si72019 GR No. 85163, “Today Saturday, August 17,2019 The LAWPHIL Project Custom Search Republic ofthe Philippines ‘SUPREME COURT Mania SECOND DIVISION GR, No. 86163 April 26, 1980 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, paint. 2ppotee, BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, REYNALDO CANASARES, RONALDO CANASARES, and SIMPLICIO CANASARES, BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, defendent-appolan {ne Soltor General for plant spp esumoccion ©. Sila for defondant-oppelant. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J ‘Accused Bonvonido Salita alone appeals trom tho Decision of the Regional Tl Cour, Branch 28, tole Cy," dated 29 August 1088, In Criminal Case No~ 20082, Trang Nm and his co-accused Reynaldo, Ronaldo ard Simpl, all sumames Canasares, guly beyond reasonable doubt ofthe crime of "Raboery with Serous Physical Inutes and Serius legal Delano” and sartencing trem osufer tho penal of reclusion pepetua “The Information led agains ham roads: ‘Tne undersigned Cly Fiscal accuses SIENVENIDO SALVILLA, REYNALDO CANASARES, RONALDO CANASARES, and SIMPLICIO CANASARES, whose matemal umames, dated and places of bith eanno! bo ascoranod of tho crime of ROBBERY WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES AND SERIOUS LLEGAL DETENTION (At, 284, paragraph 3, n conjunction with Atel 267 ofthe Revised Penal Cote), commited 5 flows That on or about the 120 day of Api, 1986, inthe Cy of ollo,Philppines and within the jursdton ofthis Cour, sai accuses, canspring and confedaratng among themselves, workng togaor and helping one another. armed wih guns ana handgrenade and withthe Uso of Valance or intimidation employed onthe Porson of Sovorine Choco, Mary Choco, Miri Choco and Rodta Hablro dia thon and there wifuly Lntawily and erminallytako and carry away, with ntnt of gain, eash in te amount of PZ0,000.0, two (2), Men's wist watcres, one (1) Ladys Seiko quar wrist waten ard one (1) Ladys Citzen wist watch and {seared jewelnes, ali valued at 50,000.00; that onthe oosasion and by reason of saa robbery, Mary Croco Suifor serous physical injures und paragraph 2 of Ale 263, Sionverdo Salvia Ixawiso suforsd fovious physical ijuves anc Roynaido Canasares ais suilerod pysical jure; tal the said accuses also egal detained. atthe compound of he New Holo Lumber Compary, nat Steet, loo Cty, Severino (Choco, cumeroroprtrof sald Lumber Campy, Mary Cncco, Mimie Choco, wna s a miner, beng 15 years ff age, and Roda Habler, who ea sleep at said Company: that Ikewise on the ctcasion of he rebbery, the accused also askod and wore given a ransom money of 30,000.00; that the id erime was altencod by ‘aggravating cteumstances of band, an llega! possession of Froarms and exploes; thatthe amount of 20,00.09, he ransom money af 50,000.00, two (2) Men's wrst watches, Wo (2) lady's wrist watones, one (1) 38 caler revolver and one (1) lve grenade ware recovered rom the accused to the Gamage and projucics ofthe New lo Lumbor Company inte amount of P120,000.00. “The evidence forthe prosecution may be re-stated as follows: (On 12 Api 1986, a robbery was stages bythe four accused atthe New lie Lumber Yard at about noon time. The Plan was halched about two days befor Tho accused were armod with homemade guns and a hand granada ‘Wen they entred the establishment they mat Roda Hablero an employee thereat who wa on hor way out for her maal break and announced to er that Iwas a holdup. She was made to go back to the ofce and there ‘Appallant Sahila pointed nis gun st the cumer, Severino Choco, and nie two daughters, Mary and Mimi the later boing a minor 15 years of aga, and told tho former tal all they nasded was money. Hearing tis, Severino tld his daughter, Mary to gol a papor bag whorsin he placed P20,000,00 cash (P5,000.00, accorsng tothe dofonso) and handed to Appotiant. TheresRer Severino pleaded with the four accuod to toave the promises a8 thoy alteady had the money but thay pald ro heed. steaa, accused Simpleo Canasares took the wallet and westwatah of Severn afer which hele, his two daughters and Rota, were Rerded tothe off and kept there as hoslages. [Ax about 2:00 o'clock of the same day, the hostages were allowed fo eat, The four accused algo took tums eating ‘whl the others stood guard. Then, Appaiant tld Severino te proces P100,000.00 20 ha and the sther hostages ‘ould Be released, Severna arswored that he could nol 60 eo bocause wae & Saluray and tho banks wore Saved In the meantime, peice and military autores had surrounded the premises a the kmber yard. Major Melgiades B. Sequo Station Commander of the INP of Holo iy, egokated wih the accused using oud speaker and fppenlad to hem to surrender win the assurance that na harm would bea them as he would accompany them personaly fo the police slaon, The accused refuses ta surender oro relasa the hottages, ‘Thoreafer, O1C Mayor, Rosa Caram, of lle City arved and joined the negotistons. Inher dialogue wit th acoused, which lasted fr about our hours, Appellant demanded P100,000 00, acoastr and some rancoats. She offered them P50,000.0 instead, expling the eficulty of ring more asi was a Saturday. Later, the accused ‘agroed to recalve the same and to flease Roda to be accompanied by Mary Choco in gang out of the oles hitpsswwvawphil netjucjursfunt 980/apr1980igr_86163_1960.Ntm! “4si72019 GR No. 85163, Wen thay ware out ofthe dor, one ofthe accused whosa face was covered by a handkerchist. gave a key to Mayor Caram. Wih tis, Mayor Garam unlocked be padocked door and handed fo Roda the P50,000.00, which the lator nt gave to one of Ue aceod, Rovlta wat ater sa ae But Mary was herded back to the of, Mayor Caram, Major Sequio and even vokinteer radio newscasts continued to appeal othe accused to surender pacotuly bul thoy roses. Ulimatums ware given but the accused dd nat budge, Fay, No pokes and mary Euthertios decided to launch an afensive and assaut the place. This resuted in injures tothe gis, Mimle and Mary Choco es wel as tothe azcusea Ronalzo and Reynalio Canasares. Mary Suflered a "macerated nght lower xtomiy ust balow the knoe” so that her ight lag had lo be amoulatod, The medical certfeato descrbed har anton a "ina stat of omoerhage shock when she was brought nto te hosptal an ha To undergo soveral ‘major operations during the couse of her confinement rom Api 13,1986 to May 30,1980 Forhis part, Appatlant Sail contrmas that at about noon tie of 12 Ap 1986 he and Nis co-sccused entered te lumber Yard ana demanded money fam the owner Severino Chaco He demanded P00, 000.00 but was given only 5,000.00, which he placed on the counter ofthe office ofthe lumoer yard. He admitted athe and his co-accused kept Severin, hs daughters, and Roda insice the ofc, He manained, however, athe stopped his co-accured trom gating the wabel and wristwatch of Severino and, tko the P5,000.00 were al ff onthe counter, and were ever touched by them. He claimed futher that they had nevor feed on th miltry Because they Intended to SunenderAppelants version also was that during the guna, Severin’s daughter stood up and wert autsce; he ‘wanted to stop ner but he hime wae tt by ule and could not prevent her. Appellant alo acme tha appeals firectod to thm to surrender bul that hey gave thersoWves up erly much ao. ‘Aller til, to Court @ quo metod outa judgment of canvcion and sentenced each of the accused "to sur the penaly of clusion porpotua, withthe accessory penalties provide by law and o pay the casi” ‘Appallant Salas present appsal is predicated on tho following Assignments of Emer: 1. Tho lowor cour ered in holding that th cme charged was consummated and inno holding thatthe samo was merely attemted, 2. The lower cour red in not appreciating the migating circumstance of voluntary Surender” Upon the facts and he evidence, we afr. The defense contends that “The complete crime of areny (thetrobbery) a8 distinguished from an ater ques fasporstion or caryng sway, in addon to the taking, In oer words, the crime of robberytnet has thee Consecutive sages! *) te ging 2) he faking and 3) the caning away or asportaion Ard wit asportation te ‘ime commited sony atompled (Memorandim for Appotant Saki, Records, p. 317) “Thor is no question that in robbery ite required that here be a taking of personal property belonging to anaher. ‘This known asthe elomont of seporation the essance of wien is ho taking of thing cto the possession ofthe ‘owner without hs pry and consent and without te animus reverend (Aquino, Revised Penal Code, p87, cling 5'C4. 607). In fac, there ino actual ‘aking, there can be no robbery. Unlawtl ‘aking af personal property of another isan essential part ofthe crm of robbery. ‘Appslan insists tat whe the “giving” has been proven, the taking” has not. Ard this is because nether he nor his tree co-accused louchod tho P5.000.00 gion by Soverno rar the altars wallot or walch during the entre incident prot of which i that none of tose ems were ocavered tam thet persons, “Those factual allegations aro contradicted by th evidence. Roda, tho lumberyard omployee, tstifed that upon «demand by Appelt, Severn put P20,000.00 nso a paper bag an subsoqueniy handed to Appin. In turn, focused Smplco Canesares took the wallet and wilswaten of Severino, n espect ofthe PSO, 000.00 from Mayor Coram, Rodi declare that tne Mayor handed the amount ta her aftr ane (he Mayor had opened the paclocked door and that she thereafter gava the amount fo-one ofthe holsippere. The "aking" was, terfor, sffcerty proves (TSN, July 1, 1987, p. 12-13, 15-18, 27-3). The money demanded, and the wallet and wristwatch were ‘wir the dominion an contol! the Appelant and nis e-acaused and comple the taking ‘Tho Stale tablished a “iking suliciont to suppor a convcton of robbery even though the perpetrators ote intorupted by pace and so id not pickup the money offered by the victim, where the defendant ard fan accomplice, armed with aknfe anda cu respectively, nad demanded the money fm the female clerk of 2 convenience stro, and the clark had compiled wih tol instuctons and pled money fem tye regstori § paper bag and then placed te bag on tho counlo in rnt ofthe wo mons these acon brought the money ‘etn he dominion and contol of delendent and comploted the taking. ahnson vs. Sale, 432 80 28738) “Severance ofthe goods from the possession ofthe owner and absolte contol of the propery by the taker, ‘ven for an instant, consttes aspatatian (Adams ve, Comvmorwealy, "58 SW 383; State vs, Muay, 260, ‘SW 2d 80%: Mason ve, Commonweatin, 105 S 24 149) [Emahacie supplied Its no defense eer that Appellant and his co-accused nad no opportunity to spose of the personales taken, “That fact dows nat sft the nature of he eema, From the tmoment the ofander gained possession ofthe ting, ven f the culprt nad no opportuny fo dipoce of the samo, the unlawful aking fs comoiete (Reyer, Revised Penal Corte Anrolated, Book, 1981 ed, p. 534). ‘The cine is consummated when the robber acquires possossion ofthe property, oven iffor a shor tne, and iUis not necossary that tho property be taken into tho hands of tho ror, or that be should have actualy Eattoa the property away, out othe physleal presence ofthe lawful possesvor, oF that he should have made his eecape wth (People va, Quinn, 178 P24 404; Woda ve, Stata, 220 SW 2d Ged; People vs, Beal 29 P 24 504; People vs. Clark, 100 P24 583), Contrary to Aopeliants submission, therefore, a conviction for consummated and not merely attempted Robbery fs inorder It isthe contention of Appellant that Rita cous not have sean the taking because the place was dark since the doors were cased and there wore no windows. I wil be rocalleg, however. that Reda wae one of ho hostages hort and could obsorve the urfeding of overs, Hor fale to mort tho taxing inher swom statomont would hot miata against her credo, beng seed inatan‘afdavs's almost always complete and inaccurate and hitpsswwvawphil netjucjursfunt980/apr1980/gr_86163_1960.Ntmlsi72019 GR No. 85163, doss not dacooe the complete fact for want af inguines a suggestions (People vs. Andaya, .R. No. L-88862, 31, July 1967, 182 SCRA 570; Pooplo vs. Tan ela 89 Pri 337 1951). “The fac, to, that Rodta was an employee of Severino would not lessen her crediliy, The defense has not proven ‘hat sha was actuatod by any improper motive in tstiving against the accuse. In the last anatsia, the basic consideration centers around the credblly of winestes in respect of which the findings of ho Teal Cour are eld to groat woight as t was ina suparor poston fo assoss tho same inthe outs of tho tal (s00 People vs. Omoza G.R. No. L-86283, 30 Juno 1987, 151 SCRA 485, Poop vs. Aeanara, GIR: No, -28042,30 June 1987, 151 SCRA 228), Avent the second assignment of eros the “surende ofthe Appellant and his co-acused cannot be considered In ‘hair favor to mitigate Hor lablty. To be milgaing, @ surrender must have the folowing requstas. (a) thatthe offender had rot boon actualy arrested: () thatthe offender surendered rinse i a parson in author oF to his ‘agent and () tel the surrender was voluntary (People ve. Canamo, GIR. No, (52083, 13 August 7986, 138 SCRA ian, “Tho “suronder by the Appoint and his oo-accused hardly mests these requirements. They wor, indeed, askod to Surender bythe police and mitary athoribes but they rlused unt ony much later when they cout no longer do terse by fores of crcumstances when they knew they were completely suTounded and there was no chance of fescape. Tho surrender of tho accused wes held ct lo be miigaing as when he gave up only after he was fumounded bythe contabulary and poles forces (People ve. Sgayan etal. GR. Nos. L-78522-26, 30 Apr "000. 16 SORA 838; People vs. Maliong GR. No. L-9488, 29 March 1882, 113 SCRA 167). Thor surrender was not Spontaneous as was mobvated mare by an nent insure tel safety. And whl tis dalmed that they Intended {o surrender, he facts thal they cid not despite several opportunites 1o do so, There a no voluntary surrender 'o spoak of People vs, Diraiman 105 Ph, 391 (1958). All tol, tho assigned errs remin unsubstantiated and we fnd the guilt of tho eccused-appalant, Biervenido Salil, established beyond reasonable doubt. ‘Although unassigned as an eror, we deem itnecessary to tum now to the nature ofthe Inked oflensos volved and tho ponaty imposed bythe Tal Court, ‘Appaliant and his coaccused were charged inthe Information with "Robbery with Sercus Physical Injuries and Seraus legal Detonion (Ar, 295, par. 3. In conjuneton wih Ar. 267, RPC and sononcod to roclusion perptua, We agree with tve Thal Cou hata somplex cre under Arle 88 ofthe Revised Penal Code has been commited "uch thatthe penalty for tha more serious offense of Senous legal Datanton (At. 267, Revioad Penal Code), of “reausionperpeta fo death isto bs imposed insta of tne penalypresonbed for Robbery with Serious Prysical Injures (AP. 234 @), which fs retusionfomparal Under Arle 42, a complex crime arises “when an offense is @ necessary means for commiting the sther” The lorm *pecoseary moans" dove nol conrels indispensable means fori i did thon tho offense as a "necessary rans to comm another woul be an Indspensable elmer ofthe lar and would be an ngredlet thereat. The phrase "necessary means* maraly sgnfies that one crime la commited fo facie and insure the commission of {he other (Aquino, Revised Panal Code, Val I 1987 ed.p. 824, cling Dissent Montemayor. J. Amado Hornancs2, 89 Phi 515) In this cabo, tho cma of Serious llegalBslenion was sucha "necessary means” as it was soletod by Appolant and his eoaccused to facta and carry out more offactvaly tor ev down fo slago a redder. “Tho facts of tis caso difer rom those in People vs. Astor, otal. (LR. Nos. L-71765-88, 29 Ap 1867, 149 SCRA 5325) where the accused wore corsieted of Robbery but aesuited in the case lex Serious llogl Detention and where itwas held tat "the detanon Is absorbed in the Gime of fobbary” For one, in Astor, there were Iwo (2) separate Informations fled, one for Robtery and another for Sarus legal Dstenton. In the present case, only one Information was fled charging the complex offence. For another, in Astor tho robeory had aloady boon ‘onsummated andthe detorton was morel to foosal ho capture of tho roDbors by the pollen, Not son hs caso, ‘where tie detention was avaled of a3 2 means of insuring the consummation of te robbery. Fuse, In Astor, the {eter wae only meena othe main crme of robbery ao that twas held here ‘wore appllantsthomsalves not rapped by the cary arval ofthe pole at the scene ef the crm, they ‘would nave not anjmare detec the peopl inside since they have already completed thar job. Obwausly ‘appellants wore let wrth no choice bu fo resort to detention of hese peopl se eecuy, unt arrangements for thoi safe passage ware made, This is not th erie of tlogal deletion punishable undor the poral laws but an act of resvant mn order to delay de pursuit of he cmnals by peace offeers (People v. Sol, 9 Ph 258; People v.Uday 85 Phi. 167, tain the Revised Panal Cade, Agu, Vol, 1975 ed p. 1337), Where the vctm n'a robbery case were detained nthe course of robber, the detanon is abeorbed oy te come of robbery (Pv. Baysa, 92 Phi. “008, In th case a bar, the dete was only Inedental to the main exe bf robbery, and although in te course hereof women anderen were leo hela, tat treats fo kl were made, the act should not be considered as 2 separate ofense. Appellants should only be held gully of robbery In contract, he detenton inthe case a bar was not oly incidental the robbery but was a necessary means to Commit the same. Aer ine amount of P20,00000 was handed fo Appellant, the later and his co-accused sil Fotusod to leave. The vets were then taken as hostages and the demand to produce an addtional P100,000.00 ‘was made a8 a prerequste for her release. The detenon was nol because the accused were lapped by the Dolce nor were the viims held ae secury against the lata The detention was not merely a mater of estrant to Snable the malefacters to escape, bul doltrate as 2 means of exorion for an addtional amount. The pac and ster autores arved only much ater aor soveral hours of delenion had already passed, And, cospite appoals {o appolant and his co-actused to surrender, they adamanty refused unt the amount of 100,000.00 they demanded could be tuned over them. They even onsicered PS0,000.0, the amount being handed o them, inacequa. “The foregoing features alo dstngush this case from those of US. v. Sol, 9 Phi. 265 [1907 where the restraint was {oro othe purpose than to prevent the vicims fem reparing the crim tothe authoritas; Fem Peaslew. Gamboa, 82 Phi. 1085 [1853] where the vcims wore taken fo a place ons Klomolar away and shot in orr to liquidate ‘wanosses to the robbery: fom People v, Baysa, 82 Ph 1008 [7953], People Mangan, 43 Pi 167 (1922), al St whieh eases were sed in Astor and wire the victims were only mldenaly detained s thatthe detention was ddosmed absorbed robber. hitpsswwvawphil netjucjursfunt980/apr1980/gr_86163_1960.Ntmlsi72019 GR No. 85163, In ther words, unlicein the above cases, the elements ofthe offense of Serious Mlagal Dsteon are present inthis case. The vielms wore legal deprived of thar lbery. Two fomales (Mary and Minnie) and a min (Minie). a Specied crcumstance in Arle 267 (3), were among thse detained. The continuing detention was also fo te purpose of extoring ransom, anther Isied ccumetance in Ale 267 (last parag.) not only trom the detanied Persons temselves but even from the autores who arivedt rescue tem, I fotows then that asthe detention inthis case was not merely inedenal to the robbery but a necessary means employes ta facta the penaly paced by the Tal Cour is proper. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. Proportonate costs. ‘SO ORDERED. Paras, Paila Sarmionlo and Regatado J, concen Footnotes * Pensed by Judge Edgar D. Gusto a hitpsswwvawphil netjucjursfunt980/apr1980/gr_86163_1960.Ntml 48