Herramientas para la Gestión de Configuración de Software

juridical. Under the Civil Code Article 1914 of the Civil Code, an agent can even assert, as against his own principal, an independent, autonomous, right to retain money or goods received in consequence of the agency; as when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault (Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil. 703). On the other hand, branch manager of the company, who misappropriate payments from customers that he collected and accepted, is liable for qualified theft. Because of this employer-employee relationship, he cannot be considered an agent of the company and is not covered by the Civil Code provisions on agency. Money received by an employee in behalf of his employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee (People vs. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011).

In Carganillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014 – Accused received money from complainant for the purpose of buying palay with the corresponding obligations to (1) deliver the palay to the Palay Buying Station or (2) return the money in case of failure to purchase palay. Possession is juridical. Failure to return is estafa.

In Tria vs. People, G.R. No. 204755, September 17, 2014 - By selling the jewelry on credit, the petitioner used the property for a purpose other than that agreed upon. The words

“convert” and “misappropriate” connote an act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own or devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.

In Velayo vs. People, G.R. No. 204025, November 26, 2014 – Accused induced to complainant to entrust to her the funds for the taxes because she knew someone at the BIR who could help her facilitate the remittance, and even reduce the amounts due. She received

the money for remit the same to the BIR with full freedom and discretion. Thus, she had juridical possession of money. The crime committed is estafa,

2. Employer-employee relationship – As a rule, the possession of the employee is only physical possession. Hence, misappropriation of property is considered as theft. If the property is accessible to the employee, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of confidence can be appreciated.

In People v. Locson, G.R. No. L-35681, October 18, 1932 - The receiving teller of a bank, who misappropriated the money received by him for the bank, is liable for qualified theft.

The possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. Payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself. The teller has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank.

In Balerta vs. People, G.R. No. 205144, November 26, 2014 – Accused was handling the funds lent by Care Philippines to his employer as cash custodian. Over the funds, she had mere physical or material possession, but she held no independent right or title, which she can set up against employer. Hence, juridical possession of the funds as an element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation is absent.

In Benabaye vs. People, G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015 - Accused was merely a collector of loan payments from clients of his employer. Hence, as an employee of the Bank, specifically, its temporary cash custodian whose tasks are akin to a bank teller, she had no juridical possession over the missing funds but only their physical or material possession.

Since the accused was charged with estafa, but the crime proven is theft, the case was dismissed without prejudice,

Driver of jeepney under boundary arrangement, who did not return the vehicle to it’s owner, is liable for carnapping. In People v. Isaac G.R. No. L-7561, April 30, 1955, the rules prohibits motor vehicle operator from allowing the use and operation of his equipment by another person under a fixed rental basis. In the eye of the law the driver was only an employee of the owner rather than a lessee. For being an employee, his possession of the jeepney is physical, and misappropriation thereof is qualified theft. In People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No.

148233, June 8, 2004, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle in Isaac case, but found the accused guilty of carnapping in view of the passage of RA No. 6539(Anti-Carnapping Act).

However, there are instances where the possession of the employee is considered as juridical.

1. In Aigle vs. People, G.R. No. 174181, June 27, 2012 - A corporate officer received the property to be utilized in the fabrication of bending machines in trust from the corporation and he has absolute option on how to use them without the participation of the corporation. Upon demand, the officer failed to account the property. Since the corporate officer received the property in trust with absolute option on how to use them without the participation of the corporation, he acquired not only physical possession but also juridical possession over the equipment. He is liable for estafa through misappropriation.

2. In People vs. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014 – The President of the Bank is holding the bank’s fund in trust or for administration for the bank’s benefit. His possession is juridical. Hence, misappropriating the funds by making fictitious loan is estafa.

3. In Gamboa vs. People, G.R. No. 188052, April 21, 2014 - Accused employed as Liaison Officer of a pawnshop received money in trust to secure or renew licenses and permits.

His possession is juridical. Hence, misappropriating the money is estafa.

THEFT OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY - The term "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code. Consequently, any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the

object of theft. Business may be appropriated under Bulk Sales Law. Thus, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service is a personal property (Laurel vs.

Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009,).

The word "take" in the RPC includes controlling the destination of the property stolen to deprive the owner of the property, such as the use of a meter tampering, use of a device to fraudulently obtain gas, and the use of a jumper to divert electricity. 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, wrongfully redirecting such forces of nature from such apparatus, or using any device to fraudulently obtain such forces of nature (Laurel vs. Abrogar).

A "phreaker" is one who engages in the act of manipulating phones and illegally markets telephone services. Phreaking includes the act of engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) or the unauthorized routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined (Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No.

155076, February 27, 2006 and January 13, 2009).

Can PLDT validly claim that the “long distance calls” are its properties stolen by the phreaker? No. “International long distance calls” take the form of electrical energy. It cannot be said that such international long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls were taken without its consent (Laurel vs. Abrogar).

Telephone calls belong to the persons making the calls.

Can phreaker be held criminally liable for engaging in ISR involving the telephone facilities of PLDT? Yes. Phreaker can be held liable for access device fraud under RA No. 8484 and theft under the Revised Penal Code.PLDT’s business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is personal property which can be the object of theft. While telephone calls are not properties belonging to PLDT that can be stolen, 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.The act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to PLDT’s telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent PLDT’s facilities constitutes acts of subtraction (taking)penalized under the said article(Laurel vs.

Abrogar).

THEFT OF BULKY GOODS - Is the ability of the accused to freely dispose of bulky goods stolen from the owner determinative as to the consummation of theft? No. In Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc expressly abandoned the principle in Diño case. It was held that: The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime of theft. Such factor runs immaterial to the statutory definition of theft, which is the taking, with intent to gain, of personal property of another without the latter’s consent. While the Diño dictum is considerate to the mindset of the offender, the statutory definition of theft considers only the perspective of intent to gain on the part of the offender, compounded by the deprivation of property on the part of the victim.

Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all. Thus, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated (Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007, En Banc).

THEFT OF CHECK In Miranda vs. People, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012 -Petitioner was entrusted with checks payable to complainant by virtue of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. She deposited the said checks to the joint account maintained by complainant, then withdrew a total of P797,187.85 from said joint account using the pre-signed checks, with her as the payee. Petitioner argued that full ownership of the thing stolen needed to be established first before she could be convicted of qualified theft. Held: The subject of the crime of theft is any personal property belonging to another. Hence, as long as the property taken does not belong to the accused, who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even a thief of the property.

ROBBERY

Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed.

a. Intent to rob - A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery (People vs. Ladiana, GR No. 174660, May 30, 2011).

Assuming that robbery was indeed committed, the prosecution must establish with certitude that the killing was a mere incident to the robbery, the latter being the perpetrator’s main purpose and objective. It is not enough to suppose that the purpose of the author of the homicide was to rob; a mere presumption of such fact is not sufficient. Stated in a different manner, a conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.

What is crucial for a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to firmly establish the offender’s intent to take personal property before the killing, regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out (People vs. Gatarin, GR NO. 198022, April 07, 2014).

b. Intent to kill and rob - However, the law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. In one case, it was ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The fact that the intent of the felons was tempered with a desire also to avenge grievances against the victim killed, does not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with homicide (People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003).

c. Robbing, killing and raping - A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before, during or after the commission of the robbery. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. Even if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime (People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003).

d. One of the robbers is the victim of homicide - It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. The word “homicide” is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide (People vs. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011; (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People vs. De Leon, GR No.

179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013).

In People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012 - Accused snatched victim’s shoulder bag which was hanging on her left shoulder. No violence, intimidation or force was used in snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts, the snatching of shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery. Accused’s co-conspirator, who was driving the motorcycle, died because he lost control of the motorcycle and crashed in front of a taxi. Since accused as passenger in the motorcycle, did not perform or execute any act that caused the death of his companion, he cannot be held liable for homicide.

e. Homicide through reckless imprudence - In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration.

There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013).

f. Failure to present the stolen property - Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful taking of personal property. When the fact of taking has been established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property stolen may have been abandoned or thrown away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner.

The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013).

g. Direct connection between robbery and homicide - Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the

robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes were committed at the same time (People vs. Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012). Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010,).

h. Claim of ownership - The 10^th floor unit of a building is owned by a corporation and served as the family residence prior to the death of the parents of X and A. The unit, including the personal properties inside, is the subject of estate proceedings pending in another court and is, therefore, involved in the disputed claims among the siblings. X armed with a Board Resolution authorizing him to break open the door lock system of 10^th floor unit of a building and to install a new door lock system went up to the subject unit to implement said resolution.

According to A, X brought out from the unit her personal belongings. Is X liable for robbery?

Answer: No. X took property openly and avowedly under that claim of ownership. The fact that these properties were taken under claim of ownership negates the element of intent to gain. One who takes the property openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good faith is not guilty of robbery even though the claim of ownership is untenable. X should not be held

Answer: No. X took property openly and avowedly under that claim of ownership. The fact that these properties were taken under claim of ownership negates the element of intent to gain. One who takes the property openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good faith is not guilty of robbery even though the claim of ownership is untenable. X should not be held