Robbery and Brigandage Cases

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

PEOPLE vs ALVAREZ

Roberto Beloso was about to have dinner with his family together with a guest (Victor Jabar) when
seven (7) armed men staged a robbery in his house. Roberto and Victor were tied up and made
to lie face down on the floow while Roberto’s wife (Nora) and children were brought upstairs and
they were divested of their cash and belongings.

The maid, while fleeing from the house, was shot (still alive nakatakas pa rin) and was able to
identify two (2) of the robbers – Alvarez and Blancaflor. Severino, a cousin of Roberto was also
shot by the robbers resulting to his death.

The robbers then left the scene as church bells rang warning the people of danger with Mrs. Beloso
and her child as hostage and proceeded to the shore where they fled on board a motorboat,
leaving their hostage Nora Morado Beloso in waist deep water, firing their guns as they left. ...

The accused were charged with the offense of robbery with homicide and physical injuries

RTC = guilty of the offense of Robbery in Band with Homicide and Physical Injuries:
Reclusion Perpetua

Appellants claim that the witnesses have seriously contradicted themselves on crucial and material points.
Nora Beloso testified that Blancaflor was among those who entered the house; Roberto, however, stated
that he did not see Blancaflor in the house during the armed robbery; the maid claim that it was Blancaflor
who shot her when she ran outside
Court ruled that the identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime has been
sufficiently established; that the inconsistencies do not detract from the positiveness of the
identification

Appellants also admitted that on the particular date and time when the robbery took place, they were on
their way to Leyte but spent the night in Masbate due to engine trouble.
Court ruled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, (1) must prove that the accused
was somewhere else when the crime was committed; (2) must likewise demonstrate
that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime –
which the appellants failed to show such physical impossibility.

SC = conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence but may be proven through a series of acts
done in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose; it is enough that at the time the offense was committed,
the participants had the same purpose and were united in its execution as may be inferred from the
attendant circumstances. Likewise, they should be held accountable for the death of Severino, for when a
group of malefactors conspire to commit robbery and arm themselves for the purpose, no member of the
group may disclaim responsibility for any act of violence that is perpetrated by reason or on occasion of the
robbery.

ETO YUNG RULING SA CASE: As all the elements of robbery, namely, (1) intent to gain,
(2) unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another, and (3) violence against
or intimidation of any person have been duly proved in the instant case, therefore crime
committed is ROBBERY COMPLEXED WITH HOMICIDE (pagpatay kay Severino) with the
element of band as an ordinary aggravating circumstance and SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES (pagbaril sa maid)
ETO YUNG ROBBERY SA BOOK (ART. 294): Robbery is the taking of personal property
belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against, or intimidation
of any person, or using force upon anything.

ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY: (1) personal property, (2) belonging to another, (3) unlawful taking
of that property, (4) taking must be with intent to gain, (5) there is violence against or intimidation
of any person, or force upon anything

PEOPLE vs VERZOSA

Arthur Dojenas boarded a passenger jeepney on his way to work when Verzosa, one of the
passengers in the jeepney, while the it was cruising along C3, suddenly cried out: “Hold-up ito.
Walang papalag.” and grabbed the necklace of one of the passengers named Aplaon who resisted
and grabbed the firearm of the Verzosa. In return, Avandano (co-conspirator) pulled out a gun
and shot Aplaon (who was later declared dead on arrival). Before alighting from the jeepney, one
of the three perpetrators snatched the wristwatch of a passenger and they ran towards the
squatters’ area.

The police were subsequently summoned to which Dojenas volunteered to accompany them to
where the perpetrators ran but to no avail. While the police were conducting a follow-up
investigation, another victim in a separate robbery hold-up incident approached them and told
them that he could identify one of the assailants. The police were able to spot Verzosa attending
the wake of his grandmother – apprehend him and brought him to the Police Station. Thereafter,
they also detained Avendano. The two accused were positively identified by Dojenas.

RTC = guilty of HIGHWAY ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE as defined and penalized under
PD 532

Accused prayed for acquittal on the alleged unreliability of the positive identification made by the
lone eyewitness.

SC = Totality of Circumstances Test in resolving the admissibility of out-of-court identification of suspects:


(1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, (2) the witness’ degree of attention
at that time, (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness, (4) the level of certainty
demonstrated by the witness at the identification, (5) the length of time between the crime and the
identification, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure

Eyewitness Dojenas’ identification of appellants is solid and convincing since the robbery was staged in
broad daylight, thus, undoubtedly, visibility was clear.

Conspiracy has been amply and sufficiently proven. Appellant Verzosa simultaneously announced the
holdup, pulled out his gun tucked in his pants, pointed his gun at Aplaon and grabbed the latter's necklace.
When Aplaon resisted and successfully wrested Verzosa's gun, appellant Avendaño pulled out his gun and
shot Aplaon on the head. One of them grabbed the wristwatch of another passenger seated in front of the
jeepney. There is, therefore, no doubt that there was unity of purpose and design in the execution of the
unlawful act.
The RTC erred in convicting them of the crime of robbery with homicide under PD 532. What
appellants committed is the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. Said crime is committed
when, on the occasion of the robbery, homicide resulted; that all those who took part in the
robbery are liable as principals

Highway robbery/brigandage is defined in Section 2 (e) of said decree as "(t)he seizure


of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of
the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force
upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine
Highway." As manifest in the preamble of said decree, its objective is to deter and punish lawless
elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and
defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another thereby disturbing the peace and
tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social progress of the people. Its purpose
is INDISCRIMINATE HIGHWAY ROBBERY. If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the
crime is only robbery

Further, that Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes as highway robbery or brigandage
only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or
persons on Philippine highways as defined therein, and not acts of robbery committed
against only a predetermined or particular victim

A conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were organized for the
purpose of committing highway robbery indiscriminately. There is no such proof in this case.
Neither is there proof that appellants previously attempted to commit similar robberies to show
the ''indiscriminate" perpetration thereof.

PEOPLE vs PULUSAN

At about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Constancio Gomez was then plying his route from Balagtas,
Bulacan along the MacArthur Highway going towards Malolos, Bulacan on board a passenger
jeepney with six (6) passengers. Upon reaching Malolos, a group of four (4) male passengers
boarded the jeepney - two of them sat at the rearmost portion of the jeepney fronting each other;
the third man sat behind the driver's seat while the fourth man sat in the middle of the other
passengers and announced a hold-up. They divested the passengers of their valuables.

Pulusan took over the wheels from the driver Gomez and parked the jeepney in a talahiban.
Afterwards, appellant Rodriguez dragged Marilyn (17-year old passenger) to the talahiban few
meters away from the jeep and the four of them sexually abused her. Gomez was boxed at the
right jaw and told to board the jeepney while said man, together with appellants Pulusan and
Rodriguez, clubbed and stabbed the passenger who was called with him. When the three (3)
passengers were about to alight at the "estribo," they were clubbed and stabbed by appellants
and their companions. One of the three (3) passengers managed to run towards the "talahiban"
but his captors pursued and eventually killed him. Subsequently, Cresenciano Pagtaluan was hit
with a pipe and clubbed by appellants and their companions but one of them uttered "Pare, huwag
na yan, matanda na yan, hindi na papalag". Thereafter, Gomez was ordered to start the jeepney
while a shotgun was aimed at his temple and threatened not to report the incident. They were
threatened not to report the incident and sent them home. Appellants and his companions then
dispersed to different directions.

The surviving passengers (Gomez, Marilyn, and Cresenciano) proceeded to the Police Station to
report the incident. The day after, Gomez accompanied the police to the crime scene where the
bodies of his four male passengers were found. The police also proceeded to Malolos, Bulacan to
coordinate with the Malolos INP for the identification of the victims' cadavers and prepared an
"Initial Investigation Report" addressed to the Station Commander of the San Simon Police Station
in Pampanga concerning the "Robbery In Band, Rape, Multiple Homicide and Illegal
Possession of Firearms/Deadly Weapons"

In the early morning of January 23, 1986, Cpl. Rodriguez received a tip from a civilian informer
that the description of one of the four (4) suspects given by Marilyn Martinez tallied with that of
appellant Eduardo Pulusan who previously had a record in their file. They proceeded to the
residence of Pulusan in Pampanga but only found his brother who told them that his brother was
with Rodriguez and other accused in Sto. Tomas, Pampanga where Rodriguez resided. Upon
reaching the place, they noticed four (4) persons, including appellants Rodriguez and Pulusan,
jumping and scampering away from the house. The joint police and PC team pursued them and
eventually apprehended appellants Rodriguez and Pulusan.

An information charging Pulusan and Rodriguez with the crime of highway robbery attended with
multiple homicide and multiple rape was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Malolos. The
information was later amended to include Rolando Tayag and one John Doe alias Ramon or Efren.

RTC = guilty of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE penalized under ARTICLE 294

Appellant’s defense: inconsistencies of the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses


Court ruled that such trivial differences are in fact indicative of veracity. Witnesses testifying on the
same event do not have to be consistent in every detail considering the inevitability of differences in
their recollection, viewpoint or impression. Total recall or perfect symmetry is not required as long as the
witnesses concur on material points.

The crime of charged in the information was "highway robbery attended with multiple homicide
with multiple rape." Highway robbery or brigandage is defined in Sec (2) of Presidential Decree
No. 532, otherwise known as the "Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974," as:
(t)he seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the
taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation
of person or force upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person on
any Philippine Highway.

A conviction for highway robbery requires proof that the accused were organized for
the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. There is no such proof in this case.
Neither is there proof that the four men previously attempted to commit similar
robberies indiscriminately. The trial court thus correctly found Pulusan and Rodriguez
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape under Article 294 (1)
of the Revised Penal Code.
that regardless of the number of homicides committed on the occasion of a robbery, the
crime is still robbery with homicide. In this special complex crime, the number of
persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Art. 294 of
the Revised Penal Code. There is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the
said Code. The same crime is committed even if rape and physical injuries are also
committed on the occasion of said crime. Moreover, whenever the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide is proven to have been committed, all those who took part in
the robbery are liable as principals therein although they did not actually take part in
the homicide.

Rape had not been proven to be the original intention of the appellants, the crime having
been committed simply because there was a female passenger in the jeep. Hence, rape
can only be considered as an aggravating circumstance and not a principal offense.

You might also like