The major classification of Crimes Against Property

1. ROBBERY
A. With violence or intimidation against persons (Hold up)
B. With force upon things (break in)
2. Theft
A. Simple
B. Qualified
3. Estafa/swindling
4. Malicious Mischief
A. Ordinary
B. Special Cases
5. Arson
6. Violation of the Chattel Mortgage Law

Who are guilty of robbery?

ART.293 Who are guilty of robbery. - Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or
using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.

ELEMENTS of robbery IN GENERAL:

1. That there be personal property belonging to another (bienes muebles)
2. That there is unlawful taking of that property (apoderamiento or
asportacion)
3. That the taking must be with intent to gain; (animus lucrandi)
4. That there is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force
upon anything.

Person from whom property was taken need not be the owner. Legal
possession is sufficient.

General rule: The identity of the real owner is not essential so long as the
personal property taken does not belong to the accused. Exception: If the
crime is robbery with homicide

The unlawful taking of personal property is an essential part of the crime of

robbery.
The taking of personal property must be unlawful in order to constitute
robbery. If the property is in the possession of the offender because it was
given to him in trust by the owner or the taking was lawful and the unlawful
misappropriation was subsequent to such taking, the crime is estafa or
malversation.

If taking was lawful, then misappropriated after possession crime may be

malversation, (estafa)

As to robbery w/ violence or intimidation, from the moment the offender

gains possession of the thing even if offender has had no opportunity to
dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is complete.
As to robbery w/ force upon things, thing must be taken out of the building
in order to consummate robbery.

Intent to gain is presumed from unlawful taking of personal property.

The unlawful taking must not be under the claim of title or ownership.

When there is no intent to gain but there is violence in the taking, the
crime is grave coercion.

The violence or intimidation must be committed against the person of the

offended party, not upon the thing taken.

General rule: Violence or intimidation must be present before the “taking”

is complete.

Exception: When violence results in homicide, rape, intentional mutilation

or any of the serious physical injuries in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 263
(Serious Physical injuries), the taking of the property is robbery complexed
w/ any of these crimes under Art. 294, even if the taking is already
complete when violence was used by the offender.

Use of force upon things is entrance to the building by means described in

Arts. 299 and 302.

 There is no such crime as robbery with murder.

 Homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery.
 Robbery with rape
 There is no crime of frustrated theft.

When both violence or intimidation and force upon things concur in

committing the crime, it is robbery w/ violence against persons.

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE – if original design is robbery and homicide is

committed – robbery with homicide eventhough homicide precedes the
robbery by an appreciable time. If original design is not robbery but robbery
was committed after homicide as an afterthought – 2 separate offenses.
Still robbery with homicide – if the person killed was an innocent bystander
and not the person robbed and if death supervened by mere accident.

If not personal property but real property or rights crime may be

usurpation.

Theft, not robbery, where accused cut with bolo the strings tying opening
of a sack and then took the palay.

ROBBERY WITH RAPE – intent to commit robbery must precede rape.

Prosecution of the crime need not be by offended party – fiscal can sign the
information. When rape and homicide co-exist, rape should be considered
as aggravating circumstance only and the crime is still robbery with
homicide.

ROBBERY WITH INTIMIDATION – acts done by the accused which by their

own nature or by reason of the circumstances inspire fear in the person
against whom they are directed.

RA 6539 is applicable when property taken in robbery is a motor vehicle

(Carnapping: taking with intent to gain of 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; Unqualified -14years
and 8 months to 17 years and 4 months; violence/force upon things -17
years and 4 months to 30 years; occupant killed or raped – reclusion
perpetua to death)

PEOPLE vs. BOCALAN, G.R. No. 141527. 9/4/03

For the appellant to be guilty of consummated robbery, there must be
incontrovertible proof that property was taken from the victim. The
appellant is guilty of attempted robbery only when he commences the
commission of robbery directly by overt acts and does not perform all the
acts of execution which would produce robbery by reason of some causes
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Robbery Grave Threats Grave

Coercion

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Robbery (1996)

Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by different
families located inside a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow
block fence. How many robberies did the five commit? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because
when they entered the compound, they were impelled only by a single
indivisible criminal resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware
that there were five families inside said compound, considering that the
same was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block fence. The series of
robbery committed in the same compound at about the same time
constitutes one continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.

Robbery With Violence Against Or Intimidation Of Persons

ART.294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. - Any person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the

robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when
the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by
reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the
robbery accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly weapon or by two
or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death (As amended by PD
No. 767).

3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,

any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the
next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.

4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the
robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of
the crime, or when the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon
any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by
sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 23.

5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period in other cases. (As amended by R. A. 18).

ACTS PUNISHED AS ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR

INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS:

1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, homicide is committed;

2. When the robbery is accompanied w/ rape or intentional mutilation or
arson;
3. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the physical injuries
resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency, or blindness is inflicted;

4. When by reason of or on occasion of the robbery, serious physical

injuries resulting in the loss of the use of speech, or the power to hear or to
smell, or the loss of an eye, hand, foot, arm, leg, or the loss of the use of
any such member or incapacity for work in w/c victim is habitually engaged
is inflicted;

5. If the violence / intimidation employed in committing the robbery shall

have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the crime;
6. When in the course of its execution, offender inflicts upon any person
not responsible for the commission of robbery any of the physical injuries
resulting to deformity, loss of any part of the body or the use thereof, or
illness or incapacity for the performance of the work for > 90 days or > 30
days;

7. If the violence employed does not cause any serious physical injuries
defined in Art. 263, or if offender employs intimidation only

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTTANCES

Qualifying circumstances in robbery with violence or intimidation of

persons, if any of the offenses defined in subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of Ariticle
294 is committed:

1. In an uninhabited place or
2. By a band
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship
4. By entering the passenger’s compartments in a train, or in an any
manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances
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
period of the proper penalties prescribed in article 294.

People of the Philippines vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756,
April 04, 2003,448 Phil. 749

Facts:

The accused, with force, violence and intimidation, robbed a passenger bus
routed to Pampanga. When the accused approached and about to rob the
deceased victim, the discovered that the said victim was a member of the
Philippine National Police. The accused then informed the victim that they
will kill him for being a police. The victim plead for his life. The accused
disregarded the plea and shoot the victim multiple times. After the robbery,
the accused were arrested a a criminal cae was filed against them for the
crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Issue:

Whether Treachery in a crime of Robbery with Homicide should be treated

as a qualified aggravating circumstance.

Held:

No, Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with

homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and
a single and indivisible crime. Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance
because “homicide” is used in its broadest and most generic sense.

Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. Neither does it

constitute a crime specially punishable by law nor is it included by the law
in defining the crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty
therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery with
homicide. Hence, treachery should be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance in robbery with homicide for the imposition of the proper
penalty for the crime.

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES WITH SPECIFIC PENALTIES PRESCRIBED By

law.

1. Robbery with homicide is committed if original design is robbery and

homicide was committed although homicide precedes the robbery by an
appreciable time. If original design is not robbery but robbery was
committed after homicide as an afterthought, offender committed 2
separate offenses of robbery and homicide. The crime is still robbery with
homicide if the person killed was an innocent bystander and not the person
robbed and even if the death supervened by mere accident.

2. In robbery with rape, the intent to commit robbery must precede rape.
Prosecution of the crime need not be by the offended party and the fiscal
can sign the information. When rape and homicide co-exist in a robbery,
rape should be considered as aggravating only and the crime is still
robbery with homicide.
1996 Bar Examination Question - Conspiracy; Complex Crime with Rape

3. Robbery with intimidation is committed when the acts done by the accused, by their own nature or
by reason of the circumstances, inspire fear in the person against whom the acts are directed.

The crime defined in this article is a special complex crime.

The violence must be against the person of the offended party, not upon the thing taken. It must be
present before the taking of personal property is complete.

Exception: When the violence results in:

(1) homicide,
(2) rape,
(3) intentional mutilation, or
(4) any of the serious physical injuries penalized in paragraphs 1 & 2 of Art. 263,

- the taking of personal property is robbery complexed with any of those crimes under Art. 294,
- even if the taking was already complete when the violence was used by the offender.

There is no crime as robbery with murder.

The crime is still robbery with homicide if, in the course of the robbery, a person was killed even if it
was another robber or a bystander.

Even if the rape was committed in another place, it is still robbery with rape.

When the taking of personal property of a woman is an independent act following defendant’s failure
to consummate the rape, there are two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape and theft.

Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty.

When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide,
the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance only.

Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of personal property grave coercion if there is violence
used (Art. 286).

PEOPLE vs. COMILING, G.R. No. 140405. 3/4/04

As correctly stressed by the Solicitor General, robbery with homicide is a “special complex crime.” It
is enough that in order to sustain a conviction for this crime, the killing, which is designated as
“homicide,” has a direct relation to the robbery, regardless of whether the latter takes place before or
after the killing. For as long as the killing occurs during or because of the heist, even if the killing is
merely accidental, robbery with homicide is committed.

PEOPLE vs. BOLINGET, G.R. Nos. 137949-52. 12/11/03

Well entrenched in this jurisprudence is the doctrine that when homicide takes place as a consequence
or on occasion a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually took part in the
homicide. The only exception is when it is clearly shown that the accused endeavored to prevent the
unlawful killing.

PEOPLE vs. HIJADA, G.R. No. 123696. 311/04

There is no crime of Robbery with Multiple Homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The crime is
Robbery with Homicide notwithstanding the number of homicides committed on the occasion of the
robbery and even if murder, physical injuries and rape were also committed on the same occasion.

NAPOLIS V.CA (1972)

1. If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) and force upon things(299/302) exist it will be
considered as violation of Art 294 because it is more serious than in Art 299/302.
2. BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the complex
crime should be imputed for the higher penalty to be imposed without sacrificing the principle that
robbery w/ violence against persons is more severe than that w/ force upon things

PEOPLEV. MILLIAN (2000)

When taking of victims gun was to prevent the victim from retaliating crimes are theft and homicide
not robbery w/homicide

Bar Exam Question (2000)

Robbery under RPC (2000)

A, B, C, D, and E were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having a drinking spree. At about 1
o'clock in the morning, they decided to leave and so asked for the bill. They pooled their money
together but they were still short of Php 2,000.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C, and D
would go out, flag a taxicab, and rob the taxi driver of all his money while E would wait for them in
the beerhouse. A. B, C, and D agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab
they
encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to Php 1,000.00 only, they
needed Php 1,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they decided to hail another taxicab and they again
robbed driver T of his hard-earned money amounting to Php 1,000. On their way back to the
beerhouse, they were apprehended by a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of the first cab.
They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D, and E commit?
Explain fully.

Suggested Answer:

A. B, C, D, and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code;
not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but only committed the
robbery to raise money to pay their bill because it happened that they were short of money to pay the
same.

Bar Exam Question (2005)

Robbery w/ Homicide - R.A. No. 7659 (2005)

Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that Jose won P500,000.00 in the
lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose’s house and
acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose who
was then having his dinner. Henry found the P500,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of
gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were
arrested around 200 meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the
P500,000.00. Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the
aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime. Mario moved to reconsider the decision
maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed the victim;
hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with
Henry to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider the decision,
asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide with no aggravating circumstance,
considering
that he and Mario did not benefit from the P500,000.00. He further alleged that arson is a felony and
not an aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide; and
nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was lighted at the time he was killed. Resolve
with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry.

Suggested Answer:

Mario is not correct. Mario conspired and acted in concert with Henry to commit robbery. Hence, the
act of one is the act of all and the extent of the specific participation of each individual conspirator
becomes secondary, each being held liable for the criminal deed(s) executed by another or others. As a
conspirator, Mario casts his lot with his fellow conspirators and becomes liable to any third person who
may get killed in the course of implementing the criminal design. (People v. Punzalan, et al.. G.R. No.
78853, November 8, 1990)

Henry is incorrect, since he acquired possession of the money. The crime of robbery with force and
intimidation is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property, even if for a short
time. It is no defense that they had no opportunity to dispose of or benefit from the money taken.
(People v. Salvilia, et al., G.R. No. 88163, April 26, 1990)

Since the crime in robbery with force and intimidation against persons (robbery with homicide),
dwelling is aggravating. Arson, which accompanied the crime of robbery with homicide is absorbed
(Art. 294, RFC as amended by R.A. No. 7659) and is not aggravating because the RPC does not
provide that such crime is an aggravating circumstance. (People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5,
2000) Nighttime, likewise, is not aggravating. There is no showing that the same was purposely sought
by the offenders to facilitate the commission of the crime or impunity.

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Robbery w/ Homicide (1996)

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed
a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four
were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from
the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the
four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the
latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime
did the four commit? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of
Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery
but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where the robbery was
committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the
rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22
June 1995}
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent
identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that
several persons were killed [homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes
are synonymous with Ignominy and the additional killing synonymous with cruelty, (People vs. Solis,
182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
Bar Exam Question (1998)

Robbery w/ Homicide (1998)

A, B, C, and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank, policemen
came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired back and shot it out
with them.

1. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came from the firearm of the
police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B. C, and D?
2. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A, B and C
with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B, and C) were not the ones who
killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument?

Suggested Answer:

1. A, B, C, and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the
bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They
shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery;
hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
2.The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was filed. It would be
different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with homicide which is a single,
indivisible offense.

Alternative Answer:

2. The argument raised by A, B and C is not correct because their liability is not only for Robbery but
for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated impresses that separate
crimes of Robbery "and" Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was committed was a
single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide, not two crimes.

Bar Exam Question (2003)

A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to $10,000 from his daughter
working in the United States. With the intention of robbing B of those dollars, A entered B's house at
midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain entry, and began quietly searching the drawers,
shelves, and other likely receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the
bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the knife which A was then holding. After
stabbing B to death, A turned over B's pillow and found the latter's wallet underneath the pillow, which
was bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for. A took the bills and left the house. What crime or
crimes were committed?

Suggested Answer:

The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so because A's primordial
criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, the killing of B took place.
Both the robbery and the killing were consummated, thus giving rise to the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the
"occasion" of the robbery, though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime of
robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense.

Bar Exam Question (1995)

Robbery w/ Homicide; Special Complex Crime (1995)

Victor, Ricky, Rod, and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store
while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he
was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife
as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed MangPandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl
Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from
people next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor
scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted,
"Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the
store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky. Discuss fully the criminal
liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod, and Ronnie.

Suggested Answer:

All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in stabbing
Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy, of
Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in scooping up money from the
cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and announcing the escape, are all indicative
of conspiracy. The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion
of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with
homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing (People vs. Baello, 224 SCRA 218) . Further,
the aggravating circumstance of craft could be assessed against the accused for pretending to be
customers of Mang Pandoy.

Bar Exam Question (2002)

Robbery with Intimidation vs. Theft (2002)

A entered the house of another without employing force or violence upon things. He was seen by a
maid who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing so because A threatened her with a gun. A
then took money and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of theft or of robbery? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on the maid before the taking of the
money and other valuables. It is the intimidation of person relative to the taking that qualifies the crime
as robbery, instead of simply theft. The non-employment of force upon things is of no moment because
robbery is committed not only by employing force upon things but also by employing violence against
or intimidation of persons.

Bar Exam Question (1999)

Robbery w/ Rape (1999)

Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value. They succeeded in
the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually aroused when he saw the
lady owner of the house and so, raped her. The lady victim testified that B did not in any way
participate in the rape but B watched the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is
B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1).
Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when the rape was being
committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B
would not have been liable had he endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did
not when he could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery
and so he is also liable for robbery with rape.

Bar Exam Question (2004)

Robbery w/ Rape; Conspiracy (2004)

Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking one of the
windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and as they were about to leave, XA
decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her
bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD. What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC
commit, and what is the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly.
Suggested Answer:

The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a single,
indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Although the conspiracy among the
offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were
present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop
XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their
co-conspirator XA. The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the
special complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape
accompanying the robbery is just a component.

Bar Exam Question (1997)

Robbery; Rape (1997)

After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a cigarette before
departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. He
demanded that she hand over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The
accused was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the
court correct?

Suggested Answer;

No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The
accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery and rape, since the primary
intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the complainant, and his commission of the robbery
was merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the rape. In order to give rise to the special
complex crime for which the court convicted the accused.

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 passenger's 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.

In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the
band.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES IN ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE

OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS:

If any of the offenses defined in subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of Art. 294

is committed -
1. in an uninhabited place, or
2. by a band, or
3. by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or
4. by entering the passenger’s compartments in a train, or in any manner
taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances,
or
5. on a street, road, highway or alley and the intimidation is made with the
use of firearms.
The qualifying circumstances of robbery with violence or intimidation must
be alleged in the information and proved during the trial.

ART.296 Definition of a 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 of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice of the criminal
liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms.

Any member of a band who is 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.

When at least four armed malefactors take part in the commission of a

robbery, it is deemed committed by a band.

Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of the band:
1. That the accused 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; and
4. That he did not attempt to prevent the assault.

Conspiracy is presumed when 4 or more armed persons committed robbery.

In robbery committed by a band, all are liable for any assault committed
Being qualifying circumstances, they cannot be offset by generic
mitigating circumstances.

This article will not apply to the special complex crimes of robbery w/
homicide, w/ rape, or w/ serious physical injuries under paragraph 1 of Art.
263.

It cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance.

The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery on a street,
road, highway, or alley.by the band, unless the others attempted to prevent
the assault.

There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in band”. Band is onlyordinary

aggravating circumstance in robbery w/ homicide

People V. Apduhan
1. In order that special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm
be appreciated it is condition sine qua non that offense charged be robbery
by a band under Art 295.
2. Pursuant to Art 295, the circumstance of a band is qualifying only in
robbery under par 3, 4 &5 of Art 294. Thus Art. 295 does not apply to
robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape,or robbery with serious
physical injuries under par. 1 of Art. 263.
3. So special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm is
inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide robbery with rape, or robbery with
physical injuries, committed by a band

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.

Same penalty, whether robbery is attempted or frustrated, as long is

homicide is committed by reason or on occasion thereof.

Where the offense is attempted or frustrated robbery with serious physical

injuries, Art. 48 (complex crimes) is applicable.

Homicide - includes multiple homicides, murder, parricide, or

even infanticide.

The penalty is the same, whether robbery is attempted or frustrated.

Robbery with homicide and attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide

are special complex crimes, not governed by Art. 48, but by the special
provisions of Arts. 294 & 297, respectively.

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.

Article 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 documents, 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; and
3. That the compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.

This article is not applicable if the document is void.

Applies even if document signed, executed or delivered is a private or

commercial document.
If the violence resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded, crime is robbery with homicide and
shall be penalized under Art 294 par. 1.

Art. 298 applies to private or commercial document.

Art. 298 is not applicable if the document is void.

When the offended party is under obligation to sign, execute or deliver the document under the law, it
is not robbery but coercion.

Bar Exam Question (2001)

Robbery under RPC (2001)

A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A is a barangay Kagawad and known to be
a bully, while B is reputed to be gay but noted for his industry and economic savvy which allowed him
to amass wealth in leaps and bounds, including registered and unregistered lands in several barangays.
Resenting B's riches and relying on his political influence, A decided to harass and intimidate B into
sharing with him some of his lands, considering that the latter was single and living alone. One night,
A broke into B's house, forced him to bring out some titles and after picking out a title covering 200
square meters in their barangay, compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the said lot to him
for P1.00 and other valuable considerations. All the while, A carried a paltik caliber .45 in full view of
B, who signed the deed out of fear. When A later on tried to register the deed, B summoned enough
courage and had A arrested and charged in court after preliminary investigation. What charge or
charges should be filed against A? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the Revised Penal Code should be filed against A. Said
Article provides that any person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of violence or
intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute and deliver any public instrument or document shall be
held guilty of robbery. The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended to intimidate
B and thus, used in the commission of the robbery. If it could be established that A had no license or
permit to possess and carry such firearm, it should be taken only as special aggravating circumstance to
the crime of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.

Alternative Answer:

On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B to sign, had not attained the character of a
"public" instrument or document, A should be charged for the crime of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code for having intruded into B’s house, and for the crime of
Grave Coercion under Article 286 of same Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale against his
will.

Robbery In An Inhabited House

ART.299 obbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. -

Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or
edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of
the property taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if:

(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was

committed, by any of the following means:

1. Through a 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.

Or if -
 (b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:

1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or

sealed furniture or receptacle;

2. By taking such furniture or objects 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 250
pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property
taken does not exceed 250 pesos.

When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed
250 pesos, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two next preceding paragraphs, in
its minimum period.

If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public

building, or building dedicated to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree than
those prescribed in this article shall be imposed.

ELEMENTS of robbery with force upon things under subdivision (a):

1. That the offender entered
(a) an inhabited house, 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; and
3. That once inside the building, the offender took personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain.

Inhabited house is any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of

one or more person even though temporarily absent therefrom when
robbery is committed. It includes dependencies, courts, corals, barns, etc.
It does not include orchards and lands for cultivation.

Public building - 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.

Breaking - means 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.

In robbery by use of force upon things, it is necessary that offender enters

the building or where object may be found. When there was no entry, no
robbery was committed.

Whole-body must be inside the house, public building, or place devoted to

worship to constitute entering.
Passing through an open door but getting out of a window is not robbery
but theft.

To constitute robbery, the outside door must be broken or smashed. If the

lock was merely removed or the door was merely pushed, crime is only
theft.

False keys are genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys other than
those intended by the owner for use in the lock w/c was forcibly opened by
the offender.

Picklocks are those specially adapted for the commission of the robbery.

The key must have been stolen not by force. Otherwise, it’s robbery by
violence and intimidation against persons.

False key must have been used in opening house and not any furniture
inside. Otherwise, the crime is only theft.

General Rule:
If false key/picklock was used to open an inside door (Ex. door of a room)
and offender took personal property, the crime is only theft.

Exception: If the room is a separate dwelling place, crime is robbery.

The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise authority

must be committed for the purpose of entering the building.

ELEMENTS of robbery with force upon things under subdivision (b):

1. That the offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice
devoted to religious worship, regardless of the circumstances under which
he entered it; and
2. That the offender takes personal property belonging to another with
intent to gain, under any of the following circumstances:
a. by the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of
locked or sealed furniture or receptacle, or
b. by taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open
outside the place of the robbery.

It is not necessary that entrance was made through any of the means
mentioned in subdivision (a).

Offender may be servants or guests.

Destruction of keyhole of cabinet is robbery under this subsection.

When sealed box is taken out for the purpose of breaking it, crime is
already consummated robbery. There is no need to actually open it inside
the building from where it was taken.

But if the box was confided into the custody of accused and he takes the
money contained therein, the crime is estafa.
The crime is theft if the box was found outside of the building and the
accused forced it open.

Mitigating circumstance:
1. Offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken exceeds
250 pesos.
2. Offenders are armed, but the value does not exceed 250 pesos.
3. Offenders do not carry arms and the value does not exceed 250 pesos
penalty of a) or b) in minimum period.
4. Committed in dependencies

People vs. Tayag

In entering the building, the offender must have an intention to take
personal property Public building includes every building owned, rented or
used by the government although owned by private persons or
temporarily vacant.

Illustration:
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 penalty depends on the value of property taken and on whether or not
offender carries arm.

Bar Exam Question (2000)

Robbery with force upon things (2000)

A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends,
took the coconut shell which is being used by B as a bank for coins from
inside their locked cabinet using their common key. Forthwith, A broke the
coconut shell outside of their home in the presence of his friends.

a) What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain.

b) Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised
Penal Code for being a brother of B? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because the
coconut shell with the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain and
broken outside of their home, (Art. 299 (b) (2). RPC).
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332 because said
Article applies only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the
crime committed is robbery.

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 be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided therefor.
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice (large or massive
structure) devoted to religious worship is qualified when committed by a
band and in an uninhabited place.

uninhabited place and by band --- must concur and must be alleged in the in
the information.

To qualify Robbery w/ force upon things (Art 299) It must be committed in

uninhabited place AND by a band (Art 300)

To qualify Robbery with violence against or intimidation It must be

committed in an uninhabited place OR by a band (Art. 295)

ART.301 What is an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to

religious worship and their dependencies. - 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, waterhouses, granaries, barns, coach-houses, stables or other
departments or inclosed 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 paragraph, even if closed, contiguous to the building and having direct
connection therewith.

The term "public building" includes every building owned by the Government or belonging
to a private person not included used or rented by the Government, although temporarily
unoccupied by the same.

EXAMPLE OF INHABITED PLACE

1. Forest
2. Abandon building
3. Sunken ship

Dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated

to religious worship are all interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries
or enclosed places:
1. contiguous to the building,
2. having an interior entrance connected therewith, and
3. forming part of the whole.

A garage, in order to be considered as a dependency of a house, must have

the 3 foregoing requirements.

The place is still inhabited even if the occupant was absent.

Dependencies - all interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries or in

closed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior
entrance connected therewith, and which form part of
the whole (Art.301, par. 2).
 Requisites:
1. Must be contiguous to the building;
2. Must have an interior entrance connected therewith;
3. Must form part of the whole.

Orchards and lands used for cultivation or production are not included in
the term “dependencies” (Art. 301, par. 3).

ART.302 Robbery is an uninhabited place 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 50,000 pesos, shall be
punished by prision correccional if 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, flour or outside door or window has been broken.

3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other
similar tools.

4. If any dorm, wardrobe, chest or by sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been
broken.

5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has

been removed even if the same to broken open elsewhere.

When the value of the property takes does not exceed 50,000 pesos, the penalty next lower
in degree shall be imposed.

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.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was
not a dwelling house, not a public building, or not an edifice devoted to
religious worship;
2. That any of the following circumstances was present:
a. That entrance was effected through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress,
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was broken,
c. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or
other similar tools,
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or
receptacle was broken; or
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same be
broken open elsewhere; and
3. That with intent to gain, the offender took therefrom personal property
belonging to another.

This article covers the second kind of robbery with force upon things.

Uninhabited place under this article is an uninhabited building w/c is not a

dwelling house, public building, or edifice for worship.
Ex. warehouse, freight car (transportation cargo), store.
Robbery under this article is committed in the same manner as in Art. 299
(Robbery in inhabited house, public building, and edifice devoted to
religious worship) except that what was entered into was an uninhabited
place or a bldg. other than the 3 mentioned in Art. 299. The use of fictitious
name or pretending the exercise of public authority is not also included in
this article.

The breaking of padlock but not of the door is only theft.

Building - includes any kind of structure used for storage or safekeeping of

personal property, such as (a) freight car and(b) warehouse.

Entrance through an opening not intended for entrance or egress is not

necessary, if there is breaking of wardrobe, chest, or sealed or closed
furniture or receptacle, or removal thereof to be broken open elsewhere.

Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.

Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authorities is

not covered under this article.

The receptacle (container van) must be “closed” or “sealed”.

Penalty is based only on value of property taken.

ART.303 Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building. -

In the cases enumerated in Articles 299 and 302, when the robbery consists in the taking of
cereals, fruits, or firewood, the culprit shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed in said articles.

When the robbery described in Arts. 299 and 302 consists in the taking of
cereals, fruits, or firewood, the penalty is one degree lower.

The penalty is one degree lower

The palay must be kept by the owner as “seedling” or taken for that
purpose by the robbers.

ART.304 Possession of picklocks or similar tools. - Any person who shall without lawful
cause have in his possession picklocks or similar tools especially adopted to the commission
of the crime of robbery, shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall make such tools. If the ‘-
09offender be a locksmith, he shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools;
2. That such picklocks or similar tools are specially adopted to the
commission of robbery; and
3. That the offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.

Actual use of the picklocks or similar tools is not necessary.

ART.305 False keys. - The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include:

1. The tools mentioned in the next preceding articles.

2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner.

3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened
by the offender.

FALSE KEYS – genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys other
than those intended by the owner for use in the lock.

FALSE KEYS include:

1. picklocks or similar tools,
2. genuine keys stolen from the owner; and
3. any key other than those intended by owner for use in the
lock forcibly opened by the offender.

Possession of false keys in paragraphs (1) and (2) above is not

punishable.

If the key was entrusted to the offender and he used it to steal,crime

is not robbery but theft.