CRIMES AGAINST

PROPERTY
ATTY. RESTITUTO DANILO N.
ROSILLO
• 1. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons (Article
294)
• 2. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place
and by a band, or with the use of firearms on a street, road, or an alley
(Article 295)
• 3. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain
circumstances (Article 297)
• 4. Execution of deeds by means of violence intimidation (Article 298)
• 5. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice
devoted to worship (Article 299)
• 6. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band ( Article
300)
• 7. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building
(Article 302)
• 8. Robbery of cereals, fruits or firewood in an uninhabited
place or private building ( Article 303)
• 9. Possession of picklocks or similar tools (Article 304)
• 10. Brigandage ( Article 306)
• 11. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands ( Article 307)
• 12. Theft (Article 308)
• 13. Qualified Theft (Article 310)
• 14. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum
(Article 311)
• 15. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property
( Article 312)
• 16. Altering boundaries and landmarks (Article 313)
• 17. Fraudulent insolvency (Article 314)
• 18. Swindling ( Article 315)
• 19. Other forms of swindling ( Article 316)
• 20. Swindling a minor ( Article 317)
• 21. Other deceits ( Article 318)
• 22. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgage property ( Article 319)
• 23. Destructive Arson ( Article 320)
• 24. Other forms of Arson ( Article 321)
• 25. Arson of property of small value ( Article 323)
• 26. Crimes involving destruction ( Article 324)
• 27. Burning one’s own property as a means to commit
arson ( Article 325)
• 28. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the
offender ( Article 326)
• 29. Malicious mischief ( Article 327)
• 30. Special cases of malicious mischief ( Article 328)
• 31. Damage and obstruction to means of communication
( Article 330)
• 32. Destroying or damaging statutes, public monuments
or paintings ( Article 331).
ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY- ARTICLE 293

a. intent to gain ( animus luncrandi)

b. unlawful taking ( sometimes called asportation)
c. personal property ( bienes muebles) belonging to another, and
d. violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon
things.
 KINDS OF ROBBERY

a. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of

persons, and
b. Robbery with force upon things
• “ Intent to gain” means intent to obtain from the appropriation of
the thing some utility , advantage or benefit. It is not necessary that
the gain be realized as mere intent is enough.
• Taking of a thing under claim of ownership in good faith negatives
intent to gain even though the claim of ownership in untenable.
The animo lucrandi is absent ( US vs Manluco, 28 Phil 360).
• The appropriating or taking away of the property of another
without justifiable or legal reason is sufficient proof of intent to
gain. (People vs. Suji-an, [CA, G.R. No. 26015- CR June 29, 1964]
• The felonious or animus lucrandi must exist prior to or
at least, coetaneous with the unlawful taking. Not only
must the felonious intent or animus lucrandi exist, but it
must exist at the same time the property is taken.
( People vs. Malibago, et al., [ CA] 56 O.G. 6223).
• “ Unlawful taking” means appropriating a thing belonging to
another and placing it under one’s control or possession. In the
asportation, the intent to return the thing taken is not present.
• It is necessary that the thing be placed under one’s control or
possession for a period more or less permanent.
• The personal property must belong to another.
• Illicit articles may be object of robbery ( U.S. vs. Sani Lim, 23 Phil 409)
• The offended party need not be the owner of the property. Mere
possession is enough as long as the offender is not the owner thereof.
• Naming the offended party in the information is essential if what is
charged is robbery with homicide. So if the proof shows that the
property belonged to another and not to the offended party named in the
information the accused is to be convicted of homicide only. (U.S. vs.
Lahoylahoy, et al; 38 Phil. 380. In other cases of robbery, the naming of
the offended party is not essential.
• Where violence or intimidation and force upon things are both
present in the commission of the robbery, the former is the
controlling element.
REASON: Robbery characterized by violence or intimidation
against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery
committed by force upon things, because where violence or
intimidation against he person is present, there is greater
distrurbance to the order of society an the security of the
individual. (U.S. vs, Baluyot, 40 Phil 89).
• In Napolis vs. Court of Appeals, 43 SCRA 301, this doctrine was
abandoned, where it was held that when violence or intimidation
and force upon things are both present in the robbery, the crime is
complex under Article 48.
• In robbery with violence or intimidation, the taking is complete
when the offender has already the possession of the thing even if
he has no opportunity to dispose it.
• Force upon things does not always qualify the offense as
robbery; it may be theft. There is robbery with force upon
things only when doors or windows are broken in order
to enter a building to steal or when doors or wardrobes
are broken inside a building ( People vs. Adorno, 40 O.G.
567). Without entrance to the building, theft is
committed.
 KINDS OF ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE OR
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS:

1. When by reason or an occasion of the robbery homicide

results.
2. Robbery accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or by
reason or on the occasion of such robbery serious physical
injuries penalized in Article 263, par 1, shall have been
inflicted.
3. When by reason or on the occasion of the robbery serious
physical injuries penalized in Article 263, par 2, shall have
been inflicted.
4. If the violence or intimidation employed is clearly
unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in the
course of the robbery, serious physical injuries, penalized in
Article 263, pars. 3& 4, shall have been inflicted upon any
person not responsible for the commission of the robbery.
5. Other cases of violence or intimidation.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

• This is not a complex crime as understood under Article 48 but

a single indivisible crime. To constitute robbery with homicide,
both the robbery and the homicide must be consummated.
This is a special complex crime because the specific penalty is
provided by law.
• There is no robbery with attempted or frustrated
homicide. It is believed that these crimes are to be
punished separately and independently from each other.
ARTICLE 48- COMPLEX CRIME

• When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less

grave felonies or where an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other, the penalty for the more
serious crime in its maximum period shall be imposed.
• Article 48 does not apply when the law especially considers two
or more crimes as a single act and indivisible and provides a
specific penalty therefore. Robbery with homicide is not a
complex crime but a single and indivisible felony by specific
provision of law ( Article 294, par. 1) or a special complex
crime.
• If the motive is to kill and the taking is committed thereafter, the
crimes committed are homicide and theft. (People vs. Elizaga,
G.R. No. 2487; 86 Phil. 364; also People vs. Toling, et al. L-
28548, July 13, 1979; 76 O.G. 1757).
• All the homicide or murders are merged in the composite,
integrated whole, that is robbery with homicide, so long as all
the killings were perpetrated by reason of or on occasion of the
robbery ( People vs. Madrid, G.R. No. L-3023 July 3, 1951;
People vs. Cabrera, L-6202, 53 O.G. 2475).
• If the robbery is not proved, there must be a conviction for each
homicide alleged and proved, although in robbery with
homicide, the number of persons that have been killed is
immaterial (People vs. Barruya, 61 Phil 318).
• Where there exists a direct relation on intimate connection between the
robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the
former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time, the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide is committed. (People vs.
Hernandez 46 Phil. 48; Pople vs. Puesca, 87 SCRA 130). As long as the
homicide resulted, during or because of the robbery, even if the killing is
by mere accident, the Supreme Court held that robbery with homicide is
committed. ( People vs. Magulabnan, et al. 52 O.G. 6532) or even if the
person killed was a mere bystander (People vs. Disimban, 83 Phil 120).
The law does not require that the victim of the robbery be also the victim
of the homicide.
OTHER CASES OF SIMPLE ROBBERY (PAR.5, ARTICLE
294)

• Any kind of robbery with less serious physical injuries nor slight
physical injuries falls under this paragraph. There is no robbery with
less serious physical injuries. (U.S. vs. Barroga, 21 Phil 161).
EXAMPLE:
a) Snatching money from the hands of the victim and pushing her as a
result of which her skirt torn and she fell on the ground. (U.S. vs.
Samonte, 8 Phil.286).
b) Grabbing a pawnshop ticket and intimidating the victim (U.S. vs Blanco,
10 Phil 398).
c) Intimidating the victim with a revolver (People vs. Masquez, 77 Phil 83).
- But where there is no violence exerted to accomplish the snatching the
crime committed is not robbery but simple theft. ( People vs. Joson, 7 CAR
221).
• To “snatch” does not imply more violence than what is
necessary to take the object. Snatching requires surprise
and suddenness which are not manifestations of
violence. (People vs. Villar, CA-G.R. No. 14289-R,
July 29, 1955).
• There is sufficient intimidation where the acts of the offender
inspired fear upon the victim although the accused was not armed.
(People vs. Lim Ho Peng, G.R. No. L-299, Aug. 29, 1946).
• One who obtains money from the victim by pretending to be a
peace officer is guilty of robbery. (People vs. Sope, et al., Phil 80).
There is intimidation as long as the acts of the offender would
create fear in the mind of the victim.
• Policemen who raided a gambling den not for the
purpose of arresting the gamblers but by means of
intimidation upon persons and with intent of personal
gain took away the money of the gamblers, are guilty of
robbery. (People vs. Tribunal, et al., 45 O.G. 817).
 ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES , COMMITTED IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE OR BY A BAND OR WITH THE USE OF
FIREARM ON A STREET, ROAD OR ALLEY (ARTICLE 295)
• This article qualifies the robberies covered by subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of Article 294, when they are
committed:
a) In an uninhabited place;
b) By a band;
c) By attacking a moving train, streetcar, motor vehicle or airship;
d) By entering the passengers compartment in a train or in any manner taking the passengers thereof by
surprise; or
e) On a street, road, highway, or alley and the intimidation is effected by means of firearm. This article
does not apply to robbery with homicide or robbery with rape, or with mutilation, or with serious
physical injuries as defined in par. 1 of Article 263.
ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS IS
COMMITTED:
a) If the force upon things was employed to effect entrance into the house or
building by any of the four modes provided in subdivision (a) of Article 299;
or
b) Having gained entrance into the house or building outside these four modes,
by bringing outside the building any locked or sealed receptacle to the broken
open or by breaking doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or
sealed furniture or receptacle inside the building. Outside of these cases, the
crime committed will be THEFT and NOT ROBBERY although there is
force upon things.
THUS, THE FOLLOWING WERE HELD TO CONSTITUTE THEFT:

a) Where the offender entered the dwelling by passing through the

doors which were open or not secured by a lock or bolt ( U.S. vs.
Aronce, 12 Phil 291), and
b) Where the accused broke the show window without entering the
building but merely introduced his hand and abstrated the
watches therefrom. ( People vs. Adorno, [CA] 40 O.G. 567).
 CARNAPPING (REP. ACT NO. 6539)

• It is defined as the taking with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to

another person, without the latter’s consent or by means of violence or
intimidation of person or by using force upon things.
• A motor vehicle is any vehicle propelled by power, other than muscular power
using the public highway exempting road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers,
sprinkles, mowers, bulldozers, grader, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes
if not used on public highways, vehicles which run only on trails or
• tracks, tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used
exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any
number of wheels when propelled or intended to be propelled
by attachment to a motor vehicle is classified as a separate
motor vehicle with no power rating.
• penalty is imprisonment for not less than 14 years, 8 months
and not more than 17 years, 4 months if the carnapping is
without violence or intimidation of persons or force upon
things. If the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
vehicle is killed in the commission of carnapping, the penalty is
life imprisonment to death.
• any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are
public, not exclusively for private used is covered with the
concept of motor vehicle under the Carnapping Law. A tricycle
which is not included in the enumeration of exempted vehicles
under the Carnapping Law is deemed to be a motor vehicle as
defined in the law, the stealing of which comes within its penal
sanction.
WHO ARE BRIGANDS? ARTICLE 306, AS AMENDED
BY R.A. NO. 12, SEPTEMBER 5, 1964

• The formation of highway robbers or brigands is punishable under

this Article. The crime is committed by mere conspiracy to
commit the acts of brigandage. If the robbers in band should
commit robbery ( Article 295), should kidnap ( Article 267), or do
any criminal act by force or violence, penalized by a greater
penalty, those responsible shall be prosecuted under said law and
penalized accordingly.
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT? (ARTICLE 308)

ELEMENTS:
A) Intent of gain ( animus lucrandi)
B) Unlawful taking ( apoderamiento)
C) Personal property belonging to another
D) Absence of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon
things
E) Without the consent of the owner.
UNLAWFUL TAKING

• This is complete upon the material occupation of the thing by the offender and
placing it under his control with ability to dispose of it. The element of “
taking” referred to in the law means the act of depriving another of the
possession and dominion of movable property. ( People vs. Galang, et al., 43
O.G. 557). In a juridical sense, the consummation of the crime of theft takes
place upon the voluntary and malicious taking of the property belonging to
another which is realized by the material occupation whereby the thief places it
under his control and in such a situation as he could dispose of it at once.
INTENT OF GAIN

• By gain is meant not only the acquisition of a thing useful to the

purposes of life but also the benefit which in any other sense may be
derived or expected from the act which is performed. So, the
accused who took the car from the garage and used it to take their
lady friends and other for a ride, derived gain from the use of this
means of transportation. ( People vs. Fernandesz, 38 O.G. 985).
OTHER CASES OF THEFT

1. Finder of lost property who fails to deliver the same to the local
authorities. (Article 308, par1).
2. Maliciously damaging the property of another and removing or
making use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him.
3. Entering an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or
which belongs to another and without the consent of the owner shall
hunt or fish or gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products.
• A cow that entered offender’s plantation was killed. The
meat was then appropriated and distributed. The crime
committed is theft under par. 2 of Article 308. (People
vs. Morillo, [CA] G.R. No. 4273). Under P.D. 533, the
crime would be cattle rustling.
PENALTIES FOR THE CRIME OF THEFT (ARTICLE
309)

1. Basis is the value of the thing stolen.

2. If the value is not proven where the thing has some
value, the penalty imposable would be the minimum
penalty, which is that prescribed by NO. 6 of Article
309. (People vs. Reyes, 58 Phil. 964).
QUALIFIED THEFT ( ARTICLE 310)

• Theft is qualified if any of the following circumstances is present (the penalty is next
higher by two degrees pursuant to R.A. No.1201, June 4, 1947).
a) If the offender is a domestic servant;
b) If it is committed with grave abuse of confidence; or
c) By the nature of the property, which is either
1. motor vehicle,
2. mail matter;
3. coconuts taken from a plantation;
d) Timber smuggled from and illegal cutting of logs in public
forest reserves.
e) If property is taken on occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or
civil disturbance.
• The offended party may be the master or even a third person, as a
guest in the house, where the offender is working as a domestic
servant. The room boys in a hotel are embraced within the term.
• A stranger who cooperates in the theft committed by a domestic
servant is liable for simple theft only. (People vs. Valdellon, 46 Phil
245; People vs. Reciente, G.R. No. 42004; People vs. Andrada,
G.R. No. 42575).
 OFFENSE OF FENCING 9P.D. 1612, MARCH 2, 1979)

• Fencing is the act of any person who with intent to gain for
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell or in
any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything
of value, which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
• “ Fence” includes any person, firm, association, corporation or
partnership or other organization who/ whom commits the act of
fencing.
• Mere possession of any goods, article, item, object or anything
of value which has been the object of robbery or thievery shall
be prima facie evidence of fencing.
FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY ( ARTICLE 314)

• ELEMENTS:
a) The offender is a debtor;
b) He absconds with his property;
c) To the prejudice of his creditors
• To abscond does not mean that the debtor should depart and
physically conceal his property. Real property therefore, may be
involved. ( People vs. Chong Chuy Limgobo, 45 Phil 372). The
essence of the crime is that any property of the debtor is made to
disappear for the purpose of evading the fulfillment of the
obligation and liabilities contracted with one or more creditors to
the prejudice of the latter.
• Fraudulent insolvency under this article must result to the
prejudice of his creditors. The fraudulent concealment of the
property is not sufficient if he has some other property with
which to satisfy his obligations. Unless prejudice to the creditors
is shown, there can be no conviction under this article. (People
vs. Sy Gesiong, 60 Phil 614).
SWINDLING ( ESTAFA) ARTICLE 315

• It is committed by defrauding another by any of the following

means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; namely:
a) by altering the substance, quantity or quality of anything of value
which the offender shall deliver by virtue of any obligation to do so,
even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.
b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another,
money, goods or any other personal property received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or order
any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the
same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed
by a bond or by denying having received such money, goods or other
property.
c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the
offended party in blank, and by writing any document
above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the
offended party or any third person.
2.By means of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud:
a) by using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business
or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
 b) by altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything
pertaining to his art or business.
c) by pretending to have bribed any government employee,
without prejudice to the action for calumny, which the offended
party may deem proper to bring against the offender.
 d) by obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment house and the like
without paying thereof, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager
thereof, or by obtaining credit at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house or apartment house by the use of any false pretense or by
abandoning or surreptiously removing any part of his baggage therefrom after
obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation without paying the
same.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
a) by inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document;
b) by resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure in a
gambling game;
c) by removing, concealing or destroying in whole or in part, any
court record, office files, document or any other papers.
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING ( ARTICLE 316)

How committed:
1. Any person who pretending to be the owner of any real
property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same;
2. Any person who knowing that real property is encumbered
shall dispose the same, although such encumbrance be not
recorded;
3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its
lawful possessor, to the prejudice of the latter or any third person;
4. Any person who to the prejudice of another shall execute any fictitious
contract;
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under the
belief that it was in payment of services rendered or labor performed by
him when in fact he did not actually perform such service or labor;
6. Any person who while being a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action without express authority from the court
or before the cancellation of his bond or before being relieved
from the obligation shall sell, mortgage or in a manner encumber
the real property with which guaranteed the fulfillment of such
obligation.
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF? (ARTICLE 327)
• Any person who deliberately causes damage to the
property of another by any cat not constituting arson or
crime of destruction due to hate, revenge or mere
pleasure of destroying is liable for malicious mischief.
ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF:

a) The offender has caused damage to the property of

another;
b) That such damage was caused deliberately.
c) That the damage caused does not fall within the
provisions penalizing arson and crimes involving
destructions.
• One who shots a pig walking in the middle of the road for the
pleasure of testing the potency of his newly acquired rifle is guilty
of malicious mischief. (People vs. Conde, CA [ 1972] 69 O.G. 971.
• P.D. 1728 punishes conspiracy and proposal to maliciously damage
or destroy any building, vehicle or any personal or real property by
means of explosive or other incendiary devices.
 SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
( ARTICLE 328)

1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions

2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle.
4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National
Library.
5. Causing damage to any archive or registry, waterworks, roads,
promenade or to any other thing used in common by the public.
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (ART. 332)

Crimes Included:
a) Theft
b) Estafa or swindling; and
c) Malicious mischief
• Persons Mentioned:
a. spouses, ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the same line;
b. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same shall passed into the possession of another; and
c. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption is not applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the
crime.