You are on page 1of 21

Case

 
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
Articles  293-­‐332:  Crimes  against  Property  
Relate  to:   PD  532  The  Anti-­‐Highway  Robbery  Law  of  1974  
                PD  533  The  Anti-­‐Cattle  Rustling  Law  
              RA  6539  The  Anti-­‐Carnapping  Law  
    PD  1613  The  Anti-­‐Arson  Law  
BP  22  The  Anti-­‐Bouncing  Check  Law  plus  Administrative  Circular  No.  12-­‐
2000  &  Administrative  Circular  13-­‐2001  
 
 
PEOPLE  vs.  BALUTE  
G.R.  No.  212932          
January  21,  2015  
 
Facts:  

On   November   22,   2002,   an   Information   was   filed   before   the   RTC   charging   Balute   of   the  
crime  of  Robbery  with  Homicide,  defined  and  penalized  under  Article  294  (1)4  of  the  Revised  Penal  
Code  (RPC),  as  amended,  the  accusatory  portion  of  which  reads:  

"That  on  or  about  March  22,  2002,  in  the  City  of  Manila,  Philippines,  the  said  accused  
conspiring   and   confederating   together   with   one   whose   true   name,   real   identity   and   present  
whereabouts  are  still  unknown  and  mutually  helping  each  other,  with  intent  to  gain  and  by  
means   of   force,   violence   and   intimidation,   to   wit:   by   then   and   there   poking   a   gun   at   one  
SPO1   RAYMUNDO   B.   MANAOIS,   forcibly   grabbing   and   snatching   his   Nokia   3210   cellular  
phone,  did  then  and  there  wilfully,  unlawfully  and  feloniously  take,  rob  and  carry  away  the  
same   valued   at   P6,000.00   against   his   will,   to   the   damage   and   prejudice   of   the   said   SPO1  
RAYMUNDO   B.   MANAOIS   in   the   aforesaid   amount   of   P6,000.00   Philippine   Currency;  
thereafter   shooting   said   SPO1   RAYMUNDO   B.   MANAOIS   with   an   unknown   caliber   firearm,  
hitting  him  at  the  back,  and  as  a  result  thereof,  he  sustained  mortal  gunshot  wound  which  
was  the  direct  and  immediate  cause  of  his  death  thereafter.  

Version  of  the  Prosecution  

According   to   the   prosecution,   at   around   8   o’clock   in   the   evening   of   March   22,   2002,   SPO1  
Raymundo  B.  Manaois  (SPO1  Manaois)  was  on  board  his  owner-­‐type  jeepney  with  his  wife  Cristita  
and   daughter   Blesilda,   and   was   traversing   Road   10,   Tondo,   Manila.   While   the   vehicle   was   on   a   stop  
position  at  a  lighted  area  due  to  heavy  traffic,  two  malepersons,  later  on  identified  as  Balute  and  a  
certain  Leo  Blaster  (Blaster),  suddenly  appeared  on  either  side  of  the  jeepney,  withBalute  poking  a  
gun   at   the   side   of   SPO1   Manaois   and   saying   "putang   ina,   ilabas   mo!"   Thereafter,   Balute   grabbed  
SPO1   Manaois’s   mobile   phone   from   the   latter’s   chest   pocket   and   shot   him   at   the   left   side   of   his  
torso.   SPO1   Manaois   reacted   by   drawing   his   own   firearm   and   alighting   from   his   vehicle,   but   he   was  
unable   to   fire   at   the   assailants   as   he   fell   to   the   ground.   He   was   taken   to   Mary   Johnston   Hospital  
where  he  died  despite  undergoing  surgical  operation  and  medical  intervention.  

 
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
1  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
Version  of  the  Defense  

In  his  defense,  Balute  denied  having  any  knowledge  of  the  charges  against  him.1âwphi1  He  
maintained,  inter  alia,  that  on  March  22,  2002,  he  was  at  the  shop  of  a  certain  Leticia  Nicol  (Nicol)  
wherein   he   worked   as   a   pedicab   welder   from   8:00   o’clock   in   the   morning   until   10:00   o’clock   in   the  
evening,  and  did  not  notice  any  untoward  incident  that  day  as  he  was  busy  working  the  entire  time.  
Nicol  corroborated  Balute’s  story,  and  imputed  liability  on  Blaster  and  a  certain  Intoy.7  

RTC  Ruling:  Guilty  Beyond  Reasonable  Doubt  of  robbery  with  Homicide  

It   found   that   the   prosecution   was   ableto   establish   the   existence   of   all   the   elements   of  
Robbery   with   Homicide,   as   it   proved   that   Balute   poked   his   gun   at   SPO1   Manaois’s   side,   took   his  
mobile  phone,  and  shot  him,  resulting  in  the  latter’s  death.  In  this  relation,  the  RTC  gave  credence  to  
Cristita  and  Blesilda’s  positive  identification  of  Balute  as  the  assailant,  as  compared  to  the  latter’s  
mere  denial  and  alibi.10  

CA  Ruling:  Affirmed  with  modification  

It  ruled  that:  

a)  The  aggravating  circumstance  of  treachery  was  no  longer  considered  as  the  prosecution  
failed  to  allege  the  same  in  the  Information;  

b)  The  civil  indemnity  was  increased  to  P75,000.00  in  view  of  existing  jurisprudence;    

c)  The  P6,000.00  compensatory  damages,  representing  the  value  of  the  mobile  phone,  was  
deleted   in   the   absence   of   competent   proofof   its   value,   and   in   lieu   thereof,   actual   damages   in  
the   aggregate   amount   of   P140,413.53   representing   SPO1   Manaois’s   hospital   and   funeral  
expenseswas  awarded  to  his  heirs;  and  

d)  All  the  monetary  awards  for  damages  are  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  percent  (6%)  p.a.  
from  the  date  of  finality  of  the  CA  Decision  until  fully  paid.  

ISSUE:  

The   lone   issue   for   the   Court’s   resolution   is   whether   or   not   the   CA   correctly   upheld   Balute’s  
conviction  for  Robbery  with  Homicide.    (YES)  

HELD:    

The  appeal  is  bereft  of  merit.  

 
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
2  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
In   People   v.   Ibañez,   the   Court   exhaustively   explained   that   "[a]   special   complex   crime   of  
robbery   with   homicide   takes   place   when   a   homicide   is   committed   either   by   reason,   or   on   the  
occasion,  of  the  robbery.    

To   sustain   a   conviction   for   robbery   with   homicide,   the   prosecution   must   prove   the  
following  elements:    

1)  The  taking  of  personal  property  belonging  to  another;  

2)  With  intent  to  gain;  

3)  With  the  use  of  violence  or  intimidation  against  a  person;  and  

4)  On  the  occasion  or  by  reason  of  the  robbery,  the  crime  of  homicide,  as  used  in  its  generic  
sense,  was  committed.    

A  conviction  requires  certitude  that  the  robbery  is  the  main  purpose,  and  [the]  objective  of  
the  malefactor  and  the  killing  is  merely  incidental  to  the  robbery.    

NOTE:   The   intent   to   rob   must   precede   the   taking   of   human   life   but   the   killing   may   occur  
before,  during  or  after  the  robbery.    

Homicide   is   said   to   have   been   committed   by   reason   or   on   occasion   of   robbery   if,   for  
instance,   it   was   committed:   (a)   to   facilitate   the   robbery   or   the   escape   of   the   culprit;   (b)   to   preserve  
the   possession   by   the   culprit   of   the   loot;   (c)   to   prevent   discovery   of   the   commission   of   the   robbery;  
or  (d)  to  eliminate  witnesses  in  the  commission  of  the  crime.  

In  the  instant  case,  the  CA  correctly  upheld  the  RTC’s  finding  that  the  prosecution  was  able  
to   establish   the   fact   that   Balute   poked   his   gun   at   SPO1   Manaois,   took   the   latter’s   mobile   phone,   and  
thereafter,   shot   him,   resulting   in   his   death   despite   surgical   and   medical   intervention.   This   is  
buttressed  by  Cristita  and  Blesilda’s  positive  identification  of  Balute  as  the  one  who  committed  the  
crime   as   opposed   to   the   latter’s   denial   and   alibi   which   was   correctly   considered   by   both   the   RTC  
and   the   CA   as   weak   and   self-­‐serving,   as   it   is   well-­‐settled   that   "alibi   and   denial   are   outweighed   by  
positive  identification  that  is  categorical,  consistent  and  untainted  by  any  ill  motive  on  the  part  of  
the  [eyewitnesses]  testifying  on  the  matter.  

WHEREFORE,  the  instant  appeal  is  DENIED.    SO  ORDERED.  


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
3  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
PEOPLE  vs.  OROSCO  
G.R.  No.  209227          
March  25,  2015  
 
FACTS:  
   
Version  of  the  Prosecution  
   
This   version   is   based   on   the   eyewitness   account   of   Albert   Arca   (Arca),   the   postmortem  
findings  of  Sr.  Pol.  Chief  Insp.  Dr.  James  Margallo  Belgira  who  conducted  the  autopsy  on  the  cadaver  
of  the  victim,  and  the  victim’s  grandson,  Ryan  Francis  Yap.  
   
Arca   testified   that   on   May   16,   2006,   about   one   o’clock   in   the   afternoon,   he   went   to   the   store  
of  Lourdes  Yap  (Yap)  at  Purok  4,  Barangay  Rawis,  Legazpi  City.  He  was  buying  ice  but  it  was  not  yet  
hardened  (frozen)  so  he  went  home.  At  around  two  o’clock,  he  was  again  sent  on  errand  to  buy  ice  
at  the  same  store.  After  purchasing  the  ice,  he  noticed  there  was  a  verbal  tussle  between  Yap  and  
two  male  customers.  The  men  were  arguing  that  they  were  given  insufficient  change  and  insisting  
they   gave   a   P500   bill   and   not   P100.   When   Yap   opened   the   door,   the   two   men   entered   the   store.  
From  outside  the  store  and  thru  its  open  window  grills,  he  saw  one  of  the  men  placed  his  left  arm  
around  the  neck  of  Yap  and  covered  her  mouth  with  his  right  hand  while  the  other  man  was  at  her  
back   restraining   her   hands.   He   recognized   the   man   who   was   holding   the   hands   of   Yap   as   Charlie  
Orosco  (appellant),  while  he  described  the  man  who  covered  her  mouth  as  thin,  with  less  hair  and  
dark   complexion.   The   latter   stabbed   Yap   at   the   center   of   her   chest.   When   they   released   her,   she   fell  
down   on   the   floor.   Appellant   then   took   a   thick   wad   of   bills   from   the   base   of   the   religious   icon   or  
“santo”   at   the   altar   infront   of   the   store’s   window,   after   which   he   and   the   man   who   stabbed   Yap   fled  
together  with  two  other  men  outside  who  acted  as  lookouts.  Arca  went  near  the  bloodied  victim  but  
also  left  and  went  home  afraid  because  he  was  seen  by  one  of  the  lookouts.  
   
Yap  was  brought  to  the  Aquinas  University  Hospital  but  she  was  declared  dead  on  arrival.  
Later,  at  the  NBI  Legazpi  City  District  office,  Arca  gave  descriptions  of  the  faces  of  appellant  and  the  
dark   thin   man   who   stabbed   Yap   (“John   Doe”).   From   a   surveillance   digital   photo   and   video   clip  
shown  to  him,  Arca  positively  identified  Abner  Astor  (Astor)  as  one  of  the  two  men  sitting  beside  
the  store  as  lookouts.  Consequently,  warrants  of  arrest  were  issued  against  appellant  and  Astor.  But  
only  appellant  was  arrested  as  Astor,  John  Doe  and  Peter  Doe  remained  at  large.  
   
Dr.  Belgira  explained  that  it  was  possible  that  the  lone  stab  wound  caused  by  a  sharp  object,  
such   as   a   knife,   was   inflicted   while   the   victim   was   standing,   and   found   no   other   injuries   such   as  
defense  wound.  
   
Version  of  the  Defense  
   
Appellant  Orosco  testified  that  on  the  date  and  time  of  the  incident,  he  was  at  his  house  in  
Bigaa   taking   care   of   his   three-­‐year-­‐old   child   while   his   wife   was   washing   clothes.   He   stayed   in   the  
house   until   his   wife   finished   the   laundry   at   past   3:00   p.m.   He   denied   knowing   Yap   and   his   co-­‐
accused   Astor.   While   he   admitted   that   he   was   a   resident   of   Purok   4,   Bgy.   Rawis,   his   family  
transferred   to   their   other   house   at   Bigaa.   He   denied   knowing   Arca   and   he   does   not   know   of   any  
motive   for   Arca   to   testify   against   him.   He   worked   in   a   copra   company   in   Lidong   but   stopped  
reporting  for  work  after  May  16,  2006  as  he  was  selling  fish.  He  was  arrested  by  the  police  at  the  
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
4  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
rotunda   in   Legazpi   when   he   was   buying   medicine   for   his   sick   child.   Appellant’s   wife,   Teresa  
Magdaong-­‐Orosco   also   testified   to   confirm   that   at   the   time   of   the   incident   he   was   at   their   house  
while  she  was  doing  the  laundry  just  adjacent  to  their  house.  
   
Crime  charged:  Robbery  with  Homicide  penalized  under  Article  294  of  RPC  
   
RTC:  It   found   accused   Charlie   Orosco   GUILTY   of   the   crime   of   Robbery   with   Homicide.   He   is   hereby  
sentenced  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  reclusion  perpetua.  
   
CA:  Affirmed  RTC’s  decision.  
   
In  this  petition,  Orosco  reiterates  the   arguments   he   raised   before   the   CA   that   the   trial   court  
erred  in  giving  credit  to  the  uncorroborated  eyewitness  testimony  of  Arca  who  could  not  point  to  
him   during   the   trial,   and   that   even   granting   that   criminal   charges   may   be   imputed   against   him,   it  
should  only  be  robbery  and  not  the  complex  crime  of  robbery  with  homicide  considering  the  fact  
that  it  was  not  him  who  stabbed  Yap.  
   
ISSUE:  
   
                               Whether  or  not  the  crime  committed  should  be  robbery  only  and  not  the  complex  crime  of  
robbery  with  homicide.  (NO,  the  crime  should  be  Robbery  with  Homicide)  
   
HELD:  
   
The  appeal  lacks  merit.  
   
It   is   settled   that   witnesses   are   to   be   weighed   not   numbered,   such   that   the   testimony   of   a  
single,   trustworthy   and   credible   witness   could   be   sufficient   to   convict   an   accused.   The   testimony   of  
a  sole  witness,  if  found  convincing  and  credible  by  the  trial  court,  is  sufficient  to  support  a  finding  of  
guilt  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  Corroborative  evidence  is  necessary  only  when  there  are  reasons  to  
warrant   the   suspicion   that   the   witness   falsified   the   truth   or   that   his   observation   had   been  
inaccurate.   In   this   case,   both   the   trial   and   appellate   courts   found   the   testimony   of   the   lone  
eyewitness,   Arca,   convincing   notwithstanding   that   he   was   quite   slow   in   narrating   the   incident   to  
the  court  and  that  he  initially  desisted  from  physically  pointing  to  Orosco  as  the  one  who  held  Yap’s  
hands   from   behind   and   took   her   money   at   the   store   after   she   was   stabbed   by   appellant’s   cohort  
(John   Doe).   At   a   hearing,   Arca   was   recalled   to   the   witness   stand   and   this   time   he   was   able   to  
pinpoint   Orosco   as   among   those   persons   who   robbed   and   killed   Yap.   Assessing   the   identification  
made   by   Arca,   the   trial   court   concluded   that   he   had   positively   identified   appellant   as   one   of   the  
perpetrators  of  the  robbery  and  killing  of  Yap.  
   
The   well-­‐settled   rule   in   this   jurisdiction   is   that   the   trial   court’s   findings   on   the   credibility   of  
witnesses  are  entitled  to  the  highest  degree  of  respect  and  will  not  be  disturbed  on  appeal  without  
any  clear  showing  that  it  overlooked,  misunderstood  or  misapplied  some  facts  or  circumstances  of  
weight  or  substance  which  could  affect  the  result  of  the  case.  Appellant  Orosco  repeatedly  harped  
on   the   hesitation   of   Arca   to   point   to   him   at   the   trial.   However,   as   the   trial   court’s   firsthand  
observation  of  said  witness’  deportment  revealed,  Arca’s  fear  of  appellant  sufficiently  explains  his  
initial  refusal  to  point  to  him  in  open  court  during  his  direct  examination.  Arca  was  finally  able  to  

 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
5  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
point   to   appellant   as   one   of   the   perpetrators   of   the   robbery   and   killing   of   Yap   during   his   additional  
direct  examination  when  he  had  apparently  mustered  enough  courage  to  do  so.  
   
Robbery   with   homicide   is   defined   under   Article   294   of   the   Revised   Penal   Code,   as  
amended,  which  provides  in  part:  
   
Art.  294.  Robbery  with  violence  against  or  intimidation  of  persons  –  Penalties.  –  Any  person  
guilty  of  robbery  with  the  use  of  violence  against  or  intimidation  of  any  person  shall  suffer:  
   
1.              The  penalty  of  reclusion  perpetua  to  death,  when  by  reason  or  on  occasion  of  the  
robbery,   the   crime   of   homicide   shall   have   been   committed,   or   when   the   robbery   shall  
have  been  accompanied  by  rape  or  intentional  mutilation  or  arson.  
   
The  elements  of  the  crime  of  robbery  with  homicide  are:  
(1)        the   taking   of   personal   property   is   committed   with   violence   or   intimidation  
against  persons;  
(2)        the  property  taken  belongs  to  another;  
(3)        the  taking  is  done  with  animo  lucrandi;  and  
(4)        by   reason   of   the   robbery   or   on   the   occasion   thereof,   homicide   (used   in   its  
generic  sense)  is  committed.  
   
Homicide  is  said  to  have  been  committed  by  reason  or  on  the  occasion  of  robbery  if  it  
is  committed:  
(a)  to  facilitate  the  robbery  or  the  escape  of  the  culprit;  
(b)  to  preserve  the  possession  by  the  culprit  of  the  loot;  
(c)  to  prevent  discovery  of  the  commission  of  the  robbery;  or  
(d)  to  eliminate  witnesses  to  the  commission  of  the  crime.  
   
In  robbery   with   homicide,  the   original   criminal   design   of   the   malefactor   is   to   commit  
robbery,   with   homicide   perpetrated   on   the   occasion   or   by   reason   of   the   robbery.   The   intent   to  
commit  robbery  must  precede  the  taking  of  human  life.  The  homicide  may  take  place  before,  during  
or  after  the  robbery.  
   
Here,   the   homicide   was   committed   by   reason   of   or   on   the   occasion   of   the   robbery   as  
appellant   and   John   Doe   had   to   kill   Yap   to   accomplish   their   main   objective   of   stealing   her   money.  
The   earlier   verbal   tussle   where   the   two   pretended   to   have   paid   a   greater   amount   and   asked   for   the  
correct  change  was  just  a  ploy  to  get  inside  the  store  where  the  victim  kept  her  earnings.  To  verify  
whether  the  cash  payment  was  indeed  a  P500  or  P100  bill,  the  victim  let  them  enter  the  store  but  
once   inside   they   got   hold   of   her   and   stabbed   her.   Appellant,   however,   argues   that   if   he   had  
committed   any   offense,   it   was   only   robbery   since   Arca   testified   that   it   was   John   Doe,   whom   he  
described  as  a  thin  man,  who  stabbed  the  victim.  
   
Supreme  Court  disagrees.  
   
The  evidence  presented  by  the  prosecution  clearly  showed  that  Orosco  acted  in  conspiracy  
with   his   co-­‐accused.   Orosco   and   John   Doe   first   engaged   the   unsuspecting   victim   in   a   verbal  
altercation   until   she   allowed   them   to   enter   the   store.   Upon   getting   inside,   they   held   the   victim   with  
John  Doe  wrapping  his  arm  around  her  neck  while  appellant  held  her  hands  at  the  back.  With  the  
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
6  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
victim  pressed  between  the  two  of  them,  John  Doe  stabbed  her  once  in  her  chest  before  releasing  
her.   Once   she   fell   down,   Orosco   quickly   took   the   money   placed   at   the   altar   inside   the   store   and   fled  
together   with   John   Doe   and   the   two   lookouts   outside   the   store.   All   the   foregoing   indicate   the  
presence   of   conspiracy   between   appellant   and   his   co-­‐accused   in   the   perpetration   of   robbery   and  
killing   of   the   victim.   It   must   be   stressed   that   Orosco   played   a   crucial   role   in   the   killing   of   the   victim  
to  facilitate  the  robbery.  He  was  behind  the  victim  holding  her  hands  while  John  Doe  grabbed  her  at  
the  neck.  His  act  contributed  in  rendering  the  victim  without  any  means  of  defending  herself  when  
John   Doe   stabbed   her   frontally   in   the   chest.   Having   acted   in   conspiracy   with   his   co-­‐accused,   Orsoco  
is  equally  liable  for  the  killing  of  Yap.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
7  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
PEOPLE  vs.  CABBAB  
G.R.  No.  173479      
July  12,  2007  
 
FACTS:  
 
Version  of  the  Prosecution  
Father   and   son   Vidal   Agbulos   and   Winner   Agbulos,   together   with   Eddie   Quindasan,   Felipe  
Abad   and   PO   William   Belmes,   went   to   Barangay   Kimmalasag,   San   Isidro,   Abra   to   attend   a   "fiesta"  
celebration.   Upon   arrival   in   the   area,   they   found   out   that   the   fiesta   celebration   was   already   over,  
thus,  they  decided  to  go  home.  After  taking  their  lunch  and  on  their  way  home,  they  were  met  by  
accused-­‐appellant   Juan   Cabbab,   Jr.   and   Segundino   Calpito   who   invited   them   to   play   "pepito,"   a   local  
version  of  the  game  of  "russian  poker."  
Only   Winner   Agbulos   and   Eddie   Quindasan   played   "pepito"   with   the   group   of   accused-­‐
appellant.   Winner   Agbulos   played   the   dealer/banker   in   the   game   while   accused-­‐appellant   and  
Segundino   Calpito   acted   as   players   therein.   Around   3:00   o'clock   p.m.,   PO   William   Belmes   told  
Winner  Agbulos  and  Eddie  Quindasan  that  they  should  be  going  home  after  three  (3)  more  deals.  
About   3:30   p.m.,   Winner   Agbulos's   group   wrapped-­‐up   the   game   and   were   set   for   home   together  
with  his  group.  Winner  Agbulos  won  the  game.  
While   walking   on   their   way   home   from   Sitio   Turod,   PO   William   Belmes,   who   was   behind  
Winner  Agbulos  and  Eddie  Quindasan  picking-­‐up  guava  fruits  from  a  tree,  saw  accused-­‐appellant,  
accused   Segundino   Calpito   and   a   companion   running   up   a   hill.   Suddenly,   he   heard   gunshots   and  
saw  Winner  Agbulos  and  Eddie  Quindasan,  who  were  then  walking  ahead  of  the  group,  hit  by  the  
gunfire.  
By  instant,  PO  William  Belmes  dove  into  a  canal  to  save  himself  from  the  continuous  gunfire  
of   accused-­‐appellant.   PO   William   Belmes   ran   towards   Vidal   Agbulos   and   Felipe   Abad,   who   were  
walking  behind  the  group,  and  informed  the  two  that  Winner  Agbulos  and  Eddie  Quindasan  were  
ambushed  by  accused-­‐appellant  and  Segundino  Calpito.  The  three  (3)  proceeded  to  the  crime  scene  
where   they   saw   the   dead   body   of   Winner   Agbulos   together   with   Eddie   Quindasan   whom   they  
mistook  for  dead.  The  three  sought  help  from  the  police  authorities  of  Pilar,  Abra  and  returned  to  
the  scene  of  the  crime  where  they  found  Eddie  Quindasan  who  was  still  alive  and  who  narrated  that  
it  was  Juan  Cabbab,  Jr.  and  Segundino  Calpito  who  ambused  them  and  took  the  money,  estimated  at  
P12,000.00,   of   Winner   Agbulos   which   he   won   in   the   card   game.   Eddie   Quindasan   was   brought   to  
the  Abra  Provincial  Hospital  but  died  the  following  day.  
 
Version  of  the  Defense  
For  the  defense,  appellant  himself  took  the  witness  stand  claiming  that  on  the  day  the  crime  
was  committed,  he  went  to  Palao,  Baddek,  Bangued,  Abra  to  visit  his  friends  Romeo,  Demetrio  and  
Restituto,  all  surnamed  Borreta.  He  stayed  there  almost  the  entire  day  and  left  only  at  around  5:00  
p.m.  He  arrived  home  in  Kimmalasag,  San  Isidro,  Abra  at  around  5:30  p.m.  He  declared  that  his  co-­‐
accused  Calpito  was  not  with  him  that  day.  He  likewise  averred  that  he  did  not  know  prosecution  
witnesses  PO  William  Belmes  and  Vidal  Agbulos  nor  did  he  know  of  any  motive  for  them  to  testify  
against  him.  

 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
8  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
Appellant's   co-­‐accused   Calpito   denied   having   committed   the   crimes   charged.   He   testified  
that  on  the  day  the  crime  was  committed,  he  went  fishing  at  Kimmalasag,  San  Isidro,  Abra  until  4:00  
a.m.  of  the  following  day.  
George  de  Lara,  Forensic  Chemist  of  the  NBI,  testified  that  he  conducted  an  examination  on  
the  paraffin  cast  taken  from  appellant  to  determine  the  presence  of  gunpowder  residue  or  nitrates  
on   appellant's   hands.   The   results   of   the   said   examination   showed   that   appellant   was   negative   of  
nitrates.  
 
Crime  Charged:  Double  Murder  and  Attempted  Murder  with  Robbery  
 
RTC:  Acquitted   Segundino   Calpito   but   found   appellant   Juan   Cabbab,   Jr.   guilty   of   two   crimes,  i.e.  (1)  
robbery  with  double  homicide  and  (2)  attempted  murder.  
RTC  found  the  accused  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  of  double  murder  with  robbery  or  
better  put,  robbery  with  double  homicide  and  attempted  murder  as  defined  in  Art.  248  of  the  
Revised   Penal   Code   in   relation   to   Art.   294   of   the   same   Code  or   robbery   with   double  
homicide  defined   and   penalized   under   Art.   248   in   relation   to   Art.   6   of   the   Same   Code  with  
aggravating   circumstance   of   uninhabited   place   with   no   mitigating   circumstances   and  
sentences   him   with   the   penalty   of  reclusion   perpetua  for   each   of   the   killing   of   Winner  
Agbulos   and   for   robbing   the   said   victim   after   killing   him   and   for   the   killing   of   Eddie  
Quindasan.  The  court  likewise  finds  the  accused  Juan  Cabbab,  Jr.  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  of  
the   attempted   murder   defined   and   penalized   in   Art.   48   in   relation   to   Art.   6   of   the   Revised   Penal  
Code.   These   offenses   attended   by   the   aggravating   circumstance   of   uninhabited   place   with   no  
mitigating   circumstances   and   sentence   him   to   suffer   an   indeterminate   penalty   of   FOUR   (4)  
MONTHS  and  ONE  (1)  DAY  of  arresto  mayor  as  minimum  to  FOUR  (4)  YEARS  and  TWO  (2)  MONTHS  
of  prision   correccional  as   maximum.  
 
CA:  modified  the  trial  court's  decision  and  found  appellant  guilty  of  the  special  complex  crime  of  
Robbery   with   Homicide  and   also   affirmed   appellant's   conviction   for   the   separate   crime   of  
attempted  murder.  
 
ISSUE:  
Whether  or  not  the  CA  is  correct  in  holding  the  accused  guilty  of  special  complex  crime  of  
Robbery  with  Homicide  and  a  separate  crime  of  Attempted  Murder.  (NO)  
 
HELD:  
 
The   crime   committed   by   appellant   was   correctly   characterized   by   the   appellate   court   as  
Robbery   with   Homicide   under   Article   294,   paragraph   1   of   the   Revised   Penal   Code   (RPC)   which  
reads:  
Art.   294.  Robbery   with   violence   against   or   intimidation   of   persons   -­‐   Penalties.-­‐  Any  
person  guilty  of  robbery  with  the  use  of  violence  against  any  person  shall  suffer:  

 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
9  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
1.  The  penalty  of  reclusion  perpetua  to  death,  when  by  reason  or  on  occasion  of  the  robbery,  
the   crime   of   homicide   shall   have   been   committed,   or   when   the   robbery   shall   have   been  
accompanied  by  rape  or  intentional  mutilation  or  arson.  
 
To   warrant   conviction   for   the   crime   of  Robbery   with   Homicide,   the   prosecution   is  
burdened  to  prove  the  confluence  of  the  following  elements:  
(1)  the  taking  of  personal  property  is  committed  with  violence  or  intimidation  against  
persons;  
(2)  the  property  taken  belongs  to  another;  
(3)  the  taking  is  characterized  by  intent  to  gain  or  animo  lucrandi;  and  
(4)  by  reason  of  the  robbery  or  on  the  occasion  thereof,  homicide  is  committed.  
 
In  Robbery   with   Homicide,  so   long   as   the   intention   of   the   felon   is   to   rob,   the   killing   may  
occur   before,   during   or   after   the   robbery.   It  is  immaterial   that   death   would   supervene  by   mere  
accident,   or   that   the   victim   of   homicide   is   other   than   the   victim   of   robbery,   or   that   two   or   more  
persons   are   killed.   Once   a   homicide   is   committed   by   reason   or   on   the   occasion   of   the   robbery,   the  
felony  committed  is  the  special  complex  crime  of  Robbery  with  Homicide.  
Here,  the  prosecution  adduced  proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  appellant,  having  lost  to  
Winner   Agbulos   in   the   game   of   poker,   intended   to   divest   Agbulos   of   his   winnings   amounting   to  
P20,000.00.  In  pursuit  of  his  plan  to  rob  Agbulos  of  his  winnings,  appellant  shot  and  killed  him  as  
well  as  his  companion,  Eddie  Quindasan.  
The   prescribed   penalty   for   Robbery   with   Homicide   under   Article   294   of   the   RPC,   as  
amended  by  R.A.  No.  7659  (Death  Penalty  Law),  is  reclusion  perpetua  to  death.  In  the  application  of  
a  penalty  composed  of  two  indivisible  penalties,  like  that  for  Robbery  with  Homicide,  Article  63  of  
the  RPC  provides  that  "when  in  the  commission  of  the  deed  there  is  present  only  one  aggravating  
circumstance,   the   greater   penalty   shall   be   applied."   In   this   case,   the   aggravating   circumstance   of  
treachery  attended  the  commission  of  the  crime,  as  appellant's  attack  on  the  victims  who  were  then  
unsuspectingly   walking   on   their   way   home   was   sudden   and   done   without   any   provocation,   thus  
giving  them  no  real  chance  to  defend  themselves.  
However,   considering   that   the   crime   was   committed   in   1988   or   prior   to   the   effectivity   of  
R.A.   No.   7659,[21]   the   trial   court   and   the   CA   correctly   imposed   upon   appellant   the   lesser   penalty  
of  reclusion  perpetua.  
The  Court  feels,  however,  that  the  two  courts  below  erred  in  convicting  appellant  of  
the  separate  crime  of  attempted  murder  for  the  shooting  of  PO  William  Belmes.  Attempted  
homicide   or   attempted   murder   committed   during   or   on   the   occasion   of   the   robbery,   as   in  
this   case,   is   absorbed   in   the   crime   of   Robbery   with   Homicide   which   is   a   special   complex  
crime   that   remains   fundamentally   the   same   regardless   of   the   number   of   homicides   or  
injuries  committed  in  connection  with  the  robbery.  

 
 
 
 
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
10  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
PEOPLE  vs.  SUYU  
G.R.  No.  170191        
August  16,  2006  
 
 
FACTS:  

Clarissa  Angeles,  a  third-­‐year  student  of  St.  Paul  University,  was  with  her  boyfriend,  William  
Ferrer,  eating  snacks  inside  a  pick-­‐up  truck.  They  were  alarmed  when  they  saw  shadows  of  persons  
near  the  truck.  Rommel  Macarubbo  appeared  in  front  of  the  truck,  pointed  a  gun  at  them  and  said:  
"This  is  a  holdup.  If  you  will  start  the  engine  of  the  car,  I  will  shoot  you."  Another  man,  Willy  Suyu,  
lifted   the   lock   on   William's   side   and   entered   the   pick-­‐up.   Clarissa   told   William   to   give   everything   so  
that   they   would   not   be   harmed.   Willy   Suyu   then   took   Ferrer's   wallet.   A   third   man,   Francis   Cainglet,  
took  Clarissa's  jewelry  and  cash.  Thereafter,  Willy  Suyu  clubbed  William  and  dragged  him  out  of  the  
truck.  William  was  able  to  escape  and  immediately  went  to  the  police  station  to  report  the  incident.  

    Willy  Suyu  lifted  the  lock  of  the  pick-­‐up  truck  at  Clarissa's  side.  Macarubbo  opened  the  door.  
The  two  and  Cainglet  dragged  the  girl  to  a  hilly  place.  She  pleaded  for  mercy  as  she  was  brought  to  a  
house   near   a   muddy   place.   Rodolfo   Suyu,   the   half-­‐brother   of   Willy   Suyu,   came   out   of   the   house.  
Rodolfo  Suyu  then  started  embracing  and  kissing  Clarissa  and  fondling  her  breast.  She  felt  a  knife,  
flashlight   and   pliers   at   the   perpetrator's   back.   Pretending   that   she   was   submitting   to   him,   she  
suddenly   reached   for   the   knife.   They   briefly   struggled   and   Clarissa   kicked   his   groin.   Cursing,  
Rodolfo  Suyu  loosened  his  grip  on  her.  And  she  tried  to  run,  but  she  stumbled  and  she  was  grabbed  
by  the  hair.  He  then  punched  her  stomach  twice.  Rodolfo  Suyu  passed  Clarissa  to  Cainglet.  Cainglet  
kissed  her  but  she  pushed  him  away.  He  continued  to  kiss  her  and  then  pushed  his  tongue  inside  
her  mouth.  She  bit  hard  at  his  tongue,  causing  it  to  bleed  down  her  shirt.  

    Cainglet  and  Rodolfo  Suyu  brought  her  to  the  top  of  the  hill  near  the  Capitol.  Rodolfo  Suyu  
removed   her   pants   and   undergarments   then   spread   her   legs   apart,   removed   his   pants   and  
undergarments,   and   went   on   top   of   her.   Rodolfo   Suyu   then   tried   to   insert   his   fully   erected   penis  
inside  her  vagina  but  the  girl  kicked  him.  He  rolled  down  but  was  able  to  recover  immediately.  He  
resumed   molesting   her.   When   he   pushed   his   tongue   inside   her   mouth,   Clarissa   bit   it   so   hard   that  
her   teeth   went   through   it.   Rodolfo   Suyu,   with   the   aid   of   his   two   fingers,   he   inserted   his   penis   inside  
her  vagina.  

Cainglet  climbed  on  top  of  Clarissa  while  Rodolfo  Suyu  held  her  by  the  hands.  All  her  pleas  
fell   on   deaf   ears.   She   kicked   Cainglet,   who   then   let   go   one   of   her   hands.   Cainglet   continued   to   move  
on  top  of  her.  Cainglet  was  able  to  insert  half  an  inch  of  his  penis  into  her  vagina.  Thereafter,  two  
vehicles   arrived   from   about   10   to   15   meters   away   from   the   pick-­‐up   truck.   After   pleading   for  
mercy   and   promising   not   to   report   them   to   the   police   authorities,   she   was   allowed   by   the  
culprits  to  leave.  

Clarissa   fled   to   a   house   illumined   with   a   fluorescent   light   and   climbed   over   its   gate.   She  
knocked  on  the  door.  An  old  man  answered  the  door.  Blood-­‐stained  and  covered  in  mud,  she  then  

 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
11  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
pleaded   to   be   let   in   and   because   one   of   his   children   recognized   her,   she   was   allowed   inside.   The  
barangay   tanod   was   summoned.   After   15   minutes,   two   police   jeeps   arrived   and   took   her   to   the  
Cagayan   Valley   Regional   Hospital   (CVRH).   At   the   Don   Domingo   Police   Station,   Clarissa   saw  
William.  The  authorities  asked  her  if  she  had  been  sexually  abused,  she  declared  that  there  was  
merely   an   attempt   to   rape   her.   Clarissa   submitted   herself   to   a   physical   and   gynecological  
examination   at   the   CVRH.   The   examining   physician,   Dr.   Elsie   A.   Pintucan,   found   hematoma   and  
contusions,  which  she  diagnosed  to  have  been  sustained  five  days  before.  

    Clarissa   signed   and   filed   a   criminal   complaint   for   robbery   and   rape   against   Rodolfo   Suyu,  
Willy   Suyu,   Francis   Cainglet   and   Rommel   Bariuan   (also   known   as   Rommel   Macarubbo)   with   the  
MTC  of  Tuguegarao  City.  

Crime  Charged:  Robbery  and  Rape  

RTC:   Found   all   the   accused   guilty   beyond   reasonable   doubt   of   robbery   with   rape.   The   court  
ruled  that  the  latter's  testimonies  were  full  of  inconsistencies  and  were  not  in  accord  with  human  
experience.   The   RTC   further   ruled   that   the   four   accused   conspired   in   the   robbery   with   rape.   The  
accused  appealed  the  decision  to  the  Court.  After  the  parties  submitted  their  respective  briefs,  the  
Court  ordered  the  transfer  of  the  case  to  the  CA.  

 CA:  Affirmed  with  modifications,  the  decision  of  the  trial  court.  Insofar  as  the  accused-­‐appellant  
ROMMEL  MACARUBBO  is  concerned,  he  is  hereby  sentenced  to  suffer  an  indeterminate  penalty  of  
from  Eight  (8)  years  and  One  (1)  day  of  prision  mayor,  in  its  medium  period,  as  minimum,  to  Fifteen  
(15)  years  of  reclusion  temporal,  in  its  medium  period,  as  maximum.  Hence,  the  present  petition.  

ISSUE:              

Whether   or   not   the   appellants   are   guilty   of   ROBBERY   WITH   RAPE   under   Article   294,  
paragraph  1  of  the  RPC?  (YES)  

 Appellants’  Defense  

    Appellants   assert   that   Clarissa   was   not   able   to   identify   any   of   them   at   the   city   jail   and  
succeeded   in   identifying   them   only   after   she   was   coached   by   SPO4   Cudal.   They   contend   that  
Clarissa   was   declared   by   Dr.   Pintucan   to   be   ambulatory   and   coherent   with   no   signs   of   cardio-­‐
respiratory  distress,  proof  that  she  was  not  forcibly  and  sexually  assaulted.  It  was  also  discovered  
that   there   was   no   evidence   of   forcible   assault   despite   the   insertion   of   one   finger   on   her   cervix.  
Appellants  argue  that  the  trial  court  erred  in  admitting  in  evidence  the  extrajudicial  confession  of  
appellant  Macarubbo.  

Appellants   aver   that   the   testimony   of   Clarissa   is   postmarked   with   inconsistencies.   She  
executed  no  less  than  five  sworn  statements  before  the  MTC.  These  statements  were  substantially  
inconsistent.   In   her   statement   made   immediately   after   the   alleged   commission   of   the   crime,   she  
declared  to  the  police  investigator  that  appellants  attempted  to  rape  her,  but  she  actually  succeeded  
in  thwarting  all  attempts.  In  her  second  sworn  statement  she  maintained  the  said  story.  The  police  
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
12  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
blotter  did  not  even  carry  an  allegation  of  rape.  However,  in  her  third  statement,  Clarissa  declared  
that  she  had  been  raped.  Appellants,  thus,  argue  that  the  alleged  victim  has  the  propensity  to  lie  and  
withhold  valuable  information  in  her  affidavits.  

 HELD:  

    The   conviction   thus   of   appellants   for   robbery   with   rape   defined   and   penalized   under  
Article  294,  paragraph  1  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code  is  correct.  

    To  be  convicted  of  robbery  with  rape,  the  following  elements  must  concur:  

1.      the  taking  of  personal  property  is  committed  with  violence  or  intimidation  against  
persons;  

2.      the  property  taken  belongs  to  another;  

3.      the  taking  is  characterized  by  intent  to  gain  or  animus  lucrandi;  

4.      the  robbery  is  accompanied  by  rape.  

    The  intent  to  rob  must  precede  the  rape.  In  robbery  with  rape,  the  intention  of  the  felony  
is   to   rob   and   the   felony   is   accompanied   by   rape.   The   rape   must   be   contemporaneous   with   the  
commission  of  the  robbery.  Aside  from  raping  the  victim,  appellant  Rodolfo  Suyu  inserted  his  finger  
in   her   sexual   organ.   Appellant   Suyu,   thus,   committed   sexual   assault   as   defined   and   penalized   in  
Article  266-­‐A,  paragraph  2  of  Republic  Act  No.  8353.  Also,  aside  from  Rodolfo  Suyu,  Cainglet  raped  
the   victim.   Nevertheless,   there   is   only   one   single   and   indivisible   felony  of   robbery   with   rape  
and   any   crimes   committed   on   the   occasion   or   by   reason   of   the   robbery   are   merged   and  
integrated  into  a  single  and  indivisible  felony  of  robbery  with  rape.  

    Clarissa's  testimony  are  consistent,  believable,  and  credible,  hence,  is  worthy  of  full  faith  and  
credit.  The  CA  reviewed  Clarissa's  testimony  and  found  the  same  to  be  clear,  sincere  and  could  have  
only  come  from  the  mouth  of  a  victim.  During  the  cross-­‐examination  conducted  by  three  separate  
counsels   of   appellants,   she   remained   steadfast   in   her   testimony   that   she   was   raped.   When   the  
testimony  of  a  rape  victim  is  simple  and  straightforward,  unshaken  by  rigorous  cross-­‐examination  and  
unflawed  by  any  serious  inconsistency  or  contradiction,  the  same  must  be  given  full  faith  and  credit.  

    While  it  is  true  that  the  victim  initially  did  not  reveal  to  the  authorities  the  fact  that  
she   was   raped   after   the   robbery,   this   does   not   cast   doubt   on   her   testimony   for   it   is   not  
uncommon   for   a   rape   victim   right   after   her   ordeal   to   remain   mum   about   what   really  
transpired.  Delay  in  revealing  the  commission  of  rape  is  not  an  indication  of  a  fabricated  charge,  
and   the   same   is   rendered   doubtful   only   if   the   delay   was   unreasonable   and   unexplained.   Besides,  
Clarissa  sufficiently  explained  her  initial  reluctance  on  cross-­‐examination.  

    Clarissa   was   reluctant   to   reveal,   while   at   the   police   station,   the   fact   that   she   was   raped,  
considering   that   her   boyfriend   was   present   when   she   made   her   first   statement   before   the   police  

 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
13  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
investigator.  Further,  one  of  the  investigating  officers  was  her  townmate.  Indeed,  the  fear  of  social  
humiliation   prevented   Clarissa   from   revealing,   at   the   time,   the   details   of   her   defilement.   She   was   in  
a   state   of   trauma,   impelled   by   her   natural   instinct   to   put   out   of   her   mind   such   a   painful   and  
disturbing  experience.  

    Defense'   contention   that   they   were   not   sufficiently   identified   cannot   be   taken   seriously.  
Accused   did   not   resort   to   any   disguise.   There   could   be   no   doubt   as   to   their   identities.   Besides,   it  
appears   that   the   accused   stayed   with   Clarissa   for   a   couple   of   hours   so   that   there   was   ample   time  
and  opportunity  for  her  to  see  and  observe  their  features.  

Clarissa  passed  the  test  of  credibility  in  her  account  of  her  ordeal;  positively  identified  her  
assailants;  and  had  no  ill-­‐motive  to  falsely  implicate  them  to  the  commission  of  a  crime,  other  than  
her  desire  to  seek  justice  for  a  wrong.  Where  an  alleged  rape  victim  says  she  was  sexually  abused,  
she  says  almost  all  that  is  necessary  to  show  that  rape  had  been  inflicted  on  her  person,  provided  
her  testimony  meets  the  test  of  credibility.  

Conspiracy  to  commit  the  crime  was  also  correctly  appreciated  by  the  trial  court.  Indeed,  "at  
the   time   of   the   commission   of   the   crime,   accused   acted   in   concert,   each   doing   his   part   to   fulfill   their  
common   design   to   rob   the   victim   and   although   only   two   of   them,   through   force   and   intimidation,  
raped   Clarissa,   the   failure   of   Macarubbo   and   Willy   Suyu   to   prevent   its   commission   although   they  
were  capable  would  make  their  act  to  be  the  act  of  all."  Once  conspiracy  is  established  between  
several   accused   in   the   commission   of   the   crime   of   robbery,   they   would   all   be   equally  
culpable  for  the  rape  committed  by  any  of  them  on  the  occasion  of  the  robbery,  unless  any  of  
them  proves  that  he  endeavored  to  prevent  the  other  from  committing  rape.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
14  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
PEOPLE  vs.  BARRA  
G.R.  No.  198020  
July  10,  2013  
 
FACTS:  
   
An   information   was   filed   against   Appellant   Joseph   Barra   charging   him   of   special   complex  
crime  of  robbery  with  homicide  committed  against  the  victim  Elmer  Lagdaan.  
   
On   October   9,   2003   at   around   9:00   pm,   one   witness   stated   that   he   was   on   his   way   home  
when   in   the   light   of   a   bright   moon,   he   saw   Barra   enter   the   house   of   Lagdaan   (victim),   which   was   lit  
with  a  lamp,  and  poked  a  gun  to  the  victim’s  right  forehead  and  demanded  money.  When  the  
victim  stated  that  the  money  was  not  in  his  possession,  appellant  shot  him.  
   
The  victim  died  due  to  massive  hemorrahage  secondary  to  gunshot  wound.  
   
In  his  defense,  Barra  (appellant)  denied  the  charges  against  him  arguing  that  the  elements  
for  the  special  complex  crime  of  robbery  with  homicide  were  not  proven  particularly  the  element  of  
taking  of  personal  property.    Appellant  also  claimed  that  he  was  in  Batangas  City,  with  his  brother  
Benjamin,  visiting  his  sister  when  he  was  arrested  and  brought  to  Camarines  Sur.  
   
Crime  charged:  Special  Complex  Crime  of  Robbery  with  Homicide  (ART.  294,  RPC)  
   
RTC:  Convicted  as  charged      
   
CA:  Only   found   appellant  guilty   of   Attempted   Robbery   with   Homicide  (ART.   297,  
RPC).  Attempted   because   no   evidence   was   presented   to   establish   that   accused-­‐appellant   took   away  
the   victim’s   money   or   any   property,   for   that   matter.    The   killing   was   an   offshoot   of   accused  
appellant’s   intent   to   rob   the   victim.   Accused-­‐appellant   was   bent   on   resorting   to   violent   means   to  
attain   his   end.  Due   to   the   victim’s   failure   to   give   his   money,   the   crime   of   robbery   was,  
however,  not  consummated.  
   
   
ISSUE:    
Whether   or   not   Barra   is   guilty   of   Robbery   with   Homicide   (NO.   Barra   is   guilty   of  
ATTEMPTED  Robbery  with  Homicide)  
   
HELD:  
   
The  SC  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  CA.  
   
Requisites  to  be  proven  by  the  prosecution  for  appellant  to  be  convicted  of  robbery  with  
homicide  under  Art.  294,  to  wit:  
1)  The  taking  of  personal  property  is  committed  with  violence  or  intimidation  against  
persons;  
2)  The  property  taken  belongs  to  another;  
3)  The  taking  is  animo  lucrandi;  and  
 4)  By  reason  of  the  robbery  or  on  the  occasion  thereof,  homicide  is  committed.  
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
15  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
   
Appellant’s  intention  was  to  extort  money  from  the  victim.  By  reas   on   of   the   victim’s  
refusal   to   give   up   his   personal   property  -­‐   his   money   -­‐   to   appellant,   the  victim   was   shot  in   the  
head,   causing   his   death.   The  element   of   taking   was   not   complete,   making   the   crime   one   of  
attempted  robbery  with  homicide  as  opposed  to  the  crime  appellant  was  convicted  in  the  RTC.  
   
The  elements  of  Robbery  with  Homicide  as  defined  in  Art.  297  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code  
are:  
1)  There  is  an  attempted  or  frustrated  robbery  
2)  A  homicide  is  committed  
   
In  the  present  case,  the  crime  of  robbery  remained  unconsummated  because  the  victim  
refused   to   give   his   money   to   appellant   and   no   personal   property   was   shown   to   have   been  
taken.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  the  victim  was  shot.  
   
Since   the   RTC   and   the   Court   of   Appeals   found   appellant's   crime   to   be   aggravated   by  
disregard   of   dwelling,   the   Court   of   Appeals   correctly   imposed   the   maximum   penalty   of   reclusion  
perpetua.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
16  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
FRANSDILLA  vs.  PEOPLE  
G.R.  No.  197562  
April  20,  2015  
 
“The   complex   crime   of   robbery   in   an   inhabited   house   by   armed   persons   and   robbery   with   violence  
against  or  intimidation  of  persons  was  committed  when  the  accused,  who  held  firearms,  entered  the  
residential  house  of  the  victims  and  inflicted  injury  upon  the  victims  in  the  process  of  committing  the  
robbery.   Hence,   the   penalty   is   that   imposed   for   the   robbery   in   an   inhabited   house,   the   more   serious  
crime.  All  the  accused  are  liable  because  the  act  of  one  is  the  act  of  all.”  

FACTS:    

On   February   20,   1991,   at   private   complainants’   residence,   private   complainant   Lalaine  


Yreverre   saw   appellant   Aurora   Engson   in   front   of   their   gate.   Upon   noticing   Aurora,   Lalaine   went   to  
the  gate  and  asked  Aurora  what  is  their  purpose,  as  there  were  four  of  them.  Aurora  then  inquired  
about   Cynthia   Yreverre,   Lalaine’s   sister.   It   was   then   that   Aurora   told   Lalaine   that   she   was   from  
POEA.  It  was  upon  said  pretension  that  Lalaine  offered  herself  to  instead  talk  to  her  and  allowed  her  
to   enter   their   house.   Aurora   asked   Lalaine   if   she   could   use   the   telephone;   Lalaine   noticed   that  
Aurora   seemed   to   keep   on   dialing   the   telephone.   Thereafter,   the   four   other   men   outside   the   gate,  
who   were   with   Aurora,   suddenly   came   inside   the   house.   The   four   men   stood   behind   Aurora   who  
was  still  dialing  the  telephone.  Aurora  asked  Lalaine  if  she  could  use  the  comfort  room,  which  the  
latter  again  permitted.    

When   Aurora   came   back,   and   at   this   juncture,   accused   Edgardo   Cacal   poked   a   gun   at  
Lalaine’s   neck   and   announced   that   it   was   a   hold-­‐up.   While   accused   Danilo   Cuanang   and   the   two  
other   men   proceeded   to   the   kitchen.   They   herded   their   maids,   private   complainant’s   niece   and  
cousin   inside   the   bodega.   Accused   Cacal   pulled   Lalaine’s   hair   and   dragged   her   upstairs   and   brought  
her   inside   Cynthia’s   room.   When   he   spotted   upon   the   vault   he   dropped   Lalaine,   opened   the   door  
and   called   for   his   companions   to   come   along.   Accused   Cuanang   came   up   and   the   two   (Cacal   and  
Cuanang)  carried  the  vault  and  brought  it  downstairs.  They  threatened  Lalaine  not  to  follow  them,  
but   Lalaine   opened   the   door   and   followed   them.   When   Lalaine   was   halfway   downstairs,   accused  
Cacal   turned   his   back   and   saw   her.   Accused   Cacal   then   brought   her   inside   her   room.   Inside   the  
room,   Cacal   pushed   her   towards   her   bed   and   she   fell.   Cacal   told   her   to   just   stay,   and   then   he  
searched  the  room.  Accused  Cuanang  came  and  tied  her  arms  at  her  back.  While  she  was  being  tied,  
appellant  Aurora  Fransdilla  peeped  inside  the  room.  It  was  also  at  the  time  that  accused  Cacal  and  
Cuanang  searched  the  entire  room  and  took  all  the  jewelries  and  things  they  saw.    

Appellants  and  their  co-­‐accused   then   left   the   house   on   board   two   cars   that   were   waiting   for  
them  just  outside  the  house,  and  one  of  which,  a  black  Colt  Mirage,  was  driven  by  accused  Manuel  
Silao,   together   with   appellant   Edgardo   Silao.   At   this   point,   Lalaine   shouted   for   help,   thereafter,   a  
relative   came   by   to   help   and   untied   her.   Lalaine   then   called   her   sister   Cynthia   and   related   the  
incident.   Cynthia   reported   the   incident   to   the   police   authorities.   The   police   investigated   the  
incident.  After  said  investigation,  Lalaine  underwent  medical  examination.  Thereafter,  Lalaine  went  
to   Camp   Karingal   at   Sikatuna,   QC   where   there   were   at   least   15   persons   presented   before   her   in   the  
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
17  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
police   line-­‐up,   but   she   was   not   able   to   identify   any.   After   which,   she   went   to   the   Station  
Investigation  Division  Station  4,  QC  where  she  was  shown  about  50  pictures  of  robbers,  but  she  was  
not  able  to  identify  any  of  them.    

She   proceeded   to   the   NBI,   Manila.   She   was   referred   to   a   cartographer   for   the   sketch   of  
herein   appellants   and   their   co-­‐accused.   Thereafter,   Lalaine   proceeded   to   the   Western   Police  
District,   Manila.   There,   she   went   to   the   rogues   gallery   where   a   picture   of   about   5   persons   were  
shown  to  her  and  Lalaine  was  able  to  pinpoint  the  picture  of  accused  Danilo  Cuanang  as  one  of  the  
robbers.  She  was  also  able  to  identify  Manuel  “Sonny”  Silao  in  a  group  picture  where  she  identified  
accused   Cuanang.   It   was   also   in   said   rogues   gallery   that   they   were   able   to   get   accused   Cuanang’s  
address  at  Iriga,  Cubao,  QC.    

Lalaine,   together   with   her   police   officers   companions,   proceeded   to   Cuanang’s   indicated  
address.  Upon  arrival  they  inquired  from  the  security  guard  if  Danilo  Cuanang  was  residing  there,  
which  the  latter  confirmed.  On  the  following  day  Lalaine  and  her  police  companions  went  back  to  
Cuanang’s  house.  Lalaine  knocked  at  the  door  and  accused  Cuanang  himself  opened  the  door.  When  
Lalaine  confronted  him  and  told  him  that  he  was  one  of  those  who  entered  their  house,  the  latter  
did   not   answer.   Lalaine   asked   Cuanang   if   he   could   come   with   them   at   the   PNPSID,   Station   4,  
Kamuning,   QC   and   the   latter   acceded.   On   their   way   to   the   police   station,   Lalaine   inquired   on  
Cuanang   about   their   lady   companion   (herein   appellant   Fransdilla),   but   the   latter   just   bowed   his  
head.   When   Lalaine   threatened   him   that   if   he   would   not   tell   the   whereabouts   of   their   lady  
companion   he   would   be   answerable   for   all   the   things   stolen,   the   latter   replied   that   they   had   no  
share  in  the  stolen  items.  Lalaine  then  asked  the  name  of  their  lady  companion  and  the  latter  said  
that  her  name  was  Jessica  Engson  (also  known  as  Aurora  Engson  Fransdilla)  and  she  was  living  in  
Sampaloc,   Manila.   Cuanang   also   volunteered   himself   to   accompany   them   to   Aurora’s   house  
provided   that   they   should   not   hurt   him.   Agreeing   thereto,   the   group   of   Lalaine,   accompanied   by  
Cuanang,  proceeded  to  Aurora’s  house  at  the  given  address.  Upon  arrival  thereat,  Lalaine  inquired  
from  a  child  if  Aurora  was  awake,  and  upon  asking,  she  saw  appellant  Aurora  who  was  trembling  at  
that   time.   Lalaine   noticed   that   Aurora   was   nervous   and   even   told   her   that   Lalaine   was   able   to  
remember  her  face.  Appellant  even  voluntarily  told  Lalaine  that  she  would  tell  her  the  whole  truth.    

Aurora   told   that   she   was   instructed   by   her   companions   Edgar   (Silao),   Sonny   (Manuel   Silao)  
and   Danilo   Cacal.   Lalaine   even   confronted   her   when   she   implicated   her   cousins   (Sonny   and   Edgar).  
Then  they  proceeded  to  921  Adelina  St.,  Sampaloc,  where  accused  Manuel  “Sonny”  Silao  lived.  Upon  
reaching,   Lalaine   asked   the   maid   where   Sonny’s   room   was   and   the   latter   said   it   was   on   the   third  
floor.  When  Lalaine  and  her  police  companions  were  going  upstairs,  they  passed  by  the  second  floor  
and  saw  accused  Cacal  sitting  on  a  folding  bed.  She  then  told  her  police  companions  that  that  man  
was  among  those  who  entered  and  robbed  their  house.  Thereafter,  the  group  proceeded  to  the  third  
floor   and   at   this   point,   Manuel   (a.k.a.   Sonny)   was   lying   on   the   bed   and   holding   his   gun,   thus,   Pat.  
Randy   Quitoriano   immediately   handcuffed   him.   Lalaine’s   group   invited   Manuel   and   Danilo   to   go  
with  them  at  the  police  station;  both  acceded.  Lalaine  went  back  to  the  PNP  Station  where  she  was  
informed   that   they   (Rod   Fortaleza’s   group)   were   able   to   recover   some   money   (dollar   bills)   from  
appellant  Edgardo  Silao.  When  these  dollar  bills  were  shown  to  her,  she  recognized  that  these  were  
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
18  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
the   same   dollar   bills   withdrawn   by   her   sister   Cynthia   from   the   RCBC   Bank   as   the   bills   bear   red  
markings.  

Crime  charged:  Robbery  

RTC:   Convicted   Fransdilla   and   her   co-­‐accused   of   robbery.   As   to   Fransdilla,   the   RTC   ruled   that  
several   facts   and   circumstances   either   proved   by   the   Prosecution   or   admitted   by   the   Defense  
established  her  having  conspired  with  her  co-­‐accused  in  committing  the  offense  charged  

CA:  Affirmed  RTC’s  decision.    

ISSUE:      

The   accused   still   insists   on   her   innocence,   protesting   that   the   CA   erred   in   affirming   the  
conviction  despite  the  failure  to  establish  her  guilt  beyond  reasonable  doubt  as  a  co-­‐conspirator  in  
robbery  

HELD:    

1. Conspiracy  of  Fransdilla  with  her  co-­‐accused  was  established  beyond  reasonable  doubt    
 

Our  review  of  the  records  of  the  trial  reveals  that  contrary  to  Fransdilla’s  contentions,  the  State  
competently   and   credibly   established   her   active   participation   in   the   execution   of   the   robbery  
through  Lalaine’s  testimony  detailing  her  specific  acts.    

In   establishing   conspiracy,   the   State   could   rely   on   direct   as   well   as   circumstantial   evidence.  
Lalaine’s  testimony  against  Fransdilla  constituted  both  kinds  of  evidence.  Lalaine’s  direct  testimony  
showed   the   latter’s   overt   participation   in   the   execution   of   the   robbery,   while   the   following  
circumstances  indicated  the  unity  of  action  and  common  purpose  or  design  to  commit  the  robbery  
among  Fransdilla  and  her  co-­‐accused,  specifically:  (1)  Fransdilla  and  her  co-­‐accused  went  together  
to  the  complainants’  house  at  around  3:00  to  4:00  p.m.  of  February  20,  1991;  (2)  she  talked  to  Joel  
to   solicit   information   on   the   whereabouts   of   Cynthia;   (3)   upon   learning   that   Cynthia   was   not   home,  
she   stepped   outside   the   gate   and   talked   to   two   men   sitting   inside   a   vehicle   parked   outside   the  
house;  (4)  she  pretended  to  be  an  employee  of  the  POEA  in  order  to  gain  entry  into  the  house;  (5)  
she  performed  acts  purposely  aimed  to  distract  Lalaine  in  order  to  give  her  cohorts  the  opportunity  
to   enter   the   house   and   commit   the   robbery;   (5)   during   the   robbery,   she   was   not   tied   up   like   the  
household   members,   but   moved   freely   around   the   house,   and   at   one   point   Lalaine   spotted   her  
peeping   into   the   bedroom   where   Lalaine   was   then   being   held;   and   (7)   she   and   the   others   fled  
together  in  two  separate  vehicles  after  the  robbery.    

 
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
19  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
2.  Crime  committed  was  the  complex  crime  of  robbery  in  an  inhabited  house  by  armed  men  under  
Article   299   of   the   Revised   Penal   Code   and   robbery   with   violence   against   or   intimidation   of   persons  
under  Article  294  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code  

Citing  Napolis  v.  Court  of  Appeals,  the  CA  ruled  that  all  the  accused,  including  Fransdilla,  were  
guilty  of  committing  the  complex  crime  of  robbery  in  an  inhabited  house  under  Article  299,  Revised  
Penal  Code,  and  robbery  with  intimidation  or  violence  under  Article  294,  Revised  Penal  Code.  Thus,  
it  held  that  the  penalty  for  the  complex  crime  under  Article  48  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code  was  that  
for  the  more  serious  offense,  to  be  imposed  in  its  maximum  period.  Taking  into  consideration  that  
no   mitigating   or   aggravating   circumstances   were   present,   it   set   the   indeterminate   sentence   of   12  
years   of   prision   mayor,   as   minimum,   to   17   years   and   four   months   of   reclusion   temporal,   as  
maximum.    

In  Napolis  v.  Court  of  Appeals,  the  Court  abandoned  the  doctrine  adopted  in  United  States  v.  De  
los   Santos   that   when   the   felonies   of   robbery   in   an   inhabited   house   under   Article   299   of   the   Revised  
Penal  Code  and  robbery  with  violence  against  or  intimidation  of  a  person  under  Article  294  of  the  
Revised   Penal   Code   are   committed,   the   penalty   for   the   latter   crime   (although   the   lighter   one)  
should   be   imposed   because   the   violence   against   or   intimidation   of   a   person   was   the   “controlling  
qualification,”   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.”    

Napolis   v.   Court   of   Appeals   is   controlling   in   this   case.   To   start   with,   the   information   fully  
alleged  the  complex  crime  of  robbery  in  an  inhabited  house  under  Article  299,  Revised  Penal  Code,  
and  robbery  with  intimidation  or  violence  under  Article  294,  Revised  Penal  Code  by  averring  that  
“the   above-­‐named   accused,   conspiring   together,   confederating   with   and   mutually   helping   one  
another,  did  then  and  there  wilfully,  unlawfully  and  feloniously  with  intent  to  gain,  and  by  means  of  
violence   and   intimidation   upon   person   rob   the   residence   x   x   x.”   And,   secondly,   the   Prosecution  
competently   proved   the   commission   of   the   complex   crime   by   showing   during   the   trial   that   the  
accused,  after  entering  the  residential  house  of  the  complainants  at  No.  24-­‐B  Mabait  St.,  Teacher’s  
Village,   Quezon   City,   took   away   valuables,   including   the   vault   containing   Cynthia’s   US   dollar  
currencies,   and   in   the   process   committed   acts   of   violence   against   and   intimidation   of   persons  
during   the   robbery   by   slapping   and   threatening   Lalaine   and   tying   her   up,   and   herding   the   other  
members  of  the  household  inside  the  bodega  of  the  house.    

Article   299.   Robbery   in   an   inhabited   house   or   public   building   or   edifice   devoted   to  


worship.   —   Any   armed   person   who   shall   commit   robbery   in   an   inhabited   house   or   public   building  
or  edifice  devoted  to  religious  worship,  shall  be  punished  by  reclusion  temporal,  if  the  value  of  the  
property  taken  shall  exceed  250  pesos,  and  if:    

A. (4)  By  using  any  fictitious  name  or  pretending  the  exercise  of  public  authority  
B. (2)  By  taking  such  furniture  or  objects  to  be  broken  or  forced  open  outside  the  place  of  
the  robbery  
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
20  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 
Case  
CRIMINAL  LAW  REVIEW  [Prosec.  Victoria  C.  Garcia]   Digests  
 
 

Relevant   are   paragraph   (a)4   because   Fransdilla   pretended   to   be   from   the   POEA   and  
paragraph  (b)2  because  the  accused  brought  the  vault  down  from  Cynthia’s  upstairs  bedroom  and  
forced  it  open  outside  the  place  where  the  robbery  was  committed,  supra.  The  penalty  for  the  crime  
is  reclusion  temporal.  

Under   Article   48   of   the   Revised   Penal   Code,   the   penalty   for   the   complex   crime   is   that   for   the  
more   serious   felony,   which,   in   this   case,   was   the   robbery   in   an   inhabited   house   by   armed   men  
punishable  by  reclusion  temporal,  to  be  imposed  in  the  maximum  period  (i.e.,  17  years,  four  months  
and  one  day  to  20  years).  Hence,  the  maximum  of  the  indeterminate  sentence  of  12  years  of  prision  
mayor,   as   minimum,   to   17   years   and   four   months   of   reclusion   temporal,   must   be   corrected   to   17  
years,  four  months  and  one  day  of  reclusion  temporal.    

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SY  15-­‐16  |  Acosta.    Arriero.    Bongalon.    Bose.    Candelaria.    De  Leon.    Dizon.    Feliciano.    Hermogenes.    
21  
Maranan.    Navarez.    Oliva.    Ongoco.    Sison.    Symaco.    Tolentino.    Valentin.    Villafuerte.    Viray.  
 

You might also like