A owned XYZ Prix Auto, a car repair shop in Davao City. He employed some of his relatives, including B, his cousin, as a mechanic. Unfortunately, B stole some of the company’s properties. When A learned of the theft, he filed a complaint for qualified theft against B. In his counter-affidavit, B invoked his alleged exemption from criminal liability due to his relationship with A. Is B exempt from criminal liability? Decide with reason(s).
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, B is not exempt from criminal liability.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling, and malicious mischief are strictly limited to spouses, ascendants, descendants, relatives by affinity in the same line, widowed spouses, and brothers and sisters or in-laws if living together. This enumeration of exempt relatives is exclusive.
Here, B is A's cousin. Cousins are collateral relatives not included among the exempt relatives enumerated under Article 332. Consequently, B cannot invoke relationship as an absolutory cause to escape criminal liability for stealing company properties from A.
Consequently, B is not exempt from criminal liability, and the charge of qualified theft against him may properly proceed.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Why is B NOT exempt from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for stealing from A?
Cousins are collateral relatives in the fourth degree and are excluded from the exclusive list of exempt relatives under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code.
Which of the following relatives is expressly exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling, or malicious mischief under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code?
Article 332 expressly includes spouses among the relatives exempt from criminal liability for crimes against property.
What is the legal effect of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code on the liability of an exempt relative who commits theft?
Article 332 operates as an absolutory cause that exempts the offender from criminal liability only, without affecting civil liability.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, under what condition are brothers-in-law exempt from criminal liability for swindling each other?
Under Article 332, paragraph 3, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law are exempt from criminal liability only if they are living together.
How should courts interpret the enumeration of exempt relatives listed under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code?
Provisions creating absolutory causes and penal exemptions are strictly construed and limited exclusively to the relationships specified by law.
Learn more about these topics
1. Absolutory Cause
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, certain relatives are exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling, and malicious mischief. This exemption acts as an absolutory cause based on public policy to preserve family harmony and prevent public scandals. However, this statutory exemption removes only criminal liability, leaving civil liability fully intact. The aggrieved party may still seek civil restitution or damages through a civil action. Because this provision creates an exception to penal liability, it must be interpreted strictly according to its explicit statutory terms.
2. Exclusive Enumeration
The list of relatives exempt from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive and exhaustive. The law limits exemption strictly to spouses, ascendants, descendants, relatives by affinity in the same line, widowed spouses regarding property of the deceased spouse, and brothers, sisters, or in-laws living together. Relatives not expressly included, such as cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, or nieces, cannot claim this benefit. Courts cannot extend this absolutory cause by analogy or equity to unlisted collateral relatives, as penal exemptions are strictly construed against the accused.
3. Qualified Theft
Qualified theft occurs when theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence, such as when an employee steals property entrusted by an employer. While Article 332 applies to theft generally, it does not expand the class of exempt relatives based on employment or family ties. Even if the offender is a relative employed in a family business, exemption from criminal liability remains strictly dependent on whether the relative falls within the enumerated relationships under Article 332. An employee who is a cousin remains criminally liable for qualified theft.