You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE v.

BIRUAR
Plaintiff: The People of the Philippines Abraham Lim admitted that he borrowed the car from
Defendants: Onting Biruar, Eugene Ruslin, Abraham Onting and that he used it to bring his wife to the
Lim, Angel Dy, Ceferino Caturan, Edgardo Seneres, Hospital, but aside from that, he used the car to go the
Romualdo Raboy, Satrunino Galliano, the house of George Kalitas to the collect the debt of the
Date September 4, 1986 latter to him. He allege that he was in agreement with
Kalitas regarding their Copra business, Lim will provide
DOCTRINE the capital, Kalitas will find the suppliers of copra. He
To determine the number of robberies committed, look also added that he knew Kalitas as a trustworthy old
at the elements of robbery and determine is the man. When he demanded to be paid, Kalitas refused and
multiplicity will result to more than one count of robbery when the agruments between the two that is when the
situation heated up, it was alleged that Kalitas was the
(SHORT VERSION) one who first to bring his gun but it was grabbed by Lim
The accused first robbed the Mosende spouses taking while the latter took out his own gun and pointed it at the
their cash and shotgon. Afterwards, the group went to back of the head of Kalitas. He (lim) dragged Kalitas to
the house of Kalitas and robbed the said household and the main door where they were welcomed with shots
burned their house. In their appeal, the accused allege coming from which Lim thinks to be neighbors of
that there is only one count of robbery in this case since Kalitas. Kalitas was hit in the upper body and ordered
the events are continuing in nature. The court held that the shooting group to stop and surrender the weapon. In
the accused committed multiple robbery. See Doctrine. addition he allege that the Statement he signed for the
information was acquired under violence and
intimidation for the police started abusing him in order
FACTS to confess.

Evening of July 2, 1966, two men arrived in the house Other accused had their own alibis but the court did not
of the spouses Mosende and called “Good, evening give credit to them. However, Onting Biruar was
Tiyo.” thinking that they were relatives, the spouses let acquitted because the court believed his statement.
them come up. The two were identified as Romualdo
Raboy, and Edgardo Seneres, robbed spouses and took The court also did not give gredit to the claim of Lim
their shotgun and cash with the amount of P170. that his sole purpose in going to the house of Kalitas was
merely to collect debt. The court question questioned
After the two left the house, they proceeded to the that act of Lim bringing a large group of men if his real
house of George Kalitas. Together with the other purpose was only to collect debt from the old man which
accused, they opened fire at the house and the same was in addition, was described by him to be trustworthy.
set on fire. Kalitas, among other members of the
household, was hit by the bullets. The robbers entered The trial court held them guilty of robbery.
the house and forcibly opened a trunk containing P
40,000 hidden under the bed of the spouses. The robbers
held Mrs Kalitas by the neck and kicked the wounded ISSUES/HELD
Kalitas. After taking the money, the robbers left. George (1) WON there was robbery held in the house of
Kalitas died. Mosende-YES

When the crime was reported to the police, a light green RATIO
Buik Electra Sedan came into suspicion when it was
seen refueling in a gasoline station and proceeded to the (1) It was contended that only one offense of robbery
direction of the house of Kalitas at the night the crime was committed since the robbery in the house of
was committed. Onting Biruar was indentified to be the Spouses Mosende and Kalitas is one continuing offense,
owner of the car. The accused were eventually arrested. committed at the same time and on one occasion, and
They were charged with Robbery in Band, Arson, and arising from one criminal resolution, and the burning of
Robbery with Homicide. All of them, except Abraham the house was the means to commit the crime of
Lim denied the charges. robbery.

Onting Biruar testified that he has no knowledge and The court held that there were two separate crimes
participation in the commission of the crime and that one since they are different acts with distinct purposes
of the accused, Abraham Lim borrowed his car for the which resulted in judicially independent crimes.
purpose of bringing his (lim) wife to the hospital. There were multiplicity of acts resulting to multiplicity
of robbery. The accused entered two different houses
and robbed two different households.

The burning of the house was also held not to be a


necessary mean to commit the crime. If the intention is
to enter the premises, breaking the door is sufficient.

DECISION Judgment affirmed. The accused are guilty


of 3 counts of robbery since it was known that the group
also robbed a store afterwards.