K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |1

TITLE X. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY In robbery with violence of intimidation, the taking is complete
when the offender has already the possession of the thing even if he
Crimes against property has no opportunity to dispose of it.

In robbery with force upon things, the things must be brought

outside the building for consummated robbery to be committed.
Article 294. Robbery with Violence against or Intimidation of
Persons On robbery with homicide

Acts punished The term “homicide” is used in the generic sense, and the complex
crime therein contemplated comprehends not only robbery with
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery (taking of homicide in its restricted sense, but also with robbery with murder.
personal property belonging to another with intent to gain), the So, any kind of killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery
crime of homicide is committed; will bring about the crime of robbery with homicide even if the
person killed is less than three days old, or even if the person killed
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional is the mother or father of the killer, or even if on such robbery the
mutilation or arson; person killed was done by treachery or any of the qualifying
circumstances. In short, there is no crime of robbery with parricide,
3. When by reason of on occasion of such robbery, any of the robbery with murder, robbery with infanticide – any and all forms of
physical injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency or killing is referred to as homicide.
blindness is inflicted;
Illustration:
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the
physical injuries resulting in the loss of the use of speech or the The robbers enter the house. In entering through the window, one
power to hear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an of the robbers stepped on a child less than three days old. The
arm, or a leg or the loss of the use of any such member or incapacity crime is not robbery with infanticide because there is no such crime.
for the work in which the injured person is theretofore habitually The word homicide as used in defining robbery with homicide is
engaged is inflicted; used in the generic sense. It refers to any kind of death.

5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the commission Although it is a crime against property and treachery is an
of the robbery is carried to a degree unnecessary for the commission aggravating circumstance that applies only to crimes against
of the crime; persons, if the killing in a robbery is committed with treachery, the
treachery will be considered a generic aggravating circumstance
6. When in the course of its execution, the offender shall because of the homicide.
have inflicted upon any person not responsible for the commission
of the robbery any of the physical injuries in consequence of which When two or more persons are killed during the robbery, such
the person injured becomes deformed or loses any other member of should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
his body or loses the sue thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in which he is habitually engaged for As long as there is only one robbery, regardless of the persons killed,
more than 90 days or the person injured becomes ill or you only have one crime of robbery with homicide. Note, however,
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days; that “one robbery” does not mean there is only one taking.

7. If the violence employed by the offender does not cause Illustration:

any of the serious physical injuries defined in Article 263, or if the
offender employs intimidation only. Robbers decided to commit robbery in a house, which turned out to
be a boarding house. Thus, there were different boarders who were
Violence or intimidation upon persons may result in death or offended parties in the robbery. There is only one count of robbery.
mutilation or rape or serious physical injuries. If there were killings done to different boarders during the robbery
being committed in a boarder’s quarter, do not consider that as
If death results or even accompanies a robbery, the crime will be separate counts of robbery with homicide because when robbers
robbery with homicide provided that the robbery is consummated. decide to commit robbery in a certain house, they are only impelled
by one criminal intent to rob and there will only be one case of
This is a crime against property, and therefore, you contend not with robbery. If there were homicide or death committed, that would
the killing but with the robbery. only be part of a single robbery. That there were several killings
done would only aggravate the commission of the crime of robbery
As long as there is only one (1) robbery, regardless of the persons
with homicide.
killed, the crime will only be one (1) count of robbery with homicide.
The fact that there are multiple killings committed in the course of In People v. Quiñones, 183 SCRA 747, it was held that there is no
the robbery will be considered only as aggravating so as to call for crime of robbery with multiple homicides. The charge should be for
the imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law. robbery with homicide only because the number of persons killed is
immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article
If, on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, somebody is killed,
294. All the killings are merged in the composite integrated whole
and there are also physical injuries inflicted by reason or on the
that is robbery with homicide so long as the killings were by reason
occasion of the robbery, don’t think that those who sustained
or on occasion of the robbery.
physical injuries may separately prosecute the offender for physical
injuries. Those physical injuries are only considered aggravating In another case, a band of robbers entered a compound, which is
circumstances in the crime of robbery with homicide. actually a sugar mill. Within the compound, there were quarters of
the laborers. They robbed each of the quarters. The Supreme Court
This is not a complex crime as understood under Article 48, but a
held that there was only one count of robbery because when they
single indivisible crime. This is a special complex crime because the
decided and determined to rob the compound, they were only
specific penalty is provided in the law.
impelled by one criminal intent to rob.
In Napolis v. CA, it was held that when violence or intimidation and
With more reason, therefore, if in a robbery, the offender took away
force upon things are both present in the robbery, the crime is
property belonging to different owners, as long as the taking was
complex under Article 48.
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |2

done at one time, and in one place, impelled by the same criminal For robbery with homicide to exist, homicide must be committed by
intent to gain, there would only be one count of robbery. reason or on the occasion of the robbery, that is, the homicide must
be committed “in the course or because of the robbery.” Robbery
In robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense, it is and homicide are separate offenses when the homicide is not
immaterial who gets killed. Even though the killing may have committed “on the occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery.
resulted from negligence, you will still designate the crime as
robbery with homicide. Where the victims were killed, not for the purpose of committing
robbery, and the idea of taking the money and other personal
Illustration: property of the victims was conceived by the culprits only after the
killing, it was held in People v. Domingo, 184 SCRA 409, that the
On the occasion of a robbery, one of the offenders placed his culprits committed two separate crimes of homicide or murder
firearm on the table. While they were ransacking the place, one of (qualified by abuse of superior strength) and theft.
the robbers bumped the table. As a result, the firearm fell on the
floor and discharged. One of the robbers was the one killed. Even The victims were killed first then their money was taken the money
though the placing of the firearm on the table where there is no from their dead bodies. This is robbery with homicide. It is
safety precaution taken may be considered as one of negligence or important here that the intent to commit robbery must precede the
imprudence, you do not separate the homicide as one of the taking of human life in robbery with homicide. The offender must
product of criminal negligence. It will still be robbery with homicide, have the intent to take personal property before the killing.
whether the person killed is connected with the robbery or not. He
need not also be in the place of the robbery. It must be conclusively shown that the homicide was committed for
the purpose of robbing the victim. In People v. Hernandez,
In one case, in the course of the struggle in a house where the appellants had not thought of robbery prior to the killing. The
robbery was being committed, the owner of the place tried to wrest thought of taking the victim’s wristwatch was conceived only after
the arm of the robber. A person several meters away was the one the killing and throwing of the victim in the canal. Appellants were
who got killed. The crime was held to be robbery with homicide. convicted of two separate crimes of homicide and theft as there is
absent direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery
Note that the person killed need not be one who is identified with and the killing.
the owner of the place where the robbery is committed or one who
is a stranger to the robbers. It is enough that the homicide was On robbery with rape
committed by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof.
This is another form of violence or intimidation upon person. The
Illustration: rape accompanies the robbery. In this case where rape and not
homicide is committed, there is only a crime of robbery with rape if
There are two robbers who broke into a house and carried away both the robbery and the rape are consummated. If during the
some valuables. After they left such house these two robbers robbery, attempted rape were committed, the crimes would be
decided to cut or divide the loot already so that they can go of them. separate, that is, one for robbery and one for the attempted rape.
So while they are dividing the loot the other robber noticed that the
one doing the division is trying to cheat him and so he immediately The rape committed on the occasion of the robbery is not
boxed him. Now this robber who was boxed then pulled out his gun considered a private crime because the crime is robbery, which is a
and fired at the other one killing the latter. Would that bring about crime against property. So, even though the robber may have
the crime of robbery with homicide? Yes. Even if the robbery was married the woman raped, the crime remains robbery with rape.
already consummated, the killing was still by reason of the robbery The rape is not erased. This is because the crime is against property
because they quarreled in dividing the loot that is the subject of the which is a single indivisible offense.
robbery.
If the woman, who was raped on the occasion of the robbery,
In People v. Domingo, 184 SCRA 409, on the occasion of the robbery, pardoned the rapist who is one of the robbers, that would not erase
the storeowner, a septuagenarian, suffered a stroke due to the the crime of rape. The offender would still be prosecuted for the
extreme fear which directly caused his death when the robbers crime of robbery with rape, as long as the rape is consummated.
pointed their guns at him. It was held that the crime committed was
robbery with homicide. It is immaterial that death supervened as a If the rape is attempted, since it will be a separate charge and the
mere accident as long as the homicide was produced by reason or offended woman pardoned the offender, that would bring about a
on the occasion of the robbery, because it is only the result which bar to the prosecution of the attempted rape. If the offender
matters, without reference to the circumstances or causes or married the offended woman, that would extinguish the criminal
persons intervening in the commission of the crime which must be liability because the rape is the subject of a separate prosecution.
considered.
The intention must be to commit robbery and even if the rape is
Remember also that intent to rob must be proved. But there must committed before the robbery, robbery with rape is committed. But
be an allegation as to the robbery not only as to the intention to rob. if the accused tried to rape the offended party and because of
resistance, he failed to consummate the act, and then he snatched
If the motive is to kill and the taking is committed thereafter, the the vanity case from her hands when she ran away, two crimes are
crimes committed are homicide and theft. If the primordial intent of committed: attempted rape and theft.
the offender is to kill and not to rob but after the killing of the
victims a robbery was committed, then there are will be two There is no complex crime under Article 48 because a single act is
separate crimes. not committed and attempted rape is not a means necessary to
commit theft and vice-versa.
Illustration:
The Revised Penal Code does not differentiate whether rape was
If a person had an enemy and killed him and after killing him, saw committed before, during or after the robbery. It is enough that the
that he had a beautiful ring and took this, the crime would be not robbery accompanied the rape. Robbery must not be a mere
robbery with homicide because the primary criminal intent is to kill. accident or afterthought.
So, there will be two crimes: one for the killing and one for the
taking of the property after the victim was killed. Now this would In People v. Flores, 195 SCRA 295, although the offenders plan was
bring about the crime of theft and it could not be robbery anymore to get the victim’s money, rape her and kill her, but in the actual
because the person is already dead. execution of the crime, the thoughts of depriving the victim of her
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |3

valuables was relegated to the background and the offender’s If the robbers quarreled over the loot and one of the robbers hacked
prurient desires surfaced. They persisted in satisfying their lust. the other robber causing a deformity in his face, the crime will only
They would have forgotten about their intent to rob if not for the be robbery and a separate charge for the serious physical injuries
accidental touching of the victim’s ring and wristwatch. The taking because when it is a deformity that is caused, the law requires that
of the victim’s valuables turned out to be an afterthought. It was the deformity must have been inflicted upon one who is not a
held that two distinct crimes were committed: rape with homicide participant in the robbery. Moreover, the physical injuries which
and theft. gave rise to the deformity or which incapacitated the offended party
from labor for more than 30 days, must have been inflicted in the
In People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493, it was held that if the original course of the execution of the robbery or while the robbery was
criminal design of the accused was to commit rape and after taking place.
committing the rape, the accused committed robbery because the
opportunity presented itself, two distinct crimes – rape and robbery If it was inflicted when the thieves/robbers are already dividing the
were committed – not robbery with rape. In the latter, the criminal spoils, it cannot be considered as inflicted in the course of execution
intent to gain must precede the intent to rape. of the robbery and hence, it will not give rise to the crime of robbery
with serious physical injuries. You only have one count of robbery
On robbery with physical injuries and another count for the serious physical injuries inflicted.

To be considered as such, the physical injuries must always be If, during or on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, a killing,
serious. If the physical injuries are only less serious or slight, they rape or serious physical injuries took place, there will only be one
are absorbed in the robbery. The crime becomes merely robbery. crime of robbery with homicide because all of these – killing, rape,
But if the less serious physical injuries were committed after the serious physical injuries -- are contemplated by law as the violence
robbery was already consummated, there would be a separate or intimidation which characterizes the taking as on of robbery. You
charge for the less serious physical injuries. It will only be absorbed charge the offenders of robbery with homicide. The rape or physical
in the robbery if it was inflicted in the course of the execution of the injuries will only be appreciated as aggravating circumstance and is
robbery. The same is true in the case of slight physical injuries. not the subject of a separate prosecution. They will only call for the
imposition of the penalty in the maximum period.
Illustration:
If on the occasion of the robbery with homicide, robbery with force
After the robbery had been committed and the robbers were upon things was also committed, you will not have only one robbery
already fleeing from the house where the robbery was committed, but you will have a complex crime of robbery with homicide and
the owner of the house chased them and the robbers fought back. If robbery with force upon things (see Napolis v. CA). This is because
only less serious physical injuries were inflicted, there will be robbery with violence or intimidation upon persons is a separate
separate crimes: one for robbery and one for less serious physical crime from robbery with force upon things.
injuries.
Robbery with homicide, robbery with intentional mutilation and
But if after the robbery was committed and the robbers were robbery with rape are not qualified by band or uninhabited place.
already fleeing from the house where the robbery was committed, These aggravating circumstances only qualify robbery with physical
the owner or members of the family of the owner chased them, and injuries under subdivision 2, 3, and 4 of Article 299.
they fought back and somebody was killed, the crime would still be
robbery with homicide. But if serious physical injuries were inflicted When it is robbery with homicide, the band or uninhabited place is
and the serious physical injuries rendered the victim impotent or only a generic aggravating circumstance. It will not qualify the crime
insane or the victim lost the use of any of his senses or lost a part of to a higher degree of penalty.
his body, the crime would still be robbery with serious physical
injuries. The physical injuries (serious) should not be separated In People v. Salvilla, it was held that if in a robbery with serious
regardless of whether they retorted in the course of the commission physical injuries, the offenders herded the women and children into
of the robbery or even after the robbery was consummated. an office and detained them to compel the offended party to come
out with the money, the crime of serious illegal detention was a
In Article 299, it is only when the physical injuries resulted in the necessary means to facilitate the robbery; thus, the complex crimes
deformity or incapacitated the offended party from labor for more of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal
than 30 days that the law requires such physical injuries to have detention.
been inflicted in the course of the execution of the robbery, and only
upon persons who are not responsible in the commission of the But if the victims were detained because of the timely arrival of the
robbery. police, such that the offenders had no choice but to detain the
victims as hostages in exchange for their safe passage, the detention
But if the physical injuries inflicted are those falling under is absorbed by the crime of robbery and is not a separate crime. This
subdivision 1 and 2 of Article 263, even though the physical injuries was the ruling in People v. Astor.
were inflicted upon one of the robbers themselves, and even though
it had been inflicted after the robbery was already consummated, On robbery with arson
the crime will still be robbery with serious physical injuries. There
will only be one count of accusation. Another innovation of Republic Act No. 7659 is the composite crime
of robbery with arson if arson is committed by reason of or on
Illustration: occasion of the robbery. The composite crime would only be
committed if the primordial intent of the offender is to commit
After the robbers fled from the place where the robbery was robber and there is no killing, rape, or intentional mutilation
committed, they decided to divide the spoils and in the course of the committed by the offender during the robbery. Otherwise, the
division of the spoils or the loot, they quarreled. They shot it out crime would be robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape, or
and one of the robbers was killed. The crime is still robbery with robbery with intentional mutilation, in that order, and the arson
homicide even though one of the robbers was the one killed by one would only be an aggravating circumstance. It is essential that
of them. If they quarreled and serious physical injuries rendered robbery precedes the arson, as in the case of rape and intentional
one of the robbers impotent, blind in both eyes, or got insane, or he mutilation, because the amendment included arson among the rape
lost the use of any of his senses, lost the use of any part of his body, and intentional mutilation which have accompanied the robbery.
the crime will still be robbery with serious physical injuries.
Moreover, it should be noted that arson has been made a
component only of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |4

persons in said Article 294, but not of robbery by the use of force 3. Once inside the building, offender took personal property
upon things in Articles 299 and 302. belonging to another with intent to gain.

So, if the robbery was by the use of force upon things and therewith Elements under subdivision (b):
arson was committed, two distinct crimes are committed.
1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or
Article 295. Robbery with Physical Injuries, Committed in An edifice devoted to religious worship, regardless of the circumstances
Uninhabited Place and by A Band under which he entered it;

Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person qualified is 2. Offender takes personal property belonging to another,
qualified if it is committed with intent to gain, under any of the following circumstances:

1. In an uninhabited place; a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other

kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle; or
2. By a band;
b. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or forced open outside the place of the robbery.
airship;
"Force upon things" has a technical meaning in law. Not any kind of
4. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a train, or in force upon things will characterize the taking as one of robbery. The
any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the force upon things contemplated requires some element of trespass
respective conveyances; or into the establishment where the robbery was committed. In other
words, the offender must have entered the premises where the
5. On a street, road, highway or alley, and the intimidation is robbery was committed. If no entry was effected, even though force
made with the use of firearms, the offender shall be punished by the may have been employed actually in the taking of the property from
maximum periods of the proper penalties prescribed in Article 294. within the premises, the crime will only be theft.

Article 296 defines a robbery by a band as follows: when at least Two predicates that will give rise to the crime as robbery:
four armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery.
1. By mere entering alone, a robbery will be committed if any
Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of the band personal property is taken from within;

1. He was a member of the band; 2. The entering will not give rise to robbery even if something
is taken inside. It is the breaking of the receptacle or closet or
2. He was present at the commission of a robbery by that cabinet where the personal property is kept that will give rise to
band; robbery, or the taking of a sealed, locked receptacle to be broken
outside the premises.
3. The other members of the band committed an assault;
If by the mere entering, that would already qualify the taking of any
4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault personal property inside as robbery, it is immaterial whether the
offender stays inside the premises. The breaking of things inside the
premises will only be important to consider if the entering by itself
will not characterize the crime as robbery with force upon things.
Article 298. Execution of Deeds by Means of Violence or
intimidation
Modes of entering that would give rise to the crime of robbery with
force upon things if something is taken inside the premises:
Elements
entering into an opening not intended for entrance or egress, under
1. Offender has intent to defraud another; Article 299 (a).

2. Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any Illustration:

public instrument or document.
The entry was made through a fire escape. The fire escape was
3. The compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation. intended for egress. The entry will not characterize the taking as
one of robbery because it is an opening intended for egress,
although it may not be intended for entrance. If the entering were
done through the window, even if the window was not broken, that
Article 299. Robbery in An Inhabited House or Public Building or would characterize the taking of personal property inside as robbery
Edifice Devoted to Worship because the window is not an opening intended for entrance.

Elements under subdivision (a) Illustration:

1. Offender entered an inhabited house, public building On a sari-sari store, a vehicle bumped the wall. The wall collapsed.
There was a small opening there. At night, a man entered through
2. The entrance was effected by any of the following means: that opening without breaking the same. The crime will already be
robbery if he takes property from within because that is not an
a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress; opening intended for the purpose.

b. By breaking any wall, roof or floor, or breaking any door or Even of there is a breaking of wall, roof, floor or window, but the
window; offender did not enter, it would not give rise to robbery with force
upon things.
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools; or
Breaking of the door under Article299 (b) – Originally, the
d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of interpretation was that in order that there be a breaking of the door
public authority. in contemplation of law, there must be some damage to the door.
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |5

Before, if the door was not damaged but only the lock attached to not give rise to robbery because the simulation of public authority
the door was broken, the taking from within is only theft. But the was made not in order to enter but when he has already entered.
ruling is now abandoned because the door is considered useless
without the lock. Even if it is not the door that was broken but only
the lock, the breaking of the lock renders the door useless and it is
therefore tantamount to the breaking of the door. Hence, the Article 301 defines an inhabited house, public building, or building
taking inside is considered robbery with force upon things. dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies, thus:

If the entering does not characterize the taking inside as one of Inhabited house – Any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the
robbery with force upon things, it is the conduct inside that would dwelling of one or more persons, even though the inhabitants
give rise to the robbery if there would be a breaking of sealed, thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is
locked or closed receptacles or cabinet in order to get the personal committed.
belongings from within such receptacles, cabinet or place where it is
kept. Public building – Includes every building owned by the government
or belonging to a private person but used or rented by the
If in the course of committing the robbery within the premises some government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.
interior doors are broken, the taking from inside the room where
the door leads to will only give rise to theft. The breaking of doors Dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building
contemplated in the law refers to the main door of the house and dedicated to religious worship – All interior courts, corrals,
not the interior door. warehouses, granaries, barns, coachhouses, stables, or other
departments, or enclosed interior entrance connected therewith
But if it is the door of a cabinet that is broken and the valuable inside and which form part of the whole. Orchards and other lands used
the cabinet was taken, the breaking of the cabinet door would for cultivation or production are not included, even if closed,
characterize the taking as robbery. Although that particular door is contiguous to the building, and having direct connection therewith.
not included as part of the house, the cabinet keeps the contents
thereof safe.

Use of picklocks or false keys refers to the entering into the premises Article 302. Robbery in An Uninhabited Place or in A Private
– If the picklock or false key was used not to enter the premises Building
because the offender had already entered but was used to unlock an
interior door or even a receptacle where the valuable or personal Elements
belonging was taken, the use of false key or picklock will not give
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which
rise to the robbery with force upon things because these are
was not a dwelling house, not a public building, or not an edifice
considered by law as only a means to gain entrance, and not to
devoted to religious worship;
extract personal belongings from the place where it is being kept.
2. Any of the following circumstances was present:
The law classifies robbery with force upon things as those
committed in:
a. The entrance was effected through an opening not
intended for entrance or egress;
(1) an inhabited place;
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was broken;
(2) public buildings;
c. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys,
(3) a place devoted to religious worship.
picklocks or other similar tools;
The law also considers robbery committed not in an inhabited house
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture
or in a private building.
or receptacle was broken; or
Note that the manner of committing the robbery with force upon
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the
things is not the same.
same be broken open elsewhere.
When the robbery is committed in a house which is inhabited, or in a
3. Offender took therefrom personal property belonging to
public building or in a place devoted to religious worship, the use of
another with intent to gain.
fictitious name or pretension to possess authority in order to gain
entrance will characterize the taking inside as robbery with force
upon things.
Under Article 303, if the robbery under Article 299 and 302 consists
Note that in the crime of robbery with force upon things, what
in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the penalty imposable
should be considered is the means of entrance and means of taking
is lower.
the personal property from within. If those means do not come
within the definition under the Revised Penal Code, the taking will
only give rise to theft.
Article 304. Possession of Picklock or Similar Tools
Those means must be employed in entering. If the offender had
already entered when these means were employed, anything taken Elements
inside, without breaking of any sealed or closed receptacle, will not
give rise to robbery. 1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools;

Illustration: 2. Such picklock or similar tools are especially adopted to the

commission of robbery;
A found B inside his (A’s) house. He asked B what the latter was
doping there. B claimed he is an inspector from the local city 3. Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.
government to look after the electrical installations. At the time B
was chanced upon by A, he has already entered. So anything he
took inside without breaking of any sealed or closed receptacle will
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |6

Article 305 defines false keys to include the following: by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things or other unlawful means committed by any person on
1. Tools mentioned in Article 304; any Philippine highway.

2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner; Brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 refers to the actual
commission of the robbery on the highway and can be committed by
3. Any key other than those intended by the owner for use in one person alone. It is this brigandage which deserves some
the lock forcibly opened by the offender. attention because not any robbery in a highway is brigandage or
highway robbery. A distinction should be made between highway
robbery/brigandage under the decree and ordinary robbery
committed on a highway under the Revised Penal Code.
Brigandage – This is a crime committed by more than three armed
persons who form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing In People v. Puno, decided February 17, 1993, the trial court
robbery in the highway or kidnapping persons for the purpose of convicted the accused of highway robbery/ brigandage under
extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be Presidential Decree No. 532 and sentenced them to reclusion
attained by means of force and violence. perpetua. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment
and found the accused guilty of simple robbery as punished in
Article 294 (5), in relation to Article 295, and sentenced them
accordingly. The Supreme Court pointed out that the purpose of
Article 306. Who Are Brigands
brigandage “is, inter alia, indiscriminate highway robbery. And that
PD 532 punishes as highway robbery or Brigandage only acts of
robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person
Elements of brigandage or persons on a Philippine highway as defined therein, not acts
committed against a predetermined or particular victim”. A single
1. There are least four armed persons; act of robbery against a particular person chosen by the offender as
his specific victim, even if committed on a highway, is not highway
2. They formed a band of robbers; robbery or brigandage.

In US v. Feliciano, 3 Phil. 422, it was pointed out that highway

robbery or brigandage is more than ordinary robbery committed on
2. The purpose is any of the following: a highway. The purpose of brigandage is indiscriminate robbery in
highways. If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is
a. To commit robbery in the highway; only robbery or robbery in band, if there are at least four armed
participants.
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to
obtain ransom; or Presidential Decree No. 532 introduced amendments to Article 306
and 307 by increasing the penalties. It does not require at least four
c. To attain by means of force and violence any other armed persons forming a band of robbers. It does not create a
purpose. presumption that the offender is a brigand when he an unlicensed
firearm is used unlike the Revised Penal Code. But the essence of
brigandage under the Revised Penal Code is the same as that in the
Presidential Decree, that is, crime of depredation wherein the
Article 307. Aiding and Abetting A Band of Brigands unlawful acts are directed not only against specific, intended or
preconceived victims, but against any and all prospective victims
Elements anywhere on the highway and whoever they may potentially be.
1. There is a band of brigands;

2. Offender knows the band to be of brigands; Article 308. Who Are Liable for Theft
3. Offender does any of the following acts: Persons liable
a. He in any manner aids, abets or protects such band of 1. Those who with intent to gain, but without violence
brigands; against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, take
personal property of another without the latter’s consent;
b. He gives them information of the movements of the police
or other peace officers of the government; or 2. Those who having found lost property, fails to deliver the
same to the local authorities or to its owner;
c. He acquires or receives the property taken by such
brigands. 3. Those who, after having maliciously damaged the property
of another, remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the
Distinction between brigandage under the Revised Penal Code and
damage caused by them;
highway robbery/brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532:
4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where
(1) Brigandage as a crime under the Revised Penal Code refers
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and, without the
to the formation of a band of robbers by more than three armed
consent of its owner, hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits,
persons for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway,
cereals or other forest or farm products.
kidnapping for purposes of extortion or ransom, or for any other
purpose to be attained by force and violence. The mere forming of a Elements
band, which requires at least four armed persons, if for any of the
criminal purposes stated in Article 306, gives rise to brigandage. 1. There is taking of personal property;

(2) Highway robbery/brigandage under Presidential Decree 2. The property taken belongs to another;
No. 532 is the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or for any
other lawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another 3. The taking was done with intent to gain;
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |7

4. The taking was done without the consent of the owner; from cattle-rustling, since the former should have been absorbed by
cattle-rustling as killing was a result of or on the occasion of cattle-
5. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence rustling. It should only be an aggravating circumstance. But because
against or intimidation of persons of force upon things. the information did not allege the injury, the same can no longer be
appreciated; the crime should, therefore be only, simple cattle-
Fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612 is a distinct crime from rustling. (People v. Martinada, February 13, 1991)
theft and robbery. If the participant who profited is being
prosecuted with person who robbed, the person is prosecuted as an
accessory. If he is being prosecuted separately, the person who
partook of the proceeds is liable for fencing. Article 310. Qualified Theft

In People v. Judge de Guzman, it was held that fencing is not a Theft is qualified if
continuing offense. Jurisdiction is with the court of the place where
the personal property subject of the robbery or theft was possessed, 1. Committed by a domestic servant;
bought, kept, or dealt with. The place where the theft or robbery
was committed was inconsequential. 2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence;

Since Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1612 expressly provides 3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or
that mere possession of anything of value which has been subject of large cattle;
theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing, it follows
that a possessor of stolen goods is presumed to have knowledge 4. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the
that the goods found in his possession after the fact of theft or premises of a plantation;
robbery has been established. The presumption does not offend the
presumption of innocence in the fundamental law. This was the 5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or
ruling in Pamintuan v. People, decided on July 11, 1994. fishery; or

Burden of proof is upon fence to overcome presumption; if 6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
explanation insufficient or unsatisfactory, court will convict. This is a typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
malum prohibitum so intent is not material. But if prosecution is accident, or civil disturbance.
under the Revised Penal Code, as an accessory, the criminal intent is
controlling.
Article 311. Theft of the Property of the National Library or
When there is notice to person buying, there may be fencing such as
National Museum
when the price is way below ordinary prices; this may serve as
notice. He may be liable for fencing even if he paid the price
If the property stolen is any property of the National Library or of
because of the presumption.
the National Museum
Cattle Rustling and Qualified Theft of Large Cattle – The crime of
cattle-rustling is defined and punished under Presidential Decree No.
533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling law of 1974, as the taking by any Article 312. Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real
means, method or scheme, of any large cattle, with or without Rights in Property
intent to gain and whether committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of person or force upon things, so long as the Acts punished:
taking is without the consent of the owner/breed thereof. The
crime includes the killing or taking the meat or hide of large cattle 1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to
without the consent of the owner. another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons;

Since the intent to gain is not essential, the killing or destruction of 2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another
large cattle, even without taking any part thereof, is not a crime of by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.
malicious mischief but cattle-rustling.
Elements
The Presidential Decree, however, does not supersede the crime of
qualified theft of large cattle under Article 310 of the Revised Penal 1. Offender takes possession of any real property or usurps
Code, but merely modified the penalties provided for theft of large any real rights in property;
cattle and, to that extent, amended Articles 309 and 310. Note that
the overt act that gives rise to the crime of cattle-rustling is the 2. The real property or real rights belong to another;
taking or killing of large cattle. Where the large cattle was not taken,
but received by the offender from the owner/overseer thereof, the 3. Violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the
crime is not cattle-rustling; it is qualified theft of large cattle. offender in occupying real property or usurping real rights in
property;
Where the large cattle was received by the offender who thereafter
misappropriated it, the crime is qualified theft under Article 310 if 4. There is intent to gain.
only physical or material possession thereof was yielded to him. If
both material and juridical possession thereof was yielded to him Use the degree of intimidation to determine the degree of the
who misappropriated the large cattle, the crime would be estafa penalty to be applied for the usurpation.
under Article 315 (1b).
Usurpation under Article 312 is committed in the same way as
Presidential Decree No. 533 is not a special law in the context of robbery with violence or intimidation of persons. The main
Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. It merely modified the difference is that in robbery, personal property is involved; while in
penalties provided for theft of large cattle under the Revised Penal usurpation of real rights, it is real property. (People v. Judge
Code and amended Article 309 and 310. This is explicit from Section Alfeche, July 23, 1992)
10 of the Presidential Decree. Consequently, the trial court should
not have convicted the accused of frustrated murder separately Usurpation of real rights and property should not be complexed
using Article 48 when violence or intimidation is committed. There
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |8
is only a single crime, but a two-tiered penalty is prescribed to be Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)
determined on whether the acts of violence used is akin to that in
robbery in Article 294, grave threats or grave coercion and an Elements in general
incremental penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtained
by the offender. 1. Accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit; and
Therefore, it is not correct to state that the threat employed in
usurping real property is absorbed in the crime; otherwise, the This covers the three different ways of committing estafa under
additional penalty would be meaningless. Article 315; thus, estafa is committed –

The complainant must be the person upon whom violence was a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
employed. If a tenant was occupying the property and he was
threatened by the offender, but it was the owner who was not in b. By means of false pretenses or fraudulents acts; or
possession of the property who was named as the offended party,
the same may be quashed as it does not charge an offense. The c. Through fraudulent means.
owner would, at most, be entitled to civil recourse only.
(The first form under subdivision 1 is known as estafa with abuse of
On carnapping and theft of motor vehicle confidence; and the second and third forms under subdivisions 2
and 3 cover cover estafa by means of deceit.)
The taking with intent to gain of a motor vehicle belonging to
another, without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence or 2 Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things is penalized as caused to the offended party or third person.
carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539 (An Act Preventing and
Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness of abuse of confidence under
Penalizing Carnapping), as amended. The overt act which is being
Article 315 (1)
punished under this law as carnapping is also the taking of a motor
vehicle under circumstances of theft or robbery. If the motor
Under paragraph (a)
vehicle was not taken by the offender but was delivered by the
owner or the possessor to the offender, who thereafter 1. Offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something
misappropriated the same, the crime is either qualified theft under of value;
Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code or estafa under Article 315 (b)
of the Revised Penal Code. Qualified theft of a motor vehicle is the 2. He alters its substance, quantity, or quality;
crime if only the material or physical possession was yielded to the
offender; otherwise, if juridical possession was also yielded, the 3. Damage or prejudice is caused to another.
crime is estafa.
Under paragraph (b)
On squatting
1. Money, goods, or other personal property is received by
According to the Urban Development and Housing Act, the following the offender is trust, or on commission, or for administration, or
are squatters: under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or
to return, the same;
1. Those who have the capacity or means to pay rent or for
legitimate housing but are squatting anyway; 2. There is misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;
2. Also the persons who were awarded lots but sold or lease
them out; 3. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and
3. Intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing, pre-
empting possession by occupying the same. 4. There is a demand made by the offended party to the
offender.

(The fourth element is not necessary when there is evidence of

Article 313. Altering Boundaries or Landmarks misappropriation of the goods by the defendant. [Tubb v. People, et
al., 101 Phil. 114] ).
Elements
Under Presidential Decree No. 115, the failure of the entrustee to
1. There are boundary marks or monuments of towns, turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents, or
provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the instruments covered by a trust receipt, to the extent of the amount
boundaries of the same; owing to the entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt; or the
failure to return said goods, documents, or instruments if they were
2. Offender alters said boundary marks.
not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust
receipt constitute estafa.

Under paragraph (c)

Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency
1. The paper with the signature of the offended party is in
blank;
Elements
2. Offended party delivered it to the offender;
1. Offender is a debtor, that is, he has obligations due and
3. Above the signature of the offended party, a document is
payable;
written by the offender without authority to do so;
2. He absconds with his property;
4. The document so written creates a liability of, or causes
3. There is prejudice to his creditors. damage to, the offended party or any third person.
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 Page |9

Elements of estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts A. 1. A person makes or draws and issues any check;
under Article 315 (2)
2. The check is made or drawn and issued to apply on
Acts punished under paragraph (a) account or for value;

1. Using fictitious name; Thus, it can apply to pre-existing obligations, too.

2. Falsely pretending to possess power, influence, 3. The person who makes or draws and issued the check
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in
transactions; or or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment;
3. By means of other similar deceits.
3. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank
Under paragraph (b) for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored
for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his ordered the bank to stop payment.
art or business.
B. 1. A person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
Under paragraph (c) bank when he makes or draws and issues a check;

Pretending to have bribed any government employee, without 2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to
prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may cover the full amount of the check if presented within 90 days from
deem proper to bring against the offender. the date appearing;

Under paragraph (d) 3. The check is dishonored by the drawee bank.

1. Offender postdated a check, or issued a check in payment Distinction between estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised
of an obligation; Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:

2. Such postdating or issuing a check was done when the (1) Under both Article 315 (2) (d) and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein there is criminal liability if the check is drawn for non-pre-existing
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. obligation.

Note that this only applies if – If the check is drawn for a pre-existing obligation, there is criminal
liability only under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
(1) The obligation is not pre-existing;
(2) Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) is a crime against property
(2) The check is drawn to enter into an obligation; while Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a crime against public interest. The
gravamen for the former is the deceit employed, while in the latter,
(Remember that it is the check that is supposed to be the sole it is the issuance of the check. Hence, there is no double jeopardy.
consideration for the other party to have entered into the
obligation. For example, Rose wants to purchase a bracelet and (3) In the estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), deceit and damage
draws a check without insufficient funds. The jeweler sells her the are material, while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, they are immaterial.
bracelet solely because of the consideration in the check.)
(4) In estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), knowledge by the
(3) It does not cover checks where the purpose of drawing the drawer of insufficient funds is not required, while in Batas Pambansa
check is to guarantee a loan as this is not an obligation Blg. 22, knowledge by the drawer of insufficient funds is reqired.
contemplated in this paragraph
When is there prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient
The check must be genuine. If the check is falsified and is cashed funds?
with the bank or exchanged for cash, the crime is estafa thru
falsification of a commercial document. There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds
when the check was presented within 90 days from the date
The general rule is that the accused must be able to obtain appearing on the check and was dishonored.
something from the offended party by means of the check he issued
and delivered. Exception: when the check is issued not in payment Exceptions
of an obligation.
1. When the check was presented after 90 days from date;
It must not be promissory notes, or guaranties.
2. When the maker or drawer --
Good faith is a defense.
a. Pays the holder of the check the amount due within five
If the checks were issued by the defendant and he received money banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been
for them, then stopped payment and did not return the money, and paid by the drawee;
he had an intention to stop payment when he issued the check,
there is estafa. b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of
such check within five banking days after notice of non-payment
Deceit is presumed if the drawer fails to deposit the amount
necessary to cover the check within three days from receipt of The drawee must cause to be written or stamped in plain language
notice of dishonor or insufficiency of funds in the bank. the reason for the dishonor.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 If the drawee bank received an order of stop-payment from the
drawer with no reason, it must be stated that the funds are
How violated insufficient to be prosecuted here.
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 P a g e | 10

The unpaid or dishonored check with the stamped information re: In Allied Bank Corporation v. Secretary Ordonez, 192 SCRA 246, it
refusal to pay is prima facie evidence of (1) the making or issuance was held that under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115, the
of the check; (2) the due presentment to the drawee for payment & failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of sale of the goods
the dishonor thereof; and (3) the fact that the check was properly covered by the Trust Receipt, or to return said goods if they are not
dishonored for the reason stamped on the check. sold, is punishable as estafa Article 315 (1) (b).

Acts punished under paragraph (e) On issuance of a bouncing check

1. a. Obtaining food, refreshment, or accommodation at a The issuance of check with insufficient funds may be held liable for
hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment estafa and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
house; expressly provides that prosecution under said law is without
prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision in the Revised
b. Without paying therefor; Penal Code. Double Jeopardy may not be invoked because a
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a malum prohibitum and is
c. With intent to defraud the proprietor or manager. being punished as a crime against the public interest for
undermining the banking system of the country, while under the
2. a. Obtaining credit at RevisedPenal Code, the crime is malum in se which requires criminal
intent and damage to the payee and is a crime against property.
any of the establishments;
In estafa, the check must have been issued as a reciprocal
b. Using false pretense; consideration for parting of goods (kaliwaan). There must be
concomitance. The deceit must be prior to or simultaneous with
3. a. Abandoning or
damage done, that is, seller relied on check to part with goods. If it
is issued after parting with goods as in credit accommodation only,
surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage in the
there is no estafa. If the check is issued for a pre-existing obligation,
establishment;
there is no estafa as damage had already been done. The drawer is
b. After obtaining credit, food, refreshment, accommodation; liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

c. Without paying. For criminal liability to attach under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, it is
enough that the check was issued to "apply on account or for value"
Estafa through any of the following fraudulent means under Article and upon its presentment it was dishonored by the drawee bank for
315 (3) insufficiency of funds, provided that the drawer had been notified of
the dishonor and inspite of such notice fails to pay the holder of the
Under paragraph (a) check the full amount due thereon within five days from notice.

1. Offender induced the offended party to sign a document; Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a drawer must be given notice of
dishonor and given five banking days from notice within which to
2. Deceit was employed to make him sign the document; deposit or pay the amount stated in the check to negate the
presumtion that drawer knew of the insufficiency. After this period,
3. Offended party personally signed the document; it is conclusive that drawer knew of the insufficiency, thus there is
no more defense to the prosecution under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
4. Prejudice was caused.
The mere issuance of any kind of check regardless of the intent of
Under paragraph (b) the parties, whether the check is intended to serve merely as a
guarantee or as a deposit, makes the drawer liable under Batas
Resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a Pambansa Blg. 22 if the check bounces. As a matter of public policy,
gambling game; the issuance of a worthless check is a public nuisance and must be
abated.
Under paragraph (c)
In De Villa v. CA, decided April 18, 1991, it was held that under Batas
1. Offender removed, concealed or destroyed; Pambansa Blg. 22, there is no distinction as to the kind of check
issued. As long as it is delivered within Philippine territory, the
2. Any court record, office files, documents or any other Philippine courts have jurisdiction. Even if the check is only
papers; presented to and dishonored in a Philippine bank, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 applies. This is true in the case of dollar or foreign currency
3. With intent to defraud another.
checks. Where the law makes no distinction, none should be made.
In Kim v. People, 193 SCRA 344, it was held that if an employee
In People v. Nitafan, it was held that as long as instrument is a check
receives cash advance from his employer to defray his travel
under the negotiable instrument law, it is covered by Batas
expenses, his failure to return unspent amount is not estafa through
Pambansa Blg. 22. A memorandum check is not a promissory note,
misappropriation or conversion because ownership of the money
it is a check which have the word “memo,” “mem”, “memorandum”
was transferred to employee and no fiduciary relation was created
written across the face of the check which signifies that if the holder
in respect to such advance. The money is a loan. The employee has
upon maturity of the check presents the same to the drawer, it will
no legal obligation to return the same money, that is, the same bills
be paid absolutely. But there is no prohibition against drawer from
and coins received.
depositing memorandum check in a bank. Whatever be the
agreement of the parties in respect of the issuance of a check is
In Saddul Jr. v. CA, 192 SCRA 277, it was held that the act of using or
inconsequential to a violation to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 where the
disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own, or of
check bounces.
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon, is a
misappropriation and conversion to the prejudice of the owner.
But overdraft or credit arrangement may be allowed by banks as to
Conversion is unauthorized assumption an exercise of the right of
their preferred clients and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not apply. If
ownership over goods and chattels belonging to another, resulting in
check bounces, it is because bank has been remiss in honoring
the alteration of their condition or exclusion of the owner’s rights.
agreement.
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 P a g e | 11

The check must be presented for payment within a 90-day period. If Under paragraph 6 – by selling, mortgaging or encumbering real
presented for payment beyond the 90 day period and the drawer’s property or properties with which the offender guaranteed the
funds are insufficient to cover it, there is no Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 fulfillment of his obligation as surety
violation.
Elements
Where check was issued prior to August 8, 1984, when Circular No.
12 of the Department of the Justice took effect, and the drawer 1. Offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil
relied on the then prevailing Circular No. 4 of the Ministry of Justice action;
to the effect that checks issued as part of an
arrangement/agreement of the parties to guarantee or secure 2. He guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his
fulfillment of an obligation are not covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. real property or properties;
22, no criminal liability should be incurred by the drawer. Circular
should not be given retroactive effect. (Lazaro v. CA, November 11, 3. He sells, mortgages, or in any manner encumbers said real
1993, citing People v. Alberto, October 28, 1993) property;

4. Such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is without express

authority from the court, or made before the cancellation of his
Article 316. Other Forms of Swindling bond, or before being relieved from the obligation contracted by
him.
Under paragraph 1 – By conveying, selling, encumbering, or
mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the owner of the
same
Article 317. Swindling A Minor
Elements
Elements
1. There is an immovable, such as a parcel of land or a
building; 1. Offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions
or feelings of a minor;
2. Offender who is not the owner represents himself as the
owner thereof; 2. He induces such minor to assume an obligation or to give
release or to execute a transfer of any property right;
3. Offender executes an act of ownership such as selling,
leasing, encumbering or mortgaging the real property; 3. The consideration is some loan of money, credit or other
personal property;
4. The act is made to the prejudice to the owner or a third
person. 4. The transaction is to the detriment of such minor.

Under paragraph 2 – by disposing of real property as free from

encumbrance, although such encumbrance be not recorded
Article 318. Other deceits
Elements
Acts punished
1. The thing disposed is a real property:
1. Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not
2. Offender knew that the real property was encumbered, mentioned in the preceding articles;
whether the encumbrance is recorded or not;
2. Interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by telling
3. There must be express representation by offender that the fortunes, or by taking advantage or the credulity of the public in any
real property is free from encumbrance; other similar manner, for profit or gain.

4. The act of disposing of the real property is made to the

damage of another.
Article 319. Removal, Sale or Pledge of Mortgaged Property
Under paragraph 3 – by wrongfully taking by the owner of his
personal property from its lawful possessor Acts punished

Elements 1. Knowingly removing any personal property mortgaged

under the Chattel Mortgage law to any province or city other than
1. Offender is the owner of personal property; the one in which it was located at the time of execution of the
mortgage, without the written consent of the mortgagee or his
2. Said personal property is in the lawful possession of executors, administrators or assigns;
another;
Elements:
3. Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor;
1. Personal property is mortgaged under the Chattel
4. Prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third Mortgage Law;
person.
2. Offender knows that such property is so mortgaged;
Under paragraph 4 – by executing any fictitious contract to the
prejudice of another 3. Offender removes such mortgaged personal property to
any province or city other than the one in which it was located at the
Under paragraph 5 – by accepting any compensation for services not time of the execution of the mortgage;
rendered or for labor not performed
4. The removal is permanent;
K r i s ti n e M a e Q u i b o d Reviewer- Criminal Law 2 Title 10 P a g e | 12
All other mischiefs not included in the next preceding article

5. There is no written consent of the mortgagee or his Article 330. Damage and Obstruction to Means of Communication
executors, administrators or assigns to such removal.
This is committed by damaging any railway, telegraph or telephone
2. Selling or pledging personal property already pledged, or lines.
any part thereof, under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law,
without the consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the
mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the office of the
register of deeds of the province where such property is located. Article 331. Destroying or Damaging Statues, Public Monuments,
or Paintings
Elements:

1. Personal property is already pledged under the terms of

the Chattel Mortgage Law; Article 332. Persons Exempt from Criminal Liability

2. Offender, who is the mortgagor of such property, sells or Crimes involved in the exemption
pledges the same or any part thereof;
1. Theft;
3. There is no consent of the mortgagee written on the back
of the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the office of the 2. Estafa; and
register of deeds.
3. Malicious mischief.

Persons exempted from criminal liability

Arson
1. Spouse, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by
Kinds of arson affinity in the same line;

1. Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1613; 2. Widowed spouse with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed into the
2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the Revised Penal possession of another
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659;
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law,
3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of Presidential if living together.
Decree No. 1613.
Only the relatives enumerated incur no liability if the crime relates
to theft (not robbery), swindling, and malicious mischief. Third
parties who participate are not exempt. The relationship between
Article 327. Who Are Liable for Malicious Mischief the spouses is not limited to legally married couples; the provision
applies to live-in partners.
Elements
Estafa should not be complexed with any other crime in order for
1. Offender deliberately caused damage to the property of exemption to operate.
another;

2. Such act does not constitute arson or other crimes

involving destruction;

3. The act of damaging another’s property was committed

merely for the sake of damaging it;

There is destruction of the property of another but there is no

misappropriation. Otherwise, it would be theft if he gathers the
effects of destruction.

Article 328. Special Case of Malicious Mischief

Acts punished

1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public

functions;

2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance;

3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle;

4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum

or National Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used is common by the pubic.

Article 329. Other Mischiefs