People v. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163, 26 April 1990.

Salvilla and other co-accused (all surnamed Canasares) were charged with Robbery with Serious
Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal detention by the RTC. Salvilla appealed. Salvilla together with
other co-accused, brought homemade guns and a hand grenade to the New Iloilo lumberyard
owned by the Choco family, they met Rodita, an employee thereat, declared hold-up, and asked
for money. They pointed the gun at Severino Choco, who provided P20,000 (according to the
defense it was only P5,000), put it on a paper bag and handed it over to them. Severino pleaded
for them to leave after, but they paid no heed. Instead, one of the accused took Severino’s
wallet and wristwatch and kept Severino, Rodita, and Severino’s daughters as hostages. They
asked Severino to produce P100,000 but Severino said that he could not produce said amount as
it was a Saturday and banks are closed. Police and military authorities surrounded the yard and
negotiated with the accused using a loudspeaker and appealed them to surrender. Even the
mayor of Iloilo City joined the negotiations. The accused were still asking for P100,000 but later
agreed and got the P50,000 offered by the mayor, mayor handed the money to Rodita who
passed it to the accused. Ultimatums were given but the accused did not budge, so the police
and military launched an offensive and assault on the place, which resulted to injuries to the
girls, one girl had her leg amputated. RTC found them guilty of Robbery with Serious Physical
Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention" and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

Apellant Salvilla insists that what they did only constitutes attempted robbery, that although the
“giving” of the property was proven, the “taking” was not. He contends that they never touched
the money, the wristwatch, and the wallet as they left it on the counter of the lumber yard
office during the entire incident. He further claims that they had never fired on the military as
they intended to surrender, and although they were directed to so, they voluntarily gave up
themselves much later.

Issues were
WON the robbery was consummated
WON there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender

The SC held that yes, the robbery was consummated if the unlawful “taking” is complete . It is
not a defense either that appellant and his co-accused had no opportunity to dispose of the
personalities taken. From the moment the offender gained possession of the thing, even if the
culprit had no opportunity to dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is complete.

The SC further held that no, the “surrender” of the accused cannot be considered to mitigate
their liability. To be mitigating, a surrender must have the following requisites: (a) that the
offender had not been actually arrested; (b) that the offender surrendered himself to a person
in authority or to his agent; and (c) that the surrender was voluntary. The “surrender” by the
Appellant barely met the said requisites. They were asked by the officials but they still refused
until only later they were completely surrounded and had no chance of escape, Decision of RTC
affirmed.

The SC further affirmed that a complex crime has been committed in the case at bar. The SC
discussed that Under Article 48 of the RPC, a complex crime arises when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other. In this case, Serious Illegal detention was such a
“necessary means” to carry out more effectively the robbery. The detention was not only
incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to commit the same. After the amount
was handed by the victim, the accused refused to leave and took the victims as hostages to get
more money. They even considered P50,000, the amount handed to them, as inadequate.

Elements of serious illegal detention were present: 1) victims were illegally deprived of their
liberty 2) continuing detention were for the purpose of extorting ransom. Illegal detention in
this case was not merely incidental but a necessary means employed to facilitate it. The SC
declared that the penalty imposed by the Trial Court is proper.