Aristotle Valenzuela v. People of the Philippines G. R. No.

160188, June 21, 2007

FACTS:

Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the
ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then
manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket.  Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing
an identification card with the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a pushcart with cases of
detergent of the well-known Tide brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space,
where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5)
minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same
area in the open parking space. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner
and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards
of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise
recovered. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that he should only be convicted of frustrated
theft since at the time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the
articles stolen.

ISSUE:

Is the crime committed frustrated or consummated theft?

HELD:

The crime is consummated. The following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to
another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (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. There was no need of an intent to permanently deprive the
owner of his property to constitute an unlawful taking.

So long as the descriptive circumstances that qualify the taking are present, including animo lucrandi
and apoderamiento, the completion of the operative act that is the taking of personal property of
another establishes, at least, that the transgression went beyond the attempted stage. Insofar as we
consider the present question, unlawful taking is most material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is
the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its
consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could
only be attempted theft, if at all. With these considerations, we can only conclude that under Article 308
of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or
consummated.

PEOPLE vs. ROMEO APOLINARIO and ANTONIO RIVERA G.R. No. 97426 June 3, 1993

Facts:
Around 2:00 o'clock in the morning of 9 October 1989, Restituta Hibaler and her husband, Simon
Hibaler, were awakened by three (3) persons who had broken into their house, Simon got his flashlight
and directed its beam towards the three (3) intruders. Simon and Restituta recognized the intruders and
they were Romeo Apolinario, Antonio Rivera and Mario Sion. Simon exclaimed in the local dialect "kamo
man lang gali" ("it was you all along"). The intruders promptly attacked Simon with their bolos. Restituta
pleaded for her husband's life. In response, one of the intruders struck Restituta on the face; she fell
down and lost consciousness. When she regained her senses, she saw appellant Romeo Apolinario
taking clothes from their respective hangers while the other two (2) were ransacking a trunk. When they
finished, the three (3) went to the first floor, to the dining room, lit a lamp and helped themselves to
some coffee. Restituta said she saw the appellants on the first floor drinking coffee through a hole she
had made on the sawali  floor.

After the intruders had left, Restituta went to the balcony and called out for her son, Pedro Hibaler, and
a neighbor, Ernesto Biboso. Ernesto arrived ahead of Pedro, and upon Restituta's request, went to the
second floor and there found Simon bleeding profusely. Ernesto held the wounded man in his arms and
asked him what had happened. Simon told Ernesto that Romeo, Antonio and Mario had attacked him.
When Pedro arrived, he took asked his father what had happened but by then Simon was already very
weak. Pedro Hibaler and Ernesto Biboso put Simon on a hammock in order to bring him to the hospital.
Simon, however, died before they could leave. 

Issue: WON appellant are guilty ofrobbery with homicide.

Ruling:

Appellants' contention must be rejected as without merit. The element of taking or asportation in the
crime of robbery, in the instant case, was completed when appellants and Mario Sion took the personal
property, even if (and this is not true in the case at bar) they had no subsequent opportunity to dispose
of the same. Restituta had testified that after the robbery, she made an inventory and found many of
their personal belongings missing.  The later disposition of the property taken, or the failure to dispose
of such property, is without moment so far as the characterization of the crime as robbery is concerned.
In the case at bar, all the elements of robbery, i.e., (a) personal property belonging to another; (b) was
unlawfully taken; (c) with intent to gain; and (d) with the use of force upon things  — were present.
Because the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, appellants are guilty
of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

People vs. Toribio Jabiniao, jr, G.R. No. 179499 April 30, 2008

Facts:

at around 1:00 a.m. of 27 August 1998, she and her husband, the deceased Ruben Pasilang, were
sleeping in their house in Cugman, Cagayan de Oro City. They were awakened when Maria Divina felt
someone kick her thighs. When she opened her eyes, she saw appellant Jabiniao, who was short and
muscular, wearing a pair of short pants but without any shirt on, with a holster on his shoulder and a
bonnet or ski mask on his face. He had a masked companion who stayed at the door outside their house,
acting as a lookout. Appellant Jabiniao pointed his gun at Maria Divina and Ruben and demanded money
from them. They were not able to say a word as they were both trembling in fear. Appellant Jabiniao
ransacked the drawer for money and other belongings and took P2,000.00 and Maria Divina's shoulder
bag. Appellant Jabiniao removed his mask, revealing his face.

Appellant Jabiniao approached Maria Divina, raised her duster and stroked her thighs. She mercifully
begged not to be touched in exchange for all their belongings. Ruben likewise pleaded and told
appellant Jabiniao that he could take all their things. Appellant Jabiniao, however, continued stroking
Maria Divina's thigh. He then stood up and cut the wire of an electric fan which he used to tie Ruben's
feet. Appellant Jabiniao then proceeded to tie Ruben's hands with the strap of Maria Divina's bag, but
Ruben resisted and was able to free his hands from appellant Jabiniao's hold. Appellant Jabiniao ran
towards the door. Ruben crawled and knelt towards the door and closed it. A few seconds later,
gunshots were fired from the outside which pierced through the door, hitting the chest of Ruben. Maria
Divina heard appellant Jabiniao and his masked companion pass through the gate and flee the area.

Issue:

Whether the crime was that of a complex crime of Robbery with Homicide or two separate crimes of (1)
Simple Robbery and (2) Homicide.

Ruling:

The crime is complex crime of Robbery with Homicide . Homicide is said to have been committed by
reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it is committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the
escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of
the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime. 13 In
Robbery with Homicide, so long as the intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident, or that the
victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed. Once a
homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special
complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.

In the case at bar, appellant Jabiniao demanded money from Maria Divina and Ruben from the very
start, plainly manifesting his and his companion's original intent to commit robbery. It was only after
Ruben freed his hands when appellant Jabiniao panicked, ran outside the door and fired gunshots from
the outside. Clearly, appellant Jabiniao fired the shots in order to facilitate his escape and eliminate his
victims who could become witnesses against him and his companion.

We agree with both lower courts that the aggravating circumstances of (a) use of unlicensed firearm; (b)
dwelling; and (c) treachery, which were alleged in the information, were established. With the presence
of these aggravating circumstances, the penalty imposed should be the maximum, which is death.

However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty on 24 June 2006, the penalty thereat that should be meted must be reduced from death
to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
People v Mangulabnan G.R. No. L-8919, September 28, 1956

Facts: November 5, 1953 @ 11 PM, Nueva Ecija: Reports of gunfire awoke the household of Sps. Vicente
and Cipriana Pacson, together with their 4 minor children, and mother in law Monica del Mundo They
saw persons entering their house. Vicente hid himself inside a ceiling. Mangulabnan (armed with a
hunting knife) and 2 persons entered the premises and snatched the following items: From Cipriana a.
Necklace @ P50 b. Money @ P50 paper bills and P20 silver coins From del Mundo a. Money @ P200 b.
Gold necklace @ P200 Co-principal A demanded del Mundo to give her diamond ring, when she could
not produce the same, she was struck twice on the face with the end of the gun. One of the young
children called to their mother which irked Co-principal A and made to strike him. Lola Del Mundo
warded the blow with her right arm Co-principal B pulled A aside, climbed on top of the table and fired
at the ceiling. All 3 left afterwards. Cipriana called to her husband. When she did not receive any
response, she climbed the ceiling and found Vicente lying face downward already dead. CFI convicted R
with the crime of robbery with homicide; sentenced to RP. Dionisio Sarmiento was acquitted while the
information as against the other Defendants who continued to be at large was dismissed for lack of
evidence.

Issue: WON the complex crime of robbery with homicide can be charged against the defendants?

Ruling:

YES. As co-principal due to conspiracy. Robbery with homicide –under Art. 294 states that (1): …crime of
robbery with homicide…any persons guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation…
when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.”
Homicide would result from robbery - Immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident
provided homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery - Only result is obtained
without reference to circumstances, causes, modes, or persons intervening in the commission.

Zenaida Sazon vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 150873, February 10, 2009

Facts:

Petitioner was a Senior Forest Management Specialist of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), National Capital Region (NCR). On September 25, 1992, petitioner and her team,
composed of Gubat and Forester Nemesio Ricohermoso, conducted a surveillance in Karuhatan and
Navotas. While looking for the office of Vifel Shipyard, subject of the travel order, the team chanced
upon the R&R Shipyard (R&R) and asked from the lady guard for Mr. Rodrigo Opena (Mr. Opena), the
Operations Manager. As the petitioner knew Mr. Opena, the former wanted to inquire from the latter
where Vifel Shipyard was. In the course of their conversation with the lady guard, the team spotted
squared logs, which they claimed to be "dungon" logs piled at the R&R compound. Upon a closer look,
the team noticed that the squared logs were mill-sawn and bore hatchet marks with a number indicating
inspection by the DENR. Since "dungon" logs were banned species, the team asked for the pertinent
documents relative thereto. However, the same could not be produced at that time; hence, they
decided to return on October 1.On October 1, 1992, petitioner and her team returned to R&R to check
the necessary documents they were looking for. Yet again, Mr. Opena could not produce the documents
as they were then allegedly in the possession of the auditing section of their main office. Petitioner
insisted that the subject logs were banned species and, thus, threatened Mr. Opena that he could be
arrested and that the logs could be confiscated. Mr. Opena, however, claimed that the logs that were
seen by the petitioner were "yakal" and "tangile" and not "dungon."

Issue: WON petitioner is guilty of robbery with intimidation

Ruling:

Yes. the prosecution adequately established the above elements.

As to what was taken, it is undisputed that petitioner demanded and eventually received from
R&R P100,000.00, a personal property belonging to the latter. The amount was placed inside a brown
envelope and was given to petitioner while inside Max's Restaurant in EDSA, Caloocan City.As to how
the money was taken, it was proven that P100,000.00 was unlawfully taken by the petitioner from R&R,
with intent to gain and through intimidation. In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking or
apoderamiento, which is defined as the taking of items without the consent of the owner, or by means
of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.Taking is considered
complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to
dispose of the same. In the instant case, it was adequately proven that petitioner received and took
possession of the brown envelope containing the money; she even placed her wallet and handkerchief
inside the envelope. At that point, there was already "taking."