TITLE IX- CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY

GRAVE COERCION

49. G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, 

vs.
HON. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR., Presiding Judge, Branch 15, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Capiz, respondent.

Contention of the State:

Respondent judge should not have dismissed the complaint of Grave Threats(Art 282) and Usurpation of
Real Property(Art 312) filed against Ruperto Dimalita and Norberto Fuentes as it has acquired
jurisdiction over the matter. The complaint against Dimalita and Fuentes was instituted when they
threatened to kill the tenant of the land owned by Teresita Silva if they would resist the taking and
cultivating the portion of the land by the accused. The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor who filed the
complaint against the respondent judge contends that have he jurisdiction over the complaint as Art 282
provides that if the accused attained his purpose, the penalty imposable then would be one degree
lower than the prescribed penalty for the crime he threatened, which in this case homicide and thus the
penalty imposable for the accused is prision mayor-well within the jurisdiction of the respondent judge.

Defense of the Accused:

Respondent judge contends that he dismissed the case because only the crime of usurpation of real
property is charged in the information; the violence against 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 grave threats as basis for determining the jurisdiction
of the court. Art 312 only imposes fines of 50 to 100 percent of the gain he acquired but if the gain
cannot be determined, fine of 200 to 500 is imposed as in this case, it is below the jurisdiction of the
RTC.

Ruling:

The respondent judge is wrong when he dismissed the case. What Article 312 means then is that when
the occupation of real property is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons,
the accused may be prosecuted under an information for the violation for Art 312 thereof, and not for a
separate crime involving violence or intimidation. But, whenever, appropriate, he may be sentenced to
suffer the penalty for the acts of violence and to pay a fine based on the value of the gain obtained. The
accused will suffer then the penalty for the intimidation he employed which may be the imposable
under Grave Threats(Art 283) or Grave Coercion(Art 286) and also the corresponding fine. It would be
absurd if a grave or less grave felony under para 1 of Art 282 punished by an afflictive correctional
penalty would be absorbed by a crime(Art 312) only penalized by a fine. Art 312 is a single, special and
indivisible crime upon which is imposed a two-tiered penalty- the penalty for the violence or
intimidation employed and the corresponding fine. The Grave Threat or Coercion which is punished with
an afflictive penalty is under the jurisdiction of the corresponding judge(RTC).
LIGHT COERCION

50. G.R. No. L-40577             August 23, 1934

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
PROCOPIO REYES, POLICARPIO NACANA, FLORENTINO CLEMENTE, HERMOGENES MALLARI,
MARCELINO MALLARI, CASTOR ALIPIO, and RUFINO MATIAS, defendants-appellants.

Contention of the State:

Herein appellants are charged for violation of Art 133 of the Revised Penal Code for Offending the
Religious Feelings. During a pabasa for commemorating the Holy Week in the barrio of Macolong, La
Paz, Tarlac, appellants arrived at the local chapel, carrying bolos and crowbars, and started to construct
a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. The one in charge of the pabasa tried to dissuade the
appellants in their acts but filed as a verbal altercation ensued. The people inside became excited and
left the place hurriedly in confusion halting the pabasa.

Defense of the Accused:

The land where the new chapel was situated was reportedly donated by the Clemente family. There is a
dispute whether the new chapel erected impinge to the adjacent land belonging to the same family. The
appellants who were partisans of the Clemente claimed that they are constructing the fence to protect
their property rights.

Ruling:

The accused are not to be convicted under Art 133 for Offending Religious Feelings but under Art 287 for
Unjust Vexation. The acts under Art 133 must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful by
which the act of constructing a fence is not. The act then is shown to be irritating and vexatious as
shown by the circumstances attending the acts where it was constructed late at night and during the
occasion of the pabasa tending to annoy and vex the people in the chapel.

51. People vs Anonuevo 36 OG 2018 (di ko mahanap full text)

Contention of the State:

In a religious service, Teodulo Anonuevo approached one Rosita Tabia, a 16-year old, from behind. He
then forcibly embraced her, kissed her left cheek and held her breasts. She rebuked him in a low voice
and struggled to break free. Anonuevo then tried to drag her out but having failed, he decided to leave.
She reported the incident to her parents who later reported the same to the police. She presented
Ibarbia as witness where the CFI convicted Anonuevo for abuse against chastity(abusos deshonestos).

Defense of the Accused:

Anonuevo alleged that Ibarbia and Tabia made the accusations against him and that Ibarbia and Tabia
are in a relationship and that they accused him in order for him to stop pursuing Tabia. He further
alleged that Ibarbia had prior confronted him to stop pursuing Tabia as she had already chosen him.
Ruling: The offense is not abuses against chastity but unjust vexation. It would be error to consider that
his motive is lust considering the religious atmosphere and the presence of many people in the area. It
would be more probable that the act was to show an act of bravado against Ibarbia or to force Tabia to
accept him as a lover. The sure was against her will and tended to vex her. The crime was aggravated by
the circumstance of commission in a place of religious worship and was sentenced for one month
imprisonment under Article 287.

UNJUST VEXATION

52. G.R. No. 165065 September 26, 2006

MELCHOR G. MADERAZO , 
SENIFORO PERIDO, and
VICTOR MADERAZO, JR., 
Petitioners,
- versus - 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Contention of the State:

Mediaria Verutiao is a lessee of a stall in the Biliran Public Market where she pays a monthly rental of
P200.00. She was allowed to finish the construction of the market stall with the permission of Municipal
Mayor and Municipal Treasurer. She contended Mun. Ordinance No 2, s 1984 which provides that to
facilitate the development of the public market, in the absence of adequate government finance,
construction by private parties of structures for commercial purposes may be allowed and the expenses
thereof shall be reimbursed to the builder by applying 50% to the monthly rentals when occupied for
business. She spent P24 267.00 in the construction of the stall which she was permitted to and
submitted the same to the Municipal Treasurer. However, she was not reimbursed of her expenses as
after opening for business, she was ordered to pay the rentals for the year 1992. The municipality later
partially paid back P10 000 and she did not paid the rentals for 1993 as the expenses were not fully paid.

While she was in holiday, she received a letter from Mayor Maderazo ordering her to vacate the stall for
failure to pay the rents. The accused then padlocked the stall unabling her to open for business. Later,
while she was away, the mayor opened her stall and inventoried its contents. She considered this as
political harassment considering that her husband was candidate of the opposition. The Sandiganbayan
charged the accused for unjust vexation as they do not have the authority to padlock, open and
inventory the stall and its contents.

Defense of the Accused:

Verutiao was informed through letter that her license will be revoked and her goods will be inventoried
but her failure to attend opted the municipality to padlock her stall. She is delinquent for her failure to
pay her rentals and a ground to revoke her license as provided by the Local Government Code and the
Mayor has the power to padlock and inventory her stall and goods, thus they cannot be charged for
unjust vexation. Also, at the time of padlocking and opening her stall, she was not prevented in doing
something not prohibited by law as she was not doing business that time as she was away, thus she
could not have been intimidated or vexed.

Ruling:

The prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt to prove the guilt of the accused for unjust
vexation. Compulsion or restraint need not to be alleged in the crime, for the crime of unjust vexation
may exist without compulsion or restraint. In unjust vexation, it is not necessary that the offended party
be present when the crime was committed by said appellants. The act of padlocking and inventorying
her stall caused her to be annoyed, irritated and embarrassed her in the eyes of the public when she
learned such acts. Indeed, by their collective acts, appelants evicted Verutiao from her stall and
prevented her from selling therein, hence, losing income from the business.

The mayor may have the right to revoke her lease contact for being delinquent and in violation of
another ordinance. However, it is unlawful for any person to take into his own hands the administration
of justice as he should have at least secured a judicial order for distraint or levy or filed a case of
unlawful detainer against Verutiao to validly revoke her lease contract.

TITLE X- CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY

ARTICLES 299-302- ROBBERY

53. G.R. No. L-28865 February 28, 1972

NICANOR NAPOLIS, petitioner, 
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Contention of the State:

Herein appellant was convicted for the crime of robbery under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code
with other co-accused who admitted the charge and did not file an appeal. The facts are as follows. On
October 1, 1956 at about 1 in the early morning in Hermosa, Bataan, the several accused bore a hole on
the wall to enter the dwelling house and store of the Penaflors. The malefactors, armed with guns
knocked Mr. Penaflor and proceeded to their room where, with intimidation, asked Mrs. Penaflor to
give them the money where she obliged. The robbers then tied the owners and left. The total amount
taken was P2 557.00.

Defense of the Accused:

Alibi of Napolis- that at the time of the commission of the crime, he was in his house in Olongapo,
Zambales because he has his tooth extracted.

Assignment of Errors in disputing CA ruling- that the CA erred when it affirmed RTC conviction despite
that he was not properly identified by the owners because Mrs. Penaflor was allegedly induced by the
police to point him as a malefactor. His extra-judicial confession was also obtained under duress. The
evidence presented were also contradictory. Finally, that the charge against him is not proper.

Ruling:

The three assignment of errors were declared untenable by the Court. On the last assignment of error,
the Court recognized that it is not proper to charge him only for Art 299(Robbery in an Inhabited House
or Edifice devoted to Worship) as the crime was also committed with violence and intimidation against
the owners. Art 294, para 5(Robbery with Violence against or Intimidation of Persons) should also apply
in the case but it was not included by the trial court because the controlling qualification of violence
against or intimidation of persons. Art 299 cannot reduce the penalty for Art 294 and in the Courts’
opinion, Art 294 only applies in case of entering and inhabited house without the conditions set forth in
Art 299.

The Court then complexed the charge imposed applying Art 48 where the penalty for the most serious
crime is imposed in its maximum period. This penalty should, in turn, be imposed in its maximum period
-- from nineteen (19) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal  — owing to the presence of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime.

54. G.R. Nos. L-32202-04 July 25, 1984

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
ONTING BIRUAR, EUGENE RUSLIN, ABRAHAM LIM alias Titing Lim, ANGEL DY alias Baba Isa, CEFERINO
CATURAN alias Fred, EDGARDO SEÑERES alias Broke, ROMUALDO RABOY alias Romy, and SATURNINO
GALLIANO, defendants, ABRAHAM LIM alias Titing Lim, CEFERINO CATURAN alias Fred, ROMUALDO
RABOY alias Romy, and SATURNINO GALLIANO, defendants-appellants.

Contention of the State:

Onting Biruar, Abraham Lim, Angel Dy , Edgardo Señeres , Romualdo Raboy , Eugene Ruslin, and
Saturnino Galliano were charged with Robbery in Band, Arson, and Robbery with Homicide and Physical
Injuries before the Court of First Instance of Davao, in three (3) separate informations docketed therein
as Crim. Case Nos. 9987, 9988, and 9989, respectively.

The facts are as follows. At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of July 2, 1966, Gorgonio Mosende and his
wife, Fausta, were harassed in Sitio Suapit, Barrio Limot, Mati, Davao, by men armed with .45 cal. pistols,
later identified as the accused Romualdo Raboy and Edgardo Señeres. The amount of P170.00 in coins
and paper bills and shotgun of Mosendes valued at P550.00 was taken.
 Not long thereafter, the accused set fire on the house of George Kalitas, neighbor of Mosendes,
destroying the house, the bodega and the truck parked near it. The maid and Kalitas’ daughter were
grazed with bullets. The four armed men, later Identified as the accused Angel Dy, Romualdo Raboy,
Saturnino Galliano, and Abraham Lim forcibly opened a trunk which contained the amount of
P40,000.00, in cash. They also took some old coins which Mrs. Kalitas had kept in a container inside the
trunk and the money of the grandaughter. George Kalitas who was hit while retaliating fire with the
robbers died before they could reach the hospital in Mati. The police were able to apprehend the armed
men including Biruar whose car was used in the commission of the crime.

Defense of the Accused:

All the accused denied the commission of the crimes charged and, except for the accused Abraham Lim,
and interposed the defense of alibi.
Onting Biruar & Bernardino Samson: Abraham Lim came to Biruar’s hotel to borrow his car for the
purpose of bringing his wife to a hospital to deliver. However, Lim failed to return the vehicle so he and
Samson went to search for it until they got arrested.
Abraham Lim: He admitted in going to Kalitas’ house in Biruar’s car but his purpose is to collect alleged
indebtedness of in the amount of P15,000.00 which was advanced by him for the purchase of copra;
that on demand, Kalitas refused to pay; that as he insisted on his demand, Kalitas drew his pistol which
was timely grabbed by him and at the same time he drew his own 22 caliber magnum pistol and pointed
at the back of Kalitas head and dragged him towards the main door; that upon reaching the stairs they
were fired upon by some people whom Lim suspected to be the neighbors of Kalitas; that the old man
was hit in the upper part of his body
Angel Dy: He was only watching the car entrusted to him by Abraham Lim
Romualdo Raboy: He came to take vacation in Davao City;that he did not know the other accused
Saturnino Galliano: He denied his participation of the crime; that he resembled the accused Ceferino
Caturan.
Ceferino Caturan: he was employed as a checker of Lim in his motor launch, he testified on the details
from the picking up of the companions of his employer, Abraham Lim up to the incident at the Kalitas.
Edgardo Seneres: that his purpose in coming to Davao City is only to deliver shrimps for sale in a place
near the public market at Bankerohan; that he knows Onting Biruar for he used to deliver to him.
They also contended that the prosecution failed to produce the stolen property in order to implicate
them in the robbery charged.

Ruling:
The trial court did not err in finding that the accused guilty. The claim of Abraham Lim that he went to
the house of George Kalitas to collect what the latter allegedly owned him is improbable and not worthy
of belief. If it is true that his purpose in going to the deceased Kalitas' house that night was to collect
accounts why did he bring along no less than four armed men with him and made demand at about
midnight in the dwelling of the victim. Kalitas was an old, sickly man who was alone facing a menacing
group of armed men, it would be improbable for Kalitas to pose a threat to them.
The argument of counsel that the amount stolen, or a portion thereof, should have been
presented in evidence in order to make the charge credible, is untenable. Where the property stolen
was not recovered, it would be impossible to present it in evidence. Besides, there is no law nor
jurisprudence which requires the presentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that it had been
taken away. Moreover, the accused were not apprehended immediately after the commission of the
crimes, but a day later, or on July 4, 1966. The accused could have disposed of the money before their
arrest. The failure of the prosecution to present in evidence the money stolen does not give rise to a
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
The contention of the accused that only one offense was committed since the robbery in the
houses of Mosende and Kalitas is one continuing offense, committed at the same time and on one
occasion, and arising out of one criminal resolution is without merit. In the case cited by counsel(P vs De
Leon) the defendant entered the yard of a house where he found two fighting cocks belonging to
different persons and took them. In this case, however, the accused, after committing the crime of
robbery in band in the house of Gorgonio Mosende, went to the neighboring house of George Kalitas
where they committed the crimes of Arson and Robbery with Homicide and Physical Injuries. The rule
enunciated in the cited case cannot be made applicable since the herein accused performed different
acts with distinct purposes which resulted in juridically independent crimes.
Also, the burning of the house of George Kalitas was not the means in committing the robbery.
The evidence shows that the accused gained entry into the house of George Kalitas by breaking down
the door with an axe and not by burning the same.
The trial court found that the commission of the offenses charged was attended by the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, use of motor vehicle, use of unlicensed firearm, and
with the aid of armed men to ensure or afford impunity. The use of unlicensed firearm, however, cannot
be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in Crim. Case Nos. 9988 (Arson) and 9989 (Robbery with
Homicide and Physical Injuries) since the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm is
solely applicable to robbery in band under Art. 295 of the Revised Penal Code.

55. G.R. No. L-8919.  September 28, 1956.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellees,
vs.
AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN alias GUINITA, DIONISIO SARMIENTO, ARCADIO BALMEO, PATRICIO
GONZALES, FLORENTINO FLORES, CRISPIN ESTRELLA, FELIPE CALISON, PEDRO VILLAREAL, CLAUDIO
REYES, “PETER DOE” and “JOHN DOE” Defendant, AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN, Appellant.
Contention of the State:
The crime of robbery with homicide was filed against Mangulabnan and other unidentified persons and
were sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
  At about 11:00 o’clock in the evening of November 5, 1953 several armed men with Agustin
Mangulabnan, as identified by the victim, intrude the house of the spouses Vicente Pacson and Cipriana
Tadeo, the 4 minor and Cipriana’s mother, Monica del Mundo, in their house at barrio Tikiw, San
Antonio, Nueva Ecija. Agustin approached Cipriana and snatched from her neck one necklace valued P50
and her P50 paper bills and P20 silver coins. The two unidentified marauders took from Monica del
Mundo her P200 cash and gold necklace valued at P200. Monica del Mundo was struck twice on the face
with the butt of the gun when she could not produce her diamond ring. One of the unidentified
malefactors climb on the table, fired his gun at the ceiling, where Vicente Pacson was unknowingly at
that moment hiding in there. The latter was hit and subsequently caused his death.

Defense of the Accused:

Appellant objects the admissibility in evidence of the post- mortem report for it being a carbon copy. He
also argued that the death of Pacson was unpremeditated act that surged at the spur of the moment.
That the RPC defines the indivisible crime of robbery with homicide if violence or intimidation against
persons produced the homicide.
Ruling:
The post-mortem was duly signed by the physician and his signature was identified at the witness stand.
Furthermore, he did not offer any objection to its admission when it was presented in evidence at the
hearing. His objection now comes too late.
The crime committed in the case at bar, of which Appellant Agustin Mangulabnan is a co-
participant, is the crime of robbery with homicide covered by Article 294, No. 1, of the Revised Penal
Code and punished with reclusion perpetua to death. To determine the existence of the crime of
robbery with homicide it is enough that a homicide would result by reason of on the occasion of the
robbery. It was held that it is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident provided
that the homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The commission of the offense
was attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, abuse of superior strength and
with the aid of armed men, and in consonance with the provisions of Article 63, No. 1 of the same legal
body, Appellant should be sentenced to the capital punishment, as recommended by the Solicitor
General. However, as the required number of votes for the imposition of the capital penalty has not
been secured in this case, the penalty to be imposed upon Agustin Mangulabnan is the next lower in
degree or reclusion perpetua.

56. G.R. No. L-32794 July 15, 1983

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
JUANITO CALIXTRO y BERNARDO, APOLINARIO MARTINEZ y SEBOLLEÑO, PETRONILO MERCADO y
SANTOS, ALBERTO KATIGBAK y DIMAANO and JUAN MERCADO y LORSANO, defendants-appellants.

Contention of the State:

The several accused were convicted for the crime of robbery in band with homicide. They, with
conspiracy, at about 2:00 pm on February 16, 1970, San Luis, Batangas, alighted from their vehicle, went
inside the Rural Bank of San Luis, declared a hold-up and took about P150.00 from the bank cashier and
escaped from using the same vehicle. What is peculiar in this is that the leader of the band, Pio Cuevas
and also their driver, Alberto Obrador were killed in the commission of the crime. The trial court found
that it is the appellants who shot Cuevas while he was grappling with the security guard, Julian Agojo,
for the possession of the carbine. Cuevas was shouting for help from his companions while grappling for
the carbine but it was he who got shot by his companions. After taking the money, the band escaped but
were later apprehended. Obrador was found dead in the abandoned escape vehicle while Cuevas later
died in the hospital. Cuevas was able to give an ante-mortem statement stating that it was his
companions who shot him.

Defense of the Accused:

It can be seen from the foregoing that all of the appellants claim ignorance of any plan to rob the Rural
Bank of San Luis, deny participation in the robbery and assert that each of them was a mere accidental
by-stander. That they were not the ones who shot the deceased but it was the Agojo, the security
guard. They cannot be charged for robbery in a band with homicide because the deceased is from the
robbers and not a robbery victim or an innocent bystander or stranger.
Ruling:

The Court upheld the ruling of the trial court that they should be convicted for robbery in a band with
homicide aggravated by craft and use of a motor vehicle punishable by death. From the totality of the
evidence there is no doubt that each of the appellants conspired and participated in the perpetration of
the crime charged proved by their unity of purpose and concerted action from commission to escape.
Even though the deceased are from the robbers, it does not matter as Article 294 of the RPC provides
that as long as death would result by reason or on occasion of the robbery, robbery with homicide
exists. It does not distinguish the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the
commission of the crime. Due to the lack of necessary votes to impose death penalty, the penalty is
lowered to reclusion perpetua.

57. G.R. No. L-41008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- appellee, 

vs.
ARTURO PECATO, ET AL., accused. FELIX PECATO AND ERENEO PERUDA, accused-appellants.

Contention of the State:

On November 1, 1971, Pecato and the other accused, armed with a .22 Cal., 2 sharp-pointed
instruments and two shotguns, with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation, took P350
from Felix and Luciana Larong, husband and wife. On the occasion of the robbery, the accused, with
evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, disregard of rank on account of age, in
band, nighttime and treachery, attack and shoot Felix Larong with the use of a firearm. Only three were
arrested with Leyros escaping and before the actual trial, Arturo Pecato died. The case proceeded. The
others were charged with robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.

Defense of the Accused:

Alibi- Felix Pecato claimed that he was at home, suffering from fever and chilling and was weak at the
time of the commission of the crime. Ereneo Peruda claimed to have spent the night with his family for a
small feast for his sister’s birthday. Both of them added that they suffered physical maltreatment from
the police. They claim that they cannot be charged for homicide as it was Arturo Pecato who shot
Larong.

Ruling:

The accused were found guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide because Larong was shot to death
during the robbery. The aggravating circumstance of treachery, in band, abuse of superior strength, and
nighttime was also considered.

So long as homicide resulted during or because of the robbery, even if killing is by mere accident,
robbery with homicide is committed- it is only the result obtained , without reference or distinction as to
the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be
considered. Further, whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion
of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of robbery are also guilty as
principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not took part in the
killing unless it clearly appeared that they clearly endeavored to prevent the homicide. Felix Pecato and
Ereneo Peruda did not show that they did something to stop Arturo in shooting Larong but they merely
stood while Larong was being shot.

58. G.R. No. L-35281 September 10, 1979

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
JESSIE TAPALES y VARGAS and PEDRO CORANEZ y TATUALLA, defendants-appellants.

Contention of the State:

In the night of October 28, 1971, Tapales and Coranez boarded a taxi being occupied by Eugencio
Calaykay and Diana Ang. Inside, the accused pointed a balisong knife at Ang and a gun at Calakay. They
took Calaykay’s watch and his brown wallet with cash of undetermined amount and also took Ang’s
Mexican currency worth P2.00 and her Parker pen amounting P10.00. The accused then shot Calaykay
and stabbed him in the chest causing his death. They afterwards raped Ang, one after the other, while
threatening to kill her. Tapales and Coranez were charged with Robbery with Homicide with the
aggravating circumstance of multiple rape and use of vehicle. The mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilt was appreciated by the trial court. They were sentenced to death by the trial court.

Defense of the Accused:

Eugenio Calakay was killed when he shouted “hold up”. Both denied having raped Diana Ang,
contending that she has consented to have carnal knowledge with them. The trial court also erred in
considering rape as an aggravating circumstance as Art 294 does not specify that rape is an aggravating
circumstance in robbery with homicide. Also the crime of rape, in the case at bar, should be considered
by time and distance, as a separate charge from that of Robbery with Homicide because while robbery
was committed at Jones Bridge, the homicide at Intramuros, while the rape at Quezon City.

Ruling:

Jurisprudence uphold that rape in the occasion of robbery with homicide is an aggravating circumstance.
Art 14 may not directly provide that rape is an aggravating circumstance but it does provide:

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects
of the act.

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commission.

Applying the preceding provisions became the basis in considering rape as aggravating circumstance in
robbery with homicide.
On their contention that rape should be punished separately, while there may be an appreciable interval
of time in the three acts, an intimate connection between them can be stated, without fear of
contradiction, it was by reason or on occasion of the robbery that homicide and rape were committed.
Judgement upheld and both be punished with the extreme penalty of death.

59. G.R. No. 80042 March 28, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
ADOLFO QUIÑONES, RONILO CANABA, AMADO CONDA, JR., ZALDY CIVICO and ALFREDO
ABAN, accused-appellants.

Contention of the State:

The evidence for the prosecution established that the three victims were riding in a dark blue
Mitsubishi car at about seven o'clock in the evening of June 27 or 28, 1986, when they were intercepted
along the Maharlika Highway in Barangay Tuaco, Basud, Camarines Norte where the accused, had
placed sacks on the road to block the way. The three were taken to the nearby woods where they were
killed. According to his brother, Napoleon, Alexander Sy was at that time carrying P300,000.00,
representing the weekly collections of his business, a necklace with pendant worth P20,000.00, a
P10,000.00 diamond ring, and a licensed .22 caliber handgun. All this, together with the other articles
belonging to the victims, were taken by the accused, who also used the car in fleeing to Sapang Palay,
where it was recovered without the stereo and the spare tire. Three days later, the bodies od the victim
were found.

Robbery with multiple homicide, were charged against Quiñones, Aban, Civico, Canaba, Conda, Jr.,
Solarte, Buitre and one John Doe, each of them was sentenced to serve the triple penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay actual and compensatory damages in the amount of P380,000.00 to the heirs of
Alexander Sy, P50,000.00 to the heirs of Augusta Gabo, and P50,000.00 to the heirs of Frisco Marcellana.

Defense of the Accused:

Quiñones and Canaba entered a plea of guilty, both confessed to the crime charged and narrated in
detail their participation in its commission. Quiñones sought to minimize his participation in this crime
by claiming that he stayed in the car when the three victims were forcibly taken to the woods where
they were robbed and slain. Canaba's own statement corroborated Quiñones' confession and provided
more elaboration. The others denied but without corroboration.

Ruling:
Proof of conspiracy in the case at bar was supplied from the time they blocked the road to
waylay their prey to the killing and robbing in the woods, to the distribution of the loot and their escape
in the stolen car, all the accused were acting in concert and in accordance with their common unlawful
purpose. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all and every one of the conspirators is guilty with
the others in equal degree. Hence, every member of the group that perpetrated the killing and robbery
of the three victims must suffer the same penalty prescribed by law even if they had different modes of
participation in the commission of the crime.
However, the Court finds that the accused were incorrectly charged with robbery with multiple
homicide by the trial court. There is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide that was provided in the
RPC. The trial court then erred in convicting the accused to a triple life sentence. It should have been
robbery with homicide only regardless of the fact that three persons were killed in the commission of
the robbery. In this special complex crime, the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not
increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294 of the said Code. The penalty prescribed for the crime of
robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua, to be imposed only once even if multiple killings
accompanied the robbery. Furthermore, the discussion by the trial court of the attendant circumstances
was unnecessary because Article 63 of the Code provides that when the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied without regard to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
may have attended the commission of the crime.

60. G.R. No. L-41265 February 27, 1986

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
FELICIANO PATOLA and EUNILLO SANGAYON, accused whose death sentence is under review.

Contention of the State:

Patola and Sangayon were convicted of robbery with rape on the ff. account:

On September 7, 1973 at around 8:00 pm, Mila Amoguis and Elena Odal, salesgirls, were piling up the
goods at Roman Conado’s store as it was already closing time. Patola and Sangayon and other
unidentified persons are still drinking beer at the said store. Unxpectedly, Sangayon closed the store
door and the accused, armed with a gun, herded Amoguis, Odal, the Conado couple and their son to an
adjoining room. They were hogtied with nylon ropes. Their mouths were stuffed with pieces of cloth
torn from the curtains.

The accused and 2 of their companions then ransacked the store and took away P1 700 in cash,
appliances, a wrist watch and other valuables totaling P4 500. Amoguis and Odal were then taken to
another room where they were abused and raped.

Defense of the Accused:

Alibi- Patola claimed that at the time of the commission of the crime, he was in Barrio Tuganay.
Sangayon’s defense was that he was in Panoto, Davao.

Ruling:

The trial court erred in applying Art 335(Qualified Rape-Crime against Chastity rather than Art
294(Robbery with Rape-Crime against Property), sentencing the accused to death. The accused were
charged with a crime against property, not a crime against chastity. There used to be a controversy as to
whether robbery with qualified rape should be penalized under article 294[2] or under article 335 which
imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua  to death.

That controversy was set at rest in People vs. Cabural and  People vs. Porcare,  where it was held that
robbery with qualified rape should be punished under article 294[2. It should be stressed that in the
case the accused were not charged with qualified rape alone, a crime against chastity, but with robbery
with rape, a crime against property.

Robbery with rape is punishable with reclusion temporal  medium to reclusion perpetua  before article
294[2] was amended by Presidential Decree No. 767 which took effect on August 15, 1975 and which
raised the penalty from reclusion perpetua  to death when the rape is qualified. However, due to lack of
necessary votes, the accused will only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

61. G.R. No. L-54567 March 22, 1990

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
EMETERIO DINOLA, accused-appellant.

Contention of the State:

Appellant was convicted for robbery with rape upon complaint by the victim, Marilyn Caldosa, a 17-yr
old college student. She alleged that on the dawn of 21 October, 1977, she was awoken by a voice
telling her not to make any noise or she will be killed with a bolo pointed towards her. The accused then
perpetrated carnal knowledge against her will and after consummating the bestial act, he lighted a
candle, saw her watch on her wrist and forcibly taken it. The lighting of the candle enabled her to see
the perpetrator whom she identified as “Eme”, a farm laborer living in front of their house. Prosecution
evidence presented a medical certificate conducted by Dr. Sherlito Shiao proving the non-virgin state of
the victim. The trial court sentenced Dinola to suffer reclusion perpetua and indemnify the victim.

Defense of the Accused:

Alibi- as also corroborated by his half-brother, that he does not know the victim and that he does not
live in front of their house as he lives in the farm and that the charge was all fabricated.

He assailed the credibility of testimony by the victim that she was raped because as also shown by the
medical certificate, there was no showing of any external injuries to her body and that she did not made
any resistance as in fact her hands were just on her side nor did not said anything for the assailant to
stop.

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the absence of any external injuries to the victim does not negate the possibility of
rape. It must be noted that the victim stated that there is a bolo pointed towards her if she makes any
noise or resistance which indicates intimidation and threat towards her life. She also said that she
cannot do any resistance because “he is bigger and I am small”. Considering, the size, age(34) and
strength of the accused, coupled by his use of a bolo to threaten the complainant, the Court rules that
the complainant's failure to resist the accused does not detract from the fact that the latter employed
intimidation in order to have sexual intercourse with the latter. The court also gave much credence to
the testimony of the victim on theory that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that
she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that is the truth as it is her instinct to preserve her
honor.

However, the accused cannot be convicted of the crime robbery with rape. The record states that after
consummating the rape, he lighted a candle, saw the victim’s watch and forcibly grabbed it. The taking
then was a mere afterthought or even accidental. If the intention of the accused was to commit robbery
but rape was also committed even before the robbery, the crime of robbery with rape is committed.
However, if the original design was to commit rape but the accused after committing rape also
committed robbery because the opportunity presented itself, the criminal acts should be viewed as two
distinct offenses. The Court hereby modifies the judgment of the court a quo by finding the accused
guilty of two independent crimes of rape and robbery.