The elements of the crime of Qualified Theft have been discussed in the case of People
v. Tanchanco1, where the Supreme Court held, thus:
The elements of the crime of Theft as provided for in
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code [(RPC)] are: (1) x x x
there [was] taking of personal property; (2) x x x [the]
property belongs to another; (3) x x x the taking [was] done
with intent to gain; (4) x x x the taking [was] without the
consent of the owner; and (5) x x x the taking was
accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Xxx
Under Article 310 of the [RPC], theft [becomes] qualified
when it is, among others, committed with grave abuse of
confidence. x x x The grave abuse of confidence must be the
result of the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship,
or vigilance, between the appellant and the offended party
that might create a high degree of confidence between them
which the appellant abused.
(1) x x x there [was] taking of personal property; (2) x x x
[the] property belongs to another; (3) x x x the taking [was]
done with intent to gain; (4) x x x the taking [was] without
the consent of the owner; and (5) x x x the taking was
accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Likewise in the case of Zapanta v. People,2 the Supreme Court enumerated the elements
of qualified theft, thus:
The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310
in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), are: (a) the taking of personal property; (b) the said
property belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with
intent to gain; (d) it be done without the owner's consent; (e)
it be accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and
1 G.R. No. 177761, 18 April 2012
2 G.R. No. 170863, 20 March 2013
(f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in
Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.
Meanwhile the elements of Malicious Mischief are as follows:
In the case of Taguinod v. People,3 the Supreme Court enumerated
the elements of the crime of Malicious Mischief, thus:
What really governs this particular case is that the
prosecution was able to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt. The elements of the crime of malicious
mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another;
(2) That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes
involving destruction;
(3) That the act of damaging another's property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
Likewise in Caballes v. Department of Agrarian Reform 4 the Supreme Court discussed
the elements of malicious mischief, thus:
The Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that "any
person who shall deliberately cause to the property of
another any damage not falling within the terms of the next
preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief." 13
The elements of the crime of malicious mischief are:
1. The offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another;
2. The damage caused did not constitute arson or crimes
involving destruction;
3. The damage was caused maliciously by the offender.
3 G.R. No. 185833, 12 October 2011
4 G.R. No. 78214, 5 December 1988
After a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we
rule that the aforesaid criminal case against the private
respondent be dismissed.
