You are on page 1of 31

PEOPLE vs.

TY
263 SCRA 746
FACTS: Vicente Ty and Carmen Ty were charged with the crime of kidnapping and
failure to return a minor.
In November 1987, Johanna Sombong brought her seven-month old daughter, Arabella,
to Sir John Medical and Maternity Clinic which was owned and operated by the
accused-appellants. Arabella was diagnosed to be suffering bronchitis and diarrhea and
was confined for three days. Sombong could not pay the hospital bills and since no one
could take care of her daughter at home, she left her at the nursery of the hospital,
which she was charged P50.00 per day. Arabella was transferred to the clinic extension
and she was taken care of by a yaya hired by her mother. Nothing was heard from the
complainant so Dr. Ty notified the barangay captain of the child’s abandonment. After
two years, Arabella was entrusted to a guardian, Lilibeth Neri. After five years, Sombong
came back to claim her daughter. She filed a petition for habeas corpus against
accused-appellant with the RTC of Quezon City but was summarily dismissed on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction since the alleged detention was perpetrated in Caloocan
City. Then, a criminal case was filed against accused-appellants and an administrative
case was filed against Dr. Carmen Ty before the Board of Medicine of PRC. The case
was subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute. Then on October 13, 1992,
Sombong filed a petition for habeas corpus against the alleged guardians of her
daughter and the petition was granted and ordered the immediate delivery of Cristina
Grace Neri having found that she was the daughter of Sombong. On appeal to the Court
of Appeals, said decision was reversed on the ground that Cristina and complainant’s
daughter are not one and the same person.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused appellants are guilty of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor?
RULING: No, the Court ruled that before a conviction for kidnapping and failure to
return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code can be had, two elements
must concur, namely: (a) the offender has been entrusted with the custody of the minor,
and (b) the offender deliberately fails to restore said minor to his parents or guardians.
The essential element herein is that the offender is entrusted with the custody of the
minor but what is actually punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor, as the title of
the article seems to indicate, but rather the deliberate failure or refusal of the custodian
of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.

The said failure or refusal must not only be deliberate but must also be persistent as to
oblige the parents or the guardians of the child to seek the aid of the courts in order to
obtain custody. The word deliberate as used in the article must imply something more
than mere negligence; it must be premeditated, obstinate, headstrong, foolishly daring
or intentionally and maliciously wrong. In the case at bar, it is evident that there was no
deliberate refusal or failure on the part of the accused-appellants to restore the custody
of the complainant’s child to her.

PEOPLE vs. MENDOZA
175 SCRA 743

FACTS: At 8:00 o'clock in the morning of September 28, 1982 spouses Ernesto and
Eugenia Policarpio along with their two children, Ferdinand and Edward, seven years
old and one year and three months old respectively, were at the Luneta Park. near the
Rizal Monument in Manila. Having just arrived from Nueva Ecija, the family was resting
at the park. Then and there, a woman who turned out to be accused Angelina Mendoza,
but who had introduced herself as 'Rosalinda Quintos' accosted them. She struck a
conversation with the spouses and even offered them food particularly to Edward. Mr.
Policarpio, a Pampango, recognized the accused. He recalled having seen her at a club
in Angeles City. During their conversation, the accused gave the spouses her address at
2526 Dallas Street, Makati, Metro Manila. At one point, she even half-seriously asked
the spouses to give the boy Edward to her. They of course did not take the request
seriously. Then while Mr. Policarpio had apparently gone somewhere away from the
group and while Mrs. Policarpio was not looking the accused began playing with
Edward and, offering him food, lured him away from his mother. Shortly, the accused
carried Edward and took him away with her.

It developed that from the Luneta the accused brought the child to Tramo Street,
Pasay City where she claimed before some residents that the child was that of a
hostess friend of hers who being gravely ill of leprosy was in dire need of money, and
that she was asked to sell the child for P 250.00. This unusual sales offer happened to
take place in front of the house of Mrs. Delia Navarette, a barangay councilwoman
whose attention was attracted by the number of people who had gathered outside her
house. The accused offered to sell the child to Mrs. Navarette. The latter felt the
proposition distasteful, saying that it was not right that a child should be sold and that
what accused was doing was illegal. Nonetheless, the accused insisted on momentarily
leaving the child with Mrs. Navarette. Intending to have the child returned to his mother,
Mrs. Navarette asked her sister to go with the accused to the National Orthopedic
Hospital where according to the accused the boy's mother was confined. But when Mrs.
Navarette's sister and the accused were on their way to the hospital, the latter changed
her story. She said that the boy's mother was at the Philippine General Hospital instead.

No. 76711. Mrs. which is the crime charged? RULING: Yes. And when the latter finally got fed up she phoned Mrs. which would fall under Sections 4 and 5 Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. wherein this Court again held that it is not the technical name given by the Fiscal appearing in the title of the Information that determines the character of the crime but the facts alleged in the body of the Information. the former disappeared. Based on the foregoing. Navarette in Pasay City. While the accused and Mrs. she revealed that she had left the boy with Mrs. To make the long story short. it is well-settled that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the Information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated. Threatened with arrest. Mrs. and that there is no variance between the crime charged and the crime proven. Sometime later. She also made it a point to report the incident to the police to alert them in case there should be reports of a missing child.So they proceeded to the PGH and went up to the third floor where the accused said the boy's mother was. . The accused was convicted of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. Since the child had been left with her. it is evident that accused can be convicted of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention instead of "kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor". this principle was reiterated in People v. Navarette to report what had happened.R. Only recently. G. Navarette's sister the run around. Navarette's sister were waiting for a taxi at PGH. 1988. Navarette instructed her sister to bring the accused to her as she had now decided to report the matter to the police. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused can be convicted of kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention Kidnapping instead of Failure to Return a Minor. Torres & Salas. It was then that the police officer on duty recognized her. the accused had given Mrs. But it turned out that all the patients on that floor were males. the accused reappeared at the Luneta Police Station obstensibly to visit a detainee thereat. but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. they being conclusions of law. She was questioned regarding the whereabouts of the boy. Navarette felt obliged to take care of him. September 26. That led to the recovery of Edward Policarpio and his eventual return to his parents twenty days after the accused took him away.

being a private individual and without any legal justification and simulating public authority. SANTOS 378 SCRA 157 FACTS: On or about the 10th day of December. in the morning. did then and there willfully. municipality of Umingan. confederating and helping one another. ISSUE: Whether or not appellants are guilty of art.PEOPLE vs. 1996. province of Pangasinan. Baguio City. then load her to a passenger jeepney and brought her to a public cemetery at Naguillan Road. 286 instead of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code? . the abovenamed accused. unlawfully and feloniously take and handcuff both hands of one Leonida Dela Pena. Resurreccion. including three (3) Does whose identities have not yet been established. to the damage and prejudice of said Dela Pena. thereby depriving her of her liberty by detaining inside a passenger jeepney and threatening her with death but was able to escape. at Bgy. conspiring. and by means of force.

m. under restraint and against the will of the said Maria Luz Cortez and said accused during the period of detention maltreated and refused to release the latter until her demand for a sum of money and a getaway vehicle was given to her and on the . The judgment of conviction under review is modified. Where there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved and the offense charged necessarily includes the lesser offense established in evidence. Appellants Santos and Baltazar are acquitted of the crime of Kidnapping but instead. of the same day. and without any authority of law. 1993 to 9:00 a. be it right or wrong. and. Marilyn Villamar. either by material force or such display of force as would produce intimidation and control over the will of the offended party. 1993. Grave coercion is committed when a person prevents another from doing something not prohibited by law or compelling him to do something against his will. PEOPLE vs. unlawfully and feloniously surreptitiously enter the house of Maria Luz Cortez and by means of force and intimidation and with threats to kill take said Maria Luz Cortez. by means of violence.m.m. whether it be right or wrong. that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence.m.RULING: The circumstances that have surfaced instead warrant a conviction for grave coercion. Its elements are: 1. that the offender who has restrained the will and liberty of another did so without any right or authority of law. said appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave coercion. VILLAMAR 298 SCRA 398 FACTS: Marilyn Villamar was charged with the crime of illegal detention and frustrated murder in an information dated November 9. That in or about and during the period beginning 7:00 a. threats or intimidation. that the offender has prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law. of June 5. 2. the accused can be convicted of the offense proved. did then and there willfully. a woman of 20 years old as the latter entered her house whom said accused detained and kept locked inside the house from 7:00 a. Municipality of Bacolor. Province of Pampanga. or that he has compelled him to do something against his will. of June 5. 1993 or a period of two (2) hours. to 9:00 a. in Barangay Cabalantian. more or less. 3. suspecting that Maria Luz Cortez would not return her daughter Jonalyn Villamar whom she entrusted to said Maria Luz Cortez.

suffered various lacerated wounds on the head which ordinarily would cause her death. her immediate RELEASE is hereby ordered. consequently. 2. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. . performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of murder as a consequence. In this case. it must be stressed that the same cannot be categorized as an act of illegal detention. accused with evident premeditation and with intent to kill. be it right or wrong. RULING: Under the law. or compelled to do something against his or her will.occasion thereof. Appellant is convicted only for grave coercion. either by material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and. did then and there wilfully. that is. The appeal is partially granted. While Villamar did compel Cortez to do something against the latter's will. Maria Luz Cortez who as a result thereof. such oversight will not preclude a guilty verdict for the crime of grave coercion. and 3. control over the will of the offended party. unlawfully and feloniously assault. attack and strike with a deadly weapon: a knife and a chisel. when Villamar was erroneously charged for illegal detention. that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right. by the timely arrival of the authorities who rescued Maria Luz Cortez which prevented her death. Still. that any person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law. the act merely constituted grave coercion. Unless she is being held for some other lawful cause. that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so. as provided in Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus. The crime of grave coercion has three elements: 1. When accusedappellant coerced the plaintiff to reveal the whereabouts of the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" for the purpose of destroying the same. considering that she has served beyond the maximum penalty imposed by law. in other words. that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence. there is no showing that the accused wanted to extort money from the plaintiff prior to their confrontation. but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of her will. ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of Art. it is essential that the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.

Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses which were replete with inconsistencies and contradictions. . ISSUES: 1. to the damage and prejudice of said offended party.PEOPLE vs. the above-named accused. ASTORGA 283 SCRA 420 FACTS: Appellant Arnulfo Astorga was charged with violation of Article 267. Province of Davao. Philippines. unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Yvonne Traya. with deliberate intent and by means of force. did then and there willfully. thereby depriving her of her liberty against her will. 8 years of age. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 1991 in the Municipality of Tagum. a minor. allegedly committed as follows: That on or about December 29.

Appellant's apparent intention was to take Yvonne against her will towards the direction of Tagum. Grave coercion or coaccion grave has three elements: (a) that any person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law. which is the primary element of kidnapping. 3. consequently. There was no "lockup. that the restraint is not made under authority of a law or in the exercise of any lawful right. locked-up or deprived of her liberty. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant despite the fact that appellant had no motive to kidnap Yvonne Traya. be it right or wrong. They went to Maco Elementary School and strolled on the school grounds. Yvonne pleaded with appellant that she really wanted to go home to Binuangan. When nobody was at the Luponlupon Bridge. because Fabila's group chanced upon them. or compelled to do something against his or her will. Appellant's plan did not materialize. Rather. the group of Witness Arnel Fabila spotted them. At that time.2. Later on. . Should the accused-appellant be convicted of grave coercion? RULING: From the foregoing. in other words. it is clear that the appellant and the victim were constantly on the move. The evidence does not show that appellant wanted to detain Yvonne. This narration does not adequately establish actual confinement or restraint of the victim. however. either by material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and. appellant took the victim to the highway leading to Tagum." Accordingly. but Fabila's group chased and caught up with them. Appellant's forcible dragging of Yvonne to a place only he knew cannot be said to be an actual confinement or restriction on the person of Yvonne. that he actually detained her. but appellant ignored her pleas and continued walking her toward the wrong direction. and 4. (b) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence. control over the will of the offended party. appellant cannot be convicted of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. much less. Appellant Astorga carried the victim and ran. and (c) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so or. the felony committed in this case is grave coercion under Article 286 of the same code. Davao. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant despite the fact that Yvonne Traya was not detained.

The man let go of her. With this opportunity. at about 1:50am in Celestial Bldg. Still Albano continued fighting her attacker by kicking until her right hand got free. a medical student. . forcefully covered the face of Albano. in Manila.BALEROS vs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) found the accused guilty of attempted rape. Albano roused Marvilou. she grab hold of his sex which she squeezed. her maid and over the intercom of the building complaining that someone went inside her room and attempted to rape her. Albano wanted to scream for help but the hands covering her mouth with wet cloth and chemicals were very tight. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of attempted rape. another medical student. Baleros. PEOPLE 483 SCRA 10 FACTS: On December 1991. with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects and laid on top of her.

like the logical and natural relation of the cause and its effect. Absent the unavoidable connection. Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that this term is broad enough to include any human conduct which although not productive of some physical or material harm would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person. which is not of judicial standpoint of the Revised Penal Code. leading directly to its realization and consummation. meaning the nature of the act in relation to its objective is ambiguous. The series of acts committed by the petitioner constitutes unjust vexation punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph of Art. The accused is guilty of unjust vexation. that which is the beginning of the execution of the offense by the overt acts of the perpetrator. PEOPLE 345 SCRA 586 . as where the purpose of the offender in performing the act is not certain. concrete offense. The attempt that the RTC punishes is that which has logical connection to a particular. ONG CHIU KWAN vs.RULING: No. 287 of the Revised Penal Code. then what obtains is an attempt to commit an indeterminate offense.

Assistant City Prosecutor Bayona filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) an information charging petitioner with unjust vexation for cutting the electric wires. The MTC found Ong Chiu Kwan guilty of unjust vexation. Also. He failed. petitioner’s act unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of unjust vexation. Ong Chiu Kwan however failed to present a permit from appropriate authorities allowing him to cut the electric wires. water and telephone lines of complainant’s business establishment because said lines crossed his property line. he timed the interruption of the electric. RULING: Yes. water pipe and telephone lines of the business establishment. at around 10am in the morning. . Petitioner admitted having ordered the cutting of the electric. a business establishment owned and operated by Mildred Ong. Ong Chiu Kwan ordered Infante to relocate the telephone. electric and water lines of Crazy Feet because said lines posed a disturbance. water and telephone services during operation of business of the complainant. 1991. 1990. Thus.FACTS: On January 31. however. to show evidence that he had the necessary permit or authorization to re and locate the lines. water pipes and telephone lines of Crazy Feet. On April 24.

at 2:00 a. Actual possession of the property by the person dispossessed thereof suffices. it has been held that robbery may be committed against a bailee or a person who himself has stolen it. but the suspects were gone. The one in front of the victim forcibly took his wristwatch while the other one stabbed him at the back. PO1 Eduardo C. Molato of Station 4. The incident happened swiftly but PO1 Molato had a good look at the face of the one who stabbed the victim as he was about 8 to 10 meters away from them. in robbery by the taking of property through intimidation or violence. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of Robbery? RULING: Yes. with animo de lucro. Sampaloc.. Lapu-lapu Avenue. robbery is the offense imputable to the offender. REYES 399 SCRA 628 FACTS: On October 12.PEOPLE vs. Western Police District. When he alighted at the corner of Lapu-lapu Street and Northbay Boulevard South he saw the victim being held up by two persons. He chased them but when he saw the victim.m. . 1997. the offense is converted into the composite crime of robbery with homicide. Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code employs the phrase "belonging to another" and this has been interpreted to merely require that the property taken does not belong to the offender. it is not necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner thereof. he hailed a tricycle and asked the driver to bring the victim to the nearest hospital. Manila was on his way home on board a passenger jeepney. So long as there is apoderamiento of personal property from another against the latter’s will through violence or intimidation. In fact. He continued chasing the suspects up to Phase II until he reached Agora. He fired one warning shot which caused the three to run towards Phase I. If the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.

2. 1995. Rous just listened nonchalantly to the questions propounded by the police and to the answers given by Batocan. Counsel was not even sure that he had explained to appellant the consequences of his extrajudicial confession. The tallest of the three. of the Revised Penal Code. who at that time was engaged in the real estate business. who is touted by the prosecution as a competent and independent counsel. Loyola Heights. with the use of hankies and telephone cord. Rosas was at the master’s bedroom located at the second floor of his townhouse residence at #95 B-5 A. Furthermore. bonnets and gloves. and 12:00 midnight. 3. With respect Edgardo Batocan. He was watching television thereat. three persons sporting ski masks. 5. Xavierville Subdivision. . reached for the light switch and turned it off. Whether or not the court a quo erred in convicting Edgar Suela and Nerio Suela of robbery with homicide. no. and his former co-teacher and good friend. Geronimo ‘Gerry’ Gabilo. Whether or not the court a quo erred in considering the letter of Nerio Suela to Director Nilo Rosas as evidence against him. Whether or not the court a quo erred in convicting Edgar Suela for simple robbery under Art. 294. we hold that his extrajudicial confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Rous’ attention was divided while attending the custodial investigation as he was also looking over another paper work on his desk. Melchor Street. Suddenly.PEOPLE vs. and Norman Rosas dropped to the floor with their faces facing the bed.before the latter gave his confession -. dapa. together with his adopted son. RULING: 1. and from the lights of the neighboring townhouses. Norman Rosas. Yet Atty. Whether or not the court a quo erred in considering the extra-judicial confessions of Edgar Suela and Nerio Suel[a] are admissible against them. Atty. brandishing handguns and a knife. and tied their hands at their backs. The room remained illuminated by the light coming from a walk-in closet and from the lamp post outside fronting the room. Rous. ISSUE: 1. Quezon City. with a height of about five feet and five inches. barged into the room.’ So Director Rosas. SUELA 373 SCRA 183 FACTS: On July 26.M. Gerry Gabilo. The three intruders then shouted ‘dapa. This appellant did not finish first year high school. 4. interviewed Batocan -.for only around “five minutes. Two of the malefactors turned off the television set. between 11:00 P.” After this initial interview. Atty. private complainant Director Nilo L.

a duty expected of any counsel under the circumstances. The Rules state that “the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. In sum. Criminal Law. Q-96-64618. Ambrosio Padilla. he did not turn out to be the competent and independent counsel envisioned by the Constitution. we agree with the recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General that Edgar Suela should be acquitted. 4. The OSG explained: “Simple robbery is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons as distinguished from the use of force upon things. Vol. not elicited through questioning by the authorities.In view of these proven circumstances. on what matters. he admitted having written it. There is no showing that Atty. contrary to his contention. 3. but the extent of the violence or intimidation does not fall under pars.” Batocan’s verbal declarations are not covered by Sections 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. 175. Rous properly explained the choices or options open to appellant. On the trial court’s sentence of robbery in Criminal Case No. 2. may be given in evidence against him. . the letter is admissible in evidence. we are not convinced that counsel had fully explained to Batocan his constitutional rights and what they entailed or the nature and the consequences of an extrajudicial confession -. Book II. IV. In open court. This letter was properly identified. 1 to 4 of Article 294 (Revised Penal Code) [p. and if so. Thus. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement. the fact that he was not assisted by counsel when he wrote it will not make the letter inadmissible in evidence. or of any offense necessarily included therein. Hence. Edgardo Batocan’s confession to Rosas who is not a police officer is admissible in evidence. 1990].[40] because they were not extracted while he was under custodial investigation. Nerio was no longer under custodial investigation when he wrote it.explanations that would have enabled him to make an informed judgment on whether to confess.

and Barangay Magsaysay. the Olongapo City police received a call from the Subic police that a certain Donato del Rosario surrendered to police officer Fernando Morales. 1992.Paragua saw that the sala set. She was lying face down. Her head was covered with a pink raincoat and around her neck was a CATV wire. On October 2. his son. Paragua went home. Olongapo City. their merchandise and the cassette were burned.. Afterwards they proceeded to Magsaysay. returned the jewelry to the police some days later. 1992. DEL ROSARIO 359 SCRA 166 FACTS: On September 26. Rogelio Adriano. was left behind as she had no classes that day. the 11-year old niece of Paragua. where the "Lovely Kahael Pawnshop" was located. Jr. Raquel Lopez was already dead when her aunt discovered her. Parts of her hand and her thigh were burned. as he had given them to his son for safekeeping. told them that he really surrendered to Morales because he was being bothered by his conscience and that he was very willing to accompany them to recover the stolen items. the police . Thereafter the policemen from Olongapo and Donato del Rosario proceeded to the places mentioned by the latter Barrio Barretto. He also volunteered the information as to where he sold the jewelries that he took from the house of Emelita Paragua. Emelita Paragua left their house at Balic-Balic. a watch repairer and a buyer/seller of second hand jewelry. They were not able to immediately recover a bracelet and a 7-day ring that were sold to Adriano. At the Lovely Kahael pawnshop del Rosario pointed out the jewelry that he had pawned. the OIC/appraiser therein. Iba.PEOPLE VS. After the jewelry was recovered. At the pawnshop he was identified by Florencio Gamboa. Sta. However. He also signed the pawnshop ticket in order that a wedding band and a diamond ring with the letter "E" could be redeemed. a Saturday Notified of the news that their house was on fire. Raquel Lopez. her hands behind her back. Ruby Tan. even without being asked. Zambales to the shop of Rogelio Adriano. Olongapo City to go to her stall in the public market. Del Rosario was not even handcuffed at the time. Del Rosario. Zambales. Police located the body of Raquel Lopez in the kitchen. Both Adriano’s identified del Rosario as the person who sold them the jewelry. she saw her niece lying on her stomach with a raincoat covering her head and her neck and arms tied with CATV wire. When she entered the kitchen. Rita. She likewise discovered that six pieces of her jewelries were missing it was also found that the sala was set on fire and he found the items therein burned. the brother-in-law of his common-law wife. Iba.

dela Cruz to Assistant City Prosecutor Martinez for subscription. Raquel Lopez was killed on the occasion of the robbery because she was the only one in the house at that time and the only witness to the crime that accused-appellant committed. Police brought the accused and Atty. It is immaterial whether the killing transpired before or after the robbery. was different. During the custodial investigation. . Lamentably. Donato del Rosario’s account of the day in question. A lawyer. What is essential is that there is a nexus. the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. As to be expected. However. nobody was presented to corroborate his statements as to his whereabouts on the day when the robbery. September 26. was committed. which is therein used in a generic sense. It was only when del Rosario said that he fully understood its contents that Atty. ISSUE: Whether or not the essential requisites of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide are present? RULING: Yes. the crime of homicide.Del Rosario was then brought to the Olongapo police station. Her autopsy report revealed that she was already dead before the fire started. dela Cruz was present the whole time. Atty. or whether both crimes be committed at the same time. In the crime of robbery with homicide. (b)the property thus taken belongs to another. 1992. The trial court then decided to convict the accused of the crime of robbery with homicide. Raquel Lopez. Paragua’s niece. Norberto dela Cruz. was called in to assist del Rosario. He informed del Rosario what was stated in the waiver/confession. a crime primarily classified as one against property and not against persons. And the means resorted to by the accused-appellant was to strangle her until her very last breath. was in the way and she had to be dealt with in the direct manner possible. homicide. The arson was but a ruse to cover up the theft. He is of the impression that not all the essential requisites of the crime of robbery with homicide were proven. Atty. Del Rosario contends that it is essential to prove the intent to rob and that the intent to rob must come first before the killing transpired. dela Cruz signed it as counsel. In the offense of robbery with homicide. thus eliminating any inference that arson was committed to finish her off. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof.called Emelita Paragua who positively identified the jewels as hers. Accused-appellant relied on alibi as a defense to belie the accusation against him. and arson took place. an intimate connection between robbery and the killing whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former. (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi. the homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery. The court concluded that accused-appellant went to the house of Emelita Paragua because he intended to rob her.

the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. was committed.(b) the property thus taken belongs to another.In the offense of robbery with homicide. PEOPLE vs. which is therein used in a generic sense. a crime primarily classified as one against property and not against persons. (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. HIPONA . the crime of homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime Robbery with Homicide? RULING: Yes. drawing the police to infer that the perpetrator is familiar with the layout of AAA’s house. which eventually led to her death. robbery was the main intent of appellant. 185704. who is appellant’s mother. I’m sorry. however. The main electrical switch behind a “shower curtain” located at the “back room” was turned off. big enough for a person of medium build to enter. Consolation. Upon investigation. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. The Court gathers. 2010 FACTS: AAA was found dead on the morning of June 12. No. Her furniture and belongings were found strewn on the floor.” and he was thus apologizing for AAA’s death. that from the evidence for the prosecution. She was raped.G.R. for circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused. physically manhandled and strangled. I did it because I did not have the money. Cagayan de Oro City. HERNANDEZ 432 SCRA 104 . declared that her son-appellant had told her that “Mama. BBB executed an affidavit affirming appellant’s confession. AAA’s necklace with two heart-shaped pendants bearing her initials and handbag were likewise missing. PEOPLE vs. 2000 in her house in Isla Copa. and AAA’s death resulted by reason of or on the occasion thereof. February 18. the local police discovered a hole bored into the lawanitwall of the comfort room inside AAA’s house. and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. SPO1 Bladimir Agbalog of the local police thus called for a meeting of AAA’s relatives during which AAA’s sister BBB. the following requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance. Following Article 294(1) and Article 62(1)1 of the Revised Penal Code. rape should have been appreciated as an aggravating circumstance instead.

The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. in the direction of a forested area where there were also mango and coconut trees. during or after the robbery. bakit ninyo kinakaladkad ang aking tiya?” Catapang and the appellant approached and told him not to interfere. “Huwag po. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. and strangled her with the use of a white rope made of buri or vine string. San Luis. Then Catapang pointed a knife at Cesar and.m. a pair of earrings and a necklace from the bag of his aunt. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime Robbery with Homicide? RULING: Yes. Upon reaching the boundary of Banoyo and Mahabang Parang at around 12:00 noon. he left the health center and went to a nearby store to wait for a ride back to his house in Barangay Mahabang Parang. he saw his cousin-in-law. She pleaded. they would kill him and his family. including his children. went to the Rural Health Center of Banoyo. a forty-four-year-old sweepstakes ticket vendor. It is only the result obtained. Batangas. huwag po. The appellant and Catapang then returned to the place where Natividad was. The homicide may take place before. Cesar hurriedly left the place on foot and went home. The constitutive elements of the crime. and Catapang dragging his seventy-two-year-old auntie. robbery and homicide. must be consummated.m. Cesar shouted. Catapang and the appellant positioned themselves at Natividad’s right and left side. It was about 11:00 a. otherwise. who was lying prostrate on the ground. on December 19. and saw them forcibly taking money. to seek medical treatment for his ailment. . Natividad Yuzon Mendoza. in robbery with homicide. causes. Batangas. Cesar followed them and concealed himself behind a mango tree about ten arm’s length away. “Hoy. with the appellant.FACTS: At about 7:00 a. warned him not to reveal what he saw to anyone. modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. After receiving his daily medication from the nurse. with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.” to no avail. he started walking towards the direction of Barangay Mahabang Parang. namely. the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery. He kept the gory incident to himself for fear of retaliation from the accused and the appellant. the appellant. When no public utility jeepney passed by. 1994. San Luis. Cesar Yuzon.

As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide. (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery.Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if. the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery. (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. for instance. or. . it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit. (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot.

accompanied by Magpantay. Gonzales took custody of the bolo. the appellant killed the victim because the latter started to shout. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the victim’s age is applied only to crimes against persons and honor. Lumban. However. on June 11. The doctor was the sole proprietor of the Neal Construction and Supplies located at No. naked from the waist up. were in the vicinity. The bare fact that the victim is a woman does not per se constitute disregard of sex. He lived with his mother and brother. For this circumstance to be properly considered. is aggravating in robbery with homicide. When they knocked on the door. a spinster of about seventy years old. Robbery with homicide is essentially a felony against property. They saw the bloodied Lagrada. no one responded. Barangay Balimbingan. and that she had shouted for help. such circumstance was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8. anxious to know what had happened. Laguna. The barangay captain then proceeded to the Lumban Police Station and reported the matter to the policemen. Magpantay noticed that Lagrada’s neighbors. Magpantay. proceeded to the house of Lagrada. The fact that the crime was committed in the victim’s dwelling. the accused had particularly intended to insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the victim. responded to the report and. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Aurora Lagrada. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime Robbery with Homicide? RULING: Yes. Laguna. Although the crime was committed . lived alone in her two-storey house located at General Luna Street. sprawled sidewise on the floor opposite the sink near the kitchen. When they arrived at the house. At around 11:00 p. was nowhere to be found. without provocation on the part of the latter. The appellant.m. the prosecution must adduce evidence that in the commission of the crime. In this case. Barangay Captain William Magpantay received a radio report from barangay kagawad that someone managed to gain entry into the house of Lagrada. 1998. The appellant’s house was about four to five meters away from the doctor’s house. Jr. 90 General Luna Street. Lumban. a barangay councilman and a barangay tanod responded and proceeded to the house of the doctor. Second.PEOPLE vs. There was no intent to insult nor commit disrespect to the victim on account of the latters sex. SPO2 Maximo Gonzales and SPO1 Pedro Nacor. Near the cadaver was a bolo (itak). however. the policemen passed by the garage and opened the door. REYES 427 SCRA 48 FACTS: Dr.

before the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. the said rule should be applied retroactively as it is favorable to the appellant. .

In People v. It is the intent of the actor to rob which supplies the connection between the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Since then. on March 31. this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another. 1997. et al. 1996 Manuel told Ronito that he wanted to borrow money from him and Maria Fe. but robbery follows the homicide either as an afterthought or merely as an incident of the homicide. The animo lucrandi must precede the killing. Manuel and Jose Baylosis arrived in Cebu City and stayed in the house of Joel Colejara in Pardo. However. Maria Fe and Julifer went to sleep in the former’s bedroom while Leo slept in the sala. 1996. Manuel and Jose had been to the house of the couple and Manuel was able to borrow money from them in the amount of P800.38 caliber gun and holding a fluorescent lamp. Thereafter took some of their possession and rape the latter and kill the former. ISSUE: Whether the conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before. this Court held that the fact that the intent of the felons was tempered with a desire also to avenge . armed with a . pleaded not guilty. it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe.m. the law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. the trial court rendered a decision convicting both of the accused of the crime of robbery with homicide. then the malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes. at around 2:00 a. In People vs. Nevertheless. that of homicide or murder and robbery. of March 31. When arraigned on October 17. during or after the commission of the robbery? RULING: A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. assisted by counsel. and not of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. a single and indivisible offense. both accused.. The latter refused to lend Manuel the money but she was prevailed upon by Ronito. Manuel. 1996. On March 30. DANIELA 401 SCRA 619 FACTS: On March 28. If the original design does not comprehend robbery. Manuel. The latter informed Manuel where she and Ronito lived. 1996. Damaso . Then. Manuel and Jose went to the market and met Maria Fe. after due hearing. Jose and Ronito then had a drinking spree in the sala. Tidula.PEOPLE vs.

grievances against the victim killed. during or after the commission of the robbery. on the occasion or by reason of robbery. as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. Even if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on another. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before. modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime. It is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person the malefactor intended to rob. does not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with homicide. the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime. . What is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. For the conviction of the special complex crime. there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. cause. Robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of the robbery is different from the victim of homicide.

PEOPLE vs. Tondo. One of them pointed a gun at cashier Rodrigo Alonzo and ordered him to open the vault. m. Balut. Santos then pushed his assailant in the direction of accused. four members of the group entered the cashier’s office of the hospital and ordered the employees to lie down on the floor. was disarmed of his service pistol. This caught the attention of accused who pointed his gun at Santos and warned him that he would shoot him should he make one false move. was accidentally pulled out of its holster. another security guard. Pio Gomez who was manning the hospital gate and conversing with maintenance plumber Cesar Rosella. after forcing Castor to alight from the vehicle. Santos grappled with his assailant for the possession of the latter’s gun in the course of which Santos’ other firearm.00 in cash was taken. In the meantime. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of Robbery with Homicide? . and grabbed the firearm of. Before Alonzo could do as instructed. drove it and fled with his companion. Two of them headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Numeriano Castor which was on a stop position. Manila. and instructed him to keep still as he took his firearm. pushed outside the hospital premises. due to heavy traffic. about 20 meters away. resulting to a gunshot. and shot twice by one of the armed men. The other. a service revolver.010. Security guard Eric Santos who was posted at the hospital emergency room had just finished talking to a person who was asking about the location of the x-ray room when one of the armed men pointed a gun at him. causing the former to fall at which instant Santos ran but not before he was dispossessed of his service revolver. who was seated in front of a desk at the emergency room. 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. accused pointed a gun at. announced that there was a holdup. One of the duo ordered the passenger at the front seat to get off the vehicle. Benjamin Saclolo. he was searched for weapons in the course of which his wallet containing P450.274. While the four malefactors were at the cashier’s office. Simultaneously. in front of the hospital at San Rafael Street. another security guard. Alonzo then opened the vault which the four emptied of P1. a group of more than six armed men including accused barged into the Tondo General Hospital in Honorio Lopez Boulevard. 1996. NAPALIT 396 SCRA 887 FACTS: At about 4:00 p.90 in cash. of April 3.

As an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review. Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code is clear and leaves no room for any other interpretation. For. the crime of homicide. it is sufficient that a homicide results by reason or on the occasion of robbery. for robbery with homicide to exist. it becomes the duty of this Court to correct errors it may find in the appealed judgment even if they have not been specifically assigned. (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi. The law of course exculpates a person who takes part in the robbery from the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and punishes him only for simple robbery when there is proof that he tried to prevent the homicide. here used in its generic sense. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. however. the prosecution needs to prove these elements: (a) the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person.RULING: In robbery with homicide cases. unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. (b) the property taken belongs to another. No such proof. is committed. In a long line of cases. this 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. . was offered.

Felicidad turned off all lights in the store except the kitchen light. a hardware store owned by Felipa Jacobe. left arm. CAMPOS 361 SCRA 339 FACTS: Felicidad Alfaro and Mercelina Alfaro Jacobe resided inside Maxim's Mini Mart at Cefel's Park Subdivision. who worked at the neighboring gravel and sand area and frequented their store to buy gas. the two accused left hurriedly. She started to shout as her assailant continued to stab her. Suddenly. still lying on the bed. She also noticed accused Renato dela Cruz standing near the door of the room. someone stabbed her on her left arm. She was hit on her abdomen. Jesus Sienda. Felicidad and Mercelina prepared to sleep. Tala. She fell to the floor in a sitting position and she looked at the person who stabbed her. On August 16. Suddenly. Mercelina. woke up and shouted for help. After questioning the man. Caloocan City together with Barangay Tanods Romulo Meglares. At around midnight. the barangay officials brought him to the police station. Novaliches. Caloocan City. Tala. they saw a man running outside the barangay hall with blood on his chest and on his short pants. at around 10:00 in the evening.PEOPLE vs. who identified himself as Alejandro Campos. Accused Campos kept stabbing her. accused Campos moved towards Mercelina and started stabbing her. The man was holding a kitchen knife about eleven inches long. Barangay Captain Federico Hallig was inside the Barangay Hall at Malaria. Thereafter. Felicidad roused from her sleep and stood up. Suddenly. Christopher. Marcos Manalo and Maximo Baylon. At around midnight of August 17. Their bedroom and the kitchen were located inside the mini mart. while Felicidad laid on the floor beside them. exiting through the storeroom of the minimart. a hardware store adjacent to the mini-mart. . Mercelina laid on the bed with her two-year old son. and left side. Beside the mini mart was Cefel's General Merchandise. 1989. 1989. the mother-inlaw of Mercelina Alfaro Jacobe. She knew accused dela Cruz because they used to work together in the Cefel's General Merchandise Store. She recognized accused Alejandro Campos.

] In this case. Dr. asked her father. She saw him at the doorway and then noticed him running out the store after the stabbing occurred. 1989 and stabbed her and her sister. The taking cannot be assumed from the actions of accusedappellant as seen by Felicidad. not the taking of personal property. The bag was not conclusively shown to contain money nor was the money ever recovered. That afternoon. The cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds. it was undisputed that various persons had entered the store of the victims after the incident. there was no substantial link from . Ramon Alfaro went to the store and found the bag on the floor.000.Meanwhile. Dario Gajardo of the medico-legal unit of the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory conducted an autopsy on the body of Mercelina Alfaro Jacobo. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of Robbery with Homicide? RULING: No. Dr. Further. Felicidad. right lung. still in her hospital bed. Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another. empty. 1989. Mercelina was taken to Tala Hospital. He also found internal injuries in the heart. to look for a bag containing money. However. Ramon Alfaro. from the store. On August 17. managed to call for help from her motherin-law. Felicidad. though wounded. policemen brought accused dela Cruz and accused Campos to Felicidad. all that the witness Felicidad saw that night was the stabbing of her sister. Felicidad claimed that the bag purportedly containing money was recovered empty the next day. in robbery with homicide cases. Felicidad identified accused Campos and accused dela Cruz as the persons who entered the room in the early morning of August 17. including investigators and onlookers. amounting to ten thousand (P10. by means of violence against or intimidation of any person or by using force upon things. the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. He found eight stab wounds on different parts of the body of the deceased. Felipa Jacobe. who resided beside the store. Amancio Angustia of the Quezon City General Hospital found that Felicidad Alfaro had several stab wounds on the chest and a fractured left arm. thereby saving her life.00) pesos. Two teams of surgeons immediately operated on Felicidad. liver. stomach and the diaphragm. Felicidad was brought to Tala Hospital but was later transferred to Quezon City General Hospital. with intent to gain. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

Pangasinan. all those who took part therein are liable . they tied Jerry and Pablo under a mango tree. Rosita Quilates. Mamerto Soriano poked a gun at Jerry and told them not to leave. The three proceeded to the house of Rosita Quilates. 1996. they saw the three accused carrying a TV set. When they woke up at 2:00 a. they sold the items and Jerry was given three hundred pesos. for the money was never seen in the possession of the accused. succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while accused-appellants just stood outside the door and did nothing to prevent Mamerto Soriano. While waiting for the three. However. The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence. Several days later. They helped the three load the items in the tricycle. In the course of the robbery. We have previously ruled that once conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery. the five accused boarded a tricycle owned by Mario Verceles to visit his cousin in barangay Goliso. they proceeded to barangay Malibong to visit Pepe.the loss of the contents of the bag to the accused. a compadre of Mamerto Soriano. Before reaching Pepe’s place. located at the boundary of Urbiztondo. Accused were one in design with accused Mamerto Soriano in taking personal properties belonging to others without the latter’s consent by breaking one of the windows to be used as their ingress.m.. Then. they stopped at the house of Jerry’s grandmother. so he and Pablo Ramos tried to leave. PEOPLE vs. or on the occasion of a robbery. Then they went home to San Jacinto. one of them. they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery. At 8:00 in the evening. particularly Mamerto Soriano. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime Robbery with Rape? RULING: Yes. Jerry and Pablo fell asleep. unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape. Jerry sensed that his companions had an evil plan. VERCELES 388 SCRA 515 FACTS: On October 18. VHS and other things.

as principals of the crime of robbery with rape. although not all of them took part in the rape. .