The document discusses the elements and key aspects of the crimes of robbery, theft, estafa, and bouncing checks under Philippine criminal law. It defines robbery as taking property through violence/intimidation and notes it is more serious than theft. Theft is taking property without consent. Estafa involves abuse of confidence and deceit. Bouncing checks involves issuing a check knowing there are insufficient funds to cover it. The document provides details on how each crime is committed and elements that must be proven for conviction.

1. BY: CHELDY SYGACO ELUMBA-PABLEO,MPA,LlB
CRIMINAL LAW I

2. • 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.
• Body is inside the building.(if only hands is inside, it is theft not robbery)
1. Under Article 294—committed “anywhere”
2. Under Article 299—”religious-through force upon things”
3. Under Article 302—”private building/uninhabited place”
4. Under Article 305—”public building/uninhabited place”

3. • Robbery committed anywhere.
• Defines and penalizes as composite crimes or special complex crimes such as:
(higher penalty)
1. Robbery with Homicide
2. Robbery with Rape
3. Robbery with Intentional Mutilation
4. Robbery with Arson
5. Robbery with Physical Injuries
6. Robbery with Unnecessary violence
Except: simple robbery (Art. 294 (5) which is not composite crime.

4. • In robbery or theft, when the offender takes complete control of
the property, the crime is consummated.
• There is complete control when the offender has acquires and
substituted his will over the property.
• It is not necessary that the offender has taken away the property
or used the same. (Dunlao vs CA)
• The element of ASPORTATION –taking of personal property out
of the possession of the owner, without his privity and consent
and without animus revertendi. (PP vs Apolinario)

5. • Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person (VAIP) is deemed more
serious than robbery with force upon things (FUT).
ROBBERY (VAIP) ROBBERY (FUT)
1. Not based upon the
value of the things taken
but upon the gravity of
violence or intimidation.
1. Based upon the value
of the things taken.

6. • Regardless of the number of homicide on the occasion of
robbery, the crime is still robbery with homicide.
• The same crime is committed even if rape and physical injuries
are also committed on the occasion of said crime.
• Whenever the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is
proven to have been committed, all those who took part in the
robbery are liable as principals therein although they did not
actually take part in the homicide. (PP vs Pulusan)

7. • If the killing is with intent to kill and the taking is an afterthought, the
crime is HOMICIDE AND THEFT, not robbery because the dead
cannot be intimidated.
• Arises only when there is a direct relation or intimate connection,
between the robbery and the killing even if killings is prior to,
concurrent with or subsequent to the robbery.
• The penalty for robbery with homicide is more severe because the
law sees, in this crime, that men placed lucre above the value of
human life, thus justifying the imposition of a more severe penalty
than that for simple homicide or robbery.

8. • Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or
public building or edifice devoted for religious worship.
• A. MALEFACTOR –ENTER THE HOUSE OR BUILDING in which robbery is
committed:
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 (must be used in the main door, or similar
tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public
authority.

9. • B. THE ROBBERY COMMITTED under the following
circumstances:
1. By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other
kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacles.
2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken
or forced open outside the place of the robbery. (as
amended by R.A. No. 18)

10. The means of entering. If he did not enter, it is
theft only even if there were such force upon things.
• The whole body must be inside because “entering”
denotes that the entire body must have gone inside.
• He entered without the use of constructive force but
while inside the offender broke walls, doors, receptacles
to extract personal property. Inside, actual force is
required not merely constructive force.

11. • There must be actual breaking of doors, walls, etc. if picklock and
similar tools used—it is only THEFT. (the use of picklocks and
similar tools would qualify theft to robbery if used to enter
premises.)
• Offender brought out of the premises locked or sealed
receptacles for the purpose of breaking them outside. The mere
bringing out of the receptacles gives rise to robbery since force
will necessarily be employed to open it.
• NOTE: other than the situation stated, all others is only theft.

12. • Robbery in an uninhabited place or private building.
• simulation of authority or use of fictitious name.
• If the entry is a private warehouse was through simulation of public
authority, the crime is theft only.
• When entry is through a window, it is not necessary that the offender
break windows.
• Entering through an opening not for ingress/egress is robbery, if he took
anything. (constructive force is required in this case)
• Although the door itself is not damages, but the lock or accessory of the
door is broken, robbery is committed because the door is useless
without the lock.

13. • Use of fictitious name or simulation of authority—must be done when
the offender had not yet entered and such use was necessary means
that made the occupant to let him inside. (use thereof while inside will
not qualify theft into robbery)
• Offender is a member of the household such as maid and the taking
was with force upon things, the crime is robbery not qualified theft
because of the use of force upon things.
• Robbery is committed not only by outsiders but even by household
members. (this distinction between robbery and qualified theft is
significant to determine the applicability of Art. 332—covers only to theft
not robbery)

14. • Situs of the taking is a highway, the crime may be robbery in a highway under Art.
306 in relation to Art. 294 or highway robbery under P.D. 532.
BRIGANDAGE (ART. 306 & 294) BRIGANDAGE UNDER P.D. 532
1. Mere formation of band is punishable 1. The prohibited act must be committed, mere
formation of a band is not yet punishable.
2. There must be at least 3 (4 or more)
malefactors, and
2. Only 1 malefactor will suffice under the law;
(number of perpetrators is not essential)
3. There is a preconceived or target victim; 3. There is no pre-conceived victim but the
may victimize any person who happens to pass by;
4. Proof of prior robbery is not required 4. Proof of prior robberies by offenders is required
to show indiscriminate nature of the crime.

15. •Is a seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or
other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the
property of another, by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon things or
other unlawful means, committed by any person.
--“indiscriminately committed” (PP vs Agomo-o)

16. 1. The taking of the property;
2. The property belongs to another;
3. The taking away was done with intent to gain;
4. The taking away was done without the consent of the owner;
5. The taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation
against person or force upon things.
NOTE: there is NO frustrated theft—because the offender has complete
control over the property (consummated) or without (attempted)—(PP vs
Valenzuela)

17. • Theft and robbery cannot be committed between co-
owners.
• IN CASE OF LOST PROPERTY: “lost” if by its nature it
must necessarily have an owner or claimant. If res
nullius, no theft can be committed.
• FOR HIDDEN TREASURE: the owner of the property
where the treasure was found, ½ share. If the finder
(may it be in fact or in law) keeps the whole, he is guilty
of theft. (PP vs Avila)

18. • When property is received where only MATERIAL POSSESSION is
acquired and he misappropriates the same, theft is committed.
• If JURIDICAL POSSESSION is transferred, estafa is committed.
• When entered to a forbidden estate and take some belongings without
the consent of the owner, the crime is theft. BUT if he entered in a
coconut plantation or a fishpond for business or industry—the crime of
taking coconut or fish is QUALIFIED THEFT.
Juridical possession—is one where the possessor can assert his right to
possession even against the property owner.

19. • What makes it qualified are the following:
1. Circumstances personal to the offender—with grave abuse of confidence
or committed by domestic helper;
2. Circumstances pertaining to the object taken—coconut from plantation,
fish from fishpond, mail matter. (Motor vehicle and large cattle are now
subject of special law)
3. Circumstances at the time of the taking– on occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption and other calamities, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
NOTE: only no. 1 is qualified theft and the others will be held for simple theft.
The rules on conspiracy will not apply.

20. • FENCING—is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself of
for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item,
object, or anything of value which he knows or should be known to him to
have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
(Dunlao vs CA)
• Applies only to proceeds of theft or robbery, it does not apply to estafa.
• Not a continuing crime but a distinct crime, hence the offender may be
prosecuted at the place where he took hold of the property and not at the
place of the commission of the theft or robbery.

21. 1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
sells, or disposes or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from
the proceeds of the said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have know that the said article, item,
object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and
4. There is, on the part of accused, intent to gain for himself or for
another. (Capili vs CA)

22. • 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.
• The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen
articles as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a
presumption of fencing.
• REPARATION is made by taking into consideration the price of
the thing, whenever possible and its special sentimental value
to the injured party.

23. • CATTLE RUSTLING—is taking away by any means, methods or
schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser, or any of
the large cattle whether or not for profit or gain, or whether
committed with or without violence against or intimidation of
person or force upon things (theft or robbery).
• It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide
without the consent of the owner/raiser.
• The cattle need not be taken whole as the taking of the meat
or hide is enough.

24. • CARNAPPING– is malum prohibitum.
• It is also committed when the owner was killed to divest him of
registration papers of vehicle which the offenders pretended to
buy.
• Any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are
PUBLIC, not exclusively for private use, comes within concept of
motor vehicle.
• A tricycle which is not included in exception, is thus deemed to
be that kind of motor vehicle as defined in the law the stealing of
which comes within its penal sanction.

25. 1. With abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness, and
2. Through deceit or false pretense.
The damage is not limited to material damage; it includes any
disturbance or prejudice.
When money or property is delivered for a particular purpose and it was
used for another purpose, it is essential to determine whether judicial or
physical possession was transferred.
MATERIAL POSSESSION—theft only
JURIDICAL POSSESSION—estafa

26. • When a bank’s cash custodian is found short of the cash
under her primary responsibility, her crime is not estafa
but qualified theft.
• Her possession of the cash belongs to the bank is similar
to that of a teller.
• Her possession is the possession of the bank.
• Hers is only physical and not juridical possession of the
missing cash. (Burce vs CA)

27. 1. Money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in
trust or on commission or for admission, or under any obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same even though the
obligation is guaranteed by a bond;
2. Misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender
or denial on his part of such receipt;
3. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another;
4. There is a demand made by the offended party on the offender
(Barrameda vs CA)

28. • ELEMENTS:
1. False pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
2. Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
3. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act,
or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means;
4. As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

29. 1. Making, drawing and issuing any check to apply to account or for
value;
2. Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue
he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with drawee bank for
the payment of the check in full upon its presentment;
3. Subsequent dishonour of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonour of the check for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the bank to stop payment.

30. 1. By making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account
or for value knowing at the time of issue that the check is not
sufficiently funded; and
2. By having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank but
failing to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover
the full amount of the check when presented to the drawee
bank within 90 days. (PP vs Cueme)
NOTE: the law does not require a maker to maintain funds in his
bank account for only 90 days. But establish a prima facie
presumprion of knowledge of such SUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS.

31. • 1. presentation within 90 days from date of the check,
• The dishonour of the check and failure of the maker to make
arrangements for payment in full within 5 banking days after the
notice thereof;
NOTE: The check must be deposited within 90 days is just one of
the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of
lack of funds to arise.
Check STALE after more than 6 months or 180 days.

32. • 1. 5 days---the maker or issuer must make arrangements to
make good the check within 5 days to escape criminal liability
for issuing the check a rubber check;
• 90 days--- he must maintain sufficient funds within 90 days to
destroy the prima facie presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds for the check;
• 180 days--- failure of the payee to deposit or encash the check
within 180 days will make the check stale or valueless; no criminal
action can arise therefrom.

33. • A notice of dishonour recived by the maker or drawer of the
check is indispensable before conviction can ensue.
• It may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank.
• It must be in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a
dishonoured check will not suffice.
• Lack of written notice is fatal for the prosecution.
(Domagsang vs CA)

34. • The issuance of worthless check is punishable even though the checks
gave been issued to guarantee another person’s obligation.
• B.P 22 punishes the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for
which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.
• It is a continuing crime. The venue is determined by the place where the
elements of making, issuing, or drawing of the check and delivery thereof
are committed.
• The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum
prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious
and inimical to public welfare. (PP vs Chua)

35. B.P. 22 ESTAFA
1. Even though the check was issued in payment of
existing obligation, liability is incurred.
1. The check should be issued concurrently and
reciprocally in payment of the exchange
consideration, not for a pre-existing obligation.
2. Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal liability. 2. Damage to the offended and deceit of the
are essential elements.
3. Crime against public interest since the act is
penalized due to its disastrous effect to the stability
of the banking system and prejudice to economy.
3. Crime against property.
4. Only the drawer is liable and if the drawer was a
juridical entity, the officer thereof who signed the
check shall be liable. The indorser is not liable.
4. Not only the drawer but also the indorsee may
incur liability if he were aware at the time of the
endorsement of the insufficiency of funds.
5. Drawer is given 5 banking days from notice of
dishonour or to make good cash value of the check
to avoid criminal liability.
5. Drawer is given only 3 days after notice of
dishonour to make good cash value to avoid
liability.6. it is malum in se.
6. This is a malum prohibitum.

36. • ELEMENTS:
1. Estafa or other forms of swindling as defines in Arts. 315 and 316 of the
Revised Penal Code is committed;
2. The estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate; and
3. The defraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by
stockholders or members of rural banks, cooperatives, “samahang nayon”
or farmers asso., or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from
the general public.
NOTE: “Syndicate”- consist of 5 or more persons formed with the intention of
carrying out unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme.

37. • RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT– refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes
referrals, contract services, promising or advertising
fors, is , locally or abroad, whether for profit or not,
PROVIDED, that any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a free employment to
two or more persons is considered engaged in
recruitment and placement.

38. 1. Simple illegal recruitment committed by a license or holder of
authority. (elements)
• The offender has no valid license or authority lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement workers;
• He undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment
and placement or any prohibited practices enumerated under
Art. 34 of the Labor Code.
2. Illegal recruitment by non-licensee or non-holder of authority.

39. 3. Illegal recruitment in a large scale whose elements are:
a. The offender is a non-license or non-holder of authority to engage
in recruitment and placement;
b. He undertakes recruitment and placement activity defined under
Art. 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34, and
c. Illegal recruitment is committed against 3 or more person
individually or as group.
4. Illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate- or a group of 3 or more
persons conspiring and confederating with one another is carrying out the
act circumscribed by law. (PP vs Navara)

40. •Non-licensee or non-holder of authority who
offers or promises for a free employment abroad
to 2 or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
an illegal recruitment. (PP vs Dela Piedra)
•One who commits illegal recruitment may be
convicted separately of illegal recruitment and
estafa under the same set of facts.

41. • It does not seek to enforce payment or the loan; rather it punishes the dishonesty
and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of
another regardless of whether the latter is the owner.
• It is malum prohibitum.
2 POSSIBLE SITUATIONS:
1. Money received under the obligation involving the duty to deliver it (entregarla)
to the owner of the merchandise;
2. Merchadise received under the obligation to “return” if (devolvera) to the owner.
NOTE: failure of the entrustee to return the proceeds of the sale of the goods
covered by the trust receipt to the entruster or to return said goods is punishable as
ESTAFA.

42. • When fire is used to destroy any property.
• Even if the property burned is owned by the offender arson is still
committed, if the burning is in a manner as to endanger the life
and property of others.
• If a person acting under 1 criminal impulse burned several building,
the crime is not distinct arson but 1 destructive arson.
• Even if the whole house has not been completely gutted by fire,
the crime is still consummated arson.
• It is enough that the portion thereof is shown to have been
destroyed. (PP vs Gutierriez)

43. • Relatives benefited by this are:
1. Spouse including common law relationship for the law did not specify
legal spouse. (Note that in relation to Family Code, common law
spouses are co-owners of the property)
2. Ascendants and descendants, stepparents and stepchildren;
3. Brothers/sisters who must be living in the same house. If living in same
compound but different houses, there is no exemption;
4. Widow if the property is not yet divided because she is still co-owner
then.

44. • CRIMES COVERED: (TEM)
1. Theft including qualified theft but not robbery.
2. Estafa but if complexed with other crimes (E.g.:
falsification of commercial documents, there is no
exemption)
3. Malicious mischief. The destruction may must not be by
means of burning because burning of property of small
value is now arson, not malicious mischief, the
exemption will not lie.