Robbery by use of force upon things, A299-A303, A305, Revised Penal Code

Robbery by use of force upon is an offense committed by any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.

1. Concept

Robbery by use of force upon – is an offense committed by “any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another… using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.” (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 293)

With respect to robbery by the use of force upon things, same is contained under Section Two, Chapter 1, Title Ten54 of the RPC. Falling under said section two, among others, are Article 299 which refers to robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship and Article 302. (Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, 2012, Per Del Castillo, J.)

“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. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 305)

a. Legal basis

Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. – 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 Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and if—

(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was committed, by any of the following means:

1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.

2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.

3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.

4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.

Or if—

(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:

1. By the 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 upon outside the place of the robbery.

When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), 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 Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000).

When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two (2) next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.

If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree than those prescribed in this article shall be imposed. (As amended by R.A. 10951)

Art. 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 first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), shall be punished by prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods provided that any of the following circumstances is present:

1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress.

2. If any wall, roof, floor 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 door, wardrobe, chest, or any 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 be broken open elsewhere.

When the value of the property taken does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

In the cases specified in Articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 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. (As amended by R.A. 10951)

(Revised Penal Code)

2. Modes of commission

The following are the modes of committing the offense:

1) Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship; and

2) Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building.

a. Mode 1: Force upon things

Elements of the offense:

1) That there is taking of personal property;

2) The personal property belongs to another;

3) The taking is with animus lucrandi; and

4) The taking is with… force upon things. (People v. Barrera, G.R. No. 230549, December 01, 2020, citing Consulta v. People, 598 Phil. 464, 471 (2009))

1) Element 1: Taking of personal property

The property that its being taken is personal property or movable property, and not real or immovable property (which is a different offense).

In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking or apoderamiento, which is defined as the taking of items without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. (Sazon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 150873, February 10, 2009, Per Nachua, J.)

a) Inhabited house, definition

Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship and 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 inclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith, and which form part of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship.

Orchards and 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 not included used or rented by the Government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.

Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, 2012, Per Del Castillo, J.:

• Here, the Information did not specify whether the robbery with force upon things was committed in an inhabited house or uninhabited place. It merely stated that petitioners committed the robbery “by means of force upon things, that is, by destroying the door lock of the stall of one of SONIA VALDEROSA and passing/entering thru the same, once inside, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away the [earlier mentioned] items x x x.”

• Likewise, the trial court, in its judgment of conviction, did not discuss whether the robbery in this case was committed in an inhabited house or in an uninhabited place. It was different, though, when the case was decided by the CA. Unlike the trial court, the appellate court discussed about robbery in an inhabited house under the above-quoted Article 299 of the RPC in its assailed Decision.56 Pursuant to the same provision, it then proceeded to affirm the penalty imposed by the trial court upon the petitioners after finding them guilty of the crime charged.

• The Court, however, notes at the outset that the CA erred in applying Article 299 of the RPC. The records show that the store alleged to have been robbed by petitioners is not an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and as defined under Article 301. From Valderosa’s testimony, it can be deduced that the establishment allegedly robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. In fact, after the robbery took place, there was a need to inform Valderosa of the same as she was obviously not residing in the store. “If the store was not actually occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling, since the owner lived in a separate house, the robbery committed therein is punished under Article 302.” Neither was the place where the store is located owned by the government. It was actually just a stall rented by Valderosa from a private person.60 Hence, the applicable provision in this case is Article 302 and not Article 299 of the RPC.

2) Building requirement

People v. Jaranilla, G.R. No. L-28547, February 22, 1974, Per Aquino, J.:

• In this connection, it is relevant to note that there is an inaccuracy in the English translation of article 302. The controlling Spanish original reads:

ART. 302. Robo en lugar no habitado o edificio particular.—El robo cometido en un lugar no habitado o en un edificio que no sea de los comprendidos en el parrafo primero del articulo 299, … . (Tomo 26, Leyes Publicas 479).

• The term “lugar no habitado” is erroneously translated. as “uninhabited place”, a term which may be confounded with the expression “uninhabited place” in articles 295 and 300 of the Revised Penal Code, which is the translation of despoblado and which is different from the term lugar no habitado in article 302. The term lugar no habitado is the antonym of casa habitada (inhabited house) in article 299.

• One essential requisite of robbery with force upon things under Articles 299 and 302 is that the malefactor should enter the building or dependency, where the object to be taken is found. Articles 299 and 302 clearly contemplate that the malefactor should enter the building (casa habitada o lugar no habitado o edificio). If the culprit did not enter the building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. (See Albert, Revised Penal Code, 1932 edition, p. 688).

• Thus, where the accused broke the show-window of the Bombay Palace Bazar at Rizal Avenue, Manila and removed forty watches therefrom, the crime was theft and not robbery because he did not enter the building. The show-window was outside the store. (People vs. Adorno, CA 40 O. G. 567, per Montemayor, J., who later became a member of this Court). *

• In the instant case, the chicken coop where the six roosters were taken cannot be considered a building within the meaning of article 302. Not being a building, it cannot be said that the accused entered the same in order to commit the robbery by means of any of the five circumstances enumerated in article 302.

• The term “building” in article 302, formerly 512 of the old Penal Code, was construed as embracing any structure not mentioned in article 299 (meaning not an “inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship” or any dependency thereof) used for storage and safekeeping of personal property. As thus construed, a freight car used for the shipment of sugar was considered a private building. The unnailing of a strip of cloth nailed over the door, the customary manner of sealing a freight car, was held to constitute breaking by force within the meaning of article 512, now article 302. (U.S. vs. Magsino, 2 Phil. 710).

• The ruling in the Magsino case is in conflict with the rulings of the Supreme Court of Spain that a railroad employee who, by force, opens a sealed or locked receptacle deposited in a freight car, does not commit robbery. He is guilty of theft because a railroad car is neither a house nor a building within the meaning of article 302 which corresponds to article 525 of the 1870 Spanish Penal Code. Article 302 refers to houses or buildings which, while not actually inhabited, are habitable. Thus, a pig sty is not a building within the meaning of article 302. The stealing of hogs from a pig sty is theft and not robbery, although the culprit breaks into it. Article 302 refers to habitable buildings. (Guevara, Revised Penal Code, 1939 Edition, pages 555-6, citing II Hidalgo Codigo Penal 636-7, 642, which in turn cites the decisions of the Spanish Supreme Court dated March 2, 1886 and April 25, 1887). **

• As may be seen from the photographs (Exhs. A and A-1) Baylon’s coop, which is known in the dialect as tangkal or kulungan, is about five yards long, one yard wide and one yard high. It has wooden stilts and bamboo strips as bars. The coop barely reaches the shoulder of a person of average height like Baylon. It is divided into six compartments or cages. A compartment has an area of less than one cubic yard. A person cannot be accommodated inside the cage or compartment. It was not intended that a person should go inside that compartment. The taking was effected by forcibly opening the cage and putting the hands inside it to get the roosters.

• Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from their coop should be characterized as theft and not robbery. The assumption is that the accused were animated by single criminal impulse. The conduct of the accused reveals that they conspired to steal the roosters. The taking is punishable as a single offense of theft. Thus, it was held that the taking of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes of theft (People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437, citing decision of Supreme Court of Spain dated July 13, 1894 and 36 C. J. 799; People vs. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320; People vs. Villanueva, 49 O.G. 5448, L-10239, August 7, 1953).

2) Element 2: Personal property belongs to another

The property taken belongs to another. The offender is taking somebody else’s property without the latter’s consent nor authorization.

Under Article 293 of the RPC, robbery is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another by using force upon anything. When committed in an uninhabited place or a private building with the circumstance, among others, that any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken, the same is penalized under Article 302. (Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, 2012, Per Del Castillo, J.)

Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, 2012, Per Del Castillo, J.:

• As testified to by Valderosa, she rented the premises located at No. 269 corner Samson Road, Caloocan City and therein operated her Rice-in-a-Box store. On April 6, 2002, burglars destroyed the store’s padlock and broke into the store. The burglars then went inside the store through the broken door and took various items valued at P42,000.00. As she was not living therein and only utilized it as a store, Valderosa only learned of the burglary after being informed about it by the daughter of the owner of the building where her store was located.

• Save from the identities of the perpetrators, Valderosa’s testimony clearly indicates that a robbery under Article 293 in relation to Article 302 of the RPC was committed.

3) Element 3: Taking is with animus lucrandi

To constitute robbery, the taking should be accompanied by intent to gain. Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of the crime of robbery, is an internal act; hence, presumed from the unlawful taking of things.38 Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. (Sazon v. Sandiganbayan, supra.)

4) Element 4: Taking is with force upon things

The Court finds that the facts as alleged and proven establish that robbery was committed by the use of force upon things as defined and penalized under Article 299(a) 1 of the RPC. The elements53 of the said crime was established through the common factual findings of the RTC and the CA, which the Court approves and adopts:

[T]here is thus an undeniable positive identification of the accused as the person who entered private complainant [BBB’s] house, and brought out the television set and the DVD player. And the four elements constituting the crime of Robbery with Force Upon Things are duly proven. The second element of the taking of personal properties was testified to and duly established by private complainant [BBB] whose television set and DVD player were taken by the accused. The first element of intent to gain or animus lucrandi is presumed from the fact of the loss of the personal belongings of private complainant. And there can be no dispute or quibble that the two items taken, which were both recovered, are personal properties, thus the third element is likewise proven.

Lastly, the fourth element of the use of force upon things is very clear as testified to by the private complainant [BBB] of the destruction of their window jalousies in order to reach the doorknob of his house and to gain entry into private complainant [BBB’s] house. x x x

It is thus clear that by destroying the jalousies of the window to reach the doorknob of the door to gain ingress or entry into private complainant [BBB’s] house, the fourth element of the crime charged is duly proven.

3. Things to note

The following are some additional things to note about this offense.

a. Common provisions

This offense shares common provisions with other offenses under Title X of the Revised Penal Code – Crimes Against Property. See: Crimes Against Property

b. Uninhabited place and by a band

Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band. – The robbery mentioned in the next preceding article [Article 299: 1^st Mode], if committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided therefor.

c. Cereals, fruits, or firewood

Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building. – In the cases enumerated in Articles 299 and 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.

[P]alay (the local name for unhulled rice) is “cereal” and is included in the term “semilla alimenticia” used in the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code, as it is grain in its original state, and, under proper conditions, can and will germinate into the plant that produces it. (People v. Rada, En Banc, G.R. No. L-16988, December 30, 1961, Per Barrera, J.)

d. If both robbery by use of force upon things and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, are committed

In Napolis v. Court of Appeals, the Court abandoned the doctrine adopted in United States v. De los Santos that when the felonies of robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code and robbery with violence against or intimidation of a person under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code are committed, the penalty for the latter crime (although the lighter one) should be imposed because the violence against or intimidation of a person was the “controlling qualification,” on the theory that “robbery which is characterized by violence or intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things, because where violence or intimidation against the person is present there is greater disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual.” (Frandsilla v. People, G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015, Per Bersamin, J.)

Napolis v. Court of Appeals, No. L-28865, February 28, 1972, Per Concepcion, CJ.:

• Upon mature deliberation, We find ourselves unable to share the foregoing view. Indeed, one who, by breaking a wall, enters, with a deadly weapon, an inhabited house and steals therefrom valuable effects, without violence against or intimidation upon persons, is punishable under Art. 299 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion temporal. Pursuant to the above view, adhered to in previous decisions, if, aside from performing said acts, the thief lays hand upon any person, without committing any of the crimes or inflicting any of the injuries mentioned in subparagraphs (1) to (4) of Art. 294 of the same Code, the imposable penalty – under paragraph (5) thereof – shall be much lighter. To our mind, this result and the process of reasoning that has brought it about, defy logic and reason.

• The argument to the effect that the violence against or intimidation of a person supplies the “controlling qualification,” is far from sufficient to justify said result. We agree with the proposition that robbery with “violence or intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things,” but, precisely, for this reason, We cannot accept the conclusion deduced therefrom in the cases above cited – reduction of the penalty for the latter offense owing to the concurrence of violation or intimidation which made it a more serious one. It is, to our mind, more plausible to believe that Art. 294 applies only where robbery with violence against or intimidation of a person takes place without entering an inhabited house, under the conditions set forth in Art. 299 of the Revised Penal Code.

e. Broad daylight

It is not incredible or against human nature for petitioner and his companions to have committed the robbery in broad daylight and in full view of Nico [a witness]. There is no standard behavior of criminals before, during and after the commission of a crime. Some may be so bold and daring in committing a crime in broad daylight and in full view of other persons. Others may be so cunning such that they commit crime in the darkness of the night to avoid detection and arrest by peace officers. (Estioca v. People, G.R. No. 173876 June 27, 2008, Per Chico-Nazario, J.)

3A. Procedural

The following are some procedural matters.

a. Procedural 1

Accumsan sit amet nulla facilisi morbi tempus iaculis. Est lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Quis ipsum suspendisse ultrices gravida dictum. Eget lorem dolor sed viverra ipsum nunc aliquet. Ac turpis.

4. Distinguish from other offenses

This offense is distinguished from other offenses or crimes below.

a. Robbery by use of force upon things vs Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

The main difference is whether the robbery involved violence or intimidation against any person. In robbery by use of force upon things, there is no violence or intimidation against persons in the unlawful taking of another’s personal property; however, there is force upon things (distinguishing it from theft). On the other hand, in robbery with violence or intimidation against any person, such is an element of the offense coupled with the unlawful taking of another’s personal property

People v. Sebastian, En Banc, G.R. No. L-2725, February 27 1950, Per Reyes, J.:

• The appeal raises only a question of law, and we agree with both the Solicitor General and the attorney de oficio that the lower court erred in convicting appellant under article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and in applying to him the penalty therein provided. Aside from the fact that the information to which appellant pleaded guilty does not allege that the robbery was committed under any of the circumstances enumerated in said article, such as entering the house through an opening not intended for entrance or egress, the breaking of doors, etc., it is now settled that were robbery, though committed in an inhabited house, is characterized by intimidation, this factor “supplies the controlling qualification”, so that the law to apply is article 294 and not article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. This is on the theory that “robbery which is characterized by violence or intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things, because where violence and intimidation against the person is present there is a greater disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual.”… And this is view is followed even where, as in the present case, the penalty to be applied under article 294 is lighter than which would result from the application of article 299. (See last case cited.) In accordance with this view, appellant should have been declared guilty of robbery under paragraph 5 of article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No 18, since the charge to which he pleaded guilty alleges robbery through intimidation of persons.

b. Robbery by use of force upon things vs Theft

The main difference is the force upon things. In robbery by use of force upon things, force upon things is employed in order to unlawfully take another’s personal property. On the other hand, in theft, there is no such use of force upon things in the unlawful taking of another’s personal property.

People v. Fernandez, En Banc, G.R. No. L-39408, October 31, 1933, Per Vickers, J.:

• It appears that the defendant entered the store of Uy Chay Hing by praying the door out of the groove in which the lower extremity of it was placed, and then pushing it inward. Signs of the instrument used by the defendant were found on the door. As we have already stated, the three drawers containing a total of P100 were not locked, and was opened by the defendant with the key which the offended party had left in the room. The question then is whether the crime committed by the defendant under those circumstances was robbery or theft.

• The defendant opened the drawer containing most of the money by making use of the owner’s key which the defendant had stolen, but the defendant had already entered the house when he stole this key, and the fact that he opened the money drawer by using this stolen key did not convert the crime into robbery.

• Did the prying open of the door in the manner hereinabove indicated convert the taking of the money into robbery?

• The accused was charged with a violation of (a) 2 and (b) 1 of article 299 of the Revised Penal Code.

• (b) 1 refers to the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle within the house, and does not relate to the means made use of in entering the house. It is applicable in the present case.

• The Spanish text of (a) 2 is as follows: “Por rompimiento de pared, techo o suelo, o fractura de puerta o ventana.” The words “fractura de puerta o ventana” clearly mean “the breaking of a door or window”, and imply more than the mere forcing open of a door or window. If the defendant had forced open a window and entered in that way, he would of course be guilty an opening not intended for entrance; but in case at bar the defendant entered by forcing open the door by means of some instrument. It was neither alleged nor proved that the door was broken. The accused did not enter the store by any of the means specified in article 299, and we are therefore of the opinion that the crime committed by him was theft.

5. Complex crime

This offense may be complexed with the following crimes.

a. Robbery in an inhabited house by armed persons

Frandsilla v. People, G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015, Per Bersamin, J.:

• The complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed persons and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons was committed when the accused, who held firearms, entered the residential house of the victims and inflicted injury upon the victims in the process of committing the robbery. Hence, the penalty is that imposed for the robbery in an inhabited house, the more serious crime.

References

⦁ Title 10 – Crimes Against Property, Book 2, Revised Penal Code

/Updated: August 21, 2023