Quick Answer:
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, certain family members cannot be held criminally liable for theft committed against one another. Instead, only civil liability may arise. The exemption generally applies to spouses, ascendants and descendants, certain relatives by affinity in the same line, and brothers and sisters who are living together.
When we think of theft, we usually imagine strangers taking property without permission. But what happens when the alleged offender is a spouse, parent, child, or sibling? In the Philippines, theft involving family members is treated differently from theft committed by outsiders. Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), certain relatives may be exempt from criminal liability for specific property crimes, including theft, under defined circumstances.
This article examines how Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code applies to theft between family members, including its scope, rationale, and limitations under Philippine law.
Theft Between Family Members Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides:
Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal liability, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.
Article 332 establishes that no criminal liability arises from theft, swindling (estafa), or malicious mischief committed between certain close relatives. Instead, such acts give rise only to civil liability.
As a result, when Article 332 applies, the accused cannot be criminally prosecuted for theft; however, the offended party may still pursue civil remedies such as recovery of property or damages.
Which Relatives Are Covered by Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code?
Article 332 does not apply to all relatives. The law specifically covers:
1. Spouses – This includes common-law spouses. The Revised Penal Code does not distinguish between couples bound by legal marriage and those living together as husband and wife de facto. Under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, such common-law spouses may be co-owners of property acquired during their cohabitation.
2. Ascendants and Descendants – These include relatives in the direct line, such as:
- Parents and children
- Grandparents and grandchildren
- Great-grandparents and great-grandchildren
Example: A son secretly takes ₱50,000 from his father’s cabinet. Because the parties are ascendant and descendant, Article 332 may apply. The son may avoid criminal liability, although he can still be required to return the money.
3. Relatives by Affinity in the Same Line – Affinity refers to relationships created by marriage. Examples include:
- Father-in-law and son-in-law
- Mother-in-law and daughter-in-law
- Stepparents and adopted children (as recognized by jurisprudence)
Case Law: In Intestate Estate of Vda. de Carungcong v. People (G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010), the Supreme Court recognized that the exemption under Article 332 extends to certain relationships by affinity, including stepparents and adopted children. Accordingly, no criminal liability arises in cases involving theft, swindling, or malicious mischief between such relatives, although civil liability may still exist.
The Court further clarified that the relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the death of the spouse that created the affinity. For purposes of Article 332(1), such relationship is not terminated by death, as it survives the marriage that created it.
4. Widowed Spouse and Property of the Deceased – The law also covers a widowed spouse with respect to property that belonged to the deceased spouse before the property has passed into the possession of another person.
5. Brothers and Sisters – The law does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate siblings. For purposes of Article 332, what matters is that they are brothers or sisters.
However, the exemption applies only if they are living together at the time of the commission of the offense. If they reside in the same compound but occupy separate houses and maintain separate households, they may be considered to be living separately, in which case the exemption does not apply.
Example 1: Two brothers live in the same house. One takes the other’s cellphone and sells it without permission. Because they are brothers living together, Article 332 may apply, and criminal liability for theft may not arise.
Example 2: One brother lives in Manila while the other lives in Cebu. One takes the other’s property without consent. Because they are not living together, the exemption under Article 332 may not apply, and criminal liability may arise.
6. Brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law – Article 332 extends the exemption to brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, provided they are living together at the time the offense is committed. As with brothers and sisters, the requirement of living together is essential. If the parties maintain separate residences or households, the exemption does not apply.
Does Article 332 Make the Act Legal?
No. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Article 332.
The provision does not legalize theft, swindling (estafa), or malicious mischief committed between relatives. The act remains wrongful under the law.
Article 332 merely removes criminal liability when its requirements are met and limits the remedy to civil actions.
Accordingly, the offended party may still pursue civil remedies such as:
- Recovery of the property
- Reimbursement of its value
- Filing of a civil action for damages
- Other appropriate civil remedies
While criminal prosecution is barred in qualifying cases, the civil consequences remain enforceable.
Why Does the Law Provide This Exemption?
The policy behind Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and avoid criminal prosecutions that may further strain family relationships.
The law recognizes that disputes involving property among close relatives often arise from family disagreements, misunderstandings, or shared living arrangements.
Rather than subjecting family members to criminal punishment, the law generally leaves these disputes to be resolved through civil remedies.
However, the exemption is not unlimited. Article 332 does not excuse all forms of wrongdoing simply because the parties are related. It applies only in the specific circumstances provided by law.
When Does Article 332 Not Apply?
There are several situations where Article 332 cannot be invoked.
Robbery Is Not Covered
Article 332 applies only to theft, swindling (estafa), and malicious mischief. It does not extend to robbery, which is a distinct offense under the Revised Penal Code. Unlike theft, robbery involves the taking of property through violence, intimidation, or force upon things. Because robbery contains elements not contemplated by Article 332, the exemption from criminal liability does not apply even if the offender and the victim are related.
Example:
A son threatens his father with harm to compel him to surrender money. Because the taking is accomplished through intimidation, the offense is robbery, not theft. Article 332 does not apply, and criminal liability may arise.
Strangers Who Participate in the Crime
The exemption under Article 332 applies only to the relatives covered by the law. If a family member conspires with a person outside the exempt relationship, the outsider may still be criminally prosecuted for his or her participation in the offense.
Relatives Not Included by the Law
Not all family relationships are covered under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code.
The exemption applies only to the relatives expressly mentioned in the law. As such, the following are generally not covered:
- Cousins
- Uncles and nephews
- Aunts and nieces
- Other distant relatives
These relatives are not included in the enumeration under Article 332 and therefore remain subject to criminal liability under the general rules of the Revised Penal Code.
Conclusion
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code reflects the State’s policy of preserving family harmony by limiting criminal prosecutions for theft, estafa, and malicious mischief committed between certain relatives. However, its application is strictly limited to the relationships and circumstances clearly defined by law.
While the provision removes criminal liability in qualifying cases, it does not legalize the act or eliminate civil liability. Disputes involving property within the family may still be resolved through civil actions to recover property or seek damages.
Because Article 332 is an exception to the general rule of criminal liability, courts interpret and apply it strictly. As such, its protection is available only when all legal requirements are clearly met.
Key Takeaways
● Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code removes criminal liability for theft, estafa, and malicious mischief committed between certain relatives.
● The law does not make the acts lawful; civil liability may still be enforced.
● The exemption applies only to the specific family relationships identified by law.
● Brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law must generally be living together at the time of the offense for the exemption to apply.
● Robbery is not covered by Article 332.
● Relatives not expressly included in the provision are generally not entitled to the exemption.
● Courts strictly construe the requirements of Article 332 before applying its protection.