UP Bar Reviewer 2013 Criminal Law T101213

UP COLLEGE OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Title X. Crimes against

Property
Chapter I: Robbery in General
(1) Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of Robbery
(2) Article 294 - With Violence or Intimidation of
Persons
(3) Article 295 - Robbery with Physical Injuries, in
an Uninhabited Place and by a Band
(4) Article 296 - Definition of a Band and Penalty
Incurred by the Members Thereof
(5) Article 297 - Attempted and Frustrated Robbery
with Homicide
(6) Article 298 - Execution of Deeds through
Violence or Intimidation
(7) Article 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited House or
Public Building or Edifice Devoted to Worship
(8) Article 300 - Robbery in an Uninhabited Place
and by a Band
(9) Article 302 -In an Uninhabited Place or Private
Building
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(10) Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or

Firewood in an Inhabited Place or Private
Building
(11) Article 304 - Possession of Picklock or Similar
Tools
(12) Article 305 - Defines False Keys
Chapter 2: Brigandage
(1) Article 306 - Who Are Brigands
(2) Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting a Band of
Brigands
Chapter 3: Theft
(1) Article 308 - Who Are Liable for Theft
(2) Article 309 Penalties
(3) Article 310 - Qualified Theft
(4) Article 311 - Theft of the Property of the National
Library and National Museum
Chapter 4: Usurpation
(1) Article 312 - Occupation of Real Property or
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
(2) Article 313 - Altering Boundaries or Landmarks
Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency
(1) Article 314 - Fraudulent Insolvency
Chapter 6: Swindling
(1) Article 315 Estafa
(2) Article 316 - Other Forms of Swindling
(3) Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor
(4) Article 318 - Other Deceits
Chapter 7: Chattel mortgage
(1) Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or Pledge of
Mortgaged Property
Chapter 8: Arson and
Destruction
other
Crimes involving
Chapter 9: Malicious mischief

(1) Article 327 - Who Are Responsible
(2) Article 328 - Special Cases of Malicious Mischief
(3) Article 329 - Other Mischiefs
(4) Article 330 - Damage and Obstruction to Means
of Communication
(5) Article 331 - Destroying or Damaging Statues,
Public Monuments or Paintings
Chapter 10: Exemption from Criminal Liability
(1) Article 332 - Exemption from Criminal Liability
in Crimes Against Property.
CHAPTER I: ROBBERY IN GENERAL
ARTICLE 293
- WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
Elements of Robbery in General: (PAUI, V/I/F)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Personal property
Belonging to another
There be Unlawful taking
With Intent to gain
Violence against or intimidation of any person
OR force upon anything
The property taken must be personal, if real

property/right is usurped the crime is usurpation
(Art. 312).
Prohibitive articles may be the subject of robbery,
e.g., opium
From the moment the offender gains possession of
the object, even without the chance to dispose of the
same, the unlawful taking is complete.
Taking: depriving the offended party of possession
of the thing taken with the character of permanency.
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking.
It cannot be established by direct evidence, except in
case of confession.
It is not necessary that violence or intimidation
present
from the beginning. The violence
intimidation at any time before asportation
complete, the taking of property is qualified
robbery.
Violence against or
intimidation of person
The taking
robbery.
is
or
is
to
Use of force upon things
is
always The taking is robbery only

if force is used to:
(1) enter the building
VALUE
OF
THE (2) break
doors,
PROPERTY TAKEN IS wardrobes, chests, or any
IMMATERIAL.
other kind of locked or
sealed
furniture
or
receptacle
inside the
building; OR
(3) force
them
open
outside after taking the
same from the building
(Art. 299 & 302)
The penalty depends on: If committed in an
1) the result of the inhabited house, public
or
edifice
violence used (homicide, building,
to
religious
rape,
intentional devoted
mutilation,
serious worship, the penalty is
physical injuries, less based on:
serious or slight physical (1) the value of the thing
injuries resulted) and
taken and
2) the existence of (2) whether or not the
intimidation only
ARTICLE 294
PERSONS
offenders carry arms;
- WITH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION OF
Acts punished under:

(1) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
Homicide is committed. (Robbery with
Homicide)
(2) When the robbery is accompanied by Rape or
Intentional Mutilation or Arson. (Robbery with
Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation,
Robbery with Arson)
(3) When by reason or on occasion of such robbery,
any of the Physical Injuries resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency, or blindness is inflicted.
(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 power to hear or to smell, or
the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg
or the loss of the use of any such member, or
incapacity for the work in which the injured
person is theretofore habitually engaged is
inflicted.
(5) If the Violence or Intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
clearly Unnecessary for the commission of the
crime.
(6) When in the course of its execution, the offender
shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery
any of the Physical Injuries in consequence of
which the person injured becomes deformed or
loses any other member of his body or loses the use
thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he is habitually
engaged for labor for more than 30 days
(7) If the violence employed by the offender does
not cause any of the serious physical injuries
defined in Art. 263, or if the offender employs
intimidation only.
The crime defined in this article is a special complex
crime.
On the occasion and by reason mean that
homicide or serious physical injuries must be
committed in the course or because of the robbery.
The violence must be against the person, not upon
the thing taken. It must be present before the taking
of personal property is complete.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Homicide is used in its generic sense, as to include

parricide and murder. Hence, there is no robbery with
murder. The crime is still robbery with homicide even
if, in the course of the robbery, the person killed was
another robber or a bystander.
Even if the rape was committed in another place, it is
still robbery with rape. When the taking of personal
property of a woman is an independent act following
defendants failure to consummate the rape, there
are two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape
and theft. Additional rape committed on the same
occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty.
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of
personal property grave coercion if there is violence
used (Art. 286).
If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) and
force upon things (299/302) co-exist, it will be
considered as violation of Art 294 because it is more
serious than in Art 299/302.
BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the
penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the complex
crime should be imputed for the higher penalty to be
imposed without sacrificing the principle that
robbery w/ violence against persons is more severe
than that w/ force upon things. [Napolis v. CA (1972)]
When the taking of the victims gun was to prevent
the victim from retaliating, then the crimes
committed are theft and homicide not robbery with
homicide. [People v. Millian (2000)]
ARTICLE 295 - ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES, IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND
Robbery with violence against or intimidation or

persons is qualified when it is committed:
(1) In an Uninhabited place, or
(2) By a Band, or
(3) By Attacking a moving train, street car, motor
vehicle, or airship, or
(4) By Entering the passengers compartments in a
train, or in any manner taking the passengers
thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or
(5) On a Street, road, highway, or alley, AND the
intimidation is made with the use of firearms,
the offender shall be punished by the maximum
periods of the proper penalties in Art. 294.
It cannot be
circumstance.
offset by a generic mitigating
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only

robbery on a street, road, highway, or alley.
Any of these qualifying circumstances must be

alleged in the information and proved during the
trial.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only
robbery on a street, road, highway or alley.
Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or
robbery with rape, or robbery with serious physical
injuries under par 1 of Art 263.
NOTE: the circumstances and applicability of Art 295
are very specific
ARTICLE 296 - DEFINITION OF A BAND AND PENALTY
INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS THEREOF
Outline of Art. 296:

When at least 4 armed malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery, it is deemed committed by
a band.
When any of the arms used in the commission of
robbery is not licensed, penalty upon all the
malefactors
shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law, without
prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal
possession of such firearms.
Any member of a band who was present at the
commission of a robbery by the band, shall be
punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band, unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the crime.
Requisites for Liability for the acts of the other
members:
(1) Member of the band.
(2) Present at the commission of the robbery.
(3) Other members committed an assault.
(4) He did not attempt to prevent assault.
Conspiracy is presumed when robbery is by band.
When the robbery was not committed by a band, the
robber who did not take part in the assault by
another is not liable for that assault.
When the robbery was not by a band and homicide
was not determined by the accused when they
plotted the crime, the one who did not participate in
the killing is liable for robbery only. It is only when
the robbery is in band that all those present in the
commission of the robbery may be punished for any
of the assaults which any of its members might
commit.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide

and robbery, all the conspirators, even if less than 4
armed men, are liable for the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide.
Special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed

firearm is inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide, or
robbery with rape, or robbery with physical injuries,
committed by a band. [People v. Apduhan]
Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement,

who was not present at the commission of the
robbery, if the agreement was only to commit
robbery.
ARTICLE 297 - ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY

WITH HOMICIDE
The article speaks of more than 3 armed malefactors

who takes part in the commission of the robbery
and member of a band who is present at the
commission of a robbery by a band. Thus, a
principal by inducement, who did not go with the
band at the place of the commission of the robbery,
is not liable for robbery with homicide, but only for
robbery in band, there being no evidence that he
gave instructions to kill the victim or intended that
this should be done.
The penalty is the same,

attempted or frustrated.
When there was conspiracy for robbery only but

homicide was also committed on the occasion
thereof, all members of the band are liable for
robbery with homicide.
Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence
of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part in the commission of the robbery are also guilty
as principals in the crime of homicide unless it
appears that they endeavored to prevent the
homicide.
Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold a member
of the band liable for robbery with homicide actually
committed by the other members of the band.
Homicide includes multiple homicides, murder,

parricide, or even infanticide.
whether
robbery is
Robbery with homicide and attempted or frustrated

robbery with homicide are special complex crimes,
not governed by Art. 48, but by the special provisions
of Arts.294 & 297, respectively.
There is only one crime of attempted robbery with
homicide even if slight physical injuries were inflicted
on other persons on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery.
ARTICLE 298 - EXECUTION OF DEEDS THROUGH VIOLENCE
OR INTIMIDATION
Elements:
(1) Offender has Intent to defraud another
(2) Offender Compels him to sign, execute, or
deliver any public instrument or document
(3) Compulsion is by means of Violence or
Intimidation.
If the violence resulted in the death of the person to
be defrauded, crime is robbery with homicide and
shall be penalized under Art 294 par. 1.
There is no crime as robbery with homicide in

band.
Art. 298 applies to private or commercial document,

but it does not apply if document is void.
Band is only ordinary aggravating circumstance in

robbery w/ homicide
When the offended party is under obligation to sign,

execute or deliver the document under the law, it is
not robbery but coercion.
In order that special aggravating circumstance of

unlicensed firearm be appreciated, it is condition sine
qua non that offense charged be robbery by a band
under Art 295.
Pursuant to Art 295, circumstance of a band is
qualifying only in robbery under par 3, 4 & 5 of Art
294.
Hence, Art. 295 does not apply to robbery with
homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with
serious physical injuries under par. 1 of Art. 263.
BY FORCE UPON THINGS

Robbery by the use of force upon things is
committed only when either:
(1) Offender entered a House or Building by
any of the means specified in Art. 299 or
Art. 302, or
(2) Even if there was no entrance by any of
those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest, or
any other kind of locked or closed or sealed
furniture or receptacle in the house or
building, or he took it away to be broken or
forced open outside.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
from that in the other means

constructive force.
ARTICLE 299 - ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR
PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO WORSHIP
Elements of robbery with force upon things under

SUBDIVISION (A):
(1) Offender entered
(a) Inhabited House
(b) Public Building
(c) Edifice devoted to Religious Worship
(2) Entrance was effected by any of the following
means:
(a) Through an opening Not intended for
entrance or egress;
(b) By Breaking any wall, roof, or floor, or door
or window;
(c) By using False keys, picklocks or similar
tools; or
(d) By using any Fictitious name or pretending
the exercise of public authority.
(e) That once inside the building, the offender
Took personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain.
There must be evidence that accused entered the
dwelling house or building by any of the means
enumerated in subdivision (a). In entering the
building, there must be the intent to take personal
property.
Inhabited house: any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons
even though the inhabitants thereof are temporarily
absent when the robbery is committed.
Public building: every building owned by the
Government or belonging to a private person but
used or rented by the Government, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Any of the four means described in subdivision (a)
must be resorted to enter a house or building, not to
get out otherwise it is only theft. The whole body of
the culprit must be inside the building to constitute
entering.
Illustration: If the culprit had entered the house
through an open door, and the owner, not knowing
that the culprit was inside, closed and locked the
door from the outside and left, and the culprit, after
taking personal property in the house, went out
through the window, it is only theft, not robbery.
Breaking: means entering the building. The force
used in this means must be actual, as distinguished
which is only
False keys: genuine keys stolen from the owner or

any keys other than those intended for use in the lock
forcibly opened by the offender. The genuine key
must be stolen, not taken by force or with
intimidation, from the owner.
If false key is used to open wardrobe or locked
receptacle or drawer or inside door it is only theft
Elements of robbery with force upon things under
SUBDIVISION (B) of Art. 299:
(1) Offender is inside a dwelling house, public
building, or edifice devoted to religious worship,
regardless of the circumstances under which he
entered it.
(2) Offender takes personal property belonging to
another, with intent to gain, under any of the
following circumstances.
(a) Breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any
other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle; or
(b) Taking such furniture or objects away to be
broken or forced open outside the place of
the robbery.
Entrance into the building by any of the means
mentioned in subdivision (a) is not required in
robbery under subdivision (b)
The term door in par. 1, subdivision (b) of Art. 299,
refers only to doors, lids or opening sheets of
furniture or other portable receptaclesnot to inside
doors of house or building.
Breaking the keyhole of the door of a wardrobe,
which is locked, is breaking a locked furniture.
It is theft, if the locked or sealed receptacle is not
forced open in the building where it is kept or taken
from to be broken outside.
The penalty depends on the value of property taken
and on whether or not offender carries arm. Arms
carried must not be used to intimidate. Liability for
carrying arms is extended to all those who
participated in the robbery, including those without
arms.
The provision punishes more severely the robbery in
a house used as a dwelling than that committed in
an uninhabited place, because of the possibility that
the inhabitants in the former might suffer bodily
harm during the robbery.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
or
(e) A Closed or sealed receptacle was removed,
even if the same be broken open elsewhere.
(f) With intent to gain, the offender took
therefrom personal property belonging to
another.
ARTICLE 301 - WHAT IS AN UNINHABITED HOUSE,

PUBLIC BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES: Even if the occupant was
absent during the robbery, the place is still inhabited
if the place was ordinarily inhabited and intended as
a dwelling.
Building: includes any kind of structure used for

storage or safekeeping of personal property, such as
(a) freight car ad (b) warehouse.
Dependencies: all interior courts,

corrals,
warehouses, granaries or inclosed places contiguous
to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance
connected therewith, and which form part of the
whole (Art. 301, par. 2).
Entrance through an
entrance or egress is
breaking of wardrobe,
furniture or receptacle,
broken open elsewhere.
Requisites:
(1) Contiguous to the building;
(2) Interior entrance connected therewith;
(3) Form part of the whole.
opening not intended for

not necessary, if there is
chest, or sealed or closed
or removal thereof to be
Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.
Orchards and lands used for cultivation or

production are not included in the term
dependencies (Art. 301, par. 3).
Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of

public authorities is not covered under this article.
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND
A receptacle is a container, which must be closed

or sealed.
ARTICLE 300
BY A BAND
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or

edifice to religious worship is qualified when
committed by a band and located in an uninhabited
place.
Penalty is based only on value of property taken.

Robbery in a store
Punishable under
Art. 299
See discussion on Art. 296 for definition of band.
To qualify Robbery w/
force upon things (Art
299)
It must be committed in
uninhabited place AND
by a band (Art 300)
ARTICLE 302
BUILDING
Punishable under
Art. 302
If the store is used as a If the store was not

dwelling, the
robbery actually occupied at the
committed therein would time of the robbery and
be
considered
as was not used as a
committed
in
an dwelling, since the owner
inhabited house (People lived in a separate house,
v Suarez)
the robbery committed
therein
(People
v
If the store is located on Silvestre)
the ground floor of the
house belonging to the
owner, having an interior
entrance
connected
therewith,
it
is
a
dependency
of an
inhabited house and the
robbery
committed
therein (US v Tapan).
To qualify Robbery w/
violence
against
or
intimidation
It must be committed in
an uninhabited place OR
by a band (Art. 295)
- IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE
Elements:
(1) Offender entered an Uninhabited place or a
building which was not a dwelling house, not a
public building, or not an edifice devoted to
religious worship.
(2) That any of the following circumstances was
present:
(a) Entrance was effected through an opening
Not intended for entrance or egress;
(b) A Wall, roof, floor, or outside door or
window was broken
(c) Entrance was effected through the use of
False keys, picklocks or other similar tools;
(d) A Door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or
closed furniture or receptacle was broken;
ARTICLE 303 - ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR

FIREWOOD IN AN INHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
The penalty is one degree lower only when robbery is

committed by use of force upon things, without
intimidation or violence against a person.
PAGE
200200
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Cereals are seedlings which are the immediate

product of the soil. The palay must be kept by the
owner as seedling or taken for that purpose by the
robbers.
ARTICLE 304
Brigandage
Purpose
- POSSESSION OF PICKLOCK OR SIMILAR
(1) Commit
robbery
TOOLS
highway
Elements:
(1) Offender has
similar tools;
(2) Such picklock
Adopted to the
(3) Offender does
possession.
in
Robbery in band
Commit robbery,
a and
not
necessarily in a
(2) Kidnap
to highway
extort or get
ransom
(3) Any
other
purpose to be
achieved
by
means of force
or violence
in his possession Picklocks or

or similar tools are especially
commission of robbery;
Not have lawful cause for such
ARTICLE 305 - DEFINES FALSE KEYS
Proof
TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Tools mentioned in Article 304;
(2) Genuine keys Stolen from the owner;
(3) Any key other than those intended by the owner
for Use in the lock forcibly opened by the
offender.
CHAPTER 2: BRIGANDAGE (ARTICLES 306-307)
ARTICLE 306 - WHO ARE BRIGANDS
Elements of Brigandage:
(1) There be at least 4 armed persons
(2) They Formed a band of robbers
(3) The Purpose is any of the following:
(a) To commit Robbery in the highway; or
(b) To Kidnap for the purpose of extortion or to
obtain ransom; or
(c) To Attain by means of force and violence
any other purpose.
Mere formation It is necessary to

of a band for any prove that the
of the above band
actually
purposes
is committed the
sufficient. There robbery.
is
no Conspiracy
to
requirement that commit robbery
the
brigands is
not
consummate the punishable.
crime.
ARTICLE 307 - AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND OF BRIGANDS
Elements:
(1) There is a Band of brigands
(2) Offender Knows the band to be of brigands
(3) Offender Does any of the following acts:
(a) He in any manner Aids, abets or protects such
band of brigands; or
(b) He gives them Information of the
movements of the police or other peace
officers; or
(4) He Acquires or receives the property taken by
such brigands.
Presumption of law as to brigandage: all are

presumed highway robbers or brigands, if any of
them carries unlicensed firearm.
The arms carried may be any deadly weapon.
It is presumed that the person performing any of the

acts provided in this article has performed them
knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
The main object of the law is to prevent the

formation of band of robbers.
The term highway includes city streets.
Any person who aids or protects highway robbers or

abets
the commission of highway robbery or
brigandage shall be considered as an accomplice.
The following must be proved:

(1) Organization of more than 3 armed persons
forming a band of robbers
(2) Purpose of the band is any of those enumerated
in Art. 306.
(3) That they went upon the highway or roamed
upon the country for that purpose.
(4) That the accused is a member of such band.
See Special Law: PD 532 Anti-Piracy And AntiHighway Robbery

It is necessary to prove that the intention and
purpose of the accused was to commit robbery
indiscriminately and such robbery is committed on
PAGE
201201
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
any Philippine Highway. [People v. Pulusan (1998)]
PAGE
202202
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
In accordance with the definition in Art 308, there is

no frustrated theft. The offender has either complete
control of the property (consummated) or without
(attempted). Intent to gain is presumed from the
unlawful taking of personal property belonging to
another. [Valenzuela v. People (2007)]
CHAPTER 3 THEFT
ARTICLE 308
- WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT
Elements of Theft:
(1) Taking of personal property
(2) That Belongs to another
(3) With Intent to gain.
(4) Without the Consent of the owner.
(5) Accomplished Without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things.
If a person takes property of another, believing it to

be his own, presumption of intent to gain is rebutted.
Hence, he is not guilty of theft.
If one takes personal property openly and avowedly
under claim of title made in good faith, he is not
guilty of theft even though claim of ownership is later
found to be untenable.
Theft: 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 latters consent.
If possession was only material or physical, the crime

is THEFT. If possession was juridical, crime is
ESTAFA.
Selling share of a partner or co-owner is not theft.
Persons liable for theft:

(1) Those who,
(a) with intent to gain,
(b) without violence against or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things,
(c) take,
(d) personal property,
(e) of another,
(f) without the latters consent.
Actual or real gain is not necessary in theft.

The consent contemplated in this article refers to
consent freely given, and not mere lack of opposition
by owner of the property taken.
It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely
foreign to the fact of taking.
(2) Those who,

(a) having found lost property,
(b) fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner.
Gulinao shot Dr. Chua and left. Then he went back &
took Dr. Chuas diamond ring. The crime was Theft
and not robbery. Circumstances show that the taking
was merely an afterthought. Violence used in killing Dr.
Chua had no bearing on the taking of the ring.[People
v. Gulinao, (1989)]
(3) Those who,

(a) after having maliciously damaged the
property of another,
(b) remove or make use of the fruits or object of
the damage caused by them.
Properties were taken after accused has already

carried out his primary criminal intent of killing the
victim. Considering that the victim was already
heavily wounded when his properties were taken,
there was no need to employ violence against or
intimidation against his person. Hence, accused can
only be held guilty of the separate offense of
theft.[People vs Basao (1999)]
(4) Those who,

(a) enter an inclosed estate or field where
(b) trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and, without the consent of its
owner,
(c) hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits,
cereals, or other forest or farm products.
One in possession of part of recently stolen property

is presumed to be thief of all.
Lost property: embraces loss by stealing or by act
of the owner or by a person other than the owner, or
through some casual occurrence.
The theft is consummated & taking completed once

the culprit is able to place the thing taken under his
control, and in such a situation that he could dispose
of it at once.
It is necessary to prove the following in order to

establish theft by failure to deliver or return lost
property:
PAGE
203203
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(1) Time of the seizure of the thing

(2) It was a lost property belonging to another; and
(3) That the accused having had the opportunity to
return or deliver the lost property to its owner or
to the local authorities, refrained from doing so.
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. Theres

no need to prove grave abuse of discretion.
The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must
be allegation in the information and proof of a
relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or
vigilance, between the accused and the offended
party that has created a high degree of confidence
between them, which the accused abused.
The law does not require knowledge of the owner of

the property.
Elements of hunting, fishing or gathering fruits, etc.,
in enclosed estate:
(1) That there is an enclosed estate or a field, where
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another
(2) Offender enters the same
(3) Offender hunts or fishes upon the same or
gathers fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
products in the estate or field; and
(4) That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products
is without the consent of the owner.
Theft of any material, spare part, product or article

by employees and laborers is heavily punished under
PD 133.
Motor vehicle: all vehicles propelled by power,
other than muscular power. Theft of motor vehicle
may now fall under the anti-carnapping law.
When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy by
burning it, the crime is arson.
If a private individual took a letter containing postal
money order it is qualified theft. If it was the
postmaster, to whom the letter was delivered, the
crime would be infidelity in the custody of
documents.
ARTICLE 309
- PENALTIES
The basis of the penalty in theft is
(1) the value of the thing stolen, or
(2) the value and nature of the property taken, or
(3) the circumstances that impelled the culprit to
commit the crime.
Regarding the theft of coconuts and fish, what

matters is not the execution, but the location where
it is taken. It should be in the plantation or in the
fishpond.
If there is no evidence of the value of the property

stolen, the court should impose the minimum
penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of
P5.00. The court may also take judicial notice of its
value in the proper cases.
RA 6539: ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW
Carnapping: taking, with intent to gain, of motor

vehicle belonging to another without the latters
consent or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by force upon things (Izon
v. People, 1981)
ARTICLE 310 - QUALIFIED THEFT
Theft is qualified if:

(1) Committed by a Domestic servant
(2) Committed with Grave abuse of confidence
(3) The property stolen is
(a) motor vehicle,
(b) mail matter, or
(c) large cattle
Motor Vehicle: any vehicle which is motorized using

the streets which are public, not exclusively for
private use (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law)
The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from

the premises of a:
(1) plantation
(2) The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery
(3) The property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
Cattle rustling: taking away by means, methods or

schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of
any large cattle whether or not for profit, or whether
committed with or without violence against or
intimidation of person or force upon things. It
includes killing of large cattle, taking its meat or hide
without the consent of owner/raiser.
Large cattle: include cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass,
other domesticated member of bovine family. A goat
is not included because it is not large (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher.
PAGE
204204
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Presumption: Every person in possession of large

cattle shall upon demand by competent authorities
exhibit required documents. Failure to do so is prima
facie evidence that large cattle in possession are
fruits of crime of cattle rustling
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or

anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing. [People v. Dizon-Pamintuan]
Robbery/theft and fencing are separate and distinct
offenses.
Killing of owner is absorbed in cattle rustling (Boado,

Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
ARTICLE 311 - THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL

LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM
Considering that the gravamen of the crime is the

taking or killing of large cattle or taking its meat or
hide without the consent of the owner or raiser,
conviction for the same need only be supported by
the fact of taking without the cattle owners consent.
There is a disputable presumption that a person
found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a
recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act. [Ernesto Pil-ey vs. People (2007)]
Theft of property of the National Museum and

National Library has a fixed penalty regardless of its
value. But if it was with grave abuse of confidence,
the penalty for qualified theft shall be imposed.
CHAPTER 4: USURPATION
ARTICLE 312 - OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR
USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
PD 704: ILLEGAL FISHING
Acts punishable under Art. 312:

(1) Taking possession of any real property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons
(2) Usurping any real rights in property belonging to
another by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons.
Prima facie presumption of illegal fishing when:

(1) Explosive, obnoxious or poisonous substance or
equipment or device for electric fishing are
found in the fishing boat or in the possession of
fisherman; or
(2) When fish caught with the use of explosives,
obnoxious or poisonous substances or by
electricity are found in a fishing boat
Elements:
(1) Offender takes possession of any real property
OR usurps any real rights in property
(2) Real property or real rights belong to another
(3) Violence against or intimidation of persons is
used by the offender in occupying real property
or usurping real rights in property.
(4) There is intent to gain.
PD 1612: ANTI-FENCING LAW

Fencing:
(1) the act of any person who,
(2) with intent to gain for himself or for another,
(3) shall buy, receive, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell or in any other
manner deal in
(4) any article, item, object, or anything of value
(5) which he knows, or should be known to him,
(6) to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
If no violence or intimidation only civil liability exists.

Violence or intimidation must be the means used in
occupying real property or in usurping real rights.
Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or
intimidation took place subsequent to the entry into
the property.
Elements:
(1) Robbery or theft has been committed.
(2) The accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
manner deals in any article, item, object, or
anything of value, which has been derived from
the proceeds of the said crime.
(3) The accused knows or should have known that
the said article, item, object or anything of value
has been derived from the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft.
(4) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to
gain for himself or another.
Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of

the writ of execution issued in the forcible entry case.
Criminal action for usurpation of real property is not
a bar to civil action for forcible entry.
PAGE
205205
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Usurpation
Theft or Robbery
Act
Occupation or
Usurpation
What is Taken
Real property or Personal

Real Right
property
Intent
To Gain
Art 314
Taking or
asportation
Insolvency law
No need for insolvency Crime

should
be
proceedings.
committed
after
the
institution of insolvency
No need to be adjudged proceedings
bankrupt or insolvent
CHAPTER 6: SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
To Gain
ARTICLE 315
- ESTAFA
Elements of Estafa in General:

(1) That the accused defrauded another
(a) by abuse of confidence; or
(b) by means of deceit; and
(2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person.
(3) Through
(a) With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
(315 par. 1(a) (b) (c))
(b) Estafa by means of fraudulent acts (315 Par.
2(A) (B) (C)(D) (E) ; BP22):
(c) Through other fraudulent means (315 par
3(a) (b) (c) )
RA 947 punishes entering or occupying public

agricultural land including lands granted to private
individuals.
ARTICLE 313 - ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS
Elements:
(1) That there be boundary marks or monuments of
towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks
intended to designate the boundaries of the
same.
(2) That the offender alters said boundary marks.
Provision does not require intent to gain.
The word alter may include:
(1) destruction of stone monument
(2) taking it to another place
(3) removing a fence
With Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence (315 par.

1(a) (b) (c))
CHAPTER 5: CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
Elements:
(1) Offender has an Onerous obligation to deliver
something of value.
(2) That he Alters its substance, quantity, or quality
(3) That Damage or prejudice is caused to another.
Par 1(a): Altering substance, quantity or quality of

object subject of obligation to deliver
ARTICLE 314 - FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY
Elements:
(1) That the offender is a debtor; that is, he has
obligations due and payable
(2) That he absconds with his property
(3) That there be prejudice to his creditors.
Deceit is NOT an essential element of estafa with

abuse of confidence.
Damage or prejudice must be capable of estimation,
because it is the basis of the penalty.
Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required.

Even if the debtor disposes of his property, unless it
is shown that it has actually prejudiced his creditor,
conviction will not lie.
Delivery of anything of value must be by virtue of an

onerous obligation to do so.
Fraudulent concealment of property is not sufficient

if the debtor has some property with which to satisfy
his obligation.
When the fraud committed consists in the

adulteration or mixing of some extraneous
substance in an article of food so as to lower its
quantity, it may be a violation of the Pure Food Law.
Abscond: does not require that the debtor should

depart and physically conceal his property. Real
property could be the subject matter of Art. 314.
Its not estafa if the thing delivered is not acceptable

to the complainant when there is no agreement as to
its quality.
The person prejudiced must be creditor of the

offender.
PAGE
206206
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Applicable Civil Code provisions:

(1) Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall
be transferred to the vendee upon actual or
constructive delivery thereof.
(2) Art. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a
contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of
the price and as proof of the perfection of the
contract.
Estafa may arise even if thing delivered is not subject

of lawful commerce, such as opium.
Par.1(b): Misappropriation and Conversion
Elements:
(1) That Money, goods, or other personal property
be received by the offender in trust, or in
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return, the same;
(2) There be Misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender, or denial on
his part of such receipt;
(3) That such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the Prejudice of another; and
(4) That there is a demand made by the offended
party to the offender.
In estafa with abuse of confidence under par. (b),

subdivision 1 of Art. 315, the thing received must be
returned if there is an obligation to return it.
If no obligation to return there is only civil liability.
No estafa when:
(1) Transaction sale fails. There is no estafa if the
accused refused to return the advance payment.
(2) The money or personal property received by
accused is not to be used for a particular
purpose or to be returned.
(3) Thing received under a contract of sale on credit
The 4th element is not necessary when there is

evidence of misappropriation of goods by the
defendant.
Payment by students to the school for the value of

materials broken is not mere deposit.
Check is included in the word money.

Money, goods or other personal property must be
received by the offender under certain kinds of
transaction transferring juridical possession to him.
Novation of contract of agency to one of sale, or to

one of loan, relieves defendant from incipient
criminal liability under the first contract.
The offender acquires both physical possession and

juridical possession when the thing received by the
offender from the offended party
(1) in trust, or
(2) on commission, or
(3) for administration,
He exerted all efforts to retrieve dump truck, albeit

belatedly and to no avail. His ineptitude should not
be confused with criminal intent. Criminal intent is
required for the conviction of Estafa. Earnest effort to
comply with obligation is a defense against estafa.
[Manahan vs CA (1996)]
Juridical possession: means a possession which

gives the transferee a right over the thing which he
may invoke even as against the owner.
3 Ways Of Committing Estafa With Abuse Of

Confidence Under Art. 315 Par. (B):
(1) Misappropriating the thing received.
(2) Converting the thing received.
(3) Denying that the thing was received.
When the delivery of a chattel does not transfer

juridical possession/title, it is presumed that the
possession/title of the thing remain w/ owner.
Misappropriating: means to
something for one's own benefit.
Failure to turn over to the bank the proceeds of sale

of goods covered by trust receipts is estafa.
own,
to
take
Converting: Using or disposing of anothers

property as if it were ones own.
The phrase or under any obligation involving the

duty to make delivery of, or to return the same,
includes quasi-contracts and certain contracts of
bailment. The obligation to return the thing must be
contractual but without transferring to accused
ownership of the thing.
Conversion: presupposes that the thing has been

devoted to a purpose or use different from that
agreed upon.
The fact that an agent sold the thing received on
commission for a lower price than the one fixed, does
not constitute estafa (US v Torres).
When ownership is transferred to recipient, his

failure to return it results in civil liability only.
PAGE
207207
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
the offender receives the thing under a lawful

transaction.
The law does not distinguish between temporary and

permanent misappropriations.
Demand is not required by law, but it may be

necessary, because failure to account upon demand
is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Presumption arises only when the explanation of the
accused is absolutely devoid of merit.
No estafa under Art. 315 par (b) when there is neither

misappropriation nor conversion.
Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts
(1) If agent is authorized to retain his commission
out of the amounts he collected, there is no
estafa.
(2) Otherwise he is guilty of estafa, because his right
to commission does not make the agent a coowner of money
The mere failure to return the thing received for

safekeeping or under any other obligation w/ the
duty to return the same or deliver the value thereof
to the owner could only give rise to a civil action and
does not constitute the crime of estafa.
There is no estafa through negligence.
3rd element of estafa with abuse of confidence is

that the conversion, or denial by offender resulted in
the prejudice of the offended party.
The gravity of the crime of estafa is based on the

amount not returned before the institution of the
criminal action.
To the prejudice of another: not necessarily of the

owner of the property.
Test to distinguish theft from estafa: In theft, upon

the delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner
expects a return of the thing to him.
General rule: Partners are not liable for estafa of

money or property received for the partnership when
the business commenced and profits accrued.
Failure of partner to account for partnership funds
may give rise to civil obligation only, not estafa.
General rule: When the owner does not expect the

immediate return of the thing he delivered to the
accused, the misappropriation of the same is estafa.
Exception: when a partner misappropriates the share

of another partner in the profits, the act constitutes
estafa.
Exception: When the offender received the thing

from the offended party, with the obligation to
deliver it to a third person and, instead of doing so,
misappropriated it to the prejudice of the owner, the
crime committed is qualified theft.
A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is liable if,

after the termination of the co-ownership, he
misappropriates the thing which has become the
exclusive property of the other.
Estafa with abuse of
confidence
Sale of thing received to be pledged for owner is

theft, when the intent to appropriate existed at the
time it was received.
Theft

Malversation
confidence
Entrusted with funds or property
With juridical possession Only with physical /

of thing misappropriated material possession of
thing misappropriated
Both are continuing offenses
Offender receives the Offender takes the thing

thing from the victim
Funds or property are

always private
Funds or property usually

public
But when the money or property had been received

by a partner
for specific purpose and he
misappropriated it, there is estafa.
Offender is a private
Offender is a public officer
individual or public officer accountable for public
not accountable for public funds or property
funds or property
Under the 4th element of estafa with abuse of

confidence demand may be required.
Committed by
misappropriating,
converting or denying
having received money,
other personal property
In estafa by means of deceit, demand is not needed,

because the offender obtains the thing wrongfully
from the start. In estafa with abuse of confidence,
PAGE
208208
Committed by
misappropriating, or thru
abandonment or
negligence, letting other
person to take the public
funds or property
UP COLLEGE OF LAW

confidence
In false pretenses the deceit consists in the use of

deceitful words, in fraudulent acts the deceit consists
principally in deceitful acts. The fraudulent acts must
be performed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
Malversation
There is no estafa through There can be

negligence.
malversation through
abandonment or
negligence.
The offender must be able to obtain something from

the offended party because of the fraudulent acts.
When in prosecution for malversation the public

officer is acquitted, the private individual in
conspiracy w/ him may be held liable for estafa,
depending on the nature of the funds.
Knowledge of criminal intent of the principal is

essential to be convicted as an accomplice in Estafa
through falsification of commercial document. There
must be knowing assistance in the execution of the
offense. [Abejuela vs People (1991)]
Misappropriation of firearms received by a police

(1) ESTAFA: if it is not involved in the
commission of a crime
(2) MALVERSATION: if it is involved in the
commission of a crime.
(3)
Par.1(c):
In the case where a tenant-landowner relationship

exists between the parties, the jurisdiction for the
prosecution of the crime Estafa is not divested from
the RTC; though the matter before us apparently
presents an agrarian dispute, the RTC cannot shirk
from its duty to adjudicate on the merits a criminal
case initially filed before it, based on the law and
evidence presented, in order to determine whether
an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged.
Taking advantage of signature in blank
Elements:
(1) Paper with the signature of the offended party
be in Blank.
(2) Offended party should have Delivered it to the
offender.
(3) That above the signature of the offended party a
Document is written by the offender without
authority to do so.
(4) That the document so written Creates a liability
of, or causes damage to, the offended party or
any third person.
In a tenant-landowner relationship, it was incumbent

upon the tenant to hold in trust and, eventually,
account for the share in the harvest appertaining to
the landowner, failing which the tenant could be held
liable for misappropriation.
As correctly pointed out by the respondents, share
tenancy has been outlawed for being contrary to public
policy as early as 1963, with the passage of R.A. 3844.
What prevails today, under R.A. 6657, is agricultural
leasehold tenancy relationship, and all instances of
share tenancy have been automatically converted into
leasehold tenancy. In such a relationship, the tenants
obligation is simply to pay rentals, not to deliver the
landowners share.
Estafa by Means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent

Acts (315 par. 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e); BP22):
Elements of estafa by means of deceit:
(1) There must be a False pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means.
(2) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed
Prior to or Simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud.
(3) Offended party must have Relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means,
that is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.
(4) As a result thereof, the offended party Suffered
damage.
Given this dispensation, the petitioners allegation that

the respondents misappropriated the landowners
share of the harvest as contained in the information
is untenable. Accordingly, the respondents cannot be
held liable under Article 315, paragraph 4, No. 1(b) of
the Revised Penal Code. [People v. Vanzuela (2008)]
It is well established in jurisprudence that a person
may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and
estafa. The reason, therefore, is not hard to discern:
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while
estafa is malum in se.
The acts must be fraudulent. Acts must be founded

on, deceit, trick, or cheat, and such must be made
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud.
In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not

necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is
PAGE
209209
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
imperative. Petitioners claim that she did not

represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she
merely tried to help the complainants secure a
tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal
recruitment, it being enough that she gave the
impression of having had the authority to recruit
workers for deployment abroad; consequently she is
also held liable for the violation of Estafa under
Article 315(2)(a). [Lapasaran v. People (2009)]
Manipulation of scale is punished under the Revised

Administrative Code
Par 2(b): by altering the quality, fineness or weight
of anything pertaining to art or business
Par. 2(c): by pretending to have bribed
any
government employee
Person would ask money from another for the
alleged purpose of bribing a government employee
but just pocketed the money.
Par 2(a): Using fictitious name or false pretenses at

power, influence or other similar
deceits
Par 2(d): By postdating a check or issuing a bouncing

check
Ways of committing the offense:

(1) By using fictitious name;
(2) By falsely pretending to possess:
(a) power,
(b) influence,
(c) qualifications,
(d) property,
(e) credit,
(f) agency,
(g) business or imaginary transactions;
(3) By means of other similar deceits..
Elements:
(1) Offender Postdated a check, or issued a check in
payment of an obligation;
(2) Such postdating or issuing a check was done
when the offender had No funds in the bank, or
his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check.
The check must be genuine, and not falsified.
For estafa under Art. 315 par. 2(a), it is indispensable

that the false statement or fraudulent representation
of the accused,
(1) be made prior to, or, at least simultaneously
with,
(2) the delivery of the thing by the complainant.
It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent
representation constitutes the cause or only motive
which induced the complainant to part with the
thing. If there be no such prior or simultaneous false
statement or fraudulent
representation, any
subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent
and suspicious it may appear, cannot serve as a basis
for prosecution for the class of estafa.
The check must be postdated or for an obligation

contracted at the time of the issuance and delivery of
the check and not for pre-existing obligation.
Exception:
(1) When postdated checks are issued and intended
by the parties only as promissory notes
(2) When the check is issued by a guarantor
The accused must be able to obtain something from
the offended party by means of the check he issues
and delivers.
The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or no
funds in the bank to cover the check at the time he
postdated or issued a check, is sufficient to make him
liable for estafa.
A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for

estafa.
In estafa by means of deceit under Art. 315 2(a),
there must be evidence that the pretense of the
accused is false. Without such proof, criminal intent
to deceive cannot be inferred. Fraud must be proved
with clear and positive evidence.
RA 4885 deleted the phrase the offender knowing

at the time he had no funds in the bank:
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWO, PARAGRAPH (d), ARTICLE

THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN OF ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-EIGHT
HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE. (re: issuance of checks.)
Section 1. Section Two, Paragraph (d), Article Three hundred
fifteen of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and fifteen is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
Where commission salesman took back the

machines from prospective customers
and
misappropriated them, it is theft, not estafa.
Estafa through false pretenses made in writing is
only a simple crime of estafa, not a complex crime of
estafa through falsification.
PAGE
210210
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(1) the failure of the drawer to deposit the amount

needed to cover his check
(2) within 3 days from receipt of notice of dishonor
of check for lack or insufficiency of funds
(3) shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
Estafa Through Other Fraudulent Means (315 Par 3

(a) (b) (c))
Par 3 (a):
By inducing another, through deceit, to

sign any document
Elements:
(1) Offender Induced the offended party to sign a
document.
(2) That deceit be Employed to make him sign the
document.
(3) Offended party Personally signed the document.
(4) That Prejudice be caused.
Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by

postdating or issuing a check. One who got hold of a
check issued by another, knowing that the drawer
had no sufficient funds in the bank, and used the
same in the purchase of goods, is guilty of estafa.
[People v. Isleta]
Offender must induce the offended party to sign the

document. If offended party is willing from the start
to sign the document, because the contents are
different from those which the offended told the
accused to state in the document, the crime is
falsification.
PD 818 applies only to estafa under par 2(d) of Art.

315, and does not apply to other forms of estafa.
[People v Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95]
Hence, the penalty prescribed in PD 818, not the
penalty provided for in Art. 315, should be imposed
when the estafa committed is covered by par 2(d) of
Art. 315.
There can be no conviction for estafa in the absence

of proof that defendant made statements tending to
mislead complainant.
Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing crime.
Par.3 (b): By resorting to some fraudulent practice

to ensure success in a gambling game
See Special Law: BP 22 (Anti-Bouncing Checks Law)
Par.3 (c): By removing, concealing or destroying

any court record, office files, document or
any other papers
"(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an

obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that
said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense
or fraudulent act."
Section 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: June 17, 1967
2
AMENDING ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE BY
INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA COMMITTED BY
MEANS OF BOUNCING CHECKS
Section 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means of false
pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in paragraph 2(d) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 4885, shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is
over 12,000 pesos but not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such
amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty which
may be imposed shall in no case exceed thirty years. In such cases,
and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be
termed reclusion perpetua;
2nd. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed
12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period, if such
amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and,
4th. By prision mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does
not exceed 200 pesos.
Section 2. This decree shall take effect immediately.
Elements:
(1) That there be court Record, office files,
documents or any other papers
If there is no malicious intent to defraud, the
destruction of court record is malicious mischief.
Elements of deceit and abuse of confidence may coexist.
If there is neither deceit nor abuse of confidence, its
not estafa, even if there is damage. There is only civil
liability.
Deceit through Fraudulent
Means
Offender is a private
person OR a public
person not entrusted w/
documents
Infidelity in Custody of
Documents
Offender is a public
person entrusted with the
documents
There is intent to defraud Intent to defraud is not

required
PAGE
210210
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Double jeopardy does not apply because RPC is a

distinct crime from BP 22. Deceit and damage are
essential elements of RPC, which are not required in
BP 22. [Nierras vs Dacuycuy (1990)]
encumbrance, although such encumbrance be not

recorded
Elements:
(1) That the thing disposed of be Real property.
(2) Offender Knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
recorded or not.
(3) There must be Express representation by the
offender that the real property is free from
encumbrance.
(4) Act of disposing of the real property be made to
the Damage of another.
The element of damage or prejudice capable of

pecuniary estimation may consist in:
(1) The offended party being deprived of his money
or property, as result of the fraud;
(2) Disturbance in property right; or
(3) Temporary prejudice
Payment subsequent to the commission of estafa
does not extinguish criminal liability or reduce the
penalty.
Act constituting the offense is disposing of the real

property representing that it is free from
encumbrance.
The crime of estafa is not obliterated by acceptance

of promissory note.
Dispose: includes encumbering or mortgaging.
A private person who procures a loan by means of

deceit through a falsified public document of
mortgage, but paid loan within the period agreed
upon, is not guilty of estafa but only falsification of a
public document.
Encumbrance: includes every right or interest in the

land which exists in favor of third persons.
The offended party would not have granted the loan
had he known that the property was already
encumbered. When the loan had already been
granted when defendant offered the property as
security for the loan, Art. 316 par. 2 is not applicable.
Accused cannot be convicted of estafa with abuse of

confidence if charged w/ estafa by means of deceit
ARTICLE 316
- OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING AND DECEITS
Par 1. By conveying, selling, encumbering, or

mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the
owner of the same
Usurious loan with equitable mortgage

encumbrance on the property.
is not an
If 3rd element not established, there is no crime. There

Elements:
(1) That the thing be Immovable, such as a parcel of
land or a building.
(2) Offender who is not the owner of said property
should Represent that he is the owner thereof.
(3) Offender should have Executed an act of
ownership (selling, encumbering or mortgaging
the real property).
(4) Act be made to Prejudice of the owner or a third
person.
must be damage caused. It is not necessary

that act prejudice the owner of the land.
The omitted phrase as free from encumbrance in
par 2 of Art. 316 is the basis of the ruling that silence
as to such encumbrance does not involve a crime.
Par. 3. By wrongfully taking by the owner of his
personal property from its lawful possessor
The thing disposed of must be real property. If its

chattel, crime is Estafa.
Elements:
(1) Offender is the Owner of personal property.
(2) Said property is in the Lawful possession of
another.
(3) Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor.
(4) Prejudice is thereby caused to the lawful
possessor or third person.
There must be existing real property.

Even if the deceit is practiced against the second
purchaser but damage is incurred by the first
purchaser, there is violation of par.1 of Art. 316.
Since the penalty is based on the value of the
damage there must be actual damage caused.
Offender must wrongfully take the personal property

from the lawful possessor. Wrongfully take does not
include the use of violence, intimidation.
Par. 2. By disposing of real property as free from
PAGE
211211
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
If the thing is taken by means of violence, without

intent to gain, it is not estafa, but grave coercion.
ARTICLE 317 - SWINDLING OF A MINOR
Elements:
(1) That the offender Takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor.
(2) That he induces such minor
(a) to Assume an obligation, or
(b) to Give release, or
(c) to Execute a transfer of any property right.
(3) That the consideration is
(a) some Loan of money,
(b) Credit, or
(c) Other Personal property.
(4) That the transaction is to the Detriment of such
minor.
If the owner took the personal property from its

lawful possessor without the latters knowledge and
later charged him with the value of the property, the
crime is theft. If there is intent to charge the bailee
with its value, the crime is robbery. [US v Albao]
Par. 4. By executing any fictitious contract to the
prejudice of another.
Illustration: A
person
who
simulates
a
conveyance of his property to another, to defraud his
creditors. If the conveyance is real and not simulated,
the crime is fraudulent insolvency.
Real property is not included because only money,

credit and personal property are enumerated, and
because a minor cannot convey real property without
judicial authority.
Par. 5. By accepting any compensation for services

not rendered or for labor not performed
ARTICLE 318 - OTHER DECEITS
Elements:
(1) Accepting a compensation given to accused for
service not rendered
(2) Malicious failure to return the compensation
wrongfully received (fraud).
Other deceits are:

(1) By Defrauding or damaging another by any
other deceit not mentioned in the preceding
articles.
(2) By Interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by
telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of the
credulity of the public in any other manner, for
profit or gain.
There must be fraud. Otherwise, it will only be solutio

indebiti, with civil obligation to return the wrong
payment.
If the money in payment of a debt was delivered to a
wrong person, Art. 316 par 5 is not applicable.
Any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall under

this article. As in other cases of estafa, damage to
the offended party is required.
In case the person who received it later refused or

failed to return it to the owner of the money, Art. 315
subdivision 1(b) is applicable.
The deceits in this article include false pretenses

and fraudulent acts.
Chattel Mortgage
The object of the Chattel Mortgage Law is to give the
necessary sanction to the statute, so that mortgage
debtors may be deterred from violating its provisions
and mortgage creditors may be protected against
loss of inconvenience from wrongful removal or sale
of mortgaged property.
Par. 6. By selling, mortgaging or encumbering real

property or properties with which the offender
guaranteed the fulfilment of his obligation as surety
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Surety in a bond given in a criminal
or civil action.
(2) He Guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation
with his real property or properties.
(3) He Sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner
encumbers said real property.
(4) That such sale, mortgage, or encumbrance is
(a) Without express authority from the court, or
(b) Made Before the cancellation of his bond, or
(c) Before being relieved from the obligation
contracted by him.
CHAPTER 7: CHATTEL MORTGAGE

ARTICLE 319 - REMOVAL,
MORTGAGED PROPERTY
SALE, OR PLEDGE
OF
Acts punishable under Art. 319:

(1) By knowingly removing any personal property
mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law to
any province or city other than the one in which
it was located at the time of execution of the
mortgage, without the written consent of the
mortgagee or his executors, administrators or
There must be damage caused under Art. 316.
PAGE
212212
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
The consent of the mortgagee must be

(1) in writing,
(2) on the back of the mortgage, and
(3) noted on the record thereof in the office of the
register of deeds.
assigns.
(2) By selling or pledging personal property already
pledged, or 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.
Damage is NOT essential.

Chattel mortgage may give rise to estafa by means
of deceit.
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting.

If chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of
good faith and is not registered, it is void and cannot
be prosecuted under Art 319
Art 319
Art 316 Estafa
In both there is selling of a mortgaged property.

Personal property
Elements of knowingly removing mortgaged personal

property:
(1) Personal property is mortgaged under the
Chatter Mortgage Law.
(2) Offender knows that such property is so
mortgaged.
(3) He removes such mortgaged personal property
to any province or city other than the one in
which it was located at the time of the execution
of the mortgage.
(4) That the removal is permanent.
(5) That there is no written consent of the
mortgagee or his executors, administrators or
assigns to such removal.
Property involved is real

property(Art. 316 par 2)
Committed by the mere Committed by selling real

failure to obtain consent property mortgaged as
of the mortgagee in free, even though the
writing, even if offender vendor
may
have
should
inform
the obtained the consent of
purchaser that the thing the mortgagee in writing.
sold is mortgaged
Purpose: to protect the Purpose: to protect the
mortgagee
purchaser (1st or 2nd)
CHAPTER 8: ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES

INVOLVING DESTRUCTION
A person other than the mortgagor who removed the

property to another province, knowing it to be
mortgaged, may be liable. The removal of the
mortgaged personal property must be coupled with
intent to defraud.
Kinds of Arson:
(1) Arson (PD 1613, Sec. 1)
(2) Destructive arson (Art. 320, as amended by RA
7659)
(3) Other cases of arson (Sec. 3, PD 1613)
No felonious intent if transfer of personal property is

due to change of residence.
Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson

Attempted arson: A person, intending to burn a
wooden structure, collects some rags, soaks them in
gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall of
the building. When he about to light a match to set
fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who
chases him away. In attempted arson, it is not
necessary that there be a fire.
If the mortgagee opted to file for collection, not

foreclosure, abandoning the mortgage as basis for
relief, the removal of property to another province is
not a violation of Art 319 par1.
In estafa, the property involved is real property. In
sale of mortgaged property, it is personal property.
Frustrated arson: If that person is able to light or set

fire to the rags, but the fire was put out before any
part of the building was burned.
Elements of selling or pledging personal property

already pledged:
(1) That personal property is already pledged under
the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
(2) That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such
property, sells or pledges the same or any part
thereof.
(3) That 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 register
of deeds.
Consummated arson: If before the fire was put out, it

had burned a part of the building.
If the property burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling, it is not required that the house be
occupied by one or more persons and the offender
knew it when the house was burned.
PAGE
213213
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(3) Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or

mine shaft, platform or tunnel
(4) Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop,
grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
(5) Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central
(6) Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse
No complex crime of arson with homicide. If by

reason of or on the occasion of arson death results,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed. Homicide is absorbed.
Any of 7 circumstances in Sec. 6 of PD 1613 is
sufficient to establish fact of arson if unexplained.
Article 320, RPC, as amended, with respect to

destructive arson, and the provisions of PD 1613
respecting other cases of arson provide only one
penalty for the commission of arson, whether
destructive or otherwise, where death
results
therefrom. The raison detre is that arson is itself the
end and death is simply the consequence.
How is the crime of Arson proved?

In the prosecution for Arson, proof of the crime
charged is complete where the evidence establishes:
1. the corpus delicti, i.e., a fire because of criminal
agency; and
2. the identity of the defendant as the one
responsible for the crime.
In cases where both burning and death occur, in

order to determine what crime/crimes was/were
perpetrated whether arson, murder, or arson and
homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the
main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main
objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but
death results by reason or on the occasion of arson,
the crime is simply Arson, and the resulting homicide
is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the main
objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the
means to accomplish such goal, the crime
committed is Murder only; and lastly, (c) if the
objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and
in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted to as means to cover up the killing, then
there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed Homicide/Murder and Arson
In Arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of

the bare fact of the fire and of it having been
intentionally caused. [Gonzales, Jr. v. People, GR No.
159950, Feb. 12, 2007]
PD 1613, 1. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
SEC. 2. Destructive ArsonThe penalty of Reclusion

Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion
Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is
any of the following:
(1) Any
ammunition
factory
and
other
establishment where explosives, inflammable or
combustible materials are stored.
(2) Any archive, museum, whether public or private,
or any edifice devoted to culture, education or
social services.
(3) Any church or place of worship or other building
where people usually assemble.
(4) Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or
watercraft, or conveyance for transportation of
persons or property.
(5) Any building where evidence is kept for use in
any legislative, judicial, or administrative or
other official proceeding.
(6) Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house,
housing tenement, shopping center, public or
private market, theater or movie house or any
similar place or building.
(7) Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not,
situated in a populated or congested area.
CHAPTER 9 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: It is the willful causing of
damage to anothers property for the sake of causing
damage because of hate, revenge or other evil
motive.
ARTICLE 327 - WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE
Elements of malicious mischief:

(1) Offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another.
(2) Such act does not constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction
(3) Act of damaging anothers property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
SEC. 3. Other Cases of ArsonThe penalty of

Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be
imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:
(1) Any building used as offices of the government or
any of its agencies
(2) Any inhabited house or dwelling
If there is no malice in causing damage, the

obligation to pay for the damages is only civil (Art.
2176
)
PAGE
214214
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
ARTICLE 331 DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES,

PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS
Damage means not only loss but also diminution of

what is a mans own. Thus, damage to anothers
house includes defacing it. [People v Asido]
ARTICLE 328
The penalty is lower if the thing destroyed is a public

painting, rather than a public monument.
- SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF

CHAPTER 10: EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Special cases of malicious mischief: (qualified

malicious mischief)
(1) causing damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions
(2) using any poisonous or corrosive substance
(3) Spreading infection or contagion among cattle
(4) causing damage to property of the National
Museum or National Library, or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any
other thing used in common by the public.
ARTICLE 332 - EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Crimes involved in the exemption:

(1) Theft
(2) Swindling (estafa)
(3) Malicious mischief
If the crime is robbery, exemption does not lie.
Persons exempt from criminal liability:
(1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line.
(2) The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same passed into the
possession of another.
(3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
ARTICLE 329
- OTHER MISCHIEFS
Other mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are
punished based on value of the damage caused.
If the amount involved cannot be estimated, the
penalty of arresto menor of fine not exceeding P200
is fixed by law.
When several persons scattered coconut remnants
which contained human excrement on the stairs and
floor of the municipal building, including its interior,
the crime committed is malicious mischief under Art.
329. [People v Dumlao]
The law recognizes the presumed co-ownership of

the property between the offender and the offended
party. There is no criminal, but only civil liability.
Art. 332 does not apply to a stranger
participates in the commission of the crime.
ARTICLE 330 - DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF

COMMUNICATION
Committed by damaging any railway, telegraph, or

telephone lines. If the damage shall result in any
derailment of cars, collision, or other accident, a
higher penalty shall be imposed. (Qualifying
Circumstance)
who
Stepfather
and stepmother are included as
ascendants by affinity. [People v Alvarez; People v
Adame]
Guevarra: An adopted or natural child should also be
considered as included in the term descendants
and a concubine or paramour within the term
spouses.
Telegraph/phone lines must pertain to railways.

Q: What is the crime when, as a result of the damage
caused to railway, certain passengers of the train are
killed?
Art. 332 also applies to common-law spouses. [Art.

144, CC; People v Constantino]
A: It depends. Art. 330 says without prejudice to the

criminal liability of the offender for other
consequences of his criminal act.
Jurisprudence
THEFT
The fact that beans (subject of the crime were sacks
of beans) were scattered on the floor inside and in
front of the stall of petitioner and in the parking lot
does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
petitioner is the perpetrator of the crime.
If there is no intent to kill, the crime is damages to

means to means of communication with homicide
because of the first paragraph of Art. 4 and Art. 48.
If there is intent to kill, and damaging the railways
was the means to accomplish the criminal purpose,
the crime is murder
This cannot be equated with the principle of law that

a person in possession or control of stolen goods is
presumed to be the author of the larceny. Absent
PAGE
215215
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
proof of any stolen property in the possession of a

person, as in the case at bar, no presumption of guilt
can arise. The place was a market and presumably,
petitioner was not the only vendor of beans.
crime is the special complex crime of Robbery with

Rape. So long as the intent of the accused is to rob,
rape may be committed before, during or after the
robbery. But if the primary intent ofthe accused was
to rape and his taking away the belongings of the
victim was only a mere afterthought, two separate
felonies are committed: Rape and Theft or Robbery
depending upon the circumstances surrounding the
unlawful taking. [People v. Naag, GR No. 1361394,
Feb. 15, 2001]
Where the proven facts and circumstances are

capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with innocence and the other with guilt,
the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused.
[Aoas v. People (2008)]
QUALIFIED THEFT (Abuse of Confidence)

Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees
of Western does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law requires.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
It is clear that the place of the commission of the
crime was a residential and commercial building
located in an urban and populated area. This
qualifying circumstance places the offense squarely
within the ambit of Section 2(7) of P.D. 1613, and
converts it to destructive arson.
The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that

there be a relation of independence, guardianship or
vigilance between the petitioners and Western.
It was also established that the subject building was

insured against fire for an amount substantially more
than its market value, a fact that has given rise to the
unrebutted prima facie evidence of arson, as
provided in Section 6 of P.D. 1613. [Amora v. People
(2008)]
Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive

payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping,
preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely
assisted customers in making a purchase and in
demonstrating the merchandise to prospective
buyers. While they had access to the merchandise,
they had no access to the cashiers booth or to the
cash payments subject of the offense. [Astudillo vs.
People(2006)]
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

Does not include taking the gun to shoot its previous
holder. The Court disagrees with the Court of
Appeals that appellant committed the crime of
robbery with homicide. There is nothing in the
records that would show that the principal purpose
of appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun
(Serial No. 9600942).
THEFT (Corpus Delicti)

The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable
for the charges on the ground that he was not
caught in possession of the missing funds. This is
clutching at straws. To be caught in possession of
the stolen property is not an element of the corpus
delicti in theft.
It must be emphasized that when the victim and

appellant met and had a heated argument, the
absence of the intent to rob on the part of the
appellant was apparent. Appellant was not trying to
rob the victim. Appellants act of taking the shotgun
was not for the purpose of robbing the victim, but to
protect himself from the victim.
Corpus delicti means the body or substance of the

crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that
the crime has been actually committed.
In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely:
(1) that the property was lost by the owner, and
(2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
No one would in ones right mind just leave a firearm

lying around after being in a heated argument with
another person.
In the case before us, these two elements were

established. The amounts involved were lost by WUP
because petitioner took them without authority to do
so. [Gan vs. People(2007)]
Having failed to establish that appellants original

criminal design was robbery, appellant could only be
convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or
homicide, as the case may be, and theft. [People vs.
Lara]
THEFT; Attempted or Consummated only

The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not
been designed in such fashion as to accommodate
the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is
no language in Article 308 that expressly or
impliedly allows that the free disposition of the
ROBBERY WITH RAPE

If the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape
was committed even before the asportation, the
PAGE
216216
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
items stolen is in any way determinative of whether

the crime of theft has been produced. We thus
conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is
no crime of frustrated theft.[Valenzuela vs. People
(2007)]
(5) Some LGUs have anti-Cable Television Theft

Ordinances.
(6) Theft of Forestry Products (PD 330);
(7) Theft of Minerals/Ores (PD 581);
Cases:
(a) Theft by bank teller considered Qualified Theft
[Roque vs. People(2004)]
(b) Grave abuse of confidence, requirements
[Astudillo vs. People(2006)]
(c) Carnapping vs. Qualified Theft [People vs.
Bustinera(2004)]
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; (Absorption Theory

applied)
Attempted
homicide or attempted murder
committed during or on the occasion of the robbery,
as in this case, is absorbed in the crime of Robbery
with Homicide which is a special complex crime that
remains fundamentally the same regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed in
connection with the robbery. [People v. Cabbab,
Jr.(2007)]
ESTAFA
(a) Conversion/Misappropriation, explained [Lee
vs. People (2005)]
(b) Estafa may coincide with Illegal recruitment
[People vs. Hernandez (2002)]
(c) Deceit/False Pretense, explained [Pablo vs.
People (2004)]
(d) SYNDICATED
ESTAFA/Economic
Sabotage
(Presidential Decree No. 1689)Ponzi scheme;
Pyramid Scams
ESTAFA; Essence of Misappropriation

The words convert and misappropriate connote
an act of using or disposing of anothers property as
if it were ones own or devoting it to a purpose or use
different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate
for ones own use includes not only conversion to
ones personal advantage but also every attempt to
dispose of the property of another without any right.
[Tan vs. People]
Case:
Soliciting funds from and eventually defrauding the
general
public constitutes syndicated estafa
amounting to economic sabotage [People vs. Balasa
(1998)]
ESTAFA (Sale of jewelry; Failure to return)

In an agency for the sale of jewelries, as in the
present case, it is the agents duty to return the
jewelry upon demand of the owner and failure to do
so is evidence of conversion of the property by the
agent. In other words, the demand for the return of
the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the
accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence
of misappropriation. However, this presumption is
rebuttable. If the accused is able to satisfactorily
explain his failure to produce the thing delivered in
trust or to account for the money, he may not be held
liable for estafa. [People v. Manantan]
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW

(a) Modes of committing violations of BP 22;
(b) Presumptions/Evidentiary Rules
Cases:
(a) Rule of Preference in BP 22 violations: Court
may impose imprisonment or a fine [Bernardo vs.
People (2007)]
(b) Only a full payment of the face value of the
second check at the time of its presentment or
during the five-day grace period could exonerate
one from criminal liability. [Macalalag vs. People
(2006)]
ADDITIONAL NOTES
THEFT
(a) Presumption of thievery -- possession of stolen
goods [People vs. Dela Cruz (2000)]
(b) No frustrated theft; Either attempted or
consummated only [Valenzuela vs. People
(2007)]
See Also:
(1) PD 1612: Anti-Fencing Law
(2) BP 22: Bouncing Check Law
(3) RA 6539: Anti-Carnapping Act
(4) RA 9372: Human Security Act
(5) PD 1613: Anti-Arson Law
QUALIFIED THEFT
Related Laws
(1) Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA 6539);
(2) Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD 533);
(3) Heavier Penalties for Thefts by Employees and
Laborers (PD 133);
(4) Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act (RA 7832);
PAGE
217217
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(3) Slander by deed defamation through acts
Title XIII. Crimes against

Honor
Test of the defamatory character of words used:

Whether they are calculated to induce the hearers to
suppose and understand that the person against
whom they (i.e. the defamatory words) were uttered
was guilty of certain offenses; OR are sufficient to
impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold
him up to public ridicule. (U.S. vs. OConnell)
Chapter I: Libel
(1) Art 353: Definition of Libel
(2) Art 354: Privileged communication
(3) Art 355: Libel by means of writings or similar
means
(4) Art 356: Threatening to publish and offer to
prevent such publication for a compensation
(5) Art. 357: Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred
to in the course of Official Proceedings
(6) Art 358: Slander
(7) Art 359: Slander by Deed
First element: There must be an imputation of a

crime, a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
Imputation of a criminal act may be implied from the
acts and statements of the accused.
Chapter II: Incriminatory Machinations

(1) Art 363: Incriminating innocent person
(2) Art 364: Intriguing against honor
Imputation of criminal intention is not libelous.

An expression of opinion by one affected by the act
of another and based on actual fact is not libelous.
CHAPTER I LIBEL
ARTICLE 353
Second element: The imputation must be made

publicly.
- DEFINITION OF LIBEL
Elements:
(1) There must be an imputation of
(a) a crime,
(b) a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR
(c) any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance;
(2) The imputation must be made publicly;
(3) It must be malicious;
(4) The imputation must be directed at a natural or
juridical person, or one who is dead.
Publication: communication of the defamatory

matter to some third person or persons. There is no
crime if the defamatory imputation is not published.
Third element: The publication must be malicious.
Malice in fact may be shown by proof of ill-will,
hatred or purpose to injure.
Malice in law presumed from a defamatory
imputation. Proof of malice is not required. (Art. 354,
par.1)
Libel as used in Art. 353. (Reyes)

Defamation is composed of:
(1) Libel written defamation
(2) Slander- oral defamation
But where the communication is privileged, malice is

not presumed from the defamatory words.
Malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent with
honest or laudable purpose. Even if the publication is
injurious, the presumption of malice disappears upon
proof of good intentions and justifiable motive.
But where malice in fact is present, justifiable motive
cannot exist, and the imputations become
actionable.
Fourth element: The imputation must be directed at
a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.
It is essential that the victim be identifiable, although
it is not necessary that he be named.
PAGE
218218
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons is

not actionable unless the statements are allembracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to be
identifiable.
without any comments or remarks, of

(a) any judicial, legislative or other official
proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, OR
(b) any statement, report or speech delivered in
said proceedings, OR
(c) any other act performed by public officers in
the exercise of their functions.
Libel published in different places may be taken

together to establish the identification of the
offended party.
Fifth element: The imputation must tend to cause
dishonor, discredit or contempt of the offended
party.
Defamatory remarks are PRESUMED malicious. The

presumption of malice is REBUTTED, if it is shown by
the accused that (see discussion of Art. 361)
(1) The defamatory imputation is true, IN CASE the
law allows proof of the truth of the imputation;
(2) It is published with good intention; AND
(3) There is justifiable motive for making it
Dishonor disgrace, shame or ignominy

Discredit loss of credit of reputation; disesteem
Contempt state of being despised
For a statement to be considered malicious, it must
be shown that it was written or published with the
knowledge that they are false OR in reckless
disregard of WON they were false.
Privileged communication is NOT PRESUMED

malicious.
Kinds of Privilege:
ABSOLUTE
Reckless disregard the defendant entertains serious

doubt as to the truth of the publication, OR that he
QUALIFIED
NOT actionable. Narrow Actionable IF
possesses a high degree of awareness of their

probable falsity.
To avoid self-censorship that would necessarily
accompany strict liability for erroneous statements,
rules governing liability for injury to reputation are
required to allow an adequate margin of error by
protecting some inaccuracies. [Borjal v. CA (1999)]
Fine preferred penalty in libel cases
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 stated the rule
of preference of fine only rather than imprisonment
in libel cases, having in mind the ff. principles:
1) The circular does not remove imprisonment as a n
alternative penalty
2) Judges may, in the exercise of their discretion,
determine whether the imposition of fine alone
would best serve the interest of justice
faith
Malice or
and few:
Bad
is
(1) Privileged speeches in

congress
(2) Statements made in
judicial proceedings
as long as they are
relevant to the issue
(3) Military affairs
(malice in Fact)
proven
Based on par 1 and 2 of

Art 354, although the list
is not exclusive
Art 354 does not cover absolute privilege because

character of communications mentioned therein is
lost upon proof of malice in fact.
MALICE IN LAW
MALICE IN FACT
Presumed
from To
be
proved
defamatory character of prosecution ONLY
by
IF
3) Should only a fine be imposed and the accused

unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to
statement
malice in law has been

rebutted
the application
imprisonment.
Statement is presented to
court, and the latter will
decide whether it is
defamatory or not
Can be negated by
evidence of:
(1) Good motives AND
Justifiable ends; or
(2) Privileged character
of
the
RPC
on
subsidiary
ARTICLE 354 - REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY
General rule: MALICE IS PRESUMED in every

defamatory imputation.
performance of any legal, moral or social duty;

(2) A fair and true report, made in good faith,
Exception: in privileged communications, namely:

(1) A private communication to an officer or a
board, or superior, having some interest or duty
in the matter, made by any person in the
PAGE 219
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Requisites of privileged communication under par. 1

of art. 354:
(1) That the person who made the communication
had a legal, moral or social duty to make the
communication, or, at least, he had an interest
to be upheld;
PAGE 220
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in

his doings, his affairs and his character, has become
a public personage [Ayer Productions v. Capulong
(1988)]
(2) That the communication is addressed to an

officer or board, or superior, having some
interest or duty in the matter.
(3) The the statements in the communication are
made in good faith without malice in fact.
Based on the ruling in US v. Ocampo, proof of

knowledge of and participation in the publication of
the offending article is not required, if the accused
has been specifically identified as author, editor, or
proprietor or printer/publisher of the publication.
Applying to the wrong person due to honest mistake

does not take the case out of privilege. (US v. Bustos,
37 Phil. 731)
Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith.
On January 25, 2008,

the Court issued
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, entitled
Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in
the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases. The
Circular expresses a preference for the imposition of
a fine rather than imprisonment, given the
circumstances attendant in the cases cited therein in
which only a fine was imposed by this Court on those
convicted of libel.
The privileged character simply does away with the

presumption of malice.
The rule is that a communication loses its privileged
character and is actionable on proof of actual malice.
That the statement is a privileged communication is
a matter of defense. To overcome the defense of
privileged communication under par. 1 of art. 354, it
must be shown that:
1) The defendant acted with malice in fact; or
2) There is no reasonable ground for believing the
charge to be true.
It also states that, if the penalty imposed is merely a

fine but the convict is unable to pay the same, the
Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment should apply.
However, the Circular likewise allows the court, in the
exercise of sound discretion, the option to impose
imprisonment as penalty, whenever the imposition of
a fine alone would depreciate the seriousness of the
offense, work violence on the social order, or
otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice.
[Fermin v. People(2008)]
Fair and true report of official proceedings

Official proceedings refer to proceedings of the 3
branches of the government: judiciary, legislative,
and executive.
Requisites:
(1) That it is a fair and true report of a judicial,
legislative, or other official proceedings which are
not confidential in nature, or of a statement,
report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or
of any other act performed by a public officer in
the exercise of his functions.
(2) That it is made in good faith; and
(3) That it is without comments or remarks
ARTICLE 355
- LIBEL BY WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
Libel may be committed by means of:

(1) Writing;
(2) Printing;
(3) Lithography;
(4) Engraving;
(5) Radio;
(6) Photograph;
(7) Painting;
(8) Theatrical exhibition;
(9) Cinematographic exhibition; or
(10) Any similar means. (e.g. video broadcast)
The communication must be pertinent and material

to the subject matter.
Doctrine of fair comment: Fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
slander.
Common characteristic of written libel:

permanent nature as a means of publication.
In order that a discreditable imputation to a public

official may be actionable, it must either be:
(1) A false allegation of fact; OR
(2) A comment based on a false supposition. [People
v. Velasco (2000)]
their
Use of amplifier system is not libel but oral

defamation (slander). But the defamation made in
the television program is libel.
PUBLIC FIGURE one who, by his accomplishments,

fame, mode of living, OR by adopting a profession or
In a libel case filed in August 2006 against RP

Nuclear Solutions and blogger Abe Olandres, the
PAGE 221
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Pasig City Prosecutor dismissed the charges against

them because they have no participation in the
creation. Neither did they have the
authority to
modify the content of the site being hosted where
3
the allegedly libelous remarks were posted.
(2) That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue

and reputation of said person.
This article is referred to as the Gag Law.
Prohibition applies even if the facts are involved in
official proceedings.
The prosecutor however ordered the filing of cases

against two other respondents who never denied
authorship of the posted comments.
Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery,

divorce, legitimacy of children, etc. are barred from
publication.
It remains debatable when the moment of

publication occurs with respect to statements made
4
over the Internet. One view holds that there is
publication once the statement is uploaded or posted
on a website. The other view maintains that
publication occurs only when another person gains
access or reads the statement on the site
Under RA 1477, a newspaper reporter cannot be

compelled to reveal the source of the news report he
made, UNLESS the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by
the security of the state.
ARTICLE 358
- SLANDER
Slander, or oral defamation is composed of two kinds:
(1) Simple slander
(2) Grave slander
ARTICLE 356 - THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO

PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
Acts Punished:
(1) Threatening another to publish a libel
concerning him, his parents, spouse, child or
other members of his family
(2) Offering to prevent the publication of such libel
for compensation or money consideration.
Factors that determine the gravity of the oral

defamation:
(1) Expressions used
(2) Personal relations of the accused and the
offended party.
(3) The surrounding circumstances.
The essence of this crime is blackmail, which is

defined as any unlawful extortion of money by
threats of accusation or exposure.
Illustration of grave slander:

A woman of violent temper hurled at a respectable
married lady with young daughters offensive and
scurrilous epithets including words imputing
unchastity to the mother and tending to injure the
character of the daughters [U.S. vs. Toloso]
Blackmail can also be in the form of light threats,

which is punished under ARTICLE 283.
ARTICLE 357 - PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
(GAG LAW)
Illustration of simple slander:

(1) Calling a person a gangster
(2) Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger
with some provocation on the part of the
offended party
(3) The word putang ina mo is a common
expression in the dialect that is often employed
not really to slander but rather to express anger
or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever taken in its
literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection
on the virtue of a mother. [Reyes vs. People]
Elements:
(1) Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine;
(2) He publishes facts connected with the private
life of another;
(3) Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person.
Requisites of violation:
(1) That the article published contains facts
connected with the private life of an individual;
and
The slander need not be heard by the offended party.

ARTICLE 359
- SLANDER BY DEED
Elements:
(1) Offender performs any act not included in any
other crime against honor;
(2) Such act is performed in the presence of other
person or persons;
(3) Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/
view_article.php?article_id=68456
4
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-onthe-internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/)
PAGE 222
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Liability of the editor is the same as that of the

author.
upon the offended party.

Slander by deed is a crime against honor which is
committed by performing any act which casts
dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another
person.
Lack of participation in the preparation of libelous

articles does not shield the persons responsible from
liability.
Under Republic Act no. 8792, otherwise known as
the Electronic Commerce Act, a party or person
acting as a service provider incurs NO civil or criminal
liability in the making, publication, dissemination or
distribution of libelous material if:
(1) The service provider does not have actual
knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or
circumstances from which it is apparent that
making,
publication,
dissemination
or
distribution of such material is unlawful or
infringes any rights;
(2) The service provider does not knowingly receive
a financial benefit directly attributable to the
infringing activity;
(3) The service provider does:
(a) not directly commit any infringement or
other unlawful act and
(b) does not induce or cause another person or
party to commit any infringement or other
unlawful act
(c) and/or does not benefit financially from the
infringing activity or unlawful act of another
person or party (Section 30, in relation to
5
Section 5, E-Commerce Law.
Slander by deed is of two kinds

(1) Simple slander by deed
(2) Grave slander by deed
There is no fixed standard in determining whether a
slander is serious or not; hence the courts have
sufficient discretion to determine the same, basing
the finding on the attendant circumstances and
matters relevant thereto.
Slapping the face of another is slander by deed if the
intention of the accused is to cause shame or
humiliation.
Fighting the offended party with intention to insult
him is slander by deed.
Pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by
deed.
Slander by deed and acts of lasciviousness
distinguished by presence of lewd designs. If such is
present, it is an act of lasciviousness.
Slander by deed and maltreatment the nature and
effect of maltreatment determines the crime
committed. If the offended party suffered from
shame or humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it
is slander by deed.
Where to file the criminal action? It depends on who

the offended party is.
If he is a public officer, the criminal action can only
be instituted in either:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed and first published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he held office
at the time of the commission of the offense
Slander by deed and unjust vexation If it merely

annoys and irritates, without any other concurring
factor, it is unjust vexation. If the irritation or
annoyance was attended by publicity and dishonor, it
is slander by deed.
If he is a private person, the criminal action may be

brought in:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed and first published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he actually
resided at the time of the commission of the
offense
ARTICLE 360 - PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
(1) The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the

publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or similar means.
(2) The author or editor of a book or pamphlet.
(3) The editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper magazine or serial publication.
(4) The owner of the printing plant which
Civil and criminal action must be filed with the same

court.
publishes a libelous article with his consent

and all other persons who in any way
participate in or have connection with its
publication.
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-onthe-internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/)
PAGE 223
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Offended party must filed the complaint for

defamation imputing a crime which cannot be
utterance
unknown
prosecuted de officio.
the
is where
and source
offender defamatory
simply repeats
or passes the
same to blemish
the honor or
reputation
of
another
Libel imputing a vice or defect, not being an

imputation of a crime, is always prosecuted upon
information signed and filed by the fiscal.
An action for exemplary damages in libel may be
awarded if the action is based on quasi-delict.
the by which
of the directly
nature of the
utterance
is
known,
and
offender makes
a republication
thereof
incriminates
he
or
imputes to an
innocent person
the commission
of a crime
As far as this crime is concerned, this has been

interpreted to be possible only in the so-called
planting of evidence. If this act is resorted to, to
enable officers to arrest the subject, the crime is
unlawful arrest through incriminating innocent
persons.
No remedy for damages for slander or libel in case of

absolutely privileged communication.
ARTICLE 361 - PROOF OF TRUTH
When admissible?
(1) When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
crime regardless of whether the offended party is
a private individual or a public officer.
(2) When the offended party is a Government
employee, even if the imputation does not
constitute a crime, provided it is related to the
discharge of his official duties.
This crime cannot be committed through verbal

incriminatory statements.
Incriminating
innocent person
Perjury by
making false
accusations
act of planting giving of false

evidence and the statement under
like in order to oath or making a
incriminate
an false affidavit,
innocent person imputing to the
person the
commission of a
crime
Rule of actual malice: Even if the defamatory

statement is false, NO liability can attach IF it relates
to official conduct, UNLESS the public official
concerned proves that the statement was made with
actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that it was false or
with reckless disregard of WON it was false.
That the publication of the article was an honest
mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to
mitigate damages where article is libelous per se.
ARTICLE 364
ARTICLE 362 - LIBELOUS REMARKS
Defamation
public and
malicious
imputation
calculated to
cause dishonor,
discredit, or
contempt upon
the offended
party
- INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
(1) Intriguing against honor is referred to as

gossiping: the offender, without ascertaining the
truth of a defamatory utterance, repeats the
same and pass it on to another, to the damage
of the offended party
(2) This crime is committed by any person who shall
make any intrigue which has for its principal
purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of
another person.
(1) Libelous remarks or comments

(2) connected with the matter privileged under the
provisions of Art. 354,
(3) if made with malice,
(4) shall NOT exempt the author thereof nor the
editor or managing editor of a newspaper from
criminal liability.
Libelous remarks or comments on matters
privileged, if made with malice in fact, do not exempt
the author and editor.
Committed by any person who shall make any

intrigue which has for its principal purpose to
blemish the honor or reputation of another person.
CHAPTER II: INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
Jurisprudence
ARTICLE 363 - INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
Intriguing
against honor
Slander
Incriminating
innocent person
Libel against a public official

An open letter addressed to the stockholders of
OPMC was the subject of a full-page advertisement
published in 5 major daily newspapers. Coyiuto, Jr.,
the source of the offender made offender

defamatory
the
utterance, performs an act
PAGE 224
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
wrote in his capacity as Chairman of the Board and
PAGE 225
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
President of OPMC, that there was a sweetheart deal

between Commissioner Mario Jalandoni of the PCGG
and Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) to the
prejudice of the Government .
backdrop of the case, the oral defamation was only

slight. The trial court believed the defamation to be
deliberately done to destroy Atty. Escolango's
reputation since the parties were political opponents.
The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the
parties were also neighbors: that petitioner was
drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words;
and the fact that petitioner's anger was instigated by
what Atty. Escolango did when petitioner's father
died. In which case, the oral defamation was not of
serious or insulting nature.
In the recent case of Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, et.

al., the Court ruled that: "The question is whether
from the fact that the statements were defamatory,
malice can be presumed so that it was incumbent
upon petitioner to overcome such presumption.
Under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the
defamatory statement is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his official
duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is
shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal
even though he does not prove that the imputation
was published with good motives and for justifiable
ends."
In Reyes v. People, we ruled that the expression

"putang ina mo" is a common enough utterance in
the dialect that is often employed, not really to
slander but rather to express anger or displeasure.
In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that
punctuates one's expression of profanity. We do not
find it seriously insulting that after a previous
incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader
on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words
expressing anger. Obviously, the intention was to
show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily
to insult the latter. [Rogelio Pader v. People (2000)]
Moreover, the Court has ruled in a plethora of cases

that in libel cases against public officials which relate
to official conduct liability will attach only if the
public official concerned proves that the statement
was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge
that it was false.
Imputations regarding official conduct do not carry
the presumption of malice, hence even if the
defamatory statement is false, if malice was not
proven, there is no libel. Here petitioner failed to
prove actual malice on the part of the private
respondents. Nor was the Court of the opinion that
the open letter was written to cast aspersion on the
good name of the petitioner.
Venue of criminal and civil actions in libel cases (Art.

360 and RA 4363 AN ACT TO FURTHER AMEND
ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED SIXTY OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE)
Alfie Lorenzo, Allen Macasaet, Nicolas Quijano, Jr.,
and Roger Parajes, columnist, publisher, managing
editor, and editor, respectively of the newspaper
"Abante" were charged before the RTC, with the
crime of libel. Respondents tried to have the
complaint dismissed on the basis that Trinidad, the
complainant was not a resident of Quezon City but
rather of Marikina. However, the RTC and the Court
of Appeals upheld Trinidad.
The paid advertisement merely served as a vehicle to

inform the stockholders of the goings-on in the
business world and only exposed the irregularities
surrounding the PCGG and RCBC deal and the
parties involved. [Mario C.V Jalandoni v Secretary of
Justice(2000)]
HELD: In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule

that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the place where the
crime was committed determines not only the venue
of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction.
Slander (Art. 358)

Atty. Benjamin C. Escolango was conversing with his
political leaders at the terrace of his house when
Rogelio Pader appeared at the gate and shouted
"putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya
mo!" The latter was dumbfounded and embarrassed.
At that time, Atty. Escolango was a candidate for vice
mayor in the 1995 elections. Atty. Escolango filed
with the Municipal Trial Court a complaint against
Pader for grave oral defamation. The MTC rendered
decision convicting petitioner of grave oral
defamation.
In the case of Uy v. Court of Appeals and People of the

Philippines, this Court had the occasion to expound
on this principle. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases:
(1) the offense should have been committed or any
one of its essential ingredients took place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
(2) Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused.
HELD: Unquestionably, the words uttered were

defamatory. Considering, however, the factual
PAGE 226
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(3) Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person

charged with an offense allegedly committed
outside of that limited territory.
(4) Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the
criminal case is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information.
(5) And once it is so shown, the court may validly
take cognizance of the case.
(6) However, if the evidence adduced during the
trial show that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
action for want of jurisdiction.
individual and where he was actually residing at that

time.
Whenever possible, the place where the written
defamation was printed and first published should
likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine
qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel was
printed and first published is used as the basis of the
venue of the action. [Macasaet v. People (2005)]
Unsealed letters
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended
party
constitutes
publication. [Magno
vs.
People(2006)]
The law, however, is more particular in libel cases. The

possible venues for the institution of the criminal and
the civil aspects of said case are concisely outlined
in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 4363.
What constitutes publication; Fine Instead of

Imprisonment
There is publication in this case. In libel, publication
means making the defamatory matter, after it is
written, known to someone other than the person
against whom it has been written.
In Agbayani v. Sayo, we summarized the foregoing

rule in the following manner:
(1) Whether the offended party is a public official or
a private person, the criminal action may be filed
in the Court of First Instance of the province or
city where the libelous article is printed and first
published.
(2) If the offended party is a private individual, the
criminal action may also be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province where he actually
resided at the time of the commission of the
offense.
(3) If the offended party is a public officer whose
office is in Manila at the time of the commission
of the offense, the action may be filed in the
Court of First Instance of Manila.
(4) If the offended party is a public officer holding
office outside of Manila, the action may be filed
in the Court of First Instance of the province or
city where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense.
Petitioners subject letter-reply itself states that the

same was copy furnished to all concerned. Also,
petitioner had dictated the letter to his secretary. It
is enough that the author of the libel complained of
has communicated it to a third person. Furthermore,
the letter, when found in the mailbox, was open, not
contained in an envelope thus, open to public.
While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find the
reasons behind the imposition of fine instead of
imprisonment applicable to petitioners case of libel.
We note that this is petitioners first offense of this
nature. He never knew respondent prior to the
demand letter sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco
who then sought his assistance thereto. He appealed
from the decision of the RTC and the CA in his belief
that he was merely exercising a civil or moral duty in
writing the letter to private complainant. In fact,
petitioner could have applied for probation to evade
prison term but he did not do so believing that he did
not commit a crime thus, he appealed his case.
In the case at bar, private respondent was a private

citizen at the time of the publication of the alleged
libelous article, hence, he could only file his libel suit
in the City of Manila where Abante was first
published or in the province or city where he actually
resided at the time the purported libelous article was
printed.
We believe that the State is concerned not only in the

imperative necessity of protecting the social
organization against the criminal acts of destructive
individuals but also in redeeming the individual for
economic usefulness and other social ends.
Consequently, we delete the prison sentence
imposed on petitioner and instead impose a fine of
six thousand pesos.
This Court finds it appropriate to reiterate our earlier

pronouncement in the case of Agbayani, to wit: In
order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the
criminal action for written defamation, the complaint
or information should contain allegations as to
whether, at the time the offense was committed, the
offended party was a public officer or a private
This is not the first time that we removed the penalty

of imprisonment and imposed a fine instead in the
crime of libel. In Sazon v. Court of Appeals, petitioner
was convicted of libel and was meted a penalty of
imprisonment and fine; and upon a petition filed
PAGE 227
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
with us, we affirmed the findings of libel but changed

the penalty imposed to a mere fine. [Buatis vs. People
(2006)]
See Also: AC 08-2008: Re: Guidelines in the

Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition
of Penalties in Libel Cases
Slight Oral Defamation

The Court does not condone the vilification or use of
scurrilous language on the part of petitioner, but
following the rule that all possible circumstances
favorable to the accused must be taken in his favor, it
is our considered view that the slander committed by
petitioner can be characterized as slight slander
following the doctrine that: uttering defamatory
words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on
the part of the offended party, constitutes only a
light felony. [Villanueva vs. People (2006)]
Title XIV. Quasi-Offenses

ARTICLE 365 - IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Quasi-offenses punished:
(1) Committing through reckless imprudence any
act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave or less grave felony or light
felony;
(2) Committing through simple imprudence or
negligence an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
(3) Causing damage to the property of another
through
reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence;
(4) Causing through
simple imprudence or
negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light
felony.
Effect of Name-calling
While it is true that a publication's libelous nature
depends on its scope, spirit and motive taken in their
entirety, the article in question as a whole explicitly
makes mention of private complainant Rivera all
throughout.
It cannot be said that the article was a mere general
commentary on the alleged existing state of affairs
at the aforementioned public market. Rivera was not
only specifically pointed out several times therein but
was even tagged
with derogatory names.
Indubitably, this name-calling was, as correctly
found by the two courts below, directed at the very
person of Rivera himself. [Figueroa vs. People (2006)]
Imprudence
Negligence
Both indicate a deficiency of action

Failure in precaution
Victim Identifiable
The last element of libel is that the victim is
identified or identifiable from the contents of the
libelous article.
Failure in advertence
Imprudence or negligence is not a crime itself; it is

simply a way of committing a crime.
The rules for graduating penalties (under Art. 64)
based on mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are NOT applicable to offenses punishable thru
criminal negligence.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that

the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that the person be named. It is enough
ifby intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if
the publication contains matters of description or
reference to facts and circumstances from which
others reading the article may know the person
alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by
extraneous circumstances so that those knowing
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: failure to render

immediate assistance to the injured party. This
qualifying circumstance must be distinguished from
6
the punishable OMISSION under Article 275.
such person could and did understand that he was

the person referred to.
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of

one's own victim. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed
upon:
1.
Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person
whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger
of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious
offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another
whom he has accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven
years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities
or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.
Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule

that this requirement is complied withwhere a third
person recognized or could identify the party vilified
in the article. [People vs. Ogie Diaz (2007)]
PAGE 228
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
The measure of the damage should be the difference

in value of property immediately before the incident
and immediately after the repair.
If the danger that may result from the criminal

negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is
RECKLESS. If it could hardly be perceived, the
criminal negligence would only be simple.
Art. 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating

circumstances is not applicable to crimes committed
through negligence.
Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring

criminal liability. This is so because under Article 3, a
felony may result from dolo or culpa. THEREFORE,
even if there are several results arising from ONLY
ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be
prosecuted
under one count for the criminal
negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise.
The penalties provided in art. 365 are not applicable

in the ff. cases:
1) when the penalty provided for the offense is equal
to or lower than those provided in the first two
paragraphs of art. 365, in which case the courts shall
impose the penalty next lower in degree that that
which should be imposed, in the period which they
may deem proper to apply.
Reckless Imprudence:
(1) The offender does or fails to do an act
(2) The doing of or the failure to do the act is
voluntary
(3) It be without malice
(4) Material damage results
(5) There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the
part of the offender, taking into consideration:
(a) His employment/occupation
(b) Physical condition
(c) Degree of intelligence
(d) Other circumstances regarding the persons,
time and place
2) When, by imprudence or negligence and with

violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a
person shall be caused, in which case the defendant
shall be punished by
prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
When death or serious bodily injury to any person
has resulted, the motor vehicle driver at fault shall
be punished under the Penal Code.
Contributory negligence is not a defense. It only
mitigates criminal liability.
NOTE:
(1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
(2) Resulting in Physical Injuries
Doctrine of last clear chance

The contributory negligence or the party injured will
not defeat the action is it be shown that the accused
might, by exercise of reasonable care and prudence,
have avoided the consequences of the negligence of
the injured party.
Inexcusable lack of precaution

Factors to be considered in determining inexcusable
lack of precaution:
1) Employment or occupation
2) Degree of intelligence and physical condition of
the offender; and
3) Other circumstances regarding persons, time, and
place.
Emergency rule
An automobile driver who, by negligence of another
and not by his own negligence, is suddenly placed in
an emergency and compelled to act instantly to
avoid collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if
he makes such a choice which a person of ordinary
prudence placed in such situation might make even
though he did not make the wisest choice.
Simple Imprudence
(1) There is lack of precaution on the part of the
offender
(2) The damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of

negligence. But negligence cannot be predicated
upon the mere fact of minority or lack of an
operators license.
Test of negligence: Would a prudent man, in the

position of the person to whom negligence, foresee
harm as a result of the course actually pursued? If so,
it was the duty of the actor to take precautions
against its mischievous results, and the failure to do
so constitutes negligence.
The penalty next to higher in degree is imposed if the

offender fails to lend on the spot help to the injured
parties.
(5) Failing to lend help is a qualifying
circumstance.
PAGE 229
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
HELD: It would appear that accused-appellants are

members of a cult and that the bizarre ritual
performed over the victim was consented to by the
victim's parents. With the permission of the victim's
parents, accused-appellant Carmen, together with
the other accused-appellants, proceeded to subject
the boy to a "treatment" calculated to drive the "bad
spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the
strange procedure resulted in the death of the boy.
Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal intent to
kill the boy.
Jurisprudence:
The gravamen of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE is the failure
to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for by
the situation which was NOT immediately lifedestructive BUT which culminated, as in the present
case, in the death of a human being 3 days later.
[Carillo v. People (1994)]
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of
negligence, consists in the failure of a physician or
surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that
degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed
by the profession generally, under similar conditions,
and in like surrounding circumstances (this is the test
applied). [Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)]
Their liability arises from their reckless imprudence

because they ought that to know their actions would
not bring about the cure. They are, therefore, guilty
of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and not
of murder.
Elements involved in medical negligence cases:

(D.B.P.I.)
(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Injury
(4) Proximate causation
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,

states
that reckless imprudence consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do
an act from which material damage results by reason
of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing such act.
Requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur:

(1) The accident was of a kind which does NOT
ordinarily occur UNLESS someone is negligent;
(2) The instrumentality or agency which caused the
injury was under the exclusive control of the
person in charge; and
(3) The injury suffered must NOT have been due to
any voluntary action or contribution of the
person injured.
Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide

or murder, what takes the place of the element of
malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is: the
failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack
of skill taking into account his employment, or
occupation, degree
of intelligence, physical
condition, and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and

experience are competent to testify as to whether a
patient has been treated or operated upon with a
reasonable degree of skill and care.
The elements of reckless imprudence are apparent in

the acts done by accused-appellants which, because
of their lack of medical skill in treating the victim of
his alleged ailment, resulted in the latter's death. As
already stated, accused-appellants, none of whom is
a medical practitioners, belong to a religious group,
known as the Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima,
which is engaged in faith healing. [People v. Carmen
(2001)]
HOWEVER, testimony as to the statements and acts

of physicians and surgeons, external appearances,
and manifest conditions which are observable by any
one may be given by non-expert witnesses. [Reyes v.
Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)]
The trial court found the accused "guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of Double Homicide
Through Reckless Imprudence with violation of the
Motor Vehicle Law (Rep. Act No. 4136)."
While playing one day, a child-Honey Fe heard a

commotion from a nearby house and went to
investigate. She saw Randy Luntayao being tortured
and killed by Alexander Sibonga, Reynario Nuez,
Eutiquia Carmen, Delia Sibonga, and Celedonia
Fabie. Apparently it was a ritual supposed to cure
him of demonic possession. The father of the boy
filed charges against the participants, and the child
who witnessed the macabre incident testified as to
what she saw. The trial court convicted the
participants of murder.
HELD: There is no such nomenclature of an offense

under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the trial court
was misled to sentence the accused "to suffer two (2)
indeterminate penalties of four (4) months and one
(1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3)
years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of prision
correccional, as maximum."
PAGE 230
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
This is erroneous because in reckless imprudence

cases, the actual penalty for criminal negligence
bears no relation to the individual wilful crime or
crimes committed, but is set in relation to a whole
class, or series of crimes. Unfortunately, we can no
longer correct this judgment even if erroneous, as it
is, because it has become final and executory.
for the operation. Surgery was performed but

Lourdes never regained consciousness and expired
five days later.
The trial court convicted Teofilo
Abueva for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide.
HELD: After a careful review of the records, the Court
agrees with the factual findings of the lower courts
showing that the victim, Lourdes Mangruban, fell
rather than jumped off the bus.
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,

criminal negligence "is treated as a mere quasi
offense, and dealt with separately from wilful
offenses. It is not a question of classification or
terminology. In intentional crimes, the act itself is
punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is
principally penalized is the mental attitude or
condition behind the
act, the dangerous
recklessness, and lack of care or foresight, the
imprudencia punible.
The prosecution has provided sufficient, clear and

convincing basis for the conclusion that Lourdes fell
off the bus due to the reckless act of the petitioner.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that
reckless imprudence consists in:
(1) voluntarily, but without malice,
(2) doing or failing to do an act from which
(3) material damage results
(4) by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the person performing or failing to
perform such act,
(5) taking into consideration:
(a) his employment or occupation;
(b) his degree of intelligence;
(c) his physical condition; and
(d) other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place.
Much of the confusion has arisen from the common

use of such descriptive phrase as 'homicide through
reckless imprudence', and the like; when the strict
technical sense is, more accurately, 'reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide'; or 'simple
imprudence causing damages to property'." [Rafael
Reyes Trucking v People (2000)]
FACTS: Ireneo, Abundio and Lourdes Mangruban
were with their paralyzed aunt at a bus terminal.
Lourdes Mangruban was tasked to accompany their
paralyzed aunt to Butuan City. A dispatcher
informed them that a bus bound for Tacloban via
Cebu and Butuan was about to leave. They were told
to wait as the bus maneuvered to its proper position
prior to departure. The said bus, driven by Teofilo
Abueva, came to a full stop in front of the terminal
building. As they negotiated their way towards the
back of the bus, Lourdes, with luggage in hand, was
waiting on the first stepboard when the bus suddenly
moved. Due to the sudden movement, according to
the witness, Lourdes fell off the bus and hit her head
on the cement pavement below.
Petitioner herein is a professional driver who has

been in the employ of the bus company for 18 years
26 and has undergone training courses and seminars
to improve his skills as a driver. He is expected to be
well aware of his responsibilities to his passengers.
Not only must he make sure that they reach their
destinations on time, he must also ensure their
safety while they are boarding, during the entire trip,
and upon disembarking from the vehicle. [Abueva v.
People (2002)]
FACTS: "In the evening of February 16, 1990, Pat.
Domingo Belbes and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned
to maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior
Prom of Pili Barangay High School. Around 9:00
p.m. while Teacher-In-Charge Mila Ulanca, Pat.
Pabon and Belbes were watching the dance, two
students approached Mrs. Ulanca and said "Ma'm, it
seems that there is somebody making trouble." Pat.
Belbes and Pat. Pabon, armed with an Armalite rifle
and a .38 caliber revolver, respectively, responded
forthwith. Moments after the two police officers left,
bursts of gunfire filled the air.
According to the witness, the driver did not

disembark to assist Lourdes, while a dispatcher of
the bus company assured them that there was
nothing to worry about because the victim was not
bleeding. Petitioner continued driving per his
scheduled trip.
Lourdes was taken to the San Pedro Hospital where
a brain scan revealed the presence of a blood clot
that needed immediate surgery. The bus company
refused to give financial assistance to the
Mangrubans. On their own, the family raised the
amount required by the hospital as downpayment
Fernando Bataller, a graduating student was hit on

different parts of his body and died. The accused Pat.
Belbes stated that they acted in self defense. The
PAGE 231
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
trial court convicted Pat. Belbes of murder and

sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
HELD: The offense is definitely not reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide because the
shooting was intentional.
Illustrations of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide are: (1) exhibiting a loaded revolver to a
friend, who was killed by the accidental discharge
brought
about by negligent handling; or (2)
discharging a firearm from the window of one's
house and killing a neighbor who just at the moment
leaned over the balcony front; or (3) where the
defendant, to stop a fist fight, fired his .45 caliber
pistol twice in the air, and, as the bout continued, he
fired another shot at the ground, but the bullet
ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon
thereafter. In this case, appellant intended to fire AT
the victim, and in fact hit ONLY the victim. [People v.
Belbes (2000)]
Effect of Victims Contributory Negligence
Finally, as to petitioners argument that Jesus
Basallo (Victim; deceased) should be presumed
negligent because he was driving with an expired
license and the passenger jeepney owned by his
brother Teodorico did not have a franchise to
operate, we hold that the same fails to
convince. The defense of contributory negligence
does not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the
negligence of another to evade the effects of his own
negligence. [Manzanares vs. People (2006)]
PAGE 232

UP Bar Reviewer 2013 Criminal Law T101213

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

UP Bar Reviewer 2013 Criminal Law T101213

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UP COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO

Title X. Crimes against

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(10) Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or

Chapter 9: Malicious mischief

- WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY

Elements of Robbery in General: (PAUI, V/I/F)

CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO

The property taken must be personal, if real

Use of force upon things

always The taking is robbery only

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

offenders carry arms;

- WITH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION OF

Acts punished under:

CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO

Homicide is used in its generic sense, as to include

Robbery with violence against or intimidation or

offset by a generic mitigating

The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Any of these qualifying circumstances must be

Outline of Art. 296:

CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide

Special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed

Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement,

ARTICLE 297 - ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY

The article speaks of more than 3 armed malefactors

The penalty is the same,

When there was conspiracy for robbery only but

Homicide includes multiple homicides, murder,

Robbery with homicide and attempted or frustrated

There is no crime as robbery with homicide in

Art. 298 applies to private or commercial document,

Band is only ordinary aggravating circumstance in

When the offended party is under obligation to sign,

In order that special aggravating circumstance of

BY FORCE UPON THINGS

CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

from that in the other means

Elements of robbery with force upon things under

False keys: genuine keys stolen from the owner or

CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

ARTICLE 301 - WHAT IS AN UNINHABITED HOUSE,

Building: includes any kind of structure used for

Dependencies: all interior courts,

opening not intended for

Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.

Orchards and lands used for cultivation or

Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of

ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND

A receptacle is a container, which must be closed

Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or

Penalty is based only on value of property taken.

See discussion on Art. 296 for definition of band.

If the store is used as a If the store was not

- IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE

ARTICLE 303 - ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR