Crim Law Malversation
Crim Law Malversation
Crim Law Malversation
properties
1. MALVERSATION [ART 217] - Malversation is committed either
intentionally or by negligence. (1) misbehavior and especially
corruption in an office, trust, or commission (2) corrupt
administration.
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of malversation.
– Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for
public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall
permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially,
or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property, shall suffer:
Only thing necessart for conviction is proof that the accounatable officer
had received public funds and that such officer FAILED TO ACCOUNT for
the aid funds upon DEMAND without offering justifiable explanation.
HOW IS IT COMMITTED?
Either INTENTIONALLY or by NEGLIGENCE.
“the dolo or culpa present in the offense is only a MODALITY in the
Even if the mode charged differs from the
perpetration of the felony.
mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and
conviction thereof is proper."
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
COMMON ELEMENTS:
TECHNICAL MAL= when public officer uses public funds for something that is not for it.
CLASSIFICATION OF ROBBERY
EXCEPT: when the VIOLENCE RESULTS in HOMICIDE, RAPE, INTENTIONAL MUTILATION or ANY
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES, the TAKING of the property is ROBBERY COMPLEXED WITH ANY
OF THE CRIMES UNDER ART 294
★ Violence or intimidation must be present before the taking of personal property is
complete.
★ Intent to gain is presumed juris tantum the moment there is unlawful taking.
★ To constitute unlawful taking, it is sufficient that the object was taken and held by
the offender in a manner sufficient to enable him to dispose of it as he intended,
even if his possession thereof be merely temporary or even transitory.
★ As long as the personal property does not belong to the accused who has a valid
claim thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a
mere possessor, or even a thief of the property.
★ Where robbery was committed with violence against or intimidation of persons,
and force upon things was also present and employed by the offender, the crime
should be categorized and punished under the first mode.
★ If it is the owner who forcibly takes the personalty from its lawful possessor, the
crime is estafa under Art. 316(3) since the former cannot commit robbery on his
own property even if he uses violence or intimidation.
ART. 294- ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
1. homicide
2. robbery accompanied with rape or intentional mutilation, SPI – insane, imbecile,
impotent or blind
3. SPI – lost the use of speech, hear, smell, eye, hand, foot, arm, leg, use of any such
member, incapacitated for work habitually engaged in
4. Violence/intimidation shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the
crime or when in the cause of its execution – SPI/deformity, or shall have lost any part
of the body or the use thereof or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work for > 90 days; > 30 days
5. Any kind of robbery with less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries
OUTLINE
1. The offender entered (a) an inhabited house (b) a public building or (c) an
edifice devoted to religious worship
2. The 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, floor, 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.
3. That once inside the building, the offender took personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain
★ The whole body of the culprit must be inside the building to constitute entering.
★ Not every physical force exerted by the offender is covered by Art. 299, hence
breaking store windows to steal something but without entry, is only theft.
ELEMENTS: (Subdivision B) ALREADY INSIDE YUNG OFFENDER
Inhabited house
- means any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more
persons, even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent
therefrom when the robbery is committed.
When the value of the property takes does not exceed 250 pesos, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.
In the cases specified in Articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302 of
this Code, when the property taken is mail matter or large cattle, the
offender shall suffer the penalties next higher in degree than those
provided in said articles. chanrobles
➔ The only difference between Arts. 299 and 302 is that the use of fictitious
name or simulation of public authority can be used only in Art. 299 which
refers to inhabited buildings and not in Art. 302 which involves uninhabited
or other places.
➔ While Art. 302 provides for robbery in an “uninhabited place,” it actually
means an uninhabited house.
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's
consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the
same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of
another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage
caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass
is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its
owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other
forest or farm products. chanrobles virtual law library
ELEMENTS:
1. Those who (a) with intent to gain, (b) without violence or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, (c) take (d) personal property (e) of
another (f) without the latter’s consent
2. Those who (a) having found lost property, (b) fail to deliver the same to
the local authorities or to its owner
3. Those who (a) after having maliciously damaged the property of another,
(b) remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damaged caused by
them
4. Those who (a) enter an enclosed estate or a field where (b) trespass is
forbidden or which belonged to another, and without the consent of the
owner, (c) hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits, cereals, or other
forest or farm products
★ Theft is not a continuing offense.
★ What distinguishes THEFT from ROBBERY is that in theft the offender does not
use violence or intimidation or does not enter a house or building through any of
the means specified in Art. 299 or Art. 302 in taking personal property of another
with intent to gain
★ Theft is not limited to an actual finder of lost property who does not return
or deposit it with the local authorities but includes a policeman to whom he
entrusted it and who misappropriated the same, as the latter is also a
finder in law.
★ Theft of electricity is also punishable under RA 7832, the Anti-Electricity and
Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994.
Notes:
1. Theft is consummated when offender is able to place the thing taken under his control and in
such a situation as he could disclose of it at once (though no opportunity to dispose) i.e, the
control test
2. P v. Dino – applies only in theft of bulky goods (meaning there has to be capacity to dispose of
the things). Otherwise, P v. Espiritu – full possession is enough
3. Servant using car without permission deemed qualified theft though use was temporary
4. Reyes says: there must be some character of permanency in depriving owner of the use of the
object and making himself the owner, therefore must exclude “joyride”
5. Theft: if after custody (only material possession) of object was given to the accused, it is
actually taken by him (no intent to return) e.g. felonious conversion. But it is estafa if juridical
possession is transferred e.g., by contract of bailment
6. Includes electricity and gas
1. inspector misreads meter to earn
2. one using a jumper
7. Selling share of co-partner is not theft
8. Salary must be delivered first to employee; prior to this, taking of Php is theft
9. If offender claims property as his own (in good faith) – not theft (though later found to be
untrue. If in bad faith – theft)
10. Gain is not just Php – satisfaction, use, pleasure desired, any benefit (e.g. joyride)
PRISON MAYOR in its MINIMUM and MEIDUM PERIOD = if value of thing stolen is more than
12k but DOES NOT EXCEED 22K. if EXCEEDS, the penalty shall be the maximum
period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each
additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but
does not exceed 12,000 pesos. chanrobles virtual law library
5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but
does not exceed 50 pesos. chanrobles virtual law library
Notes:
1. “grave abuse” – high degree of confidence e.g. guests
2. no confidence, not qualified theft
3. theft – material possession’ estafa – juridical possession
4. qualified: if done by one who has access to place where stolen property is kept e.g., guards,
tellers
5. novation theory applies only if there’s a relation
6. industrial partner is not liable for QT (estafa)
7. when accused considered the deed of sale as sham (modus) and he had intent to gain, his
absconding is QT
8. see carnapping law: RA 6539
9. motor vehicle in kabit system sold to another-theft. Motor vehicle not used as PU in kabit
system but under K of lease-estafa
10. 10. mail matter – private mail to be QT, Not postmaster – Art. 226
4.
EXCEPTIONS:
2ND ELEMENT OF ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE UNDER PARAGRAPH (B), SUBDIVISION N0.1, ART.
315 = 3 WAYS OF COMMITTING:
1. By misappropriating the thing received.
2. By converting the thing received.
3. By denying that the thing was received.
Notes:
1. Unfaithful or Abuse of Confidence
c. thing delivered has not been fully or partially paid for – not estafa
NOVATION THEORY
- May apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by the state
prosecutor, because up to that time, the original trust relation may be
converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby
placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. But after
the judicial authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted
action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of
its power to exact the criminal liability, as distinguished from the civil.
(People vs. Nery, 10 SCRA 244)
1. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank
2. That the offended party should have delivered it to the offender
3. That above 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
ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT (Art. 315, nos. 2 and 3)
1. That there be court record, office files, documents, or any other papers
2. That the offender removed, concealed, or destroyed any of them
3. That the offender had intent to defraud another
6. OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING [316] Criminal Law Book 2 – Title Ten |
Philippine Law Reviewers (wordpress.com)
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Any person who, pretending to be the owner of any real property, shall
convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same.
ELEMENTS:
ELEMENTS:
ELEMENTS:
ELEMENTS
UNJUST VEXATION
LIBEL 353
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime,
or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person. or to blacken thememory of one who is dead.
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of
any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means
of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by
prision correccional(Prision correccional = 6 months and 1 day to 6 years) in its
minimum and maximum periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both,
in addition to the civil action(can range to more than a hundred thousand pesos in
Moral Damages plus Exemplary Damages and Attorneys Fees) which may be
brought by the offended party.
4 ELEMENTS A PERSON MUST ESTBALISH I NORDER TO PROVE HE OR
SHE HAS BEEN DEFAMED:
1. PUBLICAITON
2. IDENTIFICATION
3. HARM
4. FAULT
Oral defamation may either be simple or grave. In the case of De Leon vs.
People (G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016,) the accused called the
police officer “walanghiya,” “mayabang” and “mangongotong” in public.
In deciding that it was a case of simple and not grave slander, the
following were considered: first, relationship of the parties. They were not
strangers to one another and accused had no reason to harbor ill feelings
toward complainant. Second is the issue of timing. The utterance was
made during the first hearing on an administrative case involving the
parties, shortly after an alleged gun-pointing incident between them,
hence there was an element of emotional outburst on the part of accused.
Third is the issue of animosity. From the foregoing, it can be gleaned that
the accused’s utterance may be construed as his expression of dismay
and not necessarily to ridicule or humiliate complainant.