8/8/2019 legres 2

1/6

Zeeble

Paper Cranes

Situation:

Morris had been drinking when he entered the Bank of the Philippine Island

Branch located in Mendiola, I have a 9mm handgun in my pocket, he said to the tellerand I want all your money. The teller set off a silent alarm but when she handed Morris

the cash, he said he had been joking all along. He left the bank empty handed, but upon

stepping out of the Bank door, he was arrested by the Police.

Morris is charged in the Court of Attempted Robbery

First of all in approaching this case let us first define what robbery is, as it is the issue at

hand. Robbery is defined by the revised penal code as follows:

Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. 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 shall

be guilty of robbery.

This provision shows the elements of robbery which must be evidently shown in order for

the crime of robbery to consummate. These elements are the following:

(a) that there be personal property belonging to another;

(b) that there is unlawful taking of that property;

(c) that the taking is with intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and(d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

Let us take a good look at each of these elements to see if Morris case falls upon robbery

(a) that there be personal property belonging to another

The first element is easily understandable, that there be a material thing,physical in form which belongs to another person who has the lawful and just

right for the ownership and possession of the property subject.

In the case of Morris, the personal property belonging to another is the moneywhich was brought out by the teller of the bank.

The first element was satisfied.

(b) that there is unlawful taking of that property

Unlawful taking exists when another person who does not have the legal rightto a certain property takes it with the intention of appropriating the same.

8/8/2019 legres 2

2/6

Unlawful taking or otherwise known as apoderamiento was clearly defined in

the case of Valenzuela vs. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007. It definesApoderamiento as such:

In Spanish law, animo lucrandi was compounded with

apoderamiento, or unlawful taking, to characterize theft. JusticeRegalado notes that the concept of apoderamiento once had a

controversial interpretation and application. Spanish law had alreadydiscounted the belief that mere physical taking was constitutive of

apoderamiento, finding that it had to be coupled with the intent to

appropriate the object in order to constitute apoderamiento; and toappropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing.

However, a conflicting line of cases decided by the Court of Appeals

ruled, alternatively, that there must be permanency in the taking or an

intent to permanently deprive the owner of the stolen property; or thatthere was no need for permanency in the taking or in its intent, as the

mere temporary possession by the offender or disturbance of theproprietary rights of the owner already constituted apoderamiento.Ultimately, as Justice Regalado notes, the Court adopted the latter

thought that there was no need of an intent to permanently deprive the

owner of his property to constitute an unlawful taking.

Insofar as we consider the present question, unlawful taking is mostmaterial in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of ones

personal property, is the element which produces the felony which is being

punished by the Revised Penal Code. At the same time, without unlawfultaking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted robbery, if

at all. Morris act of threatening the teller which caused the disturbance of the

proprietary rights of the owner of the money brought out by the tellertherefore constitutes unlawful taking.

(c) thatthe taking is with intent to gain or animus lucrandi

This third element of robbery is the most crucial element in question in

this case of Morris. As Morris did declare to the teller that I [He has] had a

9mm handgun and I want all your money clearly states that he had the intentto do the act of robbery. However, Morris then later on never took the money

when it was brought out by the teller and told the latter that it was all a joke.

With those acts committed by Morris it clearly shows a shallow and blurredintent of Morris to commit robbery. The first statement manifests his intent to

commit robbery while the latter diminishes his intent to do so. These two

statements are conflicting to show Morrisintent to gain or animus lucrandi. Itwas also held in the case of Valenzuela vs. People of the Philippines and

Court of Appeals regarding intent to gain that:

8/8/2019 legres 2

3/6

The long-standing Latin maxim actus non facit reum, nisimens sit rea supplies an important characteristic of a crime, that

ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to

be a crime, and accordingly, there can be no crime when the

criminal mind is wanting. Accepted in this jurisdiction as material

in crimes mala in se, mens rea has been defined before as aguilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent, and

essential for criminal liability. It follows that the statutorydefinition of our mala in se crimes must be able to supply what the

mens rea of the crime is, and indeed the U.S. Supreme Court has

comfortably held that a criminal law that contains no mens rearequirement infringes on constitutionally protected rights. The

criminal statute must also provide for the overt acts that constitute

the crime. For a crime to exist in our legal law, it is not enough

that mens rea be shown; there must also be an actus reus.

It is from the actus reus and the mens rea, as they findexpression in the criminal statute, that the felony is produced. As

a postulate in the craftsmanship of constitutionally sound laws, it

is extremely preferable that the language of the law expresslyprovide when the felony is produced. Without such provision,

disputes would inevitably ensue on the elemental question whether

or not a crime was committed, thereby presaging the undesirableand legally dubious set-up under which the judiciary is assigned

the legislative role of defining crimes. Fortunately, our Revised

Penal Code does not suffer from such infirmity. From the statutory

definition of any felony, a decisive passage or term is embeddedwhich attests when the felony is produced by the acts of execution.

For example, the statutory definition of murder or homicide

expressly uses the phrase shall kill another, thus making it clearthat the felony is produced by the death of the victim, and

conversely, it is not produced if the victim survives.

Though it shows that Morris does not have the intent to gain or the animus

lucrandi, he is still criminally liable for the acts of robbery with respect to thethird element which resulted though it be different from that which he

intended as defined in the revised penal code of the Philippines that:

Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

Par.1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the

wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

8/8/2019 legres 2

4/6

The rule is that "if a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense

of danger which causes such person to do so and creates an injury, the

person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries whichresult" (Reg. vs. Halliday 61 L. T. Rep. [N.S.] 701, cited in U.S. vs. Valdez,

41 Phil. 4911, 500)

(d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

Intimidation was evident with the declaration of Morris declaration thatI [He has] have a 9mm handgun and I want all your money, whereupon

this statement the teller acted to Morris will and brought out the money,

that without the fear instilled by the offender as to the idea that he is

carrying a handgun, the teller wouldnt have acted in that way. Whereas inFortuna vs. People G.R. No. 135784. December 15, 2000, Diosdada gave

all her money to the offenders in fear of his brother being apprehended and

admitted to the police detention cells also implying the idea that his brother

would be beaten by the convicts, harassed by the media and with other evilthings to come. It was ruled that the offenders were found guilty of having

conspired in committing the crime with intimidation of persons. It can alsobe said in the case of Morris. With the reasoning given above, we can

clearly state that this intense infusion of fear was intimidation, plain and

simple.

With the following elements satisfied: we can say that Morris may have committed an

attempted robbery.

However, we must also give light as to the definition of an attempted felony.

An Attempted felony is also defined in the Revised Penal Code where:

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummatedfelonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are

punishable.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of afelony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution

which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident

other than this own spontaneous desistance.

We can clearly say that Morris has commenced the commission of the felony ofrobbery directly by overt acts due to the fact that Morris has commences (1) external acts;

and (2) that such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be

committed.

The external acts referred in the attempt must be related to the overt acts of the

crime the offender intended to commit. It should not be mere preparatory acts, for

preparatory acts do not have direct connection with the crime which Morris intended to

8/8/2019 legres 2

5/6

commit. An overt act is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit

a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its

complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by externalobstacles nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily

ripen into the concrete offense of robbery. In this case, Morris approaching to the bank

teller and threatening him/her that he has a 9mm handgun and wants all her money.

The attempt was also evident since Morris failed to take the money which is a part

of all the necessary acts of execution, however there is the last clause of other than hisown spontaneous desistance which justifies Morris act. Where if the offender does not

perform all the acts of execution by reason of his own spontaneous desistance, there is no

attempted felony. That it is a sort of reward granted by law to those who, having one foot

on the verge of the crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path ofrighteousness. (Viada, Cod. Pen.,35-36) That this spontaneous desistance as cited in

People vs. Pambaya, 60 Phil. 1022, may be through fear or remorse, or in Morris case

humor due to alcoholic influence. It is not necessary that it be actuated by a good motive.

The Revised Penal Code requires only that the discontinuance of the crime comes fromthe person who has begun it, and that he stops of his own free will.

WHEREFORE, Morris is not found guilty and is acquitted of the crime of

attempted robbery.

If Morris is not guilty is not guilty of attempted robbery, what then is his criminal

liability?

Morris is criminally liable for Grave Threats.

Grave threats is defined in the revised penal code as such:

Art. 282. Grave threats. Any person who shall threaten anotherwith the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of

his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.

The following elements of grave threat is also satisfied by Morris acts where the

elements of grave threat are the following:

(1) that the offender threatened another person with the inflictionupon his person of a wrong;

(2) that such wrong amounted to a crime; and

(3) that the threat was not subject to a condition. Hence, petitionercould have been convicted thereunder.

8/8/2019 legres 2

6/6

In the case of Rosauro Reyes vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-

21529, March 28, 1969 the ruling regarding grave threats was given that:

The demonstration led by petitioner Agustin Hallare in front of the main

gate of the naval station; the fact that placards with threatening

statements were carried by the demonstrators; their persistence in trailingHallare in a motorcade up to his residence; and the demonstration

conducted in front thereof, culminating in repeated threats flung bypetitioner in a loud voice, give rise to only one conclusion: that the threats

were made "with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the

person threatened the belief that the threat would be carried into effect."Indeed, Hallare became so apprehensive of his safety that he sought the

protection of Col. Monzon, who had to escort him home, wherein he

stayed while the demonstration was going on. It cannot be denied that the

threats were made deliberately and not merely in a temporary fit of anger,motivated as they were by the dismissal of petitioner one month before the

incident. We, therefore, hold that the appellate court was correct inupholding petitioner's conviction for the offense of grave threats.

It was ruled that the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person

threatened, as to Morris case the teller, the belief that the threat would be carried into

effect is the result of a grave threat. Therefore the act of Morris in threatening the teller

that he has a gun and that he wants all of her money constitutes grave threat, that hethreatened the teller with the infliction of his handgun, that such wrong as spoken by

Morris would amount to a robbery, and the threat was not subject to any other options or

condition that the teller may take for the safety of her life, which led her to press thesilent alarm in call of rescue.

WHEREFORE, Morris is found guilty of Grave threats with the aggravating/mitigatingcircumstance of intoxication(if habitual or intentional/if not habitual or not subsequent to

the plan to commit the felony of robbery, must still be proven by the prosecution).