GROUP 1/DACANAY

“ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE”

PEOPLE VS CASALME, ET. AL., 101 Phil. 1249, GR No. L-11057, June 29, 1957

FACTS:
The defendants, on the pretext that a companion needed treatment gained entrance in the house of
Isidro Tolentino, a quack doctor. When asked who among them needed treatment, defendant Casalme
suddenly and without warning, shot the old man Isidro with a grand rifle, inflicting a wound from which
Isidro died the next morning. The wife of Isidro, Honorata Barquilla, grabbed a bolo and proceeded to
hack the defendant Gamboa. Awakened by the commotion, and upon seeing Gamboa struggling with
this mother, Lucas Tolentino took hold a knife and stabbed Gamboa in the back. One of the defendants
tried to force open their aparador where the spouses kept their money and valuables but Honorata,
prevented him from doing so. Because of the resistance offered by mother and son, the intruders
hurriedly left the house. Honorata and her son suffered slight physical injuries inflicted by the culprits.

The trial court found the defendants guilty of three separate crimes, namely: attempted robbery with
homicide for the killing of Isidro, the 2 complex crime of attempted robbery with slight physical injuries
for the wounding of Honorata Barquilla and Lucas Tolentino.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED CONVICTING THE DEFENDANTS OF THREE
SEPARATE CRIMES?

HELD:
Yes. Appellants are guilty of only one crime, namely attempted robbery with homicide and slight
physical injuries, under Article 297 of RPC.

NOTE:
If the physical injuries were inflicted only on the occasion of the aborted robbery but not employed as a
means of committing the latter, these will be separate crimes of attempted or frustrated robbery and
physical injuries.
If, however, a killing and physical injuries were committed on that occasion, the crime will be penalized
in accordance with Article 297 of RPC but the physical injuries will be absorbed.
The slight physical injuries should be disregarded in the designation of the offense, for there is no such
crime as attempted robbery with homicide and slight physical injuries. Article 297 of RPC speaks of
attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide. Thus, there is only one crime of attempted robbery with
homicide even if slight physical injuries were inflicted on other persons on the occasion or by reason of
the robbery.
GROUP 1/DACANAY

“ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED PLACE”

PEOPLE VS. CO CHO, 62 PHIL 828, G.R. NO. L-44370, JANUARY 11, 1936

FACTS:
Hong Liong and his companions slept with the windows open and the door locked. Tee Chuang Tian,
having noted that the door was open, awoke his companions. Hong Liong noted that his pants, where he
had placed his watch and a wallet and two sweepstakes tickets which he had in his coat, had
disappeared. Hong Liong later found his pants, minus the watch, under the house, and the wallet, minus
the bills and the sweepstakes tickets, under the bed.

Policeman Danganan, then on duty, placed him under arrest. After having been submitted to an
investigation in the police station, the accused admitted that he stole the watch found in his possession
and the bills by passing through the window of the water closet.

The information filed against the accused is for the crime of robbery. The court, however, found that the
crime committed is theft.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CRIME COMMITTED IS THEFT?

RULING:
No. Under Article 299, subparagraph (a) of RPC, the elements of robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship are as follows:
1. That the offender entered (a) an inhabited house, or (b) public buildings, or (c) edifice devoted
to religious worship.
2. That the entrance was effected by any of the following means:
a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools or.
d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
e. That once inside the building, the offender took personal property belonging to another
with intent to gain.

The abovementioned elements are present. Thus, the crime committed is robbery as charged in the
information. The accused entered the house through the window which is not intended for entrance.
The door was locked from with and it could not have been opened from the outside to enable entrance
through it without violence.
GROUP 1

“ROBBERY BY BAND WITH CONTROLLING QUALIFICATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION

OF A PERSON”

NAPOLIS VS. CA, 43 SCRA 301

FACTS:
The accused by conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with the intent to gain and armed
with a Grease Gun, Three (3) caliber .45 pistols and two (2) revolvers, entered the dwelling of the
spouses IGNACIO PEÑAFLOR and CASIMIRA L. PEÑAFLOR by boring a hole under the sidewall of the
ground floor of the house. Once inside, they attack, assault and hit Ignacio Peñaflor with the handle of
the Grease Gun causing him to fall on the ground and rendering him unconscious. Then, they tied his
hands and feet and then leave him. The same accused approached Casimira L. Peñaflor , threatened her
at gun point and demanded money. While inside the said house, the accused searched and ransacked
the place and take and carry away cash money and articles belonging to said spouses.

The crime was reported and the accused was immediately arrested. The trial court convicted the
accused of the crime of robbery by band.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED IN ITS RULING?

RULINGS:
No. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting the accused of the crime of
robbery committed by armed persons, in an inhabited house, entry therein having been made by
breaking a wall, as provided in Article 299 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

The malefactors, however, had also used violence against Ignacio Peñaflor and intimidation against his
wife, thereby infringing Article 294 of the same Code, under conditions falling under sub-paragraph (5)
of said article, which prescribes a lighter penalty than that prescribed in said Article 299, although,
factually, the crime committed is more serious than that covered by the latter provision. This Court had
previously ruled —

... that where robbery, though committed in an inhabited house, is characterized by intimidation,
this factor "supplies the controlling qualification," so that the law to apply is article 294 and not
article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. This is on the theory that "robbery which is characterized by
violence or intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by
force upon things, because where violence or intimidation against the person is present there is
greater disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual." And this view is
followed even where, as in the present case, the penalty to be applied under article 294 is lighter
than that which would result from the application of article 299.

Violence against or intimidation of a person supplies the "controlling qualification," is far from sufficient
to justify said result.
GROUP 1

"ARSON, ROBBERY IN BAND AND ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND PHYSICAL INJURIES"
"People vs. Biruar", 130 SCRA 513, G.R. Nos. L-32202-04 (July 25, 1984)
FACTS:
One night, several persons arrived at the house of Gorgonio Mosende who were welcomed by the latter
thinking that they were relatives of his wife. Suddenly, the armed men took his firearm, ransacked their
aparador, taking therefrom coins and paper bills and left. Not long thereafter, gunshots were heard
coming from the direction of the house of George Kalitas wherein Babbadon Odal was hit by a bullet on
the left wrist while Jessie Renopal, the 11-year old granddaughter of Kalitas, was grazed by a bullet in the
head and then the accused set the house on fire. By breaking down the door with an axe, they were able
to enter the house, so George Kalitas fired at them but the armed men fired back, hitting George Kalitas,
who died before they could reach the hospital. The robbers then took the amount of P40,000.00, in cash
and some old coins which Mrs. Kalitas had kept in a container inside the trunk. They also got the money
of Jessie Renopal. The fire continued to spread until the main house of George Kalitas and his bodega,
including their contents, and a truck parked in between the buildings were completely destroyed. The
trial court found the accused guilty of the crimes of Robbery in Band, Arson, and Robbery with Homicide
and Physical Injuries. The accused alleges that only one offense was committed since the robbery in the
houses of Gorgonio Mosende and George Kalitas is one continuing offense, committed at the same time
and on one occasion, and arising out of one criminal resolution, and the burning of the house of George
Kalitas was the means to commit the crime of robbery.

ISSUE: WON the contention of the accused that only one offense was committed is correct?

RULING:
No. The accused, after committing the crime of robbery in band in the house of Gorgonio Mosende,
went to the neighboring house of George Kalitas where they committed the crimes of Arson and
Robbery with Homicide and Physical Injuries. Obviously, the accused performed different acts with
distinct purposes which resulted in juridically independent crimes. The burning of the house of George
Kalitas was not the means in committing the robbery. The evidence shows that the accused gained entry
into the house of George Kalitas by breaking down the door with an axe and not by burning the same.
The commission of the crimes of arson and robbery with homicide and physical injuries was attended by
the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, use of motor vehicle, and with the aid of armed
men to ensure or afford impunity while the use of unlicensed firearm was appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in the crime of robbery in band under Art. 295 of the Revised Penal Code.
GROUP 1/MALBAS

"RAPE AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN ROBBERY"

"People vs. Tapales", 93 SCRA 134, G.R. No. L-35281 (September 10, 1979)
FACTS:
One evening, while Diana Ang and her boyfriend Eugenio Calaykay were in a taxicab, one man armed
with a knife and another, armed with a gun, approached the taxicab and said "This is a holdup, we only
need money." The accused took Eugenio's "Rado" wrist watch, Diana's "Parker" ball pen worth P10.00
and Mexican money worth P2.00. Eugenio shouted, "hold-up, hold- up" so he was instantly stabbed by
Coranez and shot by Tapales. Diana then grappled with Coranez for the possession of the knife while
Eugenio already wounded, squeezed himself out of the right window. Eugenio fell in the middle of Del
Pan bridge and died. Inside the taxicab, Tapales was abusing Diana while Coranez was poking a knife at
her. Upon finding a vacant lot, the two accused took turns in raping her. The trial court found the
accused guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of multiple
rapes, the use of motor vehicle and nighttime offset only by the mitigating circumstance of their plea of
guilty. The defense argues that there is no law that makes rape an aggravating circumstance and even if
the ruling that rape is an aggravating circumstance in Robbery with Homicide be upheld, the crime of
Rape herein should be considered, by time and distance, as a separate and distinct offense from that of
Robbery with Homicide.

ISSUE: WON rape can be an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery?

RULING:
Yes. It is the uniform jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that where the crime charged is robbery with
homicide and rape, the legal definition of the crime is robbery with homicide punishable under
paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Penal Code; and the rape committed on the occasion of that crime is
considered an aggravating circumstance. Instead of ignominy, therefore, it is the rape itself that
aggravates. Rape committed on the occasion of robbery with homicide increases the moral evil of the
crime. Moreover, it is incorrect to state that there is no law which considers Rape as an aggravating
circumstance simply because it is not specifically enumerated in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code as
an aggravating circumstance. As enunciated by the Court in the case of People vs. Racaza, "...Rapes,
wanton robbery for personal gain, and other forms of cruelties are condemned and their perpetration
will be regarded as aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of deliberately augmenting unnecessary
wrongs to the main criminal objective, under paragraphs 17 and 21 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal
Code. ..." While there may have been an appreciable interval of time between the robbery and the
killing, on the one hand, and the rape, on the other, there can be no question but that there was a direct
relation, an intimate connection between them such that it can be stated, without fear of contradiction,
that it was by reason or on occasion of the robbery that homicide and rape were committed.