You are on page 1of 4


404) Facts: While several persons were perfecting the purchase and sale of several tins of opium, certain police officers, conspiring together with some Chinese to obtain such opium, came to the scene and by means of intimidation seized the opium, without causing the prosecution of the offenders, and thereafter said police officers appropriated the opium. Held: Robbery was committed. U.S. vs Albac (29 Phil. 86) Held: Even the owner of the property may be guilty of robbery when, for instance, he takes it from the possession of a bailee or from a person who himself has stolen it, with the intent to charge the bailee with its value U.S. vs Lahoylahoy (38 Phil. 330) Facts: Accussed were prosecuted for robbery with multiple homicide. In the information the property belonged to Roman Estriba but the proof showed that Juana Seran was the person robbed. Held: The court ruled that it was impossible to convict them of robbery due lack of conformity in the allegation and the proof. Instead they were convicted of four separate homicides. People vs. Sia Teb Ban (54 Phil. 52) Held: The intent to gain, being an internal act, cannot be established by direct evidence, except of confession of the accused. It must be deduced from the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense. As a general rule, however, the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another involves intent to gain on the part of the offender. U.S. vs. Manluco (28 Phil. 360) Held: The taking of personal property belonging to another should not be under claim of ownership. One who takes property openly and avowedly under claim of title proffered in good faith is not guilty of robbery even though the claim of ownership is untenable. People vs. Andame (C.A., 40 O.G., Supp. 12, 41) Held: It was theft that was committed when the accused cut the tying of the sack caontaining the palay and then took it. The violence must be committed upon the person of the offended party, not against the thing taken.

People vs Villar (C.A., G.R. No. 14289-R) Held: The accused snatched the bag from behind and then ran away. He is guilty of the crime of theft. In taking away the bag the accused did not use violence against or intimidation of any person. U.S. vs. Samonte (8 Phil. 286) Held: The accused was guilty of robbery because after snatching the money from the hands of the offended party, he was then pushed to prevent him from recovering the seized property. People vs. Chiong (C.A., 69 O.G. 8671) Held: The complainant a Chinese was belied by the accused by stating that he was an agent of the Philippine Constabulary and that he was guilty of a crime. The complainant being ignorant of the law believed the accused. The accused asked for 5,000 otherwise he will be deported but the accused haggled with them until it was reduced to 2,000 which he later on paid. The Accused was guilty of robbery by means of intimidation. People vs. Adorno (C.A., 40 O.G. 567) Held: The crime was not robbery when breaking the glass of the show-window of a bazar and thereafter taking forty watches, it appearing that the accused did not enter the building but merely introduced his hands through the broken glass in order to remove the watches from the show-window. People vs. Daos (60 Phil. 143) Held: In robbery with violence against or intimidation of any person, the value of the personal property is immaterial. People vs. Salazar (277 SCRA 67) Held: A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery was the main purpose and objective of the criminals and that the killing was merely incidental, resulting merely by reason or on occasion of the robbery. People vs. Toleng (91 SCRA 382) Held: Robbery with homicide arises only there is direct relation, an intimate connection, between the robbery and the killing, even if the killing is prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to the robbery. U.S. vs. Gapas (18 Phil. 629) Held: If robbery by a band is committed in an uninhabited place, the band is qualifying and uninhabited place would be a generic aggravating circumstance only.

ROBBERY BY USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS People vs. Jaranilla (55 SCRA 563) Held: If the culprit did not enter the building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. People vs. Tayag (59 Phil. 606) Held: The accused entered the dwelling of a chinaman by means of bolo and screw drivers. Afterwhich he noticed that the dwellers were awakened, he then tried to escaped but was apprehended by the police. He was giulty of trespass to dwelling because there was no evidence to show that the intention of the accused was to commit robbery. People vs. Co Cho (62 Phil. 828) Held: the offenders are guilty of robbery when they entered the house of the offended party by passing through the window of the closet, and once inside, they took the watches and money thereof. People vs. Fernandez (58 Phil. 674) Held: Openning the money drawer by using the stolen key is not robbery. U.S. vs. Saludo (9 Phil. 213) Held: The servant used a bolo in breaking open a trunk then in the house of his master he then took money therefrom. He was guilty of robbery committed by an unarmed person U.S. vs. Bajet (25 Phil 105) Held: The laws punishes more severely the robbersy in a house used as dwelling than that in an uninhabited place, because the possibility that the inhabitants in the former might suffer bodily harm during the commission of the robbery. People vs. Ganir (C.A., 51 O.G. 856) Held: Notwithstanding the fact that for a period of almost a month, the house where the robbery was committed was actually uninhabited, it is still robbery in an inhabited house within the meaning of articles 299 and 301, because the building in question was ordinarily inhabited and intended for dwelling. U.S. vs. Galuran (12 Phil. 399) Held: It was held that a robbery committed in a warehouse belonging to the Smith Bell & Co., in the City of Manila, is one committed in an uninhabited place.

People vs. Tubog (49 Phil. 620, 624) Held: Althought a store may be used as a dwelling, to sustain a conviction for robbery in an inhabited house, the information must allege that the store was used and occupied as a dwelling. People vs. Nuas (C.A., 52 O.G. 6264) Held: When the accused entered an office and then removed a closed steel safe from the building and taken to a place where it was forced open. The accused took the contents thereof. They were guilty of the crime of robbery. Manahan vs. People (73 Phil. 691) Held: Since robbery was committed with force upon things was accompanied with violence against or intimidation of persons, article 303 is not applicapble. The offender should be punished under article 294. People vs. Suarez (G.R. No. L-6431) Held: If the store is used as a dwelling of one or more persons, the robbery committed therein would be considered as committed in an inhabited house. U.S. vs. Rey (8 Phil. 500) Held: A steamship containing silver and money was entered by the accused. The ship was not yet abondoned by the owner. Hence, the accused was guilty of the robbery. People vs. Lising (C.A., 62 O.G. 9819) Held: Removing the hook or the contraption to which the padlock is placed to lock the door, or using an article to open the lock attached to the door knob, is certainly not the breaking contemplated by articles 299 and 302. People vs. Fernandez (58 Phil. 674) Held: The accused not having entered the store by any of the means specified in article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime committed by the him was Theft.