ARTICLE 299 (B) ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS

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, if

(b) The robbery be committed under any of the ff. circumstances:1) By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle;2) By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery.

When the offenders do not carry arms & the value of the property 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 & the value taken does not exceed 250 pesos, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the next 2 preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.

If the robbery committed in one of the dependences of an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree than those prescribed in this Art. shall be imposed.

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

To commit robbery under Art. 299 (B), it is not necessary that the offender entered the building by any of the means mentioned in Art. 299 (A). Each subdivision is independent of each other The term door in (B) par. 1 refers only to doors, lids or opening sheets of furniture or other portable receptaclesnot to inside doors of house or building (People v. Puzon & Martinez). Reyes doubts the wisdom of this ruling & believes the term doors in said subdivision refers to inside doors of the house or building. Breaking the keyhole of the door of a wardrobe, which is locked, is breaking a locked furniture. When sealed box or receptacle is taken out of the house or building for the purpose of breaking it outside, it is not necessary that it is actually opened. Crime is consummated robbery even though he does not succeed in opening the box. Estafa or theft if the locked or sealed receptacle is not forced open in the building where it is kept or taken therefrom to be broken outside If a person forces open a locked receptacle which has been confided in his custody & takes the money contained inside, he is guilty of estafa If a locked receptacle is found on the side of the street & it is forcibly opened & its contents taken, the crime is theft The penalty depends on the value of property taken & whether or not the offender carries an arm When person is armed & value of property taken exceeds P250 Reclusion Temporal When person is unarmed & the value of property exceeds P250 Prision Mayor When person is armed & value of property does NOT exceed P250 Prision Mayor Minimum In a dependency of inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship Penalty next lower in degree than those specified above Bolo is not an arm when used by a servant to open a trunk in his masters house; thus, such a servant who takes something would be guilty of robbery committed by an unarmed person Arm carried must not be used to intimidate; otherwise, it would be sufficiently fall under Art. 294 (Robbery with Violence or Intimidation) Even those who did not carry arms are liable for the same penalty as those who carried arms, if a group robbed a place together Heavier penalty for robbery in a dwelling due to the possibility that the inhabitants therein might suffer bodily harm during the commission of the crime

ARTICLE 300. ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE & BY A BAND

The robbery mentioned in the next preceding article, if committed in an uninhabited place & by a band, shall be punished by a maximum period of the penalty provided therefor.

Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship is qualified when committed by a band & in an uninhabited place Shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided for Both uninhabited place &by a band must concur together. All facts must be alleged in the information. The inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship must be located in an uninhabited place.Art. 299, when qualified by Art. 300Art. 294, when qualified by Art. 295

Robbery with force upon things, in order to be qualified, must be committed:1) In an uninhabited place AND2) By a band Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons must be committed:1) In an uninhabited place, OR2) By a band

ARTICLE 301. WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC BUILDING, OR BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP & 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 enclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith, & which form part of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship.Orchards & 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 but used or rented by the Government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.

Robbery in a sunken ship a ship is covered by the term uninhabited house Ex. A steamship containing money sank. The following day, the defendant, discovering the location of the ship, dived down & took money enclosed in sealed boxes inside. The ship was not yet abandoned by the owner. The defendant was pronounced guilty of robbery, especially since the boxes inside were reinforced with iron straps & nails & broken by the defendant in order to take possession of the money therein. The place is still inhabited house even if the occupant was absent. When a house is actually uninhabited for a period of almost a month, it is still robbery in an inhabited hose if it is ordinarily inhabited & intended as a dwelling. Ex. X stored several trunks containing merchandise in a house which actually belongs to B. X sleeps there at night as Bs caretaker. One night, X slept somewhere else. That night, certain persons came & took Xs trunks. This is robbery of an inhabited house, although A was absent therefrom when the robbery took place. Dependencies all interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries or enclosed places of an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship when they have the ff. requisites:1) Must be contiguous to the building2) Must have an interior entrance connected therewith3) Must form part of the whole Examples for Dependencies A small store located on the ground floor of the house, belonging to the owner of the store, is a dependency because the house & store form one single whole, there is no partition between them & the inmates in going to the main stairway have to enter the store which has a door. NOT NECESSARILY a dependency when the information alleges that the robbery was committed in a garage situated in the premises of a house & lot, because a garage may or may not be a dependency of the house (e.g. it may not be attached to the house) Orchards & other lands used for cultivation or production are not dependencies

ARTICLE 302. ROBBERY IN 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 1st par. of Art. 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, shall be punished by prision correccional if any of the ff. 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 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.In the cases specified in Art. 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, & 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) a dwelling house, (b) a public building or (c) an edifice devoted to religious worship.2. That any of the ff. circumstances are present:a. The entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or egressb. A wall, roof, floor, outside door or window was brokenc. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar toolsd. A door, wardrobe, chest or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was brokene. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same be broken open elsewhere3. That with intent to gain, the offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another The "uninhabited place is an uninhabited building Building includes any kind of structure used for storage or safekeeping or personal property, such as (a) freight car or (b) warehouse For freight cars, the unnailing of a piece of cloth which was nailed over the door as to seal it, was once held to be breaking by force (US v. Magsino); however, there is a case with a contrary ruling stating that the door must be broken (People v. Fernandez) A pigsty is NOT a building under Art. 302 which refers to a habitable building Building other an inhabited house, public building or edifice for religious worship Though a store may be used as a dwelling, to sustain a conviction for robbery in an inhabited house, the information must allege that the store was used & occupied as a dwelling (People v. Tubog); otherwise, it is under Art. 302 For circumstance (d) & (e), it is not required that the offender entered the uninhabited house through the ways mentioned in (a), (b) or (c) Breaking the padlock of a door is use of force upon things & was considered robbery in People v. Mesias HOWEVER, in People v. Puzon, & in Reyes opinion, it was ruled that destroying a padlock of a garage door & taking 35 tires inside is theft & not robbery, because the padlock is a detachable accessory gadget of the door or its lock, & not the door or lock itself Use of fictitious name or pretending to exercise public authority to enter a building are not in this article The receptacle or furniture must be sealed If a cabinet is closed, but not locked, such that a person enters a warehouse & steals something from said closed cabinet which was not locked, the crime is theft only, as nothing was broken A receptacle is a container (ex. crate which contains articles or merchandise; when a crate is broken to retrieve the object inside, that is robbery) Ex. of robbery in an uninhabited house the servant of the owner of an oil mill who takes away the key of the warehouse & hands it to another, who in turn opens the warehouse with that key & steals oil, is also guilty of robbery in an uninhabited house as principal by conspiracy Mere removal of closed or sealed receptacle is not sufficient; there must be an intention to open it by force Ex. X entered the office of a corporation at night without using force to open the door & removed a closed steel safe, which X then forced open outside. He is guilty under Art. 302, par. 5. Taking of mail matter or large cattle in any kind of robbery (Art. 294, 295, 297, 299, 300 & 302) makes the penalty higher by one degree There is no such thing as qualified robbery, but this may be called qualified robbery technically Motor vehicles, coconuts & fish are NOT included; if one takes a car, penalty is not one degree higher Penalty is based on the value of the property taken Offenders being armed is not important in this article, unlike in Art. 299 Robbery in a store instances when punishable under Art. 299 or under Art. 302 If the store is also an inhabited house Art. 299 If the store is located on the ground floor of the house belonging to the owner of the store, the store is a dependency of the inhabited house Art. 299 If the store was not actually occupied at the time of the robbery & was not used as a dwelling, since the owner lived in a separate house Art. 302

ARTICLE 303. ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR FIREWOOD IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING

In the cases enumerated in Art. 299 & 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 describe in Art. 299 & 302 consists in the taking of cereals, fruits or firewood, the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles shall be imposed; thus, robbery should be either: Committed by the use of force upon things, without violence against or intimidation of any person, in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship (Art. 299) In an uninhabited place or private building (Art. 302) Ex. If the offender takes 15 sacks of palay from the camarin though an opening made on the floor, but makes use of violence or intimidation, offender will be punished under Art. 294 instead of Art. 303 (Manahan v. People) Cereals A seedling which is the immediate product of the soil (hulled rice is not the immediate & natural product of soil, thus robbery of hulled rice would be under Art. 302) Palay included in cereal; however, it must be kept as a seedling or taken for that purpose by the robbers. Where a robber takes 9 cavans of palay from anothers granary by breaking its wall, the crime is under Art. 302, par. 2 & not in Art. 303, because of the quantity of the palay & because there was no showing it was kept or taken in its form as a seedling

ARTICLE 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 offender be a locksmith, he shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium & maximum periods.

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

Actual use of picklocks or similar tools for commission or robbery is not necessary If the person who makes such tools is a locksmith, the penalty is higher If he is NOT a locksmith, the penalty is the same as that of a mere possessor

ARTICLE 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.

Mere possession of false keys under par. 2 & 3 of Art. 305 is not punishable. Ex. Before leaving for another province with his family, A entrusted the key of his house to B, As neighbor. One day, B used said entrusted key to enter As house & took As personal belongings. B is not guilty of robbery, as he did not steal the keyit was merely entrusted to him. Example of use of false key A proposed to B, a porter of a warehouse, to get some cases of whisky from the warehouse, offering to pay P16 a case. A suggested to B that he should take an impression of the key of the warehouse & have another made by a locksmith. Using that key, B opened the warehouse and took cases of whiskey. The crime committed was Robbery with Use of False Key, & A is a principal by inducement. (US v. Galuran)

CHAPTER TWO: BRIGANDAGE

Brigandage committed by more than 3 armed persons who form a band of robbers for the purpose of:1) Committing robbery in the highway, or2) Kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or3) For any other purpose to be attained by means of force or violence.

ARTICLE 306. WHO ARE BRIGANDS PENALTY

When more than 3 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, & in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.

THERE IS BRIGANDAGE WHEN:1. There be at least 4 armed persons2. They formed a band of robbers3. The purpose is any of the ff.:a. To commit robbery in the highwayb. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransomc. To attain by means of force & violence any other purpose

Evidence that the accused was a member of an armed band is not sufficient to convict him of brigandage if there is no evidence that the band was organized for any of the purposes mentioned in Art. 306 A band of dissidents whose purpose is to attain the destruction of army installations cannot be convicted of brigandage, as they are NOT a band of robbers If the accused were members of a lawless band & any o them possessed unlicensed firearms, it is PRESUMED that they are highway robbers or brigands (People v. De La Rosa) If they are convicted, the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period Brigandage can be committed using any weapon, not necessarily firearms Object of the law is to prevent formation of band of robbersthus, such formation is sufficient to constitute a violation of the law. It is necessary to show, in a prosecution under Art. 306, that a member of the band actually committed highway robbery, etc. to convict him or them. The only things to prove are:1) That there is an organization of more than 3 armed persons forming a band of robbers2) That the purpose of the band is any of those enumerated in Art. 3063) That they went upon the highway or roamed upon the country for that purpose4) That the accused is a member of such band Previous activities are considered in determining the existence of brigandage When the armed band, previous to kidnapping & taking the personal property of the offended party, already kidnapped & looted other persons, the previous activities of prove the purpose of the armed band (People v. Laporeda) The term highway includes streets within, as well as roads outside the cities (ex. the streets of Manila) Penalties Prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period for brigandage only Penalty for the crime actually committed when the brigands commit robbery with homicide or kidnapping with a demand for ransom, they shall be penalized for those crimes

BrigandageRobbery in a Band

Both require that the offenders are a band of robbers.

Purpose is any of the ff.:1) To commit robbery in the highway2) To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom3) For any other purpose to be attained by means of force & violencePurpose is only to commit robbery, not necessarily in a highway

Agreement among more than 3 armed men is to form a band & commit acts mentioned aboveAgreement among more than 3 armed men is only to commit a particular robbery

Mere formation of a band for any of the purposes above is sufficient; not necessary to show that the crimes were actually already committedIt is necessary to prove that the band actually committed robbery, as mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable

ARTICLE 307. AIDING & 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 correccional 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 brigands2) That the offender knows the band to be of brigands3) That the offender does any of the ff. acts:a. He in any manner aids, abets or protects such band of brigands;b. He gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the Governmentc. He acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands It is presumed that the person performing any of the acts in Art. 307 performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven

HIGHWAY ROBBERY/BRIGANDAGE UNDER PD 532 Highway Robbery/Brigandage The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway Penalties: Basic - Reclusion temporal in its minimum period If with physical injuries or other crimes committed during the robbery or brigandage Reclusion temporal in its medium & maximum periods If with kidnapping for ransom, extortion, murder, homicide or rape death penalty Philippine highway any road, street, passage, highway & bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the movement or circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles or property, or both. Anyone who knowingly aids or protects highway robbers or abets the commission of highway robbery or brigandage shall be considered an accomplice Anyone who performs such acts shall be presumed to have done so knowingly

CHAPTER 3. THEFT Theft any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latters consent

ARTICLE 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; &3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed 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 cereals, or other forest or farm products.

The ff. are liable for theft:1) Those who, (a) with intent to gain, (b) but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, (c) take personal property of another without the latters consent2) Those who, (a) having found lost property, (b) fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner3) 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 them4) Those who (a) enter an enclosed estate or a field where (b) trespass is forbidden, or which belongs to another, without the consent of its owner, (c) hunt or fish upon the same of gather fruits, cereals, forest or far products ELEMENTS:1) That there be taking of personal property2) That said property belongs to another3) That the taking be done with intent to gain4) That the taking be done without the consent of the owner5) That the taking be accomplished without use of violence against, or intimidation of persons or force upon things

RobberyTheft

Offender uses violence or intimidation or does not enter a house through any of the means specified in Art. 299 or 302 in taking the personal property of another with intent to gainOffender does not use violence or intimidation or does not enter a house through any of the means specified in Art. 299 or 302 in taking the personal property of another with intent to gain

Taking against the will of an ownerIt suffices that consent on the part of the owner is lacking

X took 6 roosters from their coop in the yard of Ys house. There is no proof that violence or intimidation was used. SC convicted X of theft, as there was no evidence of the elements under Art. 294, nor Art. 299 or 301, as the coop was outside Ys house & not a dependency. (People v. Jaranilla) Taking in theft taking away or carrying away of personal property of another is NOT required Consummated when the culprits are able to take possession of the thing taken by them Not an indispensible element that the thieves successfully carry said thing away Taking in People v. Naval consummated only when the offender is able to place the thing under his control & in such a situation as he could dispose of it at once In the case, the accused was in a moving truck & was able to dump on of the boxes containing 120 bed sheets on the ground, whereupon he was immediately arrested. Accused was convicted of rape. NOTE: The ruling also applies to the meaning of taking in robbery with violence against or intimidation of any person. In other cases, however, it was held that the theft is complete when the offender had full possession of the thing, even if he did NOT have an opportunity to dispose of the same. Illustrations: X pickpocketed the offended party, but Y was able to immediately sense the loss of his pocketbook. Y grabbed hold of X & shouted for the police. It was held that the crime was already consummated because X had successfully taken the pocketbook. B took from a chest a sum of money belonging to C & placed it over the cover of the chest. B was then caught. It was ruled that B already materially took possession of the money & took it in his hands with intent to appropriate the same. He thus executed all the acts necessary to constitute consummated theft. There is NO CRIME of Frustrated Theft In previous cases Espiritu & Dio, the CA ruled that there was frustrated theft & that the distinction lay in the ability of the offender to dispose freely of the articles stolen, even if it were more or less momentarily However, SC definitively ruled that there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. Must taking have the character of permanency? There are conflicting views. People v. Fernandez The domestic servant was convicted by CA of Qualified Theft because he took the car of his boss out while the latter was asleep. CA ruled that gain is not only the acquisition of the thing useful to the purpose of life but also the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. People v. Galang The boys in this case took the car of a policeman, which was entrusted to them, out for a joyride. CA ruled that this was not theft, because there was absence of intent to make the car their own. SC of Spain in People v. Rico Offender MUST have the intention of making himself the owner of the things taken, of placing the property taken under his control. There is taking even if the offender received the thing from the offended party. The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after the transfer of physical possession (not juridical possession) of the thing to the offender. In such case, the article is deemed to have been taken also, although in the beginning, it was in fact given to, and received by, the offender. Ex. X received a bar of gold & paper notes from Y for the purpose of having said bar examined & for converting the paper notes to silver coins. Instead of doing so, X appropriated the bar of gold for himself. X was convicted of theft (US v. De Vera) If there is juridical possession, the crime is estafa, not theft. There is transfer of juridical possession in cases where items are given in trust or on commission, or for administration or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment, & later misappropriated or converted the thing to the prejudice of another. If there is no taking of personal property, no crime of theft is committed. When a wife delivers to her husband, property in her lawful possession as depositary or pledgee, & her husband sells the lot to pay for his obligations, CA ruled there was no theft, only civil liability, although the husband knew the wife did not own the property, as there was no taking or abstracting the article from the owner (People v. De Los Reyes) Personal property includes electricity, gas, promissory notes, checks, invoices, etc. The amount which a document represents must serve as the basis for the penalty. A meter reader for MERALCO who knowingly misreads the electricity meter so someone who paid him can appropriate 11,880 kilowatts of electric current is guilty of theft (Natividad v. CA) He who takes away the property pledged by him to another, without the latters consent, is not guilty of theft, but estafa, for he is the owner of the thing taken by him. Selling the share of a partner or joint owner is not theft, because, before the dissolution of the partnership or the division of the property held in common, no part of the property of the partnership or property held in common truly belongs to a partner or co-owner. An employee is not the owner of separation pay not actually delivered to him. Thus, in a case where the employee took the separation pay directly from the desk of the owner without waiting for the owner to hand it to him, after which the employee refused to sign receipt of separation pay & even denied taking the money during trial, the employee was found guilty of theft (People v. De Jesus, CA) In the sale of goods, ownership is not transferred until the goods have been tried, measured & weighed. If, before such trying, measuring or weighing, the accused takes the goods without the consent of the owner, there can be theft. Intent to gain presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another If a person takes personal property openly & avowedly, in good faith, believing it to be his own, the presumption is rebutted Satisfaction & pleasure derived from the act of giving to another is considered a real gain, so that one can be convicted of theft for stealing something to give to another person Joy rides can be considered taking with intent to gain (People v. Fernandez) There is also intent to gain when the employee took the papers of his employer & delivered them to the government investigators as an act of revenge (People v. Padilla, CA) Dissent: The intent of the accused is not to satisfy his own greed, but to seek revenge Actual or real gain is not necessary in theft; it is enough that he was actuated by the desire or intent to gain at the time he took them. Taking without consent of the owner consent must be freely given & not merely inferred by lack of opposition If offended party is being pickpocketed & knows it but remains silent, there is still theft. Allegation of owners lack of consent cannot be dispensed with in charging an ordinary theft. The possibility of consent must be negated in the information if the charge is ordinary theft under par. 1, which expressly says there must be taking without consent of the owner. There is no theft when taking is with consent of the ownerthus an individual who takes a cow from a cattlemen without any opposition is not guilty of theft. The taking of personal property belonging to another must be accomplished without violence against or intimidation of person. Ex. A pickpockets Bs wallet & walks away. B chases after A. A boxes B & runs away. Is As crime theft or robbery? Answer: It is theft, because the taking of the wallet was already complete when A used violence against B. BUT if the violence resulted in homicide, rape, intentional mutilation or serious physical injuries (Art. 263, par. 1 & 2), the crime is robbery complexed with one of such crimes, even if the taking of the property was already complete. When no force or violence was employed in the taking, as the victim was already heavily wounded, there is only theft, even if accuseds primary intent was to kill or injure the victim & he subsequently decided to take the victims things as well. This would make him liable for whatever crime he committed in relation to victims injuries, &, separately, theft. It is also theftnot robbery, when violence is for a reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking, as when A, a policeman, ties B in his house, thinking B aided a band of robbers, & several hours later took money from Bs open drawer. Here, the taking of the money while B was tied is not the violence contemplated for theft. Unless the force upon things is employed to enter a building, the taking of the personal property belonging to another with intent to gain is THEFT, not robbery. A entered Bs house through the open door & once inside, forcible removed the fixtures & carried them away. A is liable for theft in spite of the force used, as the force was not employed for entry. There is only robbery without entry into a building when a furniture, chest or other locked or sealed receptacle is broken in the house or building or taken therefrom & broken outside. Taking a bull belonging to the offended party from the corral where it was enclosed is theft because the corral was not covered & not connected with the house. When a person has in his possession part of the recently stolen property, he is presumed to be the thief of all, in the absence of satisfactory explanation of his possession Applies only when all the goods are lost at the same time, in the same place & in the same occasion NOT when the things are lost at different times or places & only a part of them was found in the possession of the accused When stolen property is not with the accused, his prior possession can be proven by circumstantial or direct evidence of his disposal of the property, in which case presumption attaches to him Presumption is not limited to actual physical possession, & also covers prior unexplained possession If the property was stolen a long time ago, presumption does not arise Presumption does not arise when all the recently stolen effects have been found & discovered, one in the possession of the accused & the other, just out in the open (e.g. one carabao is with the accused, & the other is just wandering around) Finder of Lost Property (Par. 1, Art. 308) the phrase lost property embraces loss by stealing, such as when an accused, having found something that belongs to another, keeps it for himself X is also guilty of theft if he finds the money of Y on the floor amounting to P150, & returns to Y only P30, appropriating the rest for himself. PROVING THEFT OF LOST PROPERTY: It is necessary to prove: (1)The time of the seizure of the thing; (2) That it was a lost property belonging to another; (3) That the accused having had the opportunity to return or deliver the lost property to its owner or to the local authorities, refrained from doing so. However, delay in the delivery of lost property to the local authorities is immaterial, when the finder surrenders it voluntarily to the owner when the latter comes to the finders house to retrieve it without keeping any contents for himself Art. 308, par. 1 is not limited to actual finderif a policeman who receives from finder X a lost wallet appropriates the wallet for himself instead of looking for its owner, he also is guilty of theft. The finder X acquires physical custody only & does not become vested with legal possession of the thing. Even the policeman who receives it from the finder cannot have juridical possession of the propertythis is why the policeman is not liable for estafa. The law does not require the knowledge of the owner that his property was lost; for example, if, due to the strong typhoon, Xs wooden chest containing jewelry is washed away, & Y picks up the contents for himself, Y can also be guilty of theft, as Y had reason to know that the property was lost & it was his duty to return it to the authorities. Intent to gain inferred from deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person Finder of hidden treasure who misappropriated the share pertaining to the owner of the property is guilty of theft as regards to that share Under the Civil Code, the finder of hidden treasure in the property of another & by chance gets thereof; if the finder misappropriate the entire amount, he is liable for theft as to the share of the owner. Removing or making use of the fruits or object of property maliciously damaged can also make one liable for simple theft Ex. X shot, killed & slaughtered the cattle of Y, which had destroyed Xs plantation. X distributed among himself & his neighbors the meat. X is guilty of simple theft. Hunting, fishing or gathering fruits, etc. in enclosed estate (Art. 308, par. 3) ELEMENTS: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; &4) That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without the consent of the owner. Fishing should not be in the fishpond or fishery within a field or estate; otherwise, it would be qualified theft.