Crim 2 - PreFinals

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES
ARTICLE 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention

ELEMENTS:
(1) The offender is a private individual;
(2) The offender kidnaps, detains or deprives another of his liberty;
(3) That it is illegal;
CONTINUOUS:
Becomes serious illegal detention
Any of the following circumstances are present:

(1) The detention last for more than 3 days;
(2) It is committed simulating public authority;
(3) Serious physical injuries are inflicted on the person
kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made;
or
(4) The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, a
female, or a public officer. (exception is when the
person kidnapped is a minor and the offender is any of
the parents still a crime but no longer a serious illegal
detention.)
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Death Penalty)

(a) Ransom if for the purpose of ransom, actual release of
ransom is not necessary
(b) Victim is killed, dies as a consequence of the detention, rape,
torture, dehumanizing acts.
ESSENCE
PP vs MUIT
Accused is a private individual talking about the Elements, detains
someone else it is illegal and in the commission thereof any of the
circumstances enumerated in 267 are present for the crime of serious
illegal detention or kidnapping.
The ELEMENTS of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
are the following:
(a) The accused is a private individual;
(b) The accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner
deprives the latter of his liberty;
(c) The act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
(d) In the commission of the offense, any of the 4 circumstances
mentioned in ARTICLE 267 is present.
PP vs MUIT
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the
victims liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the accused
to effect the same.

RANSOM
Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the
redemption of a captured person that would release him from captivity.
(PP vs REYES, GR No. 178300, Mar 17, 2009)
For The Purpose Of Extorting Ransom

Whether or not the ransom is actually paid or received by the
perpetrators is of no moment. It is sufficient that the kidnapping was
committed for the purpose of exacting ransom. (REYES)
CASE
In case where they took a child, and then the child eventually was able
to escape. Ni-uli, pag abot sa balay sa bata mao pa pag abot sa ransom
note. Pag tanaaw sa papa naa man ako anak kinsa mani iya gi kidnap?
Eventually the accused got arrested, so accused raised defense na
impossible crime, how can you kidnap somebody who has already gone
home.
SC said no!, the moment you deprive the child of his liberty by taking
him to the tricycle or bus the crime of serious kidnapping or illegal
detention the crime has been consummated. And na klaro pajud na this
is for the purpose of ransom kay nag padala pajud mu ug ransom note
even though na delayed.
KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER (Special Complex Crime)

Prior to RA 7659 (31 Dec 1993)
If the accused was kidnapped for the purpose of killing him (Kidnapping with murder under ARTICLE 48, one offense is a
necessary means of committing another)
If the person kidnapped (not for the purpose of killing him) was
killed as an afterthought - (two separated crimes of kidnapping
or murder.)
After the effectively of RA 7659 AFTER DEC. 31 1993

If the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention (Special complex crime Kidnapping with Murder/Homicide
under last PAR. of ARTICLE 267.)
As long as a person dies as a consequence of the kidnapping. It
is a special complex crime.

ARTICLE 268 - Slight Illegal Detention
ELEMENTS:
(1) Offender is a private individual;
(2) Kidnaps, detains or deprives one of his liberty;
(3) Kidnapping or detention is illegal;
(4) Circumstances in ARTICLE 267 are not attendant.
Accomplice Considered a Principal
Same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the

place for the perpetration of the crime.
The accomplice who furnishes the place for the perpetration of the
crime should be punished or considered a principal because illegal
detention is a peculiar offense that the one who furnishes the place
actually provides the essential element, kay anaha man nimu siya I
deprive sa iya liberty.
Under the general rule if you help by facilitating the commission of

the offense usually accomplice ka pero here you are punished as a
principal because that is where the victim is kept or deprive of his
liberty.
CASE
You have that case where he was approached by the kidnapper after the
kidnappers has already made a plan to kidnap the son of a wealthy man.
We are not killers only just kidnappers can we use your house to keep the victim
for a few days until the ransom is paid. Sugot man sya. So he waited in his house
for others to arrive with the victim. Pag balik sa mga kidnappers with the victim
sa balay nangamatay tanan kidnappers sa checkpoint. So sya nlng sa balay
nabilin.
SC said well you furnished the place for the kidnapping. Even though there was
no conspiracy, nya nahurot na sila tanan, you are still a kidnapper and worst for
purposes of ransom. Accomplice unta pero principal nah.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance

(Only for SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION, CANNOT use it for SERIOUS )
(1) Voluntary release within 3 days;
(2) Purpose not attained;
(3) Before institution of criminal proceedings.
ARTICLE 269 Unlawful Arrest
A person making a citizens arrest with NO reasonable ground
PURPOSE - deliver the arrested person to the proper authorities.
ARREST not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground

therefore.

ARTICLE 270 - Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor
The offender here is one entrusted with the custody of a minor and
deliberately fails to restore the minor to the parents or the guardian.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor.

(ARTICLE 267)
ARTICLE 271 - Inducing a Minor to Abandon His Home
There must be evidence of criminal intent or a will to cause

damage.
It is not necessary that the minor is actually induced to abandon his

home.
It is sufficient that the offender commits acts that tend to induce the
minor to abandon his home.
In 270 & 271 it is mitigating if the offender is the parent of the

minor.
ARTICLE 272 - Slavery
Purchasing, selling, kidnapping or detaining a human being for the

purpose of enslaving him.
Qualifying immoral traffic.
ARTICLE 273 - Exploitation of Child Labor.
The minor is retained against his will.
Under the pretext of reimbursement for a debt incurred by an

ascendant or guardian of the minor.
ARTICLE 274 - Services Rendered Under Compulsion in

Payment of Debt.
Offender compels or forces a debtor to work for him as:
(a) Household servant;
(b) Farm laborer.
PURPOSE payment of a debt.

ARTICLE 275 - Abandonment of a Person in Danger and
Abandonment of Ones Own Victim.
(1) Fails to render assistance to a person in an uninhabited place
(chances of assistance from others is remote) who is wounded or in
danger of dying. if there was no danger to your life
(2) Fails to help another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured.
(3) Fails to deliver a child under 7 to the authorities or his family or take
said child to a safe place.
Muna ako anak di jud nko buhian sa mall, labi nah 3 rd yr. high
school nah. Tuo mo gunitan oi, naa palay lain mu gunit.
ARTICLE 278 - Exploitation of Minors

PAR 1 The offender causes any boy or girl to perform any dangerous
feat of balancing, physical strength or contortion.
PAR 2 The offender is an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wildanimal tamer or circus manager or engaged in a similar calling shall
employ children under 16 years who are not his children or
descendants. Even though anak nimu but under 12 it cannot
be under par. 3
PAR 3 The person PAR 2 employ any descendant under 12 years of
age
PAR 1 - Without detriment to himself. Not a more serious offense.

PAR 2 - Need not be in an uninhabited place.
PAR 3 - Knowledge of the age of the child is immaterial. Applies to both
abandoned and lost child.
ARTICLE 276 - Abandoning a Minor
PAR 4 An ascendant, guardian, teacher, or person entrusted in any

capacity with the care of the child under 16 years of age, who
delivers gratuitously the child to any person in PAR 2. To any
habitual vagrant or beggar. It is qualified if the delivery is for a
consideration.
PAR 5. The offender induces a minor under 16 years of age to
abandon his home to follow any person in PAR 2. A habitual
vagrant or beggar.
ELEMENTS:
(1) Offender has custody of a child;
(2) Child is under 7;
(3) Offender abandons the child;
(4) No intent to kill.
ARTICLE 280 - Qualified Trespass to Dwelling.

ELEMENTS:
(1) Offender is a Private Person;
(2) Enters the Dwelling of Another;
(3) Entry is Against the Will of the latter.
ARTICLE 277 - Abandonment of Minor by Person Entrusted

With His Custody; Indifference of Parents.
PAR 1
(a) The offender is in charge of rearing or education of a minor;
(b) He delivers the minor to a public institution or person;
(c) No consent from the person who entrusted the minor to the
offender.
PAR 2 - (Indifference of Parents)
Offender is a parent;
He neglects his children by not giving them education;
His station in life requires such education and his financial

condition permits it.
DWELLING
Building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort.

To protect the privacy and sanctity of the home.
Nature as a whole must be protected. Naay example si Reyes,

na combination of house and store. Well if its a store you
expect the public to have access.
Against The Will

The offender must enter the dwelling of another against the latters will.
Lack of permission or consent is not equivalent to prohibition.
There must be prohibition or opposition.
Prohibition may be express or implied.

PP vs PERALTA
Some kind of organization and who was ever the president is entitled to
a living quarters, then there was a change of leadership so pag inilisay
nag ka bikil, so when the successor entered the living quarters ingun
dayon ang usa na. Trespass to dwelling.

SC said:
In order that this crime may exist it is necessary that the entrance
should be against the express or presumed prohibition of the
occupant, and the lack of permission should not be confused
with prohibition. xxx this crime is committed when a person
enters anothers dwelling against the will of the occupant, but
not when the entrance is effected without his knowledge or
opposition.
IMPLIED PROHIBITION
Early in the morning (CLEMENTE),
Late hour of the night (MESINA),
Door was locked with a piece of string (SILVANO),
Defendants were told to wait in the porch and owner closed the
door behind him as he entered the room (GABRIEL),
Entrance through the window (MARCIAL) even if the window

is open because this is not the usual entrance or point of
entry.
QUALIFIED TRESPASS (2ND PAR)

VIOLENCE
Pushing the door violently and maltreating the occupants

(PARAY)
Cutting the ribbon or string that acted as the lock on the

door (LINDIO)
Wounding the occupant with a bolo immediately after

entrance (ARCEO)
INTIMIDATION
Firing a revolver in the air (OSTREA)
Flourishing a bolo (LINDIO)
US vs ABANTO
The accused held the occupants of the house from outside and asked if
they can stay the night. Owner of the house agreed, so when to his
entrance to let them inside. There were already other companions
waiting at the door.
Pag suod ila gi tukmod ang tagia and they physically abused the
occupant. So qualified trespass to dwelling?
Defense said no, there was no trespass.gi pa suod bya mi.
SC said violent manner that you entered the house, and the facts that
assaulted the latter, we can presume that you are not welcome in the
house.
Abanto entered the house of the injured party in a violent manner, and
assaulted the latter from the door to the interior of his house, and in
view of such behavior it is not necessary that express opposition
or prohibition on the part of the tenant should have preceded
the forcible entry.

ARTICLE 281 - Other Forms of Trespass.
ELEMENTS:
(1) Enters the closed premises or fenced estate of another;
(2) Entrance is made while it is uninhabited;
(3) Prohibition is manifest;
(4) No permission from owner or caretaker.
What if you have a fenced estate that was inhabited? Mu sulod sa kural
pero di misuod sa balay. Aha man na nimu ibutang? Di sya trespass to
dwelling bec. He does not enter the house. Di pud 281 kay it must be an
uninhabited state. Does that mean you cannot drive that person out?
What do you do?
It really will not apply to 280 or 281. You can use civil procedure
to oust that man, but as to criminal procedure there is none.
There is that age old question na sir naay ni suod sa ako balay, pwede
nko pusilon?
No! dina pwede, you still have to follow circumstances to allow

it to be a self defense.
Article 282 - Grave Threats

Acts Punished:
(1) Threatening another with wrong amounting to crime and
demanding money/imposing any other condition and attaining
his purpose; - give me your money or ill burn your house down.
And you actually get your money.
(2) Commits this but Offender does not attain his purpose; - you
dont get your money
(3) Threat not subject to any condition. kani ah! Sunogon nko inu
balay. Kay gusto lang ko.
It can be threats:
against the person - I will kill you
Against the honor. - I will defame you, I will tell people youre a
bad person. Whether it is true or not
against a property of another
against the family of another of the complainant
The threat must be a wrong amounting to a crime, the condition need

not be unlawful - you marry my daughter or I will kill you
Grave Threats, Qualified

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Why? So much Pre-Meditated or Thought about doing
the crime.

Grave Threats Not Subject to a Condition
It must be Serious and Deliberate, otherwise it may be a case

of Other Light Threats under ARTICLE 285.
It is not necessary that the offender personally threatens the

middleman, because it can be done through mail or a
middleman. It is sufficient the when the threats were made,
third parties were the ones who heard it like, the neighbor.
Middleman must be intentionally employed.
Consummated
The moment the offended party obtains knowledge of the threats made
the felony is consummated.
Article 283 - Light Threats

Elements:
(1) Threat to commit a wrong;
(2) Wrong does not constitute a crime;
(3) Demand for money or other condition is imposed, even though
not unlawful;
(2) Orally threaten another, in the heat of anger, with some harm
(not) constituting a crime, without persisting in the idea
involved in the crime;
(3) Orally threatening another any harm not constituting a crime.
a) I will report you to BIR. (?) pero mao man ang bala-od. I
guess here to threat another is wrong. So diritso nko BIR
ayaw na sya hadloka.
b) Sumbong taka ni mama. No, diritso ka ni mama, si ate
oh nag traydor.
If its not a quarrel then threaten someone with a weapon it depends on
the weapon. If it is a deadly weapon then grave threats which is serious
and deliberate.
Not Amounting to a Crime
In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may
or may not be accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the wrong
threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a
condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not
amount to a crime and there is no condition. (CALUAG vs PP, GR
No. 171511, Mar 4 2009)
(4) The offender attains/does not attain his purpose.

I will report you to the BIR if you dont give me money. It is wrong
because the threat is coupled with a condition. Ako manka I sumbong sa
BIR. The wrong does not constitute a crime because reporting
somebody to the BIR is not a crime.
ARTICLE 284 - Bond for Good Behavior.
Bond is conditioned that you will no longer threaten the private

offended party. And if you dont give the bond palayo ka sa victim.
Applicable only in cases of Grave Threats and Light Threats.
Additional penalty.
If the offender fails to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to

destierro.
Article 285 - Other Light Threats
Article 286 - Grave Coercion

Acts Punished:
(1) Preventing another from doing something not prohibited by
the law;
(2) Compelling another to do something against his will. Does
not matter if prohibited or not.
MEANS violence, threats or intimidation.
Without Authority of Law
In grave coercion it is necessary that the restraint shall not be made
under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
-
So if youre a sheriff or a policeman as long as you have

authority to compel another then it is ok. An element of the
crime is that one has no authority of the law.
Acts Punished:
(1) Threatens another with a weapon or draws a weapon in a
quarrel;- flourishing a bolo
ARTICLE 287 - Light Coercions and Unjust Vexation.

Elements:

(1) Offender is a creditor;
(2) Seizes anything belonging to his debtor;
(3) By means of violence or display of material force producing
intimidation;
(4) Purpose is for payment of the debt.
If not for the 4th element this would be a case of

robbery.
UNJUST VEXATION
Unjust vexation is any act that unjustly annoys, or vexes an
innocent person even though not productive of some physical or
material harm.

No Violence or Intimidation
BALEROS vs PPP
He entered through the window of the apartment, he mounted the
woman on the bed, gi patungan ang bae nya nagkisi2x nya ni lakaw
rapud sya. Ana ra siya, na happy nko, adto nko. Kay gipatid2xran
sya, ni lakaw rapud sya. Di tingali jud commited na rapist bah. Dali
ra ma discourage.
Attempted rape? No, SC said: he did not do any lascivious move,
you could not discern any lude design on the part of the accused
when he placed himself on top of the woman.
Verily, while the series of acts committed by the petitioner
do not determine attempted rape, as earlier discussed, they
constitute unjust vexation punishable as light coercion under
the 2nd PAR of ARTICLE 287 of the RPC.
ARTICLE 288 - Other Similar Coercions

Acts Punished:
ARTICLE 290 Correspondence
Discovering
Secrets
thru
Seizure
of
The offender, who is a private individual, seizes the papers of

letter of another.
The purpose is to discover the secrets and he actually discovers

them.
Seizure precludes accepting.
Exempted: are parents with respect to minors. or to spouses

with respect to each other.
ARTICLE 291 - Revealing Secrets with Abuse of Office.
The offender is a manager, employee or servant
who learns of the secrets of his principal
And reveals such secrets.
The secret must be learned by reason of employment.
(1) Forcing or compelling a laborer or employee to purchase

merchandise or commodities;
Usually industrial secrets
Damage is not necessary.
(2) Paying wages of his laborer or employee by means of tokens

or objects other than legal tender.
ARTICLE 292 - Revelation of Industrial Secrets

ARTICLE 289 - Formation, Maintenance and Prohibition of
Combination of Capital or Labor through Violence or
Threats
The offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of

a manufacturing or industrial establishment who to the
prejudice of the owner reveals the secrets of the industry of the
latter.
Criminal component of unfair labor practices
CASE
The felony is committed by means of violence or threats.
The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions of

labor or capital, strike of laborers or lockout of employees.
An employee of a manufacturer and then he left but there was a

provision in his contract that he could not be employed in another
company which would compete with his company. Nya ni violate
man sya. He said well youre violating my freedom here. SC said
well you signed the contract, you voluntarily agreed to the
agreement so you must be bound to it.

ARTICLE 293 - Robbery
a position where he could not be protected from a future

prosecution by plea of former conviction or acquittal or double
jeopardy.
TWO TYPES:
(1) Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
(2) Robbery by the use of force upon things
You were charged for having robbed the house of A, in that

case evidence presented that you robbed the house of B, and if
the court will convict you of that what will happen if they will
again prosecute you for robbing the house of B. di na nuon ka
claim og double jeopardy kay mu ana man ang state na para
manto ni A karon para naman pud ni sa robbery sa B. luoy kayo
ka.
So Supreme Court said that in this situation it is imperative,

mandatory that the state place the owner of the property you
have taken in this particular situation.
Elements of Robbery in General:

(1) Personal property belonging to another not real property
(2) Unlawful taking
(3) Intent to gain (if intent is to enforce a debt then it is a case
of coercion rather than robbery)
(4) Violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things
a) Persons ex. Kanang snatchan ka sa jeep
Taking Must be UNLAWFUL
b) Force upon Things ex. Kanang akyat bahay

US vs ATIENZA *(MUST READ)
Personal Property
Generally, it is sufficient that the personal property is

not the property of the offender
The identity of the owner of the property taken is NOT an

element of robbery
But for as a matter of practice and easier

prosecution the information would usually state the
owner of the property
But in some cases it is necessary like in the case of

lahoylahoy were there were several houses.
Here the taking was lawful because it was virtue of a warrant or

order. An order to an agent to seize the property upon lawful order.
When it was in his possession it was then he decided he would
misappropriate the property, he would take it as his own. He was
charged of robbery kay the taking was forceful.
The unlawful and punishable appropriation took place

subsequently to this act, when the money appropriated was
lawfully in the possession of the accused. Consequently the
seizure in itself does not constitute an act of unlawful
taking, a necessary element for the existence of the crime
of robbery.
So here its either MALVERSATION or ESTAFA
US vs LAHOYLAHOY
There were several houses that were victim of the robbery because
in this case, the state prepared separate information for each house
that was robbed by the accuse.
The problem was in the information where lets say the accused was
charged of robbing the house of A they presented the evidence that
they robbed the house of B. So murag nalibog ang prosecution
nagkabali ilang ebidensya.
Supreme Court:
To permit the defendant to be convicted upon a charge of

robbing one person when the proof shows that he robbed an
entirely different person, when the first was not present, is
VIOLATIVE of the rudimentary principles of pleading; (right to
be informed of the accusation against you) and in addition, is
subject to the criticism that the defendant is thereby placed in
US vs SANA LIM *(MUST READ)

A Cebu case, a more probably a trader docked into our island and
then started to advertise that he was selling opium and the accused
here together with others decided ah tulison nato ning namaligya
ug opium so they went to the moro and pretended to be
Policemen. Pabuthan nila dagan ang trader bilin ang opium, they
recovered the opium and para murag operation hid some of the
opium and the rest mixed with some other things and turned it over
to the state. Sakpan sila.
Anah dayon sila, Oh! Us vs Atienza di mana robbery kuan raman na
sya estafa or malversation.
SC:
NO, it is improper to consider that the taking and seizure as

lawful and permissible, even though executed by agents

authorized to arrest and prosecute opium smugglers, inasmuch
as the seizure of the opium was effected with intent to gain
and by the use of violence and intimidation
There was evidence that at the start of the plan they

wanted the opium for themselves.
In the present case, against the person of the Moro whom as

the agent of its owner and possession of the drug.
PABORITO KAAYO NKO NING DUHA KA KASO! MAGHIMO KOG BAGO
NA EXAM OR Recycle Mugawas jud ning duha.

TAKING (When Complete)
Unlawful taking is complete once the offender gains possession
of the property.
maski mabawi pana nimu pero it was in his possession it

has already been completed or consumated.
INTENT TO GAIN
Presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property
Violence or Intimidation of Persons/Force upon Things
The violence or intimidation employed must be against the
person of the offended party.
robbery against person is a more serious offense against

robbery against things
robbery of an uninhabited place has a lower penalty than

theft
Violence against persons must be employed against the

OWNER of the personal property
In Qualified trespass to dwelling SC said that the

violence need not be employed against the owner or
occupant it may be employed against the dwelling itself
like. Kicking the door. While in
In robbery by using force upon things, the offender MUST enter the
house or building.
What if they entered the window and then pointed guns at

the occupants?
When Both Circumstance Are Present

Robbery which is 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 the person is present there is greater
disturbance to the order.
ARTICLE 294 - Robbery

Intimidation of Persons
with
Violence
against
or
PAR. 1-4 - Special Complex Crimes, ARTICLE 48 is not applicable.

PAR. 1 - Robbery with Homicide, Rape, Intentional Mutilation or
Arson
PAR. 2-3 - Robbery with Serious Physical Injury (if less serious
or type of serious that does not fall under par. 2&3- then
just simple robbery)
PAR. 4 - Robbery carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for its
commission (Aggravating Circumstance of cruelty or
ignominy)
On The Occasion or By Reason
By reason of the robbery the other crime was committed. It
means the other crime was committed in the course or
because of the robbery.
EXAMPLE:
In the course of robbery arson was committed/because of

the robbery arson was committed - it becomes this special
complex crime
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE:
HOMICIDE includes Murder, Parricide and Homicide.
Involves all destruction of life Homicide, murder, parricide

no such thing as robbery with murder or parricide. It must
be Robbery with Homicide. Bisag pila pa gi patay.
So ayaw mu pag robbery with homicide. You dont need to say

that because regardless of number of people killed it is still
Robbery with Homicide because the penalty is the same.
PP vs BAJADA
Homicide, murder and physical injuries committed on occasion
or by reason of the robbery are merged in the composite crime
of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
By Reason Of or On the Occasion
PP vs HERNANDEZ
SC says that what we mean of by reason of, or on the
occasion of, or in the course of or because of robbery

Homicide committed to:
Facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit (So a

guard tries to stop, or the owner resist the robber and then
was shot);
to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot (try to

grab back your property nya didto nlng ka na dungaban);
to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or
To eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime.

Intent to Commit Robbery
PP vs ABDUL
In the special complex crime of robbery, it must be established

that the main purpose and objective of the criminal was
robbery and the killing was merely incidental, resulting by
reason of or on the occasion of the robbery.
-
Chronological order does not need that the robbery came

first then the homicide or the other crime, it can be the other
way around. IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT AT THE TIME
THEY PERFORM THE FIRST OVERT ACT whether homicide or
robbery their main INTENTION was to commit robbery.
Intent to commit robbery must precede the commission of the
homicide.
PP vs WERBA
A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the
homicide is committed before, during or after the robbery. The
homicide may be committed by the malefactor at the spur of the
moment or by mere accident.
Even if two or more persons are killed or a woman is raped or
physical injuries are inflicted on another on the occasion or by
reason of the robbery there IS ONLY ONE SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
-
So pinaka grbe kay homicide miski naa pay uban dra like
rape or physical injury.
Principals
Homicide
in
Robbery
Are
Principals
in
Robbery
with
SC has made a sweeping announcement that this will apply to a
case with multiple offenders (all performed act constituting robbery

but not pertaining to the other crime):
EXAMPLE: 4 robbery but one 1 of the 4 committed rape or
homicide. What now?

GENERAL RULE: if there is a finding of conspiracy everyone is
liable for each others act

EXCEPTION: one endeavors to prevent the other crime from
being committed.
As long as one participates in the commission of robbery, if the

felony committed is robbery with homicide, the liability is for
robbery with homicide
The exception to this rule is when one endeavors to prevent the

other crime from being committed.
There is no crime of robbery with multiple homicides under

the RPC. The crime is still robbery with homicide notwithstanding
the number of homicides committed in the occasion of a robbery

Robbery with Rape
The intent to take personal property mas be there before

the rape.
In other words, to be liable for such crime, the offender

must have the intent to take the personal property of
another under circumstances that makes the taking one of
robbery, and such intent must precede the rape. (PP vs
MORENO)
PP vs TORRES
Robbery with Rape occurs when the following Elements are
present:
(1) Personal property is taken with violence or intimidation
against persons
(2) The property taken belongs to another
(3) The taking is done with animo lucrandi
(4) The robbery is accompanied by rape.
Simple Robbery
EDUARTE vs PP
Eduarte is charged with the crime of Simple Robbery under PAR.
5 ARTICLE 294 of the RPC the Elements of which are:
(1) Intent to gain
(2) Unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another
(3) Violence against or intimidation of person
With Violence or Intimidation
It is sufficient that the violence or intimidation is employed
before the owner is finally deprived of his property.
What if you were able to take the property w/o violence or
intimidation?
-
Pick the pocket of the victim, you were able to go away pero
nadakapan ka so diha panimu gi subag ang owner, would that
be a case of robbery? Or theft and physical injury? kay
nakuha naman, THEFT.
There are cases pagkuha nakuptan pud so we cant say with

certainty that the taking was already complete kay nakuptan
paman the taking was not complete so kung diha gi subag ka
para makuha niya then there is robbery.

ARTICLE 295 - QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES IN ROBBERY
(Subs 3, 4&5 Only)
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(a) in an uninhabited place
(b) by a band
(c) attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship
(d) Entering passengers compartments
respective conveyances.
in
surprise
in
the
ARTICLE 296 - Band

BAND more than (3) armed malefactors take part in the commission
of a robbery
Armed
PP vs LOZANO
The code does not define or require any particular arms or weapons;
any weapons which by reason of its intrinsic nature or the
purpose for which it was made or used by the accused is
capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon the victim of
the crime may be considered as arms for purpose of the law on
cuadrilla.
Rule When Robbery Is Committed By a Band
member
present at the commission of the robbery
did not attempt to prevent an assault being committed by

others
*shall be guilty as principal of said assault

When Not Committed By a Band (MAKALIBOG)
rule does not apply, robber who did not participate in the
assault shall only be liable for robbery
principal by induction, present at the commission of a robbery
Conspiracy band is immaterial all shall be liable for the resulting
felony (robbery, homicide, robbery w/ rape, etc.)
INGANI NLNG PARA MAS SIMPLE:
If there are multiple offenders, present jurisprudence is if you

did not endeavor to stop the other assault you would be liable
for both felony. (MAO NI GAMITA)

Robbery with Homicide by a Band
PP vs PEDROSO
There is no special complex crime of robbery in band if the robbery with
homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be
denominated as ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE but the circumstance that
it was committed by a band is not an element to the crime but is merely
a generic aggravating circumstance w/c may be offset by a mitigating
circumstance.
ARTICLE 297
Homicide
Attempted
or
Frustrated
Robbery
with
The penalty is Rec Temp Max to Rec Per unless the homicide deserves a
higher penalty.
ARTICLE 298 - Execution of Deeds By Means Of Violence
This is the counterpart of robbery where the property instead of

being personal is real property.
The offender in this article shall be guilty of robbery.
There must be intent to defraud otherwise it might be a case of

coercion.
If its for the sake of forcing that person and the intent there why he
executes the deed is secondary then it becomes a case of coercion.
But if the primary intent of the offender was to defraud the other
particularly then it becomes thisuseless article.
ROBBERY by Use of FORCE UPON THINGS

Two ARTICLES:
(1) ARTICLE 299 Robbery in an inhabited house or public
bldg. or edifice devoted to worship.
(2) ARTICLE 302 Robbery in an uninhabited place (bldg.) or
private bldg...
Common Element
A common element in these two articles is that the offender must
enter the house, bldg.., or edifice.
Kay kamot ra dili pwede kay majority of your body is outside.

There is no set rule her, so by using the principles when you say
enter it means the whole body. Wala jud ni jurisprudence, ato

rani imbento. But most logical interpretation. Most of the
experts say that you dont enter by just reaching inside
with your arm, so it stands to reason that the
interpretation of entry is your entire body.

ARTICLE 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public
Building or Edifice Devoted To Worship
There are two SUBDIVISIONS in this article:
(1) where it is the manner of effecting entrance into (its how you
enter the bldg. is determinate if robbery or not)
(a) the inhabited house,
(b) public bldg. or
ARTICLE 300 - Robbery in an Uninhabited Place and By a

Band
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to
public worship if committed but in an uninhabited place and by a
band shall be punished by the maximum period.
The PENALTY for Robbery under ARTICLE 299 is dependent on the:
(a) value of the property taken,;
(c) edifice devoted to worship that is material;
(b) whether the offenders are armed and ;
(2) Where what is material is the action of the accused while inside
the house, bldg... Or edifice. (what the accused does once he is
inside)
SUBDIVISION (1) - Shall ENTER the house or building in which
the robbery is committed, BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS
(1) Thru and opening not intended for entrance or egress; - opening
of the ceiling, dont need to break open the window, dont need
to break the opening.
(2) Breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window;
-must be done so the offender can effect entrance into the
building. Lahi pud nang mu break ka ug door sa sulod sa balay,
that does not fall under this means or subparagraph...
(c) Whether the robbery committed in the main stricture or a

dependent thereof.
ARTICLE 301 - What Is an Inhabited House, Public Bldg.,

Bldg. Dedicated To Public Worship and Their Dependencies
INHABITED HOUSE shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling
of person.
DEPENDENCY, Elements:
(a) contiguous; connected to the main house
(b) interior entrance;
(3) Using false keys, picklocks or similar tools;

(4) Using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public
authority pretend to be a policeman and enter the house.
(c) part of the whole.

The dependency need not be devoted exclusively for rest and
comfort.
SUBDIVISION (2)
Mode of entry is immaterial. What is important is what you do
after you have entered.
Once inside the offender:
(a) Breaks doors, wardrobes, chest or any other kind of locked or
sealed furniture or receptacle;
ARTICLE 302 - Robbery in an Uninhabited Place (Bldg.) or

Private Bldg.
Uninhabited Place refers to an Uninhabited Building.
(b) Taking such furniture or object away to be broken or forced open

outside the place of robbery.
What if you take the receptacle outside not for the purpose of
breaking it outside but just that you like it. So unsa mana? Guest ka
nag particularly, pag suod nimu ana ka oi ka nindot sa iya kaban, so
you take it out of the house because you like the chest. Theft,
there was no force, or force upon things and the furniture was not
taken outside for the purpose of breaking it outside.
The means are the same as in ARTICLE 299 EXCEPT for use
of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
Penalty is based only on the value of the property taken.
ARTICLE 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits, or Firewood in an

Uninhabited Place or Private Bldg.
The penalty is lower presumably upon the reason that the

robbery was committed due to extreme necessity.
NOT applicable in robbery with violence/intimidation of

persons.

ARTICLE 304 - Possession of Picklocks or Similar Tools
The tools must be specially adopted to the commission of

robbery.
Mere possession is punishable. The maker of the tools is also liable.
Article 305 - False Keys

INCLUDES:
Tools mentioned in 304
Genuine keys stolen from the owner
Keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock.
What if you buy tools in the mall, then break the display case of
a jewelry shop. Are you liable for theft or robbery?
-
Robbery, by breaking a sealed receptacle
BRIGANDAGE
The act of forming a band of robbers for the purpose of committing
robbery in the highway or kidnapping persons for the purpose of
extortion, or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained
by means of force or violence.
Article 306 - Brigands

Elements:
(1) at least 4 armed person (band);
(2) form a band of robbers;
(3) PURPOSE:
(a)
to commit robbery in the highway;
(b)
to kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to
obtain ransom; or
(c)
to attain by means of force or violence and other
purpose
Form a Band or Robbers
It is the formation of a band of robbers that is the essence of
the felony. It is not necessary that the offenders have committed a
particular robbery.
Unlicensed Firearm Is Found With A Group presumption is

that the group is composed of highway robbers and brigands.

Brigandage Modified By PD 532
TAKING
Brigandage under the RPC even though not repealed but is impliedly
repealed by the provisions of robbery and brigandage under PD 532
Taking is consummated when the offender takes possession of the

thing.
Highway Robbery/Brigandage the seizure of any person for

ransom, extortion for any other unlawful purposes, or the taking away
of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things or other lawful means, committed by
any person on any Philippine highway.
ARTICLE 308 - Theft

Elements:
(1) taking of personal property;
(2) belonging to another;
(3) Intent to gain;
(4) Without the consent of the owner;
(5) No violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
-
Just like robbery without violence or threat
OTHER CASES OF THEFT

(1) Having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same
to its owner or to the local authorities.
(2) Having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall
remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage
caused by him.
(a) Having maliciously damaged the property of another
Malicious Mischief
(b) Having maliciously damaged the property of another
PLUS shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of
the damage caused by him Theft
(c) Killing the pet of the neighbor out of sheer malice.
Malicious Mischief - animals are considered as property
under the law
- But if you kill the cat because you want to make
some siopao Theft because you want to make
use of the fruits or objects of the damage
(3) Enter an enclosed estate or field where trespass is forbidden
and shall hunt or fish or gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or
farm products.

TAKING NOT TAKING AWAY
It is not an indispensable requisite of theft that the pickpocket

or thief carry, more or less far away, the thing taken by him
from its owner. (PP vs MERCADO)
So even if the offender had no time to dispose, time to make

use of the item taken as long as possession was obtained by
him theft has been consummated.
AGAINST THE WILL vs WITHOUT CONSENT

It will be here noted that the definition does not require that the
taking should be effected against the will of the owner but
merely that it should be without his consent, a distinction of no
slight importance. (VALENZUELA)
kanang mang huwam na di mananghid. Ingun sya ako man I uli!

Well it does not matter.
PP VS BUSTINERA: the taxi case nag joyride: ako man gi uli

ang taxi nag joyride raman ko, well it does not matter.
TAKING
..Since the offender performed all the acts of execution

necessary for the accomplishment of the felony, he is guilty of
the consummated crime of theft. (US vs ADIAO)
Remember the element is intent to gain not gain. Kay kung
ingana kailangan nimu ma baligya or gamit.
SIDE QUESTION: In the BUSTINERA CASE, Theft or Carnapping?

Carnapping. Ingun SC, the prosecutor does not even have a
choice he cannot choose between qualified theft under the RPC or
anti-carnapping law under the SPL.
WHEN TAKING IS COMPLETE.

The accused having materially taken possession of the money from
the moment he took it from the place where it had been, and having
taken it with his hands with intent to appropriate the same, he
executed all the acts necessary to constitute the crime which was
thereby produced; only the act of making use of the thing having
been frustrated, which, HOWEVER, does not go to make the
elements of the consummated crime. (Adiao citing decisions of the
Supreme Court of Spain)
Even if a person enters the room, enters a house, enters a room,
opens a box where the money was inside and then gets the money, at
that particular time he is caught.
Indeed, we have, after all, held that unlawful taking, or

apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose
of the same.
It is very clear that because the Special penal law is more

specific, congress here wants us to use the anti-carnapping
law when it is a motor vehicle that is the subject of the taking.
Motorcycle considered as Motor Vehicle
Airplane Bantay mo pagresearch mo, mangita kog kaso

kung naay klaro na answer pagawas nto sa exam.
With these conditions, we can only conclude that under

ARTICLE 308 of the RPC, theft cannot have a frustrated
stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated.
(VALENZUELA)
If this is the ruling for frustrated theft then it stands to reason

that there is also no frustrated stage for robbery.
Because of the element of taking, which is the main reason why
there can be no frustrated theft.
He took detergents from a store and when he was about to leave the
parking lot he was arrested.
thief tingali.
VALENZUELA vs PP
SC said NO! There is no such crime as frustrated theft. Frustrated
IF WHAT YOU STEAL IS A CAR OR A MOTOR VEHICLE you use

the ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW. Wala nay choice.
FRUSTRATED THEFT
Consummated. He has EXECUTED ALL NECESSARY BY TAKING

WITHOUT AUTHORITY. So NO FRUSTRATED THEFT
He said I should be almost liable to frustrated theft because in line

with the DINO and ESPiritu Case I did not have the opportunity to
dispose of the thing.
INTENT TO GAIN
Intent to Gain or Animus Lucrandi is an internal act,

presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle.
Actual Gain is irrelevant as the important consideration

is the intent to gain.
The term gain is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit

but also includes the benefit which in any other sense
may be derived or expected from the act which is

performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing was taken without
the owners consent constitutes gain. (PP vs BUSTINERA)
Even if the taking was temporary and the accused did not gain
any material benefit like money or any valuable consideration.
The MERE USE without the owners consent constitute
gain.

PERSONAL PROPERTY
Includes forces of nature that has come under the control of
science, i.e., electricity and gas (US vs CARLOS)
LAUREL vs ABROGAR
PLDT filed a case against BAYNET. Apply ang accused og phone lines
then using the internet he was able to bypass the international
gateway of PLDT.
Ingun PLDT oi! If not for this the call would gone through us and
bayran mi ug charge, tungod nya nawadaan mi ug profit. Thats
stealing of our profit.
SC said no that is service and business that is not included in the

definition of personal property. We have not updated our definition
of personal property. There might be other laws you can use or you
can change our concept of personal property or what can be stolen
under the law on theft. But during this time theft could not be
committed.
Services and business is not included.
Article 309 - Penalties

Penalty in theft depends on the value of the thing stolen.
VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN
FRANCISCO vs PP
Item is stolen is a jewelry, the only evidence as to the value of the
property was the testimony of the owner.
SC said NO. Value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge,
we cannot just accept the bare testimony of the owner who is not
even been presented as an expert on jewelry.
The accused was convicted but for stealing the value of which was
for less than 5 pesos.
The value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge nor is it
capable of unquestionable demonstration
CHECKS the amount of cash which may be realized upon them
(WICKERSHAM)
If the check is good then the amount stated in the check or

the amount which can be realized by the check shall be the
basis of the penalty not the value of the paper on which the
check is written on.
So whenever you take a good or valid check it is equivalent

as if you are taking the amount stated in the check.

Article 310 - Qualified Theft
Committed by a domestic servant;
With grave abuse of confidence;
Motor vehicle (RA 6539, PP vs BUSTINERO June 8 2004, GR 148233)

carnapping;
Mail matter;
Large cattle (PD 533);
Coconuts taken from the premises of plantation;
Fish taken from a fishpond or fishery;
Property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,

volcanic eruption, any calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
GRAVE ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE

DOMESTIC SERVANT always qualified.
ORDINARY EMPLOYEE IN A BUSINESS - you have to prove it, you
cannot presume grave abuse of confidence, you
have to prove that employee had access to the
item been taken or the nature of his work as
employed then he could abuse that particular
function.
Grave Abuse Of Confidence must establish a high degree of
confidence reposed upon the offender by the offended party.
PD 533 and the RPC

PD 533 does not supersede the crime of qualified theft of
large cattle under ARTICLE 309 and 310 under the RPC. It
merely modified the penalties provided for qualified theft of
large cattle under ARTICLE 310 by imposing stiffer penalties
thereon under special circumstances. (PP vs ESCARDA)

PD 1612 - Fencing
Elements:
(1) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
(2) The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the
commission of 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 crime of robbery or theft;
(3) The accused knew or should. That the said article, item,
object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds
of the crime of robbery or theft; there is, on the part of the
accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
Is an owner of a pawnshop liable for fencing?
Yes if the elements are present. He knows that the items were
proceeds were from theft or robbery.
How do you prove that a person know that the things he is
selling are proceeds of theft and robbery? There are several
INDICATORS:
The price
The fact that dealer is not the one regularly engage in dealing in
that item
No receipt
No proper commercial establishment
Is it necessary that a principal or an accomplice be convicted?
NO, all you have to prove that it was committed, you dont need to
prove who committed it so you do not need a conviction. All the
types of evidence available to a person under the rules will be
available to prove the element of crime of robbery and theft was
committed. An entry in a police blotter that this thing was stolen
and entry was filed better yet an information was filed in court. Best
evidence is conviction but not necessary.
ARTICLE 312 - Occupation of Real Property/Usurpation of

Real Rights
Acts Punished:
(1) Taking possession, by means of violence or intimidation of
persons, real property of another;
(2) Usurpating (take over the use or rights of the real property like
fruits or income) real rights in property belonging to another by
means of violence or intimidation of persons.
ARTICLE 313 - Altering Boundaries or Landmarks

Elements:
(1) Boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces or estates;
(2) Offender alters the same.
ARTICLE 314 - Fraudulent Insolvency

Elements:
(1) Offender is a debtor who has obligations due and demandable;
(2) Absconds with his property;
(3) Prejudice to creditors.
CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES: ARTICLE 315 - ESTAFA

ARTICLE 315 - Estafa
TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING ESTAFA:
(1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE Subdivision 1
(2) DECEIT - Subdivision 2 (false pretenses and fraudulent acts);
Subdivision 3 (FRAUDULENT MEANS)
Estafa in general
Elements:
(1) Accused defrauded another
(a) by abuse of confidence; or
(b) by means of deceit;
(2) Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or a third person.
ARTICLE 315, SUB. 1 (A) - Altering The Substance

Elements:
(1) Onerous obligation to deliver something of value;
(2) Alter the substance, quantity, or quality;
(3) Damage or prejudice.
So dapat onerous dili gratuitous. So example Mu donate ko ug One karat
diamond to your foundation nya pag hatag kay lubot diay sa baso so
anah ka OI! ESTAFA! Imu ming gi ilad. - Di pwede kay gratuitous man
EXISTING OBLIGATION TO DELIVER
1000 tins of opium* - 16 tins out of the 1000 tins of opium was
loaded with molasses (MANANSALA)
Take note: even if it is an illegal substance outside the

commerce of man, this is without prejudice to any criminal
liability to being prosecuted to another criminal offense of
dealing with an illegal substance.
Pero nowadays dili na applicable tingali kay technically

pwede pero the downside is instead of charging someone of
estafa you are now facing a bigger penalty which is dealing
with drugs.
20,000 bales of hemp 12,000 bales (MENDEZONA)

*Opium even though based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.
Alter the Substance, Quality or Quantity
There must be an agreement to deliver something of value where

its substance, quality or quantity has been specifically agreed upon.
-
There must be a specific agreement of the SUBSTANCE,

QUALITY or QUANTITY of the item to be delivered

ARTICLE 315 No. 1 (B) - By Misappropriating or Converting
Most common is that of a Commission Agent collector of debts
and gets a percentage of the collected debt. Estafa because the
money he collects is held in trust and then he does not remit these
collections.
Another is if you are entrusted with a personal property for you to
sell it SALES AGENT ka. (Common kanang Jewelry sellers). The
offended party is not selling the property to the accused but only
entrusting it to him. Kay kung sold na sya to the accused then it
becomes a DEBT and nobody gets imprisoned for non-payment of a
debt. Always emphasize na you are ENTRUSTING the goods.
PD 115 The Trust Receipts Law

-
A trustor, B trustee; the moment B cannot remit

the proceeds of the sale to A then estafa na.
CATALINA vs PP
First, all the Elements of estafa under ARTICLE 315, PAR (B) of
the RPC are present. The Elements of estafa under the said
provision are:
(a) That money, goods or other personal property is received by
the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return the same;
(b) That there be misappropriation or conversation of such
money or property by the offender; or denial on his part
of such receipt;
(c) That such misappropriation or conversation or denial is to the
prejudice of another.
ESSENCE OF ESTAFA UNDER 315 1 (B)
The essence of Estafa under ARTICLE 315, PARAGRAPH 1 (B) is
the appropriation or conversion of money or property of the
owner. (AW vs PP)
-
By just trying to sell it, dispose w/o authority it is included in

the meaning of convert or misappropriate.
CONVERT or MISAPPROPRIATE
The word convert and misappropriate connote 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 right. (AW vs PP)
-
Property you have in trust then you sell it w/o authority then
you have estafa

DEMAND NOT AN ELEMENT
Demand is not an element BUT AN IMPORTANT FACTOR. In a
prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is
evidence of misappropriation or conversion. (LEE vs PP)
Not an element but is an important thing to prove in proving

misappropriation, because the moment the demand is not
complied with the presumption/ helps you prove/
circumstantial evidence that the personal property is
misappropriated.
The normal course of things is that you receive property and
then youll have to deliver it or account for it. The moment
you cannot account for it chances are it got lost when it was
in your property so unless you can prove it got lost out of
some act of God something which you cannot avoid then it
becomes misappropriation.
DEMAND
The law is clear that failure to account upon demand for funds or
property held in trust as in the case at bar is circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation. (AW vs PP)
MATERIAL vs JURIDICAL POSSESSION

BANK TELLER
She is not in juridical possession of the cash she receives from
the clients of the bank ONLY MATERIAL POSSESSION.
Has no juridical possession
Dimani lease mski abang, he is actually an employee of the

owner so Material Possession.
LEASE A TRUCK (NOVENO)
The indication here is that you have a better right even

against the owner.
EXAMPLE:
You lease a vehicle for a day, for that particular day you
have juridical possession of the vehicle, you have a right
better than that of the owner, dili pwede kuhaon ra sa
owner ang property bsta lang w/o violating the terms
and condition of the lease.
So you sell the vehicle during that day taking advantage
of your juridical possession then it becomes estafa.
PERO kung nang huwam raka I hatod sa nko si mama sa

eskina bai ako ra ning I uli pag abot eskina imu gi diritso sa
dealer THEFT only material possession.
(Kani nindot kaayo ni sa MCQ. - Material Possession,
Juridical Possession)
Has Juridical Possession
NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or
return the same.
If the transaction transfers ownership or does not involve the duty
to deliver or return the very same thing received there is no estafa.
-
JURIDICAL POSSESSION
property be received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same
kung kawaton niya THEFT.
JEEPNEY DRIVER (ISAAC)
The moment you transfer ownership you can no longer say

that the property was held in trust
PD 115 - The Trust Receipts Law

the failure of an enstrustee to return over the proceeds of
the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a
trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the
entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said
goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or
disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt
shall constitute the crime of Estafa
So the ENTRUSTEE here has TWO OPTIONS:

(1) To return the good which was entrusted to him if
it remains unsold for the period or
(2) To remit the proceeds of the sale if he is able to
sell the goods within the period

NOVATION OF CONTRACT
BEFORE Criminal Liability Is Incurred NOT ESTAFA.
AFTER Criminal Liability Is Incurred ESTAFA.
Before estafa has been consummated, before all the

elements are complied, bahalag utrohon ninu agreement
estafa cannot be novated kung complete na tanan
elements.
HOWEVER kung before then not

-
EXAMPLE: Before the expiry of the period to return the
proceeds or property ana ang entrustee dijud mada,

execute nlng ta ug deed of conditional sale nga ako
nlng ni good sold and one year to pay. So before
misappropriation can be completed you novate the
contract or arrangement.
-
Here criminal liability cannot attach because estafa can

no longer be a possible outcome better term than
wala nay criminal liability after novation
THEFT vs ESTAFA
THEFT
Property is
taken
Material
possession
Immediate
return of the
item
ESTAFA
Property
received
Juridical
possession
Does not
expect the
immediate
return
PP vs VERA
Person gave a gold bar to the accused to have it appraised.
SC said juridical possession was never acquired by the

accused because it was merely temporary the owner
expected the immediate return after the alleged appraisal.
So in this exceptional case where property was RECEIVED

instead of being taken we can STILL say that this is THEFT
because of the nature of the possession of the item which was
material plus the expected immediate return of the item.
-
Kung naa kay nakitaan na iphone 6 sa dalan then you give it to

GMA news specifically bobby (kanang host) so that he can
announce to the owner of the lost phone. Pero si bobby seeing
iphone 6 chose to appropriate it for himself. So what crime is
committed? Or rather is there a crime?
According ni Atty DeGoma Theft there is no juridical

possession kay wala syay authority mo dawat, only material
possession.

ARTICLE 315, SUB. 1 (C) - Taking Undue Advantage of the
Signature
Elements:
(1) Paper with signature be in blank;
(2) Offended party delivers it to the offender;
(3) Offender writes a document above the signature without
authority;
(4) Creates liability or damage.
What if it was a document never intended to be a source of
liability?
Ex. IDOL! Autograph idol! And later on someone puts a promissory note
above the signature. Is that estafa?
Estafa By Means Of Deceit (ARTICLE 315 SUB. 2 & 3),
Elements
(1) That there must be false pretense or fraudulent representation
as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions;
(2) That such false pretense or fraudulent representation was
made or executed prior to simultaneously with
commission of the fraud;
(3) That the offended party relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part
with his money or property; and
(4) That, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Unlike estafa by abuse of confidence, here there need not

be a relationship between the offender and the offended
party where some degree of confidence is repost to the
offender. Here it is by means of deceit.
Common instances is overseas employment nya gi kiha ug

illegal recruitment. The other side of that is aside from
illegal recruitment which is a SPL. You also file a case of
estafa under this section. By pretending to have the power
to deploy the offended party for a work abroad.
Kay kung done after na, wala ka ma-ilad.
Seduction na after having sex with the woman, nihilak ang

babae nya iyang gi ignan ayaw lang ka guol ako lagi ka
pakaslan, I guess an unfullfilled or kanang di serious. Not
serious Insincere promise to marry is the common types
of seduction, pero after naman edi wala because the FALSE
PRETENSE or ACT should have been done before or

simultaneous.
The offended party must rely on the false pretense and of

course offended party suffered damage.
CAN YOU FILE 2 CASES? One for Estafa and the other for
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT?
YES, bec. elements are diff. sa Illegal Recruitment (IR) it
is sufficient if the offender engages in recruitment activities
without the necessary license.
But even then if you are a license holder, the mere failure to
deploy is already IR. BUT HERE ESTAFA lahi man ang elements
there must be DECIET here.

ARTICLE 315, SUB. 2 (A)
What will you charge the offender?

Charge him with estafa under falsely pretending business
or imaginary transaction.
Acts Punished:
(1) Using fictitious name;
(2) Falsely pretending to possess:
a) Power
c) Influence
e) Qualifications
b) Credit
d) Agency
f) Business or imaginary
transactions
g) Property
(3) Other similar deceits
Indispensable requirement DECIET itself which must be made
BEFORE or DURING the delivery of the thing or DURING the act
that constitutes defrauding somebody.
The deceit (false pretense or fraudulent act) must be made

prior to or simultaneous with the delivery of the thing.
The deceit must be the very cause or the only motive that
induces the offended party to part with the thing.
Illegal Recruitment (Sec 6 - RA 8042)

Elements:
(a) The offender has no valid license or authority required by
law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers;
(b) The offender undertakes any of the activities within the
meaning of recruitment and placement under Section 6
of RA 8042
ESTAFA and ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
In one case it was asked, why would will I be charged twice?
Isnt this double jeopardy?
Because the elements were very different Illegal recruitment
and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or separately. The
filing of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of
estafa, and vice versa. (SY vs PP)
EXAMPLE: Katung carlosian nah gi ilad na naa daw nokia na
pakli2x na phone na worth 2K lang nyah gi ignan sya sa seller
na huwat sa dri sa gawas ako ra suod ug kuha sa phone kay
dilikado amoa I hatag lang imo kwarta daan. Well ni tuo pud ang
carlosian. After an hour wa ni balik gi lamok nlng ang Carolinian
ug huwat. gi ilad sya.
NOTE: it must be completely false because if the offender was merely

unable to perform di kaayo sya maayo na facilitator di kaayo sya maayo
na agent but there is evidence that he actually tried to deliver perform
what he promised then it cannot be a case of estafa because there was
no deceit here, he did not falsely pretend di lang jud sya kamao.
So what is the liability in that case?
It will be a CIVIL LIABILITY, either for the refund or damages.
ARTICLE 315, SUB. 2 (B) - Altering the Quality
The offender must commit the act of alteration in relation to his

art or business.
The alteration must be the means of defrauding the offended party.
ARTICLE 315, SUB. 2 (C) - Pretending to Have Bribed
The deceit consists in persuading the offended party that the

offender has bribed a government employee.
The government employee referred to may also bring an

action for defamation against the offender.
So technically offender here is charge of not only estafa by the

offended party but may also be charged with defamation by the
government employee that was said to willing to be bribed.
ARTICLE 315, SUB. 2 (D) - By Postdating a Check

Elements:
(1) Postdates a check or issues a check in payment of an obligation;
(2) No funds in the bank or funds were insufficient.
MUST NOT BE A PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATION kay kung pre-existing

there is no deceit there is no estafa.
EXAMPLE: Palita ni ako laptop oh, nya after a few days
anah dayon ka na oi! Wala man diay ta nag hisgot kung

pila ang selling price. So once you agreed, issuehan nko
ang check then once gi dawat ang check and on
maturity date it bounces or gets dishonored its
not estafa because the check was issued for a preexisting obligation
If checks were intended as promissory notes, meaning to say there

was never an intention for it to be a check. Intended as a guaranty,

the offended party would never expect that the check was funded it
was just a promissory note that he knew when it be presented to
the bank for payment it would be dishonored.

Postdated or Issued In Payment of an Obligation
ARTICLE 315, SUB. 3 (A) - Inducing Another By Means Of

Deceit to Sign Any Document
The obligation must be contracted at the time of the

issuance and delivery of the check.
The obligation must not be a pre-existing obligation.
(1) Inducing another to sign a document;
In payment of an obligation
(2) Deceit is employed;
Elements:
(3) Offended party personally signed the document;
There is no estafa when the:
Checks were intended as promissory notes. (OBETA)
Check was issued as a guaranty (SUAREZ)
(4) Prejudice.
SIGN ANY DOCUMENT
The deceit must be the means to induce the offended party
to sign the document.
ESSENCE
The offender must be able to obtain something from the

offended party by means of the check he issues and
delivers.
Deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
Presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of the

funds to cover the check.
The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount

necessary to cover the check within 3 days from receipt of
the notice from the bank/payee/holder of the check that
the same has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
the funds is prima facie evidence of deceit.
Deceit is employed by making the offended party sign the

document.
Kanang pa permahon ang empleyado og 2 sets of things to

sign one for the gov. on for the establishment. Wamanay
deceit pugsanay man na. You have no option. This cannot
be a case of estafa.
WHAT if the deceit is in the document itself, you thought

you knew what you were singing but it was in the
performance where deceit was employed. Lets say
agreement to pay 1m so and so. Nyah pag bayad kay 1m
in counterfeit moneyang gihatag. Mu fall ani na article?
-
ARTICLE 315, SUB. 2 (E) - Obtaining Any Food
NO. Because the deceit was not the means to

induce the offended party. This is a fraud in the
performance.
Acts Punished:
(1) Obtaining food or any other accommodation without paying
therefor, with intent to defraud the properties or manager;
ARTICLE 315, SUB. 3 (B) - Insure Success in a Gambling

Game
(2) Obtaining credit using any false pretense;
(3) Abandoning or surreptitiously removing baggage after

obtaining credit without paying therefor.
Conspiring to induce the offended party to join a card game

(ROMERO)
Removing the gaff from a cock fight. (NER)
Establishment apil ang boarding house
ARTICLE 315, SUB. 3 (C)

Destroying Court Records
Removing,
Concealing
Elements:
(1) Court records, office files, documents or any other papers;
(2) Remove, conceal or destroy;
(3) Intent to defraud.
- Most of the subject of the deceit is personal property
or

Crim 2 - PreFinals

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Crim 2 - PreFinals

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

ARTICLE 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention

Becomes serious illegal detention

Any of the following circumstances are present:

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Death Penalty)

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

For The Purpose Of Extorting Ransom

KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER (Special Complex Crime)

After the effectively of RA 7659 AFTER DEC. 31 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

Same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the

Under the general rule if you help by facilitating the commission of

Privileged Mitigating Circumstance

ARTICLE 269 Unlawful Arrest

A person making a citizens arrest with NO reasonable ground

PURPOSE - deliver the arrested person to the proper authorities.

ARREST not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor.

ARTICLE 271 - Inducing a Minor to Abandon His Home

There must be evidence of criminal intent or a will to cause

It is not necessary that the minor is actually induced to abandon his

In 270 & 271 it is mitigating if the offender is the parent of the

ARTICLE 272 - Slavery

Purchasing, selling, kidnapping or detaining a human being for the

Qualifying immoral traffic.

ARTICLE 273 - Exploitation of Child Labor.

The minor is retained against his will.

Under the pretext of reimbursement for a debt incurred by an

ARTICLE 274 - Services Rendered Under Compulsion in

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

ARTICLE 278 - Exploitation of Minors

PAR 1 - Without detriment to himself. Not a more serious offense.

ARTICLE 276 - Abandoning a Minor

PAR 4 An ascendant, guardian, teacher, or person entrusted in any

ARTICLE 280 - Qualified Trespass to Dwelling.

ARTICLE 277 - Abandonment of Minor by Person Entrusted

He neglects his children by not giving them education;

His station in life requires such education and his financial

Building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort.

Nature as a whole must be protected. Naay example si Reyes,

Against The Will

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

Early in the morning (CLEMENTE),

Late hour of the night (MESINA),

Door was locked with a piece of string (SILVANO),

Entrance through the window (MARCIAL) even if the window

QUALIFIED TRESPASS (2ND PAR)

Pushing the door violently and maltreating the occupants

Cutting the ribbon or string that acted as the lock on the

Wounding the occupant with a bolo immediately after

Firing a revolver in the air (OSTREA)

Flourishing a bolo (LINDIO)

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

No! dina pwede, you still have to follow circumstances to allow

Article 282 - Grave Threats

against the person - I will kill you

against a property of another

against the family of another of the complainant

The threat must be a wrong amounting to a crime, the condition need

Grave Threats, Qualified

CRIMINAL LAW II PRE-FINALS NOTES

It must be Serious and Deliberate, otherwise it may be a case