PEOPLE vs.

LAHOYLAHOY

This case is submitted to the Supreme Court for review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo, sentencing the defendants Pedro Lahoylahoy and Marcos Madanlog to death upon a complaint charging the crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the circumstances stated below. It appears that in the year 1912 some ten or a dozen people were living on the small island of Sicogon, in the jurisdiction of the municipality of Balasan, Province of Iloilo. Two of these were an aged couple named Francisco Seran and his wife Juana. Two others were Roman Estriba and his wife Rosa. The latter couple had two children Miguela and Bartolome, aged at that time respectively about 14 and 9 years. Upon the night of the commission of the crime charged in the complaint the two children were staying with Juana, their grandmother, in a house some distance removed from that occupied by Roman and Rosa and located farther back from the shore. The grandfather, Francisco, had gone to the beach as was his custom to watch for turtles. After the grandmother and the children had gone to rest on a mat where they slept together, and probably only a short while after it had become dark, the two accused appeared and demanded money of Juana. She gave them P100 in money in response to this demand, and the accused then required the three to leave the house and go in the direction of the sea. When the party had arrived at or near the beach, a further demand was made upon the old woman for money, which demand she was unable to comply with. Lahoylahoy then struck her with a bolo just below her breast, killing her instantly. The two children were at the time close to their grandmother, and being greatly frightened, they ran away separately for some distance and remained hidden during the night in the bushes. The next morning the children made their way to the house where the old couple had lived, which was vacant; but they there found each other and proceeded together to the house of their parents. Going in that direction they stopped at the house of their sister, the wife of the defendant Madanlog. When they went a little later to the house where their parents had lived, the fact was revealed that Francisco, Roman, and Rosa had also been killed. All the bodies were collected and buried early in the morning by the two accused, assisted by Eugenio Tenedero, sonin-law of Lahoylahoy. The two children Miguela and Bartolome say that they were threatened with death if they should make complaint. Nevertheless their lives were spared, and for sometime they stayed with their sister in the home of Madanlog; and after staying for a long time on the island, they were afterwards taken to the home of another sister, named Dionisia Estriba, at Escalante, on the Island of Panay. They here revealed the facts above narrated. This sister, Dionisia, afterwards filed the complaint in this case. Pedro Lahoylahoy was arrested first; and when he was examined before the justice of the peace, he made a confession in which he stated that the four deceased persons had been killed by Madanlog, with is assistance. At the trial the two children gave a very consistent account of the robbery and of the murder of their grandmother; but the boy said that he did not remember that Madanlog was present when Lahoylahoy struck the fatal blow. Another important witness for the prosecution was Eugenio Tenedero, the son-in-law of Lahoylahoy. This witness testified that the defendants killed the four deceased persons, and that early in the morning they came to his house and required him to help them bury the dead, which he did. The accused gave no explanation to Tenedero of their motive or of the reason for the commission of the deed, and told him not to tell anybody.

During the next day or two after the tragedy above narrated, the defendant Madanlog went to the house where Francisco and Juana had lived and carried away some palay, some dawa, three pigs, and a trunk containing wearing apparel. We believe that the asportation of these things should not be considered as a continuation of the acts of robbery and murder previously committed, but rather as a spoliation of the state of a deceased person. It results that the only property taken in the act of robbery was the P100 obtained from Juana. As against Madanlog, the case rests chiefly upon the testimony of Miguela, who says he was present at the robbery and at the murder of Juana. His guilt is also indicated by his own conduct subsequent to the murder. We are satisfied with the conclusion reached by the lower court with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we have no doubt of the guilt of both the accused HznfhicZex. An important question arises upon the matter of the complaint in connection with the proof as to the ownership of the property which was taken by the accused. The part of the complaint here material to be considered reads as follows: The aforesaid accused taking advantage of the darkness of the night, voluntarily, illegally, and criminally and by means of force on the things, took and appropriated to themselves with intent of gain and against the will of the owner thereof, the sum of P100, 5 bayones of palay, 4 bayones of dawa, and 1 trunk which contained various wearing apparel, of the total value of P150, the property of Roman Estriba; in consequence thereof and on the occasion of the said robbery, the aforesaid accused criminally and with known premeditation and treachery, killed Roman Estriba, Rosa Galoso, Francisco Seran, and Juana. According to the proof the person robbed was Juana; while the complaint charges that the property taken belong to Roman Estriba. What is the effect of this variance between the language of the complaint and the proof? Subsection 5 of section 6 of General Orders No. 58 declares that a complaint or information shall show, among others things, the names of the persons against whom, or against whose property, the offense was committed, if known. The complaint in this case therefore properly contained an averment as to the ownership of the property; and upon principle, in charging the crime of robbery committed upon the person, the allegation of the owner's name is essential. But of course if his name cannot be ascertained, it may be alleged that it is unknown. From the fact that the name of the injured person may, in case of necessity, be alleged as unknown it should not be inferred that the naming of such person, when known, is of no importance. Where the name of the injured party is necessary as matter of essential description of the crime charged, the complaint must invest such person with individuality by either naming him or alleging that his name is unknown. (Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice, 9th ed., secs. 111, 112.) It is elementary that in crimes against property, ownership must be alleged as matter essential to the proper description of the offense. To constitute larceny, robbery, embezzlement, obtaining money by false pretenses, malicious mischief, etc., the property obtained must be that of another, and indictments for such offenses must name the owner; and a variance in this respect between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. It is also necessary in order to identify the offense. (Clark's Criminal Procedure, p. 227. See also page 338.) Now a complaint charging the commission of the complex offense of robbery with homicide must necessarily charge each of the component offenses with the same

precision that would be necessary if they were made the subject of separate complaints. It is well recognized in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offenses the defendant can be convicted of the other. The mere circumstance that the two crimes are so related as to constitute one transaction in no way affects the principles of pleading involved in the case. To permit a defendant to be convicted upon a charge of robbing one person when the proof shows that he robbed an entirely different person, when the first was not present, is violative of the rudimentary principles of pleading; and in addition, is subject to the criticism that the defendant is thereby placed in a position where he could not be protected from a future prosecution by a plea of former conviction or acquittal. If we should convict or acquit these defendants today of the robbery which is alleged to have been committed upon the property of Roman Estriba, it is perfectly clear that they could be prosecuted tomorrow for robbery committed upon the property of Juana; and the plea of former jeopardy would be of no avail. Reference to a few accredited decisions from American courts will make this clear. In Comm. vs. Hoffman (121 Mass., 369), it was held that an acquittal on an indictment for breaking and entering the dwelling house and stealing therein, the property of A, is no bar to a complaint for stealing in the same dwelling house at the same time the property of B, without proof that A and B are the same persons. In Comm. vs. Andrews (2 Mass., 409), the defendant in an indictment for receiving stolen goods which were the property of A, alleged that he had been convicted of receiving stolen goods the property of B. The plea was adjudged insufficient, although it was alleged that the two parcels of stolen goods were received by the defendant of the same person, at the same time, and in the same package, and that the act of receiving them was one and the same. In Alexander vs. State (21 Tex. Cr. App., 406; 57 Am. Rep., 617), it was held that where the goods of two different owners were stolen at the same time, an acquittal on an indictment for stealing the goods of one would not constitute a bar to an indictment for stealing the goods of the other; though it was observed that if the defendant had been convicted upon the first trial, he would have been protected from the second prosecution. (See Wright vs. State, 17 Tex. Cr. App., 152.) In Comm. vs. Wade (17 Pick. [Mass.], 395), the offense of burning a building was charged, and the indictment stated that the owner was a certain individual (naming him). It was held that, although the name might possibly have been omitted altogether, yet as the indictment did allege the name, the allegation of ownership was material, being descriptive of the offense, and must be proved hJx3zbq. It should be borne in mind that the plea of former conviction or acquittal, or former jeopardy, is supposed to be proved by the pleadings and judgment in the former case, supplemented only by proofs showing the identity of the party, or parties. Courts are not accustomed to determine the plea of former jeopardy by examining the proof to discover just what facts may have been developed in the former case. (Henry vs. State, 33 Ala., 389; Grisham vs. State, 19 Tex. Cr. App., 504.) In fact it is not always practicable or even possible to produce for inspection upon the trial of this issue the evidence which was adduced in court at the trial of the former case. The second sentence of section 7 of General Orders No. 58 declares that when an offense shall have been described with sufficient certainty to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured shall be deemed immaterial. We are of

the opinion that this provision can have no application to a case where the name of the person injured is matter of essential description as in the case at bar; and at any rate, supposing the allegation of ownership to be eliminated, the robbery charged in this case would not be sufficiently identified. A complaint stating, as does the one now before us, that the defendants "took and appropriated to themselves with intent of gain and against the will of the owner thereof the sum of P100" could scarcely be sustained in any jurisdiction as a sufficient description either of the act of robbery or of the subject of the robbery. There is a saying to the effect that money has no earmarks; and generally speaking the only way money, which has been the subject of a robbery, can be described or identified in a complaint is by connecting it with the individual who was robbed as its owner or possessor. And clearly, when the offense has been so identified in the complaint, the proof must correspond upon this point with the allegation, or there can be no conviction Q4zCo. In United States vs. Kepner (1 Phil. Rep., 519), this court had before it a case where the defendant was charged with estafa in the misappropriation of the proceeds of a warrant which he had cashed without authority. It was said that the erroneous allegation in the complaint to the effect that the unlawful act was to the prejudice of the owner of the check, when in reality the bank, which cashed the warrant was the sufferer, was immaterial. This observation was, we think, correct as applied to that case, for the act constituting the offense of estafa was described in the complaint with sufficient fullness and precision to identify the act, regardless of the identity of the offended person. Section 7, General Orders No. 58, was therefore properly applicable. It should be added, however, that the observation to which reference has been made was, strictly speaking, unnecessary to the decision, for it is further stated in the opinion that there was in fact an injury to the owner of the check, which consisted of the "delay, annoyance, and damage caused by the unlawful misappropriation of the warrant." (U.S. vs. Kepner,1 Phil. Rep., 519, 526.) There is evidently nothing in the case cited which can afford support for the idea that an erroneous allegation in a complaint as to ownership of the property robbed is immaterial. If we should hold that a man may be convicted of robbing one person when he is charged with robbing another, the complaint instead of being a means of informing him of the particular offense with which he is charged would rather serve as a means of concealing it. It is important to note that the complaint in this case is not defective in form, for the charge is clear, direct, and unambiguous. No formal objection could possibly be made by the defendants to this complaint; and their only course, if desirous of making any defense, was to plead not guilty, as was done in this case. The difficulty of the case arises from the facts adduced in evidence. Section 10, General Orders No. 58, declares that no complaint is insufficient by reason of a detect in matter of form which does not tend to prejudice a substantial right of the defendant upon the merits. This provision has no application to such a case as that now before us; and all arguments based upon the circumstance that the defendants made no objection to the complaint in the Court of First Instance are irrelevant to the matter in hand. The case of United States vs. Manalang (2 Phil., Rep., 64) has been called to our attention as an authority upon the point that insufficiency of a complaint is waived by failure of the defendant to object thereto in the Court of First Instance. It there appeared that the statutory offense with which the defendant was charged could only be committed by a Constabulary officer. There was no allegation in the complaint that the defendant was such; but he appeared at the trial, testified in his own behalf, without questioning his character as such officer. It was held upon appeal that the objection to the complaint on the ground stated was unavailing, "as no exception was taken to this defect by counsel for the defendant in the court

below,

in

which

it

might

have

been

successfully

raised

by

demurrer."

The following cases are also found in our Reports, showing that a complaint may be held sufficient although the commission of the offense is charged by inference only, provided no objection is made in the court below. (U.S. vs. Cajayon, 2 Phil. Rep., 570; U.S. vs. Vecina, 4 Phil. Rep., 529; U.S. vs. Sarabia, 4 Phil. Rep., 566.) In all of these cases the complaint was demurrable for defect of substance, but the language used was so far sufficient that the commission of the crime could be inferred. These cases are not relevant to the case at bar, as the complaint is not demurrable for defect of any sort. In the light of what has been said it is evident that, by reason of the lack of conformity between the allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of the property, it is impossible to convict the two accused of the offense of robbery committed by them in this case; and therefore they cannot be convicted of the complex offense of robbery with homicide, penalized in subsection (1) of article 503 of the Penal Code. No such difficulty exists, however, with respect to the quadruple homicide committed upon the persons named in the complaint; and in conformity with the provisions of article 87 of the Penal Code, the penalties corresponding to all these crimes must be severely imposed. This court has already held in United States vs. Balaba (37 Phil. Rep., 260), that where more than one offense (not complex offenses) are charged in the complaint, and the accused fails to demur or ask for a severance, the penalties corresponding to all of the offenses which are charged and proved may be imposed. The doctrine announced in that case applies with even greater propriety offenses in one complaint. (See sec. 11, General Orders No. 58.) The acts causing the violent death of the four deceased must be qualified as homicide, as the record does not satisfactorily show how and in what manner they were executed zEP3hdt. Even conceding the benefits or article 11 of the Penal Code, this circumstance, as regards both defendants is counterbalanced by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place, and, as respects Marcos Madanlog, by that of relationship by affinity. The accused Pedro Lahoylahoy has accordingly become liable to four penalties, each of seventeen years four months and one day, reclusion temporal, and his co-accused Marcos Madanlog also, to the same number of penalties of twenty years each, reclusion temporal, for the homicide of the four deceased, each also being liable to one-half of the costs 7L5IsJKB4E. In view of rule 2 of article 88 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the maximum duration of three times the length of the most severe of the penalties to be imposed upon the accused exceeds forty years, the judgment reviewed is reversed, and we find that each of the accused Lahoylahoy and Madanlog should be, as they are hereby, sentenced to suffer of aforesaid penalties of reclusion temporal, not to exceed forty years, to the accessories prescribed by article 59, to indemnify, severally and jointly, the heirs of each of the deceased in the amount of P1,000 and each to pay one-half of the costs of both instances. So ordered. Arellano, Separate MALCOLM, J., C.J., Torres, Johnson and Araullo, JJ., concur 7nBg. Opinions dissenting:

The defendants were charged in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo with the crime of robbery with murder. The crime took place on a small island where the deceased lived together. The defendants were found guilty and given the death penalty. The proof in relation to the law shows conclusively that they merit such punishment. The information charged that the owner of the property was Roman Estriba while the evidence disclosed that the owner was Juana N. Seran. No objection to the information was made in the lower court. Objection to its insufficiency was therefore waived. (U.S. vs. Manalang [1903], 2 Phil. Rep., 64.) Notwithstanding, and although neither the attorney for the defendant nor the Attorney-General raises the point on appeal, this court would, by hypercritical examination, now solemnly adjudge the information to be fatally defective and would thereby cheat the gallows of its prey. Conceding that the court has this prerogative, yet no substantial right of the defendants was prejudiced. Neither the trial court, the prosecution, nor the defense were misled as to the issue being that robbery and murder were simultaneously committed. As to which one of the group had title to the property was relatively unimportant. Such a technical finding in my judgment violates both the letter and the spirit of our law and jurisprudence. "The bill of rights for the Philippines giving the accused the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him does not fasten forever upon those Islands the inability of the seventeenth century common law to understand or accept a pleading that did not exclude every misinterpretation capable of occurring to intelligence fired with a desire to pervert." (Paraiso vs. U.S. [1907], 207 U.S., 368; Whitehead vs. U.S. [1917], 245 Fed., 385; and a multitude of corroborative authority.) To liberalize and modernize procedure should be our goal. SANA LIM

September 11, 1913, the Moro named Jamilassan disembarked from a vinta or small native boat, in which he and other moros were travelling, upon the beach of the barrio of Simala, pueblo of Sibonga, Island of Cebu, carrying with him 101 tins of opium, belonging to his employer, the Moro Tahil, for the purpose of selling the drug; that Jamilassan thereupon went to the store of the Chinaman King Kong Kiang (alias Esteban), situated in the said barrio and near the shore, to sell the opium, but that this Chinaman, instead of agreeing to buy it, went to the town of Sibonga and proposed its purchase to another Chinaman named Sionga, who in turn approached another Chinaman named Sana for the same purpose; that, as Sana did not have the money, Sionga then went to the municipal treasurer of the pueblo, Tiburcio Ricabalnca, to report the fact that the opium was being offered for sale; that Ricabalnca thereupon conceived the idea of seizing the opium brought by the Moro Jamilissan, with the intent to obtain in lawful gain, and, with this purpose in view, arranged that one of the Chinaman should pretend that he would buy the opium and upon his acquiring it the treasurer and his accomplices would proceed to arrest the Moro, seize the opium for the purpose of appropriating it to themselves, substitute molasses for a part of it and it deliver t the authorities the molasses and a part of the opium so seized, together with the bearer of the drug. In order to carry out the plan thus conceived, the Chinamen Sionga and Dina went to the pueblo of Carcar to buy molasses from the Chinaman Yap Chian, while the treasurer Ricablanca gave orders to the police sergeant Eleno Suizo to take two subordinates, dressed as civilians and without uniforms, and accompany those who were to execute the deed. On the night of the said 11th of September, 1913, the Moro Jamilassan, who, with his companions and his employer Tahil, was in the small boat anchored off the shore of the said barrio, believing that the Chinaman would buy the opium, went ashore carrying a sack that contained 101 tins of opium worth P3,333, or P33 a tin. Prior to his leaving the boat, the defendants had posted themselves in the vicinity of the place where the Moro was to land. When Jamilassan, who was carrying the opium, drew near to Sionga, the pretended purchaser, the latter, according to an arrangement previously made with his companions, twice lit some matches, whereupon the defendants

appeared upon the scene preceded by the sergeant and his policemen who, brandishing their weapons to frighten the Moro, arrested him and seized the opium he was carrying in the sack. At this moment, as the Moro succeeded in escaping toward the boat, the sergeant fired his revolver four times and the treasurer Ricablanca also fired his. Thereupon the Moros in the boat precipitately filed from the shore, but the one who carried the opium was finally captured. The defendants then appropriated to themselves 77 tins of the opium, set aside 12 of them, and for the contents of the remaining 11 tins they substituted molasses, 1 tin having been lost. These 12 tins of opium and 11 tins of molasses were delivered by them to the authorities as having been legally seized the possession of the Moro Jamillasan, the bearer of the drug. By reason of the foregoing facts, the provincial fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance a criminal complaint against the Chinese appellants, the municipal treasurer of the pueblo of Sibonga, some policemen and others who took part, charging them with having seized opium of the value of P3,300, the property of a Moro named Tahil, willfully, maliciously, and criminally, with intent to gain and by the use of violence and intimidation against the person of the Moro Jamilassan, who was carrying the said drug.lawph!1.net Article 502 of the Penal Code prescribes that the crime of robbery is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property by the use of violence or intimidation against any person or force upon any thing. Although the subject matter of the robbery was an article whose introduction, use, and keeping were, and are, strictly prohibited by the laws in force in these Islands, wherefore all public officers vested with authority, and their agents, are under obligation to prosecute any violation of the law and to seize the prohibited drug and all similar substances which are of course confiscated, unless their use or keeping has been expressly authorized by competent authority; yet, when it has been fully proved at the trial that the capture and seizure of the opium was effected by a public officer, assisted by agents of the authorities, with the decided intent to gain thereby the price or value of the opium so seized, and not with the intention to comply with the law and further the purposes of the Government in the eradication and suppression of the vice of its use, one which is very prevalent among the Chinese residents of these Islands and is also spreading among the active inhabitants; and when the commission of the unlawful act was attended by violence and intimidation against the person who was carrying the opium, it is improper to consider such taking and seizure as lawful and permissible, even though executed by agents authorized to arrest and prosecute opium smugglers, inasmuch as the seizure of the opium was effected with intent to gain and by the use of violence and intimidation, in the present case, against the person of the Moro who, is the agent of its owner, had possession of the drug. The seizure of the opium and the arrest of its bearer by the agents of the authorities is indeed permissible and perfectly lawful; but that such agents, with the intent and purpose of appropriating to themselves the opium seized and of deriving benefit from its use or sale, should, with impunity and entire security, possess themselves of the opium, cannot be tolerated. Until the agents of the authorities have taken charge of it in the manner prescribed by the administrative law, it is the property of the owner. The Moro Jamilassan having been deprived of the 101 tins of opium, which, by order of the owner of the drug, he was carrying to sell, and this taking having been effected with violence and intimidation on the part of the agents of the authorities, who acted in apparent compliance with the law, but really with intent to obtain unlawful gain, it is unquestionable that the crime of robbery, provided for and punished by articles 502 and 503, paragraph 5, of the Penal Code, was committed. The legality and correctness of this classification of the crime are in no wise affected by the circumstance that the persons who committed it were agents of the authorities, assisted by some private parties, since the public character with which these agents were invested does not justify the criminal intent that prompted the execution of the punishable act, nor can it change the nature of the crime they committed, inasmuch as, on the occasion of its perpetration, they acted, not as agents of the authorities in the fulfillment of the duties imposed upon them by the law, but as mere private

parties, accompanied by some Chinamen, all of whom conspired together and concerted, under the direction of the treasurer Ricablanca, for the purpose of seizing a considerable quantity of valuable opium which was not their property, but belonged to the Moro Tahil, and which is an article that, upon seizure and confiscation within the territory of this Archipelago, becomes the property of the Government. In this connection it is to be noted that the treasurer Ricablanca, before proceeding to seize the opium, gave no notice either to the municipal president or to the local chief of the Constabulary, nor did he request the latter's assistance; all of which shows that he did not act in good faith and according to the law. Without discussing the guilt of the defendant Ricablanca and the Chinaman King Kong Kiang, neither of whom has appealed, we shall confine ourselves in this decision to inquiring into that of the appellant Chinamen Sionga Yap, San Lim, and Dina Lim. Their participation in the robbery under prosecution was very different from that of the first two, inasmuch as Sionga Yap was present with the policemen during the perpetration of the robbery, he took a direct part therein and cooperated in its commission by the performance of acts without which, perhaps, his co-participants would not have succeeded in seizing the opium. It was he who pretended to purchase the drug by placing himself in direct communication with the Moro who carried it, and arranged the place and time when the latter should appear on the beach at Simala with the opium for sale; it was this same Chinaman who, in accordance with the agreement he had made with his codefendants, went to the shore ahead of the latter there to await the Moro Jamilassan who was expected with the opium; he, too, it was, who signaled the arrival of the Moro on the shore, by lighting two matches, at which signal the policemen and their companions came up and the former rushed upon the Moro, held him fast, and by force possessed themselves of the opium, the securing of which was the purpose of the common action of the plotters. It cannot be denied, therefore, that Sionga participated as a co-principal in the perpetration of the robbery in question. We are of the opinion that the other appellants, Sana Lim and Dina Lim, acted as accomplices in the commission of the crime. They cooperated by acts prior and simultaneous with its perpetration, but the record does not show that they performed acts that were necessary and indispensable for its realization. With knowledge of the commission of the robbery and with the intent to obtain unlawful gain, they accompanied the principals in the crime up to a certain distance from, though not near, the place where it was perpetrated, but did not approach that place until after the robbery took place and when then for the sole purpose of sharing in the booty or the division of the opium stolen. Hence, as these two defendants do not fall within any of the three classes specified in article 13 of the Penal Code, which treats of principals, the said Sana Lim and Dina Lim are to be considered as mere accomplices of the principals in the robbery. Counsel for the defendants, arguing against the classification of the crime, alleges that at most it should be defined as estafa, and in support of his contention cites several decisions of this court and of the supreme court of Spain, where the principle is laid down that such acts should be qualified as estafa and not robbery, for the reason that the agents of the authorities were authorized to seize the opium and the persons having it in their possession or who were its owners, and because the officers of the law could not, in the act of the seizure of a prohibited article, have exercised violence and intimation upon the person of a transgressor; that it after the seizure of the opium, they conceived the purpose of gain and it was then that they appropriated to themselves the opium seized, they would in such a case have committed the crime of estafa, but not that of robbery. In answer to these allegations we must state that the robbery was engendered from the very moment when the principals resolved to possess themselves of the opium carried by the Moro Jamilassan, with the fixed and malicious intent to obtain unlawful gain from the said drug which, as was well and publicly known, obtained a high price, among the Chinese, its chief consumers. With that end in view, they came to an agreement, formed a conspiracy among themselves and, under the direction of the treasurer Ricablanca, decided upon the method by

which they should possess themselves of the opium so that they might derive profit from its sale. They later took the opium the possession of its bearer by means of violence and intimidation, since four shots were fired by one of the policemen and another by the treasurer Ricablanca, who was present at the commission of the robbery. There is, therefore, no question that the persons who, with malicious intent to obtain unlawful gain and by the use of violence and intimidation, forcibly possessed themselves of the opium carried by the Moro Jamilassan, proceeded and acted in the same manner as robbers usually do who, with intent to gain, take possession of another's property against the will of its owner. In the cases cited by the defense to show that the crime under prosecution should be classified as estafa and not as robbery, the guilty persons first acted in good faith in the discharge of their duties and without any unlawful intention, and the intent to derive illicit gain was formed only after they had legally seized the property. For this reason those acts cannot be classified as robbery, only as estafa, because prior to and at the time of their performance, they acted as agents of the authorities and in accordance with law, and only after they were in possession of the property, did they conceive the idea of deriving profit therefrom by appropriating it to themselves for personal gain. In the case at bar, both the treasurer Ricablanca and the Chinese appellants, from the moment they proposed to seize the opium which the Moro Jamilassan carried for sale, had the intention to appropriate to themselves the greater part of the drug. They even planned to deceive the authorities by substituting molasses for the contents of 11 of the 23 tins of opium which they presented to the said authorities as legally seized from Jamilassan. They kept 77 of the tins so seized and made no report of them to their superior, nor does the record show that these tins were afterwards recovered from the possession of the defendants. Therefore it is just and proper that the crime in question should be classified as robbery, and not as estafa. In the commission of the crime account must be taken of the attendance of the aggravating circumstance No. 15, to wit, that the crime was committed in the nighttime and in an uninhabited place, without any extenuating circumstance to offset its effects. No weight can be given to abuse of superior strength, that circumstance being inherent in the crime of robbery, even though it were not committed by a band of armed men. For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from are deemed to have been refuted, the said judgment is affirmed in so far as it degrees with this decision and reversed in so far as it does not, and we hereby sentence the Chinaman Sionga Yap, as a principal, to the penalty of six years ten months and one day of presidio mayor and to the accessory penalties of article 57, and each of the other Chinamen, Sana Lim and Dina Lim, as accomplices, to six months of arresto mayor and the accessory penalties of article 61. Furthermore, Sionga is sentenced to restore, jointly and severally with his co-principals, the opium stolen or to pay the value thereof to the Government of the Philippine Islands, ad the accomplices, Sana Lim and Dina Lim, are held to be bound, also jointly and severally between themselves and subsidiary in default of fulfillment, for the civil liabilities incurred by the principals, and each of the three appellants shall pay one-third of the costs of this instance. The opium seized and all quantities thereof that may be recovered shall be confiscated. PEDROSO The case for the prosecution may be synthesized as follows: chanrobles virtual law library In the evening of June 2, 1994, Elsa Dioso and Josephine de Leon were going home to Sta. Mesa from Divisoria, where they had just visited a friend. They boarded a passenger jeepney plying the Divisoria-Cubao route,

sitting beside each other on the right side of the jeepney. As the jeepney passed Isetann Department Store along Recto Avenue, three men got on board. One sat on the left side of the jeepney, immediately behind the driver, while the other two sat on the right side of the jeepney, one at Josephine de Leon's right, the other at Elsa Dioso's left. chanrobles virtual law library As the jeepney was approaching the Nagtahan fly-over at around 9 o'clock, the person immediately behind the driver, later identified as accusedappellant Ariel Pedroso, whipped out a gun and announced, "Huwag kayong kikilos ng rnasama. Holdap ito! " Simultaneously, the man at Josephine de Leon's right pulled out a balisong while the man at Elsa Dioso's left brandished a gun. Pedroso took from the passenger seated beside him, later identified as Constantino Lucero, the latter's necklace and wristwatch. Encountering resistance while removing Constantino's other jewelry, Pedroso shot the former. Constantino was not hit, however, as he was able to push Pedroso's shooting arm, spoiling the latter's aim. Deflected, the bullet grazed Dioso's neck and hit one of Pedroso's companions instead, who exclaimed, "Pare, tinamaan mo ako. " Further efforts to remove Constantino's remaining jewelry met with difficulty, prompting one of the hold-uppers to shout`Putang ina, pare, patayin mo na 'yan. " A gunshot rang out and Constantino fell to the floor of the jeepney. In this position, he was stabbed several times by the knife-wielding cohort of Pedroso. As the attack took place, the other passengers, Elma Dioso included, jumped off the moving jeepney. However, upon noticing that Josephine de Leon had been left behind inside the jeepney, Elsa DIOSO returned and sat at the front passenger seat of the jeepney. From that vantage point, she saw the victim being stabbed. The three hold-up men then alighted, hailed a passing jeepney, and fled. chanrobles virtual law library Ramon Aduviso, the driver of the jeepney, sped to Station 8 of the Western Police District to get help. Escorted by police, Aduviso then rushed Constantino to the University of the East Ramon Magsaysay (UERM) Hospital for treatment. Constantino was, however, pronounced dead on arrival. chanrobles virtual law library Informed of the incident, PO3 Edgardo Ko went to the UERM Hospital to investigate the incident. Finding Constantino dead, Ko proceeded to the scene of the crime. An examination of' the jeepney revealed splotches of blood on its flooring. A deformed slug was likewise found under the passenger seat of the jeepney. Passengers Elsa Dioso and Josephine de Leon also appeared before the police and gave their account of the incident. chanrobles virtual law library In the afternoon of June 13, 1994, a police informant called up the WPD and informed the officer on duty that the persons involved in the robberyholdup could be found inside a vacant lot along Leon Guinto Street, Malate, Manila. Acting on the tip, the police rushed to the area and found two persons there, one of whom is accused-appellant Pedroso. The two were brought to the police station for investigation, and the witnesses to the holdup were called to confront the suspects. chanrobles virtual law library

especially so. some may openly welcome their intrusion (People v. it is not sufficient that accused-appellant prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. chanrobles virtual law library Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code reads: chanrobles virtual law library Art. therefore. chanrobles virtual law library These acts. wristwatch. They all assaulted Constantino Lucero when the latter resisted. accused-appellant failed to adduce any evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time it happened. In all probability the action of Elsa was spontaneous. 287 SCRA 535 [1998]). Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.) with the traffic already light and thinning out. Not only is there no proof that accused-appellant tried to prevent the death of Constantino Lucero. unless it appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide (People v. all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide. Fuertes. chanrobles virtual law library . supra. Nang. without conscious thought of the consequences of her going back to the jeepney just to be with her friend. chanrobles virtual law library Likewise. taken together. they all pulled out and pointed weapons at the passengers. accused-appellant Pedroso was. Moreover. conspiracy has been amply and sufficiently proven in this case. 289 SCRA 16 [1998]). reclusion perpetua to death. 289 SCRA 695 [1998]). liable for robbery with homicide. show that there was. chanrobles virtual law library Given the positive identification of accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses as one of the holduppers. the penalty for robbery with homicide is composed of two indivisible penalties. They alighted and fled from the jeepney together. chanrobles virtual law library We. alibi becomes even weaker by reason of the failure of the defense to present any corroboration (People v. 292 SCRA 596[1998]). establishing beyond reasonable doubt the existence of conspiracy (People v. 294. for the defense of alibi to prosper. In the case at bar. it was getting late in the evening (9 P. Constantino Lucero was shot twice and stabbed five times as he was divested of his jewelry. Furthermore. Josephine de Leon. therefore. for personal gain. without hesitation. 290 SCRA 543 [1998]). and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof. the trial court erred when it sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. homicide is committed (People v. agree with the trial court that the crime committed by accusedappellant is robbery with homicide. some may be shocked into insensibility. Leon Guinto Street in Malate is not very far from Legarda. chanrobles virtual law library Accused-appellant is. aside from his bare assertion that he was in Malate at the time of the incident.. namely. chanrobles virtual law library That a homicide was committed on the occasion of the robbery is equally beyond dispute. When the hold-up was announced. Verzosa. the crime of homicide shall have been committed. chanrobles virtual law library It is beyond dispute that accused-appellant and his cohorts employed violence and intimidation against persons to consummate their criminal intent to take away. the most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and observe the manner in which the crime is being committed (People v.chanrobles virtual law library Neither is there any merit in accused-appellant's contention that it was highly inconceivable for Elsa Dioso. Already a weak defense. such that people react differently to startling situations: some may shout. They brandished guns and a knife while divesting the latter of his necklace. the evidence even positively shows that he fired at least one shot at the victim. Elsa Dioso disregarded her own safety for the sake of a friend who was left behind in the jeepney. when by reason or on occasion of the robbery.). chanrobles virtual law library The elements of robbery with homicide are (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons. she reboarded the vehicle and sat at the front seat thereof because her friend. As mentioned earlier. Bersabe. chanrobles virtual law library PEDROSO As has been observed by the Court. (3) the taking is with animo lucrandi. after alighting from the back of the jeepney. As explained by Dioso. some may faint. to transfer to the front passenger seat and observe the holdup going on. bracelet.Although placed in a police line-up of seven persons. positively identified by witnesses Elsa Dioso and Josephine de Leon as one of those involved in the robberyholdup. as defined and penalized under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. 296 SCRA 602 [1998]). accused-appellant and his cohorts boarded Aduvisos jeepney as it passed Isetann along Recto. (2) the property taken belongs to another. he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity when the crime was perpetrated (People v. and rings. the personal property of Constantino Lucero. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. accused-appellant did not present any other witness to corroborate his defense of alibi. Pretending to be passsengers.. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons-Penalties.-Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: chanrobles virtual law library 1. In this case. He was pronounced dead on arrival at the UERM hospital. 294 SCRA 466 [1998]). Moreover.M. Tidula. Maguad. his defense of alibi must necessarily fail. unity of purpose and design in the execution of the unlawful act. Cabebe. It would not have taken a long time for accused-appellant to traverse that distance. among accused-appellant and his cohorts. was still inside the jeepney at that time. chanrobles virtual law library It is settled that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery. Pulusan. He was consequently arrested and a case of robbery with homicide filed against him. The defense of alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused-appellant as the offender (People v. the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable.

his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy w/c is not punishable. 1982 FACTS: Late in the night of June 13. the same being automatically granted to the offended party or his heirs in the case of death. are inadmissible for having been allegedly obtained by force and intimidation. as regards Romaquin & Doble. open from midnight till 8AM.00 chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE . Among those who got killed were agents of the law. However. chanrobles virtual law library 3. the malefactors who waited in the banca. the rest still remain at large.00) Pesos as civil indemnity.and to be sure if one were later proved during the trial. As recommended by SolGen. depending on the presence or absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.00) Pesos as actual damages.00) Pesos. the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: chanrobles virtual law library 1. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act. the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance.Rizal to rob the beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Since no aggravating circumstance was alleged in the information .000. And it should also be . multiple frustrated homicide and assault upon agents of persons in authority. it could not be appreciated so as to increase the penalty to death. More so that their testimonies match each other¶s. torture and maltreatment. walls & door of the vault. Once inside. carbines and thompsons. Next. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed. chanrobles virtual law library 4.000. civil indemnity in the amount of P50. chanrobles virtual law library SO ORDERED. or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act w/o w/c it would not have been committed. nor that he took a direct part therein or induced other persons to commit. and since neither was any mitigating circumstance established by the defense. The award of moral damages is reduced DOBLE PEOPLE VS. 63. aside from the award of P80. Eighty Thousand (P80. the greater penalty shall be applied. Once docked in Navotas and taking advantage of the darkness of the night. the lesser penalty shall be applied. Simeon Doble is entitled to acquittal w/ no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Said bank wad an unusual banking hours.000. 8 men disembarked from the banca and proceeded to their mission. it must be noted that they didn¶t present any medical cert to attest to the injuries allegedly inflicted. Simeon then was not a principal both by agreement and encouragement for his non-participation in the commission of the crime. the court is mandated to impose one or the other.000. The 8 men then returned to the waiting motor banca w/ about P10.5K & sped away. 2 of the 5 accused were acquitted. the lesser penalty. left the shores of Manila in a motor banca & proceeded to Navotas. both contend that their extra-judicial statements upon w/c their conviction was principally made to rest. HELD: First. as to appellant Simeon. without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime and the accused-appellants culpability therefor (People v.000. they started firing at the bank¶s ceiling. according to the result of such compensation.000. This circumstance alone doesn¶t conclude his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. DOBLE Rizal. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance.00 to be excessive under the circumstances. the decision appealed from and under review finding accusedappellant GUILTY of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the reduced penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. almost all heavily armed w/ pistols. chanrobles virtual law library As to accused-appellant's civil liability.00 to Fifty Thousand (P50. w/ multiple homicide. for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules. As a result of the shooting. Sumalpong.00 should be awarded to the heirs of Constantino Lucero.000. Simeon Doble and Antonio Romaquin appealing in the charge of bank robbery committed in band.- from P300. 284 SCRA 464 [1998]). evidence shows that the malefactors met in his house to discuss the plan to rob the bank. chanrobles virtual law library Withal. should be imposed upon accused-appellant. The facts do not show that he performed any act tending to the perpetration of the robbery. many people got killed & injured. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance. 1966. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. As to the award of moral damages. It is only Cresencio Doble. Nor was it clearly proven that he had received any part/fruits of the looted money as to make him an accessory.000. and reduces the same to P50. At most.chanrobles virtual law library 2. the Court finds the amount of P300. or reclusion perpetua.00 as actual damages.Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides: chanrobles virtual law library Art. in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties. the lesser penalty shall be applied. 10 men. Only 5 of the 10 men were brought to trial. chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties. He is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50. and in violation of basic consti¶l rts to counsel and against self-incrimination.

managed to box Laureto. Gilbert Turaray. despite being crippled. cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Doble & Romaquin are guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices for the crime of robbery in band.1 On 26 June 1992 accused Domingo Baccay when arraigned pleaded not guilty. Domingo Baccay admitted having been at the Jimenez residence in the morning of 14 January 1992 but claimed he was there only for the jueteng bets of Isabelo. not being principal as defined in Art 17 RPC. and that the latter even reported to them that Laureto stabbed Isabelo Jimenez. through a hole in the wall she saw her husband Isabelo and her son Heherson being stabbed by Domingo and Laureto. In fact. Wherefore. But it isn¶t established by evidence that in the mtg held in the house of Simeon that they all agreed to kill and not just rob. Isabelo's grandson Gilbert Turaray. but Domingo picked up the knife and stabbed Heherson several times. She ran to the room only to find it locked. followed by Laureto. that he immediately ran out to ask for help. There must be a community of unlawful purpose between the principal and accomplice and assistance knowingly and intentionally given to supply material and moral aid in the consummation of the offense.00 as reasonable medical expenses incurred by him during his treatment plus P50. admitted that no violence was inflicted on him to procure his statement. The extra-judicial statements of the appellants are convincing to show that their liability is less than that of a co-principal by conspiracy or by actual participation. evident to show that he never joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were not voluntary. . Whereupon. In this case. Although he asserted that he was shaken by the incident. at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning. On 7 November 1994 the trial court found the accused Domingo Baccayguilty as charged2and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law.000. was massaging the feet of his uncle Heherson. This is evidence enough that the appellants could not have been dealt w/ differently as their co-accused Aquino who was allowed to give his statement freely. Nor was Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent him from fleeing away from the scene. San Mariano.00 taken by him and his co-accused Laureto Baccay from Isabelo Jimenez.000. witnessed the startling occurrence. Melchora Jimenez. Cagayan. Cresencio was merely incharge of the banca and had no knowledge of the concrete plan and execution of the crime. it was for this reason. However. 4 mos. while Laureto continued stabbing him. Laureto and Domingo hurriedly left. as one of the accused. both appellants should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of prision correccional from 5 yrs. Heherson. Not long after. Isabela. The commission of the crime was aggr by nighttime & the use of a motorized banca.3 BACCAY Domingo Baccay and Laureto Baccay were charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide for having robbed Isabelo Jimenez of P2. according to him. Isabelo ran to the window to shout for help but Domingo held him back by the hair. to collect Isabelo's bets for a jueteng game drawn daily in the locality.000. testified that Laureto arrived in their house first.000. The penalty imposable upon appellants is prision mayor min. Heherson Jimenez and Melchora Jimenez these facts were established: On 14 January 1992. and to pay the costs.00. This version as narrated by Domingo Baccay was corroborated by Wilfredo Aggabao and Manuel Gabriel. After divesting Isabelo of his money from his shirt pocket. she heard her son cry for help. but to no avail. Isabelo's wife.00 and on the occasion thereof stabbed him to death and inflicted multiple stab wounds on his son Heherson Jimenez. he nevertheless overcame his fear after a few minutes and continued collecting bets for the jueteng game. 21 days to 8 yrs of prision mayor as maximum.000. Heherson shouted for help. to whom accused Domingo ran for help.000. Soon Domingo also arrived.noted that Celso Aquino¶s testimony. There being no MC.00 for moral and exemplary damages and P2. Isabelo at that time was in the room of his crippled son Heherson talking to him. Laureto immediately followed. who managed to position himself behind a rocking chair. then on vacation for the Christmas season. Domingo denied however that he ever stabbed Isabelo although he admitted noticing the knife in Loreto's possession. The mastermind obviously did not extend confidence in him as he was only asked to provide a banca just a few hours before the commission of the crime. ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Isabelo Jimenez P50. while his co-accused Laureto Baccay was found unfit to stand trial due to mental illness and was committed to the Regional Mental Hospital in Tuguegarao.P200. Domingo Baccay and Laureto Baccay went to the house of Isabelo Jimenez at Zone 2. Accused Domingo Baccay was also ordered to indemnify Heherson Jimenez P150. The finding that appellants are liable as mere accomplices may appear too lenient but evidence fails to establish their conspiracy w/ the real malefactors who actually robbed the bank and killed several people.00 as moral and exemplary damages. as if to give him a signal. From the account of prosecution witnesses Gilbert Turaray. Laureto drew a knife and started stabbing Isabelo. He patted Laureto on the shoulder and upon Isabelo's bidding went into her son's room. she even served him coffee. Domingo Baccay entered the room first. the appellants¶ cooperation is like that of a driver of a car used for abduction w/c makes the driver a mere accomplice. Then Domingo winked at Laureto. disarmed him momentarily. An accomplice is one who.

4 The appeal is without merit. Consequently. In both cases the trial courts' convictions were based solely on dying declarations. is (sic) it not? A: I can see them. contending that he was coached and his testimony highly flawed. The Court does not expect that a witness' testimony be perfectly congruent so long as the narration concurs on material points. Prosecution witnesses Melchora Jimenez. sir (underscoring supplied). Heherson Jimenez said that after the assailants left he was able to crawl to the door bleeding and half conscious. Even without the statement of Heherson.7 Moreover. Firstly. The locus criminis is a very small room approximately measuring only three by four meters. But Laureto. was done successively. (4) when it ruled that the crime charged was committed by accused-appellant Domingo Baccay in conspiracy with his coaccused.Accused-appellant imputes the following errors to the court a quo: (1) in holding that the sworn statement of Heherson Jimenez taken by Pat. Alfonso Deraco as an antemortem statement or as part of the res gestae. Domingo went through the pocket of Isabelo. Domingo then picked up the knife and started stabbing Heherson. Heherson Jimenez and Gilbert Turaray positively identified Domingo as one of the malefactors. The conviction of appellant Domingo Baccay did not rely solely on a dying declaration. he vividly recalled how his grandfather and his uncle were assaulted by both accused. Laureto stabbing the old man and Domingo stabbing his uncle. The instant case is not analogous to the two (2) cases. it can only be logically surmised that he momentarily let go of the knife in order to get the money from Isabelo's pocket. But there is no inconsistency here. Greater weight is given to the categorical identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused's plain denial of participation in the commission of the crime. We disagree. There were no other witnesses. Furthermore.10 It is doctrinally entrenched that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect because such court has the direct oppurtunity to observe the witness on the stand and determine if they are telling the truth or not. Alfonso Deraco was an antemortem statement or part of the res gestae. Turaray who witnessed the whole event from behind a chair testified unflinchingly that after Laureto finished stabbing Isabelo. Appellant contends that if this be the case.6 Thereby. Thus the dying declarations were inaccurate hence unreliable and the convictions were reversed.9 Appellant also insists that since Gilbert was positioned behind the rocking chair he could not have seen the incident. it was impossible for the victims to have accurately identified the malefactors. His reliance on People v. (2) in giving undue credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Gilbert Turaray. then the knife should have been in Domingo's possession. picked it up after Domingo left. (5) in finding the accused guilty of robbery with homicide. Elizaga is totally misplaced. Heherson. it may be said that people have been known to accomplish incredible feats in times of utmost danger. a cripple lying in bed.5 (b) Appellant brands as highly improbable Heherson's testimony that the stabbing was done simultaneously in the light of the prosecution evidence that only one knife was used in the incident. Appellant also alleges that the testimony of Heherson Jimenez is not worthy of credence because it suffers from the following inconsistencies: (a) Heherson Jimenez testified that he was stabbed many times by the two accused. Thus The court also finds the testimony of Gilbert Turaray to be trustworthy. The was no reason or any known motive for him to perjure his testimony and point to accused Domingo Baccay who joined his co-accused Laureto Baccay in the stabbing affray. (c) According to Heherson. So that your view was obstructed. Gibert on crossexamination thus explained: Q: And you declared a while ago that you were hiding behind the rocking chair where Domingo Baccay was seated. a witness who has undergone a harrowing experience cannot be expected to be entirely consistent. Domingo knifed him last. At any rate the witness admitted that he had heard of the number of wounds from other people. disregarding the dying declarations as such would not in any way affect the soundness of the decision. Laureto turned to stab Heherson who was able to box Laureto thereby making the latter drop the knife. could manage to get up and punch his father's assailant although Heherson was supposedly positioned away from them. and. appellant assails Gilbert Turaray's testimony that Heherson Jimenez. Dunig and People v. For one. On the other hand. (3) when it ruled that the deceased Isabelo Jimenez was divested or robbed of his money. not in Laureto's hand as shown in the records. the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses will suffice to convict accused-appellant of the crime charged. appellant questions the trial court's appreciation of the sworn statement of Heherson Jimenez taken by Pat. The allegation that Gilbert Turaray was tutored in relation to the number of wounds sustained by both his grandfather and uncle is a trivial matter that does not affect the positive identification of the accused. as pointed out in the preceding discussion. The records show that before fleeing. appellant questions the trial court's giving undue credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Gilbert Turaray.11 . But the stabbing. but on cross-examination he contradicted himself by stating that only the appellant stabbed him. Minor lapses do not detract from the overwhelming testimonies of prosecution witnesses' positively identifying the malefactors. In his straightforward narration. These allegations are factually baseless. knowing the knife to be his. Secondly. On appeal the Court found that under the circumstances of the two (2) cases.8 In this regard.

13 (underscoring supplied). and such was the purpose of the homicide. (b) that the property taken belongs to another. to what else could we attribute his nonchalance in going about his routine of collecting juetengbets a few minutes after the occurrence of a gruesome crime? Could he not have the human curiosity to find out what happened to Isabelo? At the very least. For appellant to insist that his version is more credible than that of the prosecution is futile. Gilbert Turaray clearly and credibly testified on crossexamination thus Q: They did not take anything? A: They got something.00 for actual damages be paid the heirs of Isabelo Jimenez. the prosecution need only prove these elements: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons. Q: Why. for why then was he so positive about the stabbing of Isabelo and Heherson? And why did he not himself report the incident to the police? Appellant finally contends that his non-flight from the scene of the crime is indicative of his innocence. Although there may be inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witness Melchora Jimenez as to the amount of cash taken from the victim. but it does not follow that the desire to avenge such betrayal. But conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. harm or loss would include implicating even innocent persons. Domingo made a signal to Laureto by winking his eye. the judgment of the court a quo: (a) finding accusedappellant Domingo Baccay guilty of Robbery with Homicide as charged.000. with the modification that only the amounts of P50. the award for moral and exemplary damages should be deleted in the absence of sufficient proof for its justification. there is no disputing the fact that cash was indeed taken."22 Accused-appellant testified that he left the room of Heherson the moment Laureto Baccay went in. is AFFIRMED. Fourthly. Q: What something are you referring to? A: Money. Domingo pulled him back by his hair and held his hands while Laureto continued stabbing him.000.470. quoted Domingo as saying to them. sir.20 With the foregoing circumstances. In fact. there are no pat explanations for the workings of an evil mind! Lastly. sir.00 for medical expenses. xxxx Q: Do you know if your Lolo was wearing a wallet? A: My Lolo had a wallet but he placed the money in his pocket. Domingo tapped Laureto's shoulder. . Specifically. sir. Revenge is a normal reaction of one betrayed.18 (e) When Heherson intervened and punched Laureto. actual damages totalling P66.15 (b) Domingo locked the door after Laureto entered the room.470. and. appellant disputes his conviction on conspiracy. did you see that what they took was money? A: I saw the money at the pocket of my Lolo. Or. (a) Before going into Heherson's room. Domingo took money from Isabelo's pocket. (b) sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law.21 Wilfredo Aggabao. Moral and exemplary damages are deleted. With respect to the deceased Isabelo Jimenez.. (c) the taking was done with animo lucrandi. This automatically adversely resolves appellant's final contention that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thirdly. sir.For appellant to impute revenge on the witnesses as the motivation for pinpointing him is groundless.00 should be given as evidenced by the records. sir.000.g. Domingo stabbed Heherson several times.19 and. WHEREFORE. "Please report to the police because they (sic) were stabbing Isabelo Jimenez. In robbery with homicide. (f) Before the two (2) accused left the room. This is highly incredible. (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof homicide was committed. appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the deceased Isabelo Jimenez was divested or robbed of his money. Manuel testified that Domingo had reported to them that Laureto Baccay was stabbing Isabelo Jimenez. there can be no other conclusion than that the successful perpetration of the crime was done through the concerted efforts of both accused Domingo Baccay and Laureto Baccay. on his part. of his callousness? For. That the testimonies of witnesses for the prosecution were not totally consistent do not necessarily impair their evidentiary value. e.00 as indemnification for Isabelo's death and P66.00 taken from Isabelo Jimenez and to pay Heherson Jimenez the amount ofP150. could he not have lent him aid to save his life? Indeed. Q: Where was that money kept? A: At the pocket of my Lolo.12 All these elements were established by the prosecution. harmed or otherwise of one who has lost a loved one. could it not also be. especially when there is no doubt that indeed robbery took place.16 (c) Immediately after locking the door.17 (d) When Isabelo ran to the window to shout for help. the testimonies of defense witnesses Manuel Gabriel and Wilfredo Aggabao disprove accused-appellant's claim that he was not present during the stabbing.14 Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the acts of the accused. (c) ordering him to restitute the amount of P2.

He was told to count the money. the father of the victim. he shouted for help. according to accused-appellant. The other accused was at large and so trial proceeded against the accused-appellant alone. He conducted an ocular inspection of the crime scene and found blood on the street. He was asked for the names of his relatives and told to implicate Dondon Zapanta.8Another knife. kitchen knife. accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Accusedappellant said he decided to leave but. where he was beaten up by the police. was apprehended at the scene of the crime by a tricycle driver.20 After this. among whom were Wycoco. 1992.4 Witness Louie Jose came upon the two. As accused-appellant resisted. He claimed that. to which the latter responded I am getting despondent because I do not have money to buy milk for my child (Naaaburido ako dahil sa wala akong pambili ng gatas para sa anak ko).00 in cash in various denominations. together with a certain John Doe. 1992. Wycoco testified that. he saw through the open right front door on the passengers side of the taxi the driver fending off the attacks of accusedappellant who was using a fan knife or balisong. He saw accused-appellant (whom he subsequently identified in court) on top of the victim holding a sharp knife thrust into the taxi drivers body (nakasaksak sa katawan ng taxi driver).1 From where he was. as he was getting off. on the date and time in question. and Louie Jose. turned on Visayas Avenue and then on Congressional Avenue. He claimed he was able to pin the driver against the steering wheel and wrest the knife from him. and apprehended him. now accused-appellant. a policeman.12 Mendoza found that some bills13 were bloodstained. The fatal wound was caused by a sharp. Jose asked accused-appellant. but accusedappellant refused to give one. accusedappellant claimed he noticed the taxis meter to be fast and he complained to the driver.00. Barangay Bahay Toro. testified that the money he turned over to SPO1 Mendoza came from Wycoco and Jose.19 Accused-appellant testified in his behalf.17 Finally.00 on February 15. another tricycle driver. he said someone searched him and got his money amounting to P912. Wycoco and Jose gave written statements. after calling him stupid (Gago ka pala). a man hit him with a lead pipe on the legs. Thereafter. At 10 p. not being able to find a cheap pair. Bonifacio Wycoco. His hands were tied but he did not resist.0 cm. the tricycle driver. security officer of the Quezon City General Hospital.14 Witness Mario Bermudez. his cousin. Upon being arraigned. he came upon three men who were shouting hold-up.21 . His autopsy showed that the victim sustained three stab wounds. A scuffle ensued. was found on the floor of the taxi. he cleaned up and went to SM City to buy shoes. he decided to go home to Tandang Sora. he was taken to the hospital and then to the police headquarters. in the crime.000. Tranquilino Manalus. stabbed him. paper and maongpants16 taken from the taxi of the victim. Danilo Ramos. pulled him out of the taxi. with the one located at the left mid-chest being fatal. singlebladed instrument. Mario Bermudez. While he was made to sit in the gutter. He then stabbed the taxi driver several times with the knife. Quezon City at about 10:30 p. turned over to SPO1 Mendoza P910. a large one normally for kitchen use.m.3 Wycoco grabbed accused-appellant by the collar and tried to pull him away.15 NBI Forensic Chemist Mary Ann T. He was hit in the lower part of his stomach. She found that they all tested positive for human blood. while driving his tricycle along Congressional Avenue in Quezon City.m. seconds later..10 NBI Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Along the way. was stabbed to death near the Pangilinan Compound along Congressional Avenue. on February 15. whereupon the driver. testified and provided documentary evidence18 showing that the net expenses for the victims wake and funeral amounted to P61. Ramos searched the accused-appellant and found money stained with blood7 and a fan knife. The prosecution presented seven witnesses. 2. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. He said that as a result he and the driver had a heated exchange. a taxi driver. He claimed that on February. 1992 he worked as a mason at a construction project in the Tandang Sora Public Market. causing him to fall on his knees and preventing him from fleeing from the scene.00. He testified that he tied both hands of the accused-appellant. Araas examined the blood found on the fan knife. type B.6 According to Wycoco. with robbery with homicide as penalized by Art. subsequently turned over to the police and charged. He also investigated accused-appellant and the two witnesses.MENDOZA Danilo Manalus. The security officer of the Hospital. Accused-appellant said he told the driver not to worry as he would pay. He hailed a taxi driven by Danilo Manalus. Wycoco hit him on the left leg with a lead pipe. Floresto Arisala testified on the results of his post-mortem examination of the victims cadaver. The alleged assailant.9 The victim was taken to the Quezon City General Hospital but he was dead on arrival. Why did you say it is a hold-up (sic). wide and approximately 11. the driver suddenly held him by the left shoulder and angrily demanded payment of the fare. receiving a daily wage of P150.00.0 cm long.5 According to him. The taxi proceeded to Quezon City Circle. then arrived and Wycoco turned accusedappellant over to him. After getting his pay in the amount ofP900. The taxi stopped about three meters from the Pangilinan Compound and the driver told the accused-appellant to alight.11 SPO1 Abraham Mendoza was sent to the Quezon City General Hospital after the police had been informed of the stabbing incident.2 He saw that they were at each other on the drivers seat (Magkapatong sila sa isang upuan sa tabi ng driver).

Wycocos written statement.25 The test of admissibility for evidence as a part of the res gestae is stated with congency by Justice Ricardo J. the principal purpose of the accused must be shown to be to commit robbery. I am getting despondent because I do not have money to buy milk for my child. (c) that the taking must be with intent to gain. The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible and rejected the accused-appellants claim of self-defense. Bonifacio Wycoco and Louie Jose freely and readily gave positive. First. Moreover. it should be borne in mind that an accused who admits inflicting a fatal injury on his victim and invokes self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence. the homicide being committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. The key piece of evidence clearly showing robbery in this instance comes from the accused-appellant himself. all that the prosecution witnesses can testify of their own personal knowledge were the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged stabbing of Danilo Manalus. However. the extra-judicial admission of accused-appellant was clearly part of the res gestae and therefore correctly admitted by the trial court as evidence against the accused-appellant. Second.31 Against the clear and damning evidence of the prosecution accused-appellant in this case offered nothing but his own sole testimony to prove self-defense. given to the police. Accused-appellant. declaration or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event which it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself. As the trial court observed: Further.24 It may be that Wycocos knowledge is limited to the stabbing of the victim. Danilo Manalus. The claim of the accused that it was taken from his left pocket and then returned to him for counting is too contrived to be believable. First. Wycocos testimony shows that the violence resulting in homicide was committed in the course of a robbery.28 the evidence proves that the element of unlawful taking had passed and that the accused-appellant had come to gain full possession of the victims money unlawfully and that he would have escaped had it not been for the timely arrival of Wycoco. and (d) that the taking must be through violence against or intimidation of any person. The establishment of the last two elements renders inutile accusedappellants second assignment of error that the trial court erred in concluding that the bloodied money belonged to the victim Danilo Manalus considering that there was no direct evidence that a robbery had indeed taken place. the stains on the money. straightforward and objective accounts of the events surrounding the occasion of the subject crime.. (Naaaburido ako dahil sa wala akong pambili ng gatas para sa anak ko). admitted by accused-appellant as being done by him in self-defense. and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. among . can only signify that the motive was to rob the victim of his collected fare.26 Tested by this standard. when taken together with accused-appellants actions during the stabbing incident. it proves that the money taken from the accused-appellant when he was searched after the incident by Wycoco and Jose belonged to the victim. substantially and materially tallied with his testimony in court.whether the act. Taken together with other evidence already considered.27 Indeed. his statement establishes the first three elements of robbery. In cases of robbery with homicide as defined in Art.Accused-appellant denied there was a hold-up. he contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of prosecution witnesses who did not have personal knowledge that a robbery was committed. Hence this appeal. It is noteworthy that accused-appellant did not deny his extra-judicial admission to witness Jose that he committed the crime because he needed money. Why did you say it is a hold-up? In response accused-appellant spontaneously answered. He claimed he was merely forced to defend himself from the taxi drivers attack. Francisco thus: .. or even the original criminal design of accused-appellant to commit robbery against Danilo Manalus. there is no evidence that either Wycoco or Jose was actuated by improper motives to testify against accused-appellant. where defense fails to prove that witnesses are moved by improper motives. when taken in relation to the other evidence of the prosecution. inconsistencies in the accused-appellants testimony are not isolated. There is every reason to give to the testimonies of Wycoco and Jose evidentiary weight and credit. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. He was asked by Louie Jose. How could he have done so when his hands were tied at that time?29 There is little in the record to distrust the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. it is evident that there was strong circumstantial evidence showing that the bloodstained money recovered from the accused-appellant actually belonged to the victim.30 full the the are Above all. Thirdly. when considered with the direct testimony of Wycoco and Jose as to how they found the bloodstained money on the accused-appellants person after the stabbing. Even then. presumption is that they are not so moved and their testimonies therefore entitled to full weight and credit.22 Now the elements of robbery with violence or intimidation of persons are (a) that the subject is personal property belonging to another. consistent with the rule that.23 Accused-appellant argues in support of his first assignment of error that: there [is] no direct evidence on record which will prove beyond doubt the existence of robbery. Admittedly. The contention has no merit. which was however. (b) that such property is unlawfully taken. It therefore rendered judgment finding the accused guilty. It belies accusedappellants claim that he had money on that day because he had been paid his wage as a construction worker. which the accused admits to have come from the blood of the victim. the statement evidences accused-appellants intent to rob by showing his underlying motive for stabbing Manalus. Accused-appellant makes two assignments of errors.

Mrs. in addition to the fan knife (balisong). SO ORDERED JAVA      Michael hopped on their car to chase the robbers. the letter of recommendation that Java was asking from Col.000 as indemnity for the death of Manalus. 35 adds that the offer of the testimony of a witness must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. came to be known through Mrs.000. hitting Michael on the torso & on his side. As a result of such identification. later identified as Felimon Java.38 the heirs of the victim are in addition entitled to a civil indemnity of P50. then station Commander of QC Police Force. Java ransacked the drawers & took some money then went inside a room where Michael Valdez. the evidence satisfies the Rules of Court criteria for circumstantial evidence sufficient to support conviction. Rodolfo Garcia.500 and P50. Rodolfo Garcia. She went out and Michael told her they were robbed of P50K &  YES.37The award of actual damages should therefore be reduced to P39.500. Their theory is that accused could not have committed the crime charged as he was at the office of Col. Mario Almariego²the witnesses. Cambaya and Pastor Valdez. it should be formally presented while Sec. the son of the owner of the establishment was. PEOPLE vs. They were able to catch up and while they were side by side with the robbers¶ get away vehicle [a jeepney]. Although Pastor was only called to the witness stand at the latter part of the presentation of the prosecution¶s evidence and there was no mention why his testimony was being presented. Cambaya & Mrs. Cambaya and Mrs. Java rushed out holding a brown envelope & they left. the presentation of his testimony was not objected to either. Besides. Valdez Trading. ROC 132 requires that for evidence to be considered. shot Michael and killed him. a gravel & sand establishment. failed to deny or explain the presence of the bloodstained kitchen knife32 found inside the taxi. namely. 1 approached Salvador Cambaya. 2 men appearing to be customers went inside the V. Java was arrested and was charged with Robbery w/ Homicide. Patrolman Jose Malasa & Pfc. Garcia for his reinstatement to the service addressed to Col. the trial court erred in awarding actual damages for other unnecessary or vague items described by the victims father such as miscellaneous expenses and video coverage amounting to P21. was informed that a commotion was happening in their establishment. TC convicted Java of the offense charged and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua with damages amounting to P50K in relation to the robbery at bar. 34. Michael¶s mom who was outside the establishment at the time. the robbery was already established by Cambaya who stated that his P20 was taken at gunpoint & that Java¶s companion ransacked their office. with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the Danilo Manalus the sum of P50. Besides. P100K as moral damages and P100K as exemplary damages. one of the robbers fired at them. found and fled away w/ some money. In accordance with recent rulings. the decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED.500. the award of damages should be modified. to wit: (a) there is more than one circumstance. conspiring together. w/c is required by Sec. Guillermo Domondon & dated Mar. WON Cambaya positively identified Java as a principal actor in the commission of the crime at bar given the disparity in the cartographs of the supposed suspects  YES. & poked a gun at him. Other than the necessary expenses entailed by the burial and wake of the victim.0039 WHEREFORE. JAVA    On March 19. the important factor is that both witnesses identified Java in court when they came face to face with him & pinpointed to him respectively as one of the robbers and the gunman. a John Doe was charged in the information filed below. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 36. Valdez also testified she could positively identify her son¶s killer if she saw him again. WON prosecution was able to establish the fact of robbery because only 2 witnesses testified to the same. In fact. Valdez who testified that Michael told her that they have been robbed of P50K. a truck helper. announced a hold-up.35 However.34 Neither has accused-appellant provided additional evidence other than his verbal testimony about the stab wound he supposedly received from the victim. with intent to gain and with violence. Valdez recounted that the accused.00 respectively. The defense presented the testimonies of Felimon Java and Col. killing him. The award of moral damages in the amount of P100.000 is excessive and should likewise be reduced to P50. They also presented as evidence. At the trial. The amount stolen.other lapses. had gathered the other employees & customers. the descriptions given by Virginia and Cambaya point to one & the same person. Pastor also testified that his establishment lost P50K to the robbers.000.33 which suggest that accused-appellant had a companion in assaulting the driver. Virginia hopped in. Virginia Cabate Valdez. Indeed. 19. took his P20 & ordered him to go inside the building where the other man. P50K as actual damages. such as funeral services36 and food. Such a statement is admissible in . (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. Valdez described the man who killed Michael. robbed Virginia & Michael of P50K and on the occasion of such robbery. ¶93. Although the cartographs did look rather dissimilar. unknown to Cambaya.000. while the awards of actual and moral damages are reduced to P39. intimidation of person & by pointing their firearms. at the precise time & date as that of the commission of the crime. 1993. Sec.

on April 20. The three men then ran away. have no basis in fact. As she was crying. Capalad arrived were operatives of the ISOD Western Police District. Furthermore. the second man stabbed him while the accused. grabbed Pat. The abrasion on the chest. His findings show that the victim suffered 15 external injuries including multiple abrasions.nor the date & time thereof. Also found at the scene was a broken knife.m. The findings were to the effect that the bullets were fired from the barrel of Pat. the connection between the robbery & the homicide was sufficiently established. The fired bullets recovered from the victim's body were submitted to the Ballistics Section of the Western Police District for examination. Dr. Luis Larion. one after the other approached Pat. Panares' gun from a cousin with whom he left it. WON Java may be found guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide based on evidence not on record    YES. even if the murder was perpetuated at a place different from that of the robbery & after an appreciable interval of time (People v. Where the deceased followed the robbers after he had been robbed and by reason thereof. their testimonies may be disregarded in the light of the other defense evidence at hand. Panares for help and that Pat. She saw a policeman across the street who happened to be the deceased. 1979. Panares' gun. Taking cognizance of the case. Lourdes Santos also mentioned that Aling Dionisia approached Pat. Panares' hands from behind. was arrested on August 25. in whose store the body of Pat. On November 20. His firearm was missing from its holster. The more serious injuries were caused by more or less 3 kinds of weapons. medico-legal officer of the Western Police District. Panares at about 11:00 a. was tending her store located in Barrio Kapangpangan. The one who was ahead held Pat. the crime is robbery with homicide (People v. . As to the companions of appellant. had it been effective. Tolentino's cousin told the team that he gave the gun to another person in Hagonoy. Romeo Villagracia of ISOD Western Police District. Panares because he used to take snack in her store after his tour of duty. Cambaya positively identified Java as one of those who held him up as well as the establishment where he works and Mrs. three times. WON Virginia positively identified Java as a principal actor in the commission of the crime at bar  Pfc. Rodrigo Capalad. already dead.evidence as one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule on the ground of trustworthiness & necessity. Garcia and other defense witnesses   NO. however. "C" and "E"). performed an autopsy on the cadaver of Pat. Agustin Panares. the trial court rendered judgment. Manila at about 11:00 o'clock a. The accused was then turned over to the investigators together with the recovered gun. They found Pat. It was done to defend the possession of the stolen property. on April 20. Without the three fatal gunshots wounds. She was able to Identify the three (3) male persons who broke the "escaparate" because they usually pass at her place to buy. and a pair of rubber sandals with the name "DANNY" on the right foot and the initial "J" on the left foot. Already at the scene when Pfc. Gerundio Tolentino was killed before he could be tried and the whereabouts of Eduardo Llamas are unknown. Hence. Agustin Panares after it was Identified by his wife. Ana to Masantol. Java points out that at Virginia was so tense & nervous during the car chase and was crying the whole time so her attention must have been focused on her son & not on the assailant. received a telephone call about the incident from Pat.. Such conjectures. She likewise knew Pat. on the other hand. Moises). When Aling Dionisia had already left. her glasses must have even misted. she saw two men whom she did not know. it cannot be denied that the act of killing was done in order to repel an aggression w/c. Panares' gun and shot him with it. Pampanga to recover Pat. Camarines Sur. YES. neck and chin could have been caused when he fell or were suggestive of a scuffle before he was shot. 1979 when she heard some noise as if glasses were being broken in her store. Estabillo) WON credence should be given to the testimonies of Col. the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. Valdez identified him as the jeep passenger who shot & killed his son. Arsenio Tolentino who fled to Nabua. Panares. Looking towards where the noise came from. Notwithstanding the stature of Java¶s witnesses. when she noticed a commotion in front of the store owned by Aling Dionisia across the street. he was fired upon by one of the robbers. Pat. Ana. The gun was recovered from said person. nor was the letter of recommendation recorded as having been issued by the Colonel¶s office on the said date. Arsenio Tolentino. He was then conversing with Lourdes Santos. a long pointed instrument causing three punctured wounds. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. three of which were fatal (Exhs. namely: a sharp pointed instrument causing two stab wounds and two incised wounds. 1979. As Panares struggled to free himself. another store owner in the same place. Held: Decision of the RTC affirmed in toto. the victim could still have survived as none of the stab wounds were fatal. gave a statement as follows: She was conversing with Pat. the three trouble makers. kicking her display shelf. Agustin Panares lying on his back.m. Panares asked the latter to call another policeman as the trouble makers were too many for him. Bulacan. Sta. The date of the letter of recommendation does not establish that Java was at the Colonel¶s office on said date & time as that of the commission of the crime. inside a "sari-sari" store and full of blood as he suffered multiple gunshot and stab wounds. he proceeded to the crime scene. Tolentino verbally admitted his participation in the perpetration of the crime and accompanied the Special Operations Group of the Western Police District of Sta. the Court finds the accused. and a firearm causing 4 gunshot wounds. would have endangered the whole success of the robbery committed. Panares was found. at about 11:40 a. Arsenio Tolentino y Doria. TOLENTINO Dionisia Datig.. There was no logbook which recorded his visit. Lourdes Santos. 1981. a left foot slipper. a vegetable vendor.m. However.

Arsenio Tolentino. Grospe rode on his carabao. 154 SCRA 30). grabbed Pat. [O]ne after the other. while Marcelino Grospe was pasturing his carabao in his farm at Sitio Basilio. There is treachery in a sudden and unexpected attack which renders the victim unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack (People v. Juan Agustin and Castor Acson. states that "a presumption of guilt arises if the effects belonging to a person robbed and killed are found in the possession of another. giving to each other moral and physical aid and assistance. Thus. and to pay the costs. Moreover. In the case at bar. and hereby sentences him to DEATH. 1969. supra). Abueg 145 SCRA 622). he could have jumped at the opportunity to escape when he came in possession of the gun since he would then be in a superior position than the two. but that the taking of the gun was a mere afterthought.000. that they went to the store to buy "pulutan" and that the victim was merely made fun of (nakatuwaan) by them. Pat. an octogenarian. Ernesto Quebral. Sensing that the group had evil intentions. the allegation of the accused that he was merely forced by Eduardo Llamas and Gerundio Tolentino to shoot the victim is clearly without basis. To say that nobody saw the accused actually fire the fatal shot and. it is evident that there is treachery.aggravated by treachery. the second man stabbed him while the accused. The allegation is likewise unmeritorious. from these acts taken together. The accused-appellant further claims that treachery cannot be appreciated against the appellant because in the absence of conspiracy. Panares' hands from behind. Such a circumstance reveals that the appellants helped each other during the commission of the crime.R. 7. Roxas. The case of People v. subsequently. 4-5. Emilia Saturnino. The three men then ran away. Panares. Barrio San Jose. In the case at bar. Panares' gun sand shot him with it. (p.00 for the death of the latter. the victim was unable to defend himself considering that his hands were held back while the two other authors of the crime stabbed him one after the other and the accused fired the fatal shot. BARUT According to the prosecution. it may be inferred from the acts of the assailants (People v. to steal (People v. in the sum of P12. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. (p. the accused should be acquitted is ridiculous. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CRIMEE COMMITTED WAS ATTENDED BY THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY. on June 15. The fact that the gun used was in the possession of a cousin to whom the accused passed the gun is likewise relevant. Newman & Tolentino. it was not established that it was Tolentino's intention to steal the gun. July 26. the accuse intended both to take the gun and to kill the victim. Acson was armed with a carbine. Atty. The gun was first taken from the victim before he was killed. WHEREFORE. Agustin Panares. treachery can be appreciated only against the person who adopted the treacherous mode of attack. thus. II. gunshots were heard. L-45354. Fernandez. the decision of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the death penalty. counsel de oficio for the accused. supra) to kill a helpless victim.. whether or not the taking was before or after the death of the victim is of no moment in this case. The simple fact that the three assailants approached the victim together and they all participated in the assault which caused 15 stab. shortly after sundown. Newman & Tolentino. The inception of the crime was seen by a number of witnesses. 145 SCRA 178). persons known to him. is hereby awarded P500. Rollo) From this. going towards the hut or camarin of Francisco Lazaro. Alejo Ramiscal. It is sufficient that the mode of attack was consciously adopted by the culprits. they brought it with them and had another person keep it. On the contrary. As Panares struggled to free himself. Such a method of attack or manner of killing clearly indicates the indispensable cooperation and spontaneous coordination between the appellants (People v. the accused-appellant claims that there is no treachery that attended the commission of the crime as only Lourdes Santos testified on the manner of the commission of the crime but she did not see the circumstances surrounding the shooting of the deceased by the appellant. He further contends that robbery must precede the taking of human life. Logic and experience would dictate that an inference of guilt follows under the circumstances where it was seen that the accused and his co-authors stabbed the victim and shortly thereafter. Record). The accused-appellant now assigns the following errors: I. they could have left the gun after killing the victim. On the contrary. Nevertheless. the three trouble makers approached Pat.. an intent to gain which is a necessary element of robbery. 1988). to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. (pp. It should not be a mere afterthought but should be the original design. Lourdes Santos in her testimony related: xxx xxx xxx . No. Rollo). Gapasin. The appellant's selfserving statement is further negated by his claim in Exhibit "1" that he was on a drinking spree with the two. The act of one is necessarily the act of all. 14. He could have used it against Eduardo and Gerundio to frighten them. 4. The testimony of Lourdes Santos clearly shows that there was an intent to rob the victim of his gun. The gun was then taken away and hidden. The contentions of the accused-appellant are untenable. the accused-appellant contends that there was no crime of robbery with homicide committed. Albert Newman & Dionisio Tolentino G." Secondly.00 as attorney's fees. there is clearly manifest a concerted action in the pursuit of a common design to kill and. three times. Had there been no such intention. considering that compared to the knives of the latter. on their part. If it were true that he was merely forced. The one who was ahead held Pat. he had a more powerful weapon. is commuted toRECLUSION PERPETUA and the indemnity to be paid by the accused-appellant to the heirs of the deceased is increased to THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30. pursuant to the 1987 Constitution. he saw Herminio Barut.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library . therefore. Isabela (p. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES. The fact that the accused brought the gun when he and his co-authors of the crime fled. crossed the Siffu River and informed his neighbors that Lazaro was in trouble. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPEALLANT COMMITTED THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. he proceeded with the shooting. is an indication that there was. gunshot and other wounds during the commission of the crime.000. Treachery cannot only be gleaned from the fact that the fatal shot was fired while the victim was lying down. According to the accused-appellant. Defendant-Appellant's Brief) In his first assignment of error.00). It is immaterial that homicide preceded the robbery where robbery was the real motive of the culprits (People v.

The malefactors fled from the scene of the fight. VIII.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The robbery was proven beyond reasonable doubt.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Evaristo sustained an entrance gunshot wound in the chest. Alejandro Tuvera and Evaristo Tuvera. the widow of the deceased Evaristo Tuvera. the trial court synthesized its findings and concisely narrated how the robbery with homicide was perpetrated by the accused. These articles were later recovered and presented as evidence (Exh. 1973. After the exchange of fire between the rescue party and the five malefactors.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The appellants argue that the case. 1969 was served upon Barut.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The municipal judge conducted the second stage of the preliminary investigation and took Quebral's statement on December 10. the latter in their excitement and confusion left the objects of the robbery at the scene of the encounter. appellant Quebral was at Barrio Baua. 1973 Constitution).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library . constituted themselves as a rescue party and repaired to the vicinity of Lazaro's hut. The affidavits of Grospe. which deal with the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. includes members of the Constabulary. Marcelino Grospe. After meticulously summarizing the evidence of the prosecution and the defense. They are directly charged with the preservation of peace. 12.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Appellants' uncorroborated alibis have no exculpatory value. Ilagan. 1974). Saturnino Sales. It justified its view that the alibis interposed by the accused are not worthy of credence. armed with guns and bolos. appellants' alibis cannot destroy the positive Identification made by the prosecution witness. and Doctor Luis R.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The trial court's decision conforms with the requirement that the judgment should contain and distinctly a statement of the facts proven or admitted by the accused and upon which it is based (Sec. 2. Quebral and Agustin in the municipal court of Roxas by a Constabulary investigator on July 7.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Appellants Barut. That is a baseless or flimsy argument. respectively (p. the warrant of arrest dated July 17.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library As has been repeatedly observed in cases of similar nature. they are more competent and experienced than policemen to investigate crimes. 1969. they were all residents of Barrio Masigun. 826. the trial court convicted them (except Agustin who is at large in Mindoro) of robbery with homicide. Maxims Saludares. (See secs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Grospe and his neighbors. The fiscal filed against the same accused an information for robbery in band with homicide dated February 10. Alejandro Tuvera (son of Evaristo) and Lorenzo Soriano were taken and sworn to before the municipal judge of Roxas on June 23. a complaint for robbery in band with homicide was filed against Barut. law and order. It is their duty to investigate crimes and bring criminal offenders to justice. Tamayo who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Evaristo Tuvera. Sec. B to F).Acson held up Lazaro and at gunpoint got his money amounting to twenty-three pesos. Sec. Roxas. ransacked it and took his carpentry tools worth one hundred pesos and parts of a carbine. 825. CFI Record). while appellant Ramiscal was at Barrio Salindingan. Lazaro. Rule of Court. Isabela. 1974. As already stated. The three appellants allegedly stayed in those places for four years. Quezon Province where he was working on a farm owned by his uncle.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The three appellants are admittedly close friends (15-16 tsn September 25. Gonzaga. Lorenzo Soriano. 1972. 1973. He took the statements of Barut and Ramiscal on December 31. Ramiscal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library At the preliminary examination on July 16 and 17. Grospe. 1969. who is acquainted with the appellants and who had no motive for fabricating evidence against them. should have been investigated by the police and not by the Constabulary soldiers. The bullet penetrated his heart and right lung and exited in the right scapular region or shoulder blade (Exh. 9. 1973 and December 31. 3. the municipal judge interrogated Lazaro. B to F). Soriano. That contention is devoid of merit. Tagkawayan. Revised Administrative Code. Appellants' arguments as to the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence are fully answered in the prosecution's brief.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance only on January 9. Consolacion Cabutaje. 831 and 848. X. Quebral and Ramiscal a few years later or only on December 30. On the basis of those affidavits. Together with Acson and Agustin. appellant Barut was allegedly in Barrio Malbog.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library However.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The incident was investigated by the Constabulary. Acson was killed while in Grospe's group Evaristo Tuvera was the lone fatality. Those articles were recovered and presented as evidence in court (Exh. They then utilized their stay in those places as the basis of their alibis. When the robbery with homicide was committed. The probability is that immediately after the occurrence of the incident in question they fled from Barrio Masigun and stayed for more than three years in those aforementioned places as fugitives from justice in order to avoid arrest and prosecution. Art. Alejandro Tuvera saw them running away (54 tsn June 28. Acson's companions went up the hut. Cagayan. which enumerates the persons who are competent to file a criminal complaint. 1974).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Appellants' other assignments of error. Ramiscal and Quebral contend that the trial court's decision does not state the ultimate facts on which the judgment of conviction was based. The term "peace ofricer" in section 2. A). Rule 120. 1935 Constitution. 1969. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Then. They deployed behind the banana plants. There was a brief exchange of fire between the two groups. 1973. Art. 1974.) Generally. it ratio its conclusion that the robo con homicidio was not committed by a band. do not merit any serious consideration. August 27.

" He shot Dr. stabbed the victim. Upon seeing Genoveva upstairs. were co-conspirators.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE. aun cuando no concurra o homicide. Lopez. Iluminada and Genoveva recognized two (2) of them as their neighbors TITO BALANAG (a. Tito and Federico fled. right zygomatic area and 5 right upper lip). was in the kitchen. Genoveva thus obediently proceeded towards the cabinet. on the other hand. rushed upstairs. Lopez' house. Her daughter followed. they had three (3) children in college. Iluminada thought of asking for help from their neighbors. She suffered mental anguish and could hardly sleep or eat upon her husband's death. During the commotion. During the two weeks wake for her deceased husband. 1. Tito's father. Dr. it was connected with the robbery. coetanea o posterior a este" (2 Cuello Calon. As Dr. Downstairs. in the living room of their house.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The three appellants. Her left forefinger was cut in the process. Genoveva. fifty dollars (US $50. Medical Officer of the Rural Health Unit of Doña Gregoria Memorial District Hospital in Aringay. two (2) stab wounds.00 monthly.00). Andres) and FEDERICO BALANAG (a. more or less. The third man. They found the bloodied bodies of Dr. the homicide is still integrated with the robbery or is regarded as having been committed "by reason or on the occasion" thereof.. the robbery spawned a fight between the robbers and the neighbors of Lazaro. was later identified as SERAFIN DACANAY. 22. Alejandro Basallo. who aimed his gun at her. Genoveva screamed. brushing her teeth. She and her mother also rushed downstairs. was talking to his wife. but she bravely parried the thrust with her arm. a double bladed dagger. The killing of Evaristo Tuvera resulted from that fight. Serafin immediately announced a "hold-up. three (3) men barged into the front door of Dr. GENOVEVA LOPEZ y OBRA. Seeing the helpless condition of her father. Genoveva managed to get a bolo and attacked Serafin in self defense." He poked a gun at the head of Iluminada. Several neighbors of the Lopezes who heard the commotion arrived at the scene. Pat. Dr.00) cash. SR. 670. sprawled on the floor. Iluminada had barely stepped out of the house when she was blocked by "Berto" (Roberto) Balanag. a "compadre" of Federico. el delito existe segun constante jurisprudencia. Serafin also fired at her but missed. Iluminada.a. Aringay. Lopez was ascending the stairs. and multiple gunshot wounds (on the right breast upper outer quadrant. Lopez sustained abrasion wound.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library There is robo con homicidio even if the victim killed was an innocent bystander and not the person robbed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In the instant case. he lunged at her. Serafin demanded money and other valuables from Iluminada. Gardon. Cal. People vs. you are (sic) the one (who) filed a case against Berto 4 Balanag. They are all responsible for the homicide. There being no modifying circumstances. whom the Lopezes had seen for the first time. Costs against the appellants. it is provided that there is robbery with homicide "cuando con motivo o con ocassion del robo resultare homicidio". 1985. siempre que el homicidio se produzca con motivo o con ocassion del robo. and one live ammunition found inside the gun's chamber. a certain Jose Dulay. the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is in conformity with articles 63(2) and 294(l) of the Revised Penal Code. police authorities.000. ni que el culpable tenga intencion de matar. Thus. Guillermo Lopez and Serafin Dacanay.000. One of them. and she was about to open the cabinet when her father. Based on his examination. while their daughter. People vs. Genoveva and Serafin grappled for the bolo of the latter. near the door of her room. her dentist husband used to earn P10. Irked. By stroke of luck. p. Serafin also poked the gun at her head. Avena also treated Genoveva Lopez Obra who sustained lacerated wound 6 on the 3rd left forefinger. 104 Phil. 371). the trial court's judgment is affirmed with the slight modification that the appellants should pay solidarily to Francisco Lazaro the sum of twenty-three pesos (P23) which was taken from him by one of the robbers.k. together with Agustin and Acson. 872). Pedring). the robbery victim. valued at P2. Simeon Madarang. Serafin died. the victim was met by accused Tito Balanag who stabbed him (the victim) with a dagger. Iluminada quickly retreated to the house and closed the backdoor. She stood behind the door and locked it as Berto tried to force his way in.. Armando Avena. . BALANAG The essential facts came mainly from the testimonies of eyewitnesses Iluminada Lopez and Genoveva Lopez y Obra. 88 Phil 120. went to her father's aid as Serafin continued assaulting her father.00. According to the widow. and Pat. La Union. two hundred pesos (P200. La Union. reported the incident to the authorities. On November 24. two (2) bolos soiled with blood. six (6) empty shells. likewise. 52 Phil. at about 7:30 P. They also recovered the following: a Ruby Magnum. as contemplated in article 294(i) of the Revised Penal Code. she ran past her husband and proceeded outside their house thru the backdoor. Benjamin Rulloda. Lopez. At the time of her husband's death. with serial no. She then summoned Genoveva to give her the keys to the cabinet. and a mini-stereo cassette. The law does not require that the victim of the robbery be also the victim of the homicide (People vs. siendo indiferente que la muerte sea anterior. Serafin yelled at him saying: "Okinam nga lakay sica ti ngangidarum quen Berto Balanag (Vulva of your mother. That evening. namely: Station Commander P/Sgt.Although the killing of Evaristo Tuvera was perpetrated after the consummation of the robbery and after the robbers had left the victim's house. P25. taking with them Genoveva's shoulder bag containing a diamond ring and earrings worth three thousand pesos (P3.M.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In the controlling Spanish version of article 294. Pfc. ILUMINADA LOPEZ. she spent. Hence. incluso si la muerte sobreviniere por mero accidente. GUILLERMO LOPEZ.000. a dentist.a. Derecho Pemt 1975 14th Ed. Wilson Argame inspected the locus criminis.Salamuddin No.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SO ORDERED. Band is not aggravating because it was not proven that four of the five malefactors were armed. Moro Disimban. Suddenly. 05522. Lopez who fell down the stairs which had no railings. Dr. "Basta que entre aquel este exista una relacion meramente ocasional No se requiere que el homicidio se cometa como medio de ejecucion del robo. Dr.000.k. Serafin then went downstairs and. So did the wounded Dr.00) cash. held her arm and then led her towards Genoveva's room on the second floor of the house. situated in Sitio Salapac.00. In the meantime. conducted the postmortem examination on the victim's body.

for his refusal to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the 9 authorities. At about 5:00 P. 10 11 1985. She saw her father an hour later. on the ground that the owner of the stolen items Genoveva Lopez y Obra.M. and d) P172. the accused-appellant. There is robo con homicido even if the victim killed was an innocent 16 bystander. After trial. Alejandro Basallo. Genoveva and the latter's sister who was then carrying a wooden stick ("malo"). did not file any complaint for robbery. that has to be taken into consideration. he was allegedly in a farm in Salapac. The Balanags described their dwelling as a one room house that it would not be possible for them to leave without being seen or noticed by the other members of the family. together with his brother Renato and motherin-law. the accused prisoners were held liable for robbery with homicide although the items robbed. they proceeded towards Federico's house. Said information alleged that the stolen items belong to Genoveva Lopez y Obra. He admitted. We have also ruled that in this kind of a complex crime.000. we affirmed the conviction of the accused for robbery with homicide although the robbery victim was different from the homicide victim. The argument lacks merit. Thus. She returned home from school at 4:30 P.e. Or that death supervened by mere accident. Federico slept in the room with his youngest son Ronald. she was on her way to school. was not identified. His appeal was considered abandoned for failure to prosecute his appeal and. they passed by the house of the victim.M. modes or persons intervening 17 in the commission of the crime.Federico Balanag interposed the defense of alibi. We rule in the affirmative. As she was nearing the house of Dr. Guillermo Lopez. At around 2:00 A. In the recent case 18 of People vs.110. more importantly. that Serafin was the godfather of one of his children. and not the personal properties of the homicide victims. to urinate. their identification of the accused should be given full faith and 22 credit. They were meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Dr. At the police station.000. at about 6:30 A." Accusedappellant avers that a valid complaint for robbery. She decided to skip school. La Union. OF THE COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND/OR IN NOT EXONERATING HIM OF THE OFFENSE. She was merely referred to as the "offended party. her husband was sound asleep when she woke up at around 11:00 P. Lopez. In the morning of November 24. .M. the victim of the robbery need not 14 15 necessarily be the victim of homicide. Pampanga. the following amounts: a) P50. 1985. Thereafter. 1985. There were several persons in the vicinity but she did not inquire what happened. She learned later that Dr. taking with him a mini-stereo cassette. in People vs.. i. further that he could be convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide since the victim of the robbery. The court a quo also ordered accused-appellant and Tito Balanag. On their way to the municipal building. considering that the phrase "personal property belonging to another. The credibility of these eyewitnesses is further enhanced by the fact that Iluminada and Genoveva had no ill feelings against Federico prior to the incident. and the person killed. According to Teresita. 1985. belong to the armory of the Provincial Jail of San Fernando. dated December 2. Genoveva even saw accused-appellant when he fled from the scene. the heirs of the deceased Dr." as an essential element of 12 the crime of robbery.M. Prior to the robbery and killing.M. Thus. must specify the owner of the stolen property. Teresita and the rest of the family went to bed at 8:00 P. after dinner. and dined together thirty minutes later. causes. According to Genoveva.M. did not file the required Appellant's Brief. She claimed further that. Federico denied he was in the company of his cousin Tito Balanag and Serafin Dacanay that fateful evening of November 24. she went to school at about 6:30 A. 8 We affirm the judgment of conviction. the policemen came and took her husband with them.000.. solidarily. He claims. At that time. They arrived home at 5:30 P. the following day. were waiting for her (Gina) and her companions ("Agharang da amin"). b) P48.M. However.00 ² as moral damages. These eyewitnesses could not have been mistaken as they knew Federico and Tito even before the incident. positively identified accused-appellant Federico Balanag as among those who barged into their house that tragic evening.M. It was also not improbable for the eyewitnesses to recognized the faces of the culprits. She averred that on November 24. Lopez had been killed. 22. five (5) shotguns and three (3) guns. the morning following the incident. installed along 20 the porch. the provincial jail guards. Florencia Hidalgo. He then told her he was manhandled by Station Commander Alejandro Basallo. inasmuch as it is only the result obtained. the place of incident was well lighted as 50 watts electric bulbs. We now come to the more important issues of whether the guilt of accused-appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt. Guillermo Lopez. At least two credible witnesses. should be clearly established. who has remained at large. c) P20. after a day's work of threshing palay.00 ² for loss of earning capacity.M. to indemnify. daughter of Dr. Pamintuan. FEDERICO BALANAG.. Genoveva Lopez y Obra. however. She then nursed her eight-month old baby and stayed awake until midnight. The records reveal that the Lopezes and the Balanags were neighbors 19 since birth. were on. too. 1985. 1986.00 ² for the death of Guillermo Lopez. in the living room and the kitchen. Her father slept at 7:30 P. without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. Both accused appealed. Teresita noticed that her husband had bruises.00 ² as actual damages. She and her daughter Gina visited Federico in Jail. Tito Balanag. His wife. the accused were not wearing masks. Guillermo Lopez. provided that the homicide was produced by reason or on the occasion of robbery. We need not delve lengthily on the cited defect in the Criminal Complaint and Amended Criminal 13 Complaint since the said error was corrected in the Information. Accused-appellant Federico Balanag now contends: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSSED. Gina Balanag corroborated the testimonies of her parents pertaining to the whereabouts of her father. Prefatorily. Disimban. and the amended Criminal Complaint. Accused-appellant himself 21 confirmed this lack of ill motive. dated November 27. albeit Serafin was wearing a hat. Aringay. the Balanags were in good terms with the Lopezes. was not robbed of his personal belongings.. the defense assails the validity of the Criminal Complaint. filed by investigating officer P/Sgt. we see no reason to depart from the well established rule that when there is no evidence to show that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motive. Iluminada and Genoveva. dated March 14. the court a quo found Federico Balanag and his co-accused Tito Balanag guilty of 7 Robbery with Homicide. Ruby Cal.

showing that the accused had acted in unison with each other. although they did not actually take part in the homicide. we reduce the award for loss of the earning capacity of the deceased to P144. Pedro Huerva and Cristeto Ledesma went in.00. We hold otherwise.00. hence. valued at P357. we AFFIRM WITH MODIFICATION the assailed Decision. (Mr. having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. On cross-examination.00 was awarded for loss of the earning capacity of the victim. considering his advanced age.50 and belonging to Catalina Balinon and Rosario Juaneza. Then they bound the two men they found in the house.00. 35 until he reaches the final moment of his life. she got confused and said she went to school on November 22. age.00. La Union. In order to obtain an easy entrance into the house. told the inmates of the house that they were Constabulary inspectors.00 for the expenses incurred during the two weeks wake for the victim. The testimonies given by accused-appellant's wife and daughter vis-a-vis that of eyewitnesses Iluminada and Genoveva. Lopez' residence.000. as a dentist. His income as a dentist was P10. the trial court gave greater credence on the prosecution witnesses' testimonies. The circumstances in field show the existence of conspiracy among accused-appellant and his cohorts. It is settled that when the issue of credibility of witnesses is involved. premises considered. The testimony of Teresita appears to be more consistent in contrast to her daughter's story. The Lopezes are prominent in their place. and conducted them below where they were left in charge of the rest of . of said defendants wore the uniform of a Constabulary private.482. Federico. and another was dressed like a policeman. in reply to the question asked him from within. and the others remained outside. are modified as follows: TIONGCO The facts of the present case are as follows: On or about December 3.110. The trial court multiplied his 31 net annual income by his life expectancy of seven (7) years and two (2) months. Accusedappellant was. Upon their arrival at the house and after making known that they were Pedro Huerva. Lopez' unexpected resistance. In connection with the civil liability of accused-appellant. several factors are considered besides the mathematical computation of annual income times life expectancy. all carrying arms. were Constabulary inspectors and had come to search the house to see whether people living in it had firearms. The records show that accused-appellant's house was about 120 meters from the house of the Dr. these defendants. A-1540. while Tito and Federico stayed downstairs. The defendants and their two companions were then invited to enter. 1985 or January 22. employing violence and intimidation upon the inmates thereof. P172. not to mention they belong to a big family.110. 1985. we note that the victim was already 69 years old at the time he was killed on November 24. The records show that the total 30 amount incurred for burial/funeral expenses was P19. She also claimed that Genoveva and her sister waited for them after the incident.Nonetheless. His claim of innocence is believe by the fact that. Pedro Huerva. The total award for actual damages should then be P44. since there was no proof of conspiracy. Lopez did not attempt to rescue his wife and daughter from Serafin. appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question. we have to consider the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the victim. 32 33 nature of work of the victim. They fled together. albeit futile in the hands of the armed robbers. entered at night the house of Catalina Balinon and. Gina also denied knowing Dr. 1991.00. unless certain facts of value have been plainly overlooked 28 which if considered.00. For one. Lopez' additional claim of P25.110. Tito and Federico hastily got Genoveva's shoulder bag and the mini-stereo cassette. and state of health prior to his death. for actual or compensatory damages. an old man and a young man. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the crime. Allowances are made for circumstances which could reduce the computed life expectancy of the victim. during or after the commission of the crime. After deducting therefrom the necessary and incidental expenses which the victim would have incurred if he were alive. Cristeto Ledesma. correctly found guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Lopez..g. or P120. Their plan was almost perfect and would have been successful if Dr. 1985. we find the said claim reasonable considering the social standing of the Lopezes in the community. Congress had yet to restore the imposition of death penalty. is not fully supported by evidence. only to admit later that she knew him as he was their 27 neighbor. Lopez was shot and stabbed by his cohorts. Thus. However. his lifestyle. accusedappellant acted in unison and cooperated with his companions in committing the robbery. Lopez sired 13 children. six men. and Mrs.000. Thus. In computing the loss of the earning capacity of the victim. Roberto Balanag stood on guard at the back portion of the house. the indeminification granted in favor of the heirs of DR. among whom were the four defendants. evincing a common 23 purpose or design. In this case. however. Gina lied when she testified she attended school on November 24. Without a doubt. Accused-appellant's defense of alibi cannot succeed because of circumstances pointing to its 25 contrived nature and his positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.000. of the Regional Trial Court (Branch XXXIII) of Bauang. in the municipality of Sara. might affect the result of the case. most of whom are professionals and gainfully employed). notwithstanding the aggravating 29 circumstances attending the commission of the crime. prompting her not to proceed to school. To further secure the area. Lopez. Province of Iloilo. all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be liable as principals of the special crime of robbery with homicide. not P23. Dr. It is settled that when homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery. Accordingly. With respect to the claim for loss of earning capacity of the victim. The exception to the rule is when it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the 24 unlawful killing. In this case.000. and not P48. accused-appellant stresses that nobody testified on his participation to the killing. do not inspire belief. Robbery with Homicide is punishable with reclusion perpetua. In 34 addition. dated September 5. Lopez. in Criminal Case No. he carried away the mini-stereo cassette of the Lopezes. Narciso Castaño. declared that the victim's annual net income would be P24. albeit there was no evidence on the state of health of the victim. When confronted that it was a Sunday. Lopez. Serafin and Tito simultaneously barged thru the front door of Dr.00 per annum. leaving behind Serafin who was still grappling with Genoveva. there is no evidence that accused-appellant tried to prevent the killing of Dr. after Dr.00 per month. It could be inferred from the conduct of the accused before. Gina admitted that she was not sure if they were really waiting for them. thus. e. Huerva and Ledesma again told the inmates that they. he could not be held responsible for the death of Dr. since at the time of the commission of the offense. When inside the house. the award of P48. aborted the well-planned robbery. it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime and to commit the 26 crime. which is the approximate amount he would have 36 earned until his 75th birthday.00.482. 1915. and Rufo Tiongco.000.000. the court a quo. seized and carried away with them certain articles of personal use. WHEREFORE. Serafin then led Iluminada upstairs. therefore. we find it reasonable and fair to assume that he would not be able work and earn. He points out that. GUILLERMO LOPEZ. 1985. Anent Mrs.

4). 1997. took with them the said Rosario Juaneza and Nieves Eusula to a secluded place near a river not far away. The defendants Cristeto Ledesma and Narciso Castaño are each sentenced to pay an indemnity of P200 to Rosario Juaneza and Nieves Eusula. Caloocan City (Tsn. Amy de Guzman (Amy) was tending a Video Rental Shop owned by her employer and cousin. pursuant to article 51 of the Code. Therefore. including important documents. paragraph 2. Pedro Huerva. all together valued at P357. due weight should be given to the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of its having been perpetrated at night. The facts above related. have been punished for the complex crime of robbery with the infliction of wounds or the commission of homicide. although they may not actually and materially have taken any part in the rape committed upon those two women by the other two defendants. and. their companions. where the boat was moored.the band. all the malefactors are liable for the complex crime in question. There is no extenuating circumstance to offset or compensate the effects of said aggravating circumstances. to which she replied. as defined and qualified by paragraph 2 of article 503 of the Penal Code. employing force and intimidation to accomplish their purpose. Therefore the effects have incurred the maximum penalty fixed by law. abandoned their victims and rejoined the other robbers. or simultaneously with the robbery. or jointly or severally pay the value thereof to the aggrieved parties.m. arrived at said shop (ibid. cannot be excepted from this penalty for the reason that the penal law does not require the condition that the rape be committed prior to. fully proven in this case. After the robbers had seized such things as they wished to carry off and when ready to go out. 10:00 p. . who were awaiting them in a banca moored to the river bank. while Huerva and Ledesma reentered the house to see whether they could find any articles of value. The defendant Rufo Tiongco and Pedro Huerva. belonging to the owner of the house.50. (id. and in a band. accused-appellant Alexander Taño. if these accessory penalties be not remitted in the pardon of the principal penalty. and the facts in this case fall within their provisions. Thereupon. Cristeto Ledesma raped Rosario Juaneza.. under the law. in which they had Narciso Castaño compelled two of the women. all the defendants would. in the present case. they took the three women below blindfolded. committed by the members of the band. Cristeto Ledesma. at around 7:30 p. the defendants Tiongco and Huerva. two of them sullied the honor of the two women living therein. took these two women with them to a place near a marsh not far from the river bank. in the act of the robbery. Each of the four appellants shall pay one-fourth of the costs of both instances. to the penalty of cadena perpetua and to the accessory penalties of paragraph 2 and 3 of article 54 of the Penal Code. both inmates thereof. Said crime is provided for and punished by articles 502 and 503. the other robbers made no remonstrance nor any material opposition to the commission of the crime against the chastity and the honor of the two women who were raped.m. and reversed. 1998. In the case of a complex crime.). all the persons who took part in its commission are identically liable therefor and should be punished with the penalty provided in article 503. each of the defendants Narciso Castaño. because two of the robbers raped two women. apparently unconnected with and unrelated to that penal law. For the foregoing reasons we should sentence. and while the band was on its way to the banca these two men separated from the rest. in which boat they had crossed the river on their way to the place of the robbery. Morning Breeze [S]ubdivision. and there raped them. Catalina Balinon. If any of the defendants had wounded or killed an inmate of the house that they robbed. a relative of Ana's husband Gerry Marinay (Gerry). Ana Marinay (Ana) located at 153 Loreto Street. and that they therefore compelled them to go down from the house and took them to a secluded site not far from the landing place. It is unquestionable that. that against said forcible conduction. in the definition of the crime. No. Juaneza and Eusula. 3). and they shall make restitution of the stolen articles. in so far as it agrees with this decision. and all left. in odium of such offenses against property and chastity. both crimes should be punished ass one single complex crime. searched the inside of the house and some of its furniture. and the companions of the two men who committed the rape made no opposition nor prevented these latter from consummating this other crime. January 8. p. PEOPLE The Facts Version of the Prosecution The solicitor general sums the evidence for the prosecution in this wise: 4 On November 6. for. who took no part in the rape of the women Juaneza and Eusula. has considered them complex and punished them by one single penalty. In the commission of the crime. in a desolate place. it being sufficient that this crime be perpetrated on the occasion of the robbery. and. So ordered. all the robbers who took part on the perpetration of the complex crime are liable for all the offenses falling within the limitation of certain circumstances specified by the law. in the dwelling of the offended parties. subjection to the surveillance of the authorities for the remainder of their lives. with that of the rape of said two women ² a crime against chastity committed on the occasion of the robbery ² was perpetrated by the malefactors in the said house of Catalina Balinon. constitute the complex crime of robbery in a band. Narciso Castaño and Cristeto Ledesma. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. to accompany them. for the very reason that they are liable for all the other acts performed on the occasion of the robbery. their companions Ledesma and Castaño. like the one here under prosecution. they shall suffer those perpetual disqualification. and Rosario Juaneza. in case they be pardoned from the principal penalty. respectively. separated from their companions. besides the robbers seizing the money and the other effects they found in said house. The band then headed for the river near by to embark in the banca. p. two of the robbers. as we hereby do. where they raped them and. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. accompanied by rape committed upon the person of two women who resided in the house where the robbery took place. immediately after the commission of these outrages. So the law says. As the crime of robbery. Upon going out of the building. where the other robbers were waiting for them. and Rufo Tiongco. and Narciso went to the banca.. seized money and various other effects. 2 of the Penal Code. inasmuch as the malefactors were armed and were more than four men. two of the robbers conceived the purpose of raping two of the three women they forthwith abducted. that when the robbery is accompanied by rape or mutilation caused purposely. of the Penal Code.. in so far as it does not. Alexander Taño then asked Amy about the time when Gerry would be coming home. TANO VS.

2-6)" Ruling of the Trial Court Assessing the testimony of the private complainant. including Amy's Alba watch. pp. the accused covered her mouth with his right hand but Amy put up a struggle and in the process they both fell down and rolled on the floor. Terrified by the attack. clothes and hair blower as well as jewelry box containing five rings which he placed in his pocket. Ana immediately sought the help of Barangay officials of the place and Amy was brought to the "MCU" Hospital where she was initially treated of her injuries (id. Therafter. 1998.. p. pp.. Amy started shouting for help but Alexander Taño increased the volume of a karaoke which was on at the time to drown Amy's cries for help (id. pp. .m. appellant's version of the incident is as follows: 5 . he went to the house of his cousin Gerry Bautista Marinay at 113 Loreto St. 5-6). this time on the toilet bowl. p. .). Alexander Taño kept on going in and out of the Video Shop. muchless has he taken any cash money from his cousin Gerry Marinay.. Ana. Version of the Defense On the other hand. Parenthetically this Court has observed the deportment of the private complainant at the witness stand and certainly she did not appear to have the callousness and shrewdness of a woman capable of imputing a heinous .). accused proceeded to the kitchen to drink water and after he bought cigarettes at the nearby store. somebody knocked at the door of the shop prompting the former to stop what he was doing and ordered Amy to put on her clothes (id.. Amy was. Ana proceeded to the toilet where she found Amy bathed in blood (ibid. 1997. pp.He then asked about the time when Ana would be coming home and Amy replied that she did not know (id. of the same day. 10). When she regained consciousness she found herself and Taño inside the toilet of the shop and the latter again banged her head. straightforward. she shouted and to stop her. he returned to the shop and seated himself infront of Amy de Guzman's counter. the thought of stealing his cousin's valuables struck his mind owing to his dire need of cash/money. 1998. herself lost her ring. several times causing Amy to again lose consciousness (id. At about 9:00 o'clock p. As the accused was rattled. Reyes Memorial Medical Center (JPRMMC) where she was confined for four (4) days. Amy then pleaded with Taño to just take anything inside the shop and to spare her life. Morning Breeze Subdivision. Kalookan City and upon arrival thereat he found therein Amy de Guzman alone which she greeted him because she knew that the accused was a frequent visitor thereof. he ordered the latter to undress and he thereafter started raping her (id. to which Taño replied "no. As to Amy's surprise [sic]. pp. March 4. 5). the accused was able to subdue Amy and forcibly took her in the upstairs where he did the ransacking of the drawers while holding the private complainant's hand. March 3. Upon learning from her that Gerry was not around. 4-5). the latter got hold of the knife which she surreptitiously concealed under the stairs (id. the trial judge observed: 6 Verily this Court finds the forthright account of the incident by the private complainant whose small and slender physique was certainly no match to the tall well-built body of an ex-convict.. Taño then started cursing her and again placed himself on top of her while poking a knife at her neck (id. After the lapse of five minutes he got bored and went out again to wait for the arrival of GERRY. 7). Taño went upstairs and looted the place of valuables belonging to Amy's employer. But after a while and upon Amy's pleading. Thence. pp. p. 6-7). but still on the same date.). Amy. he pushed Amy inside the comfort room and shoved her head against the tiles to mum her.. Taño put down his knife and while he was kissing Amy.. to lead him to where his cousin was keeping his money and valuables. Thereafter. later on. [O]n November 6. spontaneous and frank which remained consistent and unwavering despite the rigid cross-examinations of the defense counsel wherein she narrated in detail the sexual assault with the use of a knife perpetrated by the accused against her. Taño became violent again and banged Amy's head on the wall causing the latter to lose consciousness (id. 2-9) (TSN. After turning off the "karaoke["].). 1998.. Amy's employer Ana arrived and found the shop in disarray with the "karaoke" in full volume (Tsn.. then he proceeded to his brother's house in Taytay. Thus. 9). But suddenly thereafter. Alexander Taño then dragged Amy to the kitchen of the shop where. bracelet and wristwatch during the incident in question (id.m. However. p. 13." (id. p. that he never raped the private complainant Amy de Guzman and neither [had he] courted her prior to the incident. 5). 4). After finishing his cigarette he returned to Amy and talked with her and learned that ANA was at her newly opened restaurant.. at around 7:40 p. pp. 8-10).. while Alexander Taño was raping Amy. he approached Amy and held her hands and asked her to come with him because he badly needed money. After a while. Alexander Taño then directed Amy to go upstairs to the second floor of the shop to change clothes as he will be taking her with him (id. (TSN. that no other jewelry was taken by him from the place except those already specified. and on the last time that he went inside said shop.. at knife point. a bracelet.. 2-4). p. she was able to free herself from his hold and ran downstairs to the kitchen where she tried to get hold [of] a knife but he was able to wrest with her. transferred to Jose P. he jumped over the counter of the shop to where Amy was and seized the latter by placing one of his arms around Amy['s] neck. He took Amy's bag wherein he placed his loot consisting of 2 wrist watches. I will not leave you here alive. Thereafter.). Upon arrival of the police and his cousin thereat he returned the jewelry box to the latter but the same was not presented in court. to be candid. Taño pulled her down and punched her in the stomach thrice causing her to lose her balance (id. However. while his other hand held a knife which he poked at her neck (id... that he has a wife staying in Iloilo and he has a girlfriend here in Manila.

It is a basic rule. the Court finds that (a) appellant is guilty of two separate crimes ² rape and robbery. which is death. this Court likewise reviewed (a) the propriety of appellant's conviction of the special complex crime of robbery with rape and (b) the trial court's appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Appellant offers us no plausible explanation why Amy de Guzman cried rape against him. Godofredo Balderosa and Dr. it imposed the maximum penalty provided under Article 294 of the same Code as amended. this Court has acknowledged that the vacillation of the victim in reporting the crime to the authorities is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated 1 charge. especially of rape. She also executed a Sworn 17 Statement before PO3 Jaime Basa. she effectively says all that is 21 necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Redencion Bukid-Abella. Maria Redencion Bukid-Abella which negate the rape [charge] imputed against the accused. Issues In his Brief. appellant claims that the failure of Amy de Guzman to immediately disclose the rape to her examining physicians could only mean that she was not in fact sexually assaulted. the trial court appreciated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance because the incident took place supposedly at the residence of private complainant's employer. Hence. Otherwise stated. . [and she] remained consistent and unwavering despite the rigid cross-examinations of 22 the defense counsel . absent any credible imputation of ill motive on the part of the private complainant to falsely accuse the appellant of a heinous crime. if her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and 19 punished. Thus." Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659. Amy de Guzman's straightforward and convincing testimony. The lower court accepted the judicial admission of the accused that he stole valuables belonging to private complainant and her employer. the defense has not shown any evil motive or ill will on the part of the private complainant for testifying the way she did in this case. founded on reason and experience. this automatic review by this Court. The Court takes judicial notice of the Filipina's inbred modesty and shyness and her 15 antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue. The initial reluctance of a young. These two items will be discussed as the third and fourth issues. Four days later. not of 11 consummated rape. . unless such was true. It is thus perfectly understandable and consistent with common experience that Amy initially tried to downplay the assault upon her chastity by telling the doctors that there was no consummation of the act. and (c) the proper penalty for rape is reclusion perpetua. an appeal throws the whole case open for review and the appellate court may correct such errors it may find in the appealed judgment. II The lower court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape despite the prosecution's insufficiency of evidence. allow an examination of her private parts and submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial. In criminal cases. Aurea Villena of the Jose R. Besides. Ana Marinay. Additionally. First Issue: 9 8 Evaluation of the Examining Doctors' Testimonies Appellant contends that the trial court failed to give due credence to the testimonies of Dr. . Time-honored is the doctrine that no young and decent woman would publicly admit that she was ravished and her virtue defiled. who both examined and treated Amy de Guzman's physical injuries immediately after the incident. . even if they have not been specifically 10 assigned." Besides. spontaneous and frank . where she was confined. The trial judge observed her "to be candid. however.crime against the [a]ccused if the same is not true. and then proceeded to determine "whether or not the prosecution evidence has sufficiently established the rape angle of the case.] Furthermore. no ill motive was imputed on her. we find no reason to deviate from these doctrines. These are: I The lower court erred in not taking into consideration the testimonies of Dr. She stood firm on her tale throughout her court appearance. She cannot be expected to readily reveal the fact of her sexual violation to total strangers. . bears no badge of material inconsistency which would bring doubt to its veracity. straightforward. In many criminal cases. "which 7 doubles as a video rental shop. In the case at bar." In fine. which was conducted by Dra. Their testimonies supposedly bolster appellant's innocence of the rape charge. Godofredo Balderosa and Dr. the findings of NBI Medico-Legal Officer Aurea Villena were allegedly inconclusive as to whether there was sexual intercourse between the appellant and the 12 victim. (b) dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. not death. she acceded to undergo a medico legal examination of her genital organ. The Court's Ruling After a careful review of the evidence on record. which will be detailed later. Appellant Taño assigns only two errors or issues. Ma. she was finally able to gather the courage to reveal the 16 entire truth to her cousin-employer. for it would be instinctive for her to 18 protect her honor. Reyes Memorial Hospital. No woman would concoct a story of defloration. that when a victim testifies that she has been raped. Thus. We believe she did so in order to bring out the truth and to obtain justice. the [a]ccused having already admitted the robbery charge coupled with the fact that the prosecution has established with clear and convincing evidence [a]ccused's culpability for sexually assaulting the pri[v]ate complainant leaves no room for doubt of the guilt of the accused for the complex crime of robbery with (aggravated) rape[. The following day. Neither does it always cast doubt on the credibility on the complaining witness. her candid and consistent 20 testimony should be given full faith and credit. Both doctors similarly stated that the victim complained to them of physical assault and attempted rape only. inexperienced lass to admit having been ravished is normal and 14 natural. detailing how she had been raped and beaten by appellant.

q After inserting his penis into your private parts.Appellant's contention that the absence of genital and other injuries on Amy's body proves his innocence is unacceptable. Time and again. Witness? xxx xxx xxx a Then after turning louder the volume of the karaoke to down my voice. We have no reason in the instant case to deviate from this settled jurisprudence. for even the slightest penetration 24 of the labia by the male organ is equivalent to consummated rape. q When he inserted his penis into your private parts. . . and once in the kitchen he made me lay my back against the stairs and told me to take[ ]off my pants. the examining physician satisfactorily explained the absence of lacerations on private 25 complainant's genitalia: . what did you feel? a Pain. he tried . the knife was poked at the right side of my neck. . she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime was inflicted on her. Besides. (2) the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise 28 unconscious.? a Then after taking off his pants. Sir. a . q What else transpired thereafter? a And he took the knife from the right hand and held it with his left hand and turned the volume of the karaoke louder so that my voice will not be heard since I was shouting. during the examination I found out that [the victim's] hymen is that of elastic type and so it is disten[s]ible and it could accommodate the penis without producing any genital injuries. . q And after that. and so long as her testimony meets the 27 test of credibility. he took me to the kitchen. She elucidated that "[l]aceration only occur[s] on non-elastic hymen because non-elastic hymen cannot accommodate the size of the penis without producing injury but hers is that of the elastic 26 type. what happen[ed] next after accused removed his pants . . in doing so I took off completely together with my panty. q Then. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following instances: (1) force or intimidation is used. . . q When the accused poked the knife. COURT: q How [were] you taken to the kitchen? "Paano ka dinala sa kusina?" a Sakal-sakal po niya ako. like rubber band that could stretch and turn back into its proper size. he lay atop me and I felt he was forcing his penis in and [while] in that process the knife was still poked at my left neck. or (3) she is under twelve years of age. . what happened next? a And once [I laid] down on the floor. q What happened to that panty? a He told me to take off my pants. the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. where [sic] you wearing your panty at that time? a Yes. . Due to fright I did as told and the knife was then poked at my stomach." Second Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence Time-tested is the guiding principle that when a victim cries rape. (Masakit po). We find the necessary elements of rape 29 duly established by Private Complainant Amy de Guzman when she candidly testified thus: a Then Alexander Taño kept coming in and out of the video rental shop and last time he went in. what did you feel? a "Natakot po. we have ruled that hymenal laceration is not an 2 element of rape. to make me spread[-]eagle my legs and in that process he knelt between my legs then took off his pants. he slammed the door and jumped over the counter where I was and strangled me while his other hand is holding a knife. what did he do? . your pants. q You said you removed . I was wearing one. The victim need not sustain genital injuries." q What happen[ed] next Ms. .

Witness a [T]here were sir. Trial judges are in a better position to assess the behavior of witnesses and to detect whether they are telling the truth or not because they could directly 32 observe them in court. appellant conceived the idea of robbery because. [C]risostomo [O]bjection he did not mention other jewelries. Fiscal q [W]hat are they? Witness a [C]lothes and a hair blower because I was in a 36 hurry. Leaving Amy for dead after repeatedly banging her head. first on the wall. q [A]fter having taken all these jewelries and clothes you placed them all in a blue bag and left the place? a [T]he jewelry box was placed inside my pocket. (2) there is unlawful taking of that property. straightforward. Such factual circumstance does not obtain here. q [W]hat are these valuables? Third Issue: a I remember the jewelry box containing jewelry. unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked or misappreciated such as would alter the 31 conviction of the appellant. He then proceeded upstairs where he took as well the jewelry box containing other valuables belonging to his victim's employer. We do not. q [Y]ou mentioned five rings. are entitled to great weight and accorded the highest respect by the reviewing courts. Unrebutted is the presumption that a person in possession of stolen personal effects is considered the author of the crime. strangled her. appellant cannot be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. poked a knife at the left side of her neck. This felony contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take. Court [W]itness may answer. At this point. which Ana Marinay identified as belonging to her. Thereafter. Appellant openly admitted in court the unlawful asportation. personal property belonging to another. two bracelets. thus: q [W]ere you able to get some valuables from the room 34 of [the] Bautista couple? a [Y]es sir. (3) the taking is with the intent to gain. Under these circumstances. the following stolen valuables were found in his bag: P5. agree with the trial court that appellant is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. accused-appellant suddenly jumped over the counter. the trial judge. As related by Private Complainant Amy de Guzman. however. and 37 one wristwatch and a bracelet belonging to Amy de Guzman. Throughout her testimony. There is no question on the unlawful taking of valuables belonging to Amy and her employer. perceived Amy to be candid. However. pulled her towards the kitchen where he forced her to undress. before they could reach the upper floor. has only the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings to rely upon.a He kept on pumping. he suddenly pulled Amy down and started mauling her until she lost consciousness. He specified one bracelet and one wrist watch. who was able to observe firsthand the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. With respect to the robbery. During his arrest. 35 clothes and other valuables [sic] things sir. saying he was not leaving her alive. she indeed remained consistent as well as convincing. its elements are: (1) the subject is personal property belonging to another. what other jewelries aside from the jewelry that you took in the house of the couple Gerry [and Ana] Bautista? Crime(s) Committed [A]tty. and 3 (4) there is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of force upon things. since it was clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt that he raped . Of long-standing is the rule that findings of trial courts. Ana Marinay. spontaneous and frank. As noted earlier. so he could bring her out. you also mentioned other jewelries. two rings and a pair of earrings. ring and wristwatch. then on the toilet bowl.000 cash. I did not place in the blue bag sir. Alba wrist watch owned by rape victim [A]my de [G]uzman. Said witness was also found to have been consistent and unwavering despite the rigid cross-examination of the defense counsel. xxx xxx xxx q [W]here did you get that jewelry box containing rings? a [I]nside the locker or aparador sir. We note from the transcript of stenographic notes 30 that the judge herself had posed additional clarificatory questions upon Amy. with intent to gain. then he freely ransacked the place. and rape is 38 committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. especially on the credibility of witnesses. he took her bracelet. he ordered her to proceed upstairs to get some clothes. The reviewing magistrate. on the other hand. and gained carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent.

members of the 1 2 CAFGU. Northern Samar. It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to human 42 abode. It must be anchored on proof showing that the claimant experienced moral suffering. Barrientos. .000 cash. it is not attributed the sanctity of privacy that jurisprudence accords to residential abodes. which was being operated as a video rental shop." In robbery and other common crimes. we find the Information filed against appellant to have sufficiently alleged all the elements necessary to convict him of the two separate crimes of rape and robbery. were convicted of Robbery in Band with Multiple Rape in a Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Catarman. unlike in rape cases. to move for the quashal of the Information which appeared to charge more than one offense. dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape. reduce the award accordingly. as maximum. one pair of earrings and one (1) Alba wristwatch. by and large. as if they were made the subject of separate complaints or informations. The rule that a claim for moral damages must be supported by proof still stands.00 corresponding to the . Thus. 1999.65. we note that the Information alleges the robbery of the following items: P5. In the case at bar. the lower court awarded P2. "[w]henever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon . appellant is hereby SENTENCED to reclusion perpetua and to pay Private Complainant Amy de Guzman P50.65. He has thereby waived any objection and may thus be found guilty of as many offenses as those charged in the Information and proven 40 during the trial. before his arraignment. Upon Motion of Ana Marinay and Amy de Guzman. the commission of the crime in another's 44 dwelling shows worse perversity and produces graver alarm. Moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in such amount as the Court deems just. We. Accused-Appellant Alexander Taño y Caballero is found guilty of two separate offenses: rape and robbery. Hence. and the upper floor. People v. besmirched reputation. Controlling in an Information should not be the title of the complaint.65 as actual damages.687. it is recognized that the victim's moral injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the odiousness of the crime to warrant the grant of moral 47 damages. Appellant may well be convicted of the separate offenses of rape and robbery notwithstanding the fact that the offense charged in the Information is only "Robbery with Rape. no exemplary 48 damages may be awarded. social 52 humiliation or similar injury. the appellant is also entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The stolen items are therefore all accounted for. serious anxiety.00 to Lourdes Siervo or a total of P60. the assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED.00 and to pay spouses Siervo jointly and severally the amount of P4. therefore. inasmuch as no aggravating circumstance was proven. For the crime of robbery committed under the circumstances of this case.Amy de Guzman and thereafter robbed her and Ana Marinay of valuables totaling P16. as amended. the building where the two offenses were committed was not entirely for dwelling purposes. Fourth Issue: Dwelling as an Aggravating Circumstance Dwelling aggravates a felony when the crime was committed in the residence of the offended 41 party and the latter has not given any provocation. moral shock.487. appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional. Thus. Except for the cash money. For the crime of rape.000. but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. we find no sufficient basis for the trial court's order for the appellant to return a "gold ring of undetermined amount. wounded feelings.000 as moral damages. however. three (3) bracelets. A recomputation of the receipts. In rape cases. The trial court also ordered appellant "to restore to the victim her gold ring of undetermined amount. the video rental outlet was open to the public. as minimum. the Code provides the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium 49 period. two rings. Proper Penalties Under Article 335. did not present any evidence of their moral sufferings as a result of the robbery. the grant of moral damages is not automatic. As one commentator puts it. based on receipts submitted by her.000 as moral damages. since no aggravating circumstance attended the rape. There should also be no problem in convicting an accused of two or more crimes erroneously charged in one information or complaint. however. more than the allegations made by him." which was supposedly unrecovered. . paragraph 3.060. the other items 50 51 were offered as evidence and submitted to the custody of the trial court. but later proven to be independent crimes. Being a commercial shop that caters to the public. thus. Neither is it the technical name given to the offense by the prosecutor. without the need 46 of pleading or proof of the basis thereof. one's dwelling place is a sanctuary worthy of respect. For the actual damages incurred by Amy de Guzman in connection with her physical injuries. The private complainants. In the instant case. Further. ORLANDO LUTAO and JULIO MEDERA.000 as 45 indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. appellant failed. It was in the video rental shop where the rape was committed. True. PEOPLE VS. However. the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. we deem it appropriate to grant Amy de Guzman P30. there is no basis for the grant of moral damages in connection with the robbery. reveals a total of only P2. and to indemnify the amount of P30. Needless to state. which has already been returned to Ana Marinay by the police. the award of P50. Upon an examination of the records. . WHEREFORE. which was used as a residence. the release to them of these items was ordered by this Court via a Resolution issued on December 7. he committed two separate offenses ² rape with the use of a deadly weapon and simple robbery with force and intimidation against persons." Under Article 63 of the same Code. to eight (8) years of prision mayor.000 as indemnity ex delicto and P30. LUTAO Bad elements of the Civilian Armed Forces and Geographic Unit (CAFGU) again take centerstage in the case at bar. Pursuant to current jurisprudence. that should predominate in determining the true character of the crime. of the Revised Penal Code.000. the victim was dragged to the kitchen and toilet but these two sections were adjacent to and formed parts of the store.487. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. According to Cuello Calon. As such. nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated. reclusion perpetua is the appropriate penalty imposable upon accused-appellant for the crime of rape. The evidence shows that it consisted of two floors: the ground floor." In a similar 39 case. mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor. and to pay De Guzman P2. one who slanders another in the latter's house is more severely punished than one who 4 offends him elsewhere. . mental anguish. this Court held: . In the case at bar.000. For the crime of robbery. these being.

John Doe.00) PESOS. Lutao then barged into the house. Initially. the evidence of the prosecution was given 4 5 6 SIERVO. the spouses hesitated to report the incident to the police authorities for fear of reprisal from Lutao and Medera who were CAFGU members. Their lust satisfied. conspiring with. Melodia Nerida. conspiring. Dr. Province of Northern Samar. maong pants. Lourdes yielded the leather wallet under her pillow containing four thousand sixty pesos (P4. She 9 Accused-appellants Lutao and Medera pleaded not guilty. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. and green brief and forced his lust upon her. rob and carry with them a cash money in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND SIXTY (P4. and DR. Municipality of San Rogue. 1991. against their will and this was committed inside their residence in the above-mentioned place. Julio Medera. 17 however. Medera responded by dragging him downstairs. Orlando Lutao. They were united at Acero's house. . with intent of gain and by means of force. Naza. the Medical Officer of Northern Samar General Hospital. ages two (2) to eight (8). Medera poked his gun at Arturo and ordered him to kneel while the others stood guard. Arturo came out from the grasses and searched for his family. Orlando Lutao. both members of the CAFGU under the command of Lt. She handed it to Lutao who threw the coins on the floor. we are lost in our way. Municipality of San Rogue. and their two (2) other companions who were 10 unknown to him. and Peter Doe. On December 29. LOURDES SIERVO. Arturo was awakened by a voice yelling. They insist on their alibi in their appeal to this Court. Arturo groped his way to the doorway and asked them where they came from. John Doe. identities and present whereabouts are still unknown. Lourdes who passed out regained consciousness.m. and mutually. Where is the trail 7 going to Inanasan? He did not hear the question well and he asked. Medera. Bating Naza. sperm cells. violence and intimidation took turns in lying down with and having carnal knowledge of Lourdes Siervo against her will and consent while accused Julio Medera stood guard and threatened with the use of his M-14 rifle the husband of Lourdes Siervo and thereafter watched his companions raped Lourdes Siervo. who used to be a buyer of their chicken. Northern Samar. With its light. 1991. He shed off his fatigue jacket. was a meter away when Lourdes was violated by the accused. Lutao's lust was aroused. unlawfully and feloniously by means of force. 1992.00) realized from the sale of their copra and pig. went to bed at 7:00 p. Throughout the unfortunate ordeal of his wife. 3 At about 10:00 p. Lourdes' youngest child 13 awoke and cried unaware of his parents' harrowing experience. Bating Naza. Their house is located in an isolated farm and about six (6) kilometers by feeder road from the poblacion of Barangay Malobago. confederating together and mutually helping one another did then and there wilfully. certified that there was no trace of irritation. the accused set to flee. Julio Medera. 323 for Murder.stolen money plus the costs of the suit. the parties agreed that the accused-appellants on trial are Orlando Lutao y Lobos and Julio Medera y Turcido. the Siervo family abandoned their house and farm in Barangay Malobago and lived with Arturo's mother in Barangay Bantayan. "Toring. San Roque. At the pre-trial. and Peter Doe remained at large. that in the commission of the said offense the above named accused.m. they retold their story to the San Roque Philippine National Police 16 Headquarters. by witnesses ARTURO The spouses Arturo and Lourdes Siervo lived in a one-room house with a floor area of two and a half (2 1/2) meters by three (3) meters. Northern Samar. to the damage and prejudice of said owners in the aforesaid sum of FOUR THOUSAND SIXTY (P4. and their two other companions joined the sexual orgy. Lutao answered her plea 11 by hitting her chest with the butt of his gun. Medera and Lutao were armed with an M-14 rifle and M-1 garand. A sack draped at their door served as its shutter. Barangay Malobago. Siervo and Lourdes Siervo. They raped Lourdes in succession. Medera pointed his gun at Arturo and ordered him to run. armed with M-14 and M-1 (Garand) riffles. With the aggravating circumstance that accused Orlando Lutao had been sentenced by the Court of Appeals on January 22. We reject their pretended innocence. Lourdes begged not to be abused because she was menstruating. Stricken with fright.060. Arturo. and Bating Naza as the culprits. They named Orlando Lutao. in Sitio Camarino. John Doe. and announced a "hold-up. He pulled down the skirt and panty of Lourdes and ordered her to lie down. and sexual coition in the genitalia of Lourdes. Then. Bating Naza. at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening. shook the left shoulder of Lourdes with his gun. It was then that they revealed to Acero their ordeal. Philippine Currency. She cried and her weeping awakened her other children. and Peter Doe reads: That on or about the 29th day of December.060. She. Two (2) days thereafter or on January 2. A "pa-agahan" (kerosene lamp) hanged at the corner of their house. respectively. Petrified by the incident. MELODIA NERIDA.00) PESOS. 8 months and one day in Criminal Case No." Arturo recognized the voice of Julio Medera. she and her four (4) children walked and sought immediate refuge at the house of Fausto 14 Acero. Lourdes begged him to spare their money which was earmarked for the medical treatment of their child. he was furious but helpless. Arturo saw Julio Medera. belonging to spouses Arturo M. Lourdes' resistance was futile. Toring.. 1991. and confederating together with two (2) persons (John Doe and Peter Doe) whose true names. Their physical and emotional disturbance were beyond doubt. The Amended Information against the five (5) accused ² Orlando Lutao. Arturo rushed towards the bushes about fifteen (15) brazas away from his house. "What is that?" The man 8 repeated the question: "Where is the trail going to Inanasan. Arismindo Dayaon of the Philippine Army and stationed in Barangay Malobago. opined that the victim's menstrual flow could have washed-out the semen. the above-named accused. The accused guarded him. They finally mustered courage and 15 reported the crime to the Mondragon Police Station on December 31. violence and intimidation take. CONTRARY TO LAW. 1987 to suffer imprisonment of 8 years and one day to 14 years. Her abusers were no longer around and so was her husband. The malefactors then fled to Inanasan. unlawfully and feloniously. The house of Acero is ten (10) kilometers away from her house. they and their four (4) children. Julio Medera. Still shaking with fear. They slept on the bamboo flooring with Arturo near the doorway. At the ground. Philippine Currency. At the trial." He demanded money from Lourdes.060. Daylight broke. Lutao ignored 12 her pleas and poked a gun at her. Accused Bating Naza. with lewd design. But before fleeing. They wore military uniforms.

ruling: "The failure of the prosecution witnesses to positively identify the assailant in court is fatal to the prosecution's cause. and two unidentified companions ." Hatton is. Lutao corroborated Medera's testimony. They rely on People v. The issue was settled during the pretrial of the case where the parties agreed that the accused-appellants on trial are Orlando Lutao 22 y Lobos and Julio Medera y Turcido.m. . Lt. till 2:00 a. The Court found this identification as infirmed as it was suggested by the police. distinguishable for in the case at bar. . . the accused did not admit he was the Hatton charged in the Information.: xxx xxx xxx (1) Lourdes Siervo. 1991. . . 1991. They were even described as members of the CAFGU under the command of Lt. thus. Their defense is alibi ² that they were at another place when the crime was committed. Arismindo Dayaon. they never claimed that their admission was an error. Municipality of San Rogue. . .: xxx xxx xxx Q If that Julio is in court. Accused-appellants Medera and Lutao denied their involvement in the crime and anchored their defense on alibi.m. Lourdes Siervo positively identified him in the course of her testimony. In this appeal. xxx xxx xxx (2) The spouses Siervo reported (to the Mondragon police) that they were robbed and Lourdes Siervo was raped by . . Julio Medera was not identified in court. Orling Lutao. The question of whether accused-appellants are the persons actually accused in the case at bar is a non-issue. answered Julio Medera). It is also inaccurate to contend that accused-appellant. . she easily changed her answer from Julio Medera to Orlando Lutao . . accused-appellants urge that the spouses Siervo should not be believed because of inconsistencies in their testimonies. and Julio Medera. Indeed. He was relieved by Lutao at twelve midnight. . Hatton. Northern Samar. Medera testified that on December 29. Lt. . . Throughout the proceedings. during her direct testimony. . viz. viz. Charlie Company. that the two (2) of the five (5) malefactors were Orlando Lutao . . Manuelito Anata. Whereas in his affidavit . an out of court identification. Jerry Medera. Next. Dayaon confirmed that he ordered accused-appellants to guard the barracks on December 29. In Hatton. he guarded the 19 camp from 12:00 p. 1991. he stated 24 that he ran to the bushes to hide. to conform with what she has declared in her affidavit. the couple reported the incident before the San Roque (police) . We quote the relevant part of her direct testimony. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY IN BAND WITH RAPE. . . because he was told by the five (robbers) to run. Julio Medera as the one who woke her up and demanded money. He said he never left the barracks while on duty. The trial court on June 30. We reject accused-appellants' argument. .added that it was difficult to detect the sexual assault since the victim's organ already experienced four (4) pregnancies and childbirth. 1992. . Lt. . Pre-trial identification is not sufficient. . and Cpl. Mabascog testified that they 20 supervised the assignments of the accused-appellants on the said date. will you point to us where he is? A (Witness pointing to a person with blue t-shirt and 23 when asked his name. . accused-appellants assail the Decision of the trial court as follows: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING MORE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION AND IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE. . It acquitted the accused. During the trial. Philippine Army was from 10:00 to 12:00 p. . Arismindo Dayaon ordered them on "red alert" 18 because of an imminent raid by the New People's Army (NPA). point(ed) to . . . accused-appellants judicially admitted they are the persons charged with the offense. . We affirm the conviction with modification. the witnesses for the prosecution failed to identify him. Anata and Cpl. they did not claim as defense that they are not the persons accused of the crime at bar. (But) during her cross examination . accused-appellants cannot lean on the Hatton case. The prosecution tried to remedy the lapse by introducing the identification made by the victim of the accused in a police line-up. Cpl. He testified that on December 29. where we held that pre-trial identification is not sufficient. By their admission that they are the Orlando Lutao and the Julio Medera accused of committing the crime at bar. (But) on January 2. . Cpl. he ran to the bushes . should be acquitted. Quite clearly. His tour of duty to guard the 19th IB Detachment Camp. xxx xxx xxx (3) Arturo Siervo testified that . the prosecution witnesses were relieved of the burden of making an in court identification of accused-appellants as the malefactors. Celso Mabascog likewise corroborated the alibi of accused-appellants.m. . . Pating Naza. We shall first rule on accused-appellants' argument that they were not identified in court by the 21 spouses Siervo. and hence. Arismindo Dayaon of the Philippine Army and stationed in Barangay Malobago. 1992 convicted the accused-appellants of the crime of Robbery in Band with Multiple Rape.

Mabascog inspire credence. The man signaled 27 Lourdes was candid in admitting her mistake. 1991 assignments of accused-appellants because he reported that day after his Christmas vacation." it meant maximum vigilance and all leaves and furloughs are cancelled. On questioning by the trial judge. Their camp can be negotiated in ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes walk to the locus criminis. It would have been foolhardy for him to disobey the order for him to run. IN VIEW HEREOF. It is penalized under Article 294 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. the appealed Decision dated June 30. Dayaon's testimony that when a camp is 29 on "red alert. 7659 on December 31. living in an isolated.. He would have been shot dead if he did not. He unabashedly admitted in court that Lt. Accused-appellants also claim that it was unnatural for Arturo to run to the bushes and abandon his wife who has just been raped. sir. In People v. Since the crime charged was committed on December 29. At the trial.00) corresponding to the stolen money. "9") detracts nothing from Lourdes Siervo's spontaneous court room identification when she pointed out to the person of Julio Medera upon his name being mentioned in the course of an answer while "Pating" Naza. He testified that he remembered the December 29. He was with the other soldiers patrolling Barangay 28 Malobago. announced the hold-up. "5" and "6" in relation to Exh. 7659 imposing the death penalty. Medera self-destructed when he testified.We hold that these inconsistencies are not malicious marks of falsehood. Accused-appellants were not strangers to the spouses. alibi is a weak defense. while cruising along Panay Avenue. 1992 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellants are convicted of Robbery with Rape and ordered to pay in solidum Lourdes Siervo in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50.: xxx xxx xxx The initial identification by name Jerry Medera before the police in Mondragon given only by Arturo Siervo as one of the criminals. on board a red 1993 model Nissan Sentra sedan with plate number TKR837. One honest mistake in the course of a long testimony cannot dilute her credibility. Lourdes submitted herself to physical examination. The probability that the Siervo spouses erred in identifying the accused-appellants is nil. With costs against accused-appellants. it was not physically impossible for them to be at the Siervo's house and commit the crime. We do not agree. Since accused-appellants were in Barangay Malobago from 10:00 p. They gathered their guts and reported the incident not only to the Mondragon police authorities but also to the San Roque police. On cross-examination.060. as amended by Republic Act No. They were handwritten on papers when they should have been properly recorded in a logbook. Easy to concoct. it being shown that Julio Medera has a brother by said name and who is also a member of the CAFGU in San Roque (Exhs. Precioso. The conduct of the Siervo spouses subsequent to the crime fortified their credibility. Lourdes admitted her mistake. we cannot give full faith and credit to Exhibit "4" and Exhibit "5.m.000. unprotected house to falsely impute an atrocious crime against accused-appellants who were influential CAFGU members assigned in their barangay. Arturo was under the gun. we held that there is no such composite crime of robbery in band with multiple rape. The crime is robbery with rape. Arturo corroborated the testimony of Lourdes that it was Lutao who roused his wife from sleep. Nor does the testimony of Cpl.. The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellants wore no mask to hide their identity." the duty roster and guard detail. They promptly revealed their misfortune to Acero. she changed her testimony and affirmed the content of her prior affidavit that it was Lutao who declared the hold-up. instead of Bating Naza. We agree with the trial court's rationalization as it deflated the significance in the discrepancy of the names of Jerry Medera and Julio Medera. Lourdes pointed to Medera as the one who announced the hold-up. Medera was the couple's barriomate and a regular buyer of their chicken. 1991. In checkered contrast. Agnes Guirindola (Agnes). It was an honest mistake. It cannot succeed when there is no showing that it is not physically impossible for the 30 accused to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission.00) for moral damages and Arturo and Lourdes Siervo four thousand sixty pesos (P4. around 3:00 p. Loose alibi must yield to and cannot prevail over the positive identification 31 made by the spouses. To be sure. was suddenly flagged down by a man wearing a PNP reflectorized vest. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of an accused.m.Dayaon did not order them on "red alert" from December 26. "9") is so innocuous an error that it should be attributable to inaccuracy of the hearing 26 and/or pronunciation. erred in denominating the crime committed by accused-appellants as 32 Robbery in Band with Multiple Rape. Even his family would have been further endangered. 1993. There was also a kerosene lamp which illuminated the locus delicti. No. presented by accused-appellants. viz. The trial court. 1991 prior to the effectivity of R. The accused-appellants failed to explain this irregularity which was vital to the truth of their alibi. In addition. to 2:00 a.m. accused-appellants admitted that they patrolled Barangay Malobago when the crime happened on December 29. 1994. There was also an initial confusion on whether the Medera involved in the case at bar was Jerry or Julio. They often patrolled Barangay Malobago. Quezon City. it was far fetched for this rural couple. He did not have any rational choice except to run. the said law cannot be applied retroactively and the death penalty cannot be given to accused-appellants. as written in the police blotter (Exh. thus: xxx xxx xxx Q When you asserted that it was Julio Medera who awakened you by shaking you by your shoulder it was by mistake because it was Orlando Lutao who did that? A Yes. 1991 to January 1. with band as a mere aggravating circumstance. These were all spontaneous actions. however. respectively. . and carted the money away. GUNGON The antecedent facts as culled from the records are as follows: On January 12. His assertion was negated by Lt. Indeed.A. 25 1992 for the perceived NPA raid. They would not put their lives on the line except for a legitimate grievance. It is true that in her direct examination.

Agnes planned to escape at that time but the car was running at a speed of 80 to 100 kilometers per 17 hour. Upon returning the driver¶s license to Agnes. Roxas told Agnes to make a left turn from the corner of the street and that he will alight somewhere in Mother Ignacia. kailangan ko ang kotse mo. Batangas. Roxas pointed to her the one-way sign and looked for the traffic aide he had told Agnes about. her girlfriend and that of Roxas and a lady with a little child.00 toP40. She also found out that her jewelries consisting of bracelets." After Agnes relieved herself. Roxas resumed driving. When Agnes handed back the paper to Roxas. When Roxas returned. Gungon returned the said pictures to his wallet. Agnes took the softdrink. Roxas told Agnes that they will just drop by a restaurant to buy something to eat. Gungon then led Agnes to a nearby grassy area and told her. "Miss. When Agnes woke up. Roxas stopped the car in order to urinate. 15 Along the superhighway. Tomas or San Jose. Then she lost consciousness. Roxas then asked for Agnes' driver¶s license. Roxas alighted from the car and opened the rear door. . Roxas offered Agnes a bottle of soft drink and Skyflakes biscuit. Roxas then stopped by a bakery and alighted from the car. she pretended to sign the same by making a check thereon.. Gungon alighted to relieve himself too. She then saw a lady standing at the stairs of the house carrying a baby." Agnes became more frightened as she understood "s" to mean "salvage. When Roxas and Gungon 18 were not looking. forcing her to drink it. Roxas told her that the street had been made a one-way street 7 because a girl figured in an accident in the same street two days ago. Roxas handed her a piece of paper which she was asked to sign. Gungon became mad and tightened his hold on Agnes. Thinking that Roxas was waiting for a bribe. When Agnes regained consciousness. dalhin natin sya sa Philcoa. they ran away. later on. Roxas 10 continued to poke a gun at her. After a while. At this point. were no longer there. she found herself lying at the back seat with her legs on the lap of Gungon. and her leg with the other. dyan ka na lang umihi. When asked if she was the one in the picture. Agnes testified that she planned to escape. She followed a "sparkling light" that led her to a small house.00 and cash in the amount of P1. necklace and a watch worth around P30. the latter asked her to open the door of the car so that he could show her the one-way sign and the other traffic aide at the corner of the street. Only then did she notice that blood was profusely oozing 22 from her face and there were "holes" in the left side of her neck and her right cheek. Agnes complied and made the U-turn. doon na natin siya i-s. Upon reaching the house. She asked for their help but upon seeing her. Gungon was left behind. "O. Gungon alighted first from the car followed by Agnes. Gungon replied that they were in the province and that there was no McDonald¶s there. Agnes just continued to pray. Roxas stopped the car and went to a sari-sari store. identified the man in open court as appellant. Roxas. and upon reaching the corner. After Agnes drank it. who had positioned himself at the front passenger side." a 12 lingo for summary execution. Subsequently." After crossing Mother Ignacia Street. Gungon guarded Agnes by holding her. Roxas immediately switched off the engine of the car and poked a gun at her saying "Miss. Gungon would poke the gun at her. and would tighten his grip every time she made a slight move and sometimes would poke a gun at her. After a while. It was very dark. and as she was about to get up and return to the car. Venancio Roxas (Roxas). Agnes then heard Gungon say: "Boss. she saw white sparks at her right side and then she fell down. Shortly thereafter. The man walked in front of her car 6 and proceeded to the right side of the car. Roxas returned to Agnes her driver¶s license. She placed the tablets under her tongue. Roxas opened the rear door and then someone boarded the car. Gungon also took his wallet and showed Agnes three (3) pictures which. Roxas told Gungon. Agnes also noticed that there was already a third man sitting in front of the car beside Roxas who was still driving. were the pictures of his niece. The windows of the car were 14 tinted and remained closed. the latter told her that they were just keeping the same for her. Upon returning to the car. Agnes heard a knock from outside the car." Gungon took the bottle of softdrink and tried to force Agnes to drink the contents thereof. while Gungon held Agnes.00. Agnes took out her wallet. She then went downstairs and lied down on the sofa. Agnes asked Roxas where she could drop him. The car was at a standstill. Agnes let Roxas enter the car. Roxas sat at the driver¶s seat facing Agnes and poked his gun at her. but still the lady did not come out of the room. she opened the door and saw two (2) children and a teenager singing. 16 After showing the same to Agnes. Agnes identified this man as Roberto Gungon (Gungon). "Ipainom mo pa itong dalawang tablets dahil malaki sya. nevertheless. but did not swallow them. It was at this point that Agnes noticed the signboard of the bakery which read something like Sto. When she opened her eyes. she took her handkerchief and spat out the tablets into the handkerchief. one way street po ito. as well as the car. unmindful of what Agnes was telling him. The second passenger immediately reclined the driver¶s seat and pulled Agnes towards the back seat. dalhin na natin siya sa dati. Afterwards. Agnes also lost her wallet containing a check in the amount 20 ofP3. Gungon and the third man. Agnes followed her and knocked at the door of the room asking for help." Agnes. Agnes. mahina iyong dalawa para sa kanya. Agnes took the tablets. Agnes noticed that it was not the usual traffic 8 citation ticket but. Agnes refused because she saw tablets 13 floating inside the bottle. Agnes told Gungon that it was her sister. Agnes asked for her help but the lady went upstairs and locked herself inside the room. Roxas took the driver¶s seat and drove the car while 11 Gungon held Agnes on the shoulder with one hand. Roxas came back with a "taisan" cake and offered it to 19 Agnes which she refused. She then asked them if she could relieve herself. At that instance.000. Roxas then instructed Agnes to drive to the corner of the street. "Ano ang problema?" Roxas replied. When Agnes took the prayer leaflet from her wallet. pulled a P50. When she asked Gungon about them. Agnes told Roxas and Gungon that she was hungry and wanted to eat a McDonald¶s sandwich. Gungon again offered the softdrink to Agnes. were already gone. After receiving the money. While Gungon was out of the car." Gungon took the tablets from Roxas and forced Agnes to swallow the same. Gungon got his beeper and told Roxas: "Boss. occupying the back seat.000. Along the way. cried and pleaded with him to let her go and just take the car. she was all alone." Agnes explained to the man that she usually passed by the same street and it was only that day that she had been caught. She did not see Gungon at that 21 particular time. Agnes opened the right front window of the car and asked Roxas. Agnes noticed that they were already at the South Superhighway. She noticed from the car¶s clock on the dashboard that it was about 9:30 or 10:00 p.m.000. as well as her pair of shoes. Agnes obliged and made a left turn and stopped the car. Agnes fixed her hair and then asked Gungon for her shoes.000. pair of earrings. The traffic aide was not there. Out of fear. but could not make a single move because every time she made a slight move. holding Agnes. When she refused.00 bill 9 and gave it to Roxas. Gungon asked Roxas if Agnes would be allowed to relieve herself to which Roxas answered in the affirmative. Out of the blue.m. while Gungon held Agnes. Gungon put the shoes on her feet. Sensing that Gungon was already furious.00. she saw Roxas walking back towards the car with a gun in his hand. Gungon looked at her wallet and saw the picture of her sister. according to him.her to make a U-turn. Gungon came back to the car and Roxas resumed driving. Agnes refused so Roxas handed the softdrink to Gungon and told him: "Mamaya painom mo sa kanya at pakainin mo siya. terrified and shocked by Roxas¶ actions. Agnes felt dizzy and fell asleep. After taking the driver¶s license. Around 5:00 p.

p. Q-94-54287.83. was archived until he was eventually arrested on September 11. at around 6:00 to 7:00 p. Meanwhile. 1994. 1004. raising the following arguments: 35 32 . as minimum. the parents of Agnes and the rest of the family arrived at the hospital. as maximum. surgical operation and medical treatment. as maximum. Roxas was in his house at Feria Compound. noting the well-attended promulgation of the court a quo¶s decision. to 25 years. Upon transfer of Agnes to the V. 1994. Agnes sustained the following injuries: Gunshot wound. In Criminal Case No. respectively. judgment is hereby rendered in these cases finding accused Venancio Roxas y Arguelles guilty beyond reasonable doubt: 30 In Criminal Case No. Roxas was arrested by elements of the NBI inside the municipal hall of Taysan. (R) Sec to GSW. Quezon City. Commonwealth Town Homes. Lauro R. Agnes positively identified Gungon at the NBI in a police lineup consisting of 5 to 6 men. Luna General Hospital (now AFP Medical Center) in Quezon City. and the check taken from her. SO ORDERED. and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 18 years. 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor. Agnes heard a vehicle arrive and also heard voices saying: "May taong duguan sa loob ng bahay. Accused Roxas is also liable to pay the offended party Agnes Guirindola. and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 2 years. On February 1.257.After a while. The accused shall be credited in full of his preventive imprisonment.00 representing the value of the articles taken from her. 24 operated on and confined for forty-three (43) days. another group of NBI agents went to the hospital and showed her 3 to 4 pictures of Gungon who was subsequently arrested in Davao City. Sr. Q-94-54285 for Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated murder.000. in a Decision dated September 5. the case was referred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. Elvira Guirindola the amount of P250. representing the cost of repair of the subject vehicle. 2002.00. however. about 3:00 a. 2002. August 29. Volume III. found Roxas guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with frustrated murder. Quezon City. Both Mangiliman and his wife. 1994. She told the NBI agents that the person in the picture was the one who had flagged her down and shot her on January 12.161. He added that he never left his house that evening. had lost the cold neutrality of an impartial judge required of him in trying and resolving cases. On September 11.000.m. of the crimes charged.m. He claimed that it was impossible for him to be at the place of incident on January 12. as far as they concerned Roxas. POX Sudmandibular area (L). and sentences him to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH.. for Carnapping. zygomatic arch & condylar area.000. She positively identified Roxas on January 12. her parents immediately reported the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila. for the crime of Theft." Medical Certificate dated February 1. Likewise. San Jose. where she was treated further. this appeal.161.90. tulungan natin siya!" Agnes was then carried to a Fiera motor vehicle and brought to the Batangas Regional Hospital. In an Order dated October 8. as maximum. In the meantime. and P38. the RTC denied appellant¶s motions for inhibition and reconsideration. Agnes incurred actual damages amounting to P36. Neurosurgery 4-A. 8 months and 1 day. 31 Roxas moved for a reconsideration of the September 5. he and a certain Tranquilino Mangiliman and two others were installing an antenna on the roof of his house. Zygomatic area (R). For the defense. 1994 signed by attending physician Dr. 2002. Thus. Hermogena Roxas. He narrated that on that same day. Accused Roxas is likewise ordered to pay Mrs. 1994. In its Decision dated January 13. Batangas. 1994. carnapping and theft. 1998. Thus. and suffered moral damages the amount of which she cannot readily quantify. Captain MC.83 for her hospitalization. some NBI agents visited her for the taking of the cartographic sketches of Roxas and Gungon. He argued that the presence of then Justice Secretary Hernando Perez showed the court's predisposition to convict him of the offenses charged. POE.000. 2006. Her parents immediately arranged for her transfer to the V. Submandibular Gland involvement with sinus tract.00. Roxas was at-large during the trial and was arrested only after the RTC rendered the judgment of conviction against Gungon. Record) The following day. Luna General Hospital. Q-94-54286. but she was very sure that he was the person who fatally shot her. 1994. moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P1. as a result of the ordeal she 25 underwent on that fateful day of January 12. On January 19.00 value of the property taken or a total of 9 years. 177. Roxas contended that he was robbed of his right to due process because the Judge Demetrio Macapagal. to 8 years. representing her hospitalization and related expenses. (Exhibit "A. jewelry purse. 1994. Sr. the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. Likewise. the cases. 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional.000. plus 1 year for the additional P10. Roxas also moved for the inhibition of the Honorable Judge Demetrio Macapagal. appellant denied committing the crimes charged against him." Agnes further testified that the name of appellant Venancio Roxas was supplied by the NBI. On January 17. 1995. Subsequently. 1994 during a police line-up at the NBI as the perpetrator other than Gungon.00 and P500.00 in excess of P20. which were all presented in 29 evidence in the trial of Gungon as well as in the trial of the instant case against Roxas. the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the court a quo. the NBI conducted a manhunt for Roxas. key chain with a key to the 28 lock of her Nissan Sentra car.000. which promptly conducted an investigation. of January 13. testified that on January 12. appellant's co-accused Roberto Gungon y Santiago was found guilty of the same 33 charges in a Decision dated March 19. as minimum. In Criminal Case No. the court a quo. actual damages in the amount of P36. where she was treated for her wounds and given 23 first aid. where he was working under the Office of the Mayor using the aliases "Joe Villamor" and "Marianito Villamor. Fx. 1995. 2002 decision of the court a quo. Mateo. The records of this case were originally elevated to this Court for automatic review. Agnes was able to identify certain personal effects 26 27 recovered from Gungon such as her rosary beads. Conformably 34 with our ruling inPeople v.

he must first show substantial proof. II WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES OF (1) KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH FRUSTRATED MURDER. sir. then after that we went to this gasoline station to gas up. there is no sufficient basis to show that their presence or pervasive publicity unduly influenced the court's judgment. sir. I mean. he 39 poked the gun at me. The Court finds no basis for appellant's allegation that he was deprived of due process of law and that the trial conducted was far from impartial and fair. The trial court is in a better position to decide the question of credibility. having seen and 38 heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying. We have painstakingly examined the records of the case. THEREBY VIOLATING THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO DUE PROCESS. not merely cast suspicions. Actual restraint of the victim's liberty was evident in the instant case from the moment Agnes was taken from Panay Avenue to a remote place in Batangas.I WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RENDERING IN THE ABOVE-TITLED CASE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT A QUO HAS LOST THE COLD NEUTRALITY OF AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE. We found none. after much examination. Roxas was driving and Gungon was still holding me and he asked Roxas if he could relieve himself. (2) CARNAPPING. xxxx Q ± What did Gungon do with the bottle? A ± He still forced me but when I refused he just placed it down in the car. what happened? A ± He told Gungon that he'll take a leak (sic) first before Gungon so Roxas alighted from the car and took a leak (sic). The fact that the trial judge opted to believe the prosecution's 36 evidence rather than that of the defense is not a sign of bias. Roxas challenged the RTC judge¶s neutrality as he invoked that he was deprived of his right to due process because of the "unexplained presence" of the former Secretary of the Department of Justice. misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case.After Roberto Gungon pulled you towards the back seat. we have ruled that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked. in this case. Q ± After that what happened? A ± Roxas still drove and Gungon was still holding me. she also graphically narrated what happened on January 12. Appellant further argued that the RTC erred in finding him guilty of the crimes charged against him. sir.Venancio Roxas took the driver seat and started the car. thus: Q . he took the driver seat and started the car. sir. AND (3) THEFT. The imputation of bias and partiality is not supported by the record. xxxx Q ± Why were you not able to escape while you were seated and crying? A ± Because Gungon was holding me and everytime I just made a slight move. However. particularly the testimonies for the prosecution and the defense. Q ± What was Roberto Gungon doing after Venancio Roxas started the car? A ± He was holding me sir. Before we could conclude that appellant was prejudiced by the presence of the media and Secretary Perez. do you know what Gungon and Roxas were doing at that time? xxxx A ± Yes. sir. 37 There must be a showing that adverse publicity indeed influenced the court's decision. in court. what happened? A . we find no persuasive much less compelling reason to depart from the findings of the trial court. Agnes not only positively identified her abductors. Hernando Perez. He contended that the RTC was already predisposed to convict him even before trial. Q ± How was he holding you? A ± One hand on my shoulder and the other one is (sic) on my leg. xxxx Q ± After your car stopped. sir. xxxx Q ± While you were praying. 1994. where was he? . sir. Q ± How about Gungon. Time and again. Even if the RTC had allowed the presence of then Secretary Hernando Perez and the media. Agnes testified. We are unconvinced.

he faced in front of me (sic). suddenly and without provocation." sir. There was no opportunity for her to defend herself. and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his 44 act. she was shot by appellant in the head with a gun. As testified to by Agnes: Q. with Gungon.He kept on holding me although from time to time and only when I made a slight 41 move. or if threats to kill him shall have been made. employing means. sir. if you know? A ± I refused to accept it. 267. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the 43 attack. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.You said that Roxas returned with a biscuit and a bottle of softdrink.A . where were you at that time? A . As narrated by Agnes. without risk to himself. (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. He just told Gungon "mamaya painom mo sa kanya at pakainin mo siya.Ever since he pulled me from the driver seat to the back seat up to the time when we were cruising along South Superhighway. ² Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another. even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the commission of the offense. Q ± When you reached Batangas. the maximum penalty shall be imposed. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. The evidence likewise reveal.Yes. he went back to the car. The prosecution's evidence particularly the testimony of Agnes demonstrated that Gungon and Roxas had indeed planned to kill her from the time they took the car. 1. the requisites of evident premeditation was likewise duly established in this case. the trial court did not err in convicting appellant of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. shot her as she was about to get up. except when the accused is any of the parents. she could not have been aware that she would be attacked by appellant.I was still sitting at the car. Q . he sat at the driver's seat.What was Gungon doing at that time? A. sir. or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts. took the gun and poked it at me and then Gungon alighted from the car and he was the next one who took a leak (sic).Simply because when he handed it to me I saw tablets floating inside the bottle. 2. based on the foregoing testimony of Agnes.After Roxas alighted from the car. Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime. 42 Republic Act No. sir.Up to that while you were driving? A ± Yes. female or a public officer. 45 sir. Q ± Why did you refuse the softdrink? A. sir. 4. Q. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor. In the darkness of the night while she just finished relieving herself and still trying to get up. do you know what did he do (sic). My question is ± for how long had Gungon been doing this? A . Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons. 7659). When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped.After Roxas finished leaking (sic). we were waiting for Roxas and he was holding my leg. he insisted but still I refused so he just handed it to Gungon. sir. you testified that Gungon was holding you and everytime you made a slight movement he would grips (sic) you firmly and poke a gun at you. since appellant. sir. the gunshot wound sustained by the victim would have been fatal. methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution. This criterion applies whether the attack is frontal or from behind. thus: Art.Yes. Moreover. undoubtedly. 8. The medical findings show that had it not been due to the timely and proper medical attention given to the victim. Q . sir. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained. xxxx . if any? A. xxxx Q ± Previously. what was Gungon's (sic) doing to you. shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. he was still holding me. to wit: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. Thus. the commission of frustrated murder as qualified by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. (As amended by Sec. xxxx Q . if any? A.He was seated beside me. 40 3. in the bakery. what was done with the biscuit and bottle of softdrink.

R. xxxx Q ± While you were driving along South super highway at that time. Q ± When you reached the South Superhighway at that time what happened? Q ± How were you able to place the time? A ± While we were in the car Gungon got his beeper and then he told Roxas "Boss. sir. it is evident that the commission of the killing. sir. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter¶s consent.Now. Finally. 6539. 3. . of course I was shocked and I asked them if they were going to rape me or kill me or just leave me somewhere. its (sic) we were headed towards South Superhighway. approximately from 1:00 p. appellant also flee with the subject vehicle which shows his intent to gain." Q ± After you heard that remark of Gungon. 48 Thus. Q ± After you uttered those words. sir. Likewise. negative Philcoa. sir. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself. 2. he told me that don¶t give us ideas (sic). sir.A. or by using force upon things. defines carnapping as the taking. what did you do? A . was formed from the moment the accused took the victim in Quezon City until she was ultimately "executed" in Batangas. do you know what happened inside the car between the three of you? A ± Yes. Q ± When you refused to drink it. do you know what did Gungon do? A ± Yes.I guess it was about 9:30 or 10:00 in the evening. 46 A . we agree that Roxas is also guilty of violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law.m. he got mad and furious. or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. I mean I don¶t know the exact place but I am familiar that we were heading towards South super highway. Q. Agnes also positively identified appellant and Gungon as the ones who took the subject vehicle from her. dalhin na natin siya sa dati. 4. That time Gungon was still holding me and then he told Roxas "boss. because he was furious and he was angry at you. he held me so tight and forced me to drink it. After shooting her. Q . sir. The lapse of more than eight hours. satisfies the last requisite for the appreciation of evident premeditation as there was sufficient time for meditation and reflection before the commission of the crime yet appellant proceeded with the same. mahina 47 iyong dalawa para sa kanya". sir. from the foregoing. otherwise known as An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping. do you know if Gungon answered? A ± Yes. with intent to gain. sir.m. xxxx Q ± What did you do when the bottle of softdrink was being offered to you? A . xxxx Q ± Do you know what time was it when you woke up? A .Q ± At about 5:00 and 6:00 in the evening of January 12. doon na natin siya i-s. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.I refused to get it. xxxx xxxx A ± Yes. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.There is a watch on the dashboard of the car.After you drank that softdrink." sir. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle. he told to Gungon "ipainom mo pa sa kanya itong dalawang tabletas dahil malaki siya. or by using force upon things. I do not know. after drinking it Roxas offered two (2) more tablets to Gungon.Actually we were not really there. sir.. what did you do? A ± Well. sir. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof. we likewise agree that Roxas is only guilty of theft and not robbery as initially charged. what happened? A careful examination of the evidence presented would show that all the elements of carnapping were proven in this case. 1994 where were you at that time? xxxx A.I took the softdrink. that is." More specifically. considering that he and his co-accused alternately poked a gun at Agnes. albeit frustrated. to 10:00 p. the elements of the crime are as follows: 1. It cannot be denied that the 1993 Nissan Sentra with plate number TKR-837 was unlawfully taken from Agnes without her consent and by means of force or intimidation.

the gravel and sand truck veered to the right side of the pavement going south and the car veered to the right side of the pavement going north. invoking the policy provision on "Authorized Driver" clause. Respondent insurance commission. the appellate court. the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death is. the civil indemnity for the victim is still Php75. was compelled to institute the present action."1avvphi1 The litmus test therefore. pair of earrings.A. Model 1976. The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention has been correctly complexed by the RTC with frustrated murder. we modify the award of damages. 00666. in accordance with current jurisprudence. Inc. effective May 16. should be applied in its maximum period. there was no evidence. On May 11. However. as amended by R.00 ² Third Party Liability. Complainant. (b) by fire. While travelling along Mabini St. she already found her necklace. The comprehensive motor car insurance policy for P35. following prevailing jurisprudence. and P30. hence. complainant. under the ruling in People v. Quiachon also rationcinates as follows: With respect to the award of damages. CR-HC No. we sustain the findings of the RTC. Since the kidnapping and serious illegal detention is the more 50 serious crime. INS COMMM The undisputed facts of the case as found in the appealed decision of April 14. 1978. following the rationcination in People v. The driver. VILLACORTA VS.000. Quiachon is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heineousness. namely: the insured himself or any person .00 ² Theft. and (c) by malicious act. 1978. Rizal. external explosion. the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.. dismissed petitioner's complaint for recovery of the total loss of the vehicle against private respondent. to be 49 missing. 9346. likewise. for general check-up and repairs. xxxx It should be noted that while the new law prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Sarcia where we said: The principal consideration for the award of damages.000. filed a claim for total loss with the respondent company but claim was denied. x x x. 52 regardless of whether the penalty actually imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua.000. is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. in light of R. Rizal. 9346. ordered to pay Agnes GuirindolaP75. P75. insured with respondent company under Private Car Policy No. Victor.00. with modification as to the penalty for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated murder and the awarding of damages.From the records. In a complex crime. the penalty should be death. P75. 2006. correctly awarded the following amounts: P75. MBI/PC0704 for P35. P30. Sitio Palyasan. The car. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. the car was allegedly taken by six (6) persons and driven out to Montalban. however. The Court declared that the award of P75. The Decision of the Court of Appeals. Salome and People v.R.000.000.000. dated January 13. which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.00 ² Own Damage. suffered extensive damage. or the Anti-Death Penalty Law. the proper penalty under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.000. the instant appeal is DENIED. sustaining respondent insurer's contention that the accident did not fall within the provisions of the policy either for the Own 1 Damage or Theft coverage.000. 7659. thus.000. or collision or overturning consequent upon mechanical breakdown or consequent upon wear and tear. insofar as to sentence appellant Venancio Roxas y Arguelles to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Frustrated Murder.00 as exemplary damages. and 51 apply People of the Philippines v. While it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that appellant took Agnes' personal things. that the taking was employed with the use of force. it appears that the jewelries and cash were taken from Agnes without the attendance of violence or intimidation upon her person. 1980 of respondent insurance commission are as follows: Complainant [petitioner] was the owner of a Colt Lancer. Benito Mabasa.00 shows "not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time but also the expression of the displeasure of the court of the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity. As a consequence. the civil indemnity of P75. the penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense is still death and the offense is still heinous. Hence. the policy limits the use of the insured vehicle to two (2) persons only. On May 9. 1978. not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender. in the determination of the civil indemnity is the heinous character of the crime committed. and P30.00 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries. Consequently. proper and ineligible for parole. going North at Montalban. Barrio Burgos. self-ignition or lightning or burglary. as affirmed by the appellate court. housebreaking or theft. violation and intimidation. Richard O. which would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty.A. Agnes herself testified that when she regained consciousness. and one of the passengers died and the other four sustained physical injuries.000. WHEREFORE. People v. No. hitting and bumping a gravel and sand truck parked at the right side of the road going south. grave or less grave. the same to be applied in its maximum period. A complex crime is committed when a single act constitutes two or more. the vehicle was brought to the Sunday Machine Works. however.00 as moral damages. felonies. Costs against the appellant. Respondent commission upheld private respondent's contention on the "Authorized Driver" clause in this wise: "It must be observed that under the above-quoted provisions. entitling her to an award of moral damages even without proof thereof.00 is still proper because. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. the car figured in an accident. Appellant is. in CA-G. while it was in the custody of the Sunday Machine Works.00 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty. as well.000.00 issued by respondent Empire Insurance Company admittedly undertook to indemnify the petitioner-insured against loss or damage to the car (a) by accidental collision or overturning. watch and cash. and to declare him ineligible for parole.00 as civil indemnity. thereafter.. 1977 to May 16. Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on the appellant because of the prohibition in R.000. thus.A. Likewise. PENALTIES As to the imposable penalty.

Rep. he must have been duly authorized by the insured. "Who are liable for theft. with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. is that a person other than the insured owner. such taking constitutes or partakes of the nature of theft as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. 308 of the Revised Penal Code.000. to drive the vehicle to make the insurance company liable for the driver's negligence.' It is therefore clear that if the person driving is other than the insured. If at all there was a 'taking'. for the car was totally smashed in the fatal accident and was never returned in serviceable and useful condition to petitioner-owner. and the withholding of the same. not the "authorized driver" clause.. enjoyment and pleasure. who instead of carrying out the owner's order to fetch the children from school takes out his girl friend instead for a joy ride and instead wrecks the car. and the intent must be an intent permanently to deprive the insured of his car.00 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until full payment is made and to pay the costs of suit." and that "Such was not the case in this instance. ACCORDINGLY. guilty of larceny in stealing three automobile tires. subject to the filing of such claim for reimbursement or payment as it may have as subrogee against the Sunday Machine Works. provided that such employee is duly qualified to drive under a valid driver's license. A car owner who entrusts his car to an established car service and repair shop necessarily entrusts his car key to the shop owner and employees who are presumed to have the insured's permission to drive the car for legitimate purposes of checking or road-testing the car. 13). the police found from the waist of the car driver Benito Mabasa Bartolome who smashed the car and was found dead right after the incident "one cal. ruling that "The element of 'taking' in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code means that the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of a movable thing is coupled . Complainant admitted that she did not know the person who drove her vehicle at the time of the accident. .. shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.. being contracts of adhesion where the only participation of the other party is the signing of his signature or his "adhesion" thereto. or with his permission. 3 From the very investigator's report cited in its comment. finding the appellant. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for four months and one day. Apparently. takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another. In other words. and prevent their becoming traps for the unwary. 7 Appt. Then. on the insured's order or with his permission. and taken on a long trip to Montalban without the owner's consent or knowledge." The evidence does not warrant respondent commission's findings that it was a mere "joy ride". in the person of Benito Mabasa. The Court rejects respondent commission's premise that there must be an intent on the part of the taker of the car "permanently to deprive the insured of his car" and that since the taking here was for a "joy ride" and "merely temporary in nature. as may be seen from its text. he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and using it. ² Theft is committed by any person who. it is equally evident that the taking proved to be quite permanent rather than temporary. it is the theft clause. to whom the car had been entrusted for general check-up and repairs was not an "authorized driver" of petitioner-complainant is too restrictive and contrary to the established principle that insurance contracts. Her husband likewise admitted that he neither knew this driver Benito Mabasa (Exhibit '4'). despite the totally inadequate evidence. respondent commission's ruling that the person who drove the vehicle in the person of Benito Mabasa. with the intention. according to its finding. and independently of the foregoing (since when a car is unlawfully taken." The Court finds respondent commission's dismissal of the complaint to be contrary to the evidence and the law. 45 Colt. of withholding it with the character of permanency (People vs. and one apple type grenade.on his (insured's) permission. The situation is no different from the regular or family driver. The fact that the car was taken by one of the residents of the Sunday Machine Works. the same was merely temporary in nature." for purposes of recovering the loss under the policy in question. page 15). such as a friend or member of the family or the employees of a car service or repair shop must be duly licensed drivers and have no disqualification to drive a motor vehicle.. there must have been shown a felonious intent upon the part of the taker of the car. viz. was one of the residents of the Sunday Machine Works. without the consent of its owner. Assuming. "obviously call for greater strictness and vigilance on the part of courts of justice with a view of protecting the weaker party 2 from abuse and imposition. satisfaction. for a joy ride should not be construed to mean 'taking' under Art. The main purpose of the "authorized driver" clause." a "temporary taking is held not a taking insured against. supra. 5 of the complaint). or learning how to drive. arresto mayor. much less consented to the use of the same (par. The mere happenstance that the employee(s) of the shop owner diverts the use of the car to his own illicit or unauthorized purpose in violation of the trust reposed in the shop by the insured car owner does not mean that the "authorized driver" clause has been violated such as to bar recovery. such as his regular driver. Under the second category. is not an authorized driver of the complainant. either with the object of going to a certain place. who drives the car on the insured's order. Respondent commission likewise upheld private respondent's assertion that the car was not stolen and therefore not covered by the Theft clause. again. or enjoying a free ride. and requiring him to pay a third part of the costs of prosecution. Ct.000. at the time of the 'taking'." hardly the materials one would bring along on a "joy ride". his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility. that the taking was "temporary" and for a "joy ride". that applies). Galang. we hold that the person who drove the vehicle. There is no question of his being an "authorized driver" which allows recovery of the loss although his trip was for a personal or illicit purpose without the owner's authorization. it is to be noted that the words "any person' is qualified by the phrase . With these declarations of complainant and her husband. the Court sustains as the better view that which holds that when a person. where a car is admittedly as in this case unlawfully and wrongfully taken by some people. " The insurer must therefore indemnify the petitioner-owner for the total loss of the insured car in the sum of P35. Inc. Justice Ramon C. Juan Carpio. Secondly. the appealed decision is set aside and judgment is hereby rendered sentencing private respondent to pay petitioner the sum of P35.. A temporary taking is held not a taking insured against (48 A LR 2d. CARPIO This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila. First. this is a violation of the 'Authorized Driver' clause of the policy. Inc. Aquino cites in his work Groizard who holds that the use of a thing 4 constitutes gain and Cuello Calon who calls it "hurt de uso.00 under the theft clause of the policy. be they employees of the car shop or not to whom it had been entrusted. who.

and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. and there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance to be taken into account. At that place Silos and Carpio engaged in conversation for a few minutes. do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. 1928. one of whom was the appellant. At the Bostom Restaurant. Ledesma was directed to drive his car. 376 was stolen under the circumstances above stated and stripped of three of its tires by the thieves. his petition must be denied. petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot. 376) appears to have been put into commission in November. All these acts were eyed by Lago. It is the uniform practice of this court to modify decisions on appeal not only in a sense favorable to the accused. and we are of the opinion that the trial court erred on the side of leniency in sentencing the appellant for the theft of the tires only. Silos invited Ledesma to come in with him to eat something. the car of Carpio was standing in front of the Legaspi Landing. then boarded the vehicle. 2007 Facts: Petitioner effectively concedes having performed the felonious acts imputed against him. stripped of three tires with the rims. When thus found. It will take considerable amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft may be recognized.m. That it has taken all these years for us to recognize that there can be no frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code does not detract from the correctness of this conclusion.250 pesetas. The fact that the accused stripped the car of its tires and abandoned the machine in a distant part of the city did not make the appellant any less liable for the larceny of that automobile. This penalty runs from one year. which Ledesma did. But it is insisted that owing to the particular form in which the trial court worded its opinion. at around 4:30 p. all circumstances considered. a . and this rule has not been infrequently applied here by raising the penalty to death in cases requiring the ultimate penalty. and since he effectively deprived the true owner of the possession of the entire automobile. or P250. 376 was stolen and was not to be found when Silos and Ledesma emerged from the restaurant. it is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. with the accessory penalties appropriate thereto. the offense of larceny comprised the whole car. Juan Carpio. that the act of theft was consummated not only with respect to the tires but with respect to the automobile. eight months and twenty-one days to two years. No. to the Luzon Cabaret. namely the consummated. and we have no hesitancy in taking judicial notice of the fact that it was worth in excess of 1. 1awph Aristotle Valenzuela vs. When the owner of the car No. 3 of article 518 of the Penal Code. This puts the offense under No. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi. and. and the trial court committed on error in finding this appellant guilty of the crime of theft. The complaint charges the theft of the car. two of which tires were taken from the wheels of the car and the other from the tire carrier. and that the taking was of a felonious character. Juan Carpio. with whom was riding one Serapio Feliciano. It was thus practically a new car.750. Finally. 396 from the Santa Cruz Garage located on the corner of Azcarraga Street and Rizal Avenue. eleven months and ten days. 376. as is accordingly now done.00. in the City of Manila. the trial judge found the appellant guilty. the appellant merits two years of such imprisonment. if the circumstances require. and was stolen in the month of March. after which Silos ordered Ledesma to direct his course to Manila.090. not of the "Star" automobile. and the fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly to abandon the machine in no wise limits their criminal responsibility to the particular parts of the car that were appropriated and subsequently used by the appellant upon his own car. not the felony in its consummated stage of which he was convicted. one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams. the latter admitted that said three tires belonged to the owner of the car No. there is no crime of frustrated theft. for we decline to adopt said rulings in our jurisdiction. he should be adjudged guilty of frustrated theft only. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. animo lucrandi.. and we are of the opinion that. presidio correccional. June 21. 1927. but of three tires only. frustrated and attempted felonies. in the City of Manila. The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his right of possession were complete as to the entire car. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene. in San Pedro Makati. and they were in fact readily identified by their numbers. A few days thereafter the three tires taken from car No.The information upon which the appellant was tried charges him and his coaccused with the larceny of a "Star" automobile of the value of P1. The basic facts are no longer disputed before us. As petitioner has latched the success of his appeal on our acceptance of the Dio and Flores rulings. but instead insists that as a result. but only of the three tires. The act of asportation in this case was undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thief to profit by the act. in a sense unfavorable to the accused. but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. The car that was stolen in this case (No. and the judgment was modified by declaring that the accused was guilty of stealing the automobile mentioned in the complaint and not of the three tires only. This contention is not well founded. The next day the stolen car was found in Economia Street.presidio correccional. near the City of Manila. appropriate for the attention of the full court. The proof shows that the car was taken with the result of depriving the owner of the possession thereof. It is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which. The facts of the case are briefly these: Early in the morning of March 10.[8] The filched items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic. petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club. We are of the opinion. This car was of the make known as "Star. and asked that the motion be considered and determined by the court en pleno. the penalty to be applied is in the medium degree of the penalty fixed in said provision. wherein the appellant suggested a question of law. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise." and was driven by the chauffeur Resurreccion Ledesma. the goods with an aggregate value of P12. 1928. Our deference to Viada yields to the higher reverence for legislative intent. it must be considered that the lower court in effect acquitted the accused of larceny of the whole car. one Raymundo Silos hired automobile No. not of the larceny of the automobile. Meanwhile the car driven by Carpio was still following them. and three (3) additional cases of detergent. 376 asked Carpio how his three tires came to be on Carpio's car. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. with the result that the penalty imposed on the accused was raised form four months and one day to two 1 years. We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code. while they were thus engaged. but. At a former day of this term the case was heard upon appeal in the second division of this court. The gist of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking and asportation of property. The case stems from an Information[6] charging petitioner Aristotel Valenzuela (petitioner) and Jovy Calderon (Calderon) with the crime of theft. 376 were found on the "Star" car which was being driven by Juan Carpio. 376. nevertheless. In this connection emphasis is placed upon the dispositive part of the opinion of the court below wherein it is declared that the court found the accused guilty of the theft. People GR # 160188. under the circumstances presently to be stated. Issue: WON petitioner is guilty of frustrated theft Held: Article 6 defines those three stages. and with intent to deprive the true owner of the possession thereof. Ledesma's car (No. On 19 May 1994. There can be no possible doubt as to the fact that Star car No. Upon leaving the garage Ledesma observed that another Star car was following them. Against the judgment of the court in division a motion for reconsideration was interposed. however. driven by the appellant. but. and the stolen merchandise recovered. as alleged in the complaint. Manila.

four (4) other persons were apprehended by the security guards at the scene and delivered to police custody at the Baler PNP Station in connection with the incident. However. a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. accompanied by his neighbor. one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams. who was wearing an identification card with the mark ³Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU). Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting.00.supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA. Lago saw petitioner. the goods with an aggregate value of P12. All these acts were eyed by Lago. petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot. at the trial.[7] Quezon City Prosecutor. petitioner and Calderon both claimed having been innocent bystanders within the vicinity of the Super Sale Club on the afternoon of 19 May 1994 when they were haled by Lago and his fellow security guards after a commotion and brought to the Baler PNP Station. and the stolen merchandise recovered. but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident.[11]As the queue for the ATM was long. petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. leading them to head out of the building to check what was Petitioner and Calderon were first brought to the SM security office before they were transferred on the same day to the Baler Station II of the Philippine National Police.´ hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the well-known ³Tide´ brand. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi. and after five (5) minutes.[10] After pleading not guilty on arraignment. Calderon and Rosulada decided to buy snacks inside the supermarket. where Calderon was waiting. Quezon City. It was while they were eating that they heard the gunshot fired by Thereafter.090. by Lorenzo Lago (Lago). after the matter was referred to the Office of the . Calderon alleged that on the afternoon of the incident. for investigation. then boarded the vehicle. and three (3) additional cases of detergent. who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. Leoncio Rosulada.[9] Lago.[8] The filched items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic. he was at the Super Sale Club to withdraw from his ATM account. in Informations prepared on 20 May 1994. emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise. the day after the incident. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket. It appears from the police investigation records that apart from petitioner and Calderon. only petitioner and Calderon were charged with theft by the Assistant City Prosecutor.

The only the other people at the scene to start running.[25] As such. brief[19] with the Court of Appeals. ³assigned at the supermarket´ though not at In arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft.[18] but only petitioner filed a For whatever reasons. as affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. which time he and the others were brought to the Baler Police Station. they were suddenly ³grabbed´ by a security guard. at merely frustrated. he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen.[12] Meanwhile.00 Valenzuela. there is no cause for the Court to consider a factual scenario other tricycle going to Pag-asa.[15] rendered many years ago by the Court of Appeals: People v. the theft should be deemed as consummated or the security office. Both accused filed their respective Notices of Appeal.[14] During petitioner¶s cross-examination. Diño[27] and People v. petitioner argued that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended. as they modified trial court convictions from consummated to frustrated theft and involve a factual milieu that bears similarity to the present case. Branch 90..[21] the Court of decisions elicit the interest of this Court. petitioner testified during trial that he and his cousin. when they saw the security guard Lago fire a shot. convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft.[17] The RTC found credible the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and established the convictions on the positive identification of the accused as perpetrators of the crime. in its Decision dated 19 June 2003. They were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum. petitioner effectively conceded both his felonious their detention.[23] which expressly seeks that petitioner¶s conviction ³be modified to only of Frustrated Theft. The gunshot caused him and than that presented by the prosecution. walking beside the nearby BLISS complex and headed to ride a of which he was charged. a Gregorio intent and his actual participation in the theft of several cases of detergent with a total value of P12. At the station.[28] Both In a Decision[16] promulgated on 1 February 2000. and eventually brought to the II. causing the appellate court to deem Calderon¶s appeal as abandoned and consequently dismissed.´[24] transpiring. Petitioner claimed he was detained at the security office until around 9:00 p. he admitted that he had been employed as a ³bundler´ of GMS Marketing. Before the Court of Appeals. but he was detained overnight.Appeals rejected this contention and affirmed petitioner¶s conviction.090. prosecutor¶s office where he was charged with theft. Flores.[20] However. . the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.[13] had been at the parking lot. petitioner denied having stolen the cartons of detergent. petitioner cites[26] two decisions SM. Petitioner invoked the same rulings in his appeal to the Court of Appeals.[22] Hence the present Petition for Review. As they were outside. at which point he was apprehended by Lago and brought to question to consider is whether under the given facts. thus commencing Even in his appeal before the Court of Appeals. It is not necessary to fault the Court of Appeals for giving short shrift to the Diño and Flores rulings since they have not yet been expressly adopted as precedents by this Court.m. yet the appellate court did not expressly consider the import of the rulings when it affirmed the conviction.

may easily call for the application of Diño and Flores.[29] and studied in criminal law classes as textbook examples of frustrated crimes or even as definitive of frustrated theft. such conclusion could profoundly influence a multitude of routine theft prosecutions. Yet despite the silence on our part. More critically. The time is thus ripe for us to examine whether those theories are correct and should continue to influence prosecutors and judges in the future.the occasion to define or debunk the crime of frustrated theft has not come to pass before us. if we finally say that Diño and Flores are doctrinal. They are comprehensively discussed in the most popular of our criminal law annotations. . including commonplace shoplifting. Diño and Flores have attained a level of renown reached by very few other appellate court rulings. the factual milieu in those cases is hardly akin to the fanciful scenarios that populate criminal law exams more than they actually occur in real life. Any scenario that involves the thief having to exit with the stolen property through a supervised egress. Indeed. The fact that lower courts have not hesitated to lay down convictions for frustrated theft further validates that Diño and Flores and the theories offered therein on frustrated theft have borne some weight in our jurisprudential system. such as a supermarket checkout counter or a parking area pay booth.

´[37] and ³essential for criminal liability. in the code itself. So long as the offender fails to complete all the acts of execution despite commencing the commission of a felony. there must also be an actus reus.´ and accordingly. the task of ascertaining whether a crime is attempted only would need to compare the acts actually performed by the accused as against the acts that constitute the felony under the Revised To delve into any extended analysis of Diño and Flores. ³[s]ubjectively the crime is complete.´[38]It follows that the statutory definition of our mala in se crimes must be able to supply what the mens rea of the crime is. Supreme Court has comfortably held that ³a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement infringes on constitutionally protected rights. A felony is consummated ³when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. nevertheless. a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent. do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. The critical distinction Article 6 defines those three stages.[33] On the other hand. and attempted felonies on the other.[36] mens rea has been defined before as ³a guilty mind.´ or that portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which. the subjective phase ends and the objective phase begins. the crime is merely attempted. should result in the consummated crime. and indeed the U.´ It is frustrated ³when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which.specific acts of execution that define each crime under the Revised Penal Code are generally enumerated III. evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a ³subjective phase.[31] After that point has been breached. that ³ordinarily. an easy distinction lies between consummated and frustrated felonies on one hand. For a crime to exist in our legal law. frustrated and attempted felonies. and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. the subjective phase is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes. namely the consummated. The determination of whether the felony was ³produced´ after all the acts of execution had been performed hinges on the particular statutory definition of the felony.´ The long-standing Latin maxim ³actus non facit reum. the crime is undoubtedly in the attempted stage. it is attempted ³when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.´ Finally.S.[40] Truly.[32] It has been held that if the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense. nisi mens sit rea´ supplies an important characteristic of a crime. as well as the specific issues relative to ³frustrated theft. there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. it is not enough that mens rea be shown.´ it is necessary to first refer to the basic rules on the three stages of crimes under our Revised Penal Code.[30] In contrast. with prior acts.´[39] The criminal statute must also provide for the overt acts that constitute the crime.´[34] crime. . for in such instances.[35] Accepted in this jurisdiction as material in crimes mala in se. the determination of whether a crime is frustrated or consummated necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts of execution have been performed by the offender. Penal Code. It is the statutory definition that generally furnishes the elements of each crime under the Revised Penal Code. Since the instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by the acts of execution. while the elements in turn unravel the particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying criminal intent.

(4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner. Indeed. the statutory definition of murder or homicide expressly uses the phrase ³shall kill another. lucri faciendi causa vel ipsius rei. 2. It is also clear from the provision that in order that such taking may be qualified as theft. Any person who. and it was without the consent of the owner of the property. the idea had taken hold that more than mere physical handling.´[43] a definition similar to that by Art. in theft the taking of personal property of another. there is only one operative act of execution by the actor involved In Spanish law. (2) that said property belongs to another. we need to concern ourselves only with the general definition since it was under it that the prosecution of the accused was undertaken and sustained. and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. as they find expression in the criminal statute. disputes would inevitably ensue on the elemental question whether or not a crime was committed. From the statutory definition of any felony. or intent to gain. was so broad enough as to encompass ³any kind of physical handling of property belonging to another against the will of the owner. shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner. (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain. Without such provision.´[44] However.´[45] This requirement of animo lucrandi.[42] We next turn to the statutory definition of theft.² Theft is committed by any person who. which under early Roman law as defined by Gaius. Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. and conversely. it is not produced if the victim survives. thereby presaging the undesirable and legally dubious set-up under which the judiciary is assigned the legislative role of defining crimes. On the face of the definition. a decisive passage or term is embedded which attests when the felony is produced by the acts of execution. our Revised Penal Code does not suffer from such infirmity. was maintained in both the Spanish and Filipino penal laws.´ thus making it clear that the felony is produced by the death of the victim. after having maliciously damaged the property of another. moves) the property of another. Who are liable for theft. shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him. shall take personal property of another without the latter¶s consent. Justice Regalado notes that the concept ofapoderamiento once had a controversial interpretation and application. we have long recognized the following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Judge Guevarra traces the history of the definition of theft. Paulus that a thief ³handles (touches. vel etiam usus ejus possessinisve. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner. or ³unlawful taking. thus: ³[f]urtum est contrectatio rei fraudulosa. Any person who.It is from the actus reus and the mens rea. there must further be present the descriptive circumstances that the taking was with intent to gain. Theft is likewise committed by: 1. with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. 308. shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals. without force upon things or violence against or intimidation of persons. there must further be an intent of acquiring gain from the object. or other forest or farm products. even as it has since been abandoned in Great Britain. its elements are spelled out as follows: In his commentaries. that the felony is produced.´ to characterize theft. with the Institutes of Justinian. animo lucrandi was compounded with apoderamiento. it is extremely preferable that the language of the law expressly provide when the felony is produced. Spanish law had already discounted the belief that mere physical taking was . namely: (1) that there be taking of personal property. having found lost property. Fortunately. For example.[46] Article 308 provides for a general definition of theft. and 3.[41] In the present discussion. and three alternative and highly idiosyncratic means by which theft may be committed. As a postulate in the craftsmanship of constitutionally sound laws.

yet it did not appear that he was at that moment caught by the policeman but sometime later. completed without need to inflict violence or intimidation against persons nor force upon things. petitioner forfeited the extenuating benefit a conviction for only attempted theft would have afforded him. The defendant was charged with the theft of some fruit from the land of another. Adiao[53] apparently supports that notion. the Court adopted the latter thought that there was no need of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property to constitute an unlawful taking.[51] perpetrator. however.´ There are clearly two determinative factors to consider: that the felony is not ³produced. that there must be permanency in the taking[48] or an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the stolen property. Therein.´ Parsing through the statutory definition of theft under Article 308. the trial court had found him guilty. at least. the Court cited three (3) decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain. there is one apparent answer provided in the language of the law ² that theft is already ³produced´ upon the ³tak[ing of] personal property of another without the latter¶s consent. So. Following that provision. The first. As applied to the present case.constitutive ofapoderamiento. the completion of the operative act that is the taking of personal property of another establishes. alternatively. relies primarily on a doctrinal definition attaching to the individual felonies in the Revised Penal Code[52] as to when a particular felony is ³not produced. and holding instead that the accused was guilty of consummated theft. such seizure motivated by intent to gain. the theft would have been frustrated only. The court said: "[x x x] The trial court did not err [x x x ] in considering the crime as that of consummated theft instead of frustrated theft inasmuch as nothing appears in the record showing that the policemen who saw the accused take the fruit from the adjoining land arrested him in the act and thus prevented him from taking full possession of the thing stolen and even its utilization by him for an interval of time. At no time was the accused able to ³get the merchandise out of the Custom House." (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain. The second factor ultimately depends on the evidence at hand in each particular case.´ and it appears that he ³was under observation during the entire transaction.[49] or that there was no need for permanency in the taking or in its intent. v. once the acts committed by petitioner. October 14. the discussion of which we replicate below: On the critical question of whether it was consummated or frustrated theft. and accomplished without the consent of the SM Super Sales Club. finding that it had to be coupled with ³the intent to appropriate the object in order to constitute apoderamiento. ³do not produce [such theft] by reason of causes independent of the will of the . in order to ascertain whether the theft is consummated or frustrated. we are obliged to apply Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code to ascertain the answer.´ despite the commission of all the acts of execution.) desk at the Custom House. As he was in the act of taking the fruit[. instead. as the mere temporary possession by the offender or disturbance of the proprietary rights of the owner already constituted apoderamiento.´ and that such failure is due to causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. it is necessary to inquire as to how exactly is the felony of theft ³produced.´[55] In support of its conclusion that the theft was consummated. The Court reversed. that the transgression went beyond the attempted stage.´[54] Based apparently on those two circumstances. the moment petitioner obtained physical possession of the cases of detergent and loaded them in the pushcart.´ U. saying that neither circumstance was decisive.] he was seen by a policeman. including animo lucrandi and apoderamiento. a customs inspector was charged with theft after he abstracted a leather belt from the baggage of a foreign national and secreted the item in his So long as the ³descriptive´ circumstances that qualify the taking are present. and to appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. 1898.S. finding that ³all the elements of the completed crime of theft are present. if ordinarily sufficient to produce theft as a consequence. as Justice Regalado notes.[50] Ultimately. of frustrated theft.´[47] However. a conflicting line of cases decided by the Court of Appeals ruled.

without further comment or elaboration: We believe that such a contention is groundless. the offended party got back the money from the defendant. Subsequently. 1897. but as he was approaching a checkpoint of the Military Police. perceiving the theft. some 31 years after Adiao and 15 years before Flores. as had happened in Adiao and the 1897 decision. had driven his truck into the port area of the South Harbor. and the three (3) Spanish decisions cited therein. After he had finished unloading. The [accused] succeeded in taking the pocket-book. however. after a struggle. holding instead that only frustrated theft had been committed. Diño was decided by the Court of Appeals in 1949. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain. the Court was again confronted by a claim that an accused was guilty only of frustrated rather than consummated theft. however. The court said that the defendant had performed all the acts of execution and considered the theft as consummated. he executed all the acts necessary to constitute the crime which was thereby produced.Defendant picked the pocket of the offended party while the latter was hearing mass in a church. The case is People v." (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain. just at this moment he was caught by two guards who were stationed in another room near-by. December 1. only the act of making use of the thing having been frustrated. that the criminal actors in all these cases had been able to obtain full possession of the personal property prior to their apprehension. he was stopped by an M. and then he placed the money over the cover of the case. to unload a truckload of materials to waiting U. Sobrevilla and the Spanish Supreme Court decisions cited therein contradict the It is clear from the facts of Adiao itself. The interval between the commission of the acts of theft and the apprehension of the thieves did vary. and that determines the crime of theft. June 13. was already able to abstract a pocketbook from the trousers of the victim when the latter. Sobrevilla is consistent with Adiao and the Spanish Supreme Court cases cited in the latter. to the very moment the thief had just extracted the money in a purse which had been stored as it was in the 1882 decision. and before the thief had been able to spirit the item stolen from the building where the theft took place. in that the fact that the offender was able to succeed in obtaining physical possession of the stolen item. while in the midst of a crowd in a public market.S. from ³sometime later´ in the 1898 decision. 1882. the Court simply said. ³caught hold of the [accused]¶s shirt-front. If the pocketbook was afterwards recovered.[59] If anything. The trial court convicted accused of consummated theft. at the same time shouting for a policeman. who inspected the truck and found therein three boxes of army rifles. accused drove away his truck from the Port. such recovery does not affect the [accused¶s] criminal liability. and said: "[x x x] The accused [x x x] having materially taken possession of the money from the moment he took it from the place where it had been. Yet to simply affirm without further comment would be disingenuous. he recovered his pocket-book and let go of the defendant.) The defendant penetrated into a room of a certain house and by means of a key opened up a case. who was . but the Court of Appeals modified the conviction. Army personnel.)[56] afterwards caught by a policeman. Sobrevilla. as it was ruled that the thefts in each of those cases was consummated by the actual possession of the property belonging to another. which. such intervals proved of no consequence in those cases. loaded the boxes with the agreement that they were to meet him and retrieve the rifles after he had passed the checkpoint. The court considered this as consummated robbery.´[58] In rejecting the contention that only frustrated theft was established. where the accused. The accused later contended that he had been stopped by four men who had In 1929. as reflected in the Diño and Flores decisions. and from the case took a small box.P. The accused therein. no matter how momentary. a driver employed by the United States Army. [57] position of petitioner in this case. Still. although noticing the theft. The latter on account of the solemnity of the act. did not do anything to prevent it. which arose from the [accused] having succeeded in taking the pocket-book. from which in turn he took a purse containing 461 reales and 20 centimos. while the defendant was still inside the church. was able to consummate the theft. and having taken it with his hands with intent to appropriate the same. Adiao. does not go to make the elements of the consummated crime. which was also opened with a key. as there is another school of thought on when theft is consummated.

As noted earlier. the articles stolen must first be passed through the M. it would be allowed to pass through the check point without further investigation or checking. therefore.´[60]This point was deemed material and indicative that the theft had not been fully produced. which was quoted as follows: [herein] and in [Diño]. but the appellate court pointed out that there was no intervening act of spontaneous desistance on the part of the Considerando que para que el apoderamiento de la cosa sustraida sea determinate de la consumacion del delito de hurto es preciso que so haga en circunstancias tales que permitan al sustractor la libre disposicion de aquella. sin materializar demasiado el acto de tomar la cosa ajena. siquiera sea mas o menos momentaneamente. The truck driver proceeded to show the delivery receipt to the guard on duty at the gate of the terminal. bore ³no substantial variance between the circumstances . as it was frustrated by the timely intervention of the guard. the appellate court pointed out that the evident intent of the accused was to let the boxes of rifles ³pass through the checkpoint. the Court of Appeals then concluded: between Diño and Flores then before it. and discovered that the ³empty´ sea van had actually contained other merchandise as well. citing a ³traditional ruling´ which unfortunately was not identified in the decision itself. Before the Court of Appeals.[63] qualification.In doing so.´ However. the petitioner could not have disposed of the goods µat once¶. the Court of Appeals. This theory was applied again by the Court of Appeals some 15 years later.[62] accused that ³literally frustrated the theft.´[64] Such conclusion is borne out by the facts in Flores. did find that the accused was guilty only of frustrated. but before the loot came under the final control and disposal of the looters. the offense can not be said to have been fully consummated. the appellate court admitted it found ³no substantial variance´ Integrating these considerations. and found himself convicted of the consummated crime. while the truck and the van were still within the compound. accused argued in the alternative that he was guilty only of attempted theft. The accused therein.´ At the same time.´[67] though no further qualification was offered what the effect would have been had that alternative circumstance been present instead. where freedom to dispose of or make use of it is palpably less restricted. but since the offense was opportunely discovered and the articles seized after all the acts of execution had been performed. is that of frustrated theft. even if it were more or less momentary. However. and not consummated.´[61] Support for this proposition was drawn from a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain dated 24 January 1888 (1888 decision). a checker employed by the Luzon Stevedoring Company.[65] The accused was prosecuted for theft qualified by abuse of confidence. explicitly relying on Diño. pues de otra suerte. the appellate court noted that ³[o]bviously. the guards insisted on inspecting the van.´[66] Pouncing on this This court is of the opinion that in the case at bar. no puede decirse en realidad que se haya producido en toda su extension. The offense committed. in Flores. dado el concepto del delito de hurto. perhaps in the belief that as the truck had already unloaded its cargo inside the depot. the Court of Appeals conceded that ³[t]his is entirely different from the case where a much less bulk and more common thing as money was the object of the crime. issued a delivery receipt for one empty sea van to the truck driver who had loaded the purportedly empty sea van onto his truck at the terminal of the stevedoring company. a case which according to the division of the court that decided it. the Court of Appeals pointed out that the said ³traditional ruling´ was qualified by the words ³is placed in a situation where [the actor] could dispose of its contents at once. The prosecution in Flores had sought to distinguish that case from Diño. for the Court of Appeals pronounced that ³the fact determinative of consummation is the ability of the thief to dispose freely of the articles stolen. in order to make the booty subject to the control and disposal of the culprits.P. check point. Diño thus laid down the theory that the ability of the actor to freely dispose of the items stolen at the time of apprehension is determinative as to whether the theft is consummated or frustrated. theft. However.

also Synthesis of the Diño and Flores rulings is in order.´[77] Indeed. Even though those facts clearly admit to In his commentaries. concluding from Adiao and other cases. This ruling seems to have been based on Viada¶s opinion that in order the theft may be consummated.´[74] states that ³[i]n theft or robbery the crime is consummated after the accused had material possession of the thing with intent to appropriate the same. who followed the accused onto a passenger truck where the arrest was made. finding that ³[t]he facts of the cases of U. The determinative characteristic as to whether the crime of theft was produced is the ability of the actor ³to freely dispose of the articles stolen. v. Or as stated in another case[[69]]. It fact. although his act of making use of the thing was frustrated. as the stolen items in both cases were retrieved from the actor before they could be physically extracted from the guarded compounds from which the items were filched. . While the trial court found the accused guilty of frustrated qualified theft. However. [v.´ The qualifier ³siquiera sea mas o menos momentaneamente´ proves another important consideration. as implied in Flores. Batoon[73] involved an accused who filled a container with gasoline from a petrol pump within view of a police detective. then the theft could be deemed consummated. Such circumstance was not present in either Diño or Flores. Espiritu. there is bound to arise different rulings as to the stage of execution of that felony. ³es preciso que so haga en circunstancias tales que permitan al sustractor de aquella. theft is consummated upon the voluntary and malicious taking of property belonging to another which is realized by the material occupation of the thing whereby the thief places it under his control and in such a situation that he could dispose of it at once. siquiera sea mas o menos momentaneamente.In the same commentaries. However.] Adiao x x x and U. even if it were only momentary. Chief Justice Aquino makes the following pointed observation on the import of the Diño ruling: similarity with those in Diño. the character of the item stolen could lead to a different conclusion as to whether there could have been ³free disposition. we can discern from this survey of jurisprudence that the state of the law insofar as frustrated theft is concerned is muddled.´ as in the case where the chattel involved was of ³much less bulk and more common x x x. the Court of Appeals held that the accused was guilty of consummated qualified theft. the Court of Appeals held that the accused were guilty of consummated theft. [such] as money x x x.S.´[68] In People v.´ Such conclusion was drawn from an 1888 decision of the Supreme Court of Spain which had pronounced that in determining whether theft had been consummated.´[76] There are at least two other Court of Appeals rulings that are at seeming variance with the Diño and Flores rulings.S. People v. the question can even be asked whether there is really such a crime in the first place. as the accused ³were able to take or get hold of the hospital linen and that the only thing that was frustrated. Reyes wryly observes that ³[w]hen There is a ruling of the Court of Appeals that theft is consummated when the thief is able to freely dispose of the stolen articles even if it were more or less momentary. as the truck passed through the checkpoint. given the disputed foundational basis of the concept of frustrated theft itself. is the use or benefit that the thieves expected from the commission of the offense.´[72] In pointing out the distinction between Diño and Espiritu. Chief Justice Aquino. as it implies that if the actor was in a capacity to freely dispose of the stolen items before apprehension. ³es preciso que se haga en circumstancias x x x [[70]]´[71] the meaning of an element of a felony is controversial. the stolen items were discovered by the Military Police running the checkpoint. Sobrevilla x x x indicate that actual taking with intent to gain is enough to consummate the crime of theft.[75] the accused had removed nine pieces of hospital linen from a supply depot and loaded them onto a truck. which does not constitute any element of theft.

the crime is frustrated ³when the offender performs all the acts of execution. per Article 6 IV. dropping the coconuts they had seized. the crime committed is only frustrated qualified theft because petitioners were not able to perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the felony as a consequence.´ though not producing the felony as a result. The accused were surprised by the owner within the plantation as they were carrying with them the coconuts they had gathered. which we reproduce in full: However. After trial. theft. Empelis concludes that the crime was spontaneous As narrated in Empelis.[78] of execution. and the issue they raised on appeal was that they were guilty only of simple theft. in the act of gathering and tying some coconuts. is that the disposition of that issue was contained in only two sentences. following Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. the owner of a coconut plantation had espied four (4) persons in the premises of his plantation. As we undertake this inquiry. The accused fled the scene. the accused were convicted of qualified theft.[80] No legal reference or citation was offered for this averment. Flores or the Spanish authorities who may have bolstered the conclusion. There are indeed evident problems with this formulation in Empelis. we have to reckon with the import of this Court¶s 1984 decision in Empelis v.´[81] However. of the Revised Penal Code. provided that the non- performance was by reason of some cause or accident other than desistance. It does not appear from the Empelis decision that the issue of whether the theft was consummated or frustrated was raised by any of the parties. the crime is attempted. IAC. and were subsequently arrested after the owner reported the incident to the police.Empelis held that the crime was only frustrated because the actors ³were not able to perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the felon as a consequence. The Court affirmed that the theft was qualified. and not consummated. . though. If the offender was not able to perform all the acts The Court in 1984 did finally rule directly that an accused was guilty of frustrated. They were not able to carry the coconuts away from the plantation due to the timely arrival of the owner. whether Diño. What does appear.[79] but further held that the accused were guilty only of frustrated qualified theft.

and several times thereafter. the 1870 Codigo Penal de España was then in place. Son reos de hurto: 1. núms. Even if the two sentences we had cited actually aligned with the definitions provided in Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. 608. Los que con ánimo de lucrarse. Considering the flawed reasoning behind its conclusion of frustrated theft. the passage is offered as if it were sourced from an indubitable legal premise so settled it required no further explication. and not because of spontaneous desistance by the offenders. 1. Thus. The definition of the crime of theft. as provided then. con ánimo de lucro. Empelis has not since been reaffirmed by the Court. salvo los casos previstos en los art culos 606. we cannot see how Empelis can contribute to our present debate. frustrated because not all of the acts of execution were performed due to the timely arrival of the owner. V. under the Codigo Penal Español de 1995. except for the bare fact that it proves that the Court had once deliberately found an accused guilty of frustrated theft. 2. we cannot attribute weight to Empelis as we consider the present petition. It was under the ambit of the 1870 Codigo Penal that the aforecited Spanish Supreme Court decisions were handed down. 3. 613. read as follows: For these reasons. its doctrinal value is extremely compromised by the erroneous legal premises that inform it. the said code would be revised again in 1932. In fact. or even cited as authority on theft. such passage bears no reflection that it is the product of the considered evaluation of the relevant legal or jurisprudential thought. 2. 1. 607.0. Even if Empelis were considered as a precedent for frustrated theft. following Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. However. Instead. Notably. Los dañadores que sustrajeren o utilizaren los frutos u objeto del daño causado. toman las cosas muebles ajenas sin la voluntad de su dueño. However. especially given that the acts were not performed because of the timely arrival of the owner.0. y sin volencia o intimidación en las personas ni fuerza en las cosas. At the time our Revised Penal Code was enacted in 1930.0. núm.0. Empelis does not compel us that it is an insurmountable given that frustrated theft is viable in this jurisdiction. 611.0 y 3. and also by the fact that it has not been entrenched by subsequent reliance. that decision is subject to reassessment. Indeed. núm. it cannot present any efficacious argument to persuade us in this case. Segundo párrafo del 617 y 618. Insofar as Empelis may imply that . these facts should elicit the conclusion that the crime was only attempted. Los que encontrándose una cosa perdida y sabiendo quién es su dueño se la apropriaren co intención de lucro. the crime of theft is now simply defined as ³[e]l que. 1.convictions for frustrated theft are beyond cavil in this jurisdiction.

muy vacilante. at least. for it cuanto es necesario para la consumación del hurto no lo consume efectivamente. for such a submission is hardly heretical in light of Cuello Calón¶s position. Cuello Calón attacked the very idea that frustrated theft is actually possible: La doctrina hoy generalmente sustentada considera que el hurto se consuma cuando la cosa queda de hecho a la disposición del agente. pero el culpale no llega a disponer de la cosa.[87] (Emphasis supplied) Notice that in the 1870 and 1995 definition of theft in the penal code of Spain. the esteemed Eugenio Cuello Calón pointed out the inconsistent application by the Spanish Supreme Court with respect to frustrated theft. Unlike Viada. 22 febrero 1913. son hurtos consumados. Algunos fallos han considerado la existencia de frustración cuando. and was indeed derived from the 1888 decision of the Supreme Court of Spain. It does appear that the principle originated and perhaps was fostered in the realm of Spanish jurisprudence. los abandona. it would appears that the 1888 decision involved an accused who was surprised by the employees of a be difficult to foresee how the execution of all the acts necessary for the completion of the crime would haberdashery as he was abstracting a layer of clothing off a mannequin. éstos. 30 de octubre 1950. the answer has to be in the negative. The passage cited in Diño was actually utilized by Viada to answer the question whether frustrated or consummated theft was committed ³[e]l que en el momento Cuello Calón¶s submissions cannot be lightly ignored. conforme a lo antes expuesto. and willingly recites decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain that have held to that effect. 22 febrero 1913. The oft-cited Salvador Viada adopted a question-answer form in his 1926 commentaries on the 1870 Codigo Penal de España. Viada does not contest the notion of frustrated theft. Therein. 29 mayo 1889. Further. la arroja al suelo. esta doctrina no es admissible. it would arise not out of . viéndose sorprendido. hay frustración "muy próxima" cuando el culpable es detenido por el perjudicado acto seguido de cometer la sustracción. cuando el resultado no tuvo efecto por la intervención de la policia situada en el local donde se realizó la sustracción que impidió pudieran los reos disponer de lo sustraído. he raised at least three questions for the reader whether the crime of frustrated or consummated theft had occurred.tomare las cosas muebles ajenas sin la voluntad de su dueño será castigado´[82] Ultimately.[86] Accordingly. Hay frustración cuando los reos fueron sorprendidos por las guardias cuando llevaban los sacos de harino del carro que los conducia a otro que tenían preparado. away the garment as he fled. it would not be intellectually disingenuous for the Court to look at the question from a fresh perspective. that thought that questioned whether theft could truly be frustrated. 12 abril 1930. declara hurtos frustrados son verdaderos delitos consumados. No se concibe la frustración. Con este criterio coincide la doctrina sentada últimamente porla jurisprudencia española que generalmente considera consumado el hurto cuando el culpable coge o aprehende la cosa y ésta quede por tiempo más o menos duradero bajo su poder. 28 febrero 1931. This divergence of opinion convinces us. si existe apoderamiento.´ Otherwise put. as we are not bound by the opinions of the respected Spanish commentators. conflicting as they are. pues es muy dificil que el que hace cuanto es necesario para la consumación del hurto no lo consume efectivamente. los raros casos que nuestra jurisprudencia. Cuello Calón actually set forth his own was as stated in Diño. and who then proceeded to throw not produce the effect of theft. who was content with mismo de apoderarse de la cosa ajena. Hay "por lo menos" frustración. A final ruling by the Court that there is no crime of frustrated theft in this jurisdiction will not lead to scholastic pariah. El delito no pierde su carácter de consumado aunque la cosa hurtada sea devuelta por el culpable o fuere recuperada. to accept that theft is capable of commission in its frustrated stage. as proposed inDiño and Flores.[85]A few decades later.´[83] Even as the answer replicating the Spanish Supreme Court decisions on the matter. that there is no weighted force in scholarly thought that obliges us to accept frustrated theft. if we ask the question whether there is a mandate of statute or precedent that must compel us to adopt the Diño and Flores doctrines. 11 marzo 1921. If we did so.[84] Nonetheless. El hecho de que éste pueda aprovecharse o no de lo hurtado es indiferente. ³la libre disposicion´ of the property is not an element or a statutory characteristic of the crime. perseguido el culpable o sorprendido en el momento de llevar los efectos hurtados. since ³pues es muy dificil que el que hace decision¶s factual predicate occasioning the statement was apparently very different from Diño.

To restate what this Court has repeatedly held: the elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that there be taking of personal property. it is immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender. With intent to gain. although his act of making use of the thing was frustrated. But even if this were correct. Viewed from that perspective. when is the crime of theft produced? There would be all but certain unanimity in the position that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent to gain.[88] The courts cannot arrogate the power to introduce a new element of a crime which was unintended by the legislature. and such consideration proves ultimately immaterial to that question. the statutory definition of theft considers only the perspective of intent to gain on the part of the offender. or redefine a crime in a manner that does not hew to the statutory language. for it would mean that not all the acts of execution have not been completed. that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen With that in mind. of personal property of another without the latter¶s consent. the ³taking not having been accomplished. but our concern now is whether there is indeed a crime of frustrated theft. While the Diño/Flores dictum is considerate to the mindset of the offender. whether as a descriptive or operative element of theft or as the mens rea or actus reus of the felony. compounded by the deprivation of property on the part of the victim. a problem clearly emerges with the Diño/Flores dictum. The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime of theft. ³The Court must take heed of language. once having committed all the acts of execution for theft. in order to strictly determine the wrath and breath of the conduct the law forbids. the question is again.[90] delves into the concept of ³taking´ itself. It finds no support or extension in Article 308. and not frustrated stage. not the courts. Such factor runs immaterial to the statutory definition of theft. and a function that allows breathing room for a variety of theorems in competition until one is ultimately adopted by this Court. with intent to gain. as earlier cited. (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner. and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. and ordain its punishment. It is Congress.´ Perhaps this point could serve as fertile ground for future discussion. such issue will not apply to the facts of this particular case.´[91] . which is to define a crime. he acquired physical possession of the stolen For the purpose of ascertaining whether theft is susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage. This conclusion is reflected in Chief Justice Aquino¶s commentaries. is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued from such acts of execution. V. as expressed primarily in the language of the law as it defines the crime.´[89] It might be argued. which determines which acts or combination of acts are criminal in nature. Due respect for the prerogative of Congress in defining crimes/felonies constrains the Court to refrain from a broad interpretation of penal laws where a ³narrow interpretation´ is appropriate. as representatives of the sovereign people.obeisance to an inexorably higher command. through statute. It is the legislature. in that there could be no true taking until the actor obtains such degree of control over the stolen item. the effect would be to downgrade the crime to its attempted. Judicial interpretation of penal laws should be aligned with what was the evident legislative intent. The foremost predicate that guides us as we explore the matter is that it lies in the province of the legislature. but from the exercise of the function of statutory interpretation that comes as part and parcel of judicial review. (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain. Moreover. to define what constitutes a particular crime in this jurisdiction. legislative history and purpose. We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the taking by the petitioner was completed in this case. that ³[i]n theft or robbery the crime is consummated after the accused had material possession of the thing with intent to appropriate the same. (2) that said property belongs to another. which is the taking.

relevant as that would be on whether such property is capable of free disposal at any stage.[95] since the Court would have carved a viable means for offenders to seek a mitigated penalty under applied circumstances that do not admit of easy classification. and ultimately the consummation of the theft. is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. ³unlawful taking´ is most material in this respect. the accused which does not reflect any legislated intent. For such will remain the presumed fact if frustrated theft were recognized. Would this depend on the psychological belief of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime.[94] Or. of gain. the number and identity of people present at the Insofar as we consider the present question. as implied in Diño? x x x [T]he most fundamental notion in the crime of theft is the taking of the thing to be appropriated into the physical power of the thief. scene of the crime. which idea is qualified by other conditions. if at all. the location of the property. Even the fungibility or edibility of the stolen item would come into account. But once all these acts have been executed. all of the acts of execution. It is difficult to formulate definite standards as to when a stolen item is susceptible to free Indeed. the effect of the felony has been produced as there has been deprivation of property. the number and identity of people whom the offender is expected to encounter upon fleeing with the stolen property. which is the deprivation of one¶s personal property. even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful taking. we can only conclude that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. the appreciation of several classes of factual circumstances such as the size and weight of the property. after all. the manner in which the stolen item had been housed or stored. more likely. including the taking. without unlawful taking as an act of execution. even after the taking has been consummated. have been completed. as not all of the acts of execution have been performed. theft cannot have a frustrated stage. or apoderamiento. causing the unlawful deprivation of property. the taking has been completed. held that unlawful taking. With these considerations. a distinction of no slight importance. the offense could only be attempted theft. All these complications will make us lose sight of the fact that beneath all the colorful detail. Moreover. and quite frankly. Avila:[93] disposal by the thief. a whole lot more. The presumed inability of the offenders to freely dispose of the stolen property does not negate the fact that the owners have already been deprived of their right to possession upon the completion of the taking. we have. we asserted in People v. for therein. and it will be here noted that the definition does not require that the taking should be effected against the will of the owner but merely that it should be without his consent. Both fail to consider that once the offenders therein obtained possession over the stolen items. Theft can only be attempted or consummated. the adoption of the rule ²that the inability of the offender to freely dispose of the stolen property frustrates the theft ² would introduce a convenient defense for . If the facts establish the non-completion of the taking due to these peculiar circumstances.cases of detergent for a considerable period of time that he was able to drop these off at a spot in the parking lot. as is evident in this case. the owner was indeed deprived of property by one who intended to produce such deprivation for reasons Neither Diño nor Flores can convince us otherwise. At the same time. and long enough to load these onto a taxicab. such as that the taking must be effected animo lucrandi and without the consent of the owner. is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing.[92] And long ago. the effect could be to downgrade the crime to the attempted stage.

1966. he conducted a friend in his car to the housing project in the vicinity of the provincial hospital at Mandurriao. His uncle had counselled him to surrender to the police. Jaranilla requested to bring them to Mandurriao. shot Patrolman Jabatan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library It is important to note the positions of Gorriceta and his three companions on the front seat of the track. Jaranilla prevailed upon Gorriceta to take them to Mandurriao because Jaranilla ostensibly had to get something from his uncle's place. They hailed Gorriceta who stopped the truck. M.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Upon reaching Mandurriao.Maybe the Diño/Flores rulings are. They ran to the truck. was driving a Ford pickup truck belonging to his sister.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Victorino Trespeces. Elias Jaranilla and Franco Brillantes. Gorriceta drove the truck to Jaro (another district of the city) on the same route that they had taken in going to Mandurriao. they reappeared. Gorriceta slowed down the truck after Patrolman Jabatan had fired a warning shot and was signalling with his flashlight that the truck should stop. He immediately started the motor of the truck and drove straight home to La Paz. That it has taken all these years for us to recognize that there can be no frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code does not detract from the correctness of this conclusion. then under construction. JARANILLA his is an appeal of defendants Elias Jaranilla. As petitioner has latched the success of his appeal on our acceptance of the Diño and Flores rulings. So.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library . who had just come from Fort San Pedro in Iloilo City. there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the ³free disposition of the items stolen´ is in any way determinative of whether the crime of theft has been produced.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Jaranilla directed Gorriceta to start the truck because they were being chased. Next to him on his right was Suyo. Yet they do not align with the legislated framework of the crime of theft. Suyo did nothing. he hid in the ceiling. While he was in front of the Elizalde Building on J. He told Jaranilla that he (Gorriceta) was on his way home. Jaranilla. Jaranilla warned Gorriceta not to tell anybody about the incident. whose house was located opposite the house of Valentin Baylon on Taft Street in Mandurriao. The policemen took Gorriceta to their headquarters. It will take considerable amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft may be recognized. He recounted the incident to a police investigator. which convicted them of robbery with homicide. They did not heed the injunction of the policeman. On the extreme right was Jaranilla. It was only at about eight o'clock in the morning of the following day that he decided to come down. Gorriceta. Each of them was carrying two fighting cocks. their erroneous appreciation of our law on theft leave them susceptible to reversal. The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate said rulings. The trio walked in the direction of the plaza. Remia G. Jaranilla. Gorriceta parked the truck inside the garage. Our deference to Viada yields to the higher reverence for legislative intent. Jaranilla instructed Gorriceta to wait for them. and even if they did. 11082). Jaranilla kept on firing towards Jabatan. Gorriceta the driver. there is no crime of frustrated theft. Jaranilla. The shooting frightened Gorriceta. Brillantes and Suyo boarded the pickup truck which Gorriceta drove to Mandurriao. and the later Flores was ultimately content in relying on Diño alone for legal support. Suyo and Brillantes alighted from the vehicle. Gorriceta saw in the middle of the road Patrolmen Ramonito Jabatan and Benjamin Castro running towards them. he heard policemen shouting his name and asking him to come down. 1966. After an interval of about ten to twenty minutes. Gorriceta stopped the truck near the policeman. all of a sudden. grounded in common sense. Gorriceta parked the truck at a distance of about fifty to seventy meters from the provincial hospital. Valencia. a regrettably stray decision which has not since found favor from this Court. sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua and ordered them to pay solidarily the sum of six thousand pesos to the heirs of Ramonito Jabatan and the sum of five hundred pesos to Valentin Baylon as the value of fighting cocks (Criminal Case No.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The evidence for the prosecution shows that at around eleven o'clock in the evening of January 9. Gorriceta demurred.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Brillantes pulled his revolver but did not fire it. Instead of doing so. Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library While the truck was traversing the detour road near the Mandurriao airport. He noticed a red Ford pickup truck parked about fifty yards from the place where he saw the three men. he saw Ricardo Suyo. The same holds true ofEmpilis. Basa Street. testified that before midnight of January 9. After a while. a district in another part of the city. was on the extreme left. Gorriceta went up to his room. Diño itself did not rely on Philippine laws or jurisprudence to bolster its conclusion. Jabatan approached the right side of the truck near Jaranilla and ordered all the occupants of the truck to go down. another district of the city. for we decline to adopt said rulings in our jurisdiction. These cases do not enjoy the weight of stare decisis. As he neared his residence. he saw three men emerging from the canal on Taft Street in front of Baylon's house. We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code. Again. in some degree. Next to Suyo was Brillantes. his petition must be denied. Suyo and Brillantes alighted in front of Gorriceta's house.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Jaranilla.

Hence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Baylon reported the loss to the police at Mandurriao. Trespeces turned his car around in order to return to Mandurriao. his comrade. The feeding vessels were scattered on the ground. Jaranilla and Brillantes of robo con homicidio. If. he was summoned to the police station at Mandurriao to identify a rooster which was recovered somewhere at the airport. the notice of appeal filed by defendants' counsel de oficio erroneously included Jaranilla. He readily identified it as one of the six roosters which was stolen from his chicken coop (Exh. He was responsible for its preservation. He was running. Jaranilla and Suyo and when he allegedly invited them for a paseo. the crime could not be robbery with homicide because the robbery was already consummated when Jabatan was killed. both thoracic cavity was full of blood. Gorriceta asked Jaranilla to drive the truck because he (Gorriceta) was drunk then that circumstance would be inconsistent with their theory that Gorriceta . the men and the truck were not there anymore. the policemen left the car and crossed the runway which was a shortcut.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Gorriceta.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The judgment of conviction was promulgated as to defendants Suyo and Brillantes on October 19. nocturnity. secondary to bullet wound. he could not have appealed. Two days later.Shortly thereafter. He discovered that the door of one of his cock pens or chicken coops (Exhs. the owner of the fighting cocks. band. the chief medico-legal officer of the Iloilo City police department. A and A-1) was broken. Patrolman Castro and Trespeces lifted Jabatan into the car and brought him to the hospital. He stopped and again turned his car in the direction where shots had emanated. Cause of death: Shock. He reported to Patrolmen Jabatan and Castro what he had just witnessed. A few moments later. Upon arrival thereat.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library dismissed as to On February 2. escaped from jail (See Sec. 6. 1967.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library (2) Bullet wound one centimeter in diameter. The fiscal utilized Gorriceta as a state witness. The six roosters were valued at one hundred pesos each. about two meters therefrom. The record does not show that he has been apprehended. they further contend that the taking of roosters was theft and. There was no promulgation of the judgment as to Jaranilla. 1966. The coops were located at the side of his house. Each coop had a door which was locked by means of nails. Each coop contained six cocks. Jaranilla escaped from the provincial jail. Rules of Court). There is no indubitable proof that Jaranilla knows how to drive a truck. He had the obligation to return it to his sister in the same condition when he borrowed it. Through their counsel de oficio. B). He asked Trespeces for help because Jabatan. returned home at about six o'clock in the morning of January 10. The coop was made of bamboo and wood with nipa roofing. directed diagonally downward to the right. Jaranilla. Only the appeals of defendants Suyo and Brillantes will be considered. He found: (1) Contusion on left eyebrow. after the prosecution had rested its case and before the defense had commenced the presentation of its evidence. Inasmuch as the judgment has not been promulgated as to Jaranilla. he espied the three men carrying roosters.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library After evaluating the testimonies of Gorriceta and Brillantes as to who was driving the truck and who shot policeman.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In this appeal the appellants contend that the trial court erred in not finding that Gorriceta was the one who shot the policeman and that Jaranilla was driving the Ford truck because Gorriceta was allegedly drunk. who. Rule 120. Trespeces learned later that Jabatan was dead. the case was him. that. 1967 when it was read to them in court. was wounded. Valentin Baylon. Patrolman Castro came into view. His appeal through counsel cannot be entertained. this Court finds that the trial court did not err in giving credence to Gorriceta's declaration that he was driving the truck at the time that Jaranilla shot Jabatan. Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robo con homicidio with the aggravating circumstances of use of a motor vehicle.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In convicting Suyo. perforating the left upper lobe of the lungs through and through. a group of detectives came to his house together with the police photographer who took pictures of the chicken coops. contempt of or with insult to the public authorities and recidivism. At that moment he heard gunshots. bitting the left pulmonary artery and was recovered at the right thoracic cavity. alternatively. They signed at the bottom of the last page of the decision. The two policemen requested him to take them in his car to the place where he saw the three suspicious-looking men.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library However. On reaching the detour road leading to the airport. if it was robbery. The truck belonged to Gorriceta's sister. Upon investigation he found that six of his fighting cocks were missing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Doctor Raymundo L. At about ten o'clock.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Trespeces and the policemen followed the truck speeding towards Jaro.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The theory of the defense may be viewed from another angle. He was driving it when he saw Brillantes. He immediately repaired to the police station at Mandurriao. hemorrhage. the trial court assumed that the taking of the six fighting cocks was robbery and that Patrolman Jabatan was killed "by reason or on the occasion of the robbery" within the purview of article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Their objective was to intercept the truck. Torres. according to the appellants. as already stated. conducted an autopsy on the remains of Patrolman Jabatan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The improbability of appellants' theory is manifest. penetrating left anterior axilla.

as Jaranilla and his two comrades were interested in concealing the fighting cocks. He would not have been able to shoot accurately at Jabatan..shot Jabatan. Hence. a term which may be confounded with the expression "uninhabited place" in articles 295 and 300 of the Revised Penal Code. Not being a building.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Moreover. If any door.S. . The term lugar no habitado is the antonym of casa habitada(inhabited house) in article 299. He is guilty of theft because a railroad car is neither a house nor a building within the meaning of article 302 which corresponds to article 525 of the 1870 Spanish Penal Code. floor or outside door or window broken. the theory that Gorriceta shot Jabatan and that Jaranilla was driving the truck appears to be plausible. where the object to be taken is found.. 302. who would have the motive for shooting Jabatan. Manila and removed forty watches therefrom. opens a sealed or locked receptacle deposited in a freight car.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Having shown the inapplicability of Articles 294 and 299. not Gorriceta. while not actually inhabited. by force. the one who shot him must have been a sober person like Jaranilla. Consequently. Leyes Publicas 479). was construed as embracing any structure not mentioned in article 299 (meaning not an "inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship" or any dependency thereof) used for storage and safekeeping of personal property.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Neither could such taking fall under article 299 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes robbery in an inhabited house (casa habitada). 710). as "uninhabited place". vs. if the value of the property exceeds 250 pesos. Article 302 refers to houses or buildings which. Being supposedly intoxicated. (See Albert.. If any closed or sealed receptacle.-El robo cometido en un lugar no habitado o en un edificio que no sea de los comprendidos en el parrafo primero del articulo 299. chest. Thus. p. a pig 3. But the fact is that the first shot hit Jabatan. wardrobe. 688). The controlling Spanish original reads: ART. the next inquiry is whether the taking of the six roosters is covered by article 302 of the Revised Penal Code which reads: chanrobles virtual law library ART. does not commit robbery. J. or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken. 2 Phil. the crime was theft and not robbery because he did not enter the building. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in private building. even if the same be broken open elsewhere.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library has been xxx xxx xxx In this connection. the chicken coop where the six roosters were taken cannot be considered a building within the meaning of article 302.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The term "building" in article 302. 567. Gorriceta would have been dozing when Jabatan signalled the driver to stop the truck and he could not have thought of killing Jabatan in his inebriated state. The unnailing of a strip of cloth nailed over the door. 302. G. Articles 299 and 302 clearly contemplate that the malefactor should enter the building (casa habitada o lugar no habitado o edificio). picklocks or other similar tools.-Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of article 299. shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods provided that any of the following circumstances is present: 1. which is the translation of despoblado and which is different from the term lugar no habitado in article 302. Revised Penal Code. Adorno. public building or edifice devoted to worship. 1932 edition. (U. has been removed. The coop was not inside Baylon's house. As thus construed. The term "lugar no habitado" is erroneously translated. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress. * In the instant case. If the culprit did not enter the building. formerly 512 of the old Penal Code. was held to constitute breaking by force within the meaning of article 512.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 5. who later became a member of this Court). If any wall. CA 40 O. as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. article 294 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be invoked. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys. it cannot be said that the accused entered the same in order to commit the robbery by means of any of the five circumstances enumerated in article 302. (People vs. So.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Thus. The show-window was outside the store.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Was the taking of the roosters robbery or theft? There is no evidence that in taking the six roosters from their coop or cages in the yard of Baylon's house violence against or intimidation of persons was employed. (Tomo 26.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library 4.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library .chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 2. it is relevant to note that there is an inaccuracy in the English translation of article 302.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library One essential requisite of robbery with force upon things under Articles 299 and 302 is that the malefactor should enter the building or dependency. Nor was it a dependency thereof within the meaning of article 301 of the Revised Penal Code. a freight car used for the shipment of sugar was considered a private building. .chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The ruling in the Magsino case is in conflict with the rulings of the Supreme Court of Spain that a railroad employee who. per Montemayor. now article 302. it was Jaranilla. are habitable. roof. Magsino. there would be no robbery with force upon things. Robo en lugar no habitado o edificio particular. where the accused broke the show-window of the Bombay Palace Bazar at Rizal Avenue. the customary manner of sealing a freight car.

48. L-10239. That penalty should be imposed in its maximum period because only aggravating circumstances are present (Art. citing decision of Supreme Court of Spain dated July 13. 372 and People vs. one yard wide and one yard high. Revised Penal Code. People vs. 65 Phil. vs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The theft was consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the roosters. 1. which is known in the dialect as tangkal or kulungan. 1887). 771). Lojo. 642. The killing was homicide because it was made on the spur of the moment. not robbery. 49 Phil. Tumlos.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Also to be appreciated against appellants Suyo and Brillantes is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism which was alleged in the information. The others were convicted of robbery only. Tumaob.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Although recidivists. 647. 754).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The twenty-four year old Jabatan was an agent of authority on night duty at the time of the shooting. The coop barely reaches the shoulder of a person of average height like Baylon. They conspired to steal the fighting cocks. 67 Phil. 665. The stealing of hogs from a pig sty is theft and not robbery. Exhs. It is not an indispenable element of theft that the thief carry. Revised Penal Code). 38 Phil. 65 Phil. was part of their plan. 372). Namit. A and A-1) Baylon's coop. it has already been noted that the evidence for the prosecution points to Jaranilla as the malefactor who shot that unfortunate peace officer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library With respect to the killing of Patrolman Jabatan. Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not necessarily make a person a co-principal thereof. was committed in this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The theft of six roosters valued at six hundred pesos is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (Art. Guillen.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Jaranilla heard Gorriceta's testimony that he (Jaranilla) shot Jabatan. People vs. Act No.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The evidence for the prosecution does not prove any conspiracy on the part of appellants Jaranilla.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The instant case is different from People vs. Article 302 refers to habitable buildings. The taking is punishable as a single offense of theft. 1894 and 36 C. The taking was effected by forcibly opening the cage and putting the hands inside it to get the roosters. 1953). although the culprit breaks into it. People vs. Art. 104 Phil. which in turn cites the decisions of the Spanish Supreme Court dated March 2.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The situation in this case bears some analogy to that found in the People vs. Revised Penal Code). appellants Suyo and Brillantes are not habitual delinquents.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library It is not reasonable to assume that the killing of any peace officer. (Art. As already noted. He was wearing his uniform. It was not intended that a person should go inside that compartment. People vs. more or less far away. Brillantes pulled his revolver which he did not fire (47. 1886 and April 25. citing II Hidalgo Codigo Penal 636-7. 53-55 tsn). 926. theft. 104 Phil. It is distinguishable from the People vs. 132 tsn. Basisten. Revised Penal Code). 4103). People vs. Revised Penal Code) complexed with homicide. The killing should be characterized as a direct assault (atentado) upon an agent of authority (Art. Suyo and Brillantes to kill Jabatan.S vs. They went to the scene of the crime together. 85 Phil. Tan. 49 O. 148. There is no evidence to link appellants Suyo and Brillantes to the killing of Jabatan. People vs. the taking of the six roosters from their coop should be characterized as theft and not robbery. Those circumstances facilitated the commission of the theft. They admitted their previous convictions for theft (130. (Guevara. ** As may be seen from the photographs (Exhs. 52 Phil. Thus. 670 (both cited by the Solicitor General) where the robbery was clearly proven and the homicide was perpetrated on the occasion of the robbery. 307. The conspiracy is shown by the manner in which they perpetrated the theft.G. 52 Phil. The two offenses resulted from a single act. The conduct of the accused reveals that they conspired to steal the roosters. 14[9]. Jaranilla escaped from jail. 309[3]. 476. 38 Phil.sty is not a building within the meaning of article 302. 84 Phil. 83 Phil. Tan. 89 Phil. 390). 5448. It is divided into six compartments or cages. U. 738. They all boarded the getaway truck driven by Gorriceta. Salamudin No. The assumption is that the accused were animated by single criminal impulse. People vs. 568 where the victim was killed on the occasion when the accused took his chickens under the house.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library . Instead of taking the witness stand to refute the testimony of Gorriceta. 64[3]. 47 Phil. Villanueva.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Therefore. only the person who perpetrated the killing was liable for robbery with homicide. Abalos. The accused intentionally sought the cover of night and used a motor vehicle so as to insure the success of their nefarious enterprise (People vs. It has wooden stilts and bamboo strips as bars. Gardon. A compartment has an area of less than one cubic yard. A person cannot be accommodated inside the cage or compartment. Adiao. the thing taken by him from its owner (People vs. 2. pages 555-6. Gorriceta testified that Suyo did not do anything when Jabatan approached the right side of the truck and came in close proximity to Jaranilla who was on the extreme right. each carrying two roosters. 1939 Edition. 320. Gardon. 799. except the circumstance that they were with Jaranilla in the truck when the latter shot the policeman.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Nocturnity and use of a motor vehicle are aggravating. That circumstance is an admission of guilt. Duran vs. They left the yard of Baylon's residence. I and J. 85 Phil. The treacherous mode of attack was not consciously or deliberately adopted by the offender (U. August 7. is about five yards long.. J. Mercado. They are entitled to an indeterminate sentence (Sec. Mabassa. Hence. 660. it was held that the taking of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes of theft (People vs. who would forestall the theft or frustrate appellants' desire to enjoy the fruits of the crime.S. 437. De Leon. 493 where the homicide committed by a member of the band was not a part of the common plan to commit robbery. Jr. Revised Penal Code.

Constitution).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library So ordered. 19.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE. . with direct assault upon an agent of authority. in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500). Their complicity in the homicide committed by Jaranilla has not been established.There is a hiatus in the evidence of the prosecution as to the participation of Suyo and Brillantes in the killing of Jabatan by Jaranilla. they are (a) each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum and (b) ordered to indemnify solidarily the complainant. IV.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library As co-principals with Elias Jaranilla in the theft of the six fighting cocks. They are acquitted of homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt. the judgment of the trial court convicting appellants Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes of robbery with homicide is reversed. it cannot be concluded that those two appellants have any responsibility for Jabatan's death. Art. Valentin Baylon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library As to the liability of Elias Jaranilla for theft and homicide. Therefore. trial court should render a new judgment consistent with this opinion (See Sec. Each appellant should pay one-third of the costs. As already stated. no robbery with homicide was committed.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful