Charlemagne S.

Galagar JD1-2

Criminal Law II

Atty. Salvador S. Panelo

Robbery with Homicide

G.R. No. 212932

January 21, 2015

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnel Balute, Accused-Appellant.

On March 22, 2002 at around 8:00 in the evening, while on a stop position at a lighted area along
road 10, Tondo, Manila, two persons approached SPO1 Raymundo Manaois, who was then
onboard his owner-type jeep with his wife Cristina and daughter Blesilda. One man poked a gun
at the side of SPOI Manaois, took his cellular phone and shot him at the left side of his torso. He
was unable to fire his firearm as fell to the ground and died while being operated on at the Mary
Johnston Hospital. The two men were later identified as accused Arnel Balute, the man who shot
SPOI Manaois, and a certain Leo Blaster. A case for Robbery with Homicide was thereafter filed
against them. Arnel, on the other hand, denied liability, on the day in question, he said, he was at
the shop of a certain Leticia Nicol where he worked as pedicab welder and left it at 10:00 in the
evening; he did not notice anything untoward as he was busy working the entire time.
After trial, the RTC convicted Arnel as charged with the aggravating circumstance of treachery,
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, in lieu of
the death penalty, as well as ordered him to pay the heirs of SPO1 Manaois the amounts of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P6,000.00 as compensatory damages for the value of the stolen
mobile phone, and P50,000.00 as moral damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum (p.a.) from the filing of the Information. The CA modified the judgment by deleting the
finding of the aggravating circumstance of treachery as the prosecution failed to allege it in the
information. Hence, Arnel elevated his case to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not Arnel is guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
Held: The appeal is bereft of merit.
It must be stressed that in criminal cases, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded
great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial
evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court
overlooked material and relevant matters, that the Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual
findings of the court below. Guided by the foregoing principle, the Court finds no cogent reason
to disturb the RTCs factual findings, as affirmed by the CA.

Robbery with Homicide

G.R. No. 185709

February 18, 2010

People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Michael A. Hipona, Appellant.

On or about June 12, 2000 at 1: 00 am in Cagayan de Oro, appellant Michael Hipona together
with Romulo Seva, Jr. and one John Doe conspired and feloniously had a carnal knowledge with
the offended party AAA who is the aunt of accused Michael Hipona. On occasion of the said
rape, accused, with evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength and dwelling,
choked and strangulated the victim. The victims brown bag worth P3,800; cash money in the
amount of no less than P5,000; and gold necklace were stolen by all the accused but the gold
necklace were later on recovered and confiscated in the person of accused Michael Hipona.
For failure to prove the guilt of accused Romulo Seva, Jr. beyond reasonable doubt, he is duly
acquitted.
The Trial Court finds accused Michael Hipona guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a special
complex crime of Rape with Homicide (and Robbery). The Court of Appeals sustained
appellants conviction.

Issue: Whether appellant is liable of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Hipona is liable of the crime of robbery with homicide. Robbery
was the main intent of appellant. AAAs death resulted by reason of or on occasion thereof.
Following Article 294 (1) and Article 62 (1)1 of RPC, rape should have been appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance instead. Wherefore, the decision of CA is affirmed with modification.
Therefore, Michael Hipona is guilty of robbery with homicide.

Robbery with Rape

G.R. No. 143004

April 9, 2003

People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Dante Clidoro, appellant.

At midnight of June 4, 1997, Salvacion Avila was in her house at Sition Barubaruti,
Caraycayon, Tigaon, Camarines, Sur. She and her granddaughters, Rachel Mabana and Lorna
Barrion, were awakened by men shouting outside their house. They were calling their names and
ordering them to get out of the house or else they will throw a grenade at them. Salvacion got up
and lit a kerosene lamp. Immediately thereafter, appellant Dante Clidoro broke into the house
and ordered them to get out. He took three bottles of gin and three packs of More cigarettes from
the store of Salvacion and placed them in his bag. Then he struck Salvacion's left hand which
caused the kerosene lamp she was holding to fall. Dante grabbed Rachel's wrist and brought her
to the nearby banana plantation. He threatened to shoot Rachel if she shouted. He ordered her to
undress and, when she refused, he slapped her twice on the face and hit her on the chest, causing
her to faint. When she regained consciousness, she was half-naked. She felt pain and found
whitish sticky substance on her vagina. She put on her dress and ran towards their house. Joseph
also grabbed Lorna and dragged her towards the banana plantation. However, Lorna vigorously
struggled and was able to free herself. She ran back to the house but Joseph snatched away her
necklace. He also took Lorna's pair of jeans which was hanging on the clothesline outside.
The Trial Court found that Dante guilty of robbery with rape. Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the Trial Court.
Issue: Whether or not Dante committed the crime of Robbery with Rape?
Ruling:
The crime of Robbery with Rape is committed when the following elements 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 done with animo lucrandi; and, (4) the
robbery is accompanied by rape.
In this case, the appellee was able to provide the following circumstantial evidence for in
convicting appellant,
(1) Rachel Mabana positively and categorically declared that appellant broke into the house by
destroying the door, took away merchandise from the store, dragged her outside and took her to a
dark portion of the banana plantation;
(2) When Rachel refused to undress as told, appellant slapped her twice on the face and hit her
on the chest, rendering her unconscious;
(3) When she regained consciousness, she found herself half-naked and there was whitish
substance on her vagina; and
(4) The medical examination found that her hymen was lacerated.
The fact that Rachel was unconscious during the actual rape does not mean that appellant did not
commit the crime. Dante's alibi fails to convince the Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Trial Court.

Robbery with Rape

G.R. No. 130650

September 10, 2002

People of the Philippines, vs. Mario Verceles, Felix Corpuz, Mamerto Soriano (At Large),
Pablo Ramos (At Large), and Jerry Soriano (State Witness),

On October 19, 1996, in the morning, in barangay Malibong in Pangasinan, the accused,
Mario Verceles, Felix Corpus, Mamerto Soriano, Pablo Ramos and Jerry Soriano, entered the
house of Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the grills of the window which they used as
an ingress and once inside, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully cart away the following
personal properties: 1 colored TV, 1 VHS, assorted jewelries, 1 alarm clock and 1 radio cassette,
all valued at P60,000.00, and that on the same occassion, the said accused feloniously have
sexual intercourse with Maribeth Bolito against her will to the damage of the said victims.
The Trial Court hereby finds accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision rendered
by the Trial Court.

Issue: Whether accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape.

Ruling:
On the matter of whether rape was committed, the SC agrees with the trial court's ruling
that the healed lacerations on the vagina of neither the victim nor the absence of spermatozoa
negate rape. The victim's deliration of her sexual ordeal given in a convincing manner shows no
other intention than to obtain justice for the wrong done to her. Wherefore, the court finds the
accused-appellants guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape and punished to suffer penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua, and to award damages in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the rape victim.

Robbery with Kidnapping

G.R. No. 97471 February 17, 1993
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Isabelo Puno, & Enrique Amurao, AccusedAppellants.
On January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: the accused Isabelo Puno, who is the
personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband (who was then away in Davao purportedly on
account of local election there) arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop in Araneta Ave, Quezon
City. He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency
so Isabelo will temporarily take his place. When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go home to
Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into her husband's Mercedes Benz with Isabelo driving. After the
car turned right on a corner of Araneta Ave, it stopped and a young man, accused Enrique
Amurao, boarded the car beside the driver. Enrique pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento as Isabelo
told her that he needs to "get money" from her. Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 on her bag which she
handed to the accused. But the accused said that they wanted P100,000 more. The car sped off
north towards the North superhighway where Isabelo asked Mrs. Sarmiento to issue a check for
P100,000. Mrs. Sarmiento drafted 3 checks: two P30,000 checks and one P40,000 check. Isabelo
then turned the car around towards Metro Manila; later, he changed his mind and turned the car
again towards Pampanga. According to her, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of the car then, crossed
to the other side of the superhighway and was able to flag down a fish vendor's van, her dress
had blood because according to her, she fell down on the ground and was injured when she
jumped out of the car. The defense does not dispute the above narrative of the complainant
except that according to Isabelo, he stopped the car at North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs.
Sarmiento to step out of the car. He said he even slowed the car down as he drove away, until he
saw that his employer had gotten a ride. He claimed that she fell down when she stubbed her toe
while running across the highway
Issue: Whether or not the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom as charged
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no showing whatsoever those appellants had any motive,
nurtured prior to or at the time they committed the wrongful acts against complainant, other than
the extortion of money from her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation.

For this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the
malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her liberty

In the case, the restraint of her freedom of action was merely an incident in the
commission of another offense primarily intended by the offenders

This does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention

Accused-appellants convicted of robbery (indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months or

prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor. Accused to pay Mrs. Sarmiento
P7,000 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral damages.)

Robbery with Kidnapping

G.R. No. 193833

November 16, 2011

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Po1 Froilan L. Trestiza, P/S Insp.
Lorieman* L. Manrique, and Rodie J. Pineda, Accused.
The victims alleged that on Nov. 2002, the accused Trestiza, Manrique and Pineda, armed with
firearms, kidnapped Lawrence Yu and Maria Irma Navarro, or otherwise deprived them of their
liberty without legal grounds for the purpose of extorting money. On February 2003, public
prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw information of Kidnapping with Ransom and to admit
information for Robbery. He pointed out that after he conducted preliminary investigation, he
found no probable cause exists to warrant the indictment of the accused for the crime of
kidnapping with ransom. He added that they should be charged instead for the crimes of Robbery
and grave threats. The Court set a hearing for this motion.
The trial court found Trestiza guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation
of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay damages to the victims.
Issue: Whether or not the charges should be kidnapping for ransom or Robbery and grave threats.
Ruling:
The Court denied the Motion to Withdraw information for kidnapping. The prosecutor argues
that the essence of the crime of kidnapping could not be possibly committed by the accused as
they are police officers who at the time the complainants were divested of cash and personal
belongings were conducting a police operation to enforce the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs
Law. This, according to them, runs counter to the provisions of Art. 267 of the RPC which
provides that any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner,
deprive him of his liberty shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
(a) if the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days;
(b) If it shall have committed simulating public authority;
(c) If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been made;
(d) If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any
of the parents, female or a public officer.
The Court finds this unmeritorious. Even a public official can commit the said crime within the
context of the aforesaid legal provision. It is also said that this article provides that the crimes of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention are committed by private individuals obviously because
if the offender is a public officer the crime is arbitrary detention under Article 124, but passing
sub silentio on the matter of kidnapping. It should be understood however; that the public officer
who unlawfully detains another is punishable by Article 124 is one who has the duty to
apprehend a person with a correlative power to detain him. If he is only an employee with
clerical or postal functions, although the Code considers him as a public officer, his detention of
the victim is illegal detention under this article since he is acting in a private, and not official,
capacity. If a policeman kidnaps the victim, except when legally authorized as part of police
operations, he cannot also be said to be acting in an official capacity, hence he is treated as a
private individual liable under this article.