Disclaimer: I am not an expert in the legal field. I am only here to share what I have learned in law school. Should you find any lapses, misinterpretations, or misapprehension of facts in my post, please feel free to correct me in the comments section. I hope you'll enjoy reading this!
Trigger Warning: This post contains scenarios which might trigger trauma for those who have experienced Robbery and/or Theft. I hope and pray that justice has come to your aid.
Theft and Robbery are both crimes which are punishable under the Revised Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as RPC). Both crimes fall under Crimes Against Property, specifically covered under Chapters 1 and 3 of Title Ten. Almost everyday, we hear news about people being caught stealing the stuff of others, but how do we identify whether the crime committed was Robbery or Theft?
Let me give you two situations:
(A) Mario, a student, was walking towards the train station at EDSA Rotonda while listening to the music playing in his AirPods. Hudez silently followed him from behind. When the opportunity came, Hudez stealthily opened the zipper of his backpack, stole Mario’s IPhone X, and walked the other way as if nothing happened. It was only after the music stopped when Mario realized that his phone was stolen from his bag.
source:https://commons.wikimedia.org (no alterations were made)
(B) Reus, a government employee, withdrew money from an ATM in the middle of the night because of an emergency. While walking back to his car, Who Dazz, suddenly pinned him and told him “Ibigay mo ang pera mo sa akin! Kung hindi, sasaksakin kita!(Give me your money! I'll stab you if you wont!)”. Feeling an edge of something pointy pressing against his stomach, Reus complied with the demand. All of Reus’ money was taken by Who Dazz. Reus went to the police station to report the crime, and there he received first aid treatment for the small cut on his stomach.
source:https://pixabay.com/ro/illustrations/deget-de-art%c4%83-ho%c5%a3-jaf-bandit-masca-5799721/
Compare the two given situations. Both victims had their belongings taken away from them against their will. However, the means employed by the malefactors in the two given instances are different.
Under Art. 308 of the RPC , Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.
In the given situation, Hudez did not employ any violence or intimidation against Mario to take possession of the latter’s personal property, which, in this case, was an IPhone X. Rather Hudez used stealth to take the IPhone X of Mario.
Therefore, Hudez has committed the crime of Theft.
Under Art. 293 of the RPC , Robbery is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.
In the case at bar, Who Dazz, by employing violence and intimidation by means of pinning and pressing a pointed object against Reus, successfully took possession of the latter’s money.
Therefore, Who Dazz has committed the crime of Robbery.
What is common about the two crimes is that both require “animus lucrandi” or intent to gain.
What is “Intent to gain”?
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Mejares G.R. No. 225735, the Supreme Court said “intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Thus,actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain."
Now to give you a little exercise…Try to answer the problem below:
source:https://openclipart.org/detail/316811/motorcycle-thieves
No. Robbery was not committed in this instance. In the case of Edwin Del Rosario vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 235739, the Supreme Court ruled that “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.”Also citing the case of People vs. Concepcion, “the Court ruled that when the complainant herself merely testified that the offender snatched her shoulder bag,without saying that such offender used violence, intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder bag, the snatching of the shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery.”
In simpler terms, the act of snatching does not necessarily mean that the crime committed was Robbery. For snatching to be qualified to Robbery, there must be proof that the snatching was attended by violence or intimidation against the person. In the absence of this element, the crime committed is Theft and not Robbery.
Thank you for reading!
“Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”
p.s. I apologize if the pictures do not accurately depict the given situation. I'm only using free pictures to prevent copyright infringement. 😅
