &uch chec7 $ithin * !an7ing (ay&
ater recei%ing notice that &uch chec7 ha& not
!een pai( !y the (ra$ee
-ection 0
"ection 3 reCuire& the (ra$ee
5. in ca&e $here (ra$ee reu&e& to pay the chec7
to the hol(erE
Write, print, or &ta'p on the chec7 or to !e
attache( thereto the rea&on or (i&honoring.
2. in ca&e (ra$ee !an7 recei%e( an or(er to &top
pay'ent, it &houl( &tate in the notice that there
$ere no &uMcient un(& in or cre(it $ith it or
the pay'ent in ull o the chec7, i &uch !e the
act.
Intro(uction in e%i(ence o any unpai( an(
(i&honore( chec7 $ith the (ra$erP& reu&al to pay
in(icate( thereon or attache( thereto is prima facie
evidence oE
5. the 'a7ing or i&&uance o the chec7
2. the (ue pre&ent'ent to the (ra$ee or pay'ent
an( the (i&honor thereoF an(
3. the act that the chec7 $a& properly (i&honore(
or the rea&on in(icate( thereto
Nievas vs. %ac!+c!+
Nievas paid D checks to )hell that were all dishonored. .e
was charged with D counts of estafa under the 1P=. 9 count
of violation of :P 22. Nievas invokes double jeopardy.
.?@># No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses.
?stafa needs deceit and damage, not for pre-e$isting
obligations, crime against poperty and is mala in se. :P 22#
deceit and damage not re(uired because mere issuance
gives presumption of guilt, can be for a pre-e$isting debt,
crime against public order and is mala prohibitum.
People vs. 7orospe
Parulan paid check in :ulacan. =heck was forwarded in :P/
Pampanga, then dishonored. =ase was filed in Pampanga
but was dismissed, as the court had no jurisdiction on the
case.
.?@># Pampanga court also has jurisdictionS 8iolation of :P
22 %N> estafa are transitory crimes. >eceit happened in
Pampanga where it was utteredJdelivered while the
damage was done in :ulacan where it was issued.
3!e vs. People
Kue issued checks in Kue6on =ity. =hecks were used to pay
for the purchase made in )ta. Cesa. =hecks were issued
NO" to pay for an obligation but just to guarantee
payment. =hecks later dishonored.
.?@># K= 1"= has jurisdiction.
<act that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NO"
important as law does not distinguish-- included as long as
it was an issued check that subse(uently bounced.
People vs. Nita<an
@im issued a memorandum check that was subse(uently
dishonored.
.?@># Cemorandum =heck 3one used as evidence for a
debt4 falls within coverage of :P 22. Cemorandum check is
NO" a PN.
Lim Lao vs. CA
@im was an officer in a company where she signed checks,
while it was her superior who filled the blanks. =heck
which she signed as issuer was dishonored. =onvicted for
violating :P 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds when check is issued.
.?@># NO" guilty. @im lacked actual knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable by
contrary evidence. %lso, no notice of the dishonor was
given to her5 notice only given to the employer which is not
sufficient as law re(uires personal notice.
4dos vs. CA
/dos and %larilla had a partnership that was terminated
with each entitled to P9.'C each. /dos issued & postdated
checks - 9 was dishonored.
.?@># Not guilty as the check was NO" issued for a debt
but as a collateral or evidence of the other partners share.
"+cip vs. CA
%ccused here bought a townhouse unit from <1=. %ccused
issued &' postdated checks for the balance. .owever, due
to the defects and incomplete features of the unit, accused
suspended payments. <1= however continued to present
the checks for payment thus always forcing him to issue
stop order payments. "he bank then advised accused to
just close the account in order to save on hefty bank
charges upon every stop order. /t is here that , checks were
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
155
presented by <1= but were dishonored. %ccused convicted
under :P22.
.?@># %ccused not guilty. 2
nd
element of :P22 3knowledge
by the issuer of the check that he does not have sufficient
funds4 not proven. Proven that there was sufficient funds in
the account and that it was closed not for insufficiency but
upon the banks advice to save on charges.
Other statutes can be used as a valid defense under :P22.
=%:, P>D! that governs sales of townhouses allows the
buyer to suspend payments until the developer has
complied with its obligations to properly furnish the unit.
:P22 and P>D! must be construed together in order to
harmoni6e their application.
Article 3?4. Other !or&# o! #(in'ling
I. Paragra$h ?, D con/eing0 #elling0
encu&"ering0 or &ortgaging an
real $ro$ert0 $reten'ing to "e the
o(ner o! the #a&e.
Ele'ent&E
,! 3hat the thing !e real property, &uch a& a
parcel o lan( or a !uil(ing
%! 3hat the oAen(er who is not the owner o
&ai( property &houl( represent that he is
the owner thereof
-! 3hat the oAen(er &houl( ha%e executed
acts of ownership >&elling, lea&ing,
encu'!ering, or 'ortgaging the real
property?
.! 3hat the act !e 'a(e to the pre+udice o
a. the o$ner or
!. a thir( per&on
E2a'pleE
A &ol( a parcel o lan( to B. Later, A &ol(
the &a'e parcel o lan( to C, repre&enting to
the latter that he >A? $a& the o$ner thereo. At
the ti'e he &ol( the lan( to C, A $a& no longer
the o$ner o the property.
3he thing (i&po&e( o 'u&t !e real property
I property i& chattelE E"3A8AU
3here 'u&t !e EDI"3ING real property
I accu&e( &ol( nonBe2i&tent lan(, he i&
guilty o e&taa !y 'ean& o al&e preten&e&.
/eceit con&i&ting in al&e preten&e
Article 35. only penaliQe& only tho&e $ho
6RE3EN/ to !e the o$ner o property. Where
the accu&e( CLAI;" to !e the o$ner,
e&pecially i he ha& a Certi-cate o 3itle, there
(a# no $reten#ion e/en i! hi# o(ner#hi$
i# 'e!ecti/e an( later co'pelle( to return the
property to the per&on oun( to !e the true
o$ner o the property.
E%en i the (eceit i& practice( again&t the
&econ( purcha&er an( the (a'age i& incurre(
!y the -r&t purcha&er, there i& %iolation o Art
35. par 5.
A &ol( a parcel o lan( to B. Later, A &ol( the
&a'e parcel o lan( to C, repre&enting to the
latter that he >A? $a& &till the o$ner thereo. C
regi&tere( the &ale in hi& a%or. Con&eCuenceE B
lo&t the property (ue to nonBregi&tration in hi&
a%or.

9ence, (a'age ell on B, the -r&t
purcha&er, $hile (eceit $a& practice( again&t
C, &econ( purcha&er. A $ill &till !e lia!le un(er
Art 35. par 5 i B -le& a cri' ca&e.
;ere intent to cau&e (a'age NO3 &uMcient.
3here 'u&t !e actual (a'age. In act, -ne
pre&cri!e( i& !a&e( on the (a'age cau&e(
Art 35. par 5 %&. Art 35* par 2>a?
Art 35. par 5E the oAen(er e2erci&e& act& o
o$ner&hip o%er the property a& part o the
al&e repre&entation. On the other han(, Art
35* par 2>a? (oe& not nee( thi& circu'&tance.
II. Paragra$h 2, D 'i#$o#ing o! real
$ro$ert a# !ree !ro&
encu&"rance0 although #uch
encu&"rance "e not recor'e'.
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the thing (i&po&e( !e real property
2. 3hat the oAen(er 7ne$ that the real
property $a& encu'!ere(, $hether the
encu'!rance !e recor(e( or not.
3. 3hat there 'u&t !e express repre&entation
!y the oAen(er that the real property i&
ree ro' encu'!rance
). 3hat the act o (i&po&ing real property !e
'a(e to the (a'age o another
E2a'pleE
A 'ortgage( hi& property to B. Later, A,
'i&repre&enting that the property i& ree ro'
encu'!rance, 'ortgage( it again, thi& ti'e to
C.
But i C 7ne$ that the property ha( alrea(y
!een 'ortgage( to B, C cannot co'plain, a&
there i& neither (eceit nor rau(.
O"hall (i&po&e o the &a'eO
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
155
3he act con&tituting the oAen&e i& the
/I"6O"ING o the real property 8AL"ELY
RE6RE"EN3ING that it i& ree ro'
encu'!rance.
O"hall (i&po&eOE inclu(e& encu'!ering or
'ortgaging.
OEncu'!ranceOE e%ery right or intere&t in
the lan( e2i&ting in a%or o thir( per&on&
;ortgage
Or(inary lea&e
Attach'ent
Lien o a +u(g'ent
E2ecution &ale
3he oAen(e( party 'u&t ha%e !een (ecei%e(,
that i&, he $oul( not ha%e grante( the loan ha(
he 7no$n that the property $a& alrea(y
encu'!ere(.
When the loan 9A/ ALREA/Y BEEN
GRAN3E/ $hen (een(ant later oAere( the
property a& &ecurity or the pay'ent o the
loan, Article 35., par 2 i& NO3 applica!le
ConJicting +uri&pru(enceE O $lthough such
encumbrance be not recorded O
Not$ith&tan(ing thi& phra&e, &o'e ca&e&
hel( that the encu'!rance 'u&t !e legally
con&titute(U In the&e ca&e&, &ince the
encu'!rance& $ere NO3 regi&tere(, accu&e(
$ere acCuitte(.
3hing (i&po&e( 'u&t !e REAL property
I the thing encu'!ere( an( (i&po&e( i&
per&onal property, Article 359 applie&
>puni&hing one $ho &ell& or ple(ge& per&onal
property alrea(y &u!+ect to encu'!rance.?
Real property 'ay !e regi&tere( un(er any
&y&te' o regi&tration
3hi& paragraph applie& $hether the
property i& regi&tere( un(er the "pani&h
&y&te' or un(er the Lan( Regi&tration Act.
III. Paragra$h 3, D (rong!ul ta)ing
" the o(ner o! hi# $er#onal
$ro$ert !ro& it# la(!ul $o##e##or
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the oAen(er i& o$ner o per&onal
property
2. 3hat the per&onal property i& in the la$ul
po&&e&&ion o another
3. 3hat the oAen(er $rongully ta7e& it ro'
it& la$ul po&&e&&or.
). 3hat pre+u(ice i& cau&e( to the po&&e&&or
or thir( per&on
E2a'pleE

Accu&e( pa$ne( hi& $atch to co'plainant.
Later, preten(ing to re(ee' $atch, accu&e(
a&7e( oAen(e( party to gi%e hi' the $atch.
Once getting hol( o hi& $atch, he ran a$ay
$ithout paying the loan.
NoteE not thet an o$ner cannot !e hel(
guilty o thet o hi& o$n property.
OAen(er o$ner o per&onal property
I thir( per&on an( hi& purpo&e in ta7ing it i&
to return it to the o$ner, the cri'e i& 39E83.
In la$ul po&&e&&ion o another
8in(er o a lo&t thing i& NO3 a la$ul
po&&e&&or, it !eing the o!ligation o a -n(er to
gi%e the thing to the o$ner or to the
authoritie&.
OWrongul ta7ingO
I o$ner ta7e& the thing ro' a !ailee
through >5? =IOLENCE, an( >2? WI39 IN3EN3 3O
GAINR C9ARGE 39E BAILEE WI39 I3" =AL<E the
cri'e i& ROBBERY.
I o$ner ta7e& the thing ro' a !ailee
through >5? =IOLENCE an( >2? WI39O<3
IN3EN3 3O GAIN, cri'e i& GRA=E COERCION
I o$ner too7 the thing >5? $ithout con&ent
an( 7no$le(ge o po&&e&&or an( >2? later
charge( po&&e&&or o the %alue o the property,
cri'e i& E"3A8A.
O3o the pre+u(ice o po&&e&&or or thir( per&onO
E2a'pleE A ple(ge( hi& $atch to B, hi&
(or' 'ate to &ecure a loan o 63444. One
night, A too7 the $atch ro' the (ra$er o B
$ithout BP& con&ent an( 7no$le(ge an( u&e( it
or the night. A returne( later an( $a& a!out to
put !ac7 the $atch in the (ra$er $hen B
&urpri&e( A >BulagaUUU?
I& A lia!le un(er 35., par 3S NO. 39ERE
WA" NO /A;AGE CA<"E/ 3O B.
IK. D e:ecuting an 1ctitiou#
contract to the $re3u'ice o!
another
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15(
Ele'ent&E
5. 8ictitiou& contract
2. /a'age to another
E2a'pleE
A per&on $ho #i&ulate# >con&i(eration i&
-ctitiou&? a con%eyance to another or the
purpo&e o (erau(ing a cre(itor.
NoteE 3he e2a'ple a!o%e 'ay !eco'e a cri'e
o rau(ulent in&ol%ency >Art 35)? i the
con%eyance i& real an( &a'e !or a
con#i'eration.

K. D acce$ting an co&$en#ation !or
#er/ice# not ren'ere' or !or la"or
not $er!or&e'
Ele'ent&E
5. Co'pen&ation $rongully recei%e(
>accepting co'pen&ation or &er%ice not
ren(ere( nor peror'e(?
2. ;aliciou& ailure to return the
co'pen&ation $rongully recei%e( >rau(?
3here 'u&t !e rau( in thi& cri'e, other$i&e, it
$ill only !e a ca&e o &olutio in(e!iti un(er the
Ci%il Co(e.
KI. Paragra$h 4, D #elling0
&ortgaging0 or encu&"ering real
$ro$ert or $ro$ertie# (ith (hich
the oEen'er guarantee' the
!ul1ll&ent o! hi# o"ligation a#
#uret
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the oAen(er i& a &urety in a !on(
gi%en in a cri'inal or ci%il action.
2. 3hat he guarantee( the ul-ll'ent o &uch
o!ligation $ith hi& real propertyRpropertie&
3. 3hat he &ell&, 'ortgage&, or, in any other
'anner encu'!er& &ai( real property
). 3hat &uch &ale, 'ortgage or encu'!rance
i&
a. $ithout e2pre&& authority ro' the
court
!. 'a(e !eore the cancellation o hi&
!on(, or
c. 'a(e !eore !eing relie%e( ro' the
o!ligation contracte( !y hi'
3here 'u&t !e (a'age cau&e(
un(er thi& article.
Article 3?8. S(in'ling a &inor
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the oAen(er ta7e& a(%antage o the
ine2perience or e'otion& or eeling& o a
'inor.
2. 3hat he in(uce& &uch 'inor toE
a. a&&u'e an o!ligation
!. to gi%e relea&e, or
c. to e2ecute a tran&er o any property
right
3. 3hat the con&i(eration i&
a. &o'e loan o 'oney
!. cre(it, or
c. other per&onal property
). 3hat the tran&action i& to the (etri'ent o
&uch 'inor.
NoteE Only per&onal property, &ince a 'inor
can not con%ey real property
Article 3?9. Other 'eceit#
Ele'ent&E
A.
5. By (erau(ing or (a'aging another
2. !y any other (eceit not 'entione( in the
procee(ing article&
B.
5. By interpreting (rea'&, 'a7ing oreca&t&,
telling ortune&, or !y ta7ing a(%antage o
the cre(ulity o the pu!lic in any other
&i'ilar 'anner
2. 8or pro-t or gain
3. /a'age to other&
NoteE A& in other ca&e& o e&taa, /A;AGE
&houl( al$ay& !e pre&ent.
:illa<lor vs. CA
8illaflor borrowed P9,+++, in turn he offered his car as
collateral 3=hattel mortgage instituted4. 8illaflor failed to
pay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the car
was already repossessed. 8illaflor was convicted of ?stafa.
.?@># Eulty of ?stafa as there was deceit Z he represented
self as the owner of the car and failed to reveal that the
car was already mortgaged.
:eloso vs. CA
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15,
>istrict %uditor 8eloso approved 2& vouchers that led to the
disbursement of 2* checks for a project that was
anomalous. .e was convicted of ?stafa.
.?@># Euilty of ?stafa as he was duty bound to ensure the
veracity of the documents. .e was negligent as he
approved the vouchers that had mistakes which were
detectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor.
PRESI5ENTIA* 5ECREE NO. ?499
Increa&ing 3he 6enalty 8or Certain 8or'& O
"$in(ling Or E&taa
Any per&on or per&on& $ho &hall co''it e&taa or
other or'& o &$in(ling a& (e-ne( R6C 35* an( 35.
&hall !e puni&he( !y lie i'pri&on'ent to (eath i the
&$in(ling >e&taa? i& co''itte( !y a #n'icate
con&i&ting o -%e or 'ore per&on& or'e( $ith the
intention o carrying out the unla$ul or illegal act,
tran&action, enterpri&e or &che'e, an( the
(erau(ation re&ult& in the 'i&appropriation o
'oney contri!ute( !y &toc7hol(er&, or 'e'!er& o
rural !an7&, cooperati%e, O&a'ahang nayon>&?O, or
ar'er& a&&ociation, or o un(& &olicite( !y
corporation&Ra&&ociation& ro' the general pu!lic.
When not co''itte( !y a &yn(icate a& a!o%e
(e-ne(, the penalty i'po&a!le &hall !e reclu&ion
te'poral to reclu&ion perpetua i the a'ount o the
rau( e2cee(& 544,444 pe&o&.
Article 3?9. Re&o/al0 #ale or $le'ge o!
&ortgage' $ro$ert
Ele'ent&E
2 Act& puni&ha!leE
A.
5. 3hat per&onal property i& %ali(ly
'ortgage( un(er the Chattel ;ortgage
La$
2. 3hat the oAen(er 7no$& that &uch property
i& &o 'ortgage(
3. 3hat he re'o%e& &uch 'ortgage( per&onal
property to any pro%ince or city other than
the one in $hich it $a& locate( at the ti'e
o the e2ecution o the 'ortgage
). 3hat the re'o%al i& per'anent
*. 3hat there i& no $ritten con&ent o the
'ortgage or hi& e2ecutor&, a('ini&trator&
or a&&ign& to &uch re'o%al
B.
5. 3hat per&onal property i& alrea(y ple(ge(
un(er the Chattel ;ortgage La$
2. 3hat the oAen(er, $ho i& the 'ortgagor o
&uch property, &ell& or ple(ge& the &a'e or
any part thereo
3. "uch &aleRple(ge i& without the consent o
the 'ortgagee $hich i&
i. $ritten
ii. at the !ac7 o the 'ortgage an(
iii. note( on the recor( thereo in the
oMce o the regi&ter o (ee(&
Chattel 'ortgage 'u&t !e %ali( an( &u!&i&ting
It i& e&&ential that the chattel 'ortgage !e
%ali( an( &u!&i&ting. I the chattel 'ortgage
'oe# not contain an a%'a/it o! goo' !aith
an(Ror i# not regi#tere', it i& =OI/ an(
CANNO3 !e a !a&i& or cri'inal pro&ecution
un(er Art 359.
6er&on& Lia!le
E%en thir( per&on& $ho re'o%e( the
property to another pro%ince or city are lia!le
!ecau&e the oAen(er i& OANY 6ER"ON $ho
&hall 7no$ingly re'o%e\O
3he re'o%al o the 'ortgage( property 'u&t
!e couple( $ith IN3EN3 3O /E8RA</.
No %iolation o Article 359 i the re'o%al
$a& +u&ti-e(.
8iling a ci%il action or collection, not or
oreclo&ure o chattel 'ortgage, relie%e& the
accu&e( o cri'inal re&pon&i!ility. >!a&e( on a
CA ca&e?
I the 'ortgagee electe( to -le a &uit or
collection >not oreclo&ure?, there can !e no
%iolation o Article 359 any'ore &ince the
'ortgage a& a !a&i& o relie ha& alrea(y !een
a!an(one( !y the &uit or collection.
9ou&e >generally con&i(ere( a& i''o%a!le?
'ay !e a &u!+ect o chattel 'ortgage !y
agree'ent o the partie&
Article 359 par 2 al&o conte'plate& a &econ(
'ortgage.
/a'age to the 'ortgagee i& not e&&ential.
E#ta!a ;3?40 'i#$o#ing
encu&"ere' $ro$ert<
Re&o/al0 #ale or
$le'ge o! &ortgage'
$ro$ert
;ortgage( property i& &ol( in (i&po&e( o in !oth
ca&e&
Real property 6er&onal property
6roperty 'u&t !e &ol( a&
ree an( unencu'!ere(
6roperty &ol( $ithout
con&ent o the
'ortgagee in $riting,
e%en i !uyer i& inor'e(
that property i&
'ortgage(
6urpo&e o la$E to
protect the purcha&er
6urpo&e o la$E to
protect the 'ortgagee
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
158
Article# 32> to 324AD. Ar#on ;re$eale' or
a&en'e' " P5 ?4?3 an' P5 ?8..<
Lin(& o ar&onF
5. Ar&on, un(er "ection 5 o Pre#i'ential
5ecree No. ?4?3F
2. /e&tructi%e ar&on, un(er Article 32> o
the Re%i&e( 6enal Co(e, a& a'en(e( !y
Repu!lic Act No. 0.*9F
3. Other ca&e& o ar&on, un(er Section 3 o!
Pre#i'ential 5ecree No. ?4?3.
P.5. ?4?3
A&en'ing the *a( on Ar#on
SECTION ?. Ar&on. N Any per&on $ho !urn& or &et&
-re to the property o another &hall !e puni&he( !y
6ri&ion ;ayor.
3he &a'e penalty &hall !e i'po&e( $hen a per&on
&et& -re to hi& o$n property un(er circu'&tance&
$hich e2po&e to (anger the lie or property o
another.
SECTION 2. /e&tructi%e Ar&on. N 3he penalty o
Reclu&ion 3e'poral in it& 'a2i'u' perio( to
Reclu&ion 6erpetua &hall !e i'po&e( i the property
!urne( i& any o the ollo$ingE
5. Any a''unition actory an( other e&ta!li&h'ent
$here e2plo&i%e&, inJa''a!le or co'!u&ti!le
'aterial& are &tore(.
2. Any archi%e, 'u&eu', $hether pu!lic or pri%ate,
or any e(i-ce (e%ote( to culture, e(ucation or
&ocial &er%ice&.
3. Any church or place o $or&hip or other !uil(ing
$here people u&ually a&&e'!le.
). Any train, airplane or any aircrat, %e&&el or
$atercrat, or con%eyance or tran&portation o
per&on& or property.
*. Any !uil(ing $here e%i(ence i& 7ept or u&e in
any legi&lati%e, +u(icial, a('ini&trati%e or other
oMcial procee(ing&.
.. Any ho&pital, hotel, (or'itory, lo(ging hou&e,
hou&ing tene'ent, &hopping center, pu!lic or
pri%ate 'ar7et, theater or 'o%ie hou&e or any
&i'ilar place or !uil(ing.
0. Any !uil(ing, $hether u&e( a& a ($elling or not,
&ituate( in a populate( or conge&te( area.
>NO3EE "EC3ION 2 I" RE6EALE/ BY R.A. 0.*9
A;EN/ING AR3. 324?
SECTION 3. Other Ca&e& o Ar&on. N 3he penalty o
Reclu&ion 3e'poral to Reclu&ion 6erpetua &hall !e
i'po&e( i the property !urne( i& any o the
ollo$ingE
5. Any !uil(ing u&e( a& oMce& o the
go%ern'ent or any o it& agencie&F
2. Any inha!ite( hou&e or ($ellingF
3. Any in(u&trial e&ta!li&h'ent, &hipyar(,
oil $ell or 'ine &hat, plator' or tunnelF
). Any plantation, ar', pa&turelan(,
gro$ing crop, grain -el(, orchar(, !a'!oo gro%e
or ore&tF
*. Any rice 'ill, &ugar 'ill, cane 'ill or
'ill centralF an(
.. Any rail$ay or !u& &tation, airport,
$har or $arehou&e.
SECTION .. "pecial Aggra%ating Circu'&tance& in
Ar&on. N 3he penalty in any ca&e o ar&on &hall !e
i'po&e( in it& 'a2i'u' perio(F
5. I co''itte( $ith intent to gainF
2. I co''itte( or the !ene-t o anotherF
3. I the oAen(er i& 'oti%ate( !y &pite or
hatre( to$ar(& the o$ner or occupant o the
property !urne(F
). I co''itte( !y a &yn(icate.
3he oAen&e i& co''itte( !y a &yn(icate i it& i&
planne( or carrie( out !y a group o three >3? or
'ore per&on&.
SECTION 2. Where 5eath Re#ult# !ro& Ar#on.
N I !y rea&on o or on the occa&ion o the ar&on
(eath re&ult&, the penalty o Reclu&ion 6erpetua to
(eath &hall !e i'po&e(.
SECTION 4. Pri&a @acie E/i'ence o! Ar#on. N
Any o the ollo$ing circu'&tance& &hall con&titute
pri'a acie e%i(ence o ar&onE
5. I the -re &tarte( &i'ultaneou&ly in 'ore than
one part o the !uil(ing or e&ta!li&h'ent.
2. I &u!&tantial a'ount o Ja''a!le &u!&tance&
or 'aterial& are &tore( $ithin the !uil(ing not
nece&&ary in the !u&ine&& o the oAen(er nor or
hou&ehol( u&e.
3. I ga&oline, 7ero&ene, petroleu' or other
Ja''a!le or co'!u&ti!le &u!&tance& or
'aterial& &oa7e( there$ith or container&
thereo, or any 'echanical, electrical, che'ical,
or electronic contri%ance (e&igne( to &tart a -re,
or a&he& or trace& o any o the oregoing are
oun( in the ruin& or pre'i&e& o the !urne(
!uil(ing or property.
). I the !uil(ing or property i& in&ure( or
&u!&tantially 'ore than it& actual %alue at the
ti'e o the i&&uance o the policy.
*. I (uring the lieti'e o the corre&pon(ing -re
in&urance policy 'ore than t$o -re& ha%e
occurre( in the &a'e or other pre'i&e& o$ne(
or un(er the control o the oAen(er an(Ror
in&ure(.
.. I &hortly !eore the -re, a &u!&tantial portion o
the eAect& in&ure( an( &tore( in a !uil(ing or
property ha( !een $ith(ra$n ro' the pre'i&e&
e2cept in the or(inary cour&e o !u&ine&&.
0. I a (e'an( or 'oney or other %alua!le
con&i(eration $a& 'a(e !eore the -re in
e2change or the (e&i&tance o the oAen(er or
or the &aety o the per&on or property o the
%icti'.
SECTION 8. Con&piracy to Co''it Ar&on. N
Con&piracy to co''it ar&on &hall !e puni&he( !y
6ri&ion ;ayor in it& 'ini'u' perio(.
SECTION 9. Con-&cation o O!+ect o Ar&on. B 3he
!uil(ing $hich i& the o!+ect o ar&on inclu(ing the
lan( on $hich it i& &ituate( &hall !e con-&cate( an(
e&cheate( to the "tate, unle&& the o$ner thereo can
pro%e that he ha& no participation in nor 7no$le(ge
o &uch ar&on (e&pite the e2erci&e o (ue on hi& part.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15#
Article 32> a# a&en'e' " R.A. 8429
Article 324. /e&tructi%e Ar&on. N 3he penalty o
reclu&ion te'poral in it& 'a2i'u' perio( to (eath
&hall !e i'po&e( upon any per&on $ho &hall !urnE
5. One >5? or 'ore !uil(ing& or e(i-ce&,
con&eCuent to one &ingle act o !urning, or a&
re&ult o &i'ultaneou& !urning&, or co''itte(
on &e%eral or (iAerent occa&ion&.
2. Any !uil(ing o pu!lic or pri%ate o$ner&hip,
(e%ote( to the u&e o the pu!lic in general, or
$here people u&ually gather or congregate or a
(e-nite purpo&e &uch a& !ut not li'ite( to
oMcial go%ern'ental unction or !u&ine&&,
pri%ate tran&action, co''erce, tra(e, $or&hip,
'eeting& an( conerence&, or 'erely inci(ental
to a (e-nite purpo&e &uch a& !ut not li'ite( to
hotel&, 'otel&, tran&ient ($elling&, pu!lic
con%eyance or &top& or ter'inal&, regar(le&& o
$hether the oAen(er ha( 7no$le(ge that there
are per&on& in &ai( !uil(ing or e(i-ce at the ti'e
it i& &et on -re, an( regar(le&& al&o o $hether
the !uil(ing i& actually inha!ite( or not.
3. Any train or loco'oti%e, &hip or %e&&el, air&hip or
airplane, (e%ote( to tran&portation or
con%enience, or pu!lic u&e, entertain'ent or
lei&ure.
). Any !uil(ing, actory, $arehou&e in&tallation an(
any appurtenance& thereto, $hich are (e%ote(
to the &er%ice o pu!lic utilitie&.
*. Any !uil(ing, the !urning o $hich i& or the
purpo&e o concealing or (e&troying e%i(ence o
another %iolation o la$, or or the purpo&e o
concealing !an7ruptcy or (erau(ing cre(itor& or
to collect ro' in&urance.
Irre&pecti%e o the application o the a!o%e
enu'erate( Cualiying circu'&tance&, the
penalty o (eath &hall li7e$i&e !e i'po&e( $hen
the ar&on i& perpetrate( or co''itte( !y t$o >2?
or 'ore per&on& or !y a group o per&on&,
regar(le&& o $hether their purpo&e i& 'erely to
!urn or (e&troy the !uil(ing or the e(i-ce, or the
!urning 'erely con&titute& an o%ert act in the
co''i&&ion or another %iolation o la$.
3he penalty o reclu&ion te'poral in it& 'a2i'u'
perio( to (eath &hall al&o !e i'po&e( upon any
per&on $ho &hall !urnE
5. Any ar&enal, &hipyar(, &torehou&e or 'ilitary
po$(er or -re$or7& actory, or(nance
&torehou&e, archi%e& or general 'u&eu' o the
go%ern'ent.
2. In an inha!ite( place, any &torehou&e or actory
o inJa''a!le or e2plo&i%e 'aterial&.
I a& a con&eCuence o the co''i&&ion o any o the
act& penaliQe( un(er thi& Article, (eath or in+ury
re&ult&, or any %alua!le (ocu'ent&, eCuip'ent,
'achinerie&, apparatu&, or other %alua!le propertie&
$ere !urne( or (e&troye(, the 'an(atory penalty o
(eath &hall !e i'po&e(.
NO3EE 3he la$& on ar&on in orce to(ay are
6./. 5.53 an( Article 324 a& a'en(e( !y R.A.
0.*9. 3he pro%i&ion& o 6./. 5.53 that are
incon&i&tent $ith R.A. 0.*9 >&uch a& "ection 2
on (e&tructi%e ar&on? are /EE;E/ RE6EALE/?
Atte'pte(, 8ru&trate(, an( Con&u''ate(
Ar&on
A per&on, inten(ing to !urn a !uil(ing, collect&
&o'e rag&, &oa7& the' in ga&oline an( place&
the' !e&i(e the $oo(en $all. When he i&
a!out to light a 'atch to &et -re to the rag&, he
i& (i&co%ere( !y another $ho cha&e& hi' a$ay.
5. Atte&$te' ar#onE the cri'e co''itte( in
the a!o%e &cenario i& atte'pte( ar&on,
!ecau&e the oAen(er co''ence& the
co''i&&ion o the cri'e (irectly !y o%ert
act& !ut (oe& not peror' all the act& o
e2ecution >the &etting o -re to the rag&?
(ue to ti'ely inter%ention.
2. @ru#trate' ar#onE i the per&on i& a!le to
&et -re to the rag& !ut the -re $a& put out
!eore any part o the !uil(ing $a& !urne(.
3. Con#u&&ate' ar#onE
a. any charring >C9ARINGU WhiQ na lang,
P(ayU? o the $oo( o the !uil(ing. Not
nece&&ary that the $oo( &houl( !e
a!laQe, &uMcient that the -!er o the
$oo( i& (e&troye(
". 'ere &corching or (i&coloration !y heat
NOT con#u&&ate'
c. "etting -re to the content& o the
!uil(ing i& alrea(y con&u''ate( ar&on
>&etting -re to a !uil(ing? e%en i no
part o the !uil(ing $a& !urne(.
'. 9o$e%er &'all a portion o the !uil(ing
i& B<RNE/, there i& con&u''ate(
ar&on.
In atte'pte( ar&on, it i& not nece&&ary that
there !e a -re
Loo7 at the act& i there $a& intent to !urn.
"ec 3, par 2, 6/ 5.53
I the property !urne( i& an inha!ite( hou&e
or ($elling, it i& not reCuire( that the hou&e !e
occupie( an( that the oAen(er 7ne$ it $hen
the hou&e $a& !urne(.
No co'ple2 cri'e o ar&on $ith ho'ici(e
6/ 5.53E i !y rea&on or on occa&ion or
ar&on, (eath re&ult&, ho'ici(e i& a!&or!e( an(
the penalty o reclusion perpetua to /eath i&
i'po&e(.
"ec ., 6/ 5.53, 0 Circu'&tance& con&tituting
pri'a acie e%i(ence o ar&on
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1(0
"tan(ing alone, une2plaine( or
uncontra(icte(, any o tho&e circu'&tance i&
&uMcient to e&ta!li&h the act o ar&on.
Article 328. Who are lia"le !or &aliciou#
&i#chie!
Ele'ent&E
5. 3hat the oAen(er (eli!erately cau&e(
(a'age to the property o another
2. 3hat &uch act (oe& not con&titute ar&on or
other cri'e& in%ol%ing (e&truction
3. 3hat the act o (a'aging anotherP&
property !e co''itte( 'ere or the &a7e
o (a'aging it
W 3
r(
ele'ent pre&uppo&e& that oAen(er acte(
(ue to hate, re%enge, or other e%il 'oti%e.
"o'eti'e&, oAen(er al&o in&pire( !y the 'ere
plea&ure o (e&troying thing&.
O"hall (eli!erately cau&e to the property o
another any (a'ageO
3hi& 'ean& that the oAen(er &houl( act
un(er thi& i'pul&e o &peci-c (e&ire to inJict
in+ury to another. BENCE0 &aliciou# &i#chie!
CANNOT "e co&&itte' through
NEG*IGENCE. ;alice an( negligence are
e&&entially inco'pati!le.
O/a'ageO co%er& !oth lo&& an( (i'inution.
I no 'alice, only ci%il lia!ility or (a'age&.
/a'aging o property 'u&t not re&ult ro'
cri'e.
E2a'pleE (a'age (one a& a re&ult o
another cri'eB accu&e( cha&e( opponent
aroun( the hou&e to 7ill hi' an( along the $ay
!ro7e %ariou& o!+ect&.
I ater (a'aging the property, oAen(er
re'o%e&R u&e& o!+ect& o the (a'age, cri'e i&
39E83
Ca/allen vs. %AR
%lbeit %bajon-s previous arrangement with the former
owner of the property, =aballes, the new owner, asked
%bajon to vacate the premises where his house was and
where he had planted corn, bananas, and camote. "hey
had a confrontation over this issue, but reached no
agreement. %bajon then harvested the bananas and
jackfruit. %s the harvesting was done without her consent,
=aballes charged him for malicious mischief.
.?@># "he essential element of the crime of malicious
mischief which is Adamage deliberately caused to the
property of anotherG is absent because %bajon merely cut
his own plantings. =ase was dismissed.
People v. Acosta )2000*
<%=")# 1aul %costa y @aygo was a *'-year old
mason. .e used to be a good friend of %lman6or 2?lmer2
Contesclaros, the grandson of private complainant,
<ilomena C. Carigomen. On <ebruary 2!, 9DD,,
Contesclaros, in the belief that %costa and his wife
were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him,
stormed the house of %costa and burned their clothes,
furniture, and appliances. "hereafter %costa attempted
to burn down the house of Carigomen. .e was charged
with arson and found guilty.
.?@># %costa was proved by testimony to
have tried to burn the house of Carigomen. /n
prosecutions for arson, proof of the crime charged is
complete where the evidence establishes 394 the corpus
delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency5 and
324 the identity of the defendants as the one
responsible for the crime. =orpus delicti means the
substance of the crime, it is the fact that a crime has
actually been committed. /n arson, the corpus delicti
rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare
occurrence of the fire and of its having been
intentionally caused. ?ven the uncorroborated
testimony of a single witness, if credible, may be
enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant
conviction.
People v. ;liva )2000*
<%=")# %velino Canguba and his family were
sleeping in their house. %velino went out of the house
to urinate. .e saw <erigel Oliva set the roof of their
house on fire with a lighted match. 7hile the fire ra6ed
%velino;s house, <erigel and three others, >ominador
Oliva, Carcos Paderan and %rnel >omingo watched at a
distance of about five 34 meters. One of the
neighbors, :enjamin ?strellon went to the nearby river
and fetched water with a pail. %s :enjamin was helping
put out the fire, he was shot by <erigel at close range.
"he gunshot wound caused :enjamin;s death. "he cases
for arson and murder were tried jointly. Only Oliva was
found guilty.
.?@># 7e find no reversible error and affirm
the conviction. 7hen <erigel burned %velino;s house,
the law applicable was P.>. No. 9,9*. * Fnder )ection
* 324 of the law, the penalty of reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property
burned is 2any inhabited house or dwelling.2 Fnder the
amendment, it is the fact that the house burned is
inhabited that (ualifies the crime. "here is no need to
prove that the accused had actual knowledge that the
house was inhabited. Fnder )ection * 324 of
Presidential >ecree No. 9,9*, the elements of arson
are# 394 that there is intentional burning5 and 324 that
what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling. "he records show that when <erigel willfully
set fire to the roof of %velino;s house, %velino;s wife and
children were asleep therein.
Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in
prosecutions for felonies and offenses. =orpus delicti is
the body or substance of the crime. /t refers to the fact
that a crime has been actually committed. =orpus
delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that
may be proved by the testimonies of witnesses. /n
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1(1
arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the
bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been
intentionally caused. "he uncorroborated testimony of
a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to
prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.
.ere, corpus delicti of the arson was duly proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
Article 329. S$ecial ca#e# o! &aliciou#
&i#chie!
"pecial ca&e& o 'aliciou& 'i&chieRO:uali-e(
;aliciou& ;i&chieO areE
a. Cau&ing (a'age to o!&truct the
peror'ance o pu!lic unction&
- (i&tingui&he( ro' &e(itionE the
ele'ent o pu!lic an( tu'ultuou&
upri&ing i& not pre&ent in Art 321
- !ut, BO39 ha%e intent to o!&truct the
peror'ance or pu!lic unction
!. <&ing any poi&onou& or corro&i%e &u!&tance
c. "prea(ing any inection or contagion
a'ong cattle
(. Cau&ing (a'age to the property o the
National ;u&eu' or National Li!rary, or to
any archi%e or regi&try, $ater$or7&, roa(,
pro'ena(e, or any other thing u&e( IN
CO;;ON !y the pu!lic.
Article 329. Other &i#chie!#
6oignant E2a'pleE
People v! 3umlao $here accu&e( &cattere(
aroun( the 'unicipal !uil(ing coconut hu&7&
containing hu'an e2cre'ent&.
Article 33>. 5a&age an' o"#truction to
&ean# o! co&&unication
E2a'pleE (a'aging rail$ay&, telegraph or
telephone line&
3he telegraph an( telephone line& &u#t
$ertain to a rail(a ##te& U
I the (a'age &hall re&ult in any (erail'ent o
car&, colli&ion or other acci(ent, a higher
penalty &hall !e i'po&e(
:ue&tionE What cri'e i& co''itte( I8 a& a
re&ult o the (a'age cau&e( to the rail$ay,
certain pa&&enger& o the train are 7ille(S
An&$erE It (epen(&
A. I no intent to 7illE cri'e i& (a'age& to
'ean& o co''unication $ith ho'ici(e
B. I $ith intent to 7illE 'ur(er >c. Article 2)1,
par 3?
Article 33?. 5e#troing or 'a&aging
#tatue#0 $u"lic &onu&ent#0 or $ainting#
No note&,
Article 332. Per#on# e:e&$t !ro&
cri&inal lia"ilit
Cri'e& in%ol%e( in the e2e'ptionE
5. 3het
2. "$in(ling >e&taa?
3. ;aliciou& 'i&chie
(oe& not inclu(e ro!!ery or e&taa through
al&i-cation
rea&on or e2e'ptionE pre&u'e( coB
o$ner&hip
6er&on& e2e'pte( ro' cri'inal lia!ility only
lia!leor CI=IL lia!ilitie&?E
5. "pou&e&, a&cen(ant& an( (e&cen(ant&, or
relati%e& !y aMnity in the &a'e line
2. Wi(o$e( &pou&e $ith re&pect to the
property $hich !elonge( to the (ecea&e(
&pou&e !eore the &a'e pa&&e( into the
po&&e&&ion o another
3. Brother& an( &i&ter& an( !rother& an(
&i&terBinBla$ I8 LI=ING 3OGE39ER
Article 332 only applie& $hen BO39 the
oAen(er an( oAen(e( party are relati%e&
a& enu'erate( in the pro%i&ion.
/oe& not apply to &tranger& $ho
participate( in the cri'e.
"tepather, a(opte( chil(, para'our&,
co''onBla$ &pou&e& INCL</E/
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1(2