This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-05-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| To constitute the crime of Theft, defined and penalized under Article 308[20] of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be established that: (1) there be taking of personal property; (2) said property belongs to another; (3) the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking be accomplished without use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.[21] | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In theft, the act of unlawful taking connotes deprivation of personal property of one by another with intent to gain, and it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen because the deprivation relative to the offended party has already ensued from such act of execution.[36] The allegation of theft of money, hence, necessitates that evidence presented must have a tendency to prove that the offender has unlawfully taken money belonging to another. Interestingly, petitioner has taken pains in attempting to draw a connection between the evidence subject of the instant review, and the allegation of theft in the Information by claiming that respondent had fraudulently deposited the checks in her own name. But this line of argument works more prejudice than favor, because it in effect, seeks to establish the commission, not of theft, but rather of some other crime î º probably estafa. | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The fact that petitioner was later entrapped receiving the P5,000.00 marked money, which she thought was the cash replacement for the dishonored check, is of no moment. The Court held in Valenzuela v. People[12] that under the definition of theft in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, "there is only one operative act of execution by the actor involved in theft â"€ the taking of personal property of another." Elucidating further, the Court held, thus: x x x Parsing through the statutory definition of theft under Article 308, there is one apparent answer provided in the language of the law -- that theft is already "produced" upon the "tak[ing of] personal property of another without the latter's consent." | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To show that robbery was committed, the government needs to prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property be committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; and (3) the taking be done with animo lucrandi.[32] On the other hand, the elements constituting the crime of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.[33] Thus, the distinguishing element between the crimes of robbery and theft is the use of violence or intimidation as a means of taking the property belonging to another; the element is present in the crime of robbery and absent in the crime of theft. | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Under the circumstance, we are left to consider the nature of the crime committed, as proven by the evidence on record. We agree with the RTC that only the crime of theft was committed in the case as S/G Gual's testimony does not show that violence or intimidation attended the taking of the firearm; S/G Gual only testified that Briones merely grabbed the firearm and ran away with it. Thus, we can only convict Briones for the crime of theft for taking S/G Molina's firearm without his consent. Theft is produced the moment there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking with intent to gain.[36] | |||||