People v.

Moreno

Contention: The accused, armed with a bladed weapon, unlawfully divested Marites Tacadena of one (1)
gold ring, black bag containing one (1)ATM card, one (1) white Burger Machine T-shirt, 30 copies of
Burger Machine coupons, one (1) pocket book, a bible, toothbrush, toothpaste and cash money in the
amount of P200.00, to the latter’s damage and prejudice and the on the occasion of the said robbery
and by using force and intimidation, accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will and consent. After evaluating the evidence offered
by the parties, the trial court gave full faith and credit to the version of the prosecution, convicted
ROGELIO of robbery with rape and appreciated against him the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
It disregarded ROGELIO’s defenses of denial and alibi in view of his positive identification by MARITES as
her assailant. The Trial Court finds accused Rogelio Moreno y Reg, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
having committed the special complex crime of robbery with rape, defined and penalized under Articles
293 and 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. Applying Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code, considering the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and
absent any mitigating circumstance, the Court imposes the penalty of death upon said accused. Accused
is ordered to pay the complainant P200,000.00 as and for moral damages plusP1,000.00 representing
the value of the personal properties taken but not recovered.

Issue : In NOT DECLARING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WASVIOLATED

WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND BROUGHT TO THE POLICE STATION FOR CUSTODIALINVESTIGATION
WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF AN INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT COUNSELOF HIS CHOICE.

In APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF NOCTURNITY IN THECOMMISSION OF THE

CRIME CHARGED

RULING:

As to the first assigned error, ROGELIO banks on the alleged absence of resistance and struggle by
MARITES as evidenced by the absence of injuries on her person. He likewise argues that it was improper
to charge him with robbery with rape, since the taking of the victim’s property was a mere afterthought
and an independent act from the alleged commission of the crime of rape. Anent the second assigned
error, ROGELIO alleges that when he was arrested, he was not informed of his right to remain silent, and
when he was forced by the policemen to undress and admit the crime, he was not assisted by an
independent and competent counsel. Finally, on the third assigned error, ROGELIO maintains that the
trial court erred in appreciating against him the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity because the
place where the rape took place was not covered with darkness, and there is no evidence that night
time was deliberately sought after by him to carry out a criminal intent. The SC is convinced beyond any
shadow of doubt that ROGELIO succeeded in having carnal knowledge of MARITES with the use of force
and intimidation. In any event, force or intimidation itself is sufficient justification for a woman’s failure
to offer resistance. It is well settled that physical resistance need not be established in rape when
intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist’s
advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. Thus, the law does not impose a burden on the
rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or
intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim.
People v. Balacanao

Contention:

Defense:

Ruling:

People v. Salvilla

Facts:

Petitioner: Bienvenido Salvilla

April 12, 1986, at about noon time – Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all
surnamedCanasares), staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard

They were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade

On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita Habiero, an employee there who was on her
way out for her meal break, and informed her that it was a hold-up.

They went inside the office and the petitioner pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two
daughters, Maryand Mimmie. They informed Severino that all they needed was money.

Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the defense) and
handed it to the petitioner.

Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters
and Rodita werekept inside the office.

According to the appellant, he stopped Severino from getting the wallet and watches.

At about 2:00 of the same day, the appellant told Severino to produce P100,000 so he and the other
hostages can bereleased. Severino told him it would be hard to do that since banks are closed because it
was a Saturday.

The police and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. Major Melquiades Sequio, Station
Commander of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with the accused and appealed to them to surrender.
The accused refused to surrender and release the hostages.

Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a coaster,
and someraincoats. Caram offered P50,000 instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and
to release Rodita to beaccompanied 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 moreultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as well as to the accused Ronaldo and
Reynaldo Canasares. Mary’sright leg had to be amputated due to her injuries.

The appellant maintained that the money, wallet and watches were all left on the counter and were
never touched bythem. He also claimed that they never fired on the military because they intended to
surrender.

Issues:

WON the crime of robbery was consummated

WON there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender

Ratio:

Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful “taking” is complete.

Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of the crime of robbery. The
respondent claimed that none of the items (money, watches and wallet) were recovered from them.
However, based on the evidence, the money demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch were within the
dominion and control of the appellant and his co-accused and thus the taking was completed.

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.

No. The “surrender” of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be considered in their favour to
mitigate their liability.

To be mitigating, a surrender must have the following requisites: that the offender had not been actually
arrested, that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to his agent, and that the
surrender was voluntary. The “surrender” by the appellant and his co-accused hardly meets these
requirements. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of.

Note: The nature of the linked offenses (robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal
detention) was also discussed. The detention in the case at bar was not only incidental to the robbery
but was a necessary means to commit the same so the nature of the offense was affirmed.

Held:

Judgment appealed is AFFIRMED

People v. Apduhan

Contention:  The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., alias Junior, Rodulfo Huiso
and Felipe Quimson of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, committed as follows: That on or about the
23rd day of May, 1961, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, in the Municipality of Mabini, Province of
Bohol, Philippines, the above-named accused and five (5)other persons, all of them armed with different
unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, conspiring, confederating and helping
one another, with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter, by means
of violence, the dwelling house of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia Miano, which was also the
dwelling house of their children, the spouses Geronimo Miano and Herminigilda de Miano; and,
once inside the said dwelling house, the above-named accused with their five (5) other companions, did
attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano and another person by the name of Norberto Aton, who
happened to be also in the said dwelling house, thereby inflicting upon the said two (2)persons physical
injuries which caused their death; and thereafter the same accused and their five (5) other companions,
did take and carry way from said dwelling house cash money amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-two
Pesos (P322.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to Honorato Miano and Geronimo Miano, Act
committed contrary to the provisions of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code with the special
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band with the use of unlicensed firearms
(Art. 296, Rev. Penal Code), and other aggravating circumstances, as follows:

1.) That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended parties without any provocation from
the latter.

2.) That night time was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime; and

3.) That advantage was taken of superior strength, accused and their companions, who were fully
armed, being numerically superior to the offended parties who were unarmed and defenceless.

Defense: After Apduhan had pleaded guilty, the defense counsel offered for consideration three
mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, intoxication, and lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong. Subsequently, however, the defense withdrew the last mentioned mitigating circumstance after
the prosecution had withdrawn the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Ruling: The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of
persons, like the offense at bar. The rationale behind this pronouncement is that this class of robbery
could be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent
only in crimes which could be committed in no other place than in the house of another, such as
trespass and robbery in an inhabited house. This Court in People vs. Pinca, citing People vs. Valdez, ruled
that the "circumstances (of dwelling and scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime committed,
because, the crime being robbery with violence or intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery
with homicide) the authors thereof could have committed it without the necessity of violating or scaling
the domicile of their victim." Cuello Calon opines that the commission of the crime in another's dwelling
shows greater perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm.

People v. Jaranilla

Contention: The case is an appeal of the defendants Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo, and Franco Brillantes
from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Ilo-ilo which convicted the accused of robbery and
with homicide, and sentenced each of them to Reclusion Perpetua and ordered the accused to pay
solidarily the sum of six thousand pesos to the heirs of Ramonito Jabatan and the sum of five hundred
pesos to Valentin Baylon as the value of five fighting cocks.

Defense: The taking of the roosters was theft and alternatively, if it was robbery, the crime could not be
robbery with homicide because the robbery was already consummated when Jabatan was killed.

Ruling: The killing of the peace officer is characterized as homicide because the act was made during the
spur of the moment and the treacherous mode of attack was not consciously or deliberately adopted by
the offender. In addition, only persons who perpetrated the killing is responsible for such action.
Furthermore, mere presence in the crime scene does not necessarily make a person co-principal
thereof.

Hence, only the accused, Elias Jaranilla, who perpetrated the killing is responsible and liable for robbery
and homicide. The co-accused, Suyo and Brillantes, are convicted of theft. Therefore, the decision of the
lower court is reversed and sentenced the accused, Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes, as co-principals
in the crime of theft.

People v. Puno

Contention: January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: the accused Isabelo Puno, who is the personal
driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband (who was then away in Davao purportedly on account of local
election there) arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop in Araneta Ave, QC. He told Mrs. Sarmiento that
her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency so Isabelo will temporarily take his place

When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into her husband's
Mercedes Benz with Isabelo driving. After the car turned right on a corner of Araneta Ave, it stopped
and a young man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car beside the driver Enrique pointed a gun at
Mrs. Sarmiento as Isabelo told her that he needs to "get money" from her.

Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 on her bag which she handed to the accused. But the accused said that they
wanted P100,000 more. The car sped off north towards the North superhighway where Isabelo asked
Mrs. Sarmiento to issue a check for P100,000. Mrs. Sarmiento drafted 3 checks: two P30,000 checks and
one P40,000 check. Isabelo then turned the car around towards Metro Manila; later, he changed his
mind and turned the car again towards Pampanga. According to her, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of the
car then, crossed to the other side of the superhighway and was able to flag down a fish vendor's van,
her dress had blood because according to her, she fell down on the ground and was injured when she
jumped out of the car. The defense does not dispute the above narrative of the complainant except that
according to Isabelo, he stopped the car at North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to step
out of the car.

Defense: They had no intention whatsoever to kidnap or deprive the complainant of her personal
liberty. 

Ruling: We hold that the offense committed by appellants is simple robbery defined in Article 293 and
punished under Paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. it is sufficient that the elements of
unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of personal property through intimidation of the owner or possessor
thereof shall be, as it has been, proved in the case at bar. Intent to gain is presumed to be alleged in an
information where it is charged that there was unlawful taking and appropriation by the offender of the
things subject of the robbery.

People vs Pulusan et al

Contention of the state:

Pulusan and Rodriguez boarded the jeep together with two companions at the same time in Barangay
Tikay. When Pulusan announced the hold-up, Rodriguez and their companions simultaneously
brandished knives and the sumpak and divested the passengers of their money and valuables. When the
jeepney reached an isolated place, the men took turns in raping Marilyn, inflicting physical harm on four
male passengers who all succumbed to repeated clubbing and stabbing. The RTC finds them guilty of the
offense of Robbery with Homicide penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code.

Defense of the accused:

That the trial court erred in the credence of evidence

Ruling of the SC:

Pulusan's and Rodriguez's respective alibis cannot prosper. Apart from the fact that they situated
themselves in places not too far from the crime scene, there was no proof that it was physically
impossible for them to have been at the locus criminis during its commission. Most of all, their
respective alibis collapse in the face of the positive identification of them as the perpetrators of the
crime.

The trial court thus correctly found Pulusan and Rodriguez guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide
aggravated by rape under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. In the interpretation of information,
controlling is not the designation but the description of the offense charged. Under the allegations in the
information, Pulusan and Rodriguez are liable under the aforesaid article of the penal code.

We must state that regardless of the number of homicides committed on the occasion of a robbery, the
crime is still robbery with homicide. In this special complex crime, the number of persons killed is
immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code. There is
no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the said Code. The same crime is committed even if
rape and physical injuries are also committed on the occasion of said crime. Moreover, whenever the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven to have been committed, all those who took
part in the robbery are liable as principals therein although they did not actually take part in the
homicide.
People vs Salvilla et al

Contention of the State:

On 12 April 1986, a robbery was staged by the four accused at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard at about noon
time. The accused were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade. When they entered the
establishment, they met Rodita Hablero an employee thereat and announced to her that it was a hold-
up. Appellant Salvilla pointed his gun at the owner, Severino Choco, and his two daughters, and told the
former that all they needed was money. Hearing this, Severino told his daughter, Mary, to get a paper
bag wherein he placed P20,000.00 cash and handed it to Appellant. Thereafter, Severino pleaded with
the four accused to leave the premises as they already had the money but they paid no heed. Instead,
accused Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his two
daughters, and Rodita, were herded to the office and kept there as hostages.

Thereafter, OIC Mayor, of Iloilo City arrived and joined the negotiations. In her dialogue with the
accused, Appellant demanded P100,000.00, a coaster, and some raincoats. She offered them P50,000.00
instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and to release Rodita to be accompanied by
Mary Choco in going out of the office. When they were out of the door, one of the accused whose face
was covered by a handkerchief gave a key to Mayor Caram. With this, Mayor Caram unlocked the
padlocked door and handed to Rodita the P50,000.00, which the latter, in turn, gave to one of the
accused.

Defense of the accused

That "The complete crime of larceny (theft/robbery) as distinguished from an attempt requires
asportation or carrying away, in addition to the taking, In other words, the crime of robbery/theft has
three consecutive stages: 1) the giving 2) the taking and 3) the carrying away or asportation And without
asportation the crime committed is only attempted"

Ruling of the SC

There is no question that in robbery, it is required that there be a taking of personal property belonging
to another. This is known as the element of asportation the essence of which is the taking of a thing out
of the possession of the owner without his privity and consent and without the animus revertendi. In
fact, if there is no actual taking, there can be no robbery. Unlawful taking of personal property of
another is an essential part of the crime of robbery.

Appellant insists that while the "giving" has been proven, the "taking" has not. And this is because
neither he nor his three co-accused touched the P5,000.00 given by Severino nor the latter's wallet or
watch during the entire incident; proof of which is that none of those items were recovered from their
persons.
Those factual allegations are contradicted by the 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 Canasares 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
hold uppers. 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 co-accused and completed
the taking.

It is no defense either that Appellant and his co-accused had no opportunity to dispose of the
personalities 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.

Medina vs People

Contention of the State:

Henry Lim (Lim). He is owner of the Jeep, which was involved in an accident that caused damage to its
roof and door. he engaged the services of Medina, who is a mechanic and maintains a repair shop. At
the time the jeep was delivered to Medina’s shop, it was still in running condition and serviceable
because the under chassis was not affected and the motor engine, wheels, steering wheels and other
parts were still functioning.

A reasonable time elapsed, but no repairs were made on the jeep. Lim’s sister, instructed Danilo Beltran
(Beltran) to retrieve the jeep from Medina’s shop on the agreement that he would instead repair the
vehicle in his own auto shop. Beltran, however, was not able to get the jeep since its alternator, starter,
battery, and two tires with rims, could not be found. Upon inquiry, Medina told him that he took and
installed them on Lim’s another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up, which was also being repaired in the shop.
Beltran went back in the afternoon of the same day and was able to get the jeep, but without the
missing parts.

On September 12, 2002, a criminal complaint for simple theft was filed by Purita, representing her
brother. The trial court found Medina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Defense of the Accused:

That there was no furtive taking or unlawful asportation, in the criminal sense.

Ruling of the SC

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. As defined and penalized, the elements of the crime are: (1) there was taking of personal
property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking
was without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking was accomplished without the use of violence
against, or intimidation of persons or force, upon things. 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. Although proof as to motive for the crime is essential when the evidence of the theft is
circumstantial, the intent to gain is the usual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking of useful
property appertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of
the perpetrator. As to the concept of "taking" –

The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the penal code is that it be
capable of appropriation. It need not be capable of "asportation," which is defined as "carrying away."
Jurisprudence is settled that to "take" under the theft provision of the penal code does not require
asportation or carrying away.

To appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. The word "take" in the Revised Penal
Code includes any act intended to transfer possession which may be committed through the use of the
offenders' own hands, as well as any mechanical device.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, convicting Herman Medina for the crime of simple theft, is hereby AFFIRMED.