96 PEOPLE VS.

SALVILLA KED
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, ET AL
G.R. No. 86163 | April 26, 1990| Melencio-Herrera, J.
Felonies and Criminal Liability > Stages of Commission > Specific Felonies > Robbery
DOCTRINE: It is no defense either that Appellant and his coaccused had no opportunity to dispose of the personalties
taken. That fact does not affect the nature of the crime. 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.

CASE SUMMARY: Salvilla and company were convicted of Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal
Detention. Salvilla filed an appeal with the SC, claiming that robbery was merely attempted and that the lower court did
not appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling and
affirmed the penalty for complex crimes imposed thereon.
FACTS:
 April 12, 1986, at about noon time - Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio Cañasares, armed
with homemade guns and a hand grenade, staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard.
 On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita Hablero, an employee who was on her way out for her
meal break, and announced to her that it was a hold-up.
 They went back to the bank. Savilla pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two daughters, Mary
and Minnie (15 y/o). They informed Severino that all they needed was money.
 Severino told Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 according to the defense) and
handed it to the petitioner. Severino pleaded to leave the premises to no heed.
 Simplicio Cañasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and Rodita
were kept inside the office. According Salvilla, he stopped Simplicio from getting the wallet and wristwatch.
 At about 2PM - Appellant told Severino to produce P100,000 so he and the other hostages can be
released. Severino told him it would be hard to do that since banks are closed because it was a Saturday
 The police and military had surrounded the lumber yard. Maj. Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander of the INP
of Iloilo City, negotiated and appealed to them to surrender, but still refused to surrender and release the hostages.
 Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a coaster, and
some raincoats. Caram offered P50,000 instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and to release
Rodita to be accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. One of the accused gave a key to Mayor Caram and
with the key, Mayor Caram unlocked the door and handed to Rodita P50,000, which Rodita gave to one of the
accused.
 Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to the office.
 The police and military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still wouldn’t budge after more
ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo
Canasares. Mary’s right leg had to be amputated due to her injuries.
 Appellant confirmed the facts and that he demanded P100,000 but was given only P5,000, which he placed on the
counter of the office of the lumber yard. He admitted that he and his coaccused kept Severino, his daughters, and
Rodita inside the office. But he maintained that the P5,000, wallet and wristwatch were all left on the counter and
were never touched by them. He also claimed that they never fired on the military because they intended to
surrender.
 RTC Iloilo - Salvilla and his co-accused Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio, all surnamed Cañasares, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of “Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention”
and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law and
to pay the costs.

ISSUES:
1. W/N the crime charged was consummated and not merely attempted – NO
2. W/N the appellant’s claim of voluntary surrender may be considered as a mitigating circumstance – NO
3. W/N a complex crime under Art. 48 RPC has been committed such that the penalty for the serious offense of
Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267, RPC), or “reclusion perpetua to death,” is to be imposed – YES

RULING:
1. NO. The conviction for consummated robbery is in order.
96 PEOPLE VS. SALVILLA KED

Three consecutive stages of robbery/theft: (1) the giving, (2) the taking, (3) the carrying away or asportation (the taking of
a thing out of the possession of the owner without his privity and consent and without the animus revertendi).

The crime is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property, even if for a short time, and it is not
necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber, or that he should have actually carried the property
away, out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with it.

The factual allegations by Appellant are contradicted by evidence:

 Rodita, the lumberyard employee, testified that upon demand by Appellant, Severino put P20,000.00 inside a
paper bag and subsequently handed it to Appellant. In turn, accused Simplicio took the wallet and wristwatch of
Severino.
 In respect of the P50,000.00 from Mayor Caram, Rodita declared that the Mayor handed the amount to her after
she (the Mayor) had opened the padlocked door and that she thereafter gave the amount to one of the holduppers.
 The “taking” was, therefore sufficiently proved. The money demanded, and the wallet and wristwatch were within
the dominion and control of the Appellant and his coaccused and completed the taking

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. It is no defense either that Appellant and his co-accused had no opportunity to
dispose of the personalties taken. That fact does not affect the nature of the crime.

2. NO. The “surrender” cannot be considered in his favor to mitigate his 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 and his co-accused hardly meets these requirements. Surrender of the accused was not
to be mitigating when he gave up only after he was surrounded by the constabulary and police forces. Their surrender was
not spontaneous as it was motivated more by an intent to insure their safety. And while it is claimed that they intended to
surrender, the fact is that they did not despite several opportunities to do so. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of.

3. YES. Under Art. 48, a complex crime arises “when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.”

The term “necessary means” does not connote indispensable means for if it did then the offense as a “necessary means” to
commit another would be an indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof. The phrase
“necessary means” merely signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate and insure the commission of the other. In
this case, the crime of Serious Illegal Detention was such a “necessary means” as it was selected by Appellant and his co -
accused to facilitate and carry out more effectively their evil design to stage a robbery.

The detention in this case was not only incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to commit the same. After
P20,000 was handed to Appellant, the latter and his coaccused still refused to leave. The victims were then taken as
hostages and the demand to produce an additional P100,000 was made as a prerequisite for their release.

The detention was not merely a matter of restraint to enable the malefactors to escape, but deliberate as a means of
extortion for an additional amount.

The elements of the offense of Serious Illegal Detention are present in this case. The victims were illegally deprived of
their liberty. 2 females (Mary and Minnie), and a minor, a specified circumstance in Art. 267 (3), were among those
detained. The continuing detention was also for the purpose of extorting ransom, another listed circumstance in Art. 267
(last par.), not only from the detained persons themselves but even from the authorities who arrived to rescue them.

DISPOSITIVE: RTC judgment is AFFIRMED. Proportionate costs.