ARICLE 306 Who are brigands; Penalty.

- When more than three armed persons

form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or
kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other
purpose to be attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway
robbers or brigands.

Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts committed by
them are not punishable by higher penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high
penalties.

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
convictions the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.

There is brigandage when –

1. at least four armed persons,
2. band of robbers, and
3. their purpose is any of the ff:
a. Robbery in the highway
b. Kidnapping for extortion or ransom
c. Any other purpose to be obtained by means of force and violence.

Presumption of law as to brigandage: all are presumed highway robbers or brigands,

if any of them carries unlicensed firearm.

The arms carried may be any deadly weapon.

The main object of the law is to prevent the formation of band of robbers.

The term highway includes city streets.

The following must be proved:

1. That there is an organization of more than 3 armed persons forming a band of robbers
2. That the purpose of the band is any of those enumerated in Art. 306.
3. That they went upon the highway or roamed
upon the country for that purpose.
4. That the accused is a member of such band.

ART.307 Aiding And Abetting A Band Of

Brigands.
Any person knowingly and in any manner
aiding, abetting or protecting a band of brigands
as described in the next preceding article, or
giving them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the
Government (or of the forces of the United States Army, when the latter are acting in aid
of the Government), or acquiring or receiving the property taken by such brigands, shall
be punished by prision correctional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum
period.

It shall be presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article
has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.

ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a band of brigands;
2. That the offender knows the band to be of brigands; and
3. That the offender does any of the following acts:
a. he in any manner aids, abets (assists or support), 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, or

c. he acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands.

P. D. No. 532 defines brigandage as 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 by any person on any Philippine highway.

The Anti-Carnapping Act defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a
motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. This law also penalizes
the defacing or tampering with the original serial number of motor vehicle engines, engine
blocks, and chassis.

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.

Theft

ART.308 Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent
to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the
local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall
remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden
or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish
upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest farm products.

ELEMENTS of Theft
1. That there be taking of personal property; (the taking must be unlawful is
most material in the crime of theft)
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; and
5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
 Theft: committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal
property of another without the latter’s consent.
 Unlawful Taking (apoderamiento) - if bulky, must be taken away(when place
surrounded by fence or wall), otherwise, the moment he had full possession of
thing, asportation (carrying away the property) is complete; does not need a
character of permanency.
 Unlawful taking which is deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element
which produces the felonyin its consummated stage.

Intent to Gain (animus lucrandi) – taking must be accompanied by intention, at

the time of taking, of withholding the thing with character of permanency;
presumed from unlawful taking of personal property of another.
Malicious mischief is absorb in this case.

Gain desired by the offender may not only be money. It may include
satisfaction, use, pleasure or any benefit; includes satisfaction of taking
revenge.

It is not required that the offender realized actual gain in committing theft.
It is sufficient that he took personal property of another with intent to gain
because to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element
of the crime of theft.
 The theft was consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the
thing taken by them. It is not indispensable element of theft carry, more or less far
away, the thing taken by him from its owner. There must be a voluntary and
malicious taking of the property belonging to another which is realized by the
material occupation of the thing where the thief places it under his control.
 There must be a complete, independent and absolute possession and control of the
thing desired, adverse to the right of the owner or lawful possessor thereof.
 The offender must have the intention of making himself the owner of thing taken.

Trust, Commission, Administration: Juridical possession of thing transferred to

another.

If only custody of object (i.e. only material possession) was given to the accused and it is
actually taken by him with no intent to return, the crime is theft. But if juridical
possession is transferred (Ex., by a contract of bailment) is given to the accused and he
takes the property with intent to gain, the crime is estafa.

Personal property: includes electricity and gas, promissory note and check. Ex. the
inspector misreads the meter to profit thereby, or one using a jumper.

Consent: freely given and not merely lack of objection

Allegation in the information of the lack of the owner’s consent is important.

Finder: may be a finder in law

Theft is consummated when the offender is able to place the thing taken under his
control and in such a situation as he could dispose of it at once (although there is actually
no opportunity to dispose).

Servant using his employer’s car without permission is guilty of qualified theft although
his use thereof was only temporary. However, Reyes says that there must be some
character of permanency in depriving owner of the use of the object and making himself
the owner. Therefore, “joyride” must be deemed as qualified theft.

An employee taking his salary before it is actually delivered to him is guilty of theft.

If the offender, in good faith, claims property as his own, no theft is committed although
his claim of ownership is later found to be untrue. However, if his claim is in bad faith, he
is guilty of theft.

PERSONS LIABLE FOR THEFT:

1. Those who:
a. with intent to gain,
b. but w/o violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things
c. take
d. personal property
e. of another
f. w/o the latter’s consent.
2. Those who:
a. having found lost property,
b. fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner.

Retention of money/property found is theft. What is punished is retention or failure to

return with intent to gain.

The offender’s knowledge of the identity of the owner of the property is not required. His
knowledge that the property is lost is enough.

The finder of the lost property is liable for his deliberate failure to return the lost
property, he knowing that the property does not belong to him.

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.
Killing the cattle of another which destroyed his(offender’s) property and getting meat for
himself is theft.

4. Those who hunting, fishing or gathering fruits, etc. in enclosed estate

ELEMENTS(Par. 3 of Art 308):

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.

The fishing in this article is not in the fishpond or fishery. If the fish is taken from a
fishpond or a fishery, the crime is qualified theft.

Valenzuela v. People (June 2007)

There is no frustrated theft because of the definition of theft in Art 308. The offender has
either complete control of the property (consummated) or without (attempted)

There is “taking” even if the offender received the thing from the offended party.

If juridical possession of thing was transferred as opposed to physical possession and

thing was appropriated the crime is ESTAFA not theft

Selling share of a partner or co-owner is not theft.

Employee is not the owner of separation pay which is not actually delivered to him.

Actual or real gain is not necessary in theft. The consent contemplated in the element of
theft refers to consent freely given and not mere lack of opposition by owner of the
property taken.

It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking.

People v. Gulinao
1. Gulinao shot Dr. Chua & left. Then he went back & took Dr. Chua’s diamond ring.
2. The crime was Theft and not robbery as the taking of the ring was just an afterthought.
Violence used in killing Dr. Chua had no bearing on the taking of the ring.

One in possession of part of recently stolen property is presumed to be thief of all.

Lost property - embraces loss by stealing or by act of he owner or by a person other than
the owner, or through some casual occurrence.

Bar Exam Question (1998)

Theft (1998)

Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, and since it did not belong to him, he
approached policeman P and delivered the watch with instruction to return the same to
whoever may be found to be the owner.

P failed to return the watch to the owner and, instead, sold it and appropriated for himself
the proceeds of the sale.

Charged with theft, P reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was not he
who found the watch and, moreover, the watch turned out to be stolen property. Is P's
defense valid?

Suggested Answer:

No, P's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the personal property
subject thereof belongs to another and not to the offender (P). It is irrelevant whether the
person deprived of the possession of the watch has or has no right to the watch. Theft is
committed by one who, with intent to gain, appropriates property of another without the
consent of its owner. And the crime is committed even when the offender receives
property of another but acquires only physical possession to hold the same.

Bar Exam Question (2001)

Theft (2001)

Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in front of his working place in
Makati and, upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the owner engraved on the
inside. Remembering his parents' admonition that he should not take anything which does
not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet to PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati Quad
precinct with the instruction to locate the owner and return it to him. PO1 Reyes, instead,
sold the bracelet and misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events brought out the
fact that the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a
block away from where Francis had found it and further investigation traced the last
possessor as PO1 Reyes. Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out that he had not
committed any crime because it was not he who had found the bracelet and, moreover, it
turned out to have been stolen. Resolve the case with reasons.

Suggested Answer:
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has not
committed any crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned
out to be stolen also, is devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to another
and the failure to restore the same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain.

The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and which he
only held to be delivered to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain.

Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for delivery to the owner,
the person to whom such property is entrusted and who accepts the same, assumes the
relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if he would
misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).

what are the penalties for theft?

ART.309

The basis of the penalty in theft is:

(1) the value of the thing stolen, and in some cases,
(2) the value and also the nature of the property taken, or
(3) the circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime.

If there is no evidence of the value of the property stolen, the court should impose the
minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00. The court may also
take judicial notice of its value in the proper cases.

Qualified Theft

Theft is qualified if
1. It is committed by a domestic servant, or
2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence,or
3. The property stolen is a:
a. motor vehicle,
b. mail matter,
c. large cattle,
d. coconut from the premises of a plantation,
e. fish from a fishpond or fishery, or
4. Committed on the occasion of calamities, vehicular accident and civil disturbance.

Grave abuse of confidence - necessitates a high degree of confidence between the

offender and the offended party. (Ex. guests). Hence, when there is no confidence b/w the
parties,
the crime is not qualified theft.

Theft is qualified if it is committed by one who has access to the place where stolen
property is kept. (Ex. security guards, tellers)

Novation theory (i.e. the victim’s acceptance of payment converted the offender’s liability
to a civil obligation) applies only if there is a contractual relationship b/w the accused and
the complainant.

When the accused treated the deed of sale as sham and he had intent to gain, his
absconding with the object of the sale is qualified theft

When a PUV in “boundary” system entrusted tothe offender is sold to another, the crime is
theft. On the other hand, if the motor vehicle is not used for public utility in “boundary”
system but under contract of lease, the crime is estafa.

The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher.

Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. There’s no need to prove grave abuse of
discretion.

The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must be allegation in the information and
proof of a relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance, between the
accused and the offended
party, that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which the accused
abused.

Theft of any material, spare part, product or article by employees and laborers is heavily
punished under PD 133.

Motor vehicle: all vehicles propelled by power, other than muscular power.

When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy by burning it, the crime is arson.

If a private individual took a letter containing postal money order it is qualified theft. If it
was the postmaster, to whom the letter was delivered, the crime would be infidelity in the
custody of
documents.

Bar Exam Question (2002)

Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)

A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking advantage of the confusion, entered the
store and carried away goods which he later sold. What crime, if any, did he commit?
Why?

Suggested Answer:

A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the goods on the occasion of and
taking advantage of the fire which broke out in the department store. The occasion of a
calamity such as fire, when the theft was committed, qualifies the crime under Article 310
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Bar Exam Question (2002)

Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)

A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in Bulacan. Among the first to
arrive at the scene of the accident was A, who found one of the victims already dead and
the others unconscious. Before rescuers could come, A, taking advantage of the helpless
condition of the victims, took their wallets and jewelry. However, the police, who
responded to the report of the accident, caught A. What crime or crimes did A commit?
Why?

Suggested Answer:

A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the wallets and jewelry of the
victims with evident intent to gain and on the occasion of a vehicular accident wherein he
took advantage of the helpless condition of the victims. But only one crime of qualified
theft was committed although there were more than one victim divested of their
valuables, because all the taking of the valuables were made on one and the same
occasion, thus constituting a continued crime.

Bar Exam Question (2006)

Theft; Qualified Theft (2006)

1. Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir when he
noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted
around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with
some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with the proper offense.
What is that offense? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

The offense is Qualified Theft under Sec. 68 of P.D. 705, amending P.D. No. 330, which
penalizes any person who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products from any of the public forest. The Balara Watershed is
protected by the cited laws.

2. During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial proper, Rene and Dante
contended that if they were to be held liable, their liability should be limited only to the
newly-cut logs found in their possession but not to those found outside the gate. If you
were the judge, what will be your ruling?

Suggested Answer:

The contention is untenable, the presence of the newly cut logs outside the gate is
circumstantial evidence, which, if unrebutted, establishes that they are the offenders who
gathered the same.

Theft of Property of the National Library and National Museum

ART.311

Theft of property on National Library and Museum has a fixed penalty regardless of its
value.

Theft of property of the National Museum and National Library has a fixed penalty
regardless of its value. But if it was with grave abuse of confidence, the penalty for
qualified theft shall be imposed.

PD 704 ILLEGAL FISHING

Prima facie presumption of illegal fishing when:

1) Explosive, obnoxious or poisonous substance or equipment or device for electric fishing
are found in the fishing boat or in the possession of fisherman; or
2) When fish caught with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by
electricity are found in a fishing boat

PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW

Cattle rustling: taking away by means, methods or schemes, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of any large cattle whether or not for profit, or whether committed with or
without violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things. It includes the
killing of large cattle, taking its meat, or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.

Large cattle: include cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, other domesticated members of the
bovine family. A goat is not included because it is not large.

Presumption: Every person in possession of large cattle shall upon demand by competent
authorities exhibit required documents. Failure to do so is prima facie evidence that large
cattle in possession are fruits of the crime of cattle rustling
The killing of the owner is absorbed in cattle rustling.

Usurpation of Real Rights in Property

ART.312

Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. - Any person who, by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real
property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the
penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from
50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have obtained, but not less than 75
pesos.

If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be
imposed.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in
property;
2. That the real property or real rights belong to another;
3. That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying
real property or usurpation real rights in property; and
4. That there is intent to gain.

Acts punishable under Art. 312:

1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons
2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons.

If no violence or intimidation only civil liability exists.

Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or intimidation took place subsequent to the
entry into the property. Violence or intimidation must be the means used in occupying real
property
or in usurping real rights.

Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of the writ of execution issued in the
forcible entry case.

Criminal action for usurpation of real property is not a bar to civil action for forcible entry.

RA 947
Punishes entering or occupying public agricultural land including lands granted to private
individuals.

RA.No.947

AN ACT MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION TO

FORCIBLY ENTER OR OCCUPY PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND PENALIZING
VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or association to enter or

occupy, through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, any public agricultural land
including such public lands as are granted to private individuals under the provisions of
the Public Land Act or any other laws providing for the disposal of public agricultural lands
in the Philippines, and are duly covered by the corresponding applications required for the
purpose notwithstanding the fact that title thereto still remains in the Government; or for
any person, natural or juridical, to instigate, induce or force another to commit such acts.
Sec. 2. The criminal action for any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be instituted
within one year from the time the cause of action arises.

Sec. 3. Any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not
exceeding one thousand pesos or imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both
such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. In case of insolvency, the
offender shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment to be computed in accordance with the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

If the offender is a corporation or association, the president, director, manager or

managing partner thereof shall be held criminally liable therefor.

Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 20

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Usurpation of Real Rights (1996)

Teresita is the owner of a two-hectare land in Bulacan which she planted to rice and corn.
Upon her arrival from a three-month vacation in the United States, she was surprised to
discover that her land had been taken over by Manuel and Teofilo who forcibly evicted her
tenant-caretaker Juliana, after threatening to kill the latter if she would resist their taking
of the land. Thereafter, Manuel and Teofilo plowed, cultivated and appropriated the
harvest for themselves to the exclusion of Teresita.

1) What crime or crimes did Manuel and Teofilo commit? Explain.

2) Suppose Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when the latter refused to surrender
possession of the land, what crime or crimes did the two commit? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

1) Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usurpation of real rights under Art. 312 of
the Revised Penal Code for employing violence against or intimidation of persons. The
threats to kill employed by them in forcibly entering the land is the means of committing
the crime and therefore absorbed in the felony, unless the intimidation resulted in a more
serious
felony.

2) The crime would still be usurpation of real rights under Art. 312, RPC, even if the said
offenders killed the caretaker because the killing is the Violence against persons" which is
the means for committing the crime and as such, determinative only. However, this gives
way to the proviso that the penalty provided for therein is "in addition to the penalty
incurred in the acts of violence (murder or homicide] executed by them. The crime is
similar to a robbery where a killing is committed by reason thereof, giving rise only to one
indivisible offense (People vs. Judge Alfeche, plus the fine mentioned therein.

RT.313

ELEMENTS:
1. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns,
provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same; and
2. That the offender alters said boundary marks.

Art. 313 does not require intent to gain.

The word “alter” may include:
a. destruction of stone monument
b. taking it to another place
c. removing a fence

The Penalty for this crime is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P100 or both.

During the fifteenth Congress, a bill was passed to increase the amount of fine to P8,000
but it never became a law. P100
fine is too low at this present day.

ART.314

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a debtor; that is, he has obligations due and payable;
2. Absconds with his property; and
3. Prejudice to his creditors.

Actual prejudice to the creditors is required.

Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required. Even if the debtor disposes of his
property, unless it is shown that it has actually prejudiced his creditor, conviction will not
lie. Fraudulent concealment of property is not sufficient if the debtor
has some property with which to satisfy his obligation.

Abscond: does not require that the debtor should depart and
physically conceal his property. Real property could be the
subject matter of Art. 314.

The person prejudiced must be creditor of the offender.

Art 314 - No need to have defendant adjudged bankrupt or insolvent.

Insolvency law - Crime should be committed after the institution of

insolvency proceedings.