Case Digest – Title Ten – Crimes Against Personal Property

THEFT
1. Laurel vs Abrogar, February 27, 2006.

Facts: PLDT alleged that one of the alternative calling patterns that constitute network fraud and
violate its network integrity is that which is known as International Simple Resale (ISR). PLDT
asserted that Baynet conducts its ISR activities by utilizing an IPL to course its incoming
international long distance calls from Japan. The IPL is linked to switching equipment, which is
then connected to PLDT telephone lines/numbers and equipment, with Baynet as subscriber.
Through the use of the telephone lines and other auxiliary equipment, Baynet is able to connect
an international long distance call from Japan to any part of the Philippines, and make it appear
as a call originating from Metro Manila. Consequently, the operator of an ISR is able to evade
payment of access, termination or bypass charges and accounting rates, as well as compliance
with the regulatory requirements of the NTC. Thus, the ISR operator offers international
telecommunication services at a lower rate, to the damage and prejudice of legitimate operators
like PLDT. The RTC found Laurel, member of the board and others, guilty of theft.

Laurel filed a "Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)" on the grounds that the
RPC does not punish use of ISR, the telephone calls belong to the person calling not to PLDT,
and that no personal property was stolen from PLDT. He alleged that “there is no crime when
there is no law punishing the crime”. The petition was dismissed by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not international telephone calls using Bay Super Orient Cards through the
telecommunication services provided by PLDT for such calls, or, in short, PLDT’s business of
providing said telecommunication services, are proper subjects of theft under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code

Held: No, the Court held that the telecommunication services provided by PLDT and its
business of providing said services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.– Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to
gain but without violence, against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall
take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.
According to Cuello Callon, in the context of the Penal Code, only those movable properties
which can be taken and carried from the place they are found are proper subjects of theft.
Intangible properties such as rights and ideas are not subject of theft because the same cannot be
"taken" from the place it is found and is occupied or appropriated.
Thus, movable properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code should be distinguished
from the rights or interests to which they relate. A naked right existing merely in contemplation
of law, although it may be very valuable to the person who is entitled to exercise it, is not the
subject of theft or larceny.55 Such rights or interests are intangible and cannot be "taken" by
another. Thus, right to produce oil, good will or an interest in business, or the right to engage in
business, credit or franchise are properties. So is the credit line represented by a credit card.
However, they are not proper subjects of theft or larceny because they are without form or
substance, the mere "breath" of the Congress. On the other hand, goods, wares and merchandise
of businessmen and credit cards issued to them are movable properties with physical and
material existence and may be taken by another; hence, proper subjects of theft.

There is "taking" of personal property, and theft is consummated when the offender unlawfully
acquires possession of personal property even if for a short time; or if such property is under the
dominion and control of the thief. The taker, at some particular amount, must have obtained
complete and absolute possession and control of the property adverse to the rights of the owner
or the lawful possessor thereof. It is not necessary that the property be actually carried away out
of the physical possession of the lawful possessor or that he should have made his escape with it.
Neither asportation nor actual manual possession of property is required. Constructive possession
of the thief of the property is enough.
The essence of the element is the taking of a thing out of the possession of the owner without his
privity and consent and without animus revertendi.
Taking may be by the offender’s own hands, by his use of innocent persons without any
felonious intent, as well as any mechanical device, such as an access device or card, or any
agency, animate or inanimate, with intent to gain. Intent to gain includes the unlawful taking of
personal property for the purpose of deriving utility, satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure.

ART. 294 – ROBBERY

1. People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 200081, 8 June 2016

Facts: Carlos owned a business which accused-appellant, Cruz, helped managed. Carlos noticed
discrepancies in the balance sheet. The discrepancies were between the amounts as indicated in
the receipt issued to Miescor and the receipt shown to him by Cruz. Carlos filed a criminal
complaint for qualified theft against Cruz. The RTC convicted Cruz of the crime. The CA
affirmed the ruling. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of qualified theft.

Held: Yes. The elements of Qualified Theft committed with grave abuse of confidence are as
follows:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owners consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons,
nor of force upon things; [and]
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence
All the elements of Qualified Theft are present in this case. Cruz was entrusted to receive
payments, issue receipts, and oversee all aspects pertaining to cash purchases and sale of
merchandise of the business. His position entailed a high degree of confidence as he had access
to the lists of sales report and the cash of the daily sales. Cruz took advantage of this trust and
confidence to accomplish the crime with grave abuse of confidence.
The rule in simple theft that maximum penalty cannot exceed twenty (20) years is inapplicable to
qualified theft. His penalty exceeds twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, the penalty that
should be imposed, therefore, is reclusion perpetua (two degrees higher).

When theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime appreciates into qualified
theft punishable under Article 310 of the RPC, to wit:
Art. 310. Qualified Theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by
two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a
domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle,
mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or
fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

2. People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, 4 April 2003

Facts:
Issue:
Held:

3. People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, 26 June 2009

4. People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 132470, 27 April 2000

5. People v. Jaranilla, L-28547, 22 February 1974, 55 SCRA 563

Art. 299 – Robbery in an Inhabited House Or Public Building Or Edifice Devoted To

1. Napolis v. Court of Appeals, L-28865, 28 February 1972

Facts: Four men, petitioner included, robbed private respondents inside their house at about 1:00
o'clock in the early morning. In order to effect entry, they bore a hole under the sidewall of the
ground floor of the house and once inside, attack, assault and hit Ignacio Peñaflor. The accused
subsequently went up the house and threatened the wife of Ignacio, demanded money, and
opened and ransacked the wardrobe. They took and carried away valuable belongings. The CFI
found petitioner guilty of the crime of robbery in band. The CA affirmed the same. Hence, this
petition.

Issue: Whether or not the CA applied the proper penalty.

Held: No. The elements of both the crime of robbery committed by armed persons, in an
inhabited house, entry therein having been made by breaking a wall, as provided in Art. 299 (a)
of the RPC and robbery with violence or intimidation under Art. 294 (5) are present. The penalty
for the former is reclusion temporal while the latter is prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its medium period, which is lighter that that prescribed for Art. 299 (a)

One who, by breaking a wall, enters, with a deadly weapon, an inhabited house and steals
therefrom valuable effects, without violence against or intimidation upon persons, is punishable
under Art. 299 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion temporal. Pursuant to the above view,
adhered to in previous decision, if, aside from performing said acts, the thief lays hand upon any
person, without committing any of the crimes or inflicting any of the injuries mentioned in
subparagraphs (1) to (4) of Art. 294 of the same Code, the imposable penalty -- under paragraph
(5) thereof -- shall be much lighter.

The Court held – the argument to the effect that the violence against or intimidation of a person
supplies the "controlling qualification," is far from sufficient to justify said result. We agree with
the proposition that robbery with "violence or intimidation against the person is
evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things," but, precisely, for this
reason, We cannot accept the conclusion deduced therefrom in the cases above cited
— reduction of the penalty for the latter offense owing to the concurrence of violence or
intimidation which made it a more serious one. It is, to our mind, more plausible to believe that
Art. 294 applies only where robbery with violence against or intimidation of person takes
place without entering an inhabited house, under the conditions set forth in Art. 299 of the
Revised Penal Code.

The crime is a complex one calling for the imposition of the penalty for the most serious offense,
in its maximum period (Art. 48), which, in the case at bar, is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period, appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.

2. People v. Disney, L-41336, 18 February 1983, 120 SCRA 637

Facts: Appellants entered the house of private respondents through the window by prying apart
the grill in the dining room window. Armed with pistols and kitchen knives, and by means of
violence and intimidation, they robbed the occupants and were able to carry away valuables. In
the course of the robbery, two of the accused carried one of the victims to another room and
raper her. She did not shout because he threatened to kill the other family members if she did.
When one of the men finished, he told his companion that it was his turn. The second man,
whom she "does not know", took a shorter time than the first in having carnal knowledge of her.
The two men then went outside, leaving her alone. The same men came back and raped her a
second time. Thereafter, they took her watch, gold ring and money, and before they left they
covered her with a blanket. The trial court convicted the defendants with the crime of multiple
rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon and by its commission by two or more persons
penalized under Article 335 of the RPC as amended by Republic Act 4111, were each sentenced
to death.

Issue: Whether or not all appellants should have been charged with the same crime.

Held: No. When the act done is not pursuant to the conspiracy nor a necessary and logical
consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. There is nothing in the
records either to establish a conspiracy among the four malefactors to commit the crime of rape;
evidence discloses they only conspired to commit robbery. Each accused is liable only for his
own act and that only Rodolfo Disney, who was positively identified by Pacita and the
unidentified companion, are liable for the crime of Robbery with Rape.

Alfredo Fernandez is liable under Art. 299 (a) (1) and (2) of the RPC for Robbery committed by
an armed person in an inhabited house, having entered the house through the dining room
window, which was broken open, an opening not intended for entrance or egress, and the value
of the property taken having exceeded P250.00.

Violence and intimidation against persons were present in the commission of the robbery where
the a robber pointed the gun at the victim demanding for her belongings and while another
person beat her husband. However, as this Court had ruled in Napolis vs. Court of Appeals, Art.
294 applies only where robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons takes place
without entering an inhabited house, under the conditions set forth in Art. 299. When the
elements of both provisions are present, the crime is a complex one, calling for the imposition as
provided in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, of the penalty for the most serious offense, in
its maximum period, which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. This penalty should, in
turn, be imposed in its maximum period, from nineteen (19) years, one (1) month and eleven
(11) days to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporary owing to the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime.

The element of band not having been proven due to the differences of testimonies, Art. 296
providing that "any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery ... shall be
punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the same" is inapplicable.

3. Fransdilla v. People, G.R. No. 197562, 20 April 2015

complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed men under Article 299 of
the Revised Penal Code and robbery with violence against and intimidation of persons
under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
Facts: Under the pretense of being a POEA employee, petitioner was invited into the house of
private complainants. Fransdilla distracted complainant allowing her companions of four men to
enter the house as well. With complainant’s attention diverted, one of the accused declared it was
a hold-up while poking a gun at complainant’s neck. Complainant tried to follow the robbers as
they searched the rooms and was slapped after being caught. The accused were able to take away
jewelries and other valuables. They also spotted and obtained a vault containing US dollar
currencies. The RTC convicted Fransdilla and her co-accused of the crime of Robbery punished
under Art. 299. The CA affirmed the conviction of all of the accused, but modified the penalty.
Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime charged.

Held: Yes. Napolis v. Court of Appeals is controlling in this case.

The information fully alleged the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house under Art 299,
AND robbery with intimidation or violence under Art 294 by averring that "the above-named
accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain, and by means of violence and
intimidation upon person rob the residence x x x." And, secondly, the Prosecution competently
proved the commission of the complex crime by showing during the trial that the accused, after
entering the residential house of the complainants took away valuables, including the vault
containing Cynthia's US dollar currencies, and in the process committed acts of violence against
and intimidation of persons during the robbery by slapping and threatening Lalaine and tying her
up, and herding the other members of the household inside the bodega of the house.

The following provisions are relevant to this case –

Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the complex crime is that for the
more serious felony, which, in this case, was the robbery in an inhabited house by armed men
punishable by reclusion temporal, to be imposed in the maximum period (i.e., 17 years, four
months and one day to 20 years). Hence, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence of 12 years
of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal, must be
corrected to 17 years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal.