Qualified Theft

Article 310 The crime of theft shall be punished by the

penalties next higher by two degrees than those
respectively specified in the next preceding article, if

{ committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse

of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle,
mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or
civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg.
71. May 1, 1980).
Theft is qualified
1. If the theft is committed by a domestic servant.
2. If the theft is committed with grave abuse of
confidence.
3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail
matter, or (c) large cattle.
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from
the premises of a plantation.
5. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery.
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
Theft by domestic servant is always
qualified
When the offender is a domestic servant, it is not
necessary to show that he committed the crime with grave
abuse of confidence.

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.
{ GRAVE ABUSE
Where the accused who
was permitted to sleep in
the house of the offended
party out of charity, stole
the latters money in that
house. (Mariano v. People)
{ NOT GRAVE ABUSE
When the accused had
taken advantage of his
position but did not act
with grave abuse of
confidence because his
employer had never
given him the possession
of the machines involved
or allowed him to take
hold of them, and it does
not appear that the
former had any special
confidence in him. (People
v. Maglaya)
Theft by housemate is not always
qualified
The fact of living together in the same house may be
accidental and the goods stolen might not have been
entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused.
(People v. De la Cruz, 82 Phil 388)

Theft by laborer is not qualified theft

The mere circumstance that the accused worked as a
laborer in the place where the theft was committed, does
not suffice to create the relation of confidence and
intimacy that the law requires. Theft by laborer is only
simple theft. (People v. Celis)
Theft by truck driver or by shepherd or
by one who had access to the place
where the stolen property is kept is
qualified
Truck driver qualified if he
a) Takes the load of his truck.
b) Took and sold part of his gasoline.
Shepherd who takes away and converts to his own use
sheep under his care.
The accused who smuggled radio tubes from a signal
depot where he was working as a radio technician.
Security guards who steal from a bonded warehouse
where they are hired to watch.
Theft of any material, spare part, product or
article by employees and laborers is heavily
punished
It is essential and necessary to aver in the body of the
information that the articles stolen were materials or
products which the accused was working on, using or
producing.

Industrial partner is not liable for qualified

theft
An industrial partner who sells personal property
acquired with funds supplied by the capitalist partner,
and who is responsible therefor in case of loss, has, in
legal contemplation, both material and juridical
possession of the property, and may not be held liable for
qualified theft by reason of said sale.
Other examples of grave abuse of confidence:
Use of safe combination learned by the confidential
clerk or stenographer of the offended party to steal the
money of the latter.
A receiving teller of a bank who, taking advantage of
his position, appropriated money he had in his
possession. Reason: he only had physical, not juridical
possession.

Other notes:
The confidence gravely abused must be that existing
between the offended party and the offender.
The novation theory applies only when there is
contractual relationship between the accused and the
complainant.
Theft of motor vehicle
Motor vehicle includes all vehicles propelled by
power, other than muscular power.
Ex: automobile, jeep or jeepney, motorcycle and even
scooter

Now punished under R.A. No. 6539, or

the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1992
Carnapping taking with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latters
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, or by using force upon things.
Qualified when in the course of the commission or on
occasion of the carnapping, the owner, driver or
occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped.
When the accused considered the deed of sale
a sham and he had intent to gain, his
absconding with the jeep is qualified theft
The accused using a fictitious name and posed as a buyer of
the jeep of the offended party. The accused persuaded the
offended party to have the required deed of sale prepared
and the registration certificate transferred to his name.

The offended party delivered the papers and the jeep to the
accused, without having received the P4,000. The accused
absconded with the jeep.

The accused never really intended to genuinely enter into the

transaction of purchase and sale. To him that deed of sale was
a sham.

He cannot now cling to the written covenants therein in

furtherance of his nefarious purpose.
Theft of motor vehicle by the person
who received it.
Where the accused was entrusted by its owner with a
passenger jeepney under the so called boundary
system, the subsequent sale of the jeepney to another by
the accused constitutes qualified theft.
Reason: When the passenger jeepney is operated
as a public utility, the accused could not be
considered a lessee thereof.

But when the motor vehicle is not operated as a public

utility and the same is leased by the owner to the accused
who sold the same, the crime is estafa.

Note: When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy

it by burning it, the crime is arson.
Theft of mail matter
Theft of mail matter is qualified regardless of whether the
offender is a postal employee or a private individual.

Notes:
The clerk in charge of the registry section of the Bureau of
Posts who took diamonds from a package addressed to
HSBC is guilty of qualified theft. (People v. Manalo and
Atienza)
But a postmaster, to whom a letter containing postal
money order was delivered to be forwarded by registered
mail, who opened it and abstracted the postal money order
enclosed therein, was held guilty of faithlessness in the
custody of documents. (Art. 226; U.S. v. Gorospe)

Is it qualified theft if the mail matter is taken from the

possession of the addressee? The law is silent on this
point.
Theft of large cattle
In this jurisdiction, the term large cattle includes horses,
cows, bulls and carabaos.

Notes:
To constitute the crime of qualified theft, the animal must
be taken alive.
Killing a cow on the spot and taking its meat is simple
theft.
If the offender, in killing the cow of another, acted with
hatred or revenge against the owner, the crime is malicious
mischief under Article 329.
The accused who borrowed a carabao from its owner and
sold it to a third person and spent the proceeds of the sale
is guilty of estafa. The accused had the juridical possession
of the animal when he sold it.
But the herdsman who slaughtered a cow under his care
and took the meat thereof is guilty of qualified theft
because he merely had physical possession of the cow.
Theft of coconuts from a plantation
Theft of coconuts when they are still in the tree or
deposited on the ground within the plantation is qualified
theft.
It stolen in any other place, it is simple theft.

Reason for the heavier penalty for theft of

coconut
to encourage and protect the development of the
coconut industry as one of the sources of our national
economy.
Coconut groves cannot be efficiently watched and without
a special measure to protect this kind of property, it will
be, as it has been in the past, the favorite resort of thieves.
Theft of fish from the fishpond or fishery

The term fish includes not only fish proper but also
many other aquatic animals like crabs, prawns,
shrimps, lobsters, clams, mussels, scallops, snails,
oysters, and other mollusks or shell fish.

Fishery is a place where fish are bred and caught.

Fish corral is included. This being also an industry

which cannot be efficiently watched in view of its
location.
Anti-Fencing Law
(Presidential Decree No. 1612)
Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain
for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell or
in any other 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.
Elements:
1. The crime of robbery or theft has been committed.
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the
commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buy,
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose
of, or shall buy and sell or in any other manner deal 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 known that the said
article, item, object or anything of value has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for
himself or another.
Notes:
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.

All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy

and sell of any of the above, shall secure the necessary
clearance or permit from the station commander of the
PNP in the town or city where it is located.

The crimes of robbery and theft, and fencing, are

separate and distinct crimes.