People v Gungon

Facts:
It was about 3:30 in the afternoon of 12 January 1994. Agnes Guirindola, a 20-year old De La
Salle University student, was driving a red Nissan Sentra car along Panay Avenue, Quezon City,
on her way to a bookstore, and thereafter, to fetch her mother from work when a man, passing
himself off as a traffic enforcement officer and wearing a PNP reflectorized vest, flagged her
down and motioned her to execute a U-turn towards him. She complied. She came to know that
it was Venancio Roxas who said that she had wrongly traversed a one-way street where, barely
two days ago, a little girl had figured in an accident. Agnes surrendered her drivers license.
Roxas told her to open the door. He came on board the car and directed Agnes to proceed to the
next intersection where Roxas motioned her to turn left. After executing a left turn, she stopped
and handed over to him a fifty pesos (P50.00) bill which he accepted. He then returned her
license. Agnes asked Roxas where she could drop him off, instead, he suddenly pointed a gun at
her and switched off the engine, saying, Miss kailangan ko lang ito,[6] referring to the car.
Roxas unlocked the rear door to let another man in. Roberto Gungon, immediately reclined her
seat and pulled her over to the back seat by her arms while Roxas promptly slid into the drivers
seat.
.poked
Momentarily,
pulled Roxas
over and
alightedhefrom
the
vehicle
while
Gungon
held Agnes
and
a gunheatRoxas
her. When
returned,
with
himseeing
a bottle
oftablets
softdrink
and
skyflakes
which
offered
to Agnes.
Agnes
refused
tohad
drink
after
some
floating
inside
the
bottle.
The
car
stopped
a
second
time
to
load
gas
at
a
gasoline
station.
Once
again,
Gungon
insisted
that
she
take
the
drink.
Fearing
his
menacing
look
and
the
gun
pointed
at
her,
she
took
a sip
from theShe
bottle.
was, still
later,them
alsounder
forcedhertotongue.
swallow two tablets which
Roxas
gave
to Gungon.
took She
the tablets
but had
Agnes noticed
theabout
address
the when
signboard
reading,
Stolying
Tomas
and with
then her
she legs
lost
consciousness.
It was
9:30onp.m.
found
herself
at Batangas
theearrings,
back seat
on the
lap of Gungon.
She
thatmissing
her she
pieces
of
jewelry,
ring,
necklace
and
atold
wristwatch,
as well
asnoticed
cash,
were
andkept
that
herher.
pairbracelets,
of shoes
had
beenhowever,
removed.
She
was
that
the
items
were
just
being
meanwhile
for
The
pair
of
shoes,
were
returned to her. By this time, a third man was already seated in front of the car with Roxas.
Roxas stopped the car at a deserted area. Gungon escorted her to a place not far away from the
car and there she was shot. When she came to, Roxas, Gungon, and the third man, as well as the
car, were nowhere insight. She managed to get up and slowly walked down the road until she
reached a small house. She was bleeding profusely from the neck and face. She looked around
the house but not finding anyone, she went to the sala to lie down. People soon arrived on a
vehicle. She again lost consciousness and regained it only at the Batangas Regional Hospital and
later transferred to a Manila hospital.
NBI agent Feneza met with and talked to Agnes at the V. Luna Medical Center, and showed her
about 3 or 4 pictures from his files. Agnes had thereby positively identified Roberto Gungon.
Gungon could not be arrested sooner. Based on information given to the NBI, he and his live-in
partner had left Manila by car on a Wednesday, passed through Catbalogan Samar, and were
bound for Davao. The agents located the arrested him and detained him at their Regional Office
in Davao. They flew him back to Manila of the first available flight on Monday.
Issues: WON Gungon is guilty of robbery. WON Gungon is guilty of Anti-Carnapping Act.
Held:
Article
293intent
of the
Penal Code
definesproperty
robberybelonging
to be onetocommitted
by
any
person
who,against
with
to Revised
gain, shall
personal
another,
means
[32]xxx.by
of
violence
or intimidation
of take
any any
person,
oror
using
force upon
anything
Robbery
[33] ways: (a)
may
thus
be upon
committed
two
with
violence,
intimidation
of against
persons
and (b)
by the
use
of
force
things.
To
be
then
liable
for
robbery
with
violence
or
intimidation
of
persons, the following elements must concur.
1) that there be personal property belonging to another;
2) that there is unlawful taking of that property;

3) that the taking must be with intent to gain; and

4) that there is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of force upon things.
It
would appear
that the
taking
of the The
victims
cash by
came
only or
byintimidation
way of an
afterthought
on the
of the
appellant.
takingjewelry
notand
attended
violence
upon
the person
of part
Agnes.
The
ofwas
violence
or intimidation
did not
exculpate
appellant
liability
the absence,
crime of however,
theft, punishable
by Article
308, in relation
to
Article
309, of thefrom
Revised
PenalforCode.
Art.
308. Who
are against,
liable forortheft.
Theft is
any upon
personthings,
who, shall
with intent
to gain
but
without
violence
intimidation
ofcommitted
persons norbyforce
take personal
property
of another
without the
latters
consent.
Art. 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. stolen
The penalty
of prision mayor
in its
minimum
ans 22,000
mediumpesos;
periods,
thing
more than
pesos but
not exceed
but if
if the
the value
valuetheof
of the
the
things
stolenisthis
exceed
the 12,000
latter
thedoes
penalty
shall be
thethousand
maximum
period
prescribed
andamount,
one
year
each additional
ten
pesos,
but of
the totalone
of
the penaltyin
which paragraph,
may be imposed
shall
notforexceed
twenty years.
Since the value of the personal property taken from the victim amounted to P38,000.000 the
penalty imposable is the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by Article 309 which is the
maximum of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods plus one year for the additional
ten thousand pesos in excess of P22,000.00.
Lastly,
appellant
contends
that
not have been
of violation
oftheRepublic
Act
No.vehicle.
6539,
otherwise
known
as he
theshould
Anti-Carnapping
Act,convicted
because
the
taking of
subject
motor
Roxas
already
acquired
effective
possession
of the
subject
vehicle.
This
argument
would
have had
been
consequential
had
there
been
no
finding
of
conspiracy
between
appellant
and
Venancio
Roxas.
In
conspiracy,
to
once
again
stress
it,
the
act
of
the
other
co[34]an accused had not taken part in the actual
conspirator
and,
therefore
it
is
of
no
moment
that
commission
of liability
every act
constituting
same degree of
as the
others. the crime, each of the conspirators being held in the
Napolis V CA
Facts:
At about 1:00 o'clock in the early morning of October 1, 1956, Mrs. Casimira Lagman Peaflor ,
47-year old wife of Ignacio Peaflor , the owner of a store located at the new highway, Hermosa,
Bataan, after answering a minor call of nature, heard the barkings of the dog nearby indicating
the presence of strangers around the vicinity. She woke up husband Ignacio Peaflor who, after
getting his flashlight and .38 caliber revolver, went down the store to take a look. The door was
pushed and opened by 4 men, one of them holding and pointing a machinegun. Upon receiving
from someone a stunning blow on the head, Ignacio fell down but he pretended to be dead. He
was hogtied by the men.
The men then went up the house. One of the robbers asked the wife for money saying that they
are people from the mountain. She immediately took from under the mat the bag containing
P2,000.00 in cash and two rings worth P350.00 and delivered them to the robber. Then they tied
the hands of Mrs. Casimira L. Peaflor and those of her two sons. After telling them to lie down,
the robbers covered them with blankets and left. The revolver of Ignacio, valued at P150.00, was
taken by the robbers. The spouses thereafter called for help and Councilor Almario, a neighbor,
came and untied Ignacio Peaflor .
Chief of Police Delfin Lapid testified that he went to the premises upon receiving the report of
Councilor Almario. It appears that the robbers bore a hole on the sidewall of the ground floor of
the store and passed through it to gain entrance.
Issue: WON the characterization of the crime committed and the proper penalty therefor is
correct.
Held:
It should be noted that the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting
Napolis, Malana and Satimbre of the crime of robbery committed by armed persons, in an

inhabited house, entry therein having been made by breaking a wall, as provided in Article 299
(a) of the Revised Penal Code, and, accordingly, sentencing Napolis and Satimbre to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, which is in accordance with said legal provision.
In addition,
however,
performingagainst
said acts,
had, also,Article
used violence
Ignacio
Peaflor
, andtointimidation
his the
wife,malefactors
thereby
infringing
294
of theagainst
same
Code,
under
conditions
falling in
under
sub-paragraph
(5)
said mayor
article, inwhich
prescribes
the
penalty
oflighter
prision
correccional
itsinmaximum
period
to of
prision
itscrime
medium
period,
which
is
than
that
prescribed
said
Article
299,
although,
factually,
the
committed
is more serious than that covered by the latter provision. This Court had previously ruled .
... that where robbery, though committed in an inhabited house, is characterized by intimidation,
this factor "supplies the controlling qualification," so that the law to apply is article 294 and not
article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. This is on the theory that "robbery which is characterized
by violence or intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery
committed by force upon things, because where violence or intimidation against the person is
present there is greater disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual."
The
argumentqualification,"
to the effect is
thatfarthefrom
violence
against
or
intimidation
of a We
person
supplies
the
"controlling
sufficient
to intimidation
justify
said result.
agree
with the
proposition
thatthanrobbery
with
"violence
orby
against
the
person
is
evidently
graver
ordinary
robbery
committed
force upon in
things,"
but,precisely,
for this
reason,
We
cannot
accept
the
conclusion
deduced
therefrom
the
cases
above
cited

reduction
of which
the penalty
for
the serious
latter offense
owing
tomind,
the more
concurrence
ofto violence
or
intimidation
made
it
a
more
one.
It
is,
to
our
plausible
believe
that
Art.
294
applies only an
where
robbery
with under
violence
or intimidation
place
without
inhabited
house,
the against
conditions
set forth in of
Art.person
299 oftakes
the
Revised
Penalentering
Code.
We
deem it more
logical
and
to hold,
as for
We the
do,imposition
when the elements
of both
are
the
crime
is for
areasonable
complex
one,
calling
-- as provided
inprovisions
Art.in48the
of
saidpresent,
Code
--that
of
the
penalty
the in
most
serious
offense,
in itsThis
maximum
period,
which,
case
at bar,
ismaximum
reclusion
temporal
itsnineteen
maximum
period.
penalty
should,
in (11)
turn,days
be
imposed
in
its
period
-from
(19)
years,
one
(1)
month
and
eleven
to
twenty
(20)
years
of
reclusion
temporal

owing
to
the
presence
of
the
aggravating
circumstances
of nighttime.
herein
be sentenced
to an indeterminate
penalty
ranging
from
ten
(10)
years,ofAppellant
and
one (1)
day should
of prision
mayor to nineteen
(19) years, one
(1)
month and
eleven
(11) days
reclusion
temporal.
US v Manluco
Facts:
On
16th the
dayaccused
of October,
1913,
the municipality
of Hermosa,
Province
ofthree
Batan,
Philippine
Islands,
[Ramon
M.in
Velez
and Andres
Manluco],
together
with
other
persons
unknown,
voluntarily,
illegally,
and
criminally,
with
intent
to
gain,
and
employing
force
and
intimidation,
took,
stole,
carried
away,
and appropriated
toproperty
their
own
use
one piece
ofwhich
narra
timber
about
4
meters
long
and
60
centimeters
thick,
the
of
Teodoro
David,
timber
was
in
the
custody
and
under
the
control
of
Sabas
Fonseca,
an
employee
of
said
Teodoro
David, the value of said stick of timber being P70."
Held:
We
find,his
however,
from all the
evidence
inthat,
the at
case,
the
accused
has
proved
sufficient
to
deprive
actheofwas
criminality.
Hethereof
has shown
the that
time
of taking
timber,
he in
good
faith
believed
that
the owner
andwho
that takes
he took
it openly
and the
avowedly
under
the claim.
It
is
law
as
well
as
common
sense
that
one
property
openly
and
avowedly
under
claim
of
titleofpreferred
faith is
notthough
guilty of
of larcenyiseven
though the claim is not
guilty
robbery in
or good
of larceny
even
therobbery
claim oforownership
untenable.
As
thethe
record
shows, itwitness.
would appear
that necessary
the accused
a betterasright
the timber
than
prosecuting
is not
inhas
thisestablished
case,
however,
we to
have
before
intimated,
to of
determine
thatandItthe
was actually
theto owner
The
demonstration
good
theaccused
other
elements
necessary
depriveofhisthe
act property.
of criminality
afford
us sufficient
basisfaith
for the
reversal
of the
judgment.
The judgment of conviction is reversed and the accused acquitted.
US v Albao
Facts:
That on
about
the 25th
ofvalue
June,of1913,
Lizarraga was in the possession of 202
"latas
de or
opio,"
which
were day
of the
aboutVicente
P14,000.
That
on Singson
the day in
question, after
repeated efforts
said opium,
Vicente
Lizarraga
Ciriaco
others,
housetoofsell
onethe
Francisco
Jurado,
for the
purposemet
of
consummating
thetogether
sale of with
the 202
"latasindethe
opio."
That on the night in question (25th of June, 1913), while Vicente Lizarraga and Ciriaco Singson,
in the house of Francisco Jurado, were negotiating for the sale of said opium, the defendant
Alejandro Albao, together with others unknown, appeared at the house of Francisco Jurado and

demanded that the opium be turned over to him, by means of threats and violence, using a
revolver and pointing the same at Vicente Lizarraga.
That by reason of said threats, intimidation and demands, by using his revolver, the defendant,
Alejandro Albao, took possession of said 202 "latas de opio," against the will and consent of
Vicente Lizarraga.
That
after thetosaid
opium
had been
in thetomanner
indicatedassociates
to Alejandro
Albao,
he
promised
return
the same
upondelivered
the payment
him andabove
his unknown
of the
sum
of P6,000.
That
the
defendant,
Alejandro
hadthat
been
and
a policeman
in theascity
of Cebu at
time;
that
he forcible
makes no
pretenseAlbao,
or
claim
he question.
was was
acting
in his capacity
a policeman
at the
the
time he
took
possession
of the
opium in
That the opium in question was never returned to Vicente Lizarraga, nor to any public authority.
That the defendant, Alejandro Albao, took possession of the said 202 "latas de opio" by the use
of violence and intimidation against the person of Vicente Lizarraga, with the intent, then and
there, to appropriate the same to his own use.
Albao contends that Vicente Lizarraga was the unlawful possessor of 202 tins of opium, which
then had a value of about P14,000. Testifying as a witness, he stated that he found them by
accident on the shore of Mabolo, a suburb of the municipality of Cebu, which statement, it is
needless to say, is a falsehood.
Issue: WON ownership is essential in the crime of robbery.
Held:
During the trial of the cause there was an effort made to show that Vicente Lizarraga was not the
owner of the opium and that said opium was contraband goods, and that, therefore the crime of
robbery could not have been committed with reference to said property. In the commission of the
crime of robbery, it is not necessary that the person from whom the property is taken, by means
of threats and violence, shall be the owner. It is sufficient if the property is taken from him by
means of threats and violence, for the purpose of gain, on the part of the person appropriating it.
(Art. 502, Penal Code.) The possession of the property is sufficient. Ownership is not necessary.
After a careful examination of the record, we are fully persuaded that the defendant is guilty of
the crime charged in the complaint, beyond a reasonable doubt.