',TITLE TEN · Art.

295
Crimes Against Property

because of the threat, he gave the fish to the agent, although the fish
was not caught by means of dynamite, the crime committed is robbery
under paragraph 5 of Article 294.
If the owner of the fish in that case in fact used dynamite in
catching the fish and he gave the fish to the agent to avoid prosecution
under the Fisheries Act, the crime would be bribery. (People v. Munar,
CA., 47 O.G. 2461)

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. - If the offenses mentioned in
subdivisions three, four, and five-of.the next preceding article
shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a
band or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle
or airship, or by entering the passengers' compartments in
a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by
surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road,
highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use
of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum
period of the proper penalties. (As amended, by R.A. No. 12,
Sec. 2, and R.A. No. 373)

When is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

qualified?
If any of the offenses defined in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article
294 is committed -
(1) in an uninhabited place, or
(2) by a band, or
(3) by attacking a moving train, streetcar, motor vehicle, or
airship, or
(4) by ep.tering the passengers' compartments in a train, or in
any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in
the respective conveyances, or

865
Art. 295 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
(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 Article 294.
Must be alleged In the Information.
Any of these five qualifying circumstance~ of ro_bbery with
physical injuries or intimidation must be alleged m the information
and proved during the trial.
Being qualifying, It cannot be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance.
Any of these qualifying circumstances .cannot be offset by a
generic' mitigating circumstance.
If robbery by a band is committed in an uninhabited place,
"by a band" is qualifying and "uninhabited place" would be generic
aggravating circumstance only. (See U.S. v. Gapas, 18 Phil. 629)
The Intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery on
a street, road, highway or alley.
This is indicated in the head note of the article which says: "or
with the use of firearm on a street, road, highway, or alley."
Article 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or robbery with
rape, or robbery with serious physical injuries under paragraph 1
of Article 263.
Article 295 provides for different cases in which robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons is qualified.
This article does not apply:
(1) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide is committed (subdivision 1, Art. 294);
(2) When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation, or arson (subdivision 1, Art. 294); or
(3) Ifby reason or on occasion of robbery, any oft?e serious
physical injuries resulting in insanity,. .'mbec,lity,
impotency or blindness is inflicted (subd1v,s10n 2, Art.
294).
866
TITLE TEN Art. 296
Crimes Against Property
The reason is that this article mentions subdivisions 3 4 and 5 of
Arti~le 294, omitting subdivisions 1 and 2 which refer to robbery with
homictde, robbery with rape, robbery with intentional mutilation and
robbery with serious physical injuries resulting in insanity imbe;ility
impotency or blindness of the victim. ' '
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 Article 294 shall not be imposed in the maximum period. The same
is true with respect to robbery with rape or robbery with intentional
mutilation.
However, if there is no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the
fact that robbery with homicide or robbery with rape is committed in
an uninhabited place or by a band will have the effect of increasing
the penalty to the maximum period, because it will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance under Article 14.
Article 295 is inapplicable to robbery with homicide, rape,
intentional mutilation, and lesiones graves resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency, or blindness. If the foregoing classes of robbery
which are described in Article 294(1) and (2) are perpetrated by a
b'and, they would not be punishable under Article 295, but then,
cuadrilla would be generic aggravating cirC11IDstance under Article 14
of the Code. (People v. Salip Mania, 30 SCRA 389; People v. Damaso,
86SCRA370)
Art. 296. Definition ofa band and penalty incurred by the
members thereof. - When more than three armed malefactors
take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed
to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used
in the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm,
the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be
the maximum period of the corresponding penalty provided
by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal
possession of such unlicensed firearm.
Any member of a band who is present at the commission
of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of
867
 Art.296 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown
that he attempted to prevent the same. (As amended by R.A..
No.12)
Outline of the provisions.
1. When at least four 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 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 possessio~
of such firearms.
3. Any member of a band who was present at the commission of
a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of
the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the same.
Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of the band.
A member of the band is liable for any of the assaults committed
by the other members thereof, when the following requisites concur:
1. That he was a member of the band.
2. That he was present at the commission of a robbery by
that band.
3. That the other members of the band committed an assault.
4. That he did not attempt to prevent the assault.
There must be proof that he made an endeavor to prevent the
assault committed by another member of the band, in order that he
may not be held liable for such assault. (People v. Mendoza, et al.,
84 Phil. 148)
Inasmuch as the crime committed is robbery in band and the
accused, who denies all intervention therein, admits having been
present at the commission of the crime without having done anything
to prevent the murder of three people, his liability is the same as
that of the principals in the crime ofrobbery with homicide. (People
v. Gallemos, et al., 61 Phil. 884)
868
TITLE TEN Art.296
Crimes Against Property
When Is the robbery deemed committed by a band?
Article 296 provides that when more than three armed
malefactors take part in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed
to have been committed by a band. At least four armed persons must
take part in the commission ofrobbery.
All of the elements of robbery in band had been satisfactorily
established herein. At least five people, including accused, carrying
guns and a hand grenade, barged into the home of, and forcibly took
pieces of jewelry and other personal properties belonging to the
offended parties. Accused themselves made their intent to gain clear
when they assured their victims that they were only after the money.
(People v. Basao, G.R . No . 189820, October 10, 2012)
Clubs are arms.
The clubs are arms which, in the hands of the members of a
band, may be as dangerous to the life of one who would resist the
depredations of the band as are revolvers or bolos. (U.S. v. de la Cruz,
et al., 12 Phil. 87)
When the robbery was not committed by a band, the robber who did
not take part In the assault by another Is not liable for that assault.
Thus, in the case where three persons committed robbery in
a house, two of the robbers committed rape upstairs, while the
third guarded the owner of the house downstairs, the first two were
convicted of robbery with rape, while the third was convicted of
robbery only. (People v. Pascual, G.R. No. L-4801, June 30, 1953, 93
Phil. 1114)
But when there Is conspiracy to commit homicide and robbery, all
the conspirators, even If less than four armed men, are liable for
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
When a group of malefactors conspire to commit robbery and
arm themselves for the purpose, no member of the group may disclaim
responsibility for any act of violence that is perpetrated by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery. Such violence is always reasonably
to be expected, either to overcome active opposition or to forestall it
altogether by disabling the victim at the very outset, or even to silence
869
Art.296 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
him completely thereafter. In the ins_tant c~se, the group that set
out for Batac to rob Ko Pian was provtded with lethal weapons _ a
dagger an ice pick and a gun. These instruments were intended t
facilitate the commission of the robbery, and if their use resulted i~
homicide, the liability therefor attached to the entire group. (People v.
Espejo, supra) Similarly, where a group of persons armed themselves
to hold up jeepney passengers, no member of the group can disclaim
responsibility for any violent act taken by anyone of them. (People v.
Valiente, 144 SCRA 495)
"Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a
robbery by the band."
A principal by inducement, who did not go with the band at the
place of the commission of the robbery, is not liable for robbery with
homicide, but only for robbery in band, there being no evidence that
he gave instructions to kill the victim or intended that this should
be done.
The Supreme Court held: "When Ciriaco Ibanez furnished the
transportation for the other defendants, he did so for the purpose
of having the said defendants rob the two stores. The robbery was
his principal object. It is true that homicide resulted on the occasion
of this robbery but there is nothing in the record which shows, or
tends to show, that Ciriaco gave instructions to kill the Chinaman
or intended that this should be done. When the Chinaman was
killed, the robbery had already been committed. The murder was an
incident to the robbery, which places the crime, so far as the other
accused are concerned, in a different class. Yet under these facts
and circumstances, Ciriaco can not be held to be a principal in the
commission of this crime or class of robbery, but he is a principal in
the commission of the other class, robbery in band. There is nothing
in the record to show that he planned or conspired to commit the
murder. It has been suggested that as he, Ciriaco, entered into an
agreement with the other defendants to commit this crime ofrobbery,
he is responsible for all the result of that crime, as he knew that death
might be a necessary incident to the carrying into effect of this plan.
If the death of the Chinaman had occurred in the very act or at the
very time that the robbery took place, or while it was going on, and if
it had been necessary to kill the Chinaman in order to successfully rob
870
TITLE TEN Art. 296
Crimes Against Property
the_ stores, then the question might have been different (a question
which [the Court] do[es) not now decide), but as the actual taking
of the property had already terminated, [the Court) think[s), in the
absence of proof showing that the murder was a part of the original
plan, that the foregoing holding is the correct one." (U.S. v. Ibanez,
19 Phil. 475)
Note: Article 296 is not applicable to principal by induction, who
was not present at the commission of the robbery, if the agreement
were only to commit robbery. The article speaks of more than three
armed malefactors (who) "take part in the commission of robbery"
and member of a band "who is present at the commission ofa robbery
by a band."
But the principal by induction would be liable for the homicide
or other crimes that might have resulted, ifhe also ordered the killing
ofa particular person or any one who would resist the robbery, or the
commission of other crimes.
Conspiracy was for robbery only but homicide was also committed
on the occasion thereof - all members of the band are liable for
robbery with homicide.
The culprits formed a band. They agreed to commit robbery only.
While ransacking for the loot in a store, a patrolman arrived, and
there was an exchange of shots. The patrolman was killed.
Held: As all the accused were present when the homicide
occurred, and none of them attempted to prevent the homicide, all
are liable for robbery with homicide. (People v. Evangelista, et al.,
86 Phil. 112)
Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the
occasion ofa robbery, all those who took part in the commission of the
robbery are also guilty as principals in the crime of homicide unless
it appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. (People v.
Escober, 157 SCRA 541; People v. Pecato, 151 SCRA 14)
Proof of conspiracy is not necessary when four or more armed
persons committed robbery.
Proofof conspiracy is not essential to hold a member of the band
liable for robbery with homicide actually committed by the other
members of the band. (People v. De la Rosa, et al., 90 Phil. 365)
871
 Art. 296 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
There Is no crime as "robbery with homicide In band."
With the present wording of Article 295, there is no crime
as "robbery with homicide in band." If the robbery with homicide
is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be
denominated as "robbery with homicide" under Article 294(1)
but the circumstance that it was committed by a band would b~
appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. (People v.
Apduhan, Jr., 24 SCRA 798)
When rape Is not considered "any of the assaults committed by
the band."
But where in the course of the robbery by a band, the offended
woman was taken by one of the accused to a place away from the house
where the robbery was committed, and there he raped her without
the knowledge of his companions, he alone is guilty of robbery with
rape. His companions would be guilty only of simple robbery by a
band. (People v. Hamiana, 89 Phil. 225)
I
Note: The members of the band liable for the assault must be
present at the commission of the robbery, not necessarily at the
commission of the assault.
"Without prejudice to the criminal liability for Illegal possession of
such unlicensed firearm."
In addition to his criminal liability for robbery by a band, the
accused is also liable for unlawful possession of firearm which is
penalized by R.A. No. 10591.
The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition
shall be penalized as follows:
(a) Prision mayor in its medium period - upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;
(b) Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua - if three or
more small arms or Class-A light weapons are unlawfully
acquired or possessed by any person;
(c) Prision mayor in its maximum period - upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-A light
weapon;
872
TITLE TEN Art.296
Crimes Against Property
(d) Reclusion perpetua - upon any person who shall,
unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-B light weapon;
(e) Penalty one degree higher than that provided in
paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section - upon any person
who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or
combination of the following conditions:
(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded
magazine;
(2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to
guide the shooter to hit the target such as thermal
weapon sight (TWS) and the like;
(3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm
muffler or firearm silencer;
(4) Accompanied with an extra barrel; and
(5) Converted to be capable of firing full automatic
bursts.
(0 Prision mayor in its minimum period - upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a
small arm;
(g) Prision mayor in its minimum period - upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a
small arm or Class-A light weapon. If the violation of this
paragraph is committed by the same person charged with
the unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm, the
former violation shall be absorbed by the latter;
(h) Prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess
a major part of a Class-A light weapon;
(i) Prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess
ammunition for a Class-A light weapon. If the violation of
this paragraph is committed by the same person charged
with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-A
light weapon, the former violation shall be absorbed by
the latter;
873
II I
Art. 296 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
r Criminal Law
I I
(i) Prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess
a major part ofa Class-Blight weapon; and
(k) Prision mayor in its maximum period - any person who
shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a
Class-Blight weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is
I
committed by the same person charged with the unlawful
acquisition or possession of a Class-B light weapon, the
former violation shall be absorbed by the latter. (Sec. 28
1 R.A. No. 10591)
Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition
Regulation Act) penalizes the use of loose firearm In the commission
of a crime.
I The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a
crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws,
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That
if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by
the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed
in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty
for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty
for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed
with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section
for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the
crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws
of which he/she is found guilty. (Sec. 29)
The use of firearm, whether licensed or unlicensed, in making the
intimidation is a qualifying circumstance when the robbery defined
in any of paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 is committed on a
street, road, highway, or alley.
Article 295 makes no distinction as regards the firearm used in
making the intimidation to commit robbery. Hence, the firearm may
be licensed or unlicensed. But the offense committed should not be
robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with intentional
mutilation, or robbery with serious physical injuries where the injured
person became insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind. The robbery must
874
p
TITLE TEN Art. 297
Crimes Against Property
be that defined ~d penalized in any of paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of Article
294, and committed on a street, road, highway or alley. (Art. 295)
Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed
under certain circumstances. - When by reason or on
occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide
is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
'
reclusion perpetua,• unless the homicide committed shall
deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.
The term "homicide" Is used In a generic sense.
The term "homicide" in Article 297 is used in a generic sense.
(People v. Manuel, 44 Phil. 333) Hence, it includes multiple homicides,
murder, parricide, or even infanticide, as where the offenders killed
a child two days old which was disturbed in its sleep and began to
cry when they were about to take personal property in the house.
The penalty Is the same, whether the robbery is attempted or
frustrated.
As long as homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of an
attempted or frustrated robbery, the penalty of reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.
"Unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty."
The clause "unless the homicide committed shall deserve a
higher penalty under the provisions of this Code" may be illustrated
thus: In an attempted or frustrated robbery, the killing of the victim is
qualified by treachery or relationship. The proper penalty for murder
or parricide shall be imposed because it is more severe.
"See Appendix "A," Table of Penalties, No. 34.
875
Art. 297 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
Attempted robbery with homicide.
People v. Carunungan, et al.
(G.R. No. 13283, September 30, 1960)
Facts: Lorenzo Vivas, his son Hermogenes and daughter-in-law were
awakened by the presence, below their house, of appellants who ask d
for some water to drink. Serapio Carunungan, Manuel Buceta and Felie
Mendoza went up and forced their way to the house. Carunungan madepe
demand to the inmates ofthe house to bring out their money. Lorenzo got ho!:
of his own firearm and confronted the tno. All of a sudden, the intruder
started firing at Lorenzo who returned the fire. After the gunfire stopped•
Lorenzo Vivas and Felipe Mendoza were found dead. ' in the assault. (People u. Morados, 70 Phil. 558; People u. Dagundcng,
Held: The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the crim
committed is attempted robbery with homicide. The demand made be
Carunungan to the inmates of the house to bring out their money constitutey
an overt act which would lead to the commission of the robbery. If the robbe;
was not committed, it was because of armed resistance. The killing was
apparently an offshoot of the plan to carry out the robbery.
When there is no overt act of robbery.
But where an armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and
the driver, sensing that the band might commit robbery, did not stop
the bus but drove it faster, and the members of the band then fired
at it, killing one passenger and wounding another passenger and
the driver, the crime does not constitute attempted robbery with
homicide, because no overt acts pointing to robbery were established.
The offenses committed are the separate crimes of murder, frustrated
murder, and physical injuries. (People v. Olaes, 105 Phil. 502)
Frustrated robbery with homicide.
The accused agreed to rob two LCM boats from the Navy boat
pool with the idea of selling them for profit. They disarmed the guard
and when they failed to take the boats, because they could not start
the motor, they killed the guard. (People v. Ramires, G.R. No. L-5875,
May 15, 1953, 93 Phil. 1109)
Article 296 is applicable to attempted robbery with homicide by a
band.
Article 296 is applicable when the crime of attempted robbery
with homicide is committed by a band;
876
TITLE TEN Art. 297
Crimes Against Property
A, B, C, and D agreed to commit robbery. By their agreement, A
and B went to the hut to watch the inmates, while C and D were to
take away the carabaos. While C and D were untying the carabaos
they heard the scream: "Oh! save my life!" which was interrupted
by a pistol shot by A. Fearing tha t the shot might summon help the
accused escaped without taking the carabaos, although one of them
had already been untied.
Held: All are liable for the crime of attempted robbery with
homicide, eve n if C and D did not enter the hut and did not take part
et al., 108 Phil. 682)
Special complex crime.
Robbery with homicide a nd attempted or frustrated robbery
with homicide are specia l complex crimes, not governed by Article
48, but by the special provisions of Articles 294 and 297, respectively.
When Article 48 is applicable In robbery.
When the offense committed is attempted or frustrated robbery
with serious physical injuries, Article 48 is applicable, since the felony
would fall neither under Article 294 which covers consummated
robbery with homicide nor under Article 297 which covers attempted
or frustrated robbery with homicide. (People u. Villanueva, CA.-G.R .
No. 2676, May 31, 1939)
When the crime committed is robbery with frustrated homicide,
the penalty for the more serious crime, which is frustrated homicide,
should be imposed in its maximum period, as provided in Article 48.
(People u. Cagongon, CA., 74 0 .G. 59, No. 1, January 2, 1978)
There Is only one crime of attempted robbery with homicide even
if slight physical injuries were inflicted on other persons on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery.
People v. Casalme, et al.
(101 Phil. 1249)
Facts: On March 22, 1954, at about 9:00 in the evening, the defendants ,
on the pretext that a companion needed treatment, gained entrance in the
house of Isidro Tolentino, a quack doctor. When asked who among them
needed treatment, defendant Casalme suddenly and without warning, shot
877
 Art. 298 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
the old man Isidro with a Garand rifle, ~icting a wound from which Isidro
died the next morning. Honorata Barqwlla, wife oflstdro, grabbed a bolo and
proceeded to hack the defendant Gamboa. Awakened by the commotion, and
upon seeing Gamboa struggling with his mother, Lucas Tolentino took hold
of a knife and stabbed Gamboa in the back. One of ~he defendants tried to
force open their aparador where the spouses kept their money and valuabl
but Honorata prevented him from doing so. Because of the resistance offer::
by mother and son, the intruders hurriedly left the house. Honorata and h
son suffered slight physical injuries inflicted by the culprits. Prosecute~r
defendants were found guilty. ' attempted or frustrated stage and the violence used resulted in the
Held: The trial court found the defendants guilty of three separate
crimes, namely: attempted robbery with homicide for the killing of Isidro
Tolentino; the complex crime of attempted robbery with slight physical
injuries for the wounding ofHonorata Barquilla; and the same crime for th
wounding of Lucas Tolentino, as a result of which three separate penal tie:
were imposed. Appellants ar? guilty of only _on? crime, namely, attempted
robbery with hom1c1de and shght physical titJunes, under Article 297 of the
Revised Penal Code, penalized with reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to reclusion perpetua, and that due to the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime, dwelling, and craft, without any mitigating circumstances to offset
the same, the greater penalty should be imposed, namely, reclusion perpetua.
Note: The slight physical injuries should be disregarded in the
designation of the offense, for there is no such crime as attempted robbery
with homicide and slight physical injuries. Article 297 speaks of attempted
or frustrated robbery with homicide.
Art. 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or
intimidation.- Any person who, with intent to defraud
another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel
him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or
document, shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by
the penalties respectively prescribed in this Chapter.
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.
878
A
TITLE TEN Art. 298
Crimes Against Property
"Shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by the penaltles
respectlvely prescribed In this chapter."
If the violence used resulted in the death of the person to be
defrauded, the crime is robbery with homicide and the penalty for that
crime as prescribed in paragraph 1 of Article 294 shall be imposed.
If the execution of deeds by means of violence is only in the
death of the person to be defrauded, the penalty prescribed in Article
297 shall be imposed.
Must the document be public?
The Spanish text of this article says "escritura publica o
documento."
The adjective "public" must therefore describe the word
"instrument" only. Hence, this article applies even if the document
signed, executed or delivered is a private or commercial document.
Article 298 Is not applicable If the document Is void.
Article 298 is not applicable if the document is void. (II Cuello
Calon, Codigo Penal, 10th Ed., pp. 820-824)
If a person, by means of violence or intimidation and with intent
to defraud, compelled another to sign a void document, would he
be liable for grave coercion? No. In grave coercion, the offender
does not have intent to gain. It seems that he would be liable for
physical injuries, if the violence resulted in physical injuries, or
grave threats under subdivision No. 2 of Article 282, ifthere is only
intimidation.
Distinguished from coercion.
When the offended party is under obligation to sign, execute or
deliver the document under the law, there is no robbery. There will
be coercion if violence is used in compelling the offended party to sign
or deliver the document.
Thus, one who, having bought and fully paid the price of a car,
compelled the seller by means of violence or intimidation to sign,
execute and deliver the corresponding deed of sale, would be guilty
of grave coercion, not robbery since there is no intent to defraud.
879
Art. 299 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
Section Two. - Robbery by the use of force upon things
This is the other kind ofrobbery. The perso~ liable for robbery
by the use of force upon things , does not use v10lence against or
intimidation of any person in taldng personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain, for, otherwise, he will be liable under
Article 294.
Robbery by the use of force upon things is committed only
when either (1) the offender entered a house or building by any of
the means specified in Article 299 or Article 302, or (2) even if there
was no entrance by any of those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest
or any other kind oflocked or closed or sealed furniture or receptacl~
in the house or building, or he took it away to be broken or forced
open outside. In any of such cases, the taking of personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain from the broken furniture
or receptacle, or the taking away of the locked or closed or sealed
furniture or receptacle to be broken or forced open outside the house
or building would be robbery.
What are the two kinds of robbery with force upon things?
They are:
1. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice
devoted to religious worship. (Art. 299)
2. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building.
(Art. 302)
One essential requisite ofrobbery with force upon things under
Articles 299 and 302 is that the malefactor should enter the building
or dependency where the object to be taken is found. Articles 299 and
302 clear]?' contemplate that the malefactor should enter the building
(casa hab,tada o lugar habitado o edificio). If the culprit did not enter
the building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. (People
v. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563)
299. Robbery in an inhabited lwuse or public building
or edifice devoted to worship. - Any armed person who shall
commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or
880
TITLE TEN Art. 299
Crimes Against Property
edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by
reclusion temporal,• if the value of the property taken shall
exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and if -
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building
in which the robbery is committed, by any of the following
means:
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or
egress;
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any
door or window;
3. By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools;
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the
exercise of public authority.
Orif-
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or
any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be
broken or forced open outside the place of the
robbery.
When the offenders do not carry arms and the value of
the property taken exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000),
the penalty next lower in degree7 shall be imposed.
The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are
armed, but the value of the property taken does not exceed
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000).
When said offenders do not carry arms and the value
taken does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), they
shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two next preceding
paragraphs, in its minimum period.8
6 See Appendix "A," Table of Pena lties, No. 28.
7
See Appendix "A." Table of Penalties, No. 19.
8
See Appendix "A," Table of Penalties, No. 20.
881
Art. 299 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
If the robbery be committed in one of the dependenci
of an inhabited house, public b~ilding, or buil~ing dedicai:J
to religious worship, the penalties next lower 1n degree tha
those prescribed in this article shall be imposed. (As amende:
by R.A. No. 18 and R.A. No. 10951)
Article 299 provides for two modes of committing robbery With
force upon things.
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.
3. That once inside the building, the offender took personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain.
The offender must "enter the house or building in which the robbery
is committed."
_Th~s, if the offender merely inserted his hand through an
openmg m the wall or used a pole through the window to get the
clothes inside the room, while the offender remained outside the house
or building, the crime committed is theft, not robbery.
There must be evidence or the facts must show that the accused
entered the dwelling house or building by any of the means
enumerated in subdivision (a) of Article 299.
In the case of U.S. v. Callotes, 2 Phil. 16, it was held that in the
absence of evidence to show how the offenders effected an entrance
882
TITLE TEN Art. 299
Crimes Against Property
into the convent where they took personal property there can be no
conviction under Article 608 of the Penal Code (no_:, Art. 299 of the
R.P.C.).
The reason for this ruling is that one of the elements ofrobbery
with force upon things under Article 299 states that the entrance is
effected by any of the means described in subdivision (a) of that article.
Thus, where the manner of entrance into the house was not
proven, the crime is theft and not robbery. (People v. Aurillo, C.A .,
46 O.G. 2169)
This ruling applies where both the outside door and a window
of the house are open, so that it is possible that the accused might
have passed through the door.
But if at the time of the discovery of the loss of personal property
in the house, the outside door remained locked and not destroyed
and a window was opened or broken open, there is circumstantial
evidence of unlawful entry sufficient to establish robbery with force
upon things.
In entering the building, the offender must have an Intention to take
personal property.
The accused, by means ofa bolo and screwdriver, began to open
the door of the store which also served as the dwelling of a Chinaman.
After loosening one of the bars of the door and becoming aware that
the inmates therein had been awakened, the accused tried to escape,
but were arrested by the policemen who had been watching them all
the time.
Held: It is not correct to convict the accused of attempted robbery.
There is no evidence to show that the intention of the accused was to
commit robbery, or that they knew that they would find money inside
the store. There still remains a sufficient indication of the existence
of an intention different from that of committing robbery. The crime
committed is attempted trespass to dwelling under Article 280, par.
2. (People v. Tayag, et al., 59 Phil. 606)
The place entered must be a house or building.
When the culprit enters the parked automobile through the
window, the glass of which he broke, the crime is theft if personal
883
l
Art. 299 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
property is taken therefrom, because the automobile is not a house
or building.
What inhabited house includes.
Inhabited house is any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the
dwelling of one or more persons even though the inhabitants thereof
are temporarily absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
(Art. 301)
What public building includes.
Public building is every building owned by the Government or
belonging to a private person but used or rented by the Government,
although temporarily unoccupied by the same. (Art. 301)
The burnt edifice had not been inaugurated, but was to be used
as a public school. The eyjdence shows that said edifice had already
been delivered by the contractor to the municipality of Bigaa. What
makes a building public is not its inauguration for the purpose
intended, but the fact of the State or any of its agencies hayjng the
title thereto. (People u. Constantino, 46 Phil. 745)
Robbery in a public building.
Where the defendant entered through the window of a public
high school building and took from the building two microscopes, he
was guilty ofrobbery under the first paragraph of Article 299. (U.S.
u. Acacio, 37 Phil. 70)
But if the building belonged to a private school, the crime is
robbery under Article 302, because it is either an uninhabited place
or a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of
Article 299.
Robbery in an edifice devoted to religious worship.
Where the accused, by means of a small lever or nail, forced
open the top of the poor box in the church, took the money therein
contained and appropriated it to himself, the crime committed was
robbery with force upon things committed in an edifice devoted to
religious worship under paragraph (b), No. l, of Article 299.
884
TITLE TEN Art. 299
Crimes Against Property
Any of the four means described in subdivision (a) of Article 299
must be resorted to by the offender to enter a house or building, not
to get out.
Note the opening sentence ofsubdiyjsion (a) which states, "The
malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery is
committed, by any of the following means:"
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.
The window or a hole through the wall already in existence
is not intended for entrance or egress. If the culprit enters the
building through such opening and once inside he takes personal
property belonging to the occupants therein, the crime committed
is robbery.
In the case of People u. Co Cho, 62 Phil. 828, the offenders
entered the house of the offended party, by passing through the
window of the closet, and once inside, took the watch and money of
the offended party. The offenders were conyjcted of robbery.
But if the culprit had entered the house through an open door,
and the owner, not knowing that the culprit was inside, closed and
locked the door from the outside and left, and the culprit, after taking
personal property in the house, went out through the window, it is
only theft, not robbery.
The whole body of culprit must be inside the building to constitute
entering.
When the accused only introduced his hand through the broken
glass of a show window which he had broken in order to remove the
watches therefrom, there is no robbery, because no entrance of his
body was made. (People u. Adorno, CA., 40 O.G. 567)
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or
window.
Note the word "breaking" used in this means of entering the
building. The force used in this means must be actual, as distinguished
from that in the other means which is only constructive force.
885
Art. 299 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
The wall must be an outside wall.
The wall broken must be an outside wall, not a wall betwe
rooms in a house or building, because the breaking of the wall mue~
be for the purpose of entering the house or building where the robbe s
is committed. ry
But if a room is occupied by a person as his separate dwellin
the breaking of its inside wall may give rise to robbery. g,
The outside door must be broken.
The accused pried the door out of the groove in which it ran d
pushed it inward. Once inside, he took personal property belon a:
to the occupants of the store. gi g
Held: _The Spanish ;ext of paragraph (a) 2 of Article 299 of
the R.P .C. 1s as follows: Por rompimiento de pared, techo O suelo
a fractu~a de puerta o u;ntana." ~e words "fractura de puerta
ventana clearly mean the breaking of a door or window," and
imply more than the mere forcing open of a door or window. If the
defendant had forced ~pen a window and entered in that way, he
would, of course, be guilty of robbery because of having entered the
house through an opening not intended for entrance; but in the case
at bar: the defendant entered by forcing open the door by means of
some mstrument. It was neither alleged nor proved that the door
was broken. The accused not having entered the store by any of th
means specified in Article 299 of the R.P.C., the crime committed b;
him was theft. (People v. Fernandez, 58 Phil. 674)
Where the door itself was intact, and the accused entered th
store by removing the hinges or hooks to which the padlocks wer:
attached, as well as the lock of the doorknob, the crime committed was
simple theft. Where entrance is effected through a means intended for
entrance or egress,~ order to qualify the crime as robbery, there must
be an actual breaking or smashing in opening the door. Removing
the hook or the contr~ption to which the padlock is placed to lock the
door, 0 ~ usmg an article to open the lock attached to the door knob,
is certainly not the "breaking" contemplated by Articles 299 and 302
R.P.C. (People v. Lising, CA., 62 O.G. 9819)
Art· ;11'; :rm
"door" used in paragraph No. 2 of subdivision (a) of
,c e 9 refers to an outside door. It is mentioned as one of the
886
TITLE TEN Art. 299
Crimes Against Property
means of entering the house or building and it can be no other than
the main or back door which must first be opened to effect entrance
by that means.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.
False keys are genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys
other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly
opened by_the offender. (Art. 305)
Picklocks or similar tools are those specially adopted to the
commission of the crime ofrobbery. (See Art. 304)
The genuine key must be stolen, not taken by force or with
Intimidation, from the owner.
Thus, where the offenders intimidated the inmates then outside
the house, requiring them to produce the key to the main door, once
in possession thereof they used it to open the door, and entered the
house where they took personal property, the crime committed was
robbery with intimidation of person under paragraph 5 of Article 294,
not robbery with force upon things by using a false key. (See U.S. v.
Cabamngan, 7 Phil. 191; U.S. v. Macamay, 36 Phil. 893)
The false key or plcklock must be used to enter the building.
The use of false key or picklock refers to the mode of entering
the house or building and not to the method of opening a trunk in the
house (U.S. v. Macamay, 36 Phil. 893) or to the method of opening
the drawer of the cabinet. (People v. Lasam, CA.-G.R. No. 14362-R,
February 14, 1956)
It Is only theft when the false key is used to open wardrobe or locked
receptacle or drawer or inside door.
1. The use of a false key in opening a wardrobe from which the
offender took personal property cannot give rise to robbery, for
as regards the wardrobes, chests, or any other kind oflocked or
sealed furniture or receptacle, Article 299(b) requires that the
' same be broken, not merely opened.
2. Opening the money drawer by using the stolen key is not
robbery. (People v. Fernandez, 58 Phil. 674)
887
 Art. 299
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
3. If the false key or picklock was u~ed to open a'.' inside door, like
the door of a room, and once inside the culprit took therefrom
personal property of another, it is only theft.
But if the room is a separate dwelling place of a person or
a family, the use of false key to open its door may give ris~ to
robbery.
The use of a fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise
authority must be to enter the building.
This takes place when the robbers represented themselves as
detectives by displaying metal badges similar to those worn by regular
police officers and once inside, took the money of the offended party
(People v. Urbano, et al., 50 Phil. 90) · open a locked wardrobe or chest inside that house or if he takes it
Note: In the case of People v. Urbano, et al., the facts show
that the accused were already inside the store of a Chinaman when
they represented themselves as detectives. It seems that using the
fictitious names or pretending the exercise of public authority must
be the efficient cause of the opening by the offended part of the door
of his house to the accused.
ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS UNDER SUBDIVISION (BJ
OF ARTICLE 299.
Elements:
1. That the offender is insid~ a dwelling house, public building,
or edifice devoted to rehg,ous 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 cir-
cumstances:
a. by the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other
kind oflocked or sealed furniture or receptacle; or
b. by taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or
forced open outside the place of the robbery.
888
Art. 299
TITLE TEN
Crimes Against Property
Entrance Into the building by any of the means mentioned In
subdivision (a) of Article 299 is not required In robbery under
subdivision (b) of same article.
It will be noted that the robbery defined in Article 299 is
committed in two ways, as stated in subdivisions (a) a'.'d (_b) .
Subdivisions (a) and (b) are separated by the words "or if," indicating
thereby that each subdivision is independent of the other.
Hence, to commit the robbery defined in subdivision (b) of Article
299, it is not necessary that the offender should have entered the
building by any of the means mentioned in subdivision (a).
Thus, a guest in the house of the offended party ?r a servant
in that house may be guilty of this kind of robbery if he brea~s
outside to be broken, and once broken, takes therefrom personal
property.
Breaking the keyhole of the door of a wardrobe, which Is locked, is
breaking a locked furniture.
Article 299, subsection (b)l, speaks of, among others_, the
breaking of "locked or sealed furniture or receptacle,• not "breaking of
the lock" as argued by appellant. Breaking or destroying the ke.l'.hole
of the door of an aparador which was locked is virtually destroymg a
"locked furniture." True indeed, the R.P.C. does not state, as one of
the modes of committing robbery, the "destruction of a keyhole._• But
the destruction of a keyhole of an aparador is itself a destruction of
a locked furniture. Just as one who hurts his finger, hurts hia hand.
(People v. Tupaz, et al., C.A., 50 O.G. I 1249)
When sealed box or receptacle Is taken out of the house or building
for the purpose of breaking it outside, It is not necessary that it Is
actually opened.
A person who carries away a sealed box or receptacle for the
purpose of breaking the same and taking out its contents outside the
place ofrobbery is guilty of consummated robbery even though he does
not succeed in opening the box.
The phrase "to be broken or forced open outside" in subdivision
(b), paragraph 2, of Article 299, only indicates the objective element
of the offense.
889
 Art. 299 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
It Is estafa or theft, If the locked or sealed receptacle Is not forced
open In the building where It Is kept or taken therefrom to be broken
outside.
A person who opens by fore~ a ce_rtain locked or sealed
receptacle which has been confided into his custody and takes th
money contained therein, is guilty ofestafa and not robbery, because
the accused does not commit the act in the house of the offende:
party or the accused does not take the receptacle out from the hous
of its owner. And it is th~ft wh~n a locked receptacle is found on th:
side of the street and 1t 1s forcibly opened and the contents thereof
are taken.
The penalty for robbery with force upon things In Inhabited house
publlc building or edifice devoted to religious worship depends ~
0
the value of property taken and on whether or not offender Is armed.
When the robbery is committed -
1. By ARMED person and the value of property taken
EXCEEDS P50,000 - RECLUSION TEMPORAL.
2. By UNARMED person and the value of property taken
EXCEEDS P50,000 - PRIS/ON MAYOR.
3. By ARMED person but the value of property taken DOES
NOT exceed P50,000 - PRIS/ON MAYOR.
4. By UNARMED person and the value of property taken
DOES NOT exceed P50,000 - PRIS/ON MAYOR
MINIMUM.
5. In a DEPENDENCY of inhabited house, public building,
or edifice devoted to religious worship - penalty NEXT
LOWER in degree than those SPECIFIED ABOVE.
A bolo is not an arm when used by a servant to open a trunk In his
master's house.
Thus, a servant who used a bolo in breaking open a trunk then
in the house of his master and took money therefrom was guilty of
robbery committed by an unarmed person. (U.S. v. Saluda, 9 Phil.
213)
890
TITLE TEN Art. 300
Crimes Against Property
Weapon carried must not be used to Intimidate.
The weapon carried by the offender must not have been used
to intimidate a person, for the reason that once the circumstance of
intimidation enters in the commission of the crime it is sufficient to
remove the offense from Article 299 and place it wlthin the purview
of Article 294.
Even those without arms are liable to the same penalty.
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. (Guevara, citing December Supreme
Court of Spain, October 27, 1882)
Reason why heavier penalty Is Imposed for robbery In a dwelling
house.
Note that the penal law punishes more severely the robbery in
a house used as a dwelling than that committed in an uninhabited
place, because of the possibility that the inhabitants in the former
might suffer bodily harm during the commission of the robbery. (U.S.
v. Bajet, 25 Phil. 105)
Art. 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band,
- The robbery mentioned in the next preceding article, if
committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, shall he
punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided
therefor.
Robbery In an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted
to religious worship Is qualified when committed by a band and In
an uninhabited place.
The robbery mentioned in Article 299, if committed in an
uninhabited place and by a band, shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty provided therefor.
The two qualifications (uninhabited place and by a band) must
concur. (U.S. v. Morada, et al., 23 Phil. 477)
891
 Art. 301 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
The fact that the robbery with force upon th!ngs in inhabited
house or public building or edifice devoted to rehg,ous worship Was
committed in an uninha bited place and by a ba nd must be alleged in
the information to qualify the offense.
The Inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship must be located in an uninhabited place.
The robbery mentioned in Article 299, is committed in an
inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious
worship. Such house, building or edifice must be located in an
uninhabited place.
In the case of U.S. v. Morada, supra, it is said: "In this case it
does not appear that the house wherein the robbery was perpetrated
was located in an uninhabited place."
Distinction between the two classes of robbery as to their being
qualified.
Robbery with force upon things (Art. 299), in order to be qualified,
must be committed in an uninhabited place and by a band (Art. 300);
while robbery with violence against or intimidation ofpersons must
be committed in an uninhabited place or by a band. (Art. 295)
Art. 301. What is an inhabited house, public building, or
building dedicated to religious worship and their dependen-
cies. - Inhabited house means any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though
the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom
when the robbery is committed.
All interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries,
barns, coach•houses, stables, or other departments, or
enclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having
an interior entrance connected therewith and which form
part of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an
inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to
religious worship.
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or
production are not included in the terms of the next preceding
892
TITLE TEN Art. 301
Crimes Against Property
par':'gra~h, even if closed, contiguous to the building, and
bavtng direct connection therewith.
The term "public building" includes every building
owned by the Government or belonging to a private person
but used or rented by the Government, although temporarily
unoccupied by the same.
Inhabited house.
Inhabited house is any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the
dwelling of one or more persons even though the inhabitants thereof
are temporarily absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
(Art. 301)
Robbery In sunken ship.
A steamship containing silver currency and paper money sank.
The following day, the defendant, discovering the location of the
sunken ship, dived down there, entered the same, and took therefrom
the sum of Pl5,000, enclosed in sealed boxes. The ship was not yet
abandoned by its owner.
Held: The defendant was guilty ofrobbery. (U.S. v. Rey, 8 Phil.
500)
Note: A ship is covered by the term "inhabited house.• The boxes
which were taken from the ship were reinforced with iron straps and
nails. They were broken by the defendant in order to take possession
of the money contained therein. The robbery committed is covered
by Article 299, subdivision (b), No. 2.
The place is still inhabited house even if the occupant was absent.
A stored several trunks containing merchandise in a house
belonging to B. B was not living in said house, but A used to sleep
there at night as B's caretaker. A failed to sleep in said house
one night. That night, certain persons entered the same through
the window and took therefrom two trunks containing personal
property.
893
r'
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Art. 301 Criminal Law
Is this robbery in an uninhabited place? No. The place is an
inhabited house, although Awa~ absent therefrom when the robbery
took place. (U.S. v. Bqjet, 25 Phil. 105)
Notwithstanding the fact that ~or a period of almost a mon~h, the
house where the robbery was collllllltte~ w~s actually u_mnhab1ted, it
is still robbery in an inhabited house W I ~ the me~m_g o_f Articles
299 and 301, because the building in questio':' was ordinarily inhabited
and intended as a dwelling. (People v. Gamr, CA., 51 O.G. 856)
Dependencies, defined.
Dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or building
dedicated to religious worship - are all interior courts, corrals
warehouses, granaries or inclosed places contiguous to the buildin~
or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith, and which
form part of the whole. (Art. 301, par. 2)
Note: Three requisites:
(1) Must be contiguous to the building;
(2) Must have an interior entrance connected therewith;
(3) Must form part of the whole.
Thus, if the information alleges that the robbery was committed
in a garage situated in the premises of house No. 1572, General Luna
street, that allegation is not equivalent to a charge that the robbery
was committed in a dependency of an inhabited house, for a garage
may or may not be a dependency of the house. It will be a dependency
of the house if the three requisites mentioned are present.
The place where the robbery was committed was not a
dependency of a public building, because the storeroom where the
property taken was kept does not seem to be a structure contiguous
to the building. (People v. Puzon, et al., CA., 48 O.G. 4878)
Example of a dependency.
A small store located on the ground floor of the house, belonging
to the owner of the store, is a dependency of the house, because the
house and the store form one single whole, there being no partition
between them and that the inmates in going to the main stairway
have to enter the store which has a door. (U.S. v. Ventura et al. 39
Phil. 523) ' '
894
TITLE TEN Art. 802
Crimes Against Property
Orchards and lands used for cultlvatlon, not dependencies.
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or production are
not included in the term "dependencies.• (Art. 301, par. 3)
Art. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited plaee or in a private
building. - Any robbery committed In an uninhabited place
or In a building other than those mentioned in the first
paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), shall be punished by
priaion correccional in its medium and maximum periods,•
provided that any of the following circumstances Is present:
1. If the entrance has been effected through any
opening not Intended for entrance or egress;
2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window
has been broken;
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of
false keys, plcklocks, or other similar tools;
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed
furniture or receptacle has been broken;
15. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in
the preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if the same
be broken open elsewhere.
When the value of the property taken does not exceed
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), the penalty next lower in
degree•• shall be imposed.
1
In the cases specified in Articles 294,295,297,299, 300, and
··' ''
302 of this Code, when the property taken is mail matter or
large cattle, the offender shall suffer the penalties next higher
in degree than those provided in said articles. (As amended
C.A. No. 417 and RA. No. 10951)
9
See Appendix "A," Table of Penalties, No. 15.
10
See Appendix "A." Table of Penalties, No. 8.
895
 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Art. 302 Criminal Law
Elements:
That the offender entered an uninhabited_ plcu:_e ~r a building
1. which was not a dwelling house, ~ta public building, or not an
edifice devoted to religious worship.
_ That any of the following circumstances was present:
2
a. 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,
pick!ocks or other similar tools;
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture
or receptacle was broken; or
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the
same be broken open elsewhere.
3. That with intent to gain, the offender took therefrom personal
property belonging to another.
The "uninhabited place" Is an uninhabited building.
The "uninhabited place" mentioned in Article 302 is a building,
because paragraph Nos. 1 and 3 speak of"entrance, • which necessarily
refers to a building. Paragraph No. 2 speaks of parts of building.
In U.S. v. Galuran, 12 Phil. 339, it was held that a robbery
committed in a warehouse belonging to the Smith Bell & Co., in the
City of Manila, is one committed in an uninhabited place.
There is an inaccuracy in the English translation of Article
302. Robo en lugar no habitado o edificio particular. - "El robo
cometido en un lugar no habitado o en un edificio que no sea de los
comprendidos en el parrafo primero del articulo 299, x x x. • (Torno
26, Leyes Publicas 4 79) The term "lugar no habitado" is erroneously
translated as "uninhabited place,• a term which may be confounded
with the expression "uninhabited place" in Articles 295 and 300 of
the Revised Penal Code, which is the translation of despoblado and
which is different from the term lugar no habitado in Article 302. The
term lugar no habitado is the antonym of casa habitado (inhabited
house) in Article 299. (People v. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563)
896
TITLE TEN Art. 302
Crimes Against Property
"Building other than those mentioned In the first paragraph of
Article 299."
The place where the robbery is committed under Article 302
must be a building which is not an inhabited house or public building
or edifice devoted to religious worship.
Although a store may be used as a dwelling, to sustain a
conviction for robbery in an inhabited house, the information must
allege that the store was used and occupied as a dwelling (P,,~ple v.
Tubog, 49 Phil. 620, 624), otherwise the robbery should be considered
as having been perpetrated in an uninhabited place defined and
penalized under Article 302 of the R.P.C. (People v. Angeles, 14 CA.
Rep. 946)
What the term "building" Includes.
Under the term "building" is included any kind of structure used
for storage or safekeeping of personal property, such as (a) freight
car and (b) warehouse. (U.S . u. Magsino, 2 Phil. 710; U.S. v. Roque,
et al., 4 Phil. 242) A pigsty is not a building within the meaning of
Article 302 which refers to habitable buildings.
Entrance through an opening not Intended for entrance or egress,
or after breaking a wall, roof, floor, door or window, or through the
use of false keys, plcklocks, or other similar tools Is not necessary,
If there Is breaking of wardrobe, chest, or sealed or closed furniture
or receptacle, or removal thereof to be broken open elsewhere.
Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of Article 302 do not require that the
offender must have entered the uninhabited building through an
opening not intended for entrance or egress, or after breaking a wall,
roof, floor, door or window, or through the use of false keys, picklocks,
or other similar tools. The word "entrance• in paragraph Nos. 1 and
3 is not used in said paragraph Nos. 4 and 5. While it is true that
the word "entrance• is not also used in paragraph No. 2, yet it can be
inferred that entrance is required under that paragraph. (See People
v. Adorno, CA., 40 O.G. 567, cited under Art. 299)
Unnalllng of cloth over door of freight car Is breaking by force.
The unnailing of a piece of cloth which was nailed over the door
so as to seal it, the customary manner of sealing a freight car, is held
to be breaking by force. (U.S. v. Magsino, 2 Phil. 710)
897
 Art. 302 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Criminal Law
Note: Compare this case with the case of People v. Fernall<kz,
supra; where it was held that the door must be broken.
Breaking padlock Is use of force upon things.
The crime committed by the accused who entered into a
classroom by breaking the padlock of the door and took away a
television, a karaoke and an electric fan is robbery. (Estioca v. Peop/.e,
G.R. No. 173876, June 27, 2008)
Note: This ruling does not seem to be justified by any of the
paragraphs of Article 302. It cannot be under breaking outside door,
because only the padlock, not the door, was broken. It cannot be under
use of false key, because no false key was used.
Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority,
not In this artlcle.
The use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public
authority is not a means of entering the building under this article,
because the place is uninhabited and no person could be deceived
thereby.
The receptacle must be "closed" or "sealed."
The furniture or receptacle here is "sealed or closed.• In Article
299, it is either "locked or sealed.•
If a person, who had entered a warehouse, opened without
breaking, a closed but not locked chest and took therefrom personal
property, would that be robbery? It would seem that it is theft only,
because paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 use, respectively, the phrases "has
been broken" and "be broken open• implying that there must be
breaking of the receptacle to constitute robbery.
A receptacle is a container.
It would seem that an example of sealed or closed receptacle is
a crate which contains article or merchandise. Thus, the breaking of
a crate containing a television set inside a building at the pier, and
taking its contents, is robbery.
898
L
TITLE TEN Art. 302
Crimes Against Property
Example of robbery In an uninhabited house.
The servant of the owner of an oil mill who takes away the
key of the warehouse and hands it to another, who in turn opens
the warehouse with that key and steals and takes away oil from
the warehouse, is also guilty of robbery in an uninhabited house as
principal by conspiracy.
"If any closed or sealed receptacle has been removed, even If the
same be broken open elsewhere."
Is the mere removal of closed or sealed receptacle sufficient
under paragraph 5 of Article 302?
It seems that it is not sufficient. Although the phrase, "even if
the same be broken open elsewhere," does not indicate a condition or
requisite that the closed or sealed receptacle be broken after removing
it, this kind of robbery requires at least an intention to open it by force.
Closed or sealed receptacle removed and broken open elsewhere.
Two persons at night entered the office and store of a corporation,
located at M. de Comillas, Manila. Entrance was effected through the
door, without using force to open it. A closed steel safe was removed
from the building and taken to a place where it was forced open. The
two persons took the contents thereof. The crime committed is robbery
under paragraph 5 of Article 302. (People v. Nuas, CA., 52 O.G. 6264)
Taking of mail matter In any kind of robbery makes the penalty
higher by one degree.
When the property taken is a mail matter during any of the
robbery defined in Articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302, the
penalties next higher in degree than those provided in said article
shall be imposed. (Art. 302, last par.)
Taking of large cattle Is not punished under the R.P.C.
Theft oflarge cattle is punished under the Anti-Cattle Rustling
Law of 1974, as follows:
a) prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal
in its medium period, if the offense is committed without
899
 Art.302 THE REVISED PENAL CODE
· Criminal Law

violence against or intimidation of persons or force u .

t hings·, ' I I
Pon
b) reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclu •
perpetua, 1"f the offiense 1s
· comm1·tted wit
· h violence
· szont
again
8
or intimidation of persons or force upon things;
c) reclusion perpetua to death, if a person is seriously injured
or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commissio
of cattle rustling. n

Motor vehicle, coconuts and fish are not included.

Motor vehicle, coconuts in the plantation, and fish in the fishpo~d
are not included in this section. .
Thus, if the culprit breaks the door of the garage which is a
dependency of a dwelling house and took from the garage a jeep, th'e
crime committed is punished under the Anti-Carnapping Act with
imprisonment for not less than 20 years and one day but not more
than 30 years. (Sec. 3, par. 2, R.A. No. 10883)

Penalty is based only on value of property taken.

Note also that the offender's being armed is not important
under this article for the reason that there is no person who can be
injured or killed. This circumstance is important under Article 299
for graduating the penalty, because when the offender is armed, there
is the danger of the inmates being injured or killed.

Robbery in a store - when punishable under Article 299 or under

Article 302.
1. If the store is used as a dwelling of one or more persons, the
robbery committed therein would be considered as committed
in an inhabited house under Article 299. (People v. Suarez,
G.R. No. L-6431~March 29, 1954)
2. If the store was not actually occupied at the time of the robbery
and .was not used as a dwelling, . since the o~e~ lived_ in :
separate house, the robbery committed therem 1s purushe
under Article 302. (People v. Silvestre, CA., 34 O.G. 1535)

900