1

a crime contains three essential elements of terrorism: (1) the commission of one
or more of the crimes enumerated above, (2) the crime sows and creates a
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace,
and (3) the purpose of the crime is to coerce the government to give in to an
unlawful demand.
88

SEC. 3. Terrorism.- Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following
provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine
Waters);

b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);

c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts committed by private persons;

d. Article 248 (Murder);

e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);

f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under

1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);

2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste
Control Act of 1990);

3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);

4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);

5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of

1974); and,

6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on

Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

without the benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

sEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall be a Bar to Another Prosecution under the Revised
Penal Code or any Special Penal Laws. - When a person has been prosecuted under a
provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient
in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the
charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another
prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged
under this Act.

888

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, GR No. 155076, 2009-01-13

Facts:
petitioner is one of the accused in Criminal Case... unlawfully and feloniously take, steal
and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting
International Simple Resale (ISR)
Petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash... on the ground that the factual allegations in the
Amended Information do not constitute the felony of theft.
The trial court denied the Motion to Quash
 2

Petitioner's special civil action for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
this Court held that the Amended Information does not contain material allegations
charging petitioner with theft of personal property since international long distance calls
and the business of providing telecommunication or telephone services are... not personal
properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
Respondent
PLDT... filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme
Court En Banc.
PLDT further insists that the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context of
the Civil Code's definition of real and personal property.
The enumeration of real properties in Article 415 of the Civil Code is exclusive such that all
those not included therein are... personal properties. Since Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code used the words "personal property" without qualification, it follows that all
"personal properties" as understood in the context of the Civil Code, may be the subject of
theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code.
PLDT alleges that the international calls and business of providing telecommunication or
telephone service are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be objects of
theft.
According to respondent, the "international phone calls"... are personal properties which
may be subject of theft.
Article 416(3)... of the Civil Code deems "forces of nature" (which includes electricity)
which are brought under the control by science, are personal property.
petitioner Laurel claims that a telephone call is a conversation on the phone or a
communication carried out using the telephone.
It is not synonymous to electric current or impulses. Hence, it may not be considered as...
personal property susceptible of appropriation.
Petitioner claims that the analogy between generated electricity and telephone calls is
misplaced. PLDT does not produce or generate telephone calls. It only provides the
facilities or services for the transmission and switching of... the calls.
He also insists that "business" is not personal property.
Since the services of PLDT cannot be considered as "property," the same may not... be
subject of theft.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees with respondent PLDT
Issues:
whether or not "the unauthorized use or appropriation of PLDT international telephone
calls, service and facilities... constitutes... theft.
Ruling:
This Court,... consistently ruled that any personal property, tangible or intangible,
corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft.
the term "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the
context of the Civil Code provisions in accordance with the rule on statutory construction
In fact, this Court used the Civil Code definition of "personal property" in interpreting the
theft provision of the penal code in United States v. Carlos.
 3

any property which is not included in the... enumeration of real properties under the Civil
Code and capable of appropriation can be the subject of theft under the Revised Penal
Code.
The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the penal code
is that it be capable of appropriation. It need not be capable of "asportation," which is
defined as "carrying away."
To appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing.
appropriation of forces of nature which are brought under control by science such as
electrical energy can be achieved by tampering with any apparatus used for generating or
measuring such forces of nature... the Court declared in Genato that ownership over
electricity... as well as telephone service, is protected by the provisions on theft of the Penal
Code.
The business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is likewise personal
property which can be the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
Business may be appropriated under Section 2 of Act No. 3952 (Bulk Sales Law), hence,
could be object of... theft... petitioner's acts constitute theft of respondent PLDT's business
and service, committed by means of the unlawful use of the latter's facilities.
intangible property such as electrical energy is capable of appropriation because it may be
taken and carried away. Electricity is personal property under Article 416 (3) of the Civil
Code, which enumerates "forces of nature which are brought under control... by science."
PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim... that
such telephone calls were taken without its consent. It is the use of these communications
facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the
unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.
Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are
personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in
ISR is an act of "subtraction" penalized under said article.
ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The assailed Decision
dated February 27, 2006 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE
Principles:
any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of
appropriation can be the object of theft.
any property which is not included in the... enumeration of real properties under the Civil
Code and capable of appropriation can be the subject of theft under the Revised Penal
Code.
The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the penal code
is that it be capable of appropriation. It need not be capable of "asportation," which is
defined as "carrying away."
Business may be appropriated under Section 2 of Act No. 3952 (Bulk Sales Law), hence,
could be object of... theft... that intangible property such as electrical energy is capable of
appropriation because it may be taken and carried away. Electricity is personal property
under Article 416 (3) of the Civil Code, which enumerates "forces of nature which are
brought under control... by science."
888

[ GR No. 140756, Apr 04, 2003 ]

PEOPLE v. JUAN GONZALES ESCOTE +

The Felony Committed by Juan and Victor

 4

The Court finds that the trial court committed no error in convicting Juan and
Victor of robbery with homicide.

Thus, 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 as ruled by
the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision dated September 11, 1878, the word
"homicide" is used in its broadest and most generic sense.[69]

Article 62, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in diminishing or
increasing the penalty for a crime, aggravating circumstances shall be taken into
account. However, aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a
crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a
crime and prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.[70] Under paragraph 2 of the law, the same rule
shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to
such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially

punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty.
xxx
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances
inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must be of necessity accompany the
commission thereof.
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.
In sum then, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with
homicide when the victim of homicide is killed by treachery.
888
Valenzuela v. People, GR No. 160188
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code; Stages of theft
Facts:
While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the
accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them
where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket,
and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started
loading the boxes of detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave the security guard asked
Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were
subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of
the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he
should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles
stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the
Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.

Held:

theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is
immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has
already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued
from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or
consummated.
 5

Doctrine: Indeed, we have, after all, held that unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is
deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even
if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
^^

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 133 February 20, 1973

PRESCRIBING A HEAVY PENALTY FOR THE THEFT OF ANY MATERIAL, SPARE PART,
PRODUCT OR ARTICLE BY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS

any employee or laborer who shall steal any material, spare part, product or article that he is
working on, using or producing shall, upon conviction, be punished with imprisonment
ranging from prision correccional to prision mayor.

^^

US vs CARLOS G.R. No. 6295 September 1, 1911

ISSUE: Can electricity be a subject of theft?

RULING: It is true that electricity is no longer, as formerly, regarded by electricians as a

fluid, but its manifestation and effects, like those of gas, may be seen and felt. The true test of
what is a proper subject of larceny seems to be not whether the subject is corporeal, but
whether it is capable of appropriation by another than the owner.

Electricity, the same as gas, is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold like other
personal property and is capable of appropriation by another. So no error was committed by
the trial court in holding that electricity is a subject of larceny.
^^

People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Luisito D. Bustinera, appellant.

“Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is internal act, presumed from unlawful

taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important
consideration is the intent to gain. The term “gain” is not merely limited to
pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be
derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the
thing which was taken without the owner’s consent constitutes gain.

^^

[ GR No. 226846, Jun 21, 2017 ]

PEOPLE v. JEFFREY MACARANAS Y FERNANDEZ

Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. No. 6539, as amended, the
prosecution has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping and of the
homicide or murder of the victim, and more importantly, it must show that the
original criminal design of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing was
perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof."[12] In other words, to prove the special complex crime of carnapping with
homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping,
but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was
perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof.[13]

In this particular case, all the elements are present as the pieces of evidence
presented by the prosecution show that there were two (2) men both wearing
jackets and bonnets, together with the appellant who approached the victim and
the witness Kathlyn and employed force and intimidation upon them and
thereafter forcibly took the victim's motorcycle and then shot the victim on the
neck causing his death.
 6

the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner,
driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course
of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.

So, essentially, carnapping is the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle and it

becomes qualified or aggravated when, in the course of the commission or on the
occasion of the carnapping, the owner, driver or occupant is killed or raped. [8] As
we have ruled in People v. Mejia:[9]

The killing or the rape merely qualifies the crime of carnapping x x x and no
distinction must be made between homicide and murder. Whether it is one or the
other which is committed "in the course of carnapping or on the occasion thereof
makes no difference insofar as the penalty is concerned.
^^
People Vs. Samoy.
The RTC and the CA were likewise correct in finding accused Israel guilty only of robbery
with homicide, not of robbery on the highway as defined in P.D. 532. Conviction for the latter
crime requires proof that several accused organized themselves for the purpose of
committing robbery indiscriminately, preying upon innocent and defenseless people on the
highway.5 Here, the prosecution proved only one act of robbery.
^^

[ GR No. 140937, Feb 28, 2001 ]

EXUPERANCIO CANTA v. PEOPLE +

P.D. No. 533, §2(c) defines cattle-rustling as

The crime is committed if the following elements concur: (1) a large cattle is taken;
(2) it belongs to another; (3) the taking is done without the consent of the owner;
(4) the taking is done by any means, methods or scheme; (5) the taking is with or
without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without violence
or intimidation against person or force upon things. [20]

These requisites are present in this case. First, there is no question that the cow
belongs to Narciso Gabriel. Petitioner's only defense is that in taking the animal he
acted in good faith and in the honest belief that it was the cow which he had lost.
Second, petitioner, without the consent of the owner, took the cow from the
custody of the caretaker, Gardenio Agapay, despite the fact that he knew all along
that the latter was holding the animal for the owner, Narciso. Third, petitioner
falsified his Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle by asking Telen to antedate it
prior to the taking to make it appear that he owned the cow in question. Fourth,
petitioner adopted "means, methods, or schemes" to deprive Narciso of his
possession of his cow, thus manifesting his intent to gain. Fifth, no violence or
intimidation against persons or force upon things attended the commission of the
crime
^^

[ GR No. 183345, Sep 17, 2014 ]

MA. GRACIA HAO v. PEOPLE

We now address the issue of whether estafa in this case was committed through a
syndicate.

Under Section 1 of PD No. 1689,[39] there is syndicated estafa if the following

elements are present: 1) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles
315 and 316 of the RPC was committed; 2) the estafa or swindling was committed
by a syndicate of five or more persons; and 3) the fraud resulted in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural
banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon[s]," or farmers associations or of funds
solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.[40]
 7

The factual circumstances of the present case show that the first and second
elements of syndicated estafa are present; there is probable cause for violation of
Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC against the petitioners. Moreover, in Dy's
supplemental complaint-affidavit, he alleged that the fraud perpetrated against
him was committed, not only by Ngo and the petitioners, but also by the other
officers and directors of State Resources. The number of the accused who allegedly
participated in defrauding Dy exceeded five, thus satisfying the requirement for
the existence of a syndicate.

However, the third element of the crime is patently lacking. The funds
fraudulently solicited by the corporation must come from the general public. In
the present case, no evidence was presented to show that aside from Dy, the
petitioners, through State Resources, also sought investments from other people.
Dy had no co-complainants alleging that they were also deceived to entrust their
money to State Resources. The general public element was not complied with.
Thus, no syndicated estafa allegedly took place, only simple estafa by means of
deceit.
^^
People vs. Mateo
Anent the charge for estafa, “[w]ell-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment
under the [law] may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a)
of the [Revised Penal Code].

 (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, - the
Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably reveals that appellants neither have a license nor authority to
recruit workers for overseas employment
 (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group- it was established that
there were five complainants.
 Appellants’ argument that there was no proof that they received money from the private complainants deserves no
credence Suffice it to say that money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition
of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not."
 Anent the charge for estafa, "[w]ell-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the [law] may,
for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the [Revised Penal Code]. The
elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the
offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. All these elements are
likewise present in this case.
 Here, the appellants Mateo and Lapiz committed deceit against the private complainants by making it appear as though
they had the authority and resources to send them to Japan for employment; that there were available jobs for them in
Japan for which they would be hired although, in truth, there were none; and, that by reason or on the strength of such
assurance, the private complainants parted with their money in payment of the placement fee, documentation and hotel
accommodations. All these representations were actually false and fraudulent and thus, the apellants must be made liable
under par2(a), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.