You are on page 1of 1

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR. alias JUNIOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-19491 August 30, 1968


CASTRO, J.:

Facts: The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., alias Junior, Rodulfo Huiso and Felipe
Quimson of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, committed as follows:

That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, in the Municipality of Mabini,
Province of Bohol, Philippines, the above-named accused and five (5) other persons, all of them armed with
different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter, by means of
violence, the dwelling house of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia Miano, which was also the dwelling
house of their children, the spouses Geronimo Miano and Herminigilda de Miano; and, once inside the said
dwelling house, the above-named accused with their five (5) other companions, did attack, hack and shoot
Geronimo Miano and another person by the name of Norberto Aton, who happened to be also in the said
dwelling house, thereby inflicting upon the said two (2) persons physical injuries which caused their death;
and thereafter the same accused and their five (5) other companions, did take and carry way from said
dwelling house cash money amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-two Pesos (P322.00), Philippine Currency,
belonging to Honorato Miano and Geronimo Miano,

Act committed contrary to the provisions of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code with the special
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band with the use of unlicensed firearms (Art.
296, Rev. Penal Code), and other aggravating circumstances, as follows:

1. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended parties without any provocation from the
latter;
2. That nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime; and.
3. That advantage was taken of superior strength, accused and their companions, who were fully armed, being
numerically superior to the offended parties who were unarmed and defenceless.

Issue: Whether or not dwelling was considered an aggravating circumstance.

Held: YES. The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons,
like the offense at bar. The rationale behind this pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be
committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent only in crimes
which could be committed in no other place than in the house of another, such as trespass and robbery in an
inhabited house. This Court in People vs. Pinca, citing People vs. Valdez, ruled that the "circumstances (of
dwelling and scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime committed, because, the crime being robbery
with violence or intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery with homicide) the authors thereof could
have committed it without the necessity of violating or scaling the domicile of their victim." Cuello Calon
opines that the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows greater perversity in the accused and
produces greater alarm.

You might also like