Criminal Law Art 293-294

Art.
293
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law TITLETEN
Crimes Against Property
Art.293 11
16. Other forms of swindling. (Art. 316) Robbery, defined.
. ~ obbery is t~~ of_personal property belonging to another,

17. Swindling a minor. (Art. 317)
18. Other deceits. (Art. 318) . with mtent to grun~ a n s of violence against or intimidation of
. ' any person, or using force upon anything. '
19. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property. (Art. 319)
20. Destructive arson. (Art. 320) Classlflcatlon of robbery.
21. Other forms of arson. (Art. 321) 1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons.
(Arts. 294,297, and 298)
22. Arson of property of small value. (Art. 323)
23. Crimes involving destruction. (Art. 324) 2. Robbery by the use of force upon things. (Arts. 299 and 302)
24. Burning one's own property as means to commit arso Elements of robbery In general.
(Art. 325) n.
a. That there be (1) personal proe_erty, (2) belonging to another;
25. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the offende
(Art. 326) r. b. That there is (3) unlawful takif1$ of that property;
26. Malicious mischief. (Art. 327) c. That the taking must be (4) F.,ith intent to gai!!J md
27. Special cases of malicious mischief. (Art. 328) d. That there is (5) violence against or intimidation ofany person,
or force upon anyt1iing.
28. Damage and obstruction to means ofcommunication (Art
330) . .
Personal property.
29. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or
paintings. (Art. 331) The property taken must be personal property, for if real
property is occupied or real right is usurped by means of violence
against or intimidation of person, theLcrime is ueurpation1 (Art. 312)
Chapter One Prohibitive articles may be the subject matter of robbery; opium,
for instance.
ROBBERY IN GENERAL·
U.S. v. Sana Lim
(28 Phil. 404)
with~
293• W'!° are guilty of robbery. - Any person who,
m nt to gam, shall take any personal property belonging Facts: While several persons were perfecting the purchase and sale of
to ano ther, by m~ans of violence against or intimida tion of several tine of opium, certain police officers, conspiring together with some
Chinese to obtain possession of said opium, came to the scene and by means
::J!:on, or usmg force upon anything, shall be guilty of of intimidation seized the opium, without caueing the prosecution of the
offenders, and thereafter said police officers appropriated the opium.
H eld: Robbery was committed.
822 ' 823

Art.293 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
TITLE TEN Art. 293
Criminal Law Crimes Against Property
Belonging to another. For lack of co~ormity between the allegation and the proofrespecting
Thus, one who, by means of violence or intimidation, took h. the ownership of the property, the Supreme Court held that it was
own property from the depositary is not guilty of robbery. is iJnpossible to convict the accused of robbery. The accused are each
convicted of four separate homicides.
Since the personal property must belong to another, a co-own.e
or a partner cannot commit robbery or theft with regard to the c r ~ I n r obbery, the personal property ~f another is taken by the
ownership or partnership property. <>- offender against the will of the owner.
Article 293 uses the phrase "belonging to another" which means Robbery can be committed only by taking personal property of
that the ro erty taken does not belong to the offender:-Tbe person another against the latter's will. Where the accused received certain
m whom the person property is en nee not the owne jewels in trust or for safekeeping from the owner's agent, said accused
P ossession of the property is sufficien t-'.' r. cannot be held liable for robbery, because she did not •take• the jewels.
(U.S. v. Alcantara, 6 Phil. 387)
In the commission of the crime of robbery, it is not necessary
that_t~e p~~~~n _fro~ _whom the pr~perty is taken by means of threats If A delivered a package containing an article to B by ~
~d v10lence, sh_a ll be the owner tliere'of. It is sufficient if the property and, when A asked for the return thereof, B threatened to kil~if
is taken from ~m -~ y means of threats and violence, for the purp A would get it back, B is not liable for robbery even if he had intent
ofgain, on th~ part o~ the person appropriating it. The possessio::~ to gain and employed intimidation, because he did not take the
the property is sufficient. Ownership is not necessary. Robbery m property from A
~e committed frQD!._ ~.Qailee pr from a person who himself has sto1:!
it. It has even been held that the talting of clothing from the bod f 'T he taking of personal property must be unlawful.
1 .
d d . yo a
ea person constitutes robbery, as the property ofthe executor. Even tl 1(A secret service agent who made search for and seized moneys
the owner· offr property may be
. guilty of . robbery when , form · st ance, in a dwelling house, under lawful orders from his superiors, and
h e takes it om the possess10n of a bailee, with the in tent to ch appropriated a part thereof to his own use before turning over the
the bailee with its value. ( U.S. v. Albao, 29 Phil. 86) arge balance to his superiors is not guilty of robbery.
~ The unlawful taking of personal property is an essential part
Does the 'p hrase ''belonging to another," in relation to the property
taken~ mean that the naming of the owner is a matter of essential
of the crime of robbery, and where the taking was lawful and the
descnptlon of the crime? unlawful misappropriation was subsequent to such taking, the crime
is estafa or malversation, (U.S. v. Atienza, 2 Phil . 242)
. Yes. If_the crime charged is robbery with homicide in view of the
But in a case where four Chinese, a municipal treasurer, a
capital pumshment attached to the crime. But when the accused is
'police .s.~rgeant,, ~d two policemen pretended to purchase opium
~rosecu~d ~o~ r~bbery with intimidation or violence resulting only
10 physical 1.DJunes, or for robbery by the use of force upon things, from·.lc ertain Moros, and when the opium was to be delivered, the
fu\micipal officials arrested the carrier ofthe opium and they, together
the name of the real owner is not essential so long as the personal
pr operty taken does ~ot belong to the accused.
with the four Chinese, appropriated the opium, it was held that they
were guilty of robbery. While the seizure of the opium and the arrest
In the case of U.S. v. Lahoylahoy, et al., 38 Phil. 330, the of its carrier by the agents of the authorities were lawful, i ~ t
acc~sed were prosecuted for robbery with mult iple homicide. While lawful for said agents to seize the opium in order to appropriate it.
the ~ormation alleged that the property taken belonged to Roman
The fact that the agents of the authorities, apparently acting in
fstriba, the proof showed that the person robbed wa s Juana Seran.
compliance with the law, but really with intent to obtain unlawful
824 825
Criminal Law TITLE TEN Art. 293
gain, did, with intimidation, seize a forbidden article, constitute
robbery. As long as the authorities or their agents have not lega[l 8 2. It is undisputed that petitioner demanded and
taken charge of the forbidden article, it continues to be privat: eventually received from R&R Pl00,000, a personal property
property, and they have acted, not as agents of the authorities in th belong to the latter. The amount was placed inside a brown
envelope and was given to petitioner while inside Max's
fulfillment of their duties, but merely as private parties. Ownershi;
Restaurant in EDSA. It was also proven that PI00,000 was
of the forbidden article passes to the government only after legal
seizure thereof. unlawfully taken by the petitioner from R&R, with intent to
gain and through intimidation. Taking is considered complete
Hence, ifthe agents ofthe authorities, in the beginning, lawfully from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing,
seized the forbidden article and conceived the idea ofmisappropriating even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. In the
it only after it came into their possession, then the crime would be instant case, it was adequately proven that petitioner received
estafa. (U.S. v. Sana Lim, 28 Phil. 404) and took possession of the brown envelope containing the
money; she even placed her wallet and handkerchief inside the
Note: It should be malversation, not estafa.
envelope. At that point, there was already taking. (Sazon v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 160873, February 10, 2009)
Unlawful taking, when complete.
3. The element of taking or asportation in the crime
1. As to robbery with-violence against or intimidation ofpersons. of robbery was completed when appellants took the personal
From the moment the offender gains possession of the thing property, even if they had no subsequent opportunity to
even if the culprit has had no opportunity to dispose of the same th; dispose o[the same. The offended party had testified that after
unlawful taking is complete. The fact that the defendant in his flight the robbery, she made an inventory and found many personal
threw away the property stolen or that it fell without his knowledge belongings missing. The later disposition of the property taken,
does not affect the nature of the crime. ' or the failure to dispose of such property, is without moment so
far as the characterization of the crime as robbery is concerned.
The crime is consummated when the robber acquires possession (People v. Apolinario, G.R. No. 97426, June 3, 1993)
of the property, even if for a short time, and it is not necessary that
the property be.taken into t_he hands of the robber, or that he should 2. As to robbery with force upon things.
have actually carried the property away, out of the physical presence The rule is that theft or robbery is consummated after the
of the lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with accused had taken material possession of the thing with intent to
it. (People v. Quinn, 176 P 2d 404; Woods vs. State, 220 SW 2d 644; appropriate the same, although his act of making use ofthe thing was
People vs. Beal, 39 P 2d 504; People vs. Clark, 160 P 2d 553) /ruri frustrated. (U.S. vs. Adiao, 38 Phil. 754) Robberies with force upon
Illustrations: ' tta t1iocok &r P[_r{;ptfr!V things "se consuman en el momento en que el culpable se apodera de la
r-7 ~\)~\..) 1 ttW, PJQtU f l cosa tenien.dola a su disposicion aun cuan.do solo es memontaneamente
1. The element of taking or asportation was completed No es precise que la cosa llegue a ser aprovechada." (II Cuello Calon,
when appellant violently got hold of the bag however Derecho Penal, 14th Ed., 1975, pp. 894-5)
momentarily. In robbery, the element of asportation - which
Thus, when the accused entered the bodega through an opening
requires the unlawful taking of personal property from the
possession of its owner, without this privity and consent and in the roof and were already in possession of two cases of corned beef
but were unable to remove the same from the bodega because the
without animus revertendi - is present once the·property is in fact
watchme~ discovered the robbery, the robbery was consummated.
taken from the owner, even for just an instant. (People v. Gavina, G.R.
No. 118076, November 20, 1996) (People v. Saldua, L-40008, December 8, 1978)
[
o qJ_ tin~¼- fn 826
827
) '4o(:4\k
Criminal Law TITLE TEN Art.293
"Taking," as an element of robbery, means deprivin g the
Anim us lucrandi or intent to ga in is an internal act which
offended party of ownersh ip of the thing taken with the can be establishe d through the overt acts of the offender. Although
characte r of permane ncy. p roof of motive for the crime is essential when the evidence of the
Taking as a n element of robbery means de priving the offended robbery is circumsta ntial, intent to gain or animus lucrandi may be
party of ownershi p of the thing take n with the charact e r of presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to
perma ne ncy. (Bernal u. Court of Appeals, 247-A Ph~l. 92, 97 [1988]; another, unless special circumsta nces reveal a different intent on the
U.S. us. Atienza, G.R. No. 1043, May 15, 1903, 2 Phil. 242) part of the perpetrato r. The intent to gain may be presumed from the
proven unlawful taking. The act of taking the victim's wristwatc h by
A was the owner of a gun kept in a drawer which was locked. B, one of the accused while the other accused poked a knife behind him
A's son, destroyed the drawer's lock and obtained the gun in order to sufficient ly gave rise to the presumpti on. (People v. Reyes, G.R. No.
threaten A with it, as in fact B threatene d A with said gun.
135682, March 26, 2003)
Held: B had no intention of depriving A of the ownership of Absence of intent to gain will make t h e taking of pe rsonal
the gun with any character of permanen cy, negativin g therefore the property grave coercion if there is violence used. (Art. 286)
essential element of"taking " in the crime of robbery. (People u. Kho
Choe, CA., 50 O.G. 1667) The element of "personal property belonging to another" and that
Note: The accused in this case was convicted of grave threats of "Intent to gain" must concur.
(Art. 282), for threateni ng the offended party with the said gun, 1. If the accused, with intent to gain, took from another, personal
demandin g money, but without attaining his purpose, because the prope rty which turned ou t to be his own property, the property
offended party reported the matter to the police. not belonging to another, he cannot be held liable for robbery,
even if in taking it, the accused used violence against or
The taking should not be under claim of ownership.
intimidat ion of person, or force upon anything.
The taking of personal property belonging to anothe r should 2. If he took personal property from another, believing tha t it
not be under claim of owne rship. One who t akes property openly and wa s his own property, but in reality it belonged to the offe~ded
avowedly under claim of title proffered in good faith is not guilty of party, there being no intent to gain, he cannot be held liable
robbery even though the claim of ownership is untenable . (U.S. u. for robbery, even if the accused used violence against or
Manluco, et al., 28 Phil. 360) intimidat ion of person, or force upon anything.
Intent to gain. Violence or intimidation, as an element of robbery.
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of personal The violence must be against the person of the offended party,
property.
not upon the thing taken.
The intent to gain, being an internal act, cannot be establishe d Theft, not robbery, was committed in a case where the accused
by direct evidence, except in case of confessio n by the accused. It cut with a bolo the strings tying the opening ofa sack containin g palay
must, therefore , be deduced from the circumsta nces surroundi ng and then took the palay. (People u. Adame, CA., 40 O.G., Supp. 12, 41)
the commissi on of the offense. As a general rule, however, the
unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another involves The reason for this ruling is that Article 293 states that the
intent to gain on the pa rt of the offender. (People u. Sia Teb Ban, taking of any personal property belonging to another must be, among
54 Phil. 52) other means, by means of violence against x x x any person.
828 829
Art.293 THE REVISED PENAL CODE TITLE TEN Art. 293
Del Rosario v. People Held: When the marked money was placed inside the drawer of
(G.R. No. 235739, July 22, 2019) petitioner who later counted the money, he v.:as . d~em~d to have _taken
F'< ts· Charlotte and Kim boarded a jeepney going to G-Mall. After possession of the money. Petitioner employed mtuwdation to ob~ the
boardU: the jeepney, two male persons: who w~re later identifi~d to be amount of P2,000 from France as the act he performed caused fear m the
mind of France and hindered the free exercise of his will. For France whose
Ro
Chxar: d Edwin also boarded the vehicle. While on board the Jeepney,
d ~ heard Roxan and Edwin talking about who will pay the
f:_ ~e:the jeepney stopped at~ _red _light, Kim saw Ed~ giving the
daily living depends on his earnings from drivi_n~ _a taxi, the tho_ught of not
having his driver's license back and the possibility that he ~ght _n ot be
able to drive a taxi and earn a living for his family prompted him to give the
· 1 to Roxan and heard him say tirahi na nang babaye bai · Thereafter,
~~ snatched the necklace of Charlotte, disembarked from the jeepney, amount demanded. Petitioner succeeded in forcing France to choose between
parting with his money or have his driver's license confiscated or cancelled.
and ran away. Edwin also disembarked.
Held: The crime committed is theft as the snatching o~ the necklace The violence or Intimidation must be present before the taking of
was without violence against or intimidation of persons or With force upon personal property Is complete.
things. In the case of People v. Concepcion, 691 Phil. _542 (2012), the Court
ruled that when the complainant herself merely testified that the offender Ifthere is violence or intimidation at any time before asportation
snatched her shoulder bag, without saying that such offender used violence, is complete, the taking of personal property is qualified to robbery. It
intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder bag, the snatching of the is not necessary that violence or intimidation should be present from
shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery. the very beginning.
Navarra and Adoro were walking when suddenly a man
Intimidation need not be threat of bodily harm. positioned himself between them and poked a pointed object at ~he
The intimidation exists when it causes the fear or fright of the victim. waist of Navarra. The man ordered Navarra not to move; otherwise,
Thus, a threat of arrest and prosecution, pointing a gun or a knif~ to the she would get hurt. The man immediately grabbed the bracelet
victim, and the like - are forms of intimidation. from N avarra's wrist and slowly ran away as if nothing happened.
The jewelry was a 22-karat gold bracelet with eight dangling fruits
Flores v . Peop/,e and was worth PB,875.00. It was held that robbery was committed.
(G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018) (Eduarte v. People, G.R. No, 176566, April 16, 2009)
Facts: Private complainant France figured in a vehicular collision with But if A picked the pocket of B and ran away with the latter's
a passenger jeepney. At the police station, appellant investigated the incident wallet, containing money bills, and when B chased and overtook him,
and told France to return to the station after two days and prepare the amount
A turned around and boxed the face of B, inflicting slight physical
of P2,000 so he can get back his driver's license. Because France could not
raise the amount in two days, he was told by appellant to just return on the injuries, or intimidated B with a knife, the crime committed is not
third day and issued a Traffic Violation Receipt to serve as France's temporary robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. A committed
driver's license. France became suspicious as on previous occasions when two crimes: (1) theft (Art. 308); and (2) slight physical injuries (Art.
his driver's license was confiscated, he claimed the same from the office of 266), or grave threats (Art. 282, par. 2) for intimidating B with a knife.
the MMDA or City Hall and not from the officer who confiscated his license.
France then filed a complaint with the PAOCTF against appellant, provided Exception:
the amount of P2,000, and four 500-peso bills were dusted with ultraviolet
But when the violence results in: (1) homicide; (2) rape; (3) inten-
fluorescent powder. When France entered the station with members of the
tional mutilation; or (4) any ofthe serious physical injuries penalized in
PAOCTF, Appellant asked him ifhe brought the money with him. Appellant
then called France to his table, opened a drawer and told him to drop the paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 263, the taking ofpersonal property is
money inside. Appellant then counted the money inside the drawer. Appellant robbery complexed with any of those crimes under A r ticle 294, even
was arrested and charged with simple robbery. if the taking was already complete when the violence was used by the
offender.
830 831
Art.293
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
TITLE TEN Art.293
Criminal Law
In defining the Special complex.,crimes penalized

" "
in paragraphs
·d the padlock of the store using a lead pipe which likewise caused the
1, 2, and 3 of Article 294, the phraifsethby ~ lason orulatin
~co"!pha nie_ _bdy,, door to be broken, entered the store through the broken door, and
is used, which indicates that even · _ e VlO e~ce ~e~ . ~ m OIDlct e, took various items valued at P42,000. Accused is guilty of robbery
rape, intentional mutilation, or senous physical mJun~s 1s used by the with use of force upon things. (Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 181138,
offender aft,er the taking of personal p~operty belongmg_to another, December 3, 2012)
the crime is still robbery complexed wit h any of those cnmes.
But the use of force upon things will not make the taking of
Although the killing of Evaristo Tuvera by the robbers was personal property robbery, if the culprit never entered a ?ouse _o r
perpetrated after the consummation of the _r~b~ry ~~ after the building. Thus, removing by force the tires of an automobile while
robbers had left the victim's house, the hom1C1de 1s still mtegrated ,Parked on the street and taking them away is not_ ro~bery, because
with the robbery or is regarded as having been committed "by reason the culprit did not use force to enter a house or building.
or on the occasion" thereof. (People v. Barut, 89 SCRA 14)
Breaking the glass ofthe show-window of a bazaar and thereafter
Note: Evaristo Tuvera was one of those who constituted taking 40 watches ofvarious makes valued at P627 .50, is not robbery,
themselves as rescue party and repaired to the vicinity of the house it appearing that the accused did not enter th_e building but merely
of Francisco Lazaro, the victim of the robbery. introduced his hand through the broken glass m order to remove the
watches from the show-window. (People v. Adorno, CA., 40 O.G. 567)
But the taking of personal property need not be immediately after
the intimidation. Entrance into t he building must be effected by any of the means
described in Articles 299 a nd 302.
After handing over P4,000 to kidnappers for the release of bis son
and while reporting the kidnapping to the Anti-illegal Drugs Special But such entrance into the building is not necessary when the
Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF), Alfonso received a call from robbery is committed by breaking wardrobes, chests, or any other
accused-appel lant Avancena demanding the payment of the balance kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle inside an inhabited
of P150,000, which Alfonso was able to haggle down to P40,000. house, a public building or an edifice devoted to religious worship,
Because of the continued demands for payment, the National Anti- or by taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced
Kidnapping Task Force (NAKTAF) had the opportunity to set up an open outside (subdivision [b) of Art. 299) or when the robbery in an
entrapment operation and prepared P6,000 of marked money. During uninhabited building, other than a public building or edifice devoted
the entrapment operation where accused-appel lants arrived in a to religious worship, is committed by breaking any wardrobe, chest,
or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle, or by removing a closed
white REVO, Avancena approached Alfonso and received the marked
or sealed receptacle even if the same be broken open elsewhere. (pars.
money from him. When they drove away, NAKTAF agents followed
4 and 5 of Art. 302)
accused-appell ants and were able to apprehend them. NAKTAF was
able to recover the marked money from them.
Distinctions between effects of employment of violence against or
Held: The accused is guilty ofrobbery by means of intimidation. Intimidation of person and those of use of force upon things.
(People v. Avancena, G.R. No. 200512, June 7, 2017)
(1) Whenever violence against or intimidation of any person is
"Using force upon anything."
used, the taking of personal property belonging to another is
always robbery. If there is no violence or intimidation, but only
Robbery is also committed by using force upon anything in taking force upon things, the taking is robbery only if the force is used
personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. either to enter the building or to break doors, wardrobes, chests,
or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle
Complainant rented the premises where she operated her Rice-
inside the building or to force them open outside after taking
in-a-Box store. On April 6, 2002, the accused smashed and destroyed the same from the building. (Arts. 299 and 302)
832 833
l Art.2 93
THE REVI SED PENA L CODE
Crimi nal Law
In robbe ry with violen ce again st or intim idatio n of any

perso
TITL E TEN
Crimes Against Prope rty
Art.2 93
by force upon
(2)
pr~pe rty t a ken is imma terial . (V.;_' is evide ntly grave r than ordin ary robbe ry comm itted
the value of the perso nal or intim idatio n again st the perso n is
419; Peop le v. Daos , et al., thing s, becau se wher e viole nce
v. Granadoso, et al., 16 Phil. 60 rbanc e of the order of socie ty and the
violen prese nt there is great er distu
Phil. 143) The penal ty depen ds (a) on the resul t of the
used, aswhen homic ide, rape, inten tiona l mutil ation or any 0
c; secur ity of the indiv idual ."
a dead ly
the seriou s physi cal injuri es resul ted, or when less
serio us It held that: One who, by break ing a wall, enter s, with
from valua ble effec ts,
sligh t physi cal injuri es were inflic ted, whic h are only evide n or weap on, an inhab ited house and steal s there
perso ns, is punis hable
of simpl e violen ce, and (b) on the existe nce of intim idatio n on}ce
y, witho ut violen ce again st or intim idatio n upon
with reclu sion temp oral.
itted in unde r Artic le 299 of the Revis ed Pena l Code
But in robbe ry with force upon thing s, comm If, aside from perfo rming said acts, the thief lays hand upon any
religi an
inhab ited house , public build ing, or e difice devot ed to perso n, witho ut commi tting any of the crime s or inflic ting any of the
the prope °::;
worsh ip, the pen alty is based (a) on the value of injur ies ment ioned in subp aragr aphs (1) to (4) of Artic le 294 of the
arms; and
~en and ~) on whet her or not the offen ders carry same Code , the impo sable pena lty - unde r parag raph
(5) there of-
with force upon thing s, comm itted in an uninh ab ·ted t and the proce ss of reaso ning that
m robbe ry shall be much lighter. This resul
the prop~ rt
build ing, the penal ty is based only on the value of Y has broug ht it abou t, defy logic and reaso n.
taken . perso n is
Robb ery with "viole nce or intim idatio n again st the
ry comm itted by force upon
When the elem ents of both robb ery with viole
nce again st or evide ntly grave r than ordin ary robbe
n, we cann ot accep t the concl usion
Intimidation of person and robbe ry with use of force upon thin thing s," but, preci sely, for this reaso
98 se owin g to the
are present, the penalty Is that Imposed for robbery
with vlole deduc ed - reduc tion of the pena lty for the latte r offen
nee intim idatio n whic h made it a more serw us
or Intimidation In Its maxi mum period. concu rrenc e of violen ce or
s only wher e
one. It is more plaus ible to believe that Artic le 294 a pplie
The comp lex ~ e of_robbery in an inhab ited house
by armed n talces place
'
i d ti f robbe ry with violen ce again st or intim idatio n of perso
robbe ry with violen ce again st or intim itions set forth
perso ns and . a on o perso ns
ed th witho ut enter ing an inhab ited house, unde r the cond
held firear ms enter
was CODlIIUtt.ed when the accus ed, who y ' th . . e in Artic le 299 of the Revis ed Pena l Code.
the
reside ntial house of . . victim s and inflic ted in;ur
upon e victims again st or
in the proce f "
is that When the eleme nts of both robbery with viole nce
. d f◄ ss o CODl IIU~g the robbe ry. Henc e, the penal tys crime intim idat ion of perso n and robbe ry with use of force
upon thing s are
ited house , the more seriou
1.m.pose . or the robbe ry man inhab g for the impo sition -
(Fran sdilla v. Peopl.e, G.R. No. 19756 2, April 20, 2015)
. prese nt, then the crime is a comp lex one, callin most
of the pena lty for the
as provi ded in Artic le 48 of said Code - oral
l$ dNap olis v. Cour t of Appe als, L-288 65 Febr uary 28 1972 serio us offense, in its maxi mum perio d, whic h is reclu swn temp
a ban oned the doctr ine ad opted m · u·S · v . Delo '
s Santos 6 Phil
• •
in its maxi mum perio d.
411 4 (1908 / US .
, 12 (1906), and appli ed in U.S. v. Mana nsala
1 8 Peop le (j94;j Republic Act No. 10883, the New Antl- Carn appln
g Act of 2016 , Is
;::;z; e~ 9z; ), ;e;ple _ v. Baluy ot (1919 ), Mana han v. an inhab ited g of moto r vehic les and not
h0 'Pd v. e _a stian (l 950), that when robbe ry in the law applicable for unlaw ful takin
ry with violence ry or quali fied theft. '
a : : un ~r ~icl e_299 of the R.P.C . and robbe the provisions on robbe
ns unde r Artic le 294 of the R p C
g st o~ mtllD.ldation of perso · · · 'I:1ere is no argui ng that the Anti- Carna pping Law
is a speci al
are comm itted' th; ::;naltY unde~ Art. 294 (altho ugh the lighte r one) ry and theft inclu ded in the
shoul d be im law,_differ ent from the crime of robbe
perso n was u!:°!e ca~e the violence again st or intim idatio n of a Revi~ed Pena l Code. It parti cular ly addre sses the takin g, with inten t
co~tr olling qualification," on the theor y that "robbery ut the lat ter's
which . h
enzed by viole . t · "d . to gain, of a moto r vehicle belon ging to anoth er witho
is c aract nee or m uru ation again st the perso n
834 835
Art.293 THE REVISED PENAL CODE Art.293
TITLE TEN
Criminal Law
consent, or by means of violence against or intimi~ation of persons, of motor vehicle. A tricycle which is not included in the exception, is
or by using force upon things. But a careful c~mpanson oft~s special thus deemed to be that kind of motor vehicle. (Izon v. People, L-51370,
law with the crimes ofrobbery and theft readily reveals their common August 31, 1981)
features and characteristics, to wit: unlawful talcing, int ent to gain,
and that personal property belonging to another is taken without Penalties.
the latter's consent. However, the Anti-Carnapping Law particularly
deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Hence a motor ~ Any person who is found guilty of camapping shall, regardless
vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be punished by -
intent to gain, without the owner 's consent, whether the taking was a) imprisonment for not less than 20 years and 1 day but not
done with or without the use of force upon things. Without the Anti- more than 30 years: when the carnapping is committed
Carnapping Law, such unlawful taking of a motor vehicle would fall without violence against or intimidation of persons, or
within the purview of either theft or robbery which was certainly force upon things;
the case before the enactment of said statute. (People v. Lobitania b) imprisonment for not less than 30 years and one day
388 SCRA 417, 432 [2002]; People v. Tan, 323 SCRA 30, 39 [2000])' but not more than 40 years, when the carnapping is
committed by means of violence against or intimidation
Carnapping. of l>ersons, or force upon things; and
Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle c) the penalty of life imprisonment: when the owner, driver,
belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon raped in the com.mission of the carnapping. (Sec. 3, par. 2,
things. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 10883) R.A. No. 10883)
Motor vehicle, defined. Carnapping is a non-bailable offense.
Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other Any person charged with camapping or when the crime of
than muscular power using the public highways, except road ro1lers, carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or
by means of violence or intimidation of any person or persons or force
trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers,
upon things; or when the owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the
graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on
carnapped vehicle is killed, or ra ped in the course of..the carnapping
public highways; vehicles which run only on rails or tracks; and
shall be denied bail whe n the eviden ce of guilt is st rong. (Sec. 3, par.
tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively 3, R.A. No. 10883)
for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels,
when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor Qualified Carnapping.
vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power
rating. (Sec. 2[a]. R.A. No. 10883) To prove the special complex crime ofcarnapping with homicide,
there must be p roof n ot only of the essential ele m e nts of carnapping,
Tricycle Is covered by the term "motor vehicle." but also that it was the original criminal design of t h e culprit and
the killing was perpet ra ted in the course of the commission of t he
Going over the enumerations ofexcepted vehicle, it would readily carnapping or on the occasion the reof. (P eople v. Macaranas, G.R. No.
be noted that any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which 226846, June 21, 2017) The killing (or the rape) merely qualifies the
are public, not exclusively for private use, comes within the concept crime of carnapping which for lack of specific nomenclature may be
known as qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form.
836 837
Criminal Law TITLE TEN
In short, considering the phraseology of the amend~d Section 14, the the camapping. That only the wheel was found in possession of the
carnapping and the killing (or the rape) m~y be co1:181dered as a ~ingle accused and was intended to be appropriated by the latter is of no
or indivisible crime or a special complex cnme which, however, 1s not moment. The unlawful taking of the tricycle from the owner was
covered by Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. already completed. (People v. Ellasos, G.R. No. 139323, June 6, 2001)
Since Section 14 ofR.A. No. 6539 uses the words "IS KILLED," no
distinction must be made between homicide and murder. WhethJr it Where carnapplng Is not proved, the homicide or murder Is
is one or the other which is committed "in the course of carnapping or punishable under the R.P.C.
on the occasion thereof" makes no difference insofar as the penalty is The prosecution not only has to prove the essential requisites
concerned. If attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the victim,_but more
"in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion importantly, it must show that the o~g.inal criminal des1gn..?f the
thereof," then it must be deemed to fall under the clause (of Section culprit was carnapping and that the killing was perpetr~ted m th~
14) "when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against course ofthe commission ofthe camapping or on the occasion thereof.
or intimidation of any person." (People v. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-4 J Needless to say, where the elements ofcarnapping are not prove_d, the
and 119407, July 7, 1997) provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act would ceas~ to be applicable
and the homicide or murder (if proven) would be purushable under the
Carnapping with homicide is a special complex crime similar Revised Penal Code. (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 127500, June 8, 2000)
to Robbery with Hom:icide.
Republic Act No. 10883 expressly repealed R.A. No. 6539. It When the purpose of taking the car Is to destroy by burning It, the
imposes t he penalty of life imprisonment "when the owner, driver, crime is arson.
or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the Appellant had a sufficient motive to burn the car because his
commission of the carnapping." request to borrow th'' car was refused b~ Rojas sh~rtly before the
This clarifies the intention of the law to make the offense a incident in question, and that must have unpelled him to act ou~ o!
special complex crime, in the same way that robbery with violence hatred and revenge against Rojas. In fact, it was on account ofRoJaS
against or intimidation ofpersons is treated under paragraphs 1 to 4 of refusal to lend him the car that appellant thereafter refused to talk
Article 294 ofthe Revised Penal Code (R.P.C.). H ence, the prosecution to Rojas.
must prove not only that the essential requisites of carnapping were Appellant had no intention of acquiring the car for hi~self or ~f
present; but a lso that it was the original criminal design of the subjecting it to his control and dominion or of disposing of1t for g~
culprit, and that the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the or profit. Instead, Solis took it with the apparent inte~t of dama~g
commission of the carnapping xx x." (People v. Latayada, G.R. No. or destroying it as shown by the fact that after ru.nrung away with
146865, February 18, 2004) the vehicle, he immediately set it afire.
Carnapping with Homicide. The antecedent occurrence which preceded the actual talcing
away of the car as above stated, points out the motive for the act. It
The tricycle was unlawfully taken by the two accused from its is, therefore, clear that the accused never meant to appropriate it for
owner and the latter was killed on the occasion thereof. The victim himself nor to derive any profit, pleasure or benefit from it. The act of
was last seen with the two accused; three hours later, the two were the accused in moving the car to a certain distance undoubtedly was
again spotted riding the tricycle without the victim. The following for no other purpose· than to prevent or delay immediate discovery
morning, the two accused were found in possession of a wheel of the of the act to be done by him, thus avoiding his being identified while
tricycle. Such possession, which remained without any satisfactory he was near the place where the crime was committed and likewise
explanation, raises the presumption that the two accused authored prevent immediate assistance being rendered by the authorities.
838 839
Art.294 THE REVISED PENAL CODE TITLE TEN Art.294
The crime committed by the _appellant is not qualified theft ~ut 4. The penalty ofpriaion mayor in ita maximum period
der the provisions of Article 321, paragraph (2), subsection
· not malic10us to reclu•ion temporal in its medium period,' if the violence
arson unparagraph
(b), and (3), subsection (a). It 1s · ·
mischief. or intimidation employed in the commiaion of the robbery
(People v. Solis, et al., CA., 64 O.G. 11261-11262) shall have been carried to a degree clearly unneceaary for
the commission of the crime, or when in the course of its
Offender Is Hable for camapplng of whole car taken to another place, execution, the offender ■hall have inflicted upon any person
even If only parts are taken away. not responsible for its commiaion any of the physical b,Juries
The accused may be held liable for the unlawful taking of the covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263;
whole vehicle even if only a part thereof is ultimately taken and/or 5. The penalty ofpriaion correccional in its maximum
appropriated while the rest ofit is abandoned. (People v. Ellasos, G.R. period to priaion mayor in its medium period in other cases.
No. 139323, June 6, 2001) (Aa amended by R.A. No. 7659)
Section One. - Robbery with violence against or

Acts punished as robbery with vlolence against or Intimidation of
intimidation of persons
persons:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence againat or intimidation 1. When by reason or on occasion ofthe robbery (taking ofpersonal 1
ofpenona - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with property belonging to another with intent to gain), the crime of
the use ofviolence against or intimidation of any person shall homicide is committed;
suffer: 2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional
1. The penalty ofreclusion perpetua to death,1 when by m utilation or arson; 1
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime o f homicide 3. When by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the
shall have been committed; or when the robbery shall have physical injuries r esiiltjp.g inl!Dsanity, imbecility, impotency or
been accompanied b y ~ or intentional mutilation o r arson; blindness is inflicted;
2. _ The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium 4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the physical
period to reclusion perpetua/' when by reason or on occasion injuries resulting in the ~ s of the use of speech or tht power to
of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in h ear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a h ~ d, a foot, a n ~ or
subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted; a leg or the loss of the use of any such member or in~pacity for
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal,3 when by reason the work in which the injured person is theretofore habitually
or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries engaged is inflicted;
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next 5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of
preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted; the robbery is carried to a degree clearly unnecessa'I,jor the
commission.of the crime; ,
•see Appendix "A.• Table of Penalties, No. 37.

2
Stt Appendix •A.• Table of Penalties, No. 33.
3
See Appendix •A.• Table of Penalties, No. 28. 'See Appendix "A; Table of Penalties, No. 27.
840 841
THE REVISED PENAL CODE Art.294
Art. 294 Criminal Law
TITLE TEN
6. When m · the course of its execution, the offender shall have The crime of homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery.
inflicted upon any person not 7:spo_ns_i'bl~ fio_r the comuuss1on
· ·
of the robbery any of the physical lDJunes m consequence of Where the victim was killed on the occasion when the four
hich the person injured becomes deformed or loses any other accused were taking the chickens under the house of the victim, the
w mber of his body or loses the use thereof or becomes ill or offense is robbery with homicide, not theft and homicide. (People v.
Mabasa, 65 Phil. 568)
~apacitated for the performance of the work in which he is
~abitually engaged for more than 90 days or the person injured Robbery and homicide are separate offenses, when the homicide
becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days; was not committed "on the occasion" or "by reason" of the robbery.
7. If the violence employed by the offender does not cause any of In the case of People v. Atanacio, et al., G.R. No. L-11844, the
the serious physical injuries defined in Article 263, or if the Supreme Court stated:
offender employs intimidation only. The motive for the killing on the part of the Atanacios is. not
wanting. The Atanacios had been nursing grudge and_ hard feel_ings
The crime defined in this article Is a special complex crime. against the Villasis family. It appears that on three previous occas1o~s,
Article 48, defining complex crime, does not apply to the crimes the carabao ofPerfecto had been foraging or destroying the plantation
covered by Article 294. The latter Article already provides a specific of the Atanacios; and that after several promises, he failed to pay the
penalty for each kind of robbery with violence against persons in damages caused. It seems also that the Atanacio f~y had wanted to
harass the Villasis family who were reputed to be witches, and we~e
the first, second, third and fourth paragraphs thereof. There is only
boasting to be the richest family in the barrio. Anent the robbery, it
one penalty prescribed, even if two crimes are committed. Article 48
has been proved that after killing Perfecto, the appellants surrounded
applies only when a complex crime is not punished with a specific his body and searched his pockets turning them inside out, and cut
penalty. off the watch pocket which contained the Pl00.00.
"On the occasion" or'"by reason" of the robbery. However, two separate offenses were committed, to wit: murder
qualified by evident premeditation, with no modifying circumstance
Note the phrases "on the occasion" and "by reason" ofthe robbery. to consider, and robbery.
These phrases mean that the homicide or serious physical injuries
defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 263 must be committed in Robbery and homicide as separate crimes.
the course or because of the robbery.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the
The phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before or after occasion of robbery if it is committed a) to facilitate the robbery or
the taking of personal property of another, as long as the motive of the escape of the culprit; b) to preserve the possession by the culprit
the offender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprive the of the loot; c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery;
victim of his personal property which is sought to be accomplished or d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission ofthe crime. (People v.
by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or in killing a person after Jabiniao, Jr., G.R. No. 179499, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 769, 783;
the robbery to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 403)
the stolen property. Thus, it matters not that the victim was killed
prior to the taking of the personal properties of the victim. What is Given the circumstances surrounding the instant case, [the
Court] agree[s] with the Court of Appeals that appellants cannot be
essential in robbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation
convicted of robbery with homicide. Indeed, the killing may occur
and intimate connection between robbery and killing, whether both before, during, or after the robbery. And it is immaterial that death
crimes be committed at the same time. (People v. Torres, G.R. No. would supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is
130661, June 27, 2011)
other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed.
842 843
TITLE TEN
Criminal Law
(Peop/,e v. Jabiniao, Jr., sup~ a~ 783; Peop/,e v. D~ Jesus, ~u_pra_ at 402) The rule is that where the original design comprehends robbery
However, essential for conviction of ro~bery with honuc1de 1s proof in a dwelling (or elsewhere), and homicide is perpetrated with a view
of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and to the consummation of the robbery, the offense committed is the
the killing, whether the latter be ~rior or subsequen~ to the former special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even though ~o~cide
or whether both crimes are committed at the same tune. (People v.
precedes robbery by an appreciable time. If the original desig_n_is not
Werba, G.R. No. 144599, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 482, 497; People v.
to commit robbery, but robbery is committed after the homicide as
Cando, 398 Phil. 225, 240 [2000])
an afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide, the criminal
From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, [the Court) acts should be viewed as two distinct offenses. (People v. Toleng, 91
cannot see the connection between the robbery and the homicide. It SCRA 382) Robbery with homicide arises only when there is a ~i~ect
must be recalled that after taking the passengers' personal belongings relation, an intimate connection, between the robbery and the killmg,
appellants (and two other suspects) alighted from the jeepney. At even if the killing is prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to the
that moment, robbery was consummated. Some of the passengers, robbery. (People v. Salazar, supra)
however, decided to report the incident to the proper authorities;
hence, they went to the nearest police station. There, they narrated PARAGRAPH 1: ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
what happened. The police eventually decided to go back to the place
where the robbery took place. Initially, they saw no one; then finally, This is a special complex crime, punished as a single crime,
Kagalingan saw the suspects on board a pedicab. De Luna and two although robbery and homicide are committed by the offender.
other suspects were caught and left under the care of Suing. It was
then that Suing was killed. Clearly, the killing was distinct from Meaning of "homicide."
the robbery. There may be a connection between the two crimes, but
The term "'homicide• as used in paragraph No. 1 of Article 294,
surely, there was no "direct connection."
is to be understood in its generic sense as to include parricide and
Though appellants were charged with robbery with homicide, murder.
[the Court] find[s) Quemeggen guilty of robbery, and de Luna of two
separate crimes ofrobbery and homicide. (People v. Quemeggen, G.R. The juridical concept ofrobbery with homicide does not limit the
No. 178205, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 94 [2009]) taking of life to one single victim or to ordinary homicide.
The juridical concept of robbery with homicide does not limit
Where the original design comprehends robbery, and homicide Is the taking of life to one single victim making the sla~g of human
perpetrated by reason or on occasion of the consummation of the beings in excess of that number punishable as separate, mdepe~dent
former, the crime committed is robbery with homicide. offense or offenses. All the homicides or murders are merged m the
In several cases, the Court has already ruled that a conviction composite integrated whole that is robbery with homicide so long as
for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery was all the killings were perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the
the main purpose and objective of the criminals and that the killing robbery. (People u. Madrid, 88 Phil. 2)
was merely incidental, resulting merely by reason or on the occasion Notwithstanding the fact that three persons were killed and one
of the robbery. (Peop/,e v. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67 [1997])
seriously injured in the commission of the robbery, the charge should
In the cases of Peop/,e v. Elizaga, 86 Phil. 364, and Peop/,e v. G/,ore, have been only for robbery with homicide. (People v. Ga, L-49831,
87 Phil. 739, where the victims were killed, not for the purpose of June 27, 1990)
committing robbery, and the idea oftaking money and other personal
property of the victims was conceived by the culprits only after the There is no robbery with double homicide. Such crime does
killing, it was held that the culprits committed two separate crimes of not exist in our statute books. Article 294 paragraph 1 of the R.P.C.
homicide or murder (qualified by abuse of superior strength) and theft.
845
844
imposes only one penalty for the special complex crime of robbery Robbery with homicide need not be committed inside a building.
with homicide regardless of the number of persons killed. (People u. Thus, the culprits who killed the victim on the street to get, as in fact
Fabula, G.R. No. 115401, December 16, 1996) they got, the latter's personal belongings are guilty of robbery with
There is no special complex crime ofrobbery in band with double homicide.
homicide and/or serious, less serious or slight physical injuries under
the present Code. If robbery with homicide (or with the other crimes An Intent to take personal property belonging to another with Intent
enumerated above) is committed by a band, the indictable offense to gain must precede the kllllng.
would still be robbery with homicide under Article 294(1), but the In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
circumstance that it was committed by a band is not an element of malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
the crime but is merely a generic aggravating circumstance which occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery
may be offset by mitigating circumstances. The homicides or murders must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place
and physical injuries, irrespective of the numbers, committed on the before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained,
occasion or by reason ofthe robbery are merged in the composite crime without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or
of"robbery with homicide." (People v. Pedroso, 115 SCRA 599) modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that
has to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of robbery
There is no such crime as robbery with murder. with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The
Treachery cannot be considered as a qualifying circumstance constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide,
of murder, because the crime charged is the special crime ofrobbery must be consummated. The actions of the three accused, from the
with homicide. The treachery which attended the commission of the deprivation of the personal belongings of Perlie to the stabbing of
crime must be considered not qualifying but merely as a generic the victim Nely are clear and indubitable proofs of a concerned effort
aggravating circumstance. (People v. Mantawar, et al., 80 Phil. 817; to deprive Perlie and Nely of their personal belongings, and that by
People v. Abang, G.R. No. L-14623, December 29, 1960) reason or on the occasion of the said robbery, stabbed and killed the
victim. (People v. Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013)
Robbery with homicide in a dwelling does not require that robbery Ifthe idea oftaking the personal property of another with intent
with force upon things is first committed. to gain came to the mind of the offender afier he had killed the victim,
Is it necessary that a robbery has actually ta.ken place first, and he is guilty of two separate crimes of homicide or murder, as the case
the homicide is committed on the occasion or by reason thereof? No. may be, and theft.
It is not required. This is the ruling in the cases ofPeople v. Atanacio, et al.; People
. ~at _makes ~h~ crime of robbery with violence against person, v. Elizaga, and People v. Glore, supra.
1s t~e inJunng or killing ofa person on the occasion or by reason ofthe
taking ofpersonal property belonging to another, with intent to gain. The crime Is robbery with homicide, even if the motive of the
offenders was that of robbery as well as vengeance.
Thus, when the culprits first asked for permission to enter the
house and asked for food from the victims in the house and then when But when the intent to commit robbery preceded the taking of
already inside they began to massacre the victims the entrance is human life, it is immaterial that the offenders had also a desire to
not with force upon things. But when they had the intention to take avenge grievances against the person killed. They are liable for the
personal property in the house which was the reason for killing the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. (U.S. v. Villorente and
victims, ~din f8:c~ took away personal property, they committed Bislig, 30 Phil. 59; People v. Luna, 58 SCRA 198; People v. Damaso,
robbery with hommde. (U.S. v. Villorente, 30 Phil. 59) 86 SCRA 370)
846 847
Homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery.
(b) Homicide, necessary to defend possession of stolen
Killing first the victim and then afterwards taking the mone goods.
from the body of ~e deceased is robbery with homicide. (People ;,
Hernandez, 46 Phil. 48) But the offender must have the intent to tak When the accused were coming out of the store
personal property before the killing. e and were carrying away the stolen goods, the deceased
stopped and attacked them. Two or three of the offenders
Killing the victim after taking him out to sea several hours after returned the attack and killed the deceased.
the robbery was committed in another place, is still robbery with
homicide. (U.S. v. Ibanez, et al., 19 Phil. 463) Held: Robbery with homicide. The homicide was
committed to defend the possession of the stolen property.
Note: The phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before 0 (People v. Salamuddin, 52 Phil. 670)
after the taking of personal property of another, as long as the motiv r
(c) Homicide, committed to remove opposition or to
o!~e offen~er (in killing a person be(ore the robbery) is to deprive th:
suppress evidence.
vi~ ~f ~ personal property which is sought to be accomplished
by eliminating an obs~acle or opposition, or (in killing a person after When all the four homicides were perpetrated
robbery) to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of the with the sole end in view of removing opposition to the
stolen property. robbery or suppressing evidence thereof, it is robbery with
homicide. (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1; People v. Cocoy, et
When homicide Is committed by reason or on occasion of robbery. al., 94 Phil. 91)
Illustrations: (d) Homicide, to escape after the commission of
robbery.
(a) Homicide, to eliminate an obstacle to the
commission of robbery. Pacifico Gardon, Catalino Astillero, Amador Altis,
and Antonio Rodrigo were accused of robbery in band
One of the accused asked the deceased for money with homicide and serious physical injuries. While the
threatening to shoot him if he would refuse. The deceased robbery was going on, the bell of the local chapel began to
replied that he had no money and as he turned his back and ring as if giving a general alarm. Alarmed and fearful of
started to go home, he was fired upon by two of the accused. their safety, the robbers attempted to escape by the back
After shooting him down, the accused went to the house of the door but they found it closed. Then the door of the store
deceased, threatened his wife there, took their trunk, broke it was opened and finding a chance to escape, Altis and
open, and took therefrom P400. As the killing and the robbery Rodrigo hurriedly came out through that door towards
were not committed in the same place, the accused contended the beach, followed later by their companions Gardon and
that the crime committed cannot be robbery with homicide. Astillero. While Gardon was trying to escape, he met on
the way Engracio Manga and Emilio Fuentes who went to
Held: The accused had the intention of robbing the the store because of the general alarm, and upon seeing
deceased when they asked him for money and they shot him Fuentes, he immediately stabbed him on the abdomen
down to eliminate an obstacle to the effectuation of their causing his instantaneous death.
unlawful design which was shown by the fact that they repaired
to his house which was nearby, and by force took his money The defense contends that the robbery was
therefrom. There is direct connection between the killing and committed independently of the crime of homicide, for
the robbery. (People v. Libre, et al., 93 Phil. 5) the reason that the plan preconceived by appellants was
merely confined to the commission of robbery and did not
848 849
Art.294 THE REVISED PENAL CODE TITLE TEN Art. 294
include that of homicide. But this contention evidently is Attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on
unsustainable for it cannot be denied that the killing of the occasion of the robbery Is absorbed In the crime of Robbery
Fuentes took place practically in the course, if not as a with Homicide.
necessary consequence, of the commission of the robbery.
Said acts should therefore be considered as constituting Attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during
the special crime of robbery with homicide. (People v. or on the occasion of the robbery, as in this case, is absorbed in _the
Gardon, et al., CA., 56 O.G. 3404) crime of Robbery with Homicide which is a special complex cnme
that remains fundamentally the same regardless of the number of
Is It robbery with homicide If the person killed is a robber himself? homicides or injuries committed in connection with the robbery.
(People v. Cabbab, Jr., G.R. No. 173479, July 12, 2007, citing People
It would seem that it is still robbery with homicide, if, in the
course of the robbery, another robber is killed by his companion who v. Cabilto, 362 SCRA 325 [20011)
wanted to get a lion's share of the loot. The law does not require that
the person killed is the owner of the property taken. The opening When homicide Is not proved, the crime Is only robbery.
sentence of Article 294 says: "Any person guilty of robbery with the Thus, if the victim after having been deprived of his personal
use of violence against xx x any person." Paragraph No. 1 says: 'when property with intimidation while in a banca, was dumped overboard
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide and thereafter was never heard of or seen, the fact of his death is
shall have been committed.' The killing of any person by reason or on not sufficiently established, because he might have survived by
the occasion of robbery should be punished with the highest penalty swimming to the bank of the river. In this case, the accused is liable
regardless of the person killed.
only for robbery, because there is no sufficient evidence to prove the
The victim of the robbery need not necessarily be the victim of homicide.
homicide. (People v. Balanag, G.R No. 103225, September 15, 1994;
People v. Barut, 89 SCRA 16) There is robbery with homicide, even When robbery Is not proved, the crime is only homicide.
if the person killed was an innocent bystander and not the person
robbed. (People v. Disimban, 88 Phil. 120; People vs. Barut, supra) When the prosecution fails to show that robbery was committed,
because there is no evidence that certain personal property was taken
There is robbery with homicide although the items robbed, i.e., by the accused, the latter should be convicted of double homicides, if
five shotguns and three guns, Ruby Cal. 22, belong to the armory of two persons were killed by the culprits. (People v. Bulan, et al., G.R.
the Pro~cial Jail of San Fernando, Pampanga, and not the personal No. L-14934, July 25, 1960)
properties of the homicide victims, the provincial jail guards. (People
v. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 100771, May 28, 1993) Outside of the confessions, no sufficient evidence stands to
prove that anything was stolen from the house of the victims. While
It is robbery with homicide even if the death of a person supervened there is testimony that victim had money four or five days before the
by mere accident.
incident, the hiatus between the reception of the money and the delict
In Pe~ple v. Veloso, No. L-32900, February 25, 1982, 112 itselfwas long enough for the deceased to send the money elsewhere.
SCRA 173, it was held that there was robbery with homicide where Without separate proof ofcorpus delicti, the extrajudicial confessions
death supervened by mere accident, provided that the homicide will not support conviction for robbery. (Sec. 3, Rule 133, Rules of
wa~ ~roduced by reason or on the occasion of robbery, inasmuch Court) Since robbery was not proved, conviction for robbery with
as it 18 ~nly the result obtained, without reference or distinction as homicide becomes impossible. (People v. Manobo, G.R. No. L-19798,
to the_ c~cumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the September 20, 1966)
commission of the crime, that has to be taken into consideration.
850
851
In robbery with homicide, must the person charged as accessory Robbery with homicide distinguished from highway robbery.
have knowledge of the commission, not only of robbery, but also
The trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of the
of homicide?
crime of highway robbery with homicide. To be sure, the crime
In People v. Doble, 114 SCRA 131, it was held that where the accused-appellant committed was robbery with homicide, not highway
accomplices knew merely that a gang which took them as banca robbery as defined in P.D. No. 532. Conviction for highway robbery
drivers would stage a robbery and they were left at the beach by the requires proof that several accused were organized for the purpose
gang men, the fact that the latter killed several people in escaping
of committing it indiscriminately.
will not make them liable as accomplices. Their complicity must
accordingly be limited to the robbery, not with the killing. Having been In the case at bar, there is no proof that accused-appellant
left in the banca, they could not have tried to prevent the killings as and "Johnny" organized themselves to commit highway ro~bery.
is required of one seeking relief from liability for assault committed The prosecution established only a single act of robbery agamst a
during the robbery. particular person. This is not what is contemp~ated under P.D. No.
Similarly, in People v. Adriano y Sanguesa, 95 SCRA 107, it 532, the objective of which is to deter and punish lawless ele~ents
was held that the most that could be found against Pedro Bernardo who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of
is that he knew of the robbery only, but not of the killing. He knew innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place_ to
that the money turned over to him for safekeeping was the product another, thereby disturbing the peace and tranquility of the nation
of robbery. He should, ther,e fore, be held as accessory only of simple and stunting the economic and social progress of the people.
robbery, not of the grave offense ofrobbery with homicide.
Consequently, accused-appellant should be held lia~le for the
Note: Article 53 provides that the penalty to be imposed upon special complex crime ofrobbery with homicide. Under Article 29~ of
the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony is the the R.P.C., when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the of robbery, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua to death.
consummated felony. (People u. Pascual, Jr., G.R. No. 132870, May 29, 2002)
If the consummated felony is robbery with homicide, there is
no legal basis for imposing upon the accessory the penalty lower by PARAGRAPH 2: ROBBERY WITH RAPE
two degrees than that prescribed for robbery only. Robbery cannot be As regards the special complex crime of robbery '\""rith rape, the
~eparated from homicide, because they are merged in the composite, law uses the phrase "when the robbery shall have been accompanied
integrated whole - the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide punishable with one penalty. by rape."
But like in robbery with homicide, the offender must have the
All who participated In the robbery as principals are principals in intent to take the personal property belonging to another with intent
robbery with homicide. to gain, and such intent must precede the rape.
When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery would Rape committed on the occasion of the robbery.
also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony This is usually committed when, while some robbers are
ofro~b~ry with homicide although they did not actually take part in ransacking for personal property in the house, the other is raping a
the killmg, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent woman in the same house.
the same. (People u. Carrozo, 342 SCRA 600 [2000]; People u. Verzosa,
294 SCRA 466 [1998]; People u. Hernandez GR Nio 139697 June
15, 2004) ' . ' . '
852 863
Even if the rape was committed in another place, it Is still robbery
with rape.
old daughter of Magdaleno. The appellant dragged her out and, with
the aid of Gil Sayuco, brought her downstairs under a mango tree.
In the case of U.S. v. Tiongco, et al., 37 Phil. 951, two of the Notwithstanding the girl's cries for help, her father and mother
offenders compelled two women, living in the house where the robbery could not come to her rescue, the first being then tied to the wall
was committed, to go with them. While on the way to the place where and the second having been pushed away whenever she attempted
they had their banca hidden, the two men separated themselves frobl to intervene. In spite of Benedicta's resistance, the appellant, with
the band and took the two women to a place near the river where the help of his three companions, was able to have sexual intercourse
through force and intimidation, they raped them. Thereafter, the tw~ with Benedicta. Gil Sayuco then took his turn in raping the girl,
men left the women and joined their companions. followed in succession by the other two companions. Not contented
with merely satisfying their lust, the appellant, Gil Sa~co, and
Held: Robbery with rape was committed. It is not necessary that another companion returned to the house and took away a nee bowl,
the rape be committed prior to or simultaneously with the robbery. some rice and four chickens, all worth about fifteen pesos. (People v.
So the law says, in the definition of the crime, that when the robbery Canastre, 82 Phil. 482)
is accompanied by rape or mutilation, etc.
In this case the intention ofthe culprits from the beginning was
Note: But if the rape is committed against a woman in a house to take personal ~roperty. Even if the rape ~as committed 'h:fore the
other than that where the robbery is committed, the rape should be taking of the rice and chickens, they were guilty ofrobbery with rape.
considered a separate offense.
Rape was not their primary objective.
There is no such crime as robbery with attempted rape. Robbery and rape, as separate crimes.
Article 294, paragraph 2, which punishes robbery with rape Ifthe original plan was to rape but the accused after committing
(consummated) does not cover robbery with attempted rape.
the rape also committed robbery when the opport~t! presented
The crime cannot be a complex crime of robbery with attempted itself, the offenses should be viewed as separate and distinct. (People
rape under Article 48, because a robbery cannot be a necessary means v. Dinol, supra)
to commit attempted rape; nor attempted rape, to commit robbery.
When the accused entered the victim's house, he only had in
Both crimes cannot be the result ofa single act. (See People v. Cariaga,
C.A., 54 O.G. 4307) mind sexual gratification and the taking of the cash and pieces of
jewelry against the victim's will appears to be an afterthought. The
Rape was committed before taking of personal property.
accused is guilty of the separate crimes ofrobbery and rape. (People
v. Faigano, G.R. No. 113483, February 22, 1996)
If the intention of the accused was to rob but rape was also
committed even before the asportation, the crime is robbery with When the taking of personal property of a woman Is an independent
rape. To be liable for the special complex crime of robbery with rape act following defendant's failure to consummate the rape, there are
the intent to take personal property of another must precede the rape. two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape and theft.
(People v. Dinol, G.R. No. 54567, March 22, 1990)
People v. Buena
At about one o'clock in the morning of June 28, 1946, the (CA., 52 0.G. 4698)
appellant and Gil Sayuco, together with two unidentified companions,
went to the house of Magdaleno Berti. After tying Magdaleno to the Facts: A suddenly grabbed B, a woman, by the shoulder, pushed her to
the side of the road which was covered by tall talahib grass and B shouted
wall, the appellant entered the room of Benedicta Berti, a 17-year- for help, tenaciously resisting the assault. A embraced her, took hold of her
body, placed his hands around her neck and gave her a fist blow on the right
854 855
Art. 294 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law TITLETEN Art. 294
cheek just below the eye. B fell to the ground face upward. Thereupon A
, sat
on her legs and pulled her dress upward. He attempted to loosen her drawe have some tokens of her supposed consent to the coition the accused
which were tightly tied around her waist with a piece of cloth. UnsuccessC:• committed two distinct crimes of rape and unjust vexati~n. (People v.
he attempted to pull the drawers downward. ' Villarino, C.A.-G.R. No. 6342-R, November 26, 1951)
All along, A kept on kissing and embracing B who continued offe •
resistance. B was able to release her legs. She kicked A , as a result of w~ Clvll llablllty for robbery with rape.
the latter loosened his hold on her. B was able to stand up. It was while B / In a case of robbery with rape, the accused should pay the
8
in the act of running away that A snatched her vanity case from her han:.
offended party the value of the stolen property and indemnify the
Held: The crime at bar is not one of robbery with rape, especially and offended woman for damages. The civil liability for rape in robbery
specifically penalized by Article 294, paragraph 2, of the R.P.C. Article 48 f with rape has been set at Pl00,000. (People v. Jugueta, supra)
0
the Revised Penal Code does not find application in the instant case becau
[the Court] [is] not here confronted with a single act which constitutes two se Concerning the acknowledgment and support of the offspring of
more grave or less grave felonies, and the attempted rape is not a nece88: ; rape, Article 345 ofthe Revised Penal Code provides for three kinds of
means of committing the theft or vice versa. The theft was committed as an civil liability that may be imposed on the offender: a ) indemnification,
independent act following appellant's failure to consummate the rape. b) acknowledgment of the offspring, unless the law should prevent
The lower court is correct in declaring that two crimes were committed him from so doing, and c) in every case to support the offspring. With
by appellant, namely, attempted rape and theft. the passage of the Family Code, the classification of acknowledged
natural children and natural children by legal fiction was eliminated
Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will and they now fall under the specie of illegitimate children. Since
not Increase the penalty. parental authority is vested by Article 176 of the Family Code upon
the mother and considering that an offender sentenced to reclusion
There is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s perpetua automatically loses parental authority over his children,
should be considered as aggravating circumstances. The enumeration no "further positive act is required of the parent as the law itself
of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal provides for the child's status." Hence, accused-appellant should only
Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the be ordered to indemnify and support the victim's child. However, the
same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a amount and terms of support shall be determined by the trial court
specific paragraph (Art. 10), providing for analogous circumstances. after due notice and bearing in accordance with Article 201 of the
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of Family Code. (People v. Magtibay, G.R. No. 142985, August 6, 2002)
multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an
"anomalous situation" where from the standpoint ofthe gravity of the When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery.
offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery When the accused committed robbery in a house, killed the bead
with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A of the family there and raped his wife in the rice field to which she
penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person had been taken, the crime is robbery with homicide and rape under
should be brought within its terms ifhe is not clearly made so by the paragraph 1 ofArticle 294, the rape to be considered as an aggravating
statute. (People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000) circumstance only. (People v. Ganal, et al., 85 Phil. 743; People v.
Bacsa, 104 Phil. 136; People v. Villa, 93 SCRA 716)
When the taking of property after the rape Is not with intent to gain,
The trial court correctly designated the crime as robbery with
there is neither theft nor robbery committed.
homicide, with rape being considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Ifrape was the primary objective of the accused, and his taking In the two instances when the assailants struck, their overriding
of the jewels of the victim was not with intent to gain but just to intention was to commit robbery. After the children had been hogtied
856 857
Art. 294 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
TITLE TEN Art. 294
Criminal Law
in the Semacio's premises, one of the armed men demanded mone When the violence or Intimidation Is necessary, paragraph 4 of
and jewelry. Thereafter, they started to ransack the house. Whe! Article 294 Is not applicable.
the husband of Zenaida arrived, the robbers went out and prompt}
killed him and his luckless companions. In the house of the Samoy'; Although one of the victims was bound and beaten with the
all the male occupants were asked to come out first. Only then did butt of a gun, this would not constitute unnecessary violence under
the men begin to ransack the place. After ransacking the house, the paragraph 4 of Article 294, because it appears that the beating was
male occupants were shot to death. As for the rapes committed then for the purpose of compelling him to show the place where he kept
the trial court was correct in treating the raping of Elvira Samoy and his money, something he refused to do at first, and which the robbers
Zenaida Semacio as an aggravating circumstance. (People v. Timple would not have been able to ascertain had they not resorted to the
237 SCRA 52) ' violence. (U.S. v. De Los Santos, 6 Phil. 411)
PARAGRAPH 3: ROBBERY WITH Inflicting serious physical Injuries defined In subdivisions 3 and 4 of
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES Article 263 "upon any person not responsible for Its commission."
In a case, the accused assaulted the victim and robbed him of Suppose that in the course of the execution of the crime of
Pl 7.00. The victim lost the hearing of one ear, as a result of one of robbery, one of the offenders inflicted upon another robber, who
the blows he received from the accused. The Supreme Court held that wanted to get all the loot, physical injuries which resulted in the
the accused was guilty of robbery under Article 294, paragraph 3, the latter's deformity, is the crime, robbery with serious physical injuries?
physical injuries inflicted being covered by Article 263, paragraph 2. Note the wording of the law as regards this question. It says: "upon
(People v. Luncay, 49 Phil. 464) any person not responsible for its commission." It would seem that
the penalty prescribed in paragraph 4 of Article 294 should ~ot
Note: This ruling is inconsistent with the ruling in the case be applied. The offender who inflicted on another robber, physical
of People v. Hernandez, 94 Phil. 49, as regards the crime of serious injuries which later resulted in deformity, would be liable for two
physical injuries committed. In that case, it was held that as the crimes, namely: (1) robbery; and (2) serious physical injuries under
offended party may still hear through his left ear, the case falls under Article 263, paragraph 3.
Article 263, paragraph 3.
The serious physical Injuries defined In subdivisions 3 and 4 of
Had the ruling been the same as that in the Hernandez case, the
Article 263, inflicted in connection with the robbery, must be Inflicted
robbery would have been punished under Article 294, paragraph 4.
"In the course of its execution."
PARAGRAPH 4: ROBBERY WITH UNNECESSARY Hence, if the victim became deformed or lost any other part of
. VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION his body or the use thereof, or became ill or incapacitated for his work
for more than 90 days (Art. 263, par. 3), or became ill or incapacitated
Tying the victim after wounding him and leaving him tied to the for labor for more than 30 days (Art. 263, par. 4), it is necessary to
trunk ofa tree on the craggy ground after taking his money constitutes determine whether the physical injuries were inflicted in the course
unnecessary violence and intimidation referred to in paragraph 4 of of the execution of the robbery.
Article 294. (People v. Manzanilla, et al., 43 Phil. 167)
If they were inflicted after the taking of the personal property
The violence need not result in serious physical injuries. All had been complete, the serious physical injuries mentioned should
that the first clause in paragraph 4 ofArticle 294 requires is that the be considered as separate offense.
violence be unnecessary for the commission of the robbery.
859
858
Criminal Law TITLE TEN Art. 294
In paragraph 4 of Article 294, the phrase "by reason" is not
used. Robbery with violence or Intimidation "In other cases" referred to
In paragraph 5 Is committed by:
Requisites of robbery under the second case of paragraph 4 of 1. Snatching money from the hands of the victim and pushing
Article 294. her to prevent her from recovering the seized property. (U.S. v.
Samonte, 8 Phil. 286)
1. That any of the physical iajuries defined in paragraphs 3 and 4
of Article 263 was inflicted in the course of the robbery; and 2. Grabbing pawn ticket from the hands of another and
intimidating him. (U.S. v. Blanco, 10 Phil. 298)
2. That any of them was inflicted upon any person not responsible
for the commission of the robbery. When the act of snatching did not result in violence against the
person of the offended party, the crime of robbery is not committed.
PARAGRAPH 5: SIMPLE ROBBERY
In a case where the accused snatched the shoulder bag of the
The robbery under this paragraph is known as simple robbery offended party which was hanging on her left shoulder, there being
because the use of violence against any person does not result i~ no violence, intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder bag, it
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or any of the serious physical was held that the snatching ofthe shoulder bag constitutes the crime
injuries defined in Article 263, which may give rise to special complex of theft, not robbery. (People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 200922, July
crime. 18, 2012)
When the iajury inflicted upon the offended party on the occasion Where the accused snatched a basket containing jewelry, money
ofrobbery can be qualified only as less serious physical injuries (U.S. and clothing, and took off with it while the owners had their backs
v. Barroga, 21 Phil. 161) or slight physical injuries (People v. Mandia, turned, the accused was found guilty of theft. (People v. de la Cruz,
60 Phil. 372; People v. Magramo, et al., 62 Phil. 307), the crime is that 76 Phil. 601 [1946))
defined and penalized in paragraph 5 of Article 294.
Intimidation exists In the following cases:
There is violence, even if the physical force employed by the
offender merely consists in his pushing the victim. (U.S. v. Samonte, 1. When the complainant was on her way home after selling a
BPhil. 286) ring in a market, Sope pointed a revolver at her while Cruz
poked her back with a hard object. Then, Cruz and Dimalanta
Violence or Intimidation need not be present before or at the exact pretended to be peace officers, apprehending her for unlawfully
moment when the object is taken. dealing in U.S. Army goods and pointing to her a bag with
such goods which they themselves had brought along, with the
Violence or intimidation may enter at any time before the owner result that the complainant gave them P200.00. (U.S. v. Sope,
is finally deprived of his property. This is so, because asportation is et al., 75 Phil. 812)
a complex fact, a whole divisible into parts, a series of acts, in the
course of which personal violence or intimidation may be injected. 2. The accused, in a guerrilla uniform, told the complainant to
hand him all his money and personal belongings, and when
Thus, where a person picked the pocket of another who, becoming the complainant replied he had no money, the accused told
aware ofit, tried to recover his property, but a companion ofthe thief him to stand up and searched his watch pocket, from which he
prevented him by using force and violence, the crime committed is took P40.00 in paper currency. The complainant allowed the
robbery, because violence was used before the owner is finally deprived accused to search him because the accused was armed. The
of the property. (People v. Omambong, CA., G.R. No. 44645, June accused kept on pushing him back and forth and looked as if he
3, 1936) was going to strike him. It was held that the acts performed by
860 861
THE REVISED PENAL CODE TITLE TEN Art.294
Art.294 Criminal Law Crimes Against Property
the accused in their nature inspired t~e Vlf.chit~ ~ll·th(!ear and (4) In robbery, the gain of the culprit is immediate; whereas
. ted d hindered the free exercise o s WI • reople v in threats, the gain of the culprit is not immediate. (People
~=~o Pe:, G.R. No. L-229, August 29, 1946) . v. Moreno, CA., G.R. No. 43635, April 30, 1936)
In robbery with Intimidation, there must be acts done by the accused Robbery with violence distinguished from grave coercion.
which, either by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances
under which they are executed, Inspire fear In the person against (1) In both crimes, there is violence used by the offender;
whom they are directed. (2) While in robbery, there is intent to gain, such element is not
Intimidation is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as unlawful present in coercion.
coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear. (People v. Alfeche, Jr., The only distinction between these two crimes is just a matter of
G.R. No. 102070, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 770, 779)
intention. Ifthe purpose of the accused in taking somebody's property
In robbery with intimidation of persons, "the intimidation by force or intimidation is to obtain gain, the crime is robbery; but
consists in causing or creating a fear in the mind of a person or in if bis purpose is to compel another to do something against his will,
bringing in a sense of mental distress in view of a risk or evil that without authority of law, but believing himself to be the owne~ or
may be impending really or in imagination" and such fear of injury creditor, and thereby seizes property, then the crime is grave coerCion.
to person or property must continue to operate on the mind of the (U.S. v. Villa-Abrille, 36 Phil. 807)
victim at the time of the delivery ofthe money. Where the complainant
knew of the plan laid down for the entrapment of the accused, at the Problem:
same time participating in the execution thereof, and he delivered the
money to the accused, not from fear, but for the purpose of bringing A lost his watch. One day, A saw B using the watch. A,
the accused to justice, the accused is not liable for robbery with recognizing the watch, asked B to give it to him because it was his
intimidation of persons. (People v. Marco, 12 CA. Rep. 377) property. BecauseB refused,A, with drawn pistol, told him that ifB
would not give him the watch, A would kill him. Because of fear for
Threats to extort money distinguished from robbery through his life, B gave the watch to A against B's will.
Intimidation.
Is the crime committed by A robbery, grave threats or grave
In both crimes, there is intimidation by the offender. The coercion?
purpose, when threat is made to extort money, is identical - to
obtain gain. It is grave coercion, because B was compelled to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
The differences are:
It cannot be threats, because in the crime of threats, the
(1) In robbery, the intimidation is a.ctual and immediate; intimidation is not actual and immediate. It is true that there was
whereas in threats, the intimidation is conditional or a sort of a condition made, that is, B would be killed if he would not
future, that is, not immediate; give A the watch. But in threats, the intimidation must promise some
(2) In robbery, the intimidation is personal, while in threats,. future harm or injury. When the effect ofthe intimidation is immediate
it may be through an intermediary; and the offended party is compelled thereby to do something against
his ~l, whether it be right or wrong, the crime committed is grave
(3) In threats, the intimidation may refer to the person, honor coercion.
or property of the offended party or that of his family;
while in robbery, the intimidation is directed only to the _ . It cannot be robbery, because there is no intent to gain, as A
person of the victim; believed that the watch he was taking was his own property.
862 863
Criminal Law TITLETEN Art. 295
Robbery and bribery, distinguished.
because of the threat, he gave the fish to the agent, although the fish
The principal distinction between the two offenses is that in was not caught by means of dynamite, the crime committed is robbery
bribery, the transaction is mutual and voluntary; in the case of under paragraph 5 of Article 294.
robbery, the transaction is neither voluntary nor mutual, but is
consummated by the use of force or intimidation. If the offended If the owner of the fish in that case in fact used dynamite in
party had voluntarily offered to pay the defendant the P2.00, the catching the fish and he gave the fish to the agent to avoid prosecution
transaction would have constituted bribery. But such is not this case. under the Fisheries Act, the crime would be bribery. (People v. Munar,
The defendant demanded the payment of the P2.00, accompanying CA., 47 O.G. 2461)
the demand with threats of prosecution and arrest and is therefore
guilt;y ofrobbery. (People v. Francisco, L-21390, March 26, 1924)
In robbery, the victim is deprived of his money or property by Art. 295. Robbery with physi£al i,vuries, committed in an
force or intimidation; in bribery, he parts with his money or property in uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm
a sense voluntarily. (U.S. v. Flores, 19 Phil. 178) The following doctrine on a street, road or alley. - If the offenses mentioned in
was laid down in Flores: A policeman who, knowing that a person has subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article
committed no crime for which he could be lawfully arrested and tried shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a
nevertheless arrests such person, falsely accusing him of a crime, and band or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle
then by means of threats of presentation and imprisonment, thus or airship, or by entering the passengers' compartments in
playing upon his ignorance and fear, obtains money from the said a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by
person, secures such money by force and intimidation and commits surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road,
the crime of robbery as defined by the penal Code." highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use
of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum
In PO2 Flores v. People, G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018, the period of the proper penalties. (As amended by R.A. No. 12,
accused, a traffic police officer, was found guilty of simple robbery Sec. 2, and R.A. No. 373)
(extortion) when he confiscated the driver's license of the offended
party, a taxi driver who figured in a vehicular accident, and demanded
the amount of P2,000 for its return. The Court found the accused to
have employed intimidation to obtain the P2,000 from the offended When is robbery with violence against or Intimidation of persons
party as the act he performed caused fear in the mind of the latter qualified?
and hindered the free exercise of his will. For the offended party
Ifany ofthe offenses defined in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 ofArticle
whose daily living depends on his earnings from driving a taxi, the 294 is committed -
thought of not having his driver's license back and the possibility that
he might not be able to drive a taxi and earn a living for his family (1) in an uninhabited place, or
prompted him to give the amount demanded. Petitioner succeeded in (2) by a band, or
forcing the offended party to choose between parting with his money
or have his driver's license confiscated or cancelled. (3) by attacking a moving train, streetcar, motor vehicle or
airship, or '
Thus, where an agent of authority took away from its owner,
against his will, one fish valued at Pl0.00, making the threat that if (4) by entering the passengers' compartments in a train or in
he would not give him the fish, he would be taken to the headquarters any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in
to explain why he was selling fish caught by means of dynamite, and the respective conveyances, or
864 865

Criminal Law Art 293-294

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Art 293-294

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Art 293-294

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art.

. ~ obbery is t~~ of_personal property belonging to another,

822 ' 823

In defining the Special complex.,crimes penalized

In robbe ry with violen ce again st or intim idatio n of any

Motor vehicle, defined. Carnapping is a non-bailable offense.

Section One. - Robbery with violence against or

•see Appendix "A.• Table of Penalties, No. 37.

You might also like