US vs.
SANA LIM WON prosecution was able to establish the fact of robbery because only 2
PEOPLE vs. JAVA
 On March 19, ’93, 2 men appearing to be customers went inside the V. Valdez
Trading, a gravel & sand establishment. 1 approached Salvador Cambaya, a truck
helper, & poked a gun at him, announced a hold-up, took his P20 & ordered him to
go inside the building where the other man, later identified as Felimon Java, had
gathered the other employees & customers. Java ransacked the drawers & took
some money then went inside a room where Michael Valdez, the son of the owner of
the establishment was. Java rushed out holding a brown envelope & they left.
 Virginia Cabate Valdez, Michael’s mom who was outside the establishment at the
time, was informed that a commotion was happening in their establishment. She
went out and Michael told her they were robbed of P50K & Michael hopped on their
car to chase the robbers. Virginia hopped in. They were able to catch up and while
they were side by side with the robbers’ get away vehicle [a jeepney], one of the
robbers fired at them, hitting Michael on the torso & on his side, killing him.
 Cambaya & Mrs. Valdez described the man who killed Michael. Mrs. Valdez also
testified she could positively identify her son’s killer if she saw him again. As a
result of such identification, Java was arrested and was charged with Robbery w/
Homicide.
 At the trial, Cambaya and Mrs. Valdez recounted that the accused, conspiring
together, with intent to gain and with violence, intimidation of person & by pointing
their firearms, robbed Virginia & Michael of P50K and on the occasion of such
robbery, shot Michael and killed him.
 Pastor also testified that his establishment lost P50K to the robbers.
 The defense presented the testimonies of Felimon Java and Col. Rodolfo Garcia,
Patrolman Jose Malasa & Pfc. Mario Almariego—the witnesses. Their theory is that
accused could not have committed the crime charged as he was at the office of Col.
Rodolfo Garcia, then station Commander of QC Police Force, at the precise time &
date as that of the commission of the crime. They also presented as evidence, the
letter of recommendation that Java was asking from Col. Garcia for his
reinstatement to the service addressed to Col. Guillermo Domondon & dated Mar.
19, 1993.
 TC convicted Java of the offense charged and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua
with damages amounting to P50K in relation to the robbery at bar, P50K as actual
damages, P100K as moral damages and P100K as exemplary damages.
WON Cambaya positively identified Java as a principal actor in the commission of
the crime at bar given the disparity in the cartographs of the supposed suspects
 YES. Although the cartographs did look rather dissimilar, the descriptions given by
Virginia and Cambaya point to one & the same person. Besides, the important factor
is that both witnesses identified Java in court when they came face to face with him
& pinpointed to him respectively as one of the robbers and the gunman.
witnesses testified to the same, namely, Cambaya and Pastor Valdez.
 YES. Sec. 34, ROC 132 requires that for evidence to be considered, it should be
formally presented while Sec. 35 adds that the offer of the testimony of a witness
must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Although Pastor was only
called to the witness stand at the latter part of the presentation of the prosecution’s
evidence and there was no mention why his testimony was being presented, the
presentation of his testimony was not objected to either, w/c is required by Sec. 36.
 Besides, the robbery was already established by Cambaya who stated that his P20
was taken at gunpoint & that Java’s companion ransacked their office, found and
fled away w/ some money. The amount stolen, unknown to Cambaya, came to be
known through Mrs. Valdez who testified that Michael told her that they have been
robbed of P50K. Such a statement is admissible in evidence as one of the
exceptions to the hearsay rule on the ground of trustworthiness & necessity.
WON Virginia positively identified Java as a principal actor in the commission of
the crime at bar
 YES. Java points out that at Virginia was so tense & nervous during the car chase
and was crying the whole time so her attention must have been focused on her son
& not on the assailant. As she was crying, her glasses must have even misted. Such
conjectures, however, have no basis in fact.
WON Java may be found guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide based on
evidence not on record
 YES. Cambaya positively identified Java as one of those who held him up as well as
the establishment where he works and Mrs. Valdez identified him as the jeep
passenger who shot & killed his son. Hence, the connection between the robbery &
the homicide was sufficiently established.
 Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the act of killing was done in order to repel an
aggression w/c, had it been effective, would have endangered the whole success of
the robbery committed. It was done to defend the possession of the stolen property.
 Where the deceased followed the robbers after he had been robbed and by reason
thereof, he was fired upon by one of the robbers, the crime is robbery with homicide
(People v. Moises), even if the murder was perpetuated at a place different from
that of the robbery & after an appreciable interval of time (People v. Estabillo)
WON credence should be given to the testimonies of Col. Garcia and other
defense witnesses
 NO. Notwithstanding the stature of Java’s witnesses, their testimonies may be
disregarded in the light of the other defense evidence at hand.
 The date of the letter of recommendation does not establish that Java was at the
Colonel’s office on said date & time as that of the commission of the crime. There
was no logbook which recorded his visit,nor the date & time thereof; nor was the
letter of recommendation recorded as having been issued by the Colonel’s office on
the said date.
Held: Decision of the RTC affirmed in toto.
PEOPLE vs. MANGULABNAN, et al. [1956]
Plaintiff & appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendants: Agustin Mangulabanan, Dionisio Sarmiento, Arcadio Balmeo, Patricio
Gonzales, Florentino Flores, Crispin Estrella, Felipe Calison, Pedro
Villareal, Claudio Reyes, “Peter Doe”, and “John Doe”
Appellant: Agustin Mangulabnan
Facts:
 Nov. 5, 1953: reports of gunfire awaked sps Vicente Pacson & Cipriana Tadeo, their 4 1. Mangulabnan is a co-participant in the crime of ROBBERY W/HOMICIDE punishable
minor children & Monica del Mundo, Cipriana’s mom. Several persons were going up by reclusion perpetua to death.
their house w/c prompted Pacson to hide inside the ceiling. The malefactors were 2. AC: nighttime, dwelling, abuse of superior strength, w/aid of armed men.
able to enter the house by breaking the walls in the kitchen & living room. Only one 3. Required no. of votes to impose death penalty was not met, thus penalty imposed
intruder was recognized by Cipriana whom she identified as Agustin Mangulabnan. would be RECLUSION PERPETUA.
The intruders were able to take a necklace (P50), P50 in bills and P20 in coins from
Cipriana while they were able to take P200 in cash and a gold necklace (P200) from PEOPLE vs. MARQUEZ
Monica, who was struck in the face twice w/the butt of a gun for failure to produce a
diamond ring. One of the children, perhaps terrified of the whole event, called onto
his mother w/c irked one of the intruders who made a move to strike the boy. Monica
was able to ward off the blow. One of the intruders then went up a table & fired his
gun at the ceiling. Mangulabnan & his 2 unidentified companions left. Cipriana then
called her husband however she didn’t receive any answer. She climbed up the
ceiling & found him dead.
 According to the autopsy Pacson’s death was caused by a gunshot wound.
 Mangulabnan was arrested & he admitted his participation in the robbery & killing of
Pacson.
 A complaint was filed w/the Justice of Peace against Mangulabnan & several others
for robbery w/homicide. Mangulabnan was found guilty as charged while the others
were either acquitted or the case against them was dismissed.

Issues & Ratio (not related to the topic):

1. Court ruled that a new trial can’t be granted since Mangulabnan failed to show that
his evidence was discovered after trial, that such could have not been discovered &
produced at the trial even w/exercise of reasonable diligence, that it is material & of
such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.
2. The post-mortem report is admissible as evidence even if it’s only a carbon copy
since it was signed by the physician who executed the original. Besides, PEOPLE vs. LAGMAY
Magulabnan’s objective is too late. He should have objected during the hearing. Plaintiff/Appellee: People of the Phils.
3. The lower court was correct in rejecting an affidavit issued by a Sgt. Fernando of the Accused/Appellants: Conrado Lagmay, Fernando Baetiong, Francisco Padullana
Phil. Constabulary w/c claimed that Civilian Commando members were responsible
for Pacson’s death. Such can’t be given credence since it’s based on hearsay and the Appeal from the decision of the RTC of QC. Branch 84
other intruders were actually unidentified. Gutierrez, Jr., J.

Crim Issue: WON Mangulabnan should be held liable for robbery w/homicide
even if he was not responsible for shooting Pacson. – YES
Ratio:
1. Mangulabnan himself admitted that he participated in the execution of the act. Such
is supported by Cipriana’s testimony.
2. Mangulabnan w/the other malefactors came together & they also left the scene of
the crime together. This shows conspiracy among them w/c rendered each of them
liable for the acts of the others. (P v. Delgado)
3. Record shows that Mangulabnan participated in the criminal design to commit the
robbery w/his co-defendants. Since there’s a unity of purpose & action arising from a
common design, they’re all responsible for the results regardless of their individual
participation. (US v. Ramos)
4. Although Pacson’s killing may have been unpremeditated, a closer look at the
Spanish version of the RPC Art. 294 No. 1 would show that robbery w/homicide does
not only punish the person guilty of robbery w/the use of violence
against/intimidation of any person. It’s sufficient that homicide would result by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It is immaterial that death would
supervene by mere accident as long as homicide be produced by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, w/o reference/distinction as to the circumstances, causes,
modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime.
Holding:
Facts:
The accused/appellants were convicted by the RTC of QC for the crime of Robbery with
Frustrated Homicide under Sec. 2 Art 294 of the RPC. They were alleged to have held-up a
passenger jeepney, divested its passengers of their possessions and shot and stabbed a
police officer, who was a passenger in the jeepney, in the process.
In his defense, Lagmay alleged that he was only a passenger of said jeepney, and that it
was Baetiong who committed the robbery and stabbed a passenger (Pat. Casiano
Pedrano). Baetiong on the other hand insisted that it was Lagmay who shot Pat. Pedrano.
Lagmay was caught by a security guard shortly after the robbery.
Meanwhile, Padullana alleged that he was only a passenger of the jeepney and that
Baetiong pointed a bladed instrument at him in order to force him to come with Baetiong
to a house in Tondo. Both were caught by police inside the said house hours after the
robbery. Padullana further asserts that he was mauled by police and forced to sign a
statement.
Issue: WON the accused-appellants were convicted under the proper RPC
provision? No
The defense argues that there could be no conspiracy among the 3 of them as there was
no proof that they knew each other and that there was a preconceived agreement
between them to commit the robbery. The Court said that there is no need to prove close
personal association nor produce evidence of a previous plan to commit a crime in order
to establish a conspiracy. Conspiracy is established by EVIDENCE OF UNITY OF
PURPOSE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME and UNITY IN ITS
EXECUTION.
What is important is that in the performance of specific acts to achieve their goal there
was “such closeness and coordination that would indicate a common purpose.”
Such closeness and coordination was established by the participatory acts of the 3
appellants, wherein one announced the hold-up (Baetiong)
while the others (Lagmay and Padullana) divested the passengers of their valuables.
In finding that Padullana’s assertion that he was forced by Baetiong to come
with him to be without merit, the Court asks: Why could he not devise a scheme to
escape?

The accused also allege that their constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel were
violated as they were tortured into making extrajudicial confessions, without the benefit of
counsel. The Court agrees with the appellants, therefore their confessions should not have
been considered by the trial Court. But they were positively identified by the credible
prosecution witnesses; this fact supports the judgment of conviction against them.

However, the Court found that the TC erred in designating the crime they committed as
Robbery with Frustrated Homicide under Art 294 Sec 2 of the RPC because the said
provision refers to robberies that are accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or
physical injuries which result in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness. The
prosecution was not able to establish these enumerated facts. Therefore the Court deems
it proper that the appellants be held liable under Art 294 Sec 4 of the RPC which punishes
robberies accompanied by violence or intimidation against persons.

Taking into consideration all the accompanying circumstances they deemed liable under
Art 294 Sec 4, in the course of which serious physical injuries enumerated in paragraphs 3
and 4 of Art 263 (that they shot and stabbed a passenger who as a result became
temporarily incapacitated) were committed. Their act is also aggravated by the fact that 2
instances mentioned in Art 295 were present in the commission of the crime: 1) that they
attacked a motor vehicle thereby surprising its passengers and that they made 2) use of a
firearm.

Held: Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are sentenced to an indeterminate
sentence of 10 yrs and 1 day to 17 yrs and 4 months.
 PEOPLE vs. PONCIANO
Facts:
♦ In the information that was filed against Lawrence Ponciano it was stated that with
intent of gain and by means of force and violence and while armed with a bladed
instrument, take, rob and carry away with him the following: one (1) Sony Betamax
with remote control worth 1,600.00 (Saudi Rials), one (1) transformer worth 300
(Saudi Rials), one (1) Rewinder worth 150.00 (Saudi Rials) all belonging to Alejandro
Rivera, and two (2) wrist watch worth 400.00 (Saudi Rials) belonging to Ricardo
Rivera and Alicia Rivera. It was also stated that during the commission of the crime
of robbery and/or by reason/on occasion thereof, the above-named accused did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab and assault Regina Villanueva,
Ricardo Rivera and Alicia Rivera with the bladed weapon he was provided inflicting on
them physical injuries which directly resulted in their death.
♦ Rowena Rivera (wife of Ricardo) testified that the accused together with her husband
, Eulogio Sanchez and Orlando Silvestre was having a drinking session in their house.
Rowena and her niece, Alicia, went downstairs to ask the accused and his
companions to leave. The accused did no want to leave so they forced him to go
home. As a result the accused took out a bladed instrument and brandished the
weapon at them. Alicia and Rowena ran and hid inside one of the rooms. They only
came out when the police arrived. When she came out of the room she noticed the
Betamax, transformer, and rewinder, were moved from their original location.
♦ Eulogio Sanchez testified that when he woke up he saw the accused standing in the
kitchen holding a knife. He did not see the actual killing.
♦ Silvestre testified that he saw Ricardo Rivera already dead, saw Ponciano holding a
knife stained with blood and saw that the Ponciano had bloodstains on the upper
portion of his pants
♦ Pat Orig testified that Pfc. Chua frisked the accused they found in his possession two
wristwatches and the push button of the Betamax.
Issue: WON he evidence presented is sufficient to convict Ponciano of the crime of
robbery with multiple Homicide? NO
Ratio:
♦ Assuming that a complex crime was committed, it should be categorized as robbery
with homicide regardless of the number of persons killed by reason or on occasion of
the robbery.
♦ Ponciano claims that the testimony of Orig is mere heresay but the court held that
his testimony was not a heresay because he was present when Chua frisked
Ponciano. Ponciano was caught in possession of the stolen property, he is presumed
to be the taker in the absence of satisfactory explanation of his possession.
♦ Circumstances that point towards the guilt of Ponciano
o the prosecution witnesses placed the appellant at the scene of the crime; he,
himself, testified that he was there.
o Sanchez and Orig, saw the appellant with a knife
o Fernandez-Rivera stated that the appellant took out a bladed instrument,
approached her and Alicia and brandished the weapon at them. She also saw
the appellant lunge at Alicia
o Silvestre saw Ricardo Rivera already dead, saw the appellant holding a knife
stained with blood and saw that the appellant had bloodstains on the upper
portion of his pants. The appellant admitted on cross examination that his pants
were covered with blood. Silvestre also stated that the appellant admonished
him not to touch Alicia.
♦ Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if (1) there is more than one
circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
♦ To sustain a conviction for this special complex crime, the original criminal design of
the culprit must be robbery and the homicide is perpetuated with a view to the
consummation of the robbery, by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The
intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The records must
show conclusively that the homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing the
victim because a mere presumption of such fact is not sufficient to sustain a
conviction for robbery with homicide.
♦ It was not evident from the acts of Ponciano that he intended to commit robbery. He
was in he house of his friend and they were having a drinking spree. It is logical to
infer that the taking of the wristwatches was just an afterthought after he had killed
his three victims. To constitute robbery with homicide, there should be 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 were committed
at the same time.
♦ Ponciano is convicted of three (3) separate crimes of homicide and another offense of
theft.
PEOPLE vs. LIAD
 Lydia Cuenca, in her Tamaraw FX, & her husband Manuel in his own vehicle w/
Manuel’s employee, Larry Buseron were driving convoy from their store to their
home along Commonwealth Ave
 Upon reaching the corner of Don Enrique Subd Commonwealth Ave, Lydia made a
full stop to make a U-turn. 3 men the approached her vehicle, banging on the door
to force it open. Unsuccessful, one guy pulled out gun and shot at 1 window, at the
same time hitting Lydia’s left shoulder. One of the men also took a shot but hit
Manuel’s car instead. Still unable to get in,one of them broke a window using the
butt of a gun. Succeeding, they got on the vehicle. Manuel heard another shot w/c
hit his wife’s nape. They sped off.
 Manuel tried to give chase but the car broke down. He ordered Larry to go to the
store & get help. Manuel also rushed to another store to get help.
 At Police Station 6, the desk officer got a call from a concerned citizen informing him
that a robbery-hold-up was in progress along Comm Ave. When they got there, they
saw Lydia lying on the front door of the FX. Some officers brought her to the hospital
while the other chased the suspects who, accdg to a security guard, were in the
Trans-World Cmpd. Upon reaching the cmpd, they were met w/a barrage of gunfire.
They returned fire and the exchange stopped when a certain “Baeng” was hit.
Accused-appellants then surrendered.
 Police recovered from accused-appellants Jun Valderama & Edgardo Liad, .38 calibre
paltik revolvers. Baeng was rushed to the Fairview Hospital.
 When Manuel found out his wife was in the hospital he went to only to find his wife
dead. Manuel also saw police bring Baeng there who also died later. Accdg to the
Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, a gunshot wound caused Lydia’s death. He found 2
gunshot wounds, 1 located at the posterior chest at the back of the victim & another
on the victim's left arm. Both were fatal. The NBI also conducted a ballistic
examination on the 2 bullets recovered by Dr. David on the victim's body.
 Liad & Valderama were subsequently charged before the RTC of QC w/ Robbery
with Homicide (Art. 293, RPC, as amended, in relation to Art. 294, RPC). They
were also charged w/ 1 count each of Illegal Possession of Firearm (Sec. 1, P.D.
No. 1866, as amended). Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to
all the above charges.
 Accused-appellants offered denial as their defense. In court, Valderama averred that
he was not provided the services of counsel at the time he was forced to admit the
police officers' accusations. He denied having anything to do with the killing of Lydia
Cuenca. It was not true that he carried a paltik revolver. Liad admitted his presence
at the crime scene but denied any participation therein. They were able to identify
Baeng to be Liberato Quintoa. Liad claims that the other man was not Valderama but
was Felix Forteza. On rebuttal, Manuel refuted Valderama's allegation that Valderama
was not at crime scene.
 RTC convicted them of robbery w/ homicide & illegal possession of firearm.

WON TC gravely erred in ruling that both were co-conspirators of deceased PEOPLE vs. ARIZOBAL
"Baeng" and Felix Forteza.
 NO.
 SC found that prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a
conspiracy between Liad, Valderama & Baeng
 Following circumstances immediately before, during & after the robbery indubitably
show that the perpetrators were one in their purpose to rob Lydia Cuenca:
 3 men blocked the Tamaraw FX and banged on the door;
 1 of the men shot the door of the vehicle, hitting Lydia;
 Another also fired his gun but hit Manuel’s car instead;
 One man smashed the FX's window to gain entry to the FX;
 The 3 men then rode the vehicle to Ilang-Ilang Street; and
 Thereafter, all of them alighted the FX and fled in the same direction to the
Trans-World Compound.26
 Manuel positively identified both accused-appellants as among the participants to the
crime. His testimony deserves great weight. There was absence of improper motive
& that his testimony is worthy of full faith & credit. In weighing contradictory
declarations and statements, greater weight must generally be given to the positive
testimony of the prosecution witnesses than to the denials of the defendants.
 The testimonies of SPO4 Espejon & SPO1 Inamac bolsters the testimony of Manuel
that they indeed participated in the robbery of Lydia. When police officers have no
motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
 TC, therefore, did not err in convicting accused-appellants of robbery w/ homicide.
Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as
principals for the special complex crime of robbery w/ homicide, though they didn’t
actually take part in the homicide.
 SC also modified civil liability

WON TC gravely erred in convicting both for violation of P.D. 1866, as amended
by R.A. 8294
 YES. Requisite elements of cases involving illegal possession of firearm:
(a) the existence of the subject firearm and
(b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have
the corresponding license or permit to possess
 The latter is a negative fact that constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of
illegal possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also
to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution in this case failed to prove the
second element.
 SC doesn’t agree w/ the Sol. Gen’s contention that since a paltik is a homemade gun,
is illegally manufactured as recognized in People vs. Fajardo, & cannot be issued a
license or permit, it is no longer necessary to prove that it is unlicensed. This
appears to be, at 1st blush, a very logical proposition. SC cannot, however, yield to it
because Fajardo did not say that paltiks can in no case be issued a license or a
permit, & that proof that a firearm is a paltik dispenses w/ proof that it is unlicensed.
 The above ruling was reiterated in People vs. Evangelista, Mallari vs. CA, People vs.
De Vera, Sr., and People vs. Dorimon, & People vs. P02 Rodel Samonte.

Holding: decision of the RTC, MODIFIED. Liad and Valderama found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide, sentenced to each suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua; ordered to pay in solidum the heirs of the
deceased the amount of P50K as indemnity for her death, P50K as moral
damages & P305.265K as funeral & burial expenses. In Criminal Case for illegal
possession of firearm, accused-appellants are ACQUITTED for insufficiency of
evidence.
 PEOPLE vs. SULATAN
 Complaining witness Juditha M. Bautista testified that on her way home she was
accosted by someone, later identified as Fernando Sultan y Lato, who pointed a
sharp instrument at her neck, announcing it was a "hold-up." He grabbed her and
brought her to his house. Inside, he made her sit even offered her a drink w/c she
refused. He divesting her of her watch, ring, earrings, & necklace & her cash of
P130.00. After taking her valuables, he started kissing her on the lips and cheeks.
While pointing an ice pick at her he ordered her to undress. After she had completely
undressed, Sultan ordered her to lie down on the floor. He then kissed her again
from head down. He went on top of her, held her 2 hands on the level of her head,
spread her thighs & had sex w/ her for 10-15 mins.
 After sex, he tied her hands & went out to smoke. Then he came back, untied her, &
once again with threat & intimidation sexually abused her. Then, he tied her hands to
a protruding piece of wood in the room & held her in his arms. She cried. He told her
that he loved her & that he would answer for what he had done to her. They talked til
noon w/o sleeping.
 In her effort to release herself from his clutches she "agreed" to elope with him. He
allowed her to go home at noon to get her things. Juditha told her sister Antonette
who was visiting what happened. Antonette called her brother SPO1 Fernando M.
Bautista. He then advised Juditha to go back to Sultan’s house for the "planned
elopement" so that he & his 2 companions could stage an arrest.
 When she arrived at accused-appellant's place, he was already waiting for her
outside the store nearby. They boarded a passenger bus while Bautista et. al. trailed
them. Bautista et. al later boarded the bus approached accused-appellant and boxed
him before they could arrest him.
 At the police station the authorities investigated Juditha who readily identified
accused-appellant as her robber & rapist. Medico-Legal Inspector found no external
signs of violence although there was a deep fresh laceration in Juditha's hymen along
with other lacerations, deep healed. She was no longer a virgin when the alleged
rape transpired
 He was charged and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape
despite Sultan’s claim that it was simply a sexual congress of consenting adults.
WON there is convincing proof that he is guilty of crime charged
 YES. As for the robbery, the testimony of complainant as to the taking of her cash
and valuables is evidence enough to sustain a conviction for robbery considering that
we find no fault in the pronouncement of the trial court that her testimony is
credible.
 While there may have been no effort on the part of Juditha to retrieve her personal
belongings from Sultan even after all threats had ceased, her failure to do so does
not under the circumstances necessarily dispute the commission of robbery.
 Art. 293, RPC: Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property
belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of person, or
using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
 When accused-appellant divested complaining witness of her personal belongings he
committed the crime of robbery.
 All the elements necessary for its execution & accomplishment were present:
(a) personal property belonging to another,
(b) unlawful taking,
(c) intent to gain, and
(d) violence or intimidation.
 It is therefore immaterial that she failed to ask for the return of her personal things.
 As for the charge of rape, The prosecution for rape in the instant case is based solely
on the testimony of complaining witness. Thus, the basic issue that must be
addressed is her credibility. Doctrinally, the TC’s assessment of the credibility of
witnesses is accorded the highest respect and weight by the appellate courts. It is
normally sustained unless material facts and circumstances have been overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied. There is no such showing in this case.
 Accused-appellant might not have employed force in committing the rape but he
definitely used intimidation which was sufficient to make complainant submit herself
to him against her will for fear of life and personal safety. Intimidation is subjective.
It is enough that it produces fear, as in the present case, fear that if the complainant
does not yield to the bestial demands of accused-appellant something would happen
to her at that moment or even thereafter. Thus, it is irrelevant that she was not
certain when cross-examined that accused-appellant was armed with an ice pick
when the rape commenced; it was enough that he was holding something that
looked like an ice pick which engendered fear in her.
 Record shows that the prosecution has established that he committed both robbery &
rape with the intent to take personal property of another preceding the rape.
 Art. 294, par. 1, RPC: "...[a]ny person guilty of robbery with the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death,...when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape . . . ."
 Juditha was raped twice on the occasion of the robbery. The Court realized that there
was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be
considered as aggravating circumstance. Unless and until a law is passed providing
that the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered aggravating, the Court
must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought
within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
 Under this view, the additional rape committed by accused-appellant is not
considered an aggravating circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. 2, RPC, the lower
penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on accused-appellant.
 As to the award of damages to the complaining witness, an additional amount of
P50K may be given as damages ex delicto in line with recent jurisprudence.
Holding: Affirmed with the Modification of P50K as civil indemnity
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERSON NAAG, accused-
appellant [2001]
 Jan. 8, 1996:
1. Desiree Gollena was a band singer who regularly performed in a bar in Tabaco,
Albay. On this date, she went home to Daraga, Albay to visit her family. She
took the bus and arrived in said place at about 4 a.m. Upon alighting at the
Freedom Park, she rode a tricycle w/c was supposed to bring her to her house.
2. Upon reaching her place, she handed her fare to the driver who instead of
giving her loose change, slapped her. She tried to fight back but he strangled,
boxed, kicked and mauled her, stabbed her w/a screw driver on her face, head
& different parts of her body, banged her head against the tricycle’s sidecar.
Realizing that struggling might put her life in greater danger, she stopped
resisting & pretended to be dead.
3. The driver then brought her to an abandoned house where he had carnal
knowledge of her.
4. Afterwards, the driver took her watch (P600), bracelet (P1,500), bag w/clothes,
wallet w/P1,800 cash & some loose change.
5. When Desiree sensed that the driver has left the premises, she rolled down the
ravine & crawled her way to a house w/c belonged to Engr. Balacano. Balacano
informed the police about the incident & Desiree was brought to the hospital.
 Medical findings: multiple lacerations & stab wound on different parts of her body &
had blackening of her left & right eyes. No sign of injury in her genitalia (no bleeding,
lacerations of the hymen, contusion in the vulvar wall of the vagina, abrasion)
 The police asked Desiree to describe the malefactor. The police realized that
Desiree’s description matched that of Herson Naag, a tricycle driver who was
apprehended on Jan. 9 for driving a public utility tricycle w/o the proper license.
They showed the Naag’s student driver’s permit to Desiree who identified the man in
the picture as the one who raped & robbed her. Desiree likewise identified the Naag’s
tricycle as the vehicle she boarded on the morning of the incident.
 Criminal complaint was filed against Naag. Charge: Robbery w/rape.
 Naag’s defense: He was sleeping in their house at that time since his tricycle was not
in a serviceable condition then & he was repairing it the night before. This was
corroborated by his wife & a next-door neighbor.
 Trial Court: convicted him of two separate crimes of Rape and Robbery.

Issues & Ratio: (not related to the topic)

1. Although no injury in Desiree’s genitalia was found, the examining physician
explained that it did not eliminate the possibility of sexual intercourse. The doctor
opined that it might have been done only outside the vagina & that accused might
have ejaculated & discharged semen on the external genitalia even w/o penetrating
into the vagina. Remember that in rape cases, we only need the slightest penetration
to conclude that rape has been consummated.
2. It was not impossible for Desiree to recognize her assailant even if the crime
happened at 4 in the morning. She was the victim of the assault & so she might have
strived hard to recognize her assailant. Besides, this has been explained by the fact
that the Freedom Park where Desiree alighted & where Naag’s tricycle was parked
was bright & well-lighted making it easy for Desiree to recognize Naag.
3. Desiree’s description of the driver preceded her identification of the driver in the
student driver’s permit. Thus showing her the permit did not in any way prejudice
her identification.

Crim Issue: WON Naag should be held responsible for the special complex crime
of Robbery w/rape. – NO.

Ratio:
1. In complex crimes such as this, the intent of the accused must first be determined so
as to determine the offense he has committed.
a. ROBBERY W/RAPE: If the real intent was to rob but rape was committed even
before the robbery. The intent to take personal property of another must
precede the rape. Art. 294 of the RPC w/c punishes this felony, does not
distinguish whether rape was committed before, during or after the robbery. It
suffices that robbery was accompanied by rape.
b. SEPARATE & DISTINCT FELONIES OF RAPE AND ROBBERY: Original plan was to
rape but the accused after committing rape also committed robbery when the
opportunity presented itself.

2. SC agrees w/trial court conclusion that rape was the primary intent of Naag & taking
away of Desiree’s belongings was only a mere afterthought as proven by the ff:
a. Degree & character of the violence & intimidation employed. Excessive force
was unnecessary if he only planned to rob his victim.
b. Naag transported Desiree to an abandoned place. All the time, victim was
helpless after he mauled her however he did not rob her even if he could have
done so w/ease. Instead, he preoccupied himself in finding a location where he
could rape his victim.
c. He did not ask for her belongings at any time nor did he search for her valuable.
He only took those w/c were easily accessible to him.

3. However, he can only be convicted of THEFT since when he took Desiree’s personal
properties, violence & intimidation were no longer present. The force he inflicted
upon Desiree was in pursuance of the rape & not the taking. The victim was nearly
lifeless & incapable of any form of opposition when the taking happened.

Holding: Naag is found guilty of two separate felonies of RAPE and THEFT.