Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thus, when the accused had to go to another province where he was able to
earn a living and his wife and children refused to go with him there, said
accused is not liable for abandoning his family and neglecting his children.
The exact date when the alleged trespass occurred is not an essential element
of the offense of trespass. It is sufficient that the Complaint or Information
states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission. Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Court
provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the
precise time the offense was committed except when time is a material
ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed
at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as
the information or complaint will permit. A variance between the time set out
in the indictment and that established by the evidence during trial does not
constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on
that score. Thus, the error invoked by the petitioner in the date of the alleged
trespass in the Information is of no grave import, for it is far from being the
decisive issue in this case.
Art. 282. Grave threats / Art. 283. Light threats / Art. 285. Other
Light threats
Thus, the arrest of the vice-president who was presiding over the
meeting of the municipal council, preceded by firing a shot in the air by the
municipal president as the latter was ordering his arrest, and the detention of
the vice-president in jail until 2:00 a.m. when he was released by the governor,
do not constitute a complex crime of grave coercion through arbitrary
detention, but simply a violation of Article 143.
The word “seize” means “to place in the control of someone a thing or to
give him the possession thereof” and accordingly, it is not necessary that in
the act, there should be force or violence.
People v. Cabbab, Jr., G.R. No. 173479, July 12, 2007 citing People v.
Cabilto, 362 SCRA 325 [2001]
But where an armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and the driver,
sensing that the band might commit robbery, did not stop the bus but drove it
faster, and the members of the band then fired at it, killing one passenger and
wounding another passenger and the driver, the crime does not constitute
attempted robbery with homicide, because no overt acts pointing to robbery
were established. The offenses committed are the separate crimes of murder,
frustrated muredr and physical injuries.
The element of intent to defraud is not present because, even if, initially, as
claimed by petitioners, they were forced to sign the letter-agreement,
petitioners made claims based thereon and invoked the provisions thereof. In
fact, petitioners wanted respondents to honor the letter-agreement and to pay
rentals for the use of the facilities. By doing so, petitioners effectively,
although they were careful not to articulate this fact, affirmed their signatures
in this letter-agreement.
The Court, however, notes at the outset that the CA erred in applying Article
299 of the RPC. The records show that the store alleged to have been robbed
by petitioners is not an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated
to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and as defined
under Article 301. From the testimony, it can be deduced that the
establishment allegedly robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. In fact,
after the robbery took place, there was a need to inform Valderosa of the same
as she was obviously not residing in the store. "If the store was not actually
occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling, since the
owner lived in a separate house, the robbery committed therein is punished
under Article 302." Neither was the place where the store is located owned by
the government. It was actually just a stall rented by Valderosa from a private
person. Hence, the applicable provision in this case is Article 302 and not
Article 299 of the RPC.
Thus, even if the offender took from the camarin about 15 sacks of palay
through an opening made on the floor of said camarin, since the robbery
committed with force upon things was accompanied with violence against or
intimidation of any persons, Article 303 is not applicable. The ofender should
be punished under Article 294.
Offender is liable for theft of whole car taken to another place, even if tires are
taken away. (Comments under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by
Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)
Art. 311. Theft of the property of the National Library and National
Museum.
Theft of property on National Library and Museum has a fixed penalty
regardless of its value. (Comments under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal
Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)
Article 312 may also be considered as defining and penalizing the single,
special and indivisible crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of
real rights in property by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.
It is likewise not a complex crime as defined under Article 48. However, while
Article 294 provides a single penalty for each class of crime therein defined,
Article 312 provides a single, albeit two-tiered, penalty consisting of a
principal penalty, which is that incurred for the acts of violence, and an
additional penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtained by the
accused. This is clear from the clause "in addition to the penalty incurred for
the acts of violence executed by him." For want of a better term, the additional
penalty may be designated as an incremental penalty.
What Article 312 means then is that when the occupation of real property is
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the
accused may be prosecuted under an information for the violation thereof,
and not for a separate crime involving violence or intimidation. But, whenever,
appropriate, he may be sentenced to suffer the penalty for the acts of violence
and to pay a fine based on the value of the gain obtained.
The word alter has a general and indefinite meaning. Any alteration of
boundary marks is enough to constitute the material element of the crime.
Destruction of stone monument or taking it to another place, or removing a
fence, is altering. (Albert) (Comments under The Revised Penal Code:
Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)
Fraudulent Insolvency does not mean that the offender is insolvent. A debtor
who has transferred his property to another place beyond the reach of the
creditors has been found to be guilty of Fraudulent Insolvency.
When the Code is silent as to the age of the minor as the offende party or
victim of the offense, it is understood that he must be under 21 years old, as
provided in the Civil Code. Note: The age of majority is now reduced to 18
years old by R.A. No. 6809. (Comments under The Revised Penal Code:
Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)
For one to be liable for other deceits under the law, it is required that the
prosecution must prove the following essential elements: (a) false pretense,
fraudulent act or pretense other than those in the preceding articles;
(b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and (c) as a
result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. It is essential that
such false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or
the only motive for the private complainant to part with her property.
Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 210,
223, citing People v. Casitas, G.R. No. 137404, February 14, 2003,
397 SCRA 382.
Damage means not only loss but also diminution of what is a man’s own.
Thus, damage to another’s house includes defacing it.
The posionous substance may be used to kill large cattle or other animals
of the offended party. The corrosive substance may be used to cause rust on a
machine or to destroy property through the action of chemicals. (Comments
under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14 th Edition,
2012.)
The crime being commited out of hate and revenge, is that of malicious
mischief penalized under Article 329, par. 3.