—

CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY

(TITLE X OF THE RPC)
BY: CHELDY SYGACO ELUMBA-PABLEO,MPA,LIB CRIMINAL LAW |

ROBBERY
. oy person who with intent to pe Shall take any personal property elonging to another, by
means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.
¢ Body is inside the building.(if only hands is inside, it is theft not robbery)
° KINDS:
1. Under Article 294—committed “anywhere*"

2. Under Article 299—"religious-through force upon things"

3. Under Article 302—"private building/uninhabited place”
4. Under Article 305—"public building/uninhabited place“

. [ 294 « Robbery committed anywhere.

• Defines and penalizes as composite crimes or special complex crimes such as: (higher
penalty)
Robbery with Homicide
Robbery with Rape
Robbery with Intentional Mutilation
Robbery with Arson
Robbery with Physical Injuries
Robbery with Unnecessary violence
Except: simple robbery (Art. 294 (5) which is not composite crime.
Au RW >
ROBBERY
¢ In robbery or theft, when the offender takes complete control of the property, the crime is
consummated.
¢ There is complete control when the offender has acquires and substituted his will over the
property.
«It is not necessary that the offender has taken away the property or used the same. (Dunlao vs
CA)
¢ The element of ASPORTATION taking of personal property out of the possession of the owner,
without his privity and consent and without animus revertenal. (PP vs Apolinario)

ROBBERY
• Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person (VAIP) is deemed more serious
than robbery with force upon things (FUT).
ROBBERY (VAIP) ROBBERY (FUT) 1. Not based upon the 1. Based upon the value value of the
things taken of the things taken. but upon the gravity of violence or intimidation.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
«Regardless of the number of homicide on the occasion of robbery, the crime is still robbery
with homicide.
¢ The same crime is committed even if rape and physical injuries are also committed on the
occasion of said crime.
¢ Whenever the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven to have been
committed, all those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals therein although they
did not actually take part in the homicide. (PP vs Pulusan)
ROBBERY WITH ~ HOMICIDE
¢ If the killing is with intent to kill and the taking is an afterthought, the
crime is HOMICIDE AND THEFT, not robbery because the dead cannot be intimidated.
¢ Arises only when there is a direct relation or intimate connection, between the robbery and
the killing even if killings is prior to, concurrent with or subsequent to the robbery.
¢ The penalty for robbery with homicide is more severe because the law sees, in this crime, that
men placed lucre above the value of
human life, thus justifying the imposition of a more severe penalty than that for simple
homicide or robbery.
: rD SITY E D- C
ROBBERY UNDER ARTICLE
« Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or
edifice devoted for religious worship.
¢ A. MALEFACTOR -ENTER THE HOUSE OR BUILDING in which robbery is committed:
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.

2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.

3. By using false keys, picklocks (must be used in the main door, or similar

tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
ROBBERY UNDER ARTI
CLE 299 °B. THE ROBBERY COMMITTED under the following circumstances: 1. By breaking of
doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacles.
2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of
the robbery. (as amended by R.A. No. 18)

= ROBBERY
«BASIS: The means of entering. If he did not enter, it is theft only even if there were such force
upon things.
¢The whole body must be inside because “entering” denotes that the entire body must have
gone inside.
«He entered without the use of constructive force but while inside the offender broke walls,
doors, receptacles to extract personal property. Inside, actual force is required not merely
constructive force.
ROBBERY
¢ There must be actual breaking of doors, walls, etc. if picklock and similar tools used—it is only
THEFT. (the use of picklocks and similar tools would qualify theft to robbery if used to enter
premises.)
¢ Offender brought out of the premises locked or sealed receptacles for the purpose of
breaking them outside. The mere bringing out of the receptacles gives rise to robbery since
force will necessarily be employed to open it.
¢ NOTE: other than the situation stated, all others is only theft.
COBBERY UNDER ARTICLE ¢ Robbery in an uninhabited place or private building. 302 ¢
simulation of authority or use of fictitious name.
• If the ently is a private warehouse was through simulation of public authority, the crime is
theft only.
¢ When entry is through a window, it is not necessary that the offender break windows.
¢ Entering through an opening not for ingress/egress is robbery, if he took anything.
(constructive force is required in this case)
¢ Although the door itself is not damages, but the lock or accessory of the door is broken,
robbery is committed because the door is useless without the lock.
CYRRED ROBBERY ¢ Use of fictitious name or simulation of authority—must be done when the
offender had not yet entered and such use was necessary means
that made the occupant to let him inside. (use thereof while inside will not qualify theft into
robbery)
¢ Offender is a member of the household such as maid and the taking was with force upon
things, the crime is robbery not qualified theft because of the use of force upon things.
¢ Robbery is committed not only by outsiders but even by household members. (this distinction
between robbery and qualified theft is significant to determine the applicability of Art. 332—
covers only to theft not robbery)

ANTI-PIRACY & ANTI-ROBBERY LAW

¢ Situs of the taking is a highway, the crime may be robbery in a highway under Art. 306 in
relation to Art. 294 or highway robbery under PD. 532.
1. Mere formation of band is punishable
2. There must be at least 3 (4 or more) malefactors, and

3. There is a preconceived or target victim;

4. Proof of prior robbery is not required

BRIGANDAGE (ART. 306 & 294)

BRIGANDAGE UNDER PD. 532 1. The prohibited act must be committed, mere formation of a
band is not yet punishable.
2. Only 1 malefactor will suffice under the law; (number of perpetrators is not essential)

3. There is no pre-conceived victim but the may victimize any person who happens to pass
by;
4. Proof of prior robberies by offenders is required to show indiscriminate nature of the
crime.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY OR BRIGANDAGE

¢lS a seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking
away of the property of another, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person.
if *
indiscriminately committed” (PP vs Agomo-o)

THEFT
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS: The taking of the property; The property belongs to another; The taking
away was done with intent to gain; The taking away was done without the consent of the
owner;
The taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon
things.
nm RWrN >
NOTE: there is NO frustrated theft—-because the offender has complete control over the
property (consummated) or without (attempted)—{PP vs Valenzuela) ‘Theft and robbery
cannot be committed between co- Owners.
eIN CASE OF LOST PROPERTY: “lost” if by its nature it must necessarily have an owner or
claimant. If res nuilius, no theft can be committed.
*FOR HIDDEN TREASURE: the owner of the property where the treasure was found, ¥2 share. If
the finder (may it be in fact or in law) keeps the whole, he is guilty of theft. (PP vs Avila)

THEFT
¢ When property is received where only MATERIAL POSSESSION is acquired and he
misappropriates the same, theft is committed.
¢ If JURIDICAL POSSESSION is transferred, esta/a is committed.
« When entered to a forbidden estate and take some belongings without the consent of the
owner, the crime is theft. BUT if he entered in a coconut plantation or a fishpond for business
or industry—the crime of taking coconut or fish is QUALIFIED THEFT.
DISTINCTION:
Juridical possession—is one where the possessor can assert his right to possession even against
the property owner.

• What makes it qualified are the following:

1. Circumstances personal to the oftender—with grave abuse of confidence or committed by
domestic helper;

2. Circumstances pertaining to the object taken—coconut from plantation, fish from

fishpond, mail matter (Motor vehicle and large cattle are now Subject of special law)

3. Circumstances at the time of the taking— on occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,

volcanic eruption and other calamities, vehicular accident or civil listurbance.

NOTE: only no. 1 is qualified theft and the others will be held for simple theft. The rules on
conspiracy will not apply.
. NO. 16172—ANTI-FENCING LAW
« FENCING—is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself of for another, shall
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
manner deal in any article, item, object, or a nything of value which he knows or should be
known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. (Dunlao
vs CA)
¢ Applies only to proceeds of theft or robbery, it does not apply to estafa.
¢ Not a continuing crime but a distinct crime, hence the offender may be prosecuted at the
place where he took hold of the property and not at the place of the commission of the theft or
robbery.

ELEMENTS OF ANTI-FENCING
. Acrime of robbery or theft has been committed;
. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes or buys and sells, or in any
manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the
proceeds of the said crime;
. The accused knows or should have know that the said article, item, object or anything of value
has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
. There is, on the part of accused, intent to gain for himself or for another. (Capili vs CA)
G « Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.
«The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen
articles aS mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing.
• REPARATION is made by taking into consideration the price of
the thing, whenever possible and its special sentimental value to the injured party.
ANTI-FENCIN PD. NO, 533—ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
¢ CATTLE RUSTLING—is taking away by any means, methods or schemes, without the consent
of the owner/raiser, or any of the large cattle whether or not for profit or gain, or whether
committed with or without violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things
(theft or robbery).
¢ It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the
owner/raiser.
¢ The cattle need not be taken whole as the taking of the meat or hide is enough.

. NO. 6539—ANTI-CARNAPPING
° CARNAPPING- is alum pronibitum.
elt is also committed when the owner was killed to divest him of registration papers of vehicle
which the offenders pretended to
buy.
«Any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are PUBLIC, not exclusively for private
use, comes within concept of motor vehicle.
¢ A tricycle which is not included in exception, is thus deemed to be that kind of motor vehicle
as defined in the law the stealing of which comes within its penal sanction.
a

ESTAFA
2 WAYS OF COMMITING:
1. With abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness, and
2. Through deceit or false pretense.
The damage is not limited to material damage; it includes any disturbance or prejudice.
When money or property is delivered for a particular purpose and it was used for another purpose, it is essential to
determine whether judicial or physical possession was transferred.
» MATERIAL POSSESSION—theft only JURIDICAL POSSESSION—estafa

ESTAFA-QUALIFIED THEFT DISTINCTION

¢ When a bank's cash custodian is found short of the cash
under her primary responsibility, her crime is not estafa but qualified theft.
«Her possession of the cash belongs to the bank is similar to that of a teller.
¢ Her possession is the possession of the bank.
«Hers is only physical and not juridical possession of the missing cash. (Burce vs CA)

ESTAFA-thru misappropriation or conversion

e ELEMENTS:
1. Money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on
commission or for admission, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of, or to return, the same even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond:

2. Misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his

part of such receipt;

3. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;

4. There is a demand made by the offended party on the offender (Barrameda vs CA)

ESTAFA-under paragraph 2(a)

¢ ELEMENTS:
|. False pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
2. Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;

3. 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;
4. As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

BP BLG. 22.
ELEMENTS:
=
1. Making, drawing and issuing any check to apply to account or for value;

2. Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment;

3. Subsequent dishonour of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit,
or dishonour of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

2 WAYS OF VIOLATING B.P 22

1. By making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value knowing at the
time of issue that the check is not
surticiently funded; and
2. By having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank but failing to keep sufficient
funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check when presented to the
drawee
bank within 90 days. (PP vs Cueme)
NOTE: the law does not require a maker to maintain funds in his bank account for only 90 days.
But establish a prima facie presumprion of knowledge of such SUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS.

SUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS (BP 22)

¢ 1. presentation within 90 days from date of the check,
¢ The dishonour of the check and failure of the maker to make
arrangements for payment in full within 5 banking days after the notice thereof;
NOTE: The check must be deposited within 90 days is just one of
the conditions for the prima tacie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise.
» Check STALE after more than 6 months or 180 days.
SIGNIFICANT PERIODS UNDER THE LAW
¢1. 5 days---the maker or issuer must make arrangements to make good the check within 5
days to escape criminal liability for issuing the check a rubber check;
¢ 90 days--- he must maintain sufficient funds within 90 days to destroy the prima facie
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds for the check;
¢ 180 days--- failure of the payee to deposit or encash the check within 180 days will make the
check stale or valueless; no criminal action can arise therefrom.

NOTICE OF DISHONOR
¢ A notice of dishonour recived by the maker or drawer of the check is indisoensable before
conviction can ensue.
It may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank.
elt must be in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonoured check will not suffice.
eLack of written notice is fatal for the prosecution. (Domagsang vs CA)
B.R 22
¢ The issuance of worthless check is punishable even though the checks gave been issued to
guarantee another person's obligation.
¢ B.P 22 punishes the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued
nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.
¢ It is a continuing crime. The venue is determined by the place where the elements of making,
issuing, or drawing of the check and delivery thereof are committed.
«The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum
prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public
welfare. (PP vs Chua)

B.P 22
1. Even though the check was issued in payment of existing obligation, liability is incurred.

2. Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal liability.

3. Crime against public interest since the act is penalized due to its disastrous effect to the
stability of the banking system and prejudice to economy.
4. Only the drawer is liable and if the drawer was a juridical entity, the officer thereof who
signed the check shall be liable. The indorser is not liable.

5. Drawer is given 5 banking days from notice of dishonour or to make good cash value of the
check to avoid criminal liability.

6. This is a malum prohibitum.

DISTINCTION: ESTAFA- B.P 22

ee alr 1. The check should be issued concurrently and reciprocally in payment of the exchange
consideration, not for a pre-existing obligation.
2. Damage to the offended and deceit of the are essential elements.

3. Crime against property,

4. Not only the drawer but also the indorsee may incur liability if he were aware at the time
of the endorsement of the insufficiency of funds.

5. Drawer is given only 3 days after notice of dishonour to make good cash value to avoid
liability.6. it is malum in se.

PD. NO. 1689 _

¢ ELEMENTS:
1. Estafa or other forms of swindling as defines in Arts. 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal
Code is committed;

2. The estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate; and

3. The detraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders or

members of rural banks, cooperatives, “samahang nayon" or farmers asso., or of funds
solicited by corporations/associations trom

the general public.

NOTE: “Syndicate"- consist of 5 or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out
unlawtul or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme. (0. 8042-MIGRANT WORKERS ACT
(ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT)
¢RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT-— refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, — transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and_
includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising fors, is , locally or abroad, whether
for profit or not, PROVIDED, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises
for a tree employment to two or more persons is considered engaged in recruitment and
placement.
4 KINDS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
]. Simple illegal recruitment committed by a license or holder of authority. (elements)
¢ The offender has no valid license or authority lawfully engage in recruitment and placement
workers;
¢He undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement or any
prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code.
2. Illegal recruitment by non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
4 KINDS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
3. Illegal recruitment in a large scale whose elements are:
a. The offender is a non-license or non-holder of authority to engage in recruitment and
placement;

b. He undertakes recruitment and placement activity detined under Art. 13(b), or any
prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34, and

c. Illegal recruitment is committed against 3 or more person individually or as group.

4. recruitment committed by a syndicate- or a group of 3 or more persons conspiring and

contederating with one another is carrying out the act circumscri y law. (PP vs Navara)
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
¢«Non-licensee or non-holder of authority who offers or promises for a free employment
abroad to 2 or more persons shall be deemed engaged in an illegal recruitment. (PP vs Dela
Piedra)
*One who commits illegal recruitment may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment and
estata under the same set of facts.

TRUST RECEIPT LAW _

• It does not seek to enforce payment or the loan; rather it punishes the dishonesty and
abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another
regardless of whether the latter is the owner.

• It is malum prohibitum.

2 POSSIBLE SITUATIONS:
1. Money received under the obligation involving the duty to deliver it (entregarla) to the
owner of the merchandise;
2. Merchadise received under the obligation to “return” if (devolvera) to the owner.

NOTE: failure of the entrustee to return the proceeds of the sale of the goods
covered by the trust receipt to the entruster or to return said goods is punishable as ESTAFA.
ARSON
• When fire is used to destroy any property.
¢ Even if the property burned is owned by the offender arson is stil committed, if the burning is
in a manner as to endanger the life and property of others.
¢ If a person acti seer | criminal impulse burned several building, the crime is not distinct arson
but 1 destructive arson.
¢ Even if the whole house has not been completely gutted by fire, the crime is still
consummated arson.
¢It is enough that. the portion thereof is shown to have been destroyed. (PP vs Gutierrez)

ABSOLUTORY CIRCUMSTANCE
¢ Relatives benefited by this are:
1. Spouse including common law relationship for the law did not specify legal spouse. (Note
that in relation to Family Code, common law spouses are co-owners of the property)

2. Ascendants and descendants, stepparents and stepchildren;

3. Brothers/sisters who must be living in the same house. If living in same compound but
different houses, there is no exemption;

4. Widow if the property is not yet divided because she is still co-owner then.

ABSOLUTORY CIRCUMSTANCE
• CRIMES COVERED: (TEM)
1. Theft including qualified theft but not robbery.
2.Estafa but if complexed with other crimes (E.g.: falsification of commercial documents, there
is no exemption)
3. Malicious mischief. The destruction may must not be by means of burning because burning
of property of small value is now arson, not malicious mischief, the exemption will not lie.
IMHO m
ISNIGV4d YOs NOA ANVHL
az