top of page

Crimes Against Property

Crimes against property involve offenses that affect the ownership, possession, and use of property or offenses that harm or unlawfully affect the property rights of others.  

​

Crime against property - Image.jpeg

Theft & Qualified Theft

Theft (Article 308).

Elements of theft:

1. Taking of personal property – The accused must take something that belongs to another person.
2. Lack of consent – The taking must occur without the owner’s consent.
3. Intent to gain – The accused must intend to benefit or profit from the taking.
4. Without violence or intimidation – The taking must be accomplished without force, intimidation, or violence.
5. Without force upon things – The property is taken without breaking, entering, or physically tampering with objects.

 

Qualified theft vs. Simple Theft

In the case of Pineda  vs. People, G.R. No. 261532, December 04, 2023, the Supreme Court modified Pineda’s conviction from qualified theft to simple theft. Pineda was charged with misappropriating funds for purchasing bid documents, but the Court found that the crime lacked the element of “grave abuse of confidence” required for qualified theft. The sentence was adjusted to five months for one count and eight months for two others, along with an order for PHP 20,000 in damages.​

 

Elements of Qualified Theft:​​

1. Taking of personal property – There is unlawful taking of property belonging to another.
2. Without the owner’s consent – The taking occurs without the permission of the owner.
3. Intent to gain – The taking is done with the intent to profit or benefit.
4. No violence or intimidation – The act is accomplished without force or intimidation against a person.
5. Grave abuse of confidence – The theft is committed by someone who abused a position of trust and confidence, which qualifies the crime and increases the penalty. Grave abuse of confidence is a circumstance which aggravates and qualifies the commission of the crime of theft. Hence, its existence makes the imposition of a higher penalty necessary.

 

Additionally, other circumstances such as theft committed by domestic helpers or in establishments like churches or banks can also qualify the crime.

​

Intent to Gain

In theft, whether simple or qualified, the element of intent to gain merely refers to a mental state whose existence may be demonstrated by a person's overt acts. Direct proof of actual or personal gain is not required. The fact that the accused had received money from her employer in order to buy bid documents but, instead, submitted fake or falsified receipts, thereby revealing that she did not actually buy the documents, is indubitable proof of her intent to gain.​

​

Robbery (Article 293)

Robbery involves taking property with violence or intimidation. 

The elements of robbery are:
1. Taking of personal property – The offender takes someone else’s property.
2. Without the consent of the owner – The taking is without permission.
3. By means of violence or intimidation – Force or threats are used to gain possession.
4. Intent to gain – The act is done for personal enrichment or benefit.

Robbery can be aggravated by circumstances such as the use of deadly weapons or taking from a vulnerable person.

​

In Sosas, Jr., et al. v. People, G.R. No. 249283, April 26, 2023. PO2 Ireneo Sosas and SPO3 Ariel Salvador, both law enforcement officers, were convicted of robbery by extortion for demanding money from a complainant in exchange for her release and dropping charges. The Court of Appeals upheld their conviction, and the Supreme Court denied their petitions, sentencing them to prison terms and ordering them to pay PHP 20,000 in damages. The officers abused their authority, and the money was clearly taken for their personal gain, fulfilling the elements of robbery by extortion as established in previous cases.

 

​

Robbery

Estafa

​Estafa (Article 315)

Also known as "swindling" is considered a crime involving moral turpitude. This is because it involves fraud, deceit, or dishonesty to gain property or money from another person. The crime is characterized by the intentional misrepresentation of facts, typically for personal gain, leading to another person’s loss or injury or  wrongdoing. 

The essential elements are:

1. Misrepresentation or deceit – The offender uses false pretenses, fraudulent means, or misrepresentation.

2. Damage to the offended party – The victim suffers financial or property loss due to the deceit.

3. Intent to defraud – The offender’s deliberate intent to gain from the victim’s loss is evident.

 

The crime requires that the misrepresentation induces the victim to part with their property or money.

 

In Manuel y Cadiz v. People, G.R. No. 213640, April 12, 2023, Lucia Manuel was initially convicted of Estafa for issuing postdated checks without sufficient funds. However, the Supreme Court acquitted her, finding reasonable doubt about her guilt. The prosecution failed to prove deceit and damage, and the payee, Uy, retracted the claim through an affidavit of desistance, stating no transaction occurred. As a result, Manuel’s civil liability was also extinguished.

​

In Conrado Fernando, Jr. v. PeopleG.R. No. 255180, January 31, 2024), Fernando was initially convicted of Estafa for defrauding Doloriza Din by misrepresenting himself as authorized to sell a travel package. However, the Supreme Court found errors in the lower courts’ findings, concluding the prosecution failed to prove his fraudulent misrepresentation beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, Fernando was acquitted, and his bail bond was ordered returned.

 

​

Malicious Mischief

​Malicious Mischief (Article 327)

This crime refers to willfully damaging another’s property. 

Elements of this crime include:

1. Willful act: The offender intentionally causes damage to another’s property.
2. Damage: The property damage must be physical.
3. Malice: The act is done with intent to harm, without lawful cause or justification.

It does not require direct violence but involves intentional destruction or defacement of property that belongs to another person. 

In Paredes, et al. v. Gopengco, et al., G.R. No. L-23710, September 30, 1969 the petitioners sought to disqualify a judge in a criminal case for malicious mischief, but the judge denied the motion and proceeded with the trial. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that a motion for disqualification in criminal cases cannot be appealed or stayed. The decision affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling and emphasized that a judgment of acquittal by a disqualified judge is valid and cannot be appealed by the prosecution.

Mitigating: Lack of intent to cause harm, youth, or provocation may reduce the penalty.

 

Justifying: Self-defense or defense of a relative can justify actions, even if they cause damage to property.

 

Aggravating Circumstances: Use of weapons or violence, the prejudicial amount of harm, or fraudulent means can elevate the severity of the offense.

bottom of page