P. 1
Title 10 - Property

Title 10 - Property

|Views: 4,312|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Sui on Jun 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/02/2013

pdf

text

original

FACTS:A group of more than six armed men
including Napalit barged into the Tondo General Hospital.
One of the armed men pointed a gun at the security guard
and announced a hold-up. Simultaneously, Napalit pointed
a gun at, and grabbed the firearm of, another security
guard. Four members of the group then entered the
cashier's office of the hospital and ordered the employees
to lie down on the floor. One of them pointed a gun at the
cashier, Alonzo, and ordered him to open the vault. Before
Alonzo could do as instructed, he was searched for

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
116

weapons in the course of which his wallet containing
P450.00 in cash was taken. Alonzo then opened the vault
which the four emptied of P1,010,274.90 in cash. While the
four malefactors were at the cashier's office, another
security guard, Gomez, who was manning the hospital gate
was disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside the
hospital premises, and shot twice by one of the armed
men. The four armed men who emptied the vault then
rushed out of the hospital and one of them also shot Gomez
who had by then collapsed on the ground. Two of them
headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castor
which was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in front
of the hospital. One of the duo ordered the passenger at
the front seat to get off the vehicle. The other, after
forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle, drove it and fled
with his companion. The RTC found Napalit guilty of
robbery with homicide and violation of R. A. 6539 (the
Anti-Carnapping Act), respectively. Napalit argues that
assuming that he had indeed participated in the incident,
he should only be held liable for robbery and not for the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

HELD: In a long line of cases, the Court has ruled
that whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or
on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as
principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide,
unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide. (People v. Lago, 358 SCRA 550 (2001),
People v. Liad, 355 SCRA 11 (2001), People v. Pedroso, 336
SCRA 163)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->