1and2.docx

Briones v People FACTS: S/G Molina and S/G Gual approached the group to stop the mauling; it was at this point that S/G Molina lost his firearm to Briones. S/G Molina subsequently reported the incident to his supervisor, Arthur Alonzo, and to SPO1 Manuel Plete. The police arrested Briones after conducting an investigation. Briones denied any participation in the mauling and the firearm grabbing, and claimed that he was in his house when the incident happened. Despite the information of robbery, RTC convicted Briones of Simple theft. The CA found Briones guilty of robbery under Article 293, in relation to paragraph 5 of Article 294, of the Code, and not of theft. ISSUE: WON there are factual and legal bases to support his conviction of the crime of robbery HELD: No. Briones is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of THEFT under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The distinguishing element between the crimes of robbery and theft is the use of violence or intimidation as a means of taking the property belonging to another; the element is present in the crime of robbery and absent in the crime of theft. We agree with the RTC that only the crime of theft was committed in the case as S/G Gual's testimony does not show that violence or intimidation attended the taking of the firearm; S/G Gual only testified that Briones merely grabbed the firearm and ran away with it. Thus, we can only convict Briones for the crime of theft for taking S/G Molina’s firearm without his consent. Theft is produced the moment there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking with intent to gain. Pideli v People FACTS: Placido and Wilson Pideli entered into a verbal partnership agreement to subcontract a rip-rapping and spillway project. Petitioner Ernesto Pideli assisted the two in purchasing construction materials. In the end, Placido hoped to obtain his share of the partnership income. Unexpectedly, petitioner informed Placido that nothing was left of the proceeds after paying off the supplier.8Despite repeated demands, petitioner refused to give Placido his share in the net income of the contract. Information of theft was filed. RTC and CA convicted the accused of the crime of theft. Motion to reconsider was denied, hence this petition. Petitioner posits that as an agent of partner, intent to gain cannot be imputed against petitioner. ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in convicting the accused for the crime of theft. HELD: No. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision. The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa. Hence, although there is misappropriation of funds here, petitioner was correctly found guilty of theft. Consulta v People FACTS: At about 2pm June 7, 1999, Nelia R. Silvestre with Maria Viovicente and Veronica Amar, boarded a tricycle on their way to Pembo, Makati City. Upon reaching Ambel Street, appellant and his brother Edwin Consulta blocked the tricycle and under their threats, the driver alighted and left. Appellant and Edwin at once shouted invectives at Nelia, saying foul and threatening words. On the occasion, Consulta grabbed the 18k gold necklace of Nelia. An information of robbery was filed. RTC convicted accused of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph No. 5, in relation to Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. CA affirmed. Hence, the appeal. ISSUE: WON the accused committed the crime as charged HELD: No. The Supreme Court convicted the accused of grave coercion instead of Robbery with intimidation of persons. The taking of Nelia’s necklace does not indicate presence of intent to gain on appellant’s part. Absent intent to gain on the part of appellant, robbery does not lie against him. He is not necessarily scot-free, however. Art. 286. Grave coercions- any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong. Court finds that by appellant’s employment of threats, intimidation and violence consisting of, inter alia, uttering of invectives, driving away of the tricycle driver, and kicking of the tricycle, Nelia was prevented from proceeding to her destination. Appellant is thus guilty of grave coercion. People v Feliciano Anabe FACTS: December 31, 1997, appellant instructed Felicita and Conrada to repair to their room while he sat beside Uy who was watching television. On Felicita's return she saw appellant killed Uy and had stolen the Tag heuer watch of Uy. Appellant at once instructed Felicita and Conrada to leave the house, otherwise they would be suspected of killing Uy. Appellant then hailed a taxi which the three of them boarded after he had gone back to the house to set it on fire. On Felicita’s request, appellant brought her to her province, Butuan. Felicita told her mother of the incidents in which she had no participation. She was soon brought to Bombo Radio where she surrendered. RTC convicted the accused Feliciano Anabe of the crime of robbery with homicide and destructive arson. CA affirmed, hence this appeal. ISSUE: WON the accused committed the crime as charged HELD: No, the proper penalty for the single crime of qualified theft, Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of qualified theft were established. Appellant could not have committed the crime had he not been employed as a house helper of Chan and family. His employers, as well as their relatives who stay at the Chan residence, reposed their trust and confidence in him while he was living thereat. He was allowed an almost unlimited access throughout the house and was even provided his own room. It was this trust and confidence that he exploited to enrich himself. Committed with grave abuse of confidence, the theft cannot but be qualified. People v Jabiniano FACTS: On August 27, 1998 1:00 am Jabiniano and John Doe, armed with handguns and with entered the dwelling of the offended party Maria Divina Pasilang, Ruben Pasilang and their minor children. Handguns were pointed to the offended party and Ruben who were awakened after they were kicked. The accused demanded for their money and after finding it the accused take, rob and carry away the money amounting to more or less P2,000.00. Before fleeing with the money, the accused treacherously attack the victim Ruben Pasilang by shooting him with the use of their guns thereby inflicting a mortal gunshot wound which caused his untimely death. RTC and CA convicted the accused with the crime of Robbery with Homicide ISSUE: WON the lower courts erred in it’s conviction HELD: No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. 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. In the case at bar, appellant Jabiniao demanded money from Maria Divina and Ruben from the very start, plainly manifesting his and his companion's original intent to commit robbery. It was only after Ruben freed his hands when appellant Jabiniao panicked, ran outside the door and fired gunshots from the outside. Clearly, appellant Jabiniao fired the shots in order to facilitate his escape and eliminate his victims who could become witnesses against him and his companion. People v Abdul Aminola et al. FACTS: On August 31, 1999 accused armed with an unlicensed gun, take, rob and divest Nestor Aranas Gabuya cash amounting to P150,000.00, placed inside the bag which was forcibly taken by the respondents, necklace, Timex watch and a licensed 9 mm. Bernardelli gun. In the commission of them crime of robbery, accused, Datu Ban Ampatuan, Abdul Aminola, Alimudin Laminda, Abdulan Sandaton and Mike Batimbang attack, assault and shot Nestor Aranas Gabuya with the gun into the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal gunshot wounds which directly caused his death. the RTC found accused-appellants Aminola and Maitimbang guilty of robbery with homicide, but acquitted accused Sandaton and Laminda. CA affirmed, hence the appeal. ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in convicting the accused

HELD: No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide. Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time. The prosecution was able to establish the elements of robbery with homicide through the totality of their evidence. The first three elements were established when witness testified that he saw, and positively identified, accused-appellants taking Gabuya’s property by force and both shooting Gabuya. Gabuya’s death resulting from their attack proves the last element of the complex crime as duly confirmed by the post-mortem report.

People v Esoy FACTS: January 18, 2001,accused boarded a passenger jeepney pretending to be paying passengers, suddenly pulled out their deadly bladed weapons, stabbing on the chest one LORENZO CORO and grabbing his cellphone take, rob and carry away the said cellphone of against his will. Lorenzo B. Coro, sustained fatal stab wounds which were the direct cause of his death immediately thereafter.Esoy,Ciano and Bolalacao was convicted by the RTC of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. CA affirmed, hence, the appeal. ISSUE: WON the guilt of the appellants for the crime of robbery with homicide has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. All the elements of res gestae are sufficiently established as to the victim's utterance that his phone was taken: (1) the principal act (res gestae) – the robbery and stabbing of the victim – is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, that is, within minutes after the victim was stabbed and his cellular phone was snatched; and (3) the statement concerns the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances – his cellular phone was stolen during the startling occurrence. Their original and principal intention was undoubtedly to stage a robbery with the use of violence. Thus, the lower court did not erred in convicting the accused.

People v Veloso FACTS: May 21, 1970, Veloso and a companion, both masked, entered the house of Odiamar family, armed with .45 caliber pistol and a revolver, saying “Hold up to”. In the occasion, Veloso shot Hermie and inflicted injury upon Sotera and Felimon Odiamar. One of the robbers ransacked the place, while another demanded money from Felimon. The robbers also asked for the key to the aparador, from where they took a tear gas gun, 3 necklaces, 4 wrist watches, 3 pairs of earrings and a collection of old coins. They also took the jeep parked ypon request of the key. RTC convicted the accused of the crime of robbery with homicide and double serious physical injuries and found the case being attended by 6 aggravating circumstances (band, disguise, night time, dwelling, recidivism, and use of motor vehicle) Hence, the appeal. ISSUE:WON the lower court erred in convicting the accused HELD: No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. But the lower court erred in considering use of motor vehicle as one of the aggravating circumstances. What is only present in the case are: (1)the Band: Darwin Veloso and five others, all armed, cooperated in the commission of the offense; (2)Disguise: They wore masks to conceal their Identity; (3)Nighttime: he and his co-conspirators waited for nighttime before committing the robbery; (4) Dwelling: Entry into the dwelling of the victim is not inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide, since the authors thereof could have committed the offense without violating the domicile of their Victim; (5)Recidivism: It appears that prior to the commission of the offense in question, he had been convicted by the Court of First Instance of Albay of two robbery cases. In the use of motor vehicle, accused and his co-conspirators used the jeep of the Odiamars merely to facilitate their escape, hence, not considered aggravating circumstance.