Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Crimes Against Property

18. G.R. No. 12270

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
RUFO TIONGCO, ET AL., defendants.
LEDESMA, appellants.
On or about December 3, 1915, in the municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo, six men,
among whom were the four defendants, Narciso Castao, Cristeto Ledesma, Pedro
Huerva, and Rufo Tiongco, all carrying arms, entered at night the house of Catalina
Balinon and, employing violence and intimidation upon the inmates thereof, seized
and carried away with them certain articles of personal use, valued at P357.50 and
belonging to Catalina Balinon and Rosario Juaneza. In order to obtain an easy
entrance into the house, of said defendants wore the uniform of a Constabulary
private, and another was dressed like a policeman. Upon their arrival at the house
and after making known that they were Pedro Huerva, in reply to the question asked
him from within, told the inmates of the house that they were Constabulary inspectors.
The defendants and their two companions were then invited to enter. Pedro Huerva
and Cristeto Ledesma went in, and the others remained outside. When inside the
house, Huerva and Ledesma again told the inmates that they, these defendants, were
Constabulary inspectors and had come to search the house to see whether people
living in it had firearms. Then they bound the two men they found in the house, an old
man and a young man, and conducted them below where they were left in charge of
the rest of the band, while Huerva and Ledesma reentered the house to see whether
they could find any articles of value.
After the robbers had seized such things as they wished to carry off and when ready
to go out, they took the three women below blindfolded. The band then headed for the
river near by to embark in the banca, in which they had Narciso Castao compelled
two of the women, Juaneza and Eusula, to accompany them, and while the band was
on its way to the banca these two men separated from the rest, took these two
women with them to a place near a marsh not far from the river bank, and there raped
them, employing force and intimidation to accomplish their purpose. Cristeto
Ledesma raped Rosario Juaneza, and Narciso went to the banca, where the other
robbers were waiting for them, and all left.

Ruling: As the crime of robbery, with that of the rape of said two women a crime
against chastity committed on the occasion of the robbery was perpetrated by the
malefactors in the said house of Catalina Balinon, both crimes should be punished
ass one single complex crime, as defined and qualified by paragraph 2 of article 503
of the Penal Code; for, besides the robbers seizing the money and the other effects
they found in said house, two of them sullied the honor of the two women living
therein, and the companions of the two men who committed the rape made no
opposition nor prevented these latter from consummating this other crime, apparently
unconnected with and unrelated to that penal law, in odium of such offenses against
property and chastity, has considered them complex and punished them by one
single penalty.

In the case of a complex crime, like the one here under prosecution, all the
persons who took part in its commission are identically liable therefor and should be
punished with the penalty provided in article 503, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code.
The defendant Rufo Tiongco and Pedro Huerva, who took no part in the rape of the
women Juaneza and Eusula, cannot be excepted from this penalty for the reason that
the penal law does not require the condition that the rape be committed prior to, or
simultaneously with the robbery. it being sufficient that this crime be perpetrated on
the occasion of the robbery. So the law says, in the definition of the crime, that when
the robbery is accompanied by rape or mutilation caused purposely, all the robbers
who took part on the perpetration of the complex crime are liable for all the offenses
falling within the limitation of certain circumstances specified by the law, committed by
the members of the band.
If any of the defendants had wounded or killed an inmate of the house that
they robbed, all the defendants would, under the law, have been punished for the
complex crime of robbery with the infliction of wounds or the commission of homicide;
and, in the present case, because two of the robbers raped two women, all the
malefactors are liable for the complex crime in question.
In the commission of the crime, due weight should be given to the
attendance of the aggravating circumstances of its having been perpetrated at night,
in the dwelling of the offended parties, in a desolate place, and in a band. There is no
extenuating circumstance to offset or compensate the effects of said aggravating
circumstances. Therefore the effects have incurred the maximum penalty fixed by law.
Dispositive Portion

Issue: W/N the crime committed constitutes a complex crime of robbery in a band,
accompanied by rape.

For the foregoing reasons we should sentence, as we hereby do, each of the
defendants Narciso Castao, Cristeto Ledesma, Pedro Huerva, and Rufo Tiongco, to
the penalty of cadena perpetua and to the accessory penalties of paragraph 2 and 3

of article 54 of the Penal Code; and, in case they be pardoned from the principal
penalty, they shall suffer those perpetual disqualification, subjection to the
surveillance of the authorities for the remainder of their lives, if these accessory
penalties be not remitted in the pardon of the principal penalty, and they shall make
restitution of the stolen articles, or jointly or severally pay the value thereof to the
aggrieved parties, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, pursuant to
19. G.R. No. 17436

article 51 of the Code. The defendants Cristeto Ledesma and Narciso Castao are
each sentenced to pay an indemnity of P200 to Rosario Juaneza and Nieves Eusula,
respectively. Each of the four appellants shall payone-fourth of the costs of both
instances. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed, n so far as it agrees
with this decision, and reversed, in so far as it does not. So ordered

March 9, 1922


The accused were prosecuted for the crime of robbery by a band. Two of them,
Escolastico Manalo and Bernabe de Chavez, were excluded from the information and
used as witnesses for the prosecution. The remaining five, who were found guilty of
the crime charged after trial, were sentenced, Sergio Manzanilla as the leader of the
band, to ten years and one day ofpresidio mayor, and all the rest to six years, ten
months, and one day of presidio mayor, all of them to return jointly and severally to
Regino Pavino the sum of one hundred twenty-six pesos (P126) and effects to the
value of six pesos (P6), and to Anatolio Villaverde and Julian Romulo the clothing and
effects appraised at five (P5) and eleven pesos (P11) respectively, and to pay each
one-seventh of the costs.
The five accused thus sentenced appealed from this judgment, but the accused,
Nicolas Barradas, Francisco Maliban, Luciano Mabilagan, and Luciano Zaragoza
withdrew their appeal during the pendency thereof.
The accused, Sergio Manzanilla, however, maintained his appeal, but his attorney de
oficio states to this court that he is constrained to say, in view of the evidence for the
prosecution and the absence of evidence for the defense, that the judgment appealed
from must be affirmed.
Later on, a motion signed by this appellant, Sergio Manzanilla, was filed in this court,
asking for a new trial on the ground; (a) That this accused was not called to testify, (b)
that the proceeding was held without due process of law, (c) that some of his
coaccused were used as witnesses for the prosecution, (d) that his attorney was
bribed by the accused who were used as witnesses, and (e) that the trial court
decided the case without the accused having presented their evidence.
Issue: W/N the crime constitutes robbery by a band with illegal detention
Considering the cause upon its merits, we find that the facts established beyond
doubt are: That the herein appellant, Sergio Manzanilla, led the party formed by these

seven accused; that more than three of them were armed, and therefore, they
constituted a ban, within the meaning of the law; that at the order of the said
Manzanilla, who was armed with a revolver, the seven accused took up their posts in
different places in the Province of Tayabas for the purpose of robbing, as they did in
fact rob, about ten travellers, whom they stopped on the highway and took to a
nearby forest where they tied them to the trunks of the trees and intimidated them
with their weapons, the accused Sergio Manzanilla having fired four times on one of
the victims, named Tomas Villaro, when the latter attempted to escape, thereby
inflicting a wound on his head which, fortunately, was of a light character; and by this
means the accused took the money and effects mentioned in the information and
referred to in the beginning of this decision, leaving thereafter the victim tied, as they
were, to the trunks of the trees in the craggy ground.
The facts above stated constitute the crime of robbery by a band with illegal
detention. As to the appellant, it further appears that the crime is robbery with physical
injuries, but this point is not alleged in the information. We find no attenuating or
aggravating circumstance information that the crime was committed in an uninhabited
place was not sufficiently proven. The crime proven falls under the provisions of
article 503, No. 4, of the Penal code, for while it does not appear that the persons
detained were held for ransom or deprived of their liberty for more than one day
(which would have made No. 3 of said article applicable), we are of the opinion that
such restraint of liberty constitutes the unnecessary violence and intimidation referred
to in the aforesaid No. 4 of article 503; the penalty to be imposed in such a case
would be that of presidio mayor in its medium degree to cadena temporal in its
minimum degree had not the crime been, as it was, committed by a band, and the
appellant been its leader, as is shown by the evidence. For this reason the penalty
next higher to that aforementioned is the penalty to be imposed, in accordance with
paragraph 2 of article 504 of the Penal Code, which is cadena temporal in its medium
degree to cadena perpetua.
No modifying circumstance having attended the commission of the crime, said
penalty must be imposed in its medium degree, as provided in rule 1 of article 81 of
the said Code, which is cadena temporal in its maximum degree.
Dispositive Portion:

The judgment appealed from is modified and the appellant sentenced to seventeen
years, four months, and one day of cadena temporal, with the accessory penalties
provided in article 56 of the Penal Code, to return jointly and severally with the other
four accused convicted in this cause to Regino Pavino the sum of one hundred
twenty-six pesos (P126) and the effects described in the information the value of
which is fixed at six pesos (P6), and to Anatolio Villaverde and Julian Romulo the
clothing and effects also described in the information and appraised at five (5) and
eleven (P11) pesos, respectively, and to pay one-seventh of the costs in the first
instance, and one-fifth of those in this instance. So ordered.

of the three pesos to Benita Manuel, to restore the articles recovered, or to pay the
value of the property not recovered, and to pay the costs. From that judgment the
defendants appealed to this court.

20. G.R. No. 6516

The criminal act should not be classified as robbery en cuadrilla, for the reason that
the record does not show that the four persons who committed the crime were all
armed; one of them, was seen to carry a stick, and article 505 of the code requires
that four or more armed persons unite in the robbery. Neither may the crime be held
to be comprised within paragraph 4 of the said article 503, for the injury inflicted upon
Benita Manuel can only be classified as menos grave; the physician who attended her
from the beginning so classified the wounds and testified that after he had set the
fractured bone and had treated her two or more times, she returned home and he did
not see her again, though he believed that she could not have engaged in her
habitual labors during a period of thirty days. Therefore these wounds must be
classified simply as lesiones menos graves.


Between 7 and 8 o'clock of the evening of March 27, 1910, four men assaulted the
house of the spouses Basilio Longino and Leona Fontano, situated in the pueblo of
Vigan, the capital of the Province of Ilocos Sur, when the owners of the house were
absent and the only occupants thereof were Ruperta Longino, a girl 13 years of age,
a daughter of the said couple, and her grandmother, Benita Manuel, who was in the
kitchen. On appearing at the house, the robbers asked for some water to drink and
when Ruperta gave it to them, one of the men threw it into the fireplace, and the
others immediately put out the light. As the grandmother Benita Manuel reprehended
them for their conduct, they ill-treated her and some of them struck her with a stick
while the others choked the girl and blindfolded her. The said men then seized a trunk
belonging to Leona Fontano; it was locked and its owner had the key. They carried
the trunk outside, where it was afterwards found, on the same night of the robbery, in
a vegetable garden at a place east of the house. It had been broken open and P42 in
cash, jewelry and wearing apparel worth about a hundred pesos, were missing. As a
result of the illtreatment to which the old lady, Benita Manuel, was subjected, her left
forearm was broken, her chest was bruised and her head swollen. She testified that
she was ill for more than a month and was unable to work for thirty days.
Subsequently a complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur,
charging the said five defendants with the crime of robo en cuadrilla, and the court, in
view of the evidence adduced, sentenced each of the accused to the penalty of eight
years and one day of presidio mayor, to the accessory penalties, to pay an indemnity

Issue: W/N the crime should be classified as as robbery en cuadrilla (by a band)
The facts related, fully proved in this case, show the crime to be that of robbery,
provided for and penalized in articles 502 and 503, No. 5, of the Penal Code ,
inasmuch as in the evening of March 27, 1910, five individuals assaulted the house of
Basilio Longina and Leona Fontano, during their absence, and, after having
maltreated their daughter, Ruperta Longino, and said Ruperta's grandmother, Benita
Manuel, seized and carried away a trunk belonging to the said couple, which was
afterwards found broken open, at a place some distance from the house and in a
vegetable garden, and from which were missing P42 in cash, some jewelry and
wearing apparel, the latter valued altogether at about P100.

The two defendants last mentioned, Lucas Barroga and Pedro Alisias, should be
acquitted, since the record does not disclose conclusive and satisfactory proof that
they took part in the robbery in question, and even were their innocence doubtful, no
legal reason exists for their conviction and they must be acquitted.
In the commission of the robbery in question, account must be taken of the
attendance of the aggravating circumstances of its having been perpetrated at night
and in the dwelling of the offended parties, with no extenuating circumstances to
offset the same; therefore, the penalty must be imposed upon the convicted principals
in the maximum degree of that specified in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid article 503 of
the Penal Code.

With respect to the first errors assigned to the judgment appealed from, it was proven
at trial that the confessions made before the local authorities by the three convicted
defendants through intimidation, violence, threats or promises, and therefore it is held
that they freely and voluntarily made and must be accepted as proof of the crime
charged and of the guilt of its perpetrators.
The act of displaying before an offended party, for his identification, articles seized in
the possession of the alleged perpetrators of a robbery or theft, is lawful and is not
prohibited by the law of procedure, and questions leading to the identification of the
said articles may be asked such offended party; Therefore the trial court, in
proceeding in the manner stated, did not err.

who was brought to a grassy area where she was beaten, stripped of her clothes and gangraped by the six accused David Cinco, Felicito Tuscano, Rogelio Nuiz, Teofilo Tuscano, Maning
Ballanad, and Willing Disabelle who took turns in sexually assaulting her.
The appellants allege in their first assignment of error that the lower court erred in giving full
credit to Gloria Cinco's identification of them because she could not have recognized her rapists
in the darkness of the grassy field where she was raped at around ten o'clock at night.
Furthermore, it was highly unnatural that after Maning Ballanad had consummated his lustful
attack against her, she did not get up and run, but instead lay inert on the ground until his five
companions had finished taking their turns in abusing her without further resistance on her part.

Dispositive portion

W/N the crime constitutes robbery in band with multiple rape

For the foregoing reasons, and concluding that thereby the other errors assigned to
the judgment appealed from are refuted, we hereby sentence the defendants Proceso
Ramos, Lucas Villaros and Dionisio Barroga to the penalty of eight years and one day
of presidio mayor, to the accessory penalties, to restore the unrecovered articles
robbed or to pay their value, jointly and severally, in the sum of P42 and also pay,
jointly and severally, the sum of P7.50 as indemnity, to the injured party Benita
Manuel, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in view of the failure
of the penalty; they shall also each of them pay one-third of the costs of both
instances. The other defendants, Pedro Alisias and Lucas Barroga, are acquitted,
with their share of the costs de oficio. The judgment appealed from is thus affirmed, in
so far as it is consistent with this decision, and in so far as it is not, it is reversed. The
defendants Pedro Alisias and Lucas Barroga shall immediately be set at liberty by an
order of release addressed to the Director of Prisons, should they not be held for any
other cause.


21. G.R. No. 79497 February 27, 1991

On April 14, 1985, at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening the house of Marianito Minok at Brgy.
Hitomnog, Dagami, Leyte, was robbed by the accused David Cinco, Felicito Tuscano, Rogelio
Nuizalias "Virgilio Nuiz," Teofilo Tuscano alias "Lulu," Loreto Castro alias "Olyer Castro," Maning
Ballanad, Willing Disabelle, Erning Tuscano and their unidentified companions in the total
amount of P1,885.00 belonging to Marianito Minok consisting of P500.00 cash, one-half sack of
rice valued at P165.00; a 30 kilo pig worth P600.00; wrist watch worth P500.00 and four (4) long
bolos worth P120.00; that by reason of or on the occasion of the above-mentioned robbery the
two accused particularly Rogelio Nuiz and Felicito Tuscano and their companions manhandled
Jerico Buhalog, Edmundo Minok and Rogelio Caseres who all sustained injuries.
The three boys, Jerico Buhalog, Edmundo Minok, and Rogelio Caseres together with Gloria
Cinco were brought by the accused to a forested area, where they beat up the three boys. About
two kilometers from the house of Gloria Cinco, the three boys were separated from Gloria Cinco

Gloria's credibility can not be doubted, not only because her testimony is sufficiently
corroborated by medical findings, but because she had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate
the accused (People vs. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405). A married woman with a husband and teenage
son would not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused by six men unless that was the
truth. (People vs. Gan, 46 SCRA 667.)
The appellants' second assignment of error is likewise devoid of merit. Their alibis are
unconvincing. David Cinco, Teofilo Tuscano and Felicito Tuscano alleged that on April 14, 1985,
they were in Barangay Macaalang, Dagami, Leyte, making copra from morning until midnight.
However, they admitted that Brgy. Macaalang and Brgy. Hitomnog (where the crimes were
committed) are connected to each other by a foot path. No evidence was presented to show that
it was impossible for them to reach Brgy. Hitomnog from Brgy. Macaalang which is only two
kilometers distant, considering that both are barangays of the municipality of Dagami. Rogelio
Nuiz, on the other hand, claimed that on April 14, he was in Tacloban, Leyte and returned to
Brgy. Hitomnog, Dagami, Leyte on April 15, 1985, but his alibi was uncorroborated by reliable
Alibi is the weakest defense an accused can concoct. "In order to prosper, it must be so
convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at
the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission" (People vs, Sato, 163 SCRA
607). In the face of positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses, an alibi crumbles like
a sand fortress.
The appellants' allegation that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of robbery, despite tile
fact that none of the prosecution witnesses saw them enter and cart away things from the house
of Marianito Minok is not well taken, for even if they did not enter Minok's house during the
robbery they were positively identified as part of the group which entered and robbed the house.
Being co-conspirators in the robbery, they stand equally guilty with those who actually committed
it. "In robbery by a band, all the members of the band are presumed to be conspirators or coprincipals in the assaults committed by the band, unless he who claims to be a non-conspirator
proves that he attempted to prevent the assault." (People vs. Bazar, 162 SCRA 609.)

The guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirms their
conviction for the crime of robbery in band with multiple rape. Under Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by P.D. No. 77, "when the robbery accompanied with rape is
committed with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death." However, since the death penalty is no longer imposable under
the 1987 Constitution, the Solicitor General correctly recommended that the death penalty
imposed upon the appellants by the trial court should be commuted to reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed with modification as to the penalty
imposable on the appellants, David Cinco, Rogelio Nuiz alias Virgilio Nuiz, Teofilo
Tuscano alias "Lulu," and Felicito Tuscano alias"Etoc" which is reduced to reclusion
perpetua but each of the individual appellants is ordered to pay damages in the increased

amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000), or the total sum of P120,000 to the aggrieved
woman, Gloria Cinco. Costs against the appellants.
So ordered.