Notes and References:

1.) RPC, Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes

2.) Antonio Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review;
3.) Boado, Notes and cases on the RPC
4.) Jurisprudence and related laws
5.) BATASnatin
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

The major classification of crimes against property includes the following:

1.) Robbery
a. With violence or intimidation against persons
b. With force upon things
2.) Theft
a. Simple
b. Qualified
3.) Estafa
4.) Malicious Mischief
a. Ordinary
b. Special Cases
5.) Arson
6.) Violation of Chattel Mortgage Law

Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery.

ROBBERY- the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by
means of violence against, or intimidation of any person, or using force upon things.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
1
MODULE No.
Classification of 3Robbery
1.) Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons. (Art. 294, 297 and 298)
2.) Robbery by the use of force upon things. (Art. 299 and 302)

Elements of robbery in GENERAL:

1.) That there must be personal property belonging to another;
2.) That there is unlawful taking of the property;
3.) That the taking must be with intent to gain; and
4.) That there is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon anything.

NOTA BENE:
 The two major classifications are based on the manner by which the robbery was
committed. The first is commonly called “hold up” while the second kind is
commonly referred to as “breaking in”. If none of these method are used, the taking
is only THEFT.
 Unlawful taking when complete:
1.) As to robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
- From the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if the
culprit has had no opportunity to dispose of the same.
2.) As to robbery with force upon things.
- See PP vs. Del Rosario, CA, 46 OG 4332 in full text
 Elements common to ROBBERY and THEFT
1.) The subject matter must be a personal property.
- For if real property is occupied or real right is usurped by means of violence
or intimidation of person, the crime is USURPATION.
- This also includes licit as well as illicit articles such as drugs, unlicensed
firearm as well as stolen items.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 - The term PERSONAL PROPERTY means such property, whether tangibles, or
those with physical appearance and form or intangibles, as long as they may
be subject of appropriation and may be carried away without altering its
nature. This also includes “Real property by immobilization or destination”
or those attached to the soil or building so long as they were detached
therefrom and carried away. E.g. trees, machineries, statutes, soil, stones and
rocks.
- “Accessories” of real properties are also included. E.g. Fruits
2.) The property must belong to another.
- The property does not belong to the accused, as there is no robbery or theft
of one’s own property. Thus, a co-owner or a partner cannot commit the
crimes with regard to the co-ownership or partnership property.
- The victim need not be the owner of the property. Possession of the property
is sufficient.
3.) There must be an act of taking or “aporderamiento”, which is the physical act of
divesting another of the possession of the thing, or to separate and remove the
property from the actual or constructive possession or custody or the control of
the victim.
- The accused must hold the thing in a manner sufficient him to dispose of it
had he wanted to it.
- The possession may be permanent, temporary or transitory.
- Tha taking of course is against the will of the owner.
4.) There must be “animus lucrandi” or intent to gain
- The gain need not be in terms of financial and material gain as this may
include intent to obtain some utility, enjoyment, satisfaction or pleasure.
- If there is no “animus lucrandi”, but force was used to get an object, the crime
is coercion
CRIMINAL LAW 2and theft are both continuous offense.
5.) Robbery
2
MODULE No. 3
In G.R. No. 217722, September 26, 2018, it held that, (READ IN FULL TEXT)

In this case, Synder did not sustain any kind of injury at all. And as already mentioned,
her testimony was bereft of any showing that violence was used against her by petitioner and
his co-accused in that she was pushed, or otherwise harmed on the occasion of robbery. While
one can only imagine how pulling three necklaces as the same time from victim’s neck could
not have caused any mark, bruise, or pain to the later, suffice it to state that such a matter
must have been adequately proved by the prosecution during trial as the court cannot rely on
mere assumptions, surmises, and conjectures especially when it is the life and liberty of the
petitioner which is at stake.

As to intimidation, its non-existence in this case is not in dispute. And even if otherwise,
the Court will just rule against it. Per the victim’s testimony, the act of the perpetrators in
grabbing the necklaces so sudden. Hence, it could not have produced fear or duress in the
victim’s mind as to deprive her of the exercise of her will.

Section One-Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.

Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.

Acts punished as robbery against or intimidation of persons.

1.) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide is committed;
2.) When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson;
3.) When by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries
resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted;
4.) When by reason or on occasion of or robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting
in the loss of the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or the loss of an eye,

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg, or the loss of the use of any such member or
incapacity for the work in which the injured person is therefore habitually engaged
is inflicted;
5.) If the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery is carried
to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime.
6.) When in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any
person not responsible for the commission of the robbery any of the physical
injuries in consequence of which the person injured becomes deformed or loses any
other member of his body or loses the use thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of work in which he is habitually engaged for more than 90 days or
the person injured becomes incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days;
7.) If the violence employed by the offender does not cause any of the serious physical
injuries defined in Art. 263, or if the offender employs intimidation only.

NOTA BENE:
1.) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide is
committed;
 This phrase requires that there is a CAUSAL CONNECTION between robbery and the
death, had it not been for the robbery, there would have been no death.
 Both the robbery and homicide should be consummated to be penalized by
reclusion perpetua to death.
 If Robbery is not consummated, but there was killing---Special Complex
Crime of Attempted/Frustrated Robbery with Homicide;
 If both Robbery and the killing is either attempted or frustrated---
Attempted/Frustrated Robbery with Attempted/Frustrated Homicide OR as
a separate crimes depending on the circumstances.
 If the Robbery is consummated but the homicide is attempted or frustrated---
CRIMINAL LAW 2 complex crime or separate crimes depending on the circumstances.
ordinary
3
 WhenNo.
MODULE 3
robbery is not proved, the crime is only homicide and vice versa.
 Robbery and Homicide are SEPARATE OFFENSES when the homicide was not
committed “on the occasion “or by reason” of the robbery.
 The killing may be intentional, or accidental. The killing may be by acts of the
robber, or by the act of the victim, or act of a third person. The person killed may be
the victim of the robbery or even another person and that includes even the robbers
themselves or a total stranger.
 The killing may be before, during or immediately after the taking provided that the
original intent of the robbers must have been to rob.
 If the original intention was to kill and the idea of taking came only thereafter, there
results two separate crimes.
 All those who conspired in the robbery will be liable for the death unless he proved
he endeavored to prevent the killing. Physical absence in the place where the killing
took place is not per se a defense, or that the accused was not aware his co-accused
would resort to a killing.
 Robbery with homicide in a DWELLING DOES NOT REQUIRE that robbery with force
upon things be committed first.

In PP vs. Labagala, G.R. No. 221427, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT),

It mentioned the case of PP vs. De Jesus which states that “When homicide is
committed by reason or on occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
robbery would also be liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with
homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that
they endeavored to prevent the same.

If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of

robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All those who conspire

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all
profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the
criminal designs of his coconspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has
materialized.

2.) When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson;

 This means that the robbery “shall have been accompanied by rape”
 The rape may be committed before, during or after the robbery so long as it was
contemporaneous with the robbery and so long as the original intention was to rob.
 If the original intention was to RAPE and not to rob so that if the taking came only
after the rape because the opportunity presents itself, the taking is theft.
 The victim of rape can be any person and may include one of the robbers.
 Both robbery and rape must be CONSUMATED, otherwise, there would be two
separate offenses. Thus, there is no such thing as robbery with attempted rape.
 If there are two or more rapes, the others will be considered as aggaravating
circumstance of ignominy. Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of
robbery will not increase the penalty.
 This court’s consistent ruling, therefore, which holds that when rape and homicide co-
exist in the commission of robbery, it is paragraph 1 of Article 294 which applies, the
rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance (G.R. No. L-35281, September
10, 1979, READ IN FULL TEXT)
 Illustrations:
 If X is robbed, raped and then killed by Y, Y is guilty of Robbery with
Homicide aggravated by Rape;
 If X is raped, then robbed and then killed by Y, Y is guilty of Rape with
Homicide and Robbery/Theft as the case may be.
 If X is raped and then a personal property is taken by Y, Y is guilty of Rape
CRIMINAL LAW 2
and Theft
4
MODULE No. 3
 Whenever a rape is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all
those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape,
although not all of them took part in the rape. (G.R. No. 227698, January 31, 2018,
READ IN FULL TEXT)
 To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur: 1.) the
taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons; 2.) the property taken belongs to another; 3.) the taking is characterized by
intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and 4.) the robbery is accompanied by rape. (G.R.
No. 227698, January 31, 2018, READ IN FULL TEXT)
NOTA BENE:
3.) Robbery with serious physical injuries under Art. 263, par. 2 (Art. 294, par.3)
 This is called SIMPLE ROBBERY because the use of violence against any person does
not result in homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or any of the serious physical
injuries defined in Art. 263, which may give rise to s special complex crime.
 Requisites:
1.) That any of the physical injuries defined in paragraph 3 and 4 of Art. 263 was
inflicted in the course of the robbery; and
2.) That any of them was inflicted upon any person not responsible for the commission
of the robbery.
 The offender who inflicted on another robber, physical injuries which later resulted
in deformity, would be liable for two crimes, namely, 1.) robbery and 2.) serious
physical injuries. Note the word, “upon any person not responsible for its
commission”.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

  Violence or intimidation need not be present before or at the exact time when the
object is taken.
 In robbery with INTIMIDATION, there must be acts done by the accused, which,
either by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances under which they are
executed, inspire fear in the person against whom they are directed.
 In robbery with intimidation of persons, “the intimidation consists in causing or
creating a fear in the mind of person or in bringing in a sense of mental distress in
view of a risk or evil that may be impending really or imagination”, and such fear of
injury to person or property must continue to operate on the mind of the victim at the
time of the delivery of the money. Where the complainant knew of the plan laid down
for the entrapment of the accused, at the same time participating in the execution
thereof, and he delivered the money to the accused, not from fear, but for the purpose
of bringing the accused to justice, the accused is not liable for robbery with
intimidation of persons. (People vs. Marco, 12 C.A. Rep. 377)
 Robbery versus Bribery
Robbery Bribery
-the victim did not commit a crime and -when the victim has committed a
he is intimidated with arrest and/or crime and gives money or gift to avoid
prosecution to deprive him of his arrests or prosecution.
personal property
-the victim is deprived of his money or -he parts with his money or property in
property by force or intimidation. a sense voluntarily.

Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place, and by a
band, or with the use of firearm, on a street, road or alley.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
5
MODULE
Art. No. 3 of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof.
296. Definition
READ Republic Act No. 12, Sec.2 and Art. 373
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is QUALIFIED if any of the offense
defined in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 is committed:
1.) In an uninhabited place;
2.) by a band, or
3.) by attacking a moving train, street, car, motor vehicle or airship, or;
4.) by entering the passengers’ compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the
passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or
5.) on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of
firearms, the offender shall be punished by the maximum periods of the proper
penalties prescribed in Art. 294.
NOTA BENE:
 The qualifying circumstance of robbery with violence or intimidation must be
alleged in the information and proved during the trial.
 Being qualifying circumstances, they cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
 Art. 295 will not apply to special complex crimes of robbery with homicide, with
rape, or with serious physical injuries under paragraph 1 of Art. 263. Thus, when
robbery with homicide was committed by attacking a motor vehicle or moving train,
or on the street, road, highway or alley with the use of firearms, the penalty
prescribed by subdivision 1 of Art. 294 shall not be imposed in the maximum period.
The same is true with respect to robbery with rape or robbery with intentional
mutilation.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

  RULES in Art. 296
1.) When at least 4 ARMED MALEFACTORS take part in the commission of a robbery, it
is deemed committed by a band.
2.) When any of the arms used in the commission of the robbery is NOT LICENSED, the
penalty upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty
provided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal possession of
firearms.
***Note however that the existing rule for this is that if MURDER/HOMICIDE was
committed with the use of the unlicensed firearm, there would be no separate crime
of illegal possession of firearm as such fact will be an special aggravating
circumstance or the crime of robbery. (READ IN FULL R.A. NO. 8294)
***Note further that if the crime committed is ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
COMMITTED BY A BAND, the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
firearm will not apply.
3.) Any member of a band who was present at the commission of a robbery by a band,
shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, UNLESS
it be shown that he attempted to prove the same.

In G.R. No. 204990. February 22, 2017, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT)
Robbery is the taking, with intent to gain of personal property belonging to another by
use of force, violence or intimidation. Under Art. 294 (5) in relation to Article 295, and Article
296, of the Revised Penal Code, robbery in band is committed when four (4) or more
malefactors take part in the robbery. All members are punished as principals for any
CRIMINAL
assault LAW 2by a band, unless it can be proven that the accused took steps to
committed
6
MODULE No. 3
prevent the commission of the crime.
Even if the crime is committed by several malefactors in a motor vehicle on a public
highway, the crime is still classified as robbery in band, not highway robbery or brigandage,
under Presidential Decree No. 532. It is highway robbery only when it can be proven that
the malefactors primarily organized themselves for the purpose of committing the
crime. (Emphasis Supplied)
NOTA BENE:
 Thus, when the robbery was not committed by a band, say, committed only by 3
malefactors, the robber who did not take part in the assault/killing by another is not
liable for the assault/killing, UNLESS THERE IS CONSPIRACY. For if there be
conspiracy, their acts collectively and individually executed.
 Proof of conspiracy however is not required, if the robbery is committed by a band.

Art. 297. Attempted and Frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances.
In G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT)
In the present case, the crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim
refused to give his money to appellant and no personal property was shown to have been
taken. It was for this reason that the victim was shot. Appellant can only be found guilty of
attempted robbery with homicide, thus punishable under Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code.
Since the RTC and the Court of Appeals found appellant’s crime to be aggravated by disregard
of dwelling, the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the maximum penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 NOTA BENE:
 The penalty is just the same whether the robbery is in ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED
STAGE.
 Homicide in this article in used in its generic sense and may include murder,
parricide or even infanticide, whether individual or multiple.
 Art. 296 and not Art. 297 is applicable to ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
BY A BAND.
 There is only one crime of attempted robbery with homicide even if slight physical
injuries were inflicted on other persons on the occasion or by reason of robbery
because Art. 297 speaks of attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide.
Art. 298.Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation.
Elements:
1.) That the offender has intent to defraud another;
2.) That the offender compels him to sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or
document;
3.) That the compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.
NOTA BENE:
 This article is not applicable if the document is void;
 This applies if document signed, executed or delivered is a PRIVATE or
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS.
 If the violence resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded, the crime is
robbery with homicide and shall be penalized under Art. 294, par. 1.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
7 Section Two-Robbery by the use of force upon things
MODULE No. 3
CONCEPT: The person liable for robbery with force upon things, DOES NOT USE violence or
intimidation of any person in taking the personal property belonging to another with intent
to gain, for otherwise, he will be liable under Art. 294.

TWO KINDS OF ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS:

1.) Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious
worship;
2.) Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building.

Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to

worship.

Art. 301. What is inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious
worship and their dependencies.

Robbery with Force upon Things under Subdivision A, Elements:

1.) That the offender entered (a) an inhabited place, or (b) public building or (c) edifice
devoted to religious worship.
2.) That the entrance was effected by any of the following means:
a.) Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress;
b.) By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window;
c.) By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools; or
d.) By using any fictitious name, or pretending the exercise of public authority.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 3.) That one inside the building, the offender took personal property belonging to
another, with intent to gain.
NOTA BENE:
 INHABITED HOUSE is any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or
more person even though temporarily absent when robbery is committed. It
includes dependencies, courts, corals, bans, etc.
It does not include however orchards and lands for cultivation.
 PUBLIC BUILDING- any building owned by the Government or belonging to a private
person but used or rented by the Government, although temporarily unoccupied by
the same.
 DEPENDENCIES-all interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries or inclosed
places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected
therewith, and which form part of the whole. Provided: 1.) it must be contiguous to
the building; 2.) must have an interior entrance connected therewith and 3.) must
form part of the whole
 BREAKING-means entering the building. The force used must be actual, as
distinguished from that in the other means which is only constructive force.
 FALSE KEYS are genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys other than those
intended by the owner for use in the lock which was forcibly opened by the
offender.
 PICKLOCKS are those especially adopted for the commission of the robbery.
 In robbery by the use of force upon things, it is necessary that the offender enters
the building or where object may be found. When there was no entry, no robbery
was committed.
 WHOLE
CRIMINAL BODY
LAW 2 must be inside the house, public building or place devoted to worship
8
MODULE No. 3 entering.
to constitute
 Passing through an open door but getting out of the window is not robbery.
 To constitute robbery, the outside door must be broken or smashed. If the lock was
merely removed or door was merely pushed, the crime is only theft.
 The key must have been stolen not by force. Otherwise, it is robbery by violence
against or intimidation of persons.
 False key must have been used in opening house and not any furniture inside.
Otherwise, the crime is only theft.
***Thus, if XXX used picklock to open a door of the room and thereafter, he took
YYY’s jewelries placed on top of a table inside it, the crime is only theft.
***Exception: If a room is a separate dwelling place, the crime is robbery.
 The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise authority must be
committed for the purpose of entering the building.

In G.R. No. 197562. April 20, 2015, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT)
Napolis v. Court of Appeals is controlling in this case. To start with, the information
fully alleged the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house under Art. 299, Revised Penal
Code, and robbery with intimidation or violence under Art. 294, Revised Penal Code by
averring, “the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to
gain, and by means of violence and intimidation upon person rob the residence x x x x x”. And
secondly, the Prosecution competently proved the commission of the complex crime by
showing during the trial that the accused, after entering the residential house of the
complainants at No. 24-B Mabait St, Teachers Village, Quezon City, took away valuables,

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 including the vault containing Cynthia’s US dollars currencies, and in the process committed
acts of violence against and intimidation of persons during the robbery by slapping and
threatening Lalaine and tying her up, and herding other members of the household inside the
bodega of the house.

Robbery with Force upon Things under Subdivision B, Elements:

1.) That the offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice devoted to
religious worship, regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it;
2.) That the offender takes personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain
under any of the following circumstances:
a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or
sealed furniture or receptacle; or
b. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the
place of robbery.
NOTA BENE:
 It is not necessary that the entrance was made through any of the means mentioned
in subdivision (a);
 Offender may be servants or guests.
 Destruction of keyhole of cabinet is robbery under this subsection.
 When sealed box is taken out for the purpose of breaking, crime is already
CONSUMATED robbery. There is no need to actually open it inside the building from
where it was taken. But if the box was confided into the custody of the accused and
he takes the money contained therein, the crime is ESTAFA.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
9  The crime is theft if the box was found outside of the building and the accused
MODULE No. 3
forced it open.
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE:
1.) Offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken exceeds P250.
(Note that the amount is no longer controlling. Refer to RA No. 10951, the
amount is now 50k.)
2.) Offenders are armed, but the value does not exceed 50k;
***The liability for carrying arms while robbing an inhabited house is extended to
each of the offenders who take part in the robbery, even if some of them do not
carry arms. (Guevarra, citing December Supreme Court of Spain. October 27, 1982)
3.) Offenders do not carry arms and the value does not exceed 50k;
4.) Committed in dependencies.

Art. 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band.

Nota Bene:
DO NOT BE CONFUSED:
 Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious
worship is QUALIFIED when committed by a band and in (located) uninhabited
place;
 To qualify robbery with force upon things in Art. 299, it must be committed in
uninhabited place AND by a band (Art. 300);
 To qualify robbery with violence against or intimidation, it must be committed in
an uninhabited place OR by a band (Art. 295).

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 Art. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building.
Elements:
1.) That the offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was not a
dwelling house, not a public building, or not an edifice devoted to religious worship.
2.) That any of the following circumstances are present:
a.) That the entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or
egress;
b.) A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was broken;
c.) The entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other
similar tools;
d.) A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was
broken; or
e.) A closed seal receptacle was removed, even if the same be broken elsewhere.
3.) That with intent to gain, the offender took therefrom personal property belonging to
another.
NOTA BENE:
 This covers the second kind of robbery with force upon things;
 UNINHABITED PLACE-is an uninhabited building which is not a dwelling house,
public building or edifice for worship.
E.g. warehouse, freight car, store
 Robbery under this Article is committed in the same manner as in Art. 299 EXCEPT
THAT what was entered into was UNINHABITED PLACE or building other than
those mentioned in Art. 299.
 The use
CRIMINAL of fictitious
LAW 2 name or the exercise of public authority is NOT also included in
10
MODULE No. 3 The reason is OBVIOUS.
this Article.
 The breaking of padlock but not of door is only theft.
 BUILDING-includes any kind of structure used for storage or safekeeping of
personal property. E.g. warehouse.
 Entrance through an opening not intended or entrance or egress is not necessary, if
there is breaking of wardrobe, chest or sealed or closed furniture or receptacle, or
removal thereof to be broken elsewhere. Note that the receptacle or wardrobe must
be CLOSED or SEALED.
 Penalty is based on the value of the property taken.
ROBBERY IN A STORE:
Punishable under Art. 299 Punishable under Art. 302
If the store is used as a dwelling of one or If the store was not actually occupied at
more persons, the robbery committed the time of robbery and was not used as a
therein would be considered as dwelling, since the owner lived in a
committed in an inhabited house. (PP vs. separate house, the robbery committed
Suarez) therein. (PP vs. Silvestre)
If the store is located on the ground floor
of the house belonging to the owner,
having an interior entrance connected
therewith, it is a dependency of an
inhabited house and the robbery
committed therein. (US vs. Tapan)

Art. 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private

building.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 NOTA BENE:
 When the robbery described in Art. 299 and 302 consists in the taking of cereals,
fruits or firewood, the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said
articles shall be imposed.
In the case of G.R. No. L-16988. December 30, 1961, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT)
In case of doubt in the interpretation of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text shall
prevail. (People v. Samonte, G.R. No. 36559, July 26, 1932).
In conclusion, inasmuch as hulled rice (arroz) cannot be considered as seedling
(semilla alimenticia), the offense with which the appellee is charged in the information does
not fall under article 303 of the Revised Penal Code but under the second to the last
paragraph of article 302 where the offense therein defined is penalized with arresto mayor in
its maximum degree; an offense which falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance.
From the foregoing, it would see that palay (the local name for unhulled rice) is
“cereal” and is included in the term semilla alimenticia” used in Spanish text of the Revised
Penal Code, as it is grin in its original state, and under proper condition, can and will
germinate into the plant that produces it.
Art. 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools.
Acts punished:
1.) Possession of picklocks or similar tools specially adopted or for mere preparatory
act of robbery.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
2.) The manufacture of picklocks or similar tools.
11
MODULE No. 3
*** A master key or skeleton key is a picklock.
*** is a key was entrusted to a confidential employee, as a secretary or bodyguard,
for safekeeping but the latter used them to open and take property, the crime is
QUALIFIED THEFT/THEFT as the case may be.
*** In cases of “bukas-kotse gang”, the use of picklock will only be absorbed.

Art. 305. False keys.

False Keys include:
1.) Picklocks or similar tools;
2.) Genuine keys stolen from the owner.
3.) Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened
by the offender.
Nota Bene:
 Possession of false keys mentioned in 2 and 3 of Art. 305 is not punishable.

In G.R. No. L-188766, May 20, 1965, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT):
Since picking of locks is one way to gain entrance to commit robbery, a picklock is per
se specially adopted to the commission of robbery. The description in the information of a
picklock as “specially adapted to the commission of the robbery”, is therefore unnecessary for
its sufficiency. Notwithstanding the omission of such superfluous description, therefore, the

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 charge of offense of illegal possession of picklock is valid. We find both elements of the crime
clearly alleged in the information in question.
Furthermore, the information alleged illegal possession of “seven (7) false keys”. The
Revised Penal Code, in Article 305, defines “false keys” to include “the tools mentioned in the
next preceding article.” Article 304-“the next preceding article-mentions “picklocks or similar
tools specially adapted to the commission of the crime of robbery.” It follows that the term
“false keys” appearing in the information sufficiently describes such tools.

Chapter Two
BRIGANDAGE

Art. 306. Who are brigands. Penalty.-

There is brigandage when:
1.) There must be at least four armed persons.;
2.) They formed a band of a band of robbers;
3.) The purpose is any of the following:
a. To commit robbery in the highway; or
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom; or
c. To attain by any means of force and violence any other purpose.
IMPORTANT.
BRIGANDAGE
CRIMINAL LAW vs. HIGHWAY
2 ROBBERY under P.D. 532
12
MODULE No. BRIGANDAGE
3 HIGHWAY ROBBERY under P.D. 532
(Ordinary Robbery committed on a
highway)
-constitutes acts of robbery committed -committed indiscriminately against any
against only a predetermines or particular person/s.
victim.
-the commission thereof in public highway -the offender is a brigand or one who
is only incidental and the offender is not a roams in public highways and carries out
brigand, his robbery in public highways as venue,
whenever the opportunity to do so arises.
-its commission is only occasional against a -there is frequency in the commission of
predetermined victim, without frequency the robbery, in public highways and against
in public highways. persons travelling thereat.
-the purpose is only a particular robbery, -the purpose is inter alia, is indiscriminate
the crime is robbery or robbery in band if highway robbery.
there are at least 4 armed participants.
-no proof is required. -a conviction requires proof that the
accused were organized for the purpose of
committing robbery indiscriminately.
REMEMBER:
Under P.D. No 532, BRIGANDAGE is the seizure of any person for (a) ransom; (b)
extortion or other unlawful purpose; or (c) the taking away of property by violence or
intimidation or force upon things or other unlawful means, committed on a Philippine
highway.
BRIGANDAGE vs. ROBBERY IN BAND

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 BRIGANDAGE
-offenders form a band of robbers.
-the purpose is any of the following:
1. to commit robbery in the highway;
2. to kidnap persons for extortion/ransom;
3. for any other purpose to be attained by
force and violence.
-the mere formation of a band for any of
the purposes mentioned, is sufficient, as it
would not be necessary to show that the
band actually committed robbery in the
highway, etc.
ROBBERY IN BAND
-offenders form a band of robbers.
-the purpose is only to commit robbery not
necessarily in highway.
-it is necessary to prove that the band
actually committed robbery, as a mere
conspiracy to commit robbery is NOT
punishable.

NOTA BENE:
 BAND OF ROBBERS-formed by more than 3 armed persons.
 PRESUMPTION-If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed
firearm, it shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands,
and in case of conviction, the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.
 The term “armed” may refer to any deadly weapon.
 The main object of the law is to prevent the formation of such a band conspiring
together for the purpose of robbery in the highway. Or kidnapping of persons for
extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by means of
force and violence, and such formation is sufficient to constitute a violation of the
law.
 The term “highway” includes streets within as well as roads outside the cities.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
13 Art. 307. Aiding
MODULE No. 3and abetting a band of brigands.
Elements:
1.) That there is a band of brigands;
2.) That the offender knows the band to be brigands;
3.) That the offender does any of the following acts:
a. He in any manner aids, abets, or protects such band of brigands; or
b. He gives them information of the movements of the police, or other peace
officers of the Government;
c. He acquires or receives the property the property taken by the brigands
NOTA BENE:
 It is presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has
performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven;
 Any person who aids or protects highway robbers or abets the commission of
highway robbery or brigandage shall be considered as an accomplice.

Chapter Three
THEFT
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.

Art. 309. Penalties.

The following are liable for theft:

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 1.) Those who, (a) with intent to gain, (b) but without violence against or intimidation
of persons nor force upon things, (c) take, (d) personal property, (e) of another, (f)
without the latter’s consent;
2.) Those who (a) having found lost property, (b) fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner;
3.) Those who, (a) after having maliciously damaged the property of another, (b)
remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them;
4.) Those who (a) enter an inclosed estate or a field where (b) trespass is forbidden or
which belongs to another and, without the consent of its owner, (c) hunt or fish
upon the same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products.

Elements:
1.) That there be taking of personal property;
2.) That said property belongs to another;
3.) That the taking be done with intent to gain;
4.) That the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
5.) That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things.

In the case of G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT)

Robbery v. Theft

On the second and third issues, Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime
committed by "any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property
belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or
using force upon anything." Robbery with homicide occurs when, by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed. 14 In Article
CRIMINAL
249 LAW
of the RPC, 2 person who shall kill another shall be deemed guilty of homicide.
any
14
MODULE No. 3
Homicide, as used in robbery with homicide, is to be understood in its generic sense to
include parricide and murder.15  The penalty for the crime of robbery with homicide
is reclusion perpetua to death.16Ï‚rνll

Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but
without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the
personal property of another without the latter s consent. 17 The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods is imposed upon persons guilty of
theft, if the value of the thing stolen is more than P200 but does not exceed P6,000. 18 ςrνll

By definition in the RPC, robbery can be committed in three ways, by using: (a)
violence against any person; (b) intimidation of any person; and/or (c) force upon
anything. Robbery by use of force upon things is provided under Articles 299 to 305 of
the RPC.

 In addition to what was discussed by the jurisprudence, for ROBBERY to exist, it

is necessary that there should be taking against the will of the owner; and for
THEFT, it sufficed that consent on the part of the owner is lacking. (People vs.
Chan Wat, 49 Phil 116)

NOTA BENE:
 Based on the definition, there is only one operative act of execution by the actor,
involved in theft-the taking of personal property of another. It is also clear that in
order that such taking may be considered as theft, there must further be present the
descriptive circumstances that the taking was intent to gain; without force upon
things or violence against or intimidation of persons; and it was without the consent
of the owner.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

  The “taking” is considered complete only when the offender is able to place the
thing under his control, and in such a situation as he could dispose of it at one. (Pp
vs. Noval).
 In other case, it was held that the aportation is complete from the moment that the
offender had full possession of the thing, even if he did not have an opportunity to
dispose of the same.
 The element of “taking” referred to in the law means the act of depriving another of
the possession and dominion of movable thing coupled with the intention, at the
time of the taking, of withholding it with the character of PERMANENCY.
 There is also “taking” even when the offender received the thing from the offender
party. But in this case, note the difference of physical and juridical possession, as the
crime may also be of estafa. (FMimie)

REMEMBER:

 THEFT is committed when the offender has taken a personal property of another,
without the owner’s consent. Such taking, since it is unknown to the owner, only gives
the offender material possession of the property. To define, material
possession means the actual physical possession of the personal property, where the
possessor does not have a better right over such property than the owner. Then, after
taking the property, the offender misappropriates the property. The offender takes the
property and uses it as if he is really the owner.

For example, if ARJIE takes the mobile phone of MYRA from MYRA’s pouch without her
consent, then ARJIE should be liable for theft. In this case, ARJIE has physical
possession of the mobile phone, and after taking it she may use it as if it was her own.

 EstafaLAW
CRIMINAL on the2 other hand, if the possession of the property by the offender arouse from
15 a contract
MODULE No. 3 or an agreement, then the possessor has juridical possession of the
property – a right over the property, which he can claim and set up even against the
owner. The juridical possession contemplated for the estafa refers to the delivery of the
thing to the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration or under any
other circumstance involving the duty to deliver or to return the same thing received.
If the delivery, is therefore, not made under any of said concepts, the crime is theft.

 To distinguish theft from estafa, it is important to know whether the possession of the
property by the offender is only material or if it is coupled with juridical possession.
For example, in the case of Arjie and Myra, if Myra agrees to lend Arjie her mobile
phone for a week, then Arjie has a right over the mobile phone for that week. Myra
cannot take the mobile phone from Arjie during the week that they have agreed upon.
Because of their agreement, Arjie acquired juridical possession over the property. But,
if Arjie sells the phone during the week that it was within her possession, then it is
obvious that she has converted the use of the property. She was permitted to use it, but
she was not authorized to sell it. If this happens, estafa is committed. DO NOT BE
CONFUSED.

 The consent contemplated in the element of theft refers to consent freely given and
not to one which may only be inferred from mere lack of opposition on the part of
the owner of the property taken.
 PERSONAL PROPERTY as an element of theft includes electricity ang gas because
electricity, the same as gas, is a valuable article of merchandise bought and sold like
other personal property and is capable of appropriation by another (US vs. Carlos,
21 Phil, 553);
 By the word GAIN is meant not only the acquisition of a thing useful to the purpose
of life but also the benefit which in any other use may be derived or expected from
the act which is performed.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

  Actual is not necessary for the crime, for it is enough that on taking them, the
offender is actuated by desire or intent to gain.
 It is well settled rule that the possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence that
the possessor is the thief, and throws on him the necessity of accounting for his
possession. (State vs. Weston, 9 Conn., 527; 25 Am Dec., 46; Jones vs. The State of
Mississippi, 30 Miss., 653; 64 Am. Dec., 175; State vs. Raymond, 46 Conn., 345; 2
Wharton's Criminal Law, section 1231.)

As to why there is no frustrated theft, Source: Philippine E-legal Forum:

 Theft cannot have a frustrated stage, according to the Supreme Court in a recent case. Theft can
only be attempted or consummated.
 According to the SC, unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful taking,
which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its
consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense
could only be attempted theft, if at all. Thus, under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft
cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated.
 In that case, the accused were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket in SM-North
EDSA, by a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area. The accused
were able to bring the merchandise outside the supermarket and boarded a taxicab at the open
parking area. They were apprehended before leaving the parking area. The accused were
convicted by the lower court with the crime of consummated theft, but they argued that they
should only be charged with frustrated theft, as they didn’t have the opportunity to dispose of the
merchandise.

Finder of lost property, paragraph 1, Art. 308

How to prove:
1.) The time of the seizure of the thing;
CRIMINAL
2.) That itLAW 2 property belonging to another; and
was lost
16
MODULE
3.) That No.
the 3accused having had the opportunity to return or deliver the lost property
to its owner or to the local authorities, refrained from doing so.

NOTA BENE:
 Par. 1 of Article 308 is not limited to the actual finder.
 Again, Thus, if AAA found a wallet containing money worth 1K on the street and he
surrendered it to BBB, a policeman within the area. BBB would be liable for THEFT,
not of ESTAFA if he would refuse to surrender the same to its owner. Explanation:
When AAA found the wallet, he had only the PHYSICAL possession of the thing, not
juridical possession.
 Intent to gain is presumed in this paragraph

Hunting, fishing, or gathering of fruits, etc. in enclosed estate, paragraph 3, Art. 308
Elements:
1.) That there is an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another;
2.) That the offender enters the same;
3.) That the offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals or other
forest or farm products in the estate or field; and
4.) That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without the consent of the
owner.

NOTA BENE:
 The fishing in this paragraph should not be in the fishpond or fishery, otherwise, the
felony would that be of qualified theft.
 Note also P.D. No. 532

 Basis for the penalty in theft:

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 1.) Value of the thing stolen;
2.) Value and the nature of the property taken
3.) Circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime

Art. 310. Qualified Theft

Theft is qualified:
1.) If the theft is committed by a public servant;
2.) If the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3.) If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail letter, or (c) large cattle;
4.) If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation;
5.) If the property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

In G.R. No. 225735, January 10, 2018, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT)

To make matters worse, accused-appellant was a domestic helper who had been
working for the Spouses Gavino for at least one (1) year when she committed the crime. By
this fact alone, the offense committed is qualified and warrants graver penalties, pursuant to
Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended:

Article 310. Qualified theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next
higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property
stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident
CRIMINALor civil
LAW disturbance.
2 (Emphasis supplied.)
17
MODULE No. 3
This Court has explained that while grave abuse of trust and confidence per se does not
produce the felony as an effect, it is a "circumstance which aggravates and qualifies the
commission of the crime of theft"; 30 hence, the imposition of a higher penalty is necessary. It is
not difficult to understand why the character of accused-appellant's work as a domestic
helper qualifies the offense she committed. As explained in Corpuz v. People of the
Philippines:31

[T]he rationale for the imposition of a higher penalty against a domestic servant is the fact
that in the commission of the crime, the helper will essentially gravely abuse the trust and
confidence reposed upon her by her employer. After accepting and allowing the helper to be a
member of the household, thus entrusting upon such person the protection and safekeeping of
the employer's loved ones and properties, a subsequent betrayal of that trust is so repulsive as
to warrant the necessity of imposing a higher penalty to deter the commission of such
wrongful acts.32

NOTA BENE:

 Take note also of the amendments made by RA 10951 so you would know how to
increase the penalty for this article.

 Theft by DOMESTIC SERVANT is always qualified.

 IMPORTANT: There must be allegation in the information and proof of a relation, by

reason of dependence, guardianship and vigilance between the accused and the
offended party, that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which
the accused abused. (People vs. Koc Song, 63 Phil 369)

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

  During preliminary investigation in the fiscal level, it is not enough that you mention
that the respondent is a domestic servant. There must be also an allegation that
there created a confidence between the respondent and the complainant and that
there must be a showing that respondent has access or at least able to access the
valuables of the thing stolen. Otherwise, the felony would only be that of the simple
theft. It is still a case to case basis.(Opinion, FMimie)

 Said attorney de oficio for the appellants contends that unless it be proven that the
accused asked for shelter for charity's sake in order to take advantage of the occasion
to commit the crime of theft, the mere fact that he had been living out of charity in the
offended party's house would be insufficient to convert the crime from simple to
qualified theft, inasmuch as article 310 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
qualified theft is committed when "grave abuse of confidence is present," making it
understood thereby that the relation of cause and effect must exist between the abuse
of confidence and the crime. The grave abuse of confidence does not produce the crime
of theft as effect. It is the asportation, with intent of gain, of personal property
belonging to another without the owner's knowledge and consent, which produces it.
The relation of cause and effect, therefore does not exist between the two concepts.The
grave abuse of confidence is a mere circumstance which aggravates and qualifies the
commission of the crime of theft. It is not necessary for said circumstance to be
premeditated in order to be taken into consideration as an aggravating circumstance
qualifying said crime. Its presence in the commission of the crime is sufficient. The fact
that the accused was living in the house of the ofended party, who had sheltered him
out of charity, when he took the money belonging to his protector, aggravates the
crime committed by him, inasmuch as he gravely abused the confidence which the
owner of the house reposed inhim upon permitting him, out of charity, to live therein,
stiffling the sentiment of gratitude awakended in his bosom by his benefactor's
charitable
CRIMINAL LAWact.2 This abuse of confidence was all the more grave because it happened
18 between
MODULE No. fellow
3 countrymen. (G.R. No. L-45765, January 29, 1938, READ IN FULL
TEXT)

 Theft by a housemate is not always qualified. Theft by a laborer is only simple theft.

 Remember the confidence gravely abused must be that existing between the
offended party and the offender and the same must be alleged in their sworn
statement to be appreciated.

 The theft of motor vehicle must be read in conjunction with R.A. 10883, the latter is
now controlling.

 While theft of a cattle must be correlated with P.D. No. 533.

 The reason for the heavier penalty for theft of a coconut is to encourage and protect
the development of coconut industry as one of the sources of our national economy.
The coconuts must however be taken from the premises of a plantation.

 The fish in this Article must be taken from the fishpond or fishery.

In G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009, it held that: (READ IN FULL TEXT)

(As to the difference between qualified theft and estafa)

x x x The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while
in estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However,
there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only
with the material or physical (natural) or   de facto  possession of the thing, his

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical possession of the
thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa. 20 (Underscoring
supplied)

The appellate court correctly explained that conversion of personal property in the case of an
employee having material possession of the said property constitutes theft, whereas in the
case of an agent to whom both material and juridical possession have been transferred,
misappropriation of the same property constitutes estafa. 21 Notably, petitioner’s belated
argument that she was not an employee but an agent of private complainant 22 grants her no
respite in view of her stipulation23 during pre-trial and her admission24 at the witness stand of
the fact of employment. Petitioner’s reliance on estafa cases involving factual antecedents of
agency transactions is thus misplaced.

That petitioner did not have juridical possession over the amount or, in other words, she did
not have a right over the thing which she may set up even against private complainant is
clear.25 In fact, petitioner never asserted any such right, hence, juridical possession was
lodged with private complainant and, therefore, estafa was not committed.

Petitioner’s view that there could be no element of taking since private complainant had no
actual possession of the money fails. The argument proceeds from the flawed premise that
there could be no theft if the accused has possession of the property. The taking away of the
thing physically from the offended party is not elemental, 26 as qualified theft may be
committed when the personal property is in the lawful possession of the accused prior to the
commission of the alleged felony.27

A sum of money received by an employee in behalf of an employer is considered to be only in

the material possession of the employee. 28 The material possession of an employee is adjunct,
byCRIMINAL
reason of his
LAWemployment,
2 to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. So
19 long as the No.
juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee-
MODULE 3
perpetrator, the offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or otherwise. 29

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 have known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery
of theft.

ELEMENTS:

1.) The 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 has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime.
3.) That the accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft;
4.) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or another.

PRESUMPTION OF FENCING-mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything

of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.

 In order to prosecute successfully the crime of fencing, the crime of theft/robbery

must have been decided first, otherwise, the fencing case may be the subject of a

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE | 

 motion to dismiss. Fencing and robbery and theft are SEPARATE and DISTINCT
offenses.
 Prosecution must prove that the accused knew or should have known that the item
he acquired and later sold was derived from theft or robbery and that he intended to
obtain some gain out of his acts.

Art. 311. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum.

 Theft under this Article has a fixed penalty without regard to the value of the
property of the National Library and National Museum. Unless the crime is
committed with grave abuse of confidence.

CRIMINAL LAW 2
20
MODULE No. 3

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAM IS TO WAKE UP-FMIMIE |