1. PEOPLE VS. GUNGON, G.R. NO.

119574, 19 MARCH
1998
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Art 294
Digested by: Maui Paciencia (not Taylor)
FACTS:
The case at bar is the direct automatic review of the Supreme Court due to the
decision promulgated by the Regional Trial Court convicting the accused
appellant Roberto Gungon Y Santiago of the crimes of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with frustrated murder, of carnapping and of robbery in three
separate Informations filed against him and two other persons. Among the 3
information filed was Criminal Case No. 94-54287 for Robbery.
The above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating and mutually
helping one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence against
and intimidation of person and at gunpoint, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, while on board the motor vehicle of AGNES
GUIRINDOLA, a 1993 Nissan Sentra with Plate No. TKR-837, and in the course
of its trip, divested and robbed said Agnes Guirindola of the following cash,
check and personal belongings, to wit:
Cash P1,000.00
Check 3,000.00
Pieces of jewelry valued at 34,000.00 while she was unconscious inside the car
and in the course of the execution thereof, shoot and fatally wounded Agnes
Guirindola with a handgun, which is clearly unnecessary in the commission of
the crime, to the damage and prejudice of said Agnes Guirindola.
ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of the crime of robbery with violence against
intimidation of person. (NO)
RULING:
Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code defines robbery to be one committed by
any “person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property
belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or using force upon anything x x x.”
Robbery may thus be committed two ways:
(a) With violence against, or intimidation of persons and
(b) By the use of force upon things. To be then liable for robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons, the following elements must
concur:
1) That there be personal property belonging to another;
2) That there is unlawful taking of that property;
3) that the taking must be with intent to gain; and
4) that there is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of force
upon things.
It would appear that the taking of the victim’s jewelry and cash came only by
way of an afterthought on the part of appellant.
The taking was not attended by violence or intimidation upon the person of
Agnes since she was unconscious when her belongings were taken . The
absence, however, of violence or intimidation did not exculpate appellant from
liability for the crime of theft, punishable by Article 308, in relation to Article
309, of the Revised Penal Code.
According to Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any
person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without
the latter's consent.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Court sustains the appealed decision of the trial court, dated
15 February 1995, except for appellant's conviction for the crime of ROBBERY
in Criminal Case No. Q-94-54287 which is hereby MODIFIED to one of THEFT
of which offense appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
sentenced to a prison term of from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day of prision mayor plus one (1) year for the additional
P10,000.00 in excess of P20,000.00 value of the property taken or a total of
nine (9) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum.
The decision of the court a quo with respect to Criminal Case No. Q-94-54285
and Criminal Case No. Q-94-54286 is AFFIRMED.
NOTES:
The case was automatically for review of the Supreme Court since in its
decision, promulgated on 15 February 1995, the RTC, Hon. Lucas P. Bersamin
presiding, concluded:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused ROBERTO
GUNGON y SANTIAGO guilty beyond reasonable doubt:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-54285, for kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with frustrated murder, and sentencing him to death; (They were all
sentenced to death)
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-54286, for carnapping, and sentencing him to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from eighteen (18) years, as
minimum, to twenty five (25) years, as maximum; and,
3. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-54287, for robbery, and sentencing him to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional, as minimum,
to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
The accused shall be credited with the entire period of his prev entive
imprisonment in accordance with Art. 29, Revised Penal Code, provided he is
qualified therefor pursuant to said legal provision.
 2. PEOPLE V LAGO
G.R. No. 121272, 6 June 2001
Topic: Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Art 294
Digested by: DDCP

FACTS:
1. Accused-appellant Lago, together with his co-accused illegally entered the
house of victim Benjamin Raymundo.
2. Appellant sat on the sofa while two of his co-accused entered Benjamin’s
room.
3. During the robbery, Benjamin was repeatedly stabbed 21 times by co -
accused Diadid, leading to the former’s death.
4. When appellant heard somebody groaning from inside the room, he
immediately left the place. He admitted that when he heard the groaning inside
the room, he did not bother to verify what was happening. He went out of the
house immediately and did not attend his classes anymore. He even stopped
schooling.

ISSUE: WON there was insufficiency of evidence in convicting accused-

appellant of the crime. (No)

RULING: No, the court ruled that as a co-conspirator in the aforesaid crime,
he is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators. The elements of this special
complex crime are the following: (1) the taking of personal property is
committed with violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property
taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi (intent to
profit); and (4) by reason of the robbery or on occasion thereof, homicide (used
in its generic sense) is committed.

Appellant met with his co-accused to discuss Aragon’s plan to rob but not kill
his uncle. Although Aragon avers that it was only Diadid who did the stabbing,
the latter’s act is deemed to be the act of all. The court ruled that whenever a
homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held
guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even
if they did not all actually take part in the homicide - unless it appears that
those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the homicide.

When appellant heard the victim’s stabbing, he did not do anything to check
on what was happening and simply allowed his co-accused to finish the deed.
Instead of going to the police to report the crime, he hid and escaped from the
law for two years first in the house of his grandmother and, later on, in that of
his mother. Because he did not do anything to prevent the homicide, he is
therefore equally guilty of robbery with homicide.

Finally, because the victim was stabbed 21 times, it could not be said that there
was no intent to kill him. The attendant circumstances (bringing of weapon,
employing several persons, etc.) - imply that the common objective was more
than robbery.

WHEREFORE , the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
2.
 3. PEOPLE V. SUYU
GR No. 170191
16 August 2006
Digested by: Ponfi :>
Topic: Robbery with Rape

FACTS:
1. At around 7:15PM on January 13, 1996 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Clarissa
Angeles was with her boyfriend William Ferrer eating snacks inside a
pick-up truck. A tricycle passed by and initiated a holdup.
2. Rommel Macarubbo threatened William not to start his engine with a gun
on his head. Willy Suyu then took his wallet and the third man, Francis
Cainglet, took Clarissa’s jewelry. Willy Suyu dragged William out of the
car and he was able to escape and report to the police station
immediately.
3. While William was gone, the three took Clarissa to a house near a muddy
place where Rodolfo Suyu waited. A knife was thrust against her and the
three men molested and raped her. After the incident, she pleaded for
mercy promising not to report to the police authorities and so the culprits
allowed her to leave. She fled to a house and a barangay tanod was
summoned followed by police jeeps that took her to the hospital where
she got examined. She then filed the case of robbery wih rape.
4. Macarubbo was a minor at that time and since he was not part of the
rape, he became the state witness. The rest interposed the defense of
alibi. RTC gave credence to Clarissa’s testimonies even if they were full
of inconsistencies, rendering judgment to the three malefactors GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT with ROBBERY WITH RAPE. CA Affirmed
with modification on Macarubbo’s sentence (Indeterminate Penalty).
Hence the petition.

ISSUE: WON the accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

the crime charged?

RULING: YES. The conviction thus of appellants for robbery with rape defined
and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code is
correct. The law provides: “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:
“The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.”

To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur: (1)
the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation
against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; (4) the robbery is
accompanied by rape.

The intent to rob must precede the rape. In robbery with rape, the intention of
the felony is to rob and the felony is accompanied by rape. The rape must be
contemporaneous with the commission of the robbery. We note that aside from
raping the victim, appellant Rodolfo Suyu inserted his finger in her sexual
organ.

Hymenal lacerations which are usually inflicted when there is complete

penetration are not essential in establishing the crime of rape as it is enough
that a slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips of the vagina takes
place. Partial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration; the rape is
deemed consummated in either case.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby

DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED
WITH THE MODIFICATION that all the appellants are also ordered to, jointly
and severally, pay Clarissa Angeles.

NOTES:

The trial court found Clarissa's testimony to be consistent, believable, and

credible, hence, is worthy of full faith and credit. The CA reviewed Clarissa's
testimony and found the same to be clear, sincere and could have only come
from the mouth of a victim. During the grueling cross-examination conducted
by three separate counsels of appellants, she remained steadfast in her
testimony that she was raped. The credibility of complainant's testimony is a
primordial consideration in rape cases for the accused may be convicted solely
on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. When the
testimony of a rape victim is simple and straightforward, unshaken by rigorous
cross-examination and unflawed by any serious inconsistency or contradiction,
the same must be given full faith and credit. Jurisprudence has established that
delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated
charge, and the same is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable
and unexplained.

Understandably, Clarissa was reluctant to reveal, while at the police

station, the fact that she was raped, considering that her boyfriend
was present when she made her first statement before the police investigator.
Further, one of the investigating officers was her townmate. Indeed, the fear
of social humiliation prevented Clarissa from revealing, at the time, the details
of her defilement. She was in a state of trauma, impelled by her natural instinct
to put out of her mind such a painful and disturbing experience. Ofte ntimes,
victims would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal their
shame to the world.

Certainly, no young and decent Filipina would publicly admit that she was
ravished and her honor tainted unless such were true, for it would be instinctive
for her to protect her honor and obtain justice for the wicked acts committed
upon her.
 4. PEOPLE V SORILA
G.R. No. 178540
June 27, 2008
Digested by: RAM
Topic: Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Art
294
FACTS:

1. On October 12, 2001 at around 6:30 o'clock in the evening, about four
men entered the office of Canscor Construction and Development
Incorporation (Canscor), and declared a hold up.
2. At least two robbers remained outside to serve as look-outs. At that time,
five Canscor employees, namely, Clara Bisnar, Evelyn Tario, Nelia
Panaga, Marlene Avellaneda and Engineer Bong dela Rosa, were inside
the office preparing the pay envelopes of the employees.
3. Clara was then reviewing the vouchers and signing checks when one of
the hold-uppers, who was holding a gun and a grenade, positioned
himself beside her and ordered her: "Ilabas mo ang pera." That man,
whom she identified in open Court, turned out to be Accused Alejandro
Sorila. The four men left after about five minutes, taking with them their
loot consisting of cash and personal belongings.
4. Shortly after they gathered and locked themselves inside a room, the
five employees heard gunshots outside the Canscor office. One Restituto
Mariquit, Jr. was hit by a bullet and died.
5. Prosecution witness, Andres Saludsod, who, himself, was a complainant
relative to the carnapping of his Tamaraw FX in the morning of October
12, 2001, identified Sorila as the same person who boarded his
carnapped vehicle in Angono, Rizal and testified that the same vehicle
was used to transport the robbers to Canscor and as a get-away vehicle.
6. The RTC charged Sorila with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and,
there being no aggravating circumstance alleged in the Information and
no mitigating circumstance, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the costs. The CA affirmed the decision with
modification. Hence, this appeal.
7. Sorila contended that the witnesses erred in identifying that he was a
malefactor. He claims that they were susceptible to any suggestion or
influence because they were in a state of shock.

ISSUE:
WON the accused cannot be convicted with the crime of robbery with homicide
for lack of proof.

RULING:
NO. The contentions of the accused lack merit.
In fact, experience dictates that precisely because of the startling acts of
violence committed in their presence, eyewitnesses can recall with a high
degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any given time,
the crime has been committed by them.Witnesses need not know the
names of the malefactors as long as they recognize their faces .11 What
is imperative is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical
identification from the witnesses' own personal knowledge.
Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code classifies robbery with homicide as a
crime against property with the following elements: 1) the taking of personal
property with the use of violence or intimidation against persons ; 2)
personal property thus taken belongs to another; 3) the taking is characterized
by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and 4) on the occasion of the robbery or
by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in its generic
sense, was committed.
The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. So long as the intention
of the felons was 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. It is likewise not necessary to identify who among the
conspirators inflicted the fatal wound on the victim. 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.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated October 12, 2006 affirming with modification the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 163, finding appellants guilty of
robbery with homicide and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, is AFFIRMED.
Note: Positive and categorical assertions of a witness prevail over bare denial,
which is a negative and self-serving evidence. It cannot be given greater weight
than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.
Between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the
negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence." To
merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-
culpability,which is lacking in the instant case. Furthermore, settled is the rule
that when there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive
why the prosecution witnesses should testify falsely against the accused or
implicate him in a serious offense, their testimonies deserve full faith and
credit.

5. FLORES VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 222861
APRIL 23, 2018
DIGESTED BY URMENETA
FACTS:
• Private complainant Roderick France got involved in a vehicular accident
on June 26, 2000, 6PM. France and the jeepney driver then proceeded to PNP
Kamuning Station 10, where the accident was investigated upon by petitioner
PO2 Jessie Flores. Petitioner then told the jeepney driver to go home while
France was to remain at the station.
• Petitioner then told France to prepare the amount of PhP 2000.00 and
come back after two days so that the latter could retrieve his driver’s license.
Because France could not raise PhP 2000.00 after two days, he was told by the
petitioner to return the next day. He was then issued a Traffic Violation Receipt
to serve as his temporary license.
• France became suspicious as when he was penalized for another traffic
violation before, he retrieved his license from the MMDA Office, not from a
police officer. He then subsequently went to the PAOCTF (Presidential Anti-
Organized Crime Task Force) and filed a complaint against the petitioner.
Petitioner was subsequently arrested by the PAOCTF after conducting an
operation.
• Petitioner averred that he was not guilty as it was France who insisted
that he accept the PhP 2000.00 and put it in the former’s desk cabinet when
the petitioner did not notice. However, RTC found him guilty for simple robbery
under Art. 294(5). He appealed to the CA but was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner is guilty of Simple robbery under Art. 294(5) (YES)
RULING:
The Court held that Simple robbery is committed by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons, but the extent of the violation or intimidation does
not fall under paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 294 of the RPC. For the successful
prosecution of this offense, the following elements must be
established: a) that there is personal property belonging to another;
b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; c) that the taking is
with intent to gain; and d) that there is violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things.
In the present case, there is no doubt that the prosecution successfully
established all the elements of the crime charged. France, the private
complainant categorically testified that that petitioner demanded and
eventually received from him the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00)
in exchange for the release of his driver's license. When the marked money
was placed inside petitioner's drawer, who counted it afterwards, he was
deemed to have taken possession of the money. This amount was unlawfully
taken by petitioner from France with intent to gain and through intimidation.
As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner was a police officer assigned as an
investigator at the Traffic Sector of Kamuning Police Station whose m ain duties
and responsibilities included conducting inquiries involving traffic law violations
and making reports of his investigation. While petitioner had the authority to
confiscate the driver's license of traffic violators, nowhere in the law is he
authorized to keep an offender's license and receive any payment for its return.
 6. PEOPLE VS. APDUHAN
GR No. L-19491 | 30 August 1968
Digested by: Papa Rex

FACTS:
● Accused Apduhan together with his co-accused pled guilty to a second
amended information charging them with robbery and homicide,
aggravated by dwelling, nighttime, and the use of superior strength.
● Second amended information: Apduhan, his two co-accused, and 5 other
persons, armed with different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other
deadly weapons, entered the dwelling of the Miano family, attacking,
hacking, and shooting Geronimo Miano and a Norberto Aton, as a result
of which, the two died. The group also took cash amounting to P322.
● The attorney of Apduhan’s co-accused (Atty. Tirol) informed the trial
court that he was appearing as counsel de oficio for Apduhan, and was
appointed by the Trial Court as the same.
● Atty. Tirol manifested that Apduhan wished to change his plea to guilty.
The trial judge repeatedly informed Apduhan as to the severity and
consequences of pleading guilty (among others, the imposition of the
capital penalty upon conviction) yet Apduhan persisted, only requesting
that the death penalty not be imposed.
● Apduhan eventually desisted, but again insisted on pleading guilty. After
a 5-minute recess, Atty. Tirol informed the TC that Apduhan insisted on
entering a plea of guilty.
● When the Trial Court reviewed the proceedings, it found that Apduhan’s
plea was ambiguous, and reopened the case. Apduhan categorically
pleaded guilty.

Trial Court concurs with the Provincial Fiscal that in robbery with homicide
committed by a band, the use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating
circumstance pursuant to Art. 296, RPC.
Solicitor General agrees, adding that the penalty for robbery under the
circumstances mentioned in Par. 1, RPC 294, and RPC 296 is the maximum of
reclusion perpetua to death, or death, and that this is mandatory.
The accused contends that if ever robbery with homicide committed by a band
is appreciated, it is merely a generic aggravating factor which may be offset by
mitigating circumstances, such that the penalty imposed should be reclusion
perpetua.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not there is a crime of “robbery with homicide in band”. (NO)

2. Whether the use of unlicensed firearm as a circumstance modifying
criminal liability should be appreciated. (NO)
RULING:

1. With the present wording of Art. 295, there is no crime as "robbery with
homicide in band." If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the
indictable offense would still be denominated as "robbery with homicide"
under art. 294 (1), but the element of band, as stated above, would be
appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
2. According to the Supreme Court, both the contentions of the accused and
the trial court are untenable.

Art. 296 is only applicable to Art. 295’s provision on robbery in band.

Art. 295 is explicitly limited in scope to subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, of Art. 294.
Therefore, even though the use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating
circumstance under RPC 296, it cannot be appreciated as such in relation to
robbery with homicide, which is described and penalized under Par. 1, RPC 294.
Art. 295 provides that if any of the classes of robbery described in
subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, of Art. 294 is committed by a band, the offender shall
be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalty.
Art. 296 defines the term “band,” and, among others, states that the
used of unlicensed firearms in the commission of the offense, the penalty
imposed upon all the malefactors is the maximum of the corresponding penalty
provided by law. “The offense” = robbery committed by a band; “all the
malefactors = members of the band; “the corresponding penalty provided by
law” relates to the offenses of robbery described by Art. 294, subdivisions 3,
4, and 5.
Art. 296 amplifies and modifies the provision (Art. 295 in relation to Art.
294, subdivisions 3, 4, and 5) on robbery in band.
In order for the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
firearm to be appreciated in justifying the imposition of the proper penalty, the
offense charged should be robbery committed by a band as contemplated by
Art. 295.
The history of RA 12, which modified Arts. 295 and 296 of the RPC
showed that the use of unlicensed firearm was to be a special aggravating
circumstance only in cases of robbery in band, said in passing in the case of
People v. Bersamin. However, RA 373 excluded subdivisions 1 and 2 of Art.
294 from the coverage of RPC 295. Because Art. 296 is corollary to Art. 295,
the diminution of 295’s scope correspondingly reduces 296’s extent of
applicability.

Supreme Court’s Disposition:

Notwithstanding the foregoing disquisition, for failure to secure the
required number of votes, the penalty of death cannot be legally
imposed. The penalty next lower in degree - reclusion perpetua -
should consequently be imposed on the accused.

7. PEOPLE VS PIZARRAS
GR No. L-35915
October 30, 1981
Topic: Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place
and by a band, or with the use of a firearm on a street, road, or alley. (Article
295)
 Digest by: Yodico

FACTS:

● Around May 17, 1972 in Pasay City, accused Maximo Pizarras, Virgilio
Acojido, Romeo Quijano, and Edmundo Obispo, all four of them armed
with bladed weapons and sharp-pointed instruments.
● They conspired and confederated together, with the intent of gain and
against the will of and consent of the owner, Asunción Sigua, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take, rob away 1 men’s
wrist watch, 1 gold necklace, and some money.
● In order to carry out their avowed purpose, with lewd design and by
means of the same force, threats and intimidation did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take turns, one after the other and in
the presence of one another, in lying with and having carnal knowledge
of the said Asuncion Sigua against her win and consent.

ISSUE:

● WON the trial court erred in convincing the accused of the crime of
Robbery in Band with Multiple Rape as defined in Art. 294 (2) of RPC.
(YES)

RULING:

● As the law now stands, and as contended by the defense and concurred
in by the Solicitor General, the proper denomination of the offense should
be Robbery with Rape and not Robbery in Band with Multiple Rape as
held by the trial Court. The element of "in band" may now only be
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
● Contrary to the defense contention, "in band" has been sufficiently
proven. Although ASUNCION mentioned only two kinds of weapons — an
icepick and a knife with "gilet-gilet", she positively stated that when she
met the four men they were all armed and while they took turns in
abusing her they were aiming their sharp instruments at her.
● Thus, the element of "in band", that is, "whenever more than three
armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense", has been satisfied.

On July 10, 1972, the trial Court rendered judgment as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused, MAXIMO PIZARRAS Y ASOMBRADO and VIRGILIO ACOJIDO
Y GRANADA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Robbery in Band with Multiple
Rape, as defined under Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revis ed Penal Code, in relation to
Republic Act No. 4111, as charged in the Information, the Court hereby sentences each one of
them to suffer the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the offended party, Mrs. Asuncion Sigua y
Marlen the amount of P310.00; to pay moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00 and
exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00; and to pay their proportionate share of the
costs.
This automatic review pertains to PIZARRAS alone as the appeal of Virgilio Acojido, who was
also sentenced to death in the same decision, was dismissed on July 22, 1976 in view of his
demise. The records also show that Romeo Quijano was never apprehended and has remained
at large. Edmundo Obispo was tried separately as he was arrested later than PIZARRAS, but
sentence was suspended due to his minority and because of his drug addiction, he was ordered
committed to DARE Foundation for rehabilitation. However, said Obispo escaped from DARE
Foundation and has since evaded pronouncement of judgment.
 8. PEOPLE VS LAGMAY
G.R. No. 67973
October 29, 1992
Digested by: Vethy Veth
Topic: Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited
place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road, or
alley.– Art 295

FACTS:
● July 1980, in Quezon City, the 3 accused rode in a jeepney at Blumentritt
Street, Manila bound for Novaliches. When the jeepney was near A.
Bonifacio Street, the accused brought out their unlicensed firearm and
bladed weapons and told the passengers that it was a hold-up and
threatened said passengers with death if they resisted or cried for help.
The accused looted the items of all the passengers.
● Patrolman Casiano Pedrano, a passenger, resisted. The accused Baetiong
stabbed him in the chest while the accused Lagmay shot him on the right
and left thighs. Patrolman Pedrano was brought and treated in a hospital.
● Another passenger named Restituto Rivera was hit by Baetiong with a
gun in the mouth while Lagmay slapped and boxed Adela Alfonso causing
her a dislocation in the right shoulder. Alfonso was also treated in a
hospital.
● The accused Padollana was the one who took and collected the pieces of
jewelry of the other passengers.
● The trial court convicted all three of them. However, Baetiong managed
to escape prison.

Issue:
WON the accused are guilty of Robbery with physical injuries, committed
in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street,
road, or alley (Article 295) of the RPC.
Ruling:
Yes. The Court noted that the offense was committed under at least two
(2) of the circumstances mentioned in Article 295.
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited
place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or
alley. — If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the
next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by
a band, or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship,
or by entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, in any manner,
taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or
on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use
of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the
proper penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon
the leader of the band
The robbery was consummated by attacking a moving motor vehicle
such that the passengers thereof were taken by surprise. It was likewise
committed along a street on the regular route taken by the passenger
jeepney with the use of a firearm. According to Article 295, the offenders
shall be punished by the maximum period of the prescribed penalty in Section
4, Article 294, or reclusion temporal in its medium period.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
modification that the accused-appellants Conrado Lagmay y Garces and
Francisco O. Padullana are held guilty of the offense of robbery defined in
Section 4, Article 294, in the course of the execution of which serious physical
injuries enumerated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 263 were inflicted and the
circumstances mentioned in Article 295 were present. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellants are sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day as minimum to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum. The accused-
appellants shall likewise be credited in the service of their sentence with the
full time of their preventive imprisonment provided that they previously agreed
voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners; however, if they did not so abide, then they shall be
credited with four-fifths of the time. SO ORDERED
 9. PEOPLE VS. PAREJA
G.R No. 88043
December 9, 1996
Topic: Art. 297- Attempted and Frustrated Robbery with Homicide
Digested by: ANDRADE
Facts: 1. The family of Generoso Jacob resided in a one-bed-room house in
Legazpi City. At around 2:00a.m he was asleep in a folding bed in the kitchen.
2. In the bedroom of his daughter Emelita was a Sanyo color tv and in
the living room was a betamax with three components.
3. The family was roused from sleep by shouts of three masked intruders.
Amada( Generoso’s wife), saw one of them asking Sabina (her daughter) for
the betamax. The same fellow tried to lift and carry off the machine but it
proved to be too heavy for him.
4. Sabina snatched off his mask and recognized him to be Antonio Pareja,
who used to frequent their house. The latter tried to stab Sabina but she
evaded the thrust and swiftly jumped out the window.
5. Emelita was awakened by her father’s cries for help. Instinctively, she
also screamed for help, but one of the robbers poked a gun on her temple. The
gun wielder’s face was covered by a t-shirt. Emelita recognized the T-shirt to
be hers, which she had left hanging on the clothesline outside the house.
6. The robber asked for the tv and tried to lift the tv set. He failed and
called for help but no one responded to him. While he was distracted, Emelita
grabbed at the t-shirt and unmasked him, and recognized him to be appellant
Toledo.
7. As the neighbors were starting to respond to her cries for help, the
trio fled empty handed.
8. Hearing the moans of her husband, Amada went to the kitchen and
saw Generoso lying in a pool of blood. He sustained a stab wound on his chest
area.
ISSUE: WON the the witnesses were credible and thus would make the accused
guilty of the crime of attempted robbery with homicide.
RULING: It is beyond dispute that the trial court correctly found appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted robbery with homicide as
defined in Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code. Robbery was the intended
purpose of the intruders' trespass into the residence of the Jacobs. Generoso
Jacob's killing was on the occasion of a robbery which, however, was not
consummated.

The failure to cart away the goods due to their weight (something the culprits
had not taken into account) may not be considered as voluntary de sistance
from the commission of the crime so as to remove the element of asportation
from the complex crime charged. Such failure to consummate the robbery was
not caused solely by their own volition and inabilities. It was likewise brought
about by factors such as their unmasking and the arrival of neighbors who
responded to Emelita's shouts for help. These circumstances forced them to
flee, leaving behind the objects.

Appellant is liable for attempted robbery with homicide even if he was not
himself the author of the killing of Generoso Jacob, for lack of evidence showing
that he endeavored to prevent such slaying. Thus, the general rule applies that
whenever homicide is committed on the occasion or as a consequence of
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery shall be held guilty
of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not
actually take part in the homicide. The same principle applies even if the crime
committed is attempted robbery with homicide.

DISPOSITVE: WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision finding appellant

Jose Toledo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted robbery
with homicide is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that he shall
indemnify the heirs of Generoso Jacob in the sum of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00).
Additional Notes: The aggravating circumstance of nighttime alleged in
the Information was not conclusively proven. For nocturnity to be considered
as such circumstance, it must have been particularly sought by the accused or
taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to ensure
his immunity from capture,or otherwise to facilitate his getaway.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling had been duly proven.
Although dwelling (morada) is considered as inherent in crimes which can only
be committed in the abode of the victim, such as tresspass to dwelling and
robbery in an inhabited house, it has been held as aggravating in robbery with
homicide because the author thereof could have accomplished the heinous
deed of snuffing out the victim's life without having to violate his
domicile.Hence, in view of this aggravating circumstance, the penalty
imposable upon appellant shall be reclusion perpetua.
 10. PEOPLE VS MANALILI
G.R. NO. 121671
BABS
FACTS:

● Three separate informations were filed against Manalili and Reyes

together with the other co- accused of the crime of attempted robbery
(first information), multiple frustrated murder (second info.), qualified
illegal possession of firearm used for multiple murder (3rd info).
● The facts of the case provide that the accused were passengers of the
bus. Suddenly, they announced that they were staging a hold up.
● During the entire duration of the hold up, Reyes shot and killed bus helper
Quintana and the Bus Driver Tango. Nestor Agustin was also killed during
a shootout between the accused and one of the passengers.
● The RTC convicted them of the crime of attempted robbery with homicide
under Art. 297 of the RPC and sentenced them to Rec. Perpetua (see
notes #1 for the rationale of the ruling of the rtc.)

ISSUE: W/N THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ATTEMPTED

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
RULING: NO.
The SC ruled that although 3 informations were filed, there was no information
charging the special complex crime of attempted robbery with multiple
homicide. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly
proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed
against him since it would violate the explicit guarantee of the Constitution.
Thus, their conviction can only be limited to the crime alleged or necessarily
included in the allegations in the separate informations.
From the first information, it is true that the Information for attempted robbery
contained the allegation that one of the robbers was killed during such attempt.
This, however, does not warrant a conviction for the special complex crime.
Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the attempted robbery and
the killing be perpetrated by the same person. Said article speaks of the same
person being guilty of such offenses; that is, robbbery and homicide. In this
case, it is clear that the dead robber was killed not by his cohorts but by one
of the passengers.
Further, under the first Information, the appellants can be held guilty only of
the crime of attempted robbery. The accused commenced their planned
robbery with direct overt acts but they failed to carry out all acts of execution
which should have consummated the crime of robbery, due to the resistance
of a passenger who exchanged fire with them, and not because of their own
voluntary desistance (see notes #2, 2nd par). (see also “other notes” for the
other informations filed)
DISPOSITIVE:
In Crim. Case No. 21-1156 (the first case), appellants are found GUILTY as
principals of attempted robbery and are hereby SENTENCED to four months of
arresto mayor.
In Crim. Case No. 21-1157 (the second case), appellants are found GUILTY as
principals of the double murder of Alfredo Tango and Sonny Quintua and are
each SENTENCED to two terms of reclusion perpetua.
In Crim. Case No. 21-1158 (the third case), appellants are likewise ACQUITTED
of any criminal liability, for failure of the prosecution to prove any crime.
Notes:
1.It would seem that the crime is the complex crime of attempted robbery with
homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code. But the prosecution filed
three separate informations, one for attempted robbery, the other for multiple
frustrated murder and the third [for] qualified illegal possession of firearms
used in multiple murder. Perhaps this is because of the last portion of said
Article 297 which provides:
“… unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the
provisions of this Code.”
Indeed the crime of murder entails the heavier penalty of reclusion temporal
maximum to death. It is only the penalty which shall be modified in that the
higher penalty for murder shall be imposed. The several killings, be they
homicide or murder including the physical injuries are already included
in the special complex crime of attempted robbery with homicide
because homicide is used in its generic term. The judicial concept of
robbery with homicide does not limit the taking of human life to one
single victim making the slaying of human beings in excess of that
number punishable as separate independent offenses. All the
homicide[s] or murders are merged in the composite, integrated whole
that is robbery with homicide so long as all the killings were
perpetuated by reason or on the occasion of robbery. When direct and
intimate connection exists between the robbery and the killing, regardless of
which of the two precedes the other, the crime committed is the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. It is immaterial that the occurrence
of death was by mere accident. This rule can certainly apply to the special
complex crime of attempted robbery with homicide.
2.Although a prosecution witness testified that one of the malefactors took
money from a woman passenger, the said victim never took the witness stand.
In any event, appellants cannot be held liable for consummated robbery, for
the said Information merely charged them with attempted robbery.
We emphasize that, though the Information in Crim. Case No. 21-1156 (first
case) alleged that one of the hold-up men was killed, there is absolutely no
evidence that appellants were responsible for such death. On the other hand,
while the prosecution proved the appellants liability for the murder of Alf redo
Tango and Sonny Quintua, their deaths were not alleged in said Information in
the first case. Hence, we can sustain appellants conviction only for attempted
robbery, not for attempted robbery with homicide. The First information reads:
“... it was not because of their own voluntary desistance but because a military
personnel who was one of the passengers resisted and repelled the accused
with the use of his gun with the result that one of the hold-up men was killed
and the others were wounded.”
Other notes:
As to the third information (multiple frustrated homicide), Since the trial
court did not specifically rule on the guilt of the appellants as to said charge
(multiple frustrated murder), the constitutional presumption of innocence
prevails. The quoted paragraph, together with the absence of a disposition
regarding the Information on multiple frustrated murder, demonstrates that
they were not convicted of such indictment.
None of the persons allegedly wounded in the incident was presented to testify
to the gravity of the wounds allegedly sustained, or to the fact that they were
sustained at all during said event. Neither was a medicolegal report regarding
said injuries submitted. Hence, appellants must be acquitted of this charge.
As to the 2nd information (qualified illegal possession of firearm used in
multiple murder):
The court a quo did not err in its factual finding that appellants killed Alfredo
Tango and Sonny Quintua. However, it did err in its legal conclusion combining
such killing and attempted robbery as one complex crime.
The second Information (Crim. Case No. 21-1157) charged them, inter alia, as
follows:
“herein accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one
another, with evident premeditation and treachery, with intent to kill suddenly
and unexpectedly and without giving them [a] chance to defend themselves
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault, attack and shoot
with said illegally possessed firearms Alfredo Tango y Tabinga, Sonny Quintua
and Nestor Agustin y Correo, inflicting upon them gunshot wounds, which
directly caused their death.”
From the information, the trial court designated as qualified illegal possession
of firearms used in multiple murder. It is hornbook doctrine, however, that
what determines the real nature and cause of the accusation against an
accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and
not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being
conclusions of law. From its recital of facts, said Information charged appella nts
with the offenses of illegal possession of firearms and murder. Thus, the scope
of this review encompasses the offenses actually charged in the Information,
which the prosecution sought to prove.

11. ABS-CBN VS. OMBUDSMAN

G.R. No. 133347 April 23, 2010
Digested by: Blancs
Topic: Article 298 of the Revised Penal Code (Execution of Deeds by means of
Violence or Intimidation)
FACTS:

● On April 18 and 26, 1994, petitioners Eugenio Jr., Oscar and Augusto
Lopez, on behalf of ABS-CBN, executed separate affidavits charging
private respondents of Execution of Deeds by Means of Violation or
 Intimidation, Estafa, Theft, Robbery, Occupation of Real Property or
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property, and Other Deceits.
● On April 5, 1999 and June 13, 2000, the respective counsel for
respondents Tan and Benedicto informed the Court of their clients’
demise.
● Benedicto’s counsel filed a Notice of Death with Prayer for Dismissal
moving that Benedicto be dropped as respondent in the case for the
reason that the pending criminal cases are actions which do not survive
the death of the party accused.
● Petitioners opposed the move to drop Benedicto as respondent citing
Torrijos v. CA which held that “civil liability of the accused survives his
death: because death is not a valid cause for the extinguishment of civil
obligations.”

ISSUE:

● Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner has merits
or not.

RULINGS:

● The motion for reconsideration was DISMISSED by the Court. The case
was disposed of due to these following reasons;
○ The dropping of respondents Roberto S. Benedicto and Salvador
(Buddy) Tan as respondents in this case due to their death, as
consistent with the court’s rulings in People v. Bayotas] and
Benedicto v. Court of Appeals.
○ The Court found that Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing petitioner's criminal complaint against
respondents.

● The Death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes

his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon.
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death
of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict.
● Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery thereof may be
pursued but only by filing a separate civil action. Finally, the private
offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate
civil action by prescription.
● In cases, where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to
its extinction, the private offended party instituted together therewith the
civil action.
● In addition, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case.

NOTES:
● Article 298 Execution of Deeds by means of Violence or Intimidation has
three elements; (1) that the offender has intent to defraud another; (2)
that the offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public
 instrument or document;(3) that the compulsion is by means of violence
or intimidation.
● The element of intent to defraud is not present because, even if, initially,
as claimed by petitioners, they were forced to sign the letter-agreement,
petitioners made claims based thereon and invoked the provisions
thereof.
● In fact, petitioners wanted respondents to honor the letter-agreement
and to pay rentals for the use of the ABS-CBN facilities. By doing so,
petitioners effectively, although they were careful not to articulate this
fact, affirmed their signatures in this letter-agreement.
 12. PEOPLE VS. VARGAS
GR No. L-20111 | 29 September 1964
Digested by: Bonifacio

Topic: Art. 299, Robbery in a public building

FACTS:
● Defendant-appellant Danilo Vargas was charged with the crime of
robbery. It was alleged that he and his companions entered a public
school building (Pasig Elementary School) by passing thru its window, an
opening not intended for entrance/exit, and by means of force upon
things, that is, by forcibly breaking and sawing the iron bar of the window
grills, with intent to gain, took a typewriter and adding machine worth
P1,250.
● He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate sentence of from 2 years and 4 months as the minimum
to 6 years of prision correccional as the maximum.
● His counsel contends that Vargas is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of minority (being 17 at the commission of the offense) and
the plea of guilty, and that his penalty should only be one (1) month and
one (1) day of arresto mayor to two (2) years and four (4) months, of
prision correccional, after applying the indeterminate sentence law.

ISSUE: What is the correct penalty to be imposed?

RULING: The Court imposes upon appellant Danilo E. Vargas an indeterminate

penalty which ranges from 6 months of arresto mayor to three (3) years,
six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional.

Art. 299 states that (first paragraph) Any armed person who shall commit
robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to . . ., shall
be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property taken shall
exceed 250 pesos, and if xxxxx (2nd paragraph) When the offenders do not
carry arms and the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed."

Under the above provisions, therefore, the penalty imposable should be prision
mayor (six [6] years and 1 day to 12 years). There is no allegation in the
information that the accused were armed. This penalty should again be reduced
to one degree lower, or prision correccional (6 mos. and 1 day to 6 years)
because the accused was admittedly a minor (par. 2, Art. 68, RPC). From this
penalty, a further reduction is authorized by the application of the
indeterminate sentence law which is another degree lower, or arresto mayor
(1 mo. and 1 day to 6 months). The Solicitor General recommended that the
penalty should not be less than 1 month and 1 day nor more than 6 months of
arresto mayor as minimum, and not less than 2 years, 4 months and 1 day nor
more than 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as maximum.

Note: “2 years, 4 months and 1 day nor more than 4 years and 2 months of
prision correccional, as maximum,” is the MEDIUM period of prision
correccional. That is the period used because there is no aggravating or
mitigating circumstance considered.
 13. PEOPLE VS. ESCABARTE
G.R. No. L-42964
14 March 1988
Digested by: Burce
Topic: Robbery with Homicide (Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons) – Art
294
FACTS:

● On May 31, 1973 at 12:30 midnight, Juana Rollorata (wif e of deceased) and Ricardo
Rollorata (son of deceased) heard someone f rom outside the house calling: "Nong!
"Nong!" (ref erring to Anselmo Rollorata, the deceased) and f urther stated that there
was a letter f rom his lawyer.
● Juana, apprehensive of what might bef all on her husband, called out that her husband
was in the ricef ield and could not be located. But despite her answer, the robbers, each
armed with guns, broke the window panes and entered one af ter the other into their
house.
● Juana Rollorata, coming out f rom her room, recognized the robbers as the accused
Francisco Escabarte and three other people (Gregorio Sygaco, Lauro Tome and Silas
Paredes) by the light of the improvised lamp in f ront of the door of her room.
● Once inside the house, the accused immediately proceeded to the room where Anselmo
and his son Ricardo were sleeping.
● With the use of two f lashlights to f ind their way around, the accused together with
Sygaco and Tome then f orcibly pulled Anselmo out of the room and brought him to the
kitchen.
● Without being noticed, Ricardo was able to f ollow them to the kitchen and there he
witnessed his f ather kneeling on the f loor bef ore being shot at the back by the accused
Francisco Escabarte.
● Af ter the shooting the accused lef t through the kitchen door.
● Prosecution witnesses f urther state that a rif le, the f amily f lashlight, a wrist watch, and
cash amounting to P1,200.00 were all missing af ter the incident.

ISSUE:
WON the accused are guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. (YES)
RULING:
The Court is convinced of the truth and sincerity of the eyewitnesses when the herein accused
were positively identif ied by the wif e Juana Rollorata and the son Ricardo Rollorata. The court
also stated that the alibi of the accused should deserve scant consideration. The distances
between the place where the said three accused were does not obviate the possibility that
during the killing these three accused Escabarte, Sygaco and Tome could have gone with each
other to the house of Anselmo Rollorata at Kausuagan barrio and killed him.
The Court has laid down this settled and of ten quoted jurisprudence:
No jurisprudence in criminal case is more settled than the rule that alibi is the weakest of all
def enses and that the same should be rejected when the Identity of the accused had been
suf f iciently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the crime. Alibi is easy to concoct
and dif f icult to prove. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that the def endant was somewhere
else when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that it was physically impossible
f or him to have been at the scene of the crime at that time.
NOTE:
As alleged in the inf ormation the appellants committed the of f ense with the aggravating
circumstances of : (1) evident premeditation; (2) advantage taken by the culprits of their
superior strength; (3) with the use of f irearm; (4) by a band af ter unlawf ul entry into the
window; (5) in the dwelling of the of f ended party, and (6) with treachery.
The court held that:
The commission of the crime was premeditated and ref lected upon by the appellants and was
preceded by cool thought and a ref lection on the part of the appellants with the resolution to
carry out the criminal intent during a span of time suf f icient to arrive at the hour of judgment.
The aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime by a band has also been
established it appearing that there were more than three armed malef actors who acted
together in the commission or the of f ense. It is an aggravating circumstance in the crim e of
robbery with homicide.
Of course, the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their superior strength and
with the use of f irearms is absorbed by the generic aggravating circumstance of the commission
of the of f ense by a band. By the same token the aggravating circumstances of unlawf ul entry
through the window and dwelling are absorbed in the crime of robbery. The commission of the
of f ense thru treachery has been shown it having been committed at nighttime under
circumstances and employing means or f orms thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the appellants arising f rom the def ense which the of f ended
party might make.
 14. PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ
G.R. No. 116918
June 19, 1997
Digested by: kjapz
Topic: Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice
devoted to worship - Art 299

Facts:

1. Michael Buenvinida, Glorivic Bandayanon (the guardian of Michael and

his siblings), and several other occupants of the Buenvinida residence
were watching television, a man armed with gun, jumped over the low
fence, went in the house through the open front door and introduced
himself as a policeman. On cue, two men followed the first man in
entering the house and promptly covered their faces with handkerchiefs.
The intruders tied the occupants of the house and brought them to the
master’s bedroom with guns pointed at the victims.
2. The burglars seized the cash and bottles of perfume in the room. One of
the perpetrators asked Michael to unplug all the appliances they could
possibly take. They also asked the victims for jewelries’ but when they
couldn’t give them any, they brought Glorivic to the children’s bedroom
to search for jewelries’ in the room. When Glorivic wasn’t able to find
anything, the three intruders raped Glorivic, one after another.
3. After more than two years, appellant Martinez was arrested. Glorivic and
Michael were able to positively identify him due to his prominent mole on
the right cheek. The trial court found appellant guilty of the composite
crime of robbery with rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the amount of the stolen and unrecovered
personal properties, moral damages to Glorivic Bandayanon, and cost of
the suit.
4. On appeal he questions the credibility of the witnesses’ identification:
due to the long interval of time before they were able to confront him;
because the perpetrators covered their face with handkerchief and;
because they could have been so gravely terrified by the criminal acts as
to have their mental faculties impaired.
5. The appellant also contended that he should not have been ordered to
pay the value of the unrecovered personal properties because he is not
criminally liable.

ISSUE: WON the value of the stolen properties affects the criminal liability of
the appella for the crime charged. (NO)

RULING: NO.
The credibility of the witnesses was upheld by the Supreme Court. (Di ko na
idiscuss masyado ini nga issue , since Remedial Law na ini. Pero if magpakiana
hi Atty. about hini, please refer to the notes below.)

The contention of the appellant that he should not be ordered to pay the value
of the unrecovered personal properties flows from the premise that he is not
guilty of the crime charged.
However, the charge of special complex crime of Robbery with Rape was
affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the real value of the stolen properties
is irrelevant to the criminal liability of the appellant. Insofar as the component
crime of robbery is concerned, the same was committed through v iolence
against or intimidation of persons, and not through force upon things, hence
the value of the property subject of the crime is immaterial. The value of the
objects of the robbery relates only to the civil aspect of the crime.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, THE APPEALED JUDGMENT OF THE

TRIAL COURT IS HEREBY AFFIRMED IN FULL, WITH THE SOLE
MODIFICATION THAT THE DAMAGES AWARDED TO THE OFFENDED
PARTY, GLORIVIC BANDAYANON, IS HEREBY INCREASED TO
P50,000.00.
NOTES:
On the issue of credibility of witnesses:

The contention lacks merit. The records do not disclose any improper motive
on the part of the witnesses to falsely point to appellant as one of the robber-
rapists. Appellant even admitted that he did not know Glorivic and Michael prior
to the commission of the crime. It is doctrinally settled that in the absence of
evidence showing that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper
motive, their identification of the accused as the assailant should be given full
faith and credit. Also, the testimonies of the principal witnesses for the
prosecution were not only consistent with and corroborative of each other.

The records also show that the memory of these witnesses were not in any way
affected by the passage of two years and three months since the tra gedy.
Glorivic categorically stated on the witness stand that the lapse of those years
did not impair her memory and she could still identify those who raped her.
 15. PEOPLE VS ASIBAR
G.R. No. L-37255
October 23, 1982

Digested by Jane
Topic:Robbery in uninhabited place and by a band - art 300

Facts:

● Asibar before the commission of the said crime, was working as a laborer
in Sta Cruz wherein he used to see victim Malabanan passing the same
place riding his jeep, possessing with him several firearms which Asibar
wanted to possess.
● During the day of the commission of the crime Accused asibar, hid behind
a cluster of talahib grass while accused Manzano stood about one
hundred (100) yards away at an elevated place to watch for the approach
of the victim.
● When the jeep of the victim approached, Manzano signalled Asibar who
positioned himself and got ready to shoot the victim
● Asibar then fired shots at the victim. When said accused was certain that
the victim was already dying, he took possession of victim's personal
belongings.
● Asibar proceeded to a nearby forested area at a banana plantation.
● During the investigation both admitted that they killed Malabanan and
stole his personal belongings.
● Ona and his group of investigators and the NBI Agents went to the crime
scene for the second time for the reenactment of the crime and the re -
enactment by both accused was recorded in photographs
● The trial court sentenced them guilty of robbery with homicide. Asibar
was sentenced to Death while Manzano was sentenced to life
imprisonment.
● While serving sentence, Mazano died in the New Bilibid Prison Hospital.
● Defense counsel alleged that the trial court erred appreciating the
aggravating circumstances of recidivism and uninhabited place in
imposing the supreme penalty of death on accused-appellant Victor
Asibar.

ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in its ruling. (NO, however Acibar shall suffer
of reclusion perpetua only)

RULING:

The aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place must be taken into

account, considering the testimony of Sgt. Laureano Descanso that he,
together with Sgt. Ona, two NBI agents, Sgt. Lamuzga and CIC Sgt. Luna. went
to the scene of the crime and found that there were no houses thereat or that
the houses were very far from the place; or that the nearest house was more
or less one (1) kilometer away. An uninhabited place is one where there are no
houses at all, a place at a considerable ,distance from the town, or where the
houses are scattered at a great distance from each other. In the case of People
vs. Aguinaldo, 55 Phil. 610, it was held that where the nearest house was 400
meters distant, hidden by coconut groves, the place was considered
despoblado.

The crime being robbery with homicide, treachery (since the attack was sudden
and victim was not given the chance to defend himself) should be considered
as a generic aggravating circumstance, and not a qualifying one. And, with the
presence of two aggravating circumstances, namely: treachery and
uninhabited place, and one mitigating circumstance, which is the plea of guilty,
the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. However, for lack of the
necessary votes, the extreme penalty of death cannot be imposed.

Dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court with respect to Victor Asibar y
Baluyot is AFFIRMED in all respects with the sole modification that the appellant
shall suffer reclusion perpetua only. Costs de oficio.

Additional note:

In People vs. Rubia, 52 Phil. 172, this Court held that the crime was committed
in an uninhabited place because it was difficult for the offended party to receive
any help, while the assailants could easily have escaped punishment.
 16. G.R. NO. L-40008 DECEMBER 8, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JAIME SALDUA, ANGEL SALDUA and LORETA SALDUA, defendants.
JAIME SALDUA and ANGEL SALDUA, defendants-appellants.

TOPIC: Robbery in uninhabited place or private building ART. 302

Digested by: JA D Callera

FACTS:

● JAIME SALDUA and ANGEL SALDUA, defendants-appellants, were

accused of robbery with homicide.
● Donato Singson, a laborer in the Uy Matiao bodega of the Federal
Marketing Corporation, testified that at about midnight of July 13, 1969,
he and Francisco Quijano, the assistant warehouseman, were sitting
inside the bodega near the door when they heard the sound caused by
the crashing on the concrete floor of a box of canned goods.
● When Quijano switched on the lights, Singson saw at the end of the
bodega, a boy and a woman, later Identified as Jaime Saldua, and his
sister Loreta Saldua. Singson also saw a rope tied to a beam of the ceiling
near a rectangular opening in the roof, and the other end of the rope was
tied to a sack on the floor. The sack contained a carton of corned beef.
● The two intruders sensed immediately that they had been discovered.
Loreta climbed the rope and exited out of the bodega through the
opening in the roof. Jaime pulled out his bolo. Singson ran outside and
summoned the two security guards, Romeo Jabel and Epifanio Quimin.
When Singson re-entered the bodega, Jaime was no longer there.
Presumably, he had also climbed the rope and made his getaway.
● When Singson went out of the bodega, he allegedly saw four persons
standing on the roof. They were Jaime and Loreta, their brother Gaudioso
Saldua, and their father Angel Saldua. Singson allegedly also saw on the
roof another sack which contained a carton of corned beef. The four
persons jumped to the ground.
● Later, Singson allegedly "heard sounds of struggle as if persons were
trying to strike each other" and he heard somebody "groaning" but he
did not see those persons.
● Because of the darkness, Singson did not witness any persons fighting
near the bodega. He subsequently discovered that Jabel was already
dead lying on his back. Nearby, amidst the banana plants, he also saw
Gaudioso Saldua mortally wounded as well.
● At nine o'clock on that same morning, Singson was brought by the police
to the City Hall, where he identified Angel, Jaime and Loreta as the
persons whom he saw at the bodega.
● The case was filed and the trial court convicted Angel Saldua and his son
Jaime of robbery with double homicide, sentenced each of them to
 reclusion perpetua and ordered the two to pay solidarily (a) P500 to the
Federal Marketing Corporation as the value of the articles taken, (b)
P12,000 to the heirs of Romeo Jabel and (c) P12,000 to the heirs of
Gaudioso Saldua (Criminal Case No. 8847).

ISSUE: WON the Trial Court was erred of its decision and the robbery herein
falls under article 302(1) of the Revised Penal Code (YES)

RULING:

As has been fittingly said, throughout the web of criminal law, one golden
thread is always to be seen, which is that it is the prosecution's duty to prove
the prisoner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If that rigoristic standard is not
satisfied, then the accused is entitled to an acquittal (People vs. Mirasol. 62
Phil. 120).

In the instant case, the doubt is engendered by the brazen manner in which
the police took advantage of their untrammelled domination of the person of
the immature Jaime Saldua who was in their custody. To suit their purpose,
they made him thumbmark two confessions, the second of which was obtained
after the case was already filed in court and while the confessant was awaiting
arraignment.

It was charged in the information that the accused committed the robbery by
gaining entrance into a bodega but it was not alleged that the bodega was
inhabited. Hence, the robbery herein falls under article 302(1) of the Revised
Penal Code as robbery committed in an uninhabited place where entrance was
effected through an opening not intended for the purpose. The penalty for that
kind of robbery involving property the value of which does not exceed P250 is
one degree lower than prision correccional medium and maximum or arresto
mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the trial court's judgment is set aside. Appellants Angel Saldua
and Jaime Saldua are acquitted of robbery with double homicide and are
convicted as co-principals of simple robbery with force upon things.
Angel Saldua is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and three (3) months of prision
correccional minimum, as maximum. Jaime Saldua is sentenced to a penalty
of three months of arresto mayor medium. The appellants are not liable for any
indemnity because the two cases of corned beef were recovered.
Inasmuch as the two appellants had already served preventive imprisonment
of several years, the sentences imposed herein are deemed to have been fully
served (People vs. Magonawal, L-35783, March 12, 1975, 63 SCRA 106, 113).
Their intermediate release is ordered unless they may be justifiably detained
for other offenses. Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED.
NOTES: The rule is that theft or robbery is consummated after the accused
had taken material possession of the thing with intent to appropriate the same,
although his act of making use of the thing was frustrated (U.S. vs. Adiao, 38
Phil. 754).
 17. MARQUEZ VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 181138
3 December 2012
Facts:

● On the 6th day of April, Private respondent Sonia Valderosa received

information that her Rice-in-a-Box franchise store was forcibly opened
and its padlock destroyed.
● Upon her arrival thereat, she discovered that the contents of her freezer
were missing along with other items inside the store with a total
approximate value of P42,000.00.
● Meanwhile, on April 7, 2002, Mallari informed his older brother of his
involvement in the said robbery. At around 4:00 p.m. of the next day,
he again confessed but this time to Valderosa.Trial ensued.
● On June 30, 2004, the lower court rendered a Decision in favor of the
prosecution, which was later on affirmed by the CA.

Issue:Whether or not the CA was correct in finding the petitioners guilty of

robbery with force upon things under Artilce 299 of the RPC (NO)
Held:
Here, the Information did not specify whether the robbery with force upon
things was committed in an inhabited house or uninhabited place.
Likewise, the trial court, in its judgment of conviction, did not discuss whether
the robbery in this case was committed in an inhabited house or in an
uninhabited place. However, the appellate court discussed about robbery in an
inhabited house under the above-quoted Article 299 of the RPC in its assailed
Decision. Pursuant to the same provision, it then proceeded to affirm the
penalty imposed by the trial court upon the petitioners after finding them guilty
of the crime charged.
The Court, however, notes at the outset that the CA erred in applying Article
299 of the RPC. From Valderosa’s testimony, it can be deduced that the
establishment allegedly robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. In fact,
after the robbery took place, there was a need to inform Valderosa of the same
as she was obviously not residing in the store. “If the store was not actually
occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling, since the
owner lived in a separate house, the robbery committed therein is punished
under Article 302.” Neither was the place where the store is located owned by
the government. It was actually just a stall rented by Valderosa from a private
person. Hence, the applicable provision in this case is Article 302 and not Article
299 of the RPC.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the CA which affirmed
the Decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED.
 18. PEOPLE VS. LOPEZ
G.R. No. L-18766
Topic: Art. 304 – Possession of picklocks or similar tools
Facts:

● The Chief of Police of Bacuag, apprehended three suspicious-looking

strangers who were loitering in Pagao, a sitio of Bacuag. A bag which
they were carrying was confiscated which contains illegal firearms and
seven false keys, one of which was a master key.
● The two pleaded guilty for illegal possession of false keys while Lopez
pleaded not guilty.
● Respondent moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the facts
charged in the information do not constitute an offense. Thereupon, the
trial court dismissed the case

Issue:
WON the picklock or false keys in the possession of the accused were "specially
adapted to the commission of the crime of robbery." (NO)
Ruling:
The court ruled in the negative.
According to Art. 304, Any person who shall without lawful cause have in his
possession picklocks or similar tools specially adapted to the commission of the
crime of robbery, shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period.
Such crime of illegal possession of picklocks or similar tools has, accordingly,
two elements: (1) possession of picklocks or similar tools specially adapted to
the commission of the crime of robbery; (2) such possession is without lawful
cause.
The information alleged that the accused possessed, "without lawful cause ...
seven false keys, one of which is a picklock or master key."
Since picking of locks is one way to gain entrance to commit robbery, a picklock
is per se specially adapted to the commission of robbery. The description in the
information of a picklock as "specially adapted to the commission of robbery"
is therefore unnecessary for its sufficiency. Notwithstanding the omission of
such superfluous description, therefore, the charge of the offense of illegal
possession of a picklock is valid.
The court finds both elements of the crime clearly alleged in the information in
question.
WHEREFORE, the order quashing the information is hereby set aside and the
case is remanded for further trial, without costs. It is so ordered.
19. FILOTEO, JR. V. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 79543
October 16, 1996

TOPIC: Art. 306 – Brigandage (Brigandage vs. Robbery)

FACTS:

● Bureau of Post mail van no. MVD 02 left San Fernando, Pampanga to pick
up and deliver mail matters to and from Manila.
● They took the MacArthur Highway on the return trip to Pampanga. An old
blue Mercedes Benz sedan overtook their van and cut across its path.
The car had five (5) passengers — three seated in front and two at the
back.
● Two of the car passengers aimed an armalite and a hand gun at driver
Nerito Miranda. Frightened, Miranda pulled over and stopped the van's
engine. Alighting from the car, the armed group identified themselves as
policemen. They ordered the postal employees to disembark from the
van. The three postal employees were then ordered to board the Benz.
● When it finally came to a stop, they were made to remove their pants
and shoes and then told to run towards the shrubs with their heads
lowered. Upon realizing that the hijackers had left, they put on their
pants and reported the incident to the Kalookan Police Station.
● The Security and Intelligence Unit of the Bureau of Posts recovered the
postal van. Discovered missing were several mail matters, including
checks and warrants, along with the van's battery, tools and fuel.
● Mateo and Liwanag admitted participation in the postal hijacking. At a
confrontation with Perez and Mendoza, all four of them pointed to
petitioner, Jose D. Filoteo, Jr., as the mastermind of the crime.
● The authorities confronted Filoteo about his participation in the hijacking,
telling him that Frias, Mendoza and Perez had earlier volunteered the
information that petitioner furnished the Benz used in the hijacking.
Thereupon, Filoteo admitted involvement in the crime.
● The respondent Court convicted the accused of brigandage punishable
under Presidential Decree No. 532.

ISSUE:
WON the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to find the petitioner guilty
of brigandage. (No)
RULING:
Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes as highway robbery or brigandage
only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any
person or persons on Philippine highways as defined therein, and not acts
of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim.
A finding of brigandage or highway robbery involves not just the locus of
the crime or the fact that more than three (3) persons perpetrated it. It is
essential to prove that the outlaws were purposely organized not just for
one act of robbery but for several indiscriminate commissions thereof. In
the present case, there had been no evidence presented that the accused
were a band of outlaws organized for the purpose of "depredation upon the
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel
from one place to another." What was duly proven in the present case is
one isolated hijacking of a postal van. There was also no evidence of any
previous attempts at similar robberies by the accused to show the
"indiscriminate" commission thereof.
NOTE:
Upon the other hand, the Information did not specifically mention P.D. 532.
The facts alleged therein and proven by the evidence constitute the offense
of robbery defined in Art. 293 in relation to Art. 295 and punished by Art.
244, par. 5, all of the Revised Penal Code. From the facts, it was duly proven
that:
* personal property (treasury warrants, checks, mail, van, tools, etc.)
* belonging to another were
* unlawfully taken by the accused
* with intent to gain (animo lucrandi)
* with intimidation against three persons (Art. 293)
* in an uninhabited place, or
* by an band, or
* by attacking a moving motor vehicle
* on a highway; and
* the intimidation was made with the use of firearms (Art. 295)
 20. PEOPLE VS. REANZARES
G.R No. 130656 June 29, 2000
Digested by: Shira G.

Topic: Art 306 – Brigandage – Who brigands are

Facts:

● Spouses Gregorio and Lilia Tactacan are owners of a sari-sari store.

● At around 8:10 p.m. they closed their store and left for home on board
their passenger type jeepney.
● As Gregorio was maneuvering his jeep backwards from where it was
parked, two unidentified men suddenly climbed on board.
● They asked that they be dropped off in the town proper.
● Lilia informed the two men that they were not passing through the town.
● The two then said that they would get off at the nearest intersection.
● About 500 meters away they robbed the spouses. Stabbed Lilia resulting
in her death and took the Seiko wristwatch worth P2500.
● Two information were filed against Armando Reanzares charging him with
Anti-Piracy and Anti Highway Robbery, and violation of RA 6539
(Carnapping)
● The RTC found him and three John Doe guilty of Highway Robbery with
Homicide under PD 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery)

Issue: WON the conviction for Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532
is erroneous. (YES)
Ruling:
Indeed the accused is guilty. But that the accused was guilty of Highway
Robbery with Homicide under PD 532 was erroneous. As held in a number of
cases, conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were
organized for the purpose of committing it indiscriminately. There is no proof
in the instant case that the accused and his cohorts organized themselves to
commit highway robbery. Neither is there proof that they attempted to commit
similar robberies to show the “indiscriminate” perpetration thereof.
On the other hand, what the prosecution established was only a single act of
robbery against the particular persons of the Tactacan spouses. Clearly, this
single act of depredation is not what is contemplated under PD 532 as its
objective is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit acts of
depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and defenseless
inhabitant who travel from one place to another thereby disturbing the peace
and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social progress of
the people.
Consequently, the accused should be held liable for the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended
by RA 7659 as the allegations in the Information are enough to convict him
therefore. In the interpretation of an information, what controls is the
description of the offense charged and not merely its designation.
Dispositive: MODIFIED and Accused ARMANDO REANZARES also known as
"Armando Rianzares" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery
with Homicide under Art. 294.

Notes:
Article 294, par. (1), The penalty of reclusion perpetuato death, when by
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crimeof homicide shall have been
committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or
intentionalmutilation or arson.
Applying Art. 63, second par., subpar. 2, of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that "[i]n all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of
two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application
thereof: x x x 2. [w]hen there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be
applied," the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed in the absence of
any modifying circumstance
 21. PEOPLE VS. SAMOY
Topic: Brigandage
Digested by: Dom

● Three armed men, including accused Glenford Samoy and Leodigario

Israel, flagged down a small Isuzu Elf truck down. The accused ordered
those on the truck to alight and hand over their money. Melencio (person
inside the truck) immediately handed over the ₱60,000.00 he had with
him.
● One of the accused fired his gun. This prompted the captives to run for
their lives. When the latter did not heed the shots, the accused fired
directly at them, seriously wounding Melencio while slightly hurting
Johnny and Forlaje. The robbers then fled to the mountain. Although the
robbery victims brought Melencio to the hospital, he was pronounced
dead on arrival.

Issue: Whether or not the CA, along with the RTC, erred in finding that accused
Israel committed robbery with homicide in company of others. (NO)
Ruling:
The RTC and the CA were correct in finding accused Israel guilty only of robbery
with homicide, not of robbery on the highway as defined in P.D. 532. Conviction
for the latter crime requires proof that several accused organized themselves
for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately, preying upon innocent
and defenseless people on the highway. Here, the prosecution proved only one
act of robbery.
22. PEOPLE VS JUGUETA

GR NO. 202124
DIGESTED BY: GULA

TOPIC: WHO BRIGANDS ARE

FACTS:

· THE FAMILY OF NORBERTO DIVINA WERE ALL LYING DOWN

SIDE BY SIDE ABOUT TO SLEEP ON JUNE 6, 2002 AT AROUND
9:00 O’CLOCK IN THE EVENING, WHEN SUDDENLY THEIR WALL
MADE OF SACK WAS STRIPPED OFF BY APPELLANT AND HIS
COMPANIONS.
· THEY ORDERED HIM TO GO OUT OF THEIR HOUSE AND
WHEN HE REFUSED DESPITE HIS PLEA FOR MERCY, THEY FIRED
AT THEM SUCCESSIVELY AND INDISCRIMINATELY, HAVING HIT
AND KILLED HIS TWO DAUGHTERS, MARY GRACE DIVINA AND
CLAUDINE WHO WERE 13 YEARS OLD AND 3 ½ YEARS OLD
RESPECTIVELY.
· IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7698-G, APPELLANT WAS
CHARGED WITH DOUBLE MURDER, DEFINED AND PENALIZED
UNDER ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
· IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7702-G, APPELLANT, TOGETHER
WITH GILBERT ESTORES AND ROGER SAN MIGUEL, WAS
CHARGED WITH MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED MURDER.
· HOWEVER, BASED ON THE SWORN STATEMENT OF ONE
DANILO FAJARILLO, THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR FOUND NO
PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST GILBERT ESTORES AND ROGER
SAN MIGUEL.
· APPELLANT WAS THEN CONVICTED BY THE TRIAL COURT
OF DOUBLE MURDER AND MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED MURDER.

· AGGRIEVED BY THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENTS,

APPELLANT APPEALED TO THE CA, WHICH RENDERED A
 DECISION AFFIRMING APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR THE
CRIMES CHARGED.

ISSUE:
WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIMES
CHARGED? (YES)

HELD:
· MURDER IS DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE AS THE UNLAWFUL KILLING OF A PERSON, WHICH
IS NOT PARRICIDE OR INFANTICIDE, ATTENDED BY
CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS TREACHERY OR EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION.

· THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY RULED THAT APPELLANT IS

LIABLE FOR MURDER BECAUSE TREACHERY ATTENDED THE
KILLING OF NORBERTO’S TWO CHILDREN.

· MINOR CHILDREN, WHO BY REASON OF THEIR TENDER

YEARS, CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO PUT UP A DEFENSE. WHEN AN
ADULT PERSON ILLEGALLY ATTACKS A CHILD, TREACHERY
EXISTS.
· AS TO THE CHARGE OF MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED MURDER,
THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE STATES THAT A FELONY IS ATTEMPTED WHEN THE
OFFENDER COMMENCES THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY
DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACTS, 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.
· IN THIS CASE, THE PROSECUTION HAS CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED THE INTENT TO KILL ON THE PART OF APPELLANT
AS SHOWN BY THE USE OF FIREARMS, THE WORDS UTTERED
 DURING, AS WELL AS THE MANNER OF, THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME.
· THE COURT QUOTED WITH APPROVAL THE TRIAL COURT’S
FINDING THAT APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER.

23. PEOPLE VS ALAY-AY

G.R. No. 94310
June 30, 1993
Digested By: Lamoste
Topic: Theft Art-309
QC:

FACTS:
Evidence having been shown by the prosecution in the court below that
accused-appellant was the culprit who hit the victim, Felomena Franche,
repeatedly on the head with a 2" x 2" piece of wood and stole her Sanyo
transistor radio, the trial court convicted him of Robbery with Homicide and
sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay cost
The accused-appellant, however, denied the accusation
This Court, however, upon a review of the evidence, finds accused-appellant’s
protestation of innocence not credible and convicts him of two specific offenses
The Facts are as followed
"That on or about the 22nd day of March 1985, at around 5:30 in the morning,
corner Capaya and Duhat Sts., Homesite Subdivision, Barangay Dau,
Municipality of Mabalacat, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Alay-ay alias
"COT", with intent to gain, by means of violence and without the consent of the
store’s owner Felomena Franche, and once inside the store, sis he feloniously
steal the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
One (1) transistor radio, valued at P100.00
One (1) one hundred peso bill 100.00
Amounting a total of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS, to the damage and
prejudice of the said owner and then, said accused, with intent to kill, with
treachery and evident premeditation and use of superior strength, feloniously
assault said Felomena Franche with a piece of wood on the different parts of
her body

Shortly their neighbour found her unconscious and was revived and brought to
the hospital where she died shortly thereafter
Virgilio Alay-Ay was captured and upon conviction he was found guilty and
sentenced to life imprisonment and cost
Upon appeal Accused-appellant contends the credibilities of the prosecution
witnesses who testified against him.
The Solicitor General refuted said arguments point by point

ISSUE:
WoN the reliance of a witness is questionable(NO)[unimportant]
WoN an Alibi can overrule positive testimonies of a witness(NO)
[unimportant]
WoN the accuse appellant should be convicted of Theft and not
Robbery (YES)
RULING:
Well-settled is the rule that findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility
of witnesses are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest
consideration by appellate courts. Credibility "is a matter that is peculiarly
within the province of the trial judge, who had first-hand opportunity to watch
and observe the demeanor and behavior of witnesses both for the prosecution
and the defense, at the time of their testimony."
Prosecution witness, Natividad de la Cruz, testified that she saw the accused-
appellant carry with him the victim’s Sanyo transistor radio when he jumped
over the fence of the victim’s aunt’s store
Against such positive testimonies identifying accused-appellant as the person
who hit the victim on the head with a piece of wood and took her transistor
radio when he made good his escape from the store, is accused-appellant’s
flimsy alibi that he was somewhere else sleeping at his friend’s house at the
time the incident happened.

The Court, for its part, is not precluded from rendering a judgment of conviction
based solely on the testimony of a single witness as long as such testimony is
found to be credible and satisfies the Court that the accused is guilty beyond
any reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
But in the case at bar, it cannot be said with moral certainty that accused-
appellant’s intention was to steal the radio and money and that the k illing of
the victim was a mere incident to the robbery.
There is testimony by Saldy Guela that the accused-appellant had been
frequently drinking at the store tended by the victim for about three (3) months
prior to the killing. There is also testimony 21 by Mila Pineda that accused-
appellant had always been quarreling with the victim and it could have been
due in part to the fact that accused-appellant had been enamored of her.
What the court was pointing out is that there is a dearth of evidence to show
that the accused-appellant had the intention to steal cash and other valuables
in the store and that he killed the victim on occasion of the robbery. As such
he cannot be convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide but of two specific
crimes, that of homicide and theft.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. A
new one is entered finding the accused-appellant Virgilio Alay-ay guilty of the
crimes of Homicide and Theft. For the crime of Homicide, he is sentenced to
Six Years and One Day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen Years, Eight
Months and One Day of Reclusion Temporal medium, as maximum, and to
indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos. For the crime of Theft, he is sentenced to a straight penalty of Six (6)
Months of Arresto Mayor maximum, and to return the Sanyo transistor radio
to the heirs of the victim, and the P100 peso-bill, or the amount of P200.00 if
the Sanyo transistor radio can no longer be returned.
 24. TAN V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 134298
29 August 1999
Topic: Art. 309 - Theft
Digested by: Llanita

FACTS:
● Sometime in February 1991, Manuelito Mendez left Bueno Metal
Industries. Complainant and Proprietor Lim noticed that some of the
welding rods, propellers and boat spare parts were missing. She
conducted an inventory and discovered that propellers and stock s valued
at P48,000.00, more or less, were missing.
● Mendez was arrested in Visayas and admitted that he and his companion
Dayop stole from the complainant's warehouse some boat spare parts,
pointing Ramon C. Tan was the one who bought the stolen items and
who paid in cash to Mendez and Dayop, and they split the amount.
● Mendez asked for forgiveness and the complainant did not file a case
against Mendez and Dayop.
● An Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila filed with the RTC Manila, an
information against petitioner charging him with violation of PD No. 1612.
● Lower court found TAN guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979;
CA denied the motion for reconsideration, hence this petition.

ISSUE: WON the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements of
fencing. (YES)

RULING:
"Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent
to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon things." The crime of theft is committed if the taking is without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things.

The crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing on the other,
are separate and distinct offenses thus, the State may choose to prosecute the
accused either under the Revised Penal Code or Presidential Decree No. 1612,
although the preference would seem inevitable considering that fencing is
malum prohibitum, and Presidential Decree No. 1612 creates a presumption of
fencing and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of property. Further,
the law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the
criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the
commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Without petitioner knowing that
he acquired stolen articles, he can not be guilty of "fencing".

There was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of another's property. In

this case, the theft was not proved because complainant Rosita Lim did not
complain to the public authorities of the felonious taking of her property. She
sought out her former employee Manuelito Mendez, who confessed that he
stole certain articles from the warehouse of the complainant and sold them to
the petitioner. Such confession is insufficient to convict, without e vidence of
corpus delicti.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ACQUITS petitioner.

NOTES:
● Fencing, as def ined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 is "the act of any person who, with
intent to gain f or himself or f or another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
conceal, sell or dispose of , or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived f rom the proceeds of the crime of robbery or thef t.
● Bef ore the enactment of P.D. No. 1612 in 1979, the f ence could only be prosecuted as
an accessory af ter the f act of robbery or thef t, as the term is def ined in Article 19 of
the Revised Penal Code, but the penalty was light as it was two (2) degrees lower than
that prescribed f or the principal
● The "essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the
property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent of gain; (4) the
taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is
accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or f orce upon things.
● In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost
by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by f elonious taking.
● What is more, there was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known
that the very stolen articles were the ones sold him. "One is deemed to know a particular
f act if he has the cognizance, consciousness or awareness thereof , or is aware of the
existence of something, or has the acquaintance with f acts, or if he has something
within the mind's grasp with certitude and clarity. When knowledge of the existence of
a particular f act is an element of an of f ense, such knowledge is established if a person
is aware of a high probability of its existence unless he actually believes that it does not
exist. On the other hand, the words "should know" denote the f act that a person of
reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the f act in perf ormance of his
duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such f act exists.
Knowledge ref ers to a mental state of awareness about a f act. Since the court cannot
penetrate the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained therein, it
must determine such knowledge with care f rom the overt acts of that person. And given
two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court should choose
the one which sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence.
 25. VALENZUELA V. PEOPLE
GR no, 160188 June 21, 2007
Digested by: Masamong
FACTS:

● Petitioner and Caladeron were sighted by Lago, a security guard, outside

a supermarket. Lago saw petitioner wearing an identification card with
the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit,” hauling a push cart with cases of
detergent.
● Petitioner unloaded these cases of detergent in an open parking space
where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then went back inside and
emerged with more cartons and unloaded the same to the same area in
the parking space.
● Afterward, petitioner left the parking space and hailed a taxi and directed
towards where Calderon was waiting.
● Calderon loaded the cartons inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle.
● Lago proceeded to stop the taxi and asked for a receipt of the
merchandise. The two fled on foot but Lago fired a warning shot to alert
his fellow security guards of the incident.
● The two were apprehended and the stolen merchandise were recovered.
● The RTC convicted the petitioner and Calderon with consummated theft.
However, the petitioner filed a brief with the CA arguing 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:

● WON the theft should be deemed as consummated or merely frustrated

RULING:

● The Court ruled that there is no crime of frustrated theft under the
Revised Penal Code. The ability of the offender to freely dispose
of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime
of theft.
● It is immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender, once having
committed all the acts of execution for theft, 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. "In theft or robbery the
crime is consummated after the accused had material possession of the
thing with intent to appropriate the same, although his act of making use
of the thing was frustrated." (Chief Justice Aquino)
● Theft is completed from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to freely
dispose of the same.
NOTES:

● Elements of theft (Art 308, RPC)

1. That there be unlawful 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
● Three stages of crimes (Art. 6)

Article 6 defines those three stages, namely the consummated,

frustrated and attempted felonies. A felony is consummated "when all the
elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present." It is
frustrated "when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator." Finally, it is
attempted "when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, 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."
 26. HP SOFTWARE AND COMMUNICATION VS PLDT
G.R No. 170217
December 10, 2012
Topic: Art. 308 - Theft
Digested by: Ortiz
Facts:
1. The case originated from 2 search warrants for violation of Article 308 of
the RPC for Theft of Telephone Services and for Violation of P.D. 401 for
unauthorized installation of telephone communication equipment
following the complaint of PLDT accusing HPS of conducting International
Simple Resale (ISR) or unauthorized sale of international long distance
calls.
2. The warrants were issued by the Trial Court to seize instruments of the
crime after being satisfied with the affidavits and sworn testimony of the
complainant’s witnesses (Richard Dira and Reuben Hinagdanan) where
they traced the long distance calls from the record of calls in the PLDT
numbers of Philip Yap and later on transferred to HPS using the Mabuhay
card in conducting test calls and where they saw telephone equipment
inside the respondents’ compound being used for the purpose of
conducting ISR.
3. The search warrants were immediately implemented on the same day
where the police team searched the premises of HPS Corporation and
seized the articles specified in the search warrants.
4. Philip Yap and Hyman Yap filed a Motion to Quash and/or Suppress
Illegally Seized Evidence. HPS Corporation also filed a Motion to Quash
Search Warrant and Return of the Things Seized.
5. The trial court granted the motion to quash the search warrants and
return the seized instruments. PLDT filed a petition to the Court of
Appeals where they reversed the decision of the trial court. HPS
Corporation moved for reconsideration but was denied for lack of merit,
they subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari with the
Supreme Court.
Issue:

● WON the activity referred to as "international simple resale" (ISR) is

considered a criminal act of Theft in this jurisdiction. (YES)

Ruling:
● Interest in business was not specifically enumerated as personal property
in the Civil Code in force at the time the Stochecker v. Ramirez was
rendered. Yet, interest in business was declared to be personal property
since it is capable of appropriation and not included in the enumeration
of real properties. Article 414 of the Civil Code provides that all things
which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either
real property or personal property. Business is likewise not enumerated
as personal property under the Civil Code. Just like interest in business,
however, it may be appropriated. Following the ruling in Strochecker v.
Ramirez, business should also be classified as personal property. Since it
is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real properties under
Article 415, it is therefore personal property.
 ● As can be clearly gleaned from the above disquisitions, petitioner’s acts
constitute theft of respondent PLDT’s business and service, committed
by means of the unlawful use of the latter’s facilities. x x x. (Citations
omitted.) Plainly, from the aforementioned doctrinal pronouncement, this
Court had categorically stated and still maintains that an ISR activity is
an act of subtraction covered by the provisions on Theft, and that the
business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is personal
property, which can be the object of Theft under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Dispositive:
● WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition of HPS Corporation, et
al. in G.R. No. 170217 is DENIED for lack of merit. The petition of PLDT
in G.R. No. 170694 is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 8,
2005 as well as the Resolution dated December 7, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75838 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Note/s:
● The acts of "subtraction" include: (a) tampering with any wire, meter, or
other apparatus installed or used for generating, containing, conducting,
or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone service; (b) tapping or
otherwise wrongfully deflecting or taking any electric current from such
wire, meter, or other apparatus; and (c) using or enjoying the benefits
of any device by means of which one may fraudulently obtain any current
of electricity or any telegraph or telephone service.

27. QUALIFIED THEFT – ART 310

Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109242, 26 January 1999
Topic : Art 310- Qualified Theft
Digested by Mau
FACTS:
ARNOLD PASICOLAN, a public officer, being then an Emergency Laborer
assigned as bag opener at the printed matters section of Makati Central Post
Office, and taking advantage of his official position by having access to the mail
matters in conspiracy with accused RONNIE S. ROMERO and LITO MARCELO,
both private individuals, unlawfully, with intent of gain and without the consent
of the owners take, steal and carry away from the Central Post Office of Makati
one bag containing assorted mail matters some of them containing U.S. Dollar
Bills to the damage and prejudice of the different addressee or the government.
Jacinto Merete, a letter carrier in the Makati Central Post Office, disclosed to
his chief, Projecto Tumagan, the existence of a group responsible for the
pilferage of mail matter in the post office.
Tumagan sought the aid of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
The three accused were charged with qualified theft before the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals of the crime of qualified theft.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari
Petitioner says that since the subject of the alleged pilferage was mail matter,
only a government employee may be held guilty of qualified theft unless a
private individual was shown to have been in conspiracy with him.
He contends that since he is not a government employee, then he cannot be
charged or held guilty of the crime as there is no proof that he conspired with
a postal employee.
ISSUE: WON the accused are guilty of Qualified Theft (YES)
RULING:
SC emphasized that what makes the theft of mail matter qualified is the fact
that the subject thereof is mail matter, regardless of whether the offender is a
postal employee or a private individual.
This much is clear from Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
Qualified theft.—The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next
higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding
article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence,
or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists
of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular acc ident or civil disturbance.
Thus, as long as the thing stolen is one of those enumerated in Article 310, the
crime is qualified theft. In this case, it is mail matter. Hence, it is not necessary
that the petitioner be shown to have been in conspiracy with a government
employee in order to hold him liable for qualified theft.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED.
NOTES:
· PILFERAGE –
The action of stealing things of little value
 28. PEOPLE V SALONGA
G.R. No. 131131, 21 June 2001
Topic: QUALIFIED THEFT - ARTICLE 310
Digested by: DDCP

FACTS:
1. Accused-appellant Salonga, an assistant cashier of Metrobank was charged
with the complex crime of QUALIFIED THEFT THRU FALSIFICATION OF
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT.
2. Together with other accused, they unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and
carry away the total amount of P36,480.30 by forging the signature of officers
authorized to sign the said check and have the said check deposited in the
account of Firebrake Sales and Services, the supposed payee when in truth and
in fact there is no such transaction between Firebrake and Metrobank.
3. Apparently during the interview with the bank’s Internal Affairs, Salonga
admitted issuing the check to accused Amiel Garcia, P8,500.00 of which went
to his personal benefit.
4. However, the accused alleged that the statement was improperly proffered
stating that he was not given enough time to review his statement and the
bank investigators threatened him and hit him on the nape. He also alleged
that the investigators never informed him of his right to counsel.
5. The accused then, with the assistance of a lawyer, wrote a letter to
Metrobank wherein he admitted his negligence in connection with the subject
check because of the threats employed by the investigators and that he has
never been employed nor has he any interest whatsoever with Firebreak Sales
and Services.
6. In the same letter, said accused offered to pay the bank the amount of
P8,500.00 just to finish the case so that he can earn a living and get a new
job.

ISSUE: WON he is guilty of the complex crime as charged. (Yes)

RULING: Yes, the court ruled that Salonga is guilty of the complex crime of
qualified theft thru falsification of a commercial document.

Salonga took P36,480.30 with grave abuse of confidence by forging the

signatures of those authorized to sign the checks and had the check deposited
in the account of a fictitious payee. Theft is qualified if it is committed with
grave abuse of confidence. The fact that accused-appellant as assistant cashier
of Metrobank had custody of the aforesaid checks and had access not only in
the preparation but also in the release of the checks suffices to designate the
crime as qualified theft. Given the value of the check, the imposable penalty
for the felony of theft is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and
one year of each additional ten thousand pesos in accordance with Article 309,
paragraph 1 of RPC. However, under Article 310, the crime of qualified theft
is punished by the penalties next higher by 2 degrees - or reclusion temporal
in its medium and maximum periods. In addition, forging the signatures of the
bank officers was resorted to - this falsification of the subject check was a
necessary means to commit the crime of qualified theft resulting in a complex
crime. Hence, we apply Article 48 of the RPC, which provides that: “where an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the
more serious crime in its maximum period shall be imposed”. Considering that
qualified Theft is more serious than falsification of bank notes/certificates, the
correct penalty is 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to
20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

WHEREFORE , the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 4, 1997 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the penalty is reduced to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as
minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
 29. CUEVAS V. PEOPLE
GR No. 194555
13 June 2013
Digested by: Ponfi :>

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

DISPOSITION: ALAWS TO SA INTERNET…. wag nalang daw sabi ni bidol

 30. PEOPLE V SABADO
G.R. No. 218910
July 5, 2017
Digested by: RAM
Topic: Qualified Theft - Art 310

FACTS:
1. The Information charging appellant and two other accused of Qualified
Theft alleges that accused, LUTHER P. SABADO, while employed at
Diamond Pawnshop, with intent to gain and grave abuse of trust and
confidence reposed on him, and in conspiracy with accused SATURNINO
L. SABADO and HOSPICIO M. HARUTA who are non-employees of the
said pawnshop, feloniously take, away an assortment of jewelry and
cellular phones worth ₱500,000.00, belonging to said Diamond Pawnshop
without the owner's knowledge or consent, to his damage and prejudice.
2. For his defense, accused-appellant alleged that he was working alone in
the pawnshop and a man with the gun ordered him to open the vault and
threatened to kill him. After he opened the vault, his hands and feet were
tied and his mouth was covered with a tape. Then the two unidentified
men took all the contents of the vault and fled.
3. The RTC found the accused guilty of qualified theft and the CA affirmed
its decision. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of the crime Qualified Theft.

RULING: YES. The appeal lacks merit.

In Miranda v. People, the Court ruled that:

The elements of the crime of theft are as follows: (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.

Theft becomes qualified when any of the following circumstanc es under Article
310 is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft
is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either
a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen· is
fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

The elements aforementioned were all alleged and proved. First, there was a
taking of personal property consisting of pieces of jewelry, i.e. two men's rings
and one necklace with pendant. Second, said pieces of jewelry belong to the
Pawnshop. Third, the taking of said pieces of jewelry was with intent to gain.
Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the
unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Actual gain
is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. Fourth, the
taking was obviously without the consent of the Pawnshop; and, Fifth, the
taking was accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things.

Accused-appellant could not have committed the crime had he not been holding
the position of the trusted employee which gave him not only sole access to
the Pawnshop's vault but also control of the premises. The management of
Diamond Pawnshop clearly had reposed its trust and confidence in the accused-
appellant, and it was this trust and confidence which he exploited to enrich
himself to the damage and prejudice of his employer.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 13, 2015
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05984, finding accused-appellant Luther
Sabado y Pangangaan GUILTY of the crime of Qualified Theft is AFFIRMED.

NOTE: THEFT HERE BECAME QUALIFIED BECAUSE IT WAS

COMMITTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE. GRAVE ABUSE
OF CONFIDENCE, AS AN ELEMENT OF THEFT, MUST BE THE RESULT
OF THE RELATION BY REASON OF DEPENDENCE, GUARDIANSHIP,
OR VIGILANCE, BETWEEN THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND THE
OFFENDED PARTY THAT MIGHT CREATE A HIGH DEGREE OF
CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THEM WHICH THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ABUSED.
 31. PEOPLE VS. ALFECHE
G.R. No. 102070
July 23 1992
DIGESTED BY URMENETA
FACTS:
· A complaint for Grave Threat and Usurpation of Real Property was filed
against Dimalata and Fuentes. After preliminary investigation Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Azarraga of OPP Capiz. Azarraga then handed down a
decision finding prima facie evidence of guilty needed for the crime charged.
The Provincial Prosecutor then filed the corresponding information for
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property defined and penalized under Art. 312 in
relation to Art. 282 of the RPC. The Court however dismissed the case , citing
that Art. 312 and 282 are distinct offenses, and that the Court lacks jurisdiction,
as the fine imposable is below jurisdiction of said court.
· The Assistant Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration, citing that the
crime defined by Art. 312 is dependent on the provisions of Art 282 because
312 does not provide a penalty, expressly providing that “the penalty for the
violence shall likewise be imposed in addition to the fine." In the instant case,
the intimidation consists of the threat to kill the encargado, penalized under
Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code; considering that the accused attained
their purpose, the penalty imposable thereunder is that which is one degree
lower than that prescribed by law for the crime they had threatened to commit
— homicide.
· Respondent Judge Alfeche now contends that violence or intimidation of
persons alleged therein is an element of the crime charged; it cannot constitute
a distinct crime of grave threats or give rise to the complex crime of usurpation
of real property with gave threats as basis for determining the jurisdiction of
the court; and that the clause "in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts
of violence executed by him" does not refer to Article 282 of the Revised Penal
Code; both Articles 312 and 282 are distinct offenses where only one juridical
interest is violated; if ever there are resultant offenses arising from the acts of
violence of the accused in their occupation of the real property or usurpation
of real rights over the same, they shall be subject to other criminal prosecutions
not necessarily under Article 282.

ISSUE:
WON violence and intimidation is merely an element in Art. 312 and
does not constitute a separate and distinct offense (NO)
WON the clause "in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of
violence executed by him" in Art. 312 does not refer to Art. 282 (NO)
RULING:
1. The Court held that This Court cannot agree with the first which postulates
that the threat was the means employed to occupy the land and is therefore
absorbed in the crime defined and penalized in Article 312. If that were the
case, the clause "in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence
executed by him" would be meaningless. As earlier explained, intimidation is a
form of violence which may come in the guise of threats or coercion. Besides,
the peculiar theory of absorption would result in an absurdity whereby a grave
or less grave felony defined in paragraph 1 of Article 282 and punished by an
afflictive correctional penalty consisting of the deprivation of liberty, would be
absorbed by a crime (Article 312) penalized only by a fine.
2. Neither can this Court accept his second proposition that Article 282 and
Article 312 refer to two (2) separate crimes, both of which "are simple crimes
where only one juridical right or interest is violated." As already stated, the
crime of occupation of real right in property is a single, special and indivisible
crime upon which is imposed a two-tiered penalty. Also, such a proposition
obfuscates the first proposition and ignores the distinction between the two
Articles. Article 282 is a crime against personal security while Article 312 is a
crime against real property or real rights thereon.