People V.

Gulinao

Facts:

 There were 3 separate information filed in the RTC against the accused Gulinao. The information
filed were illegal possession of firearm with murder, robbery, and carnapping. All of which were
committed on the same date March 4, 1987 where in he murdered one Samson Chua
 The robbery was committed when the accused killed and stole the gold ring of the victim worth
85k. The carnapping was committed by intimidating Dionisio, a driver and took his motor vehicle
without his consent.
 The accused pleaded not guilty to the robbery and carnapping but refused to answer his charge
on illegal possession of firearm with murder. He moved to quash the information against him in
the RTC but was however denied. The CA also denied his petition.
 The 3 cases filed against him were jointly tried. However, the accused failed to communicate with
his counsels properly hence they withdrew as counsels for him
 The RTC then rendered a decision that he was indeed guilty of all 3 cases. Hence this petition that
the RTC gravely erred in their decision.
Facts Established by the Prosecution:
 March 3, 1987, at about 9 pm, Dr Chua together with the accused and other politicians were
having a caucus in the house of a certain Torre. After such gathering, they boarded Dr Chua’s car
and they proceeded to the disco house.
 Upon arrival, and upon getting in their seats, Gulinao who has in his possession an unlicensed
firearm, did then and there shot Dr Chua and when he was about to leave, he turned back and
took the victim’s gold ring embedded with diamonds. Thereafter, he carnapped Caguioa and
drove the car and he got into an accident.
 Dr Chua died with the gunshot wounds on his head
ISSUE:
1. W/ NTHE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF
ROBBERY UNDER ARTICLE 294, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. – YES
HELD:
 In respect to his third assignment of error, Gulinao should have been convicted of the crime of
theft under Art. 308, Revised Penal Code, not robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of a person under par. 5, Art. 294 Revised Penal Code. As the trial court itself noted,
on the basis of Patino's testimony, the taking of the ring of Dr. Chua was merely an afterthought.
The force employed in the killing of Dr. Chua has no bearing on the taking of his ring.