Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
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:
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:
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.
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.
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;
3. the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi;
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:
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.
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
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.
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.