Art.

293: Robbery
People v. Romeo Apolinario and Antonio Rivera (G.R. No. 97426)
Facts:

 Romeo Apolinario and Antonio Rivera by means of force entered the house of husband and wife Simon
and Restituta Hibaler through their window.
 Armed with bolos, they were able to carry away property amounting to Php 18,250 through use of
violence and intimidation.
 According to the wife's testimony, they were awakened during the breaking.
 Simon was able to get his flashlight and point its light at the intruders, allowing them to identify the
three and causing him to exclaim "It's you guys!" in the vernacular.
 The husband was attacked first while the wife pleaded for his life, one of the intruders then struck her
on the face which caused her to lose consciousness. When she regained consciousness she found the
intruders taking clothes and ransacking a trunk, after which they went downstairs and had coffee.
 After they left, Restituta called out for help. When their son Pedro and a neighbor arrived, they found
Simon bleeding, and when asked what happened the victim named Romeo, Antonio and Mario as the
culprits who attacked him.
 Simon died before they could take him to the hospital.
 Pedro testified that when he first reported the crime he withheld the identity of the three assailants
because an Anacleto Habana whose stepson was married to the daughter of one of the assailants,
Romeo Apolinario, was present at the police station.
 He was afraid that if he had named the three at the presence of Patrolman Habana, they would be
warned and could flee.
 The Regional TrialCourt of Capiz City found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of Robbery with Homicide.
 The appellants contended that they cannot be convicted of robbery with homicide because the
robbery has not been proven because there was no conclusive evidence that they had carried the
money and property away from the HIBALER house.
Issue:
Whether or not the essential elements of the crime of robbery with homicide were proven by the
prosecution?

Decision:

 Yes, the essential elements of the crime of robbery with homicide was proven by the prosecution.
 Add to that the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, appellants are
guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code.
 The element of taking or asportation was completed when the apellants took the personal property of
spouses Hibaler.
 ASPORTATION (pp v salvilla) is the taking of personal property out of the possession of its owner
without his privity and consent and without animus revertendi (intention to return).
 Severance of goods from the possession of the owner and absolute control of the property by the
taker, even for an instant.
 The contention of the accused that the failure to take away the property from the Hibaler house
cannot constitute robbery is wrong as asportation had already took place when they have taken the
personal property even if they avere that the failed to dispose the same.
 The wife Restituta testified that after the incident, she made an inventory and found out that some
of their personal belongings were missing. The fact of asportation has been established hence the
conviction of the accused is justified.
 People vs. Moreno
Gr No. 130067 September 16 1999
FACTS:

 In Decemberr 1992, Virginia Bakian, Florence Juan, Josephine Sotero and Felisa Bayani
were invited by Magdalena Bolilla at her daughters birthday party in Baguio.
 Moreno was introduced to them by Bolilla as a recruiter for overseas employment.
 Bakian applied as a babysitter, and the appellant demanded the amount of 15,400 as
placement fee after her submission of requirements. Despite payment of the money, no
receipt was issued by appellant.
 Bayani also applied as a baby sitter for Canada. The accused-appellant told her that she
is connected with the immigration bureau and had sent workers abroad. Again, a
placement fee of 15,000 was delivered to accused-appellant in installments and in his
house.
 Sotero and Juan applied as domestic helpers for Hong Kong. A total of 8,500 and 12,000
was paid by Sotero and Juan respectively, for placement fees and passport. A
handwritten receipt for the money was signed by the accused-appellant.
 Cadio applied as an overseas worker for Canada, paying 7,000 in total for passport and
for the POEA.
 Accused-appellant represented to the applicants that she was hiring on a direct basis
and their papers will be processed in three months and would be deployed by May
1993. This she failed to do.
 She cannot be contacted despite repeated follow ups, and without their knowledge, the
appellant had changed her residence.
 The matter was reported to the office of the POEA and learned thereat that the
appellant was not a licensed recruiter. They obtained a certification issued by Jose
Matias and executed a joint affidavit for the appellant’s prosecution.
 Some of the monies were returned to the applicants upon filing of the case. A warrant
was also issued for her arrest in Manila where she reportedly transferred.
 These charges were however denied by the accused claiming she was an agent of
Dynasty Travel Agency and the processing of papers for tourist visa involves her work.
She denied recruitment of the applicants and shifted the blame to Bolilla as the one who
promised the applicants overseas employment.
 The trial court disbelieved her claims that she assists only the applicants and that the
fees collected were professional fees as an agent. No evidence was presented to prove
that Dynasty Travel Agency exists, hence she was found guilty of the CRIME OF ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE AND FOR TWO COUNTS OF ESTAFA BY WAY OF FALSE
PRETENSES.
 Hence the appeal by the accused-appellant.
o Contending that she cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment or estafa as it was
Magdalena Bolilla who initiated, facilitated and made representations that
complainants can be deployed as overseas workers
ISSUES:
1. WON THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT.
2. WON THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED OF ESTAFA EVEN AFTER THE ACCUSED
RETURNED THE MONEY

RULING:
1. YES. THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE WAS
ESTABLISHED.
o The accused undertook and recruitment activity defined under the labor code.
o He did not have a license or the authority to engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers
o Committed the same against 3 or more persons, individually or as a group
 Accused Moreno has no license or authority to recruit which is evidenced by the POEA
 She enlisted, canvassed, promised and recruited Bakian, Juan, Sotero and Bayani by
representing that she has the capacity to recruit. She promised them to work abroad
particularly in Canada or in Hong Kong for a Fee.
 There were at least 4 persons who were recruited and those above mentioned positively
identified Moreno as the one they transacted with.

2. YES. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE ACCUSED WAS THE ONE WHO
UNDERTOOK THE ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
 Her false pretenses or misrepresentations were executed prior to or simultaneously
with her taking of the amounts from Bakian and Bayani under belief that Moreno can
assist them finding a job overseas.
 THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSED RETURNED THEIR MONEY DOES NOT NEGATE THE
CRIME OF ESTAFA.
 In PP VS. BENITEZ it is settled that criminal liability of estafa is not affected by
compromise or novation of contract, for it is a public offense which must be
prosecuted and punished.