Napolis vs.

CA
Facts: Nicanor Napolis, with several co-accused,
entered the house of the Penaflor spouses by breaking
a wall of a store, and forcing the door of the house
adjacent to the store open. Once inside, the accused
used violence against the husband and initimidation
against the wife, enabling them to get away with
P2557 in cash and goods. They were convicted of
robbery by armed men in an inhabited place.
Held: The crime is considered a complex one under
Art 48, where the penalty for the most serious offence
in its max period should be imposed. Otherwise, there
will exist an absurd situation where the concurrence of
a graver offence results in the reduction of the penalty.

robbery but rape was also committed even before the

robbery, the crime of robbery with rape was
committed.

People vs Moreno
Facts: Accused Moreno, Deloria and Maniquez robbed
the Mohnani spouses. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa
while Maniquez raped househelp Mary Ann. Moreno
was convicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez,
robbery with rape.
Held: Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of
robbery only. Ruling was correct.

People v. Regala, 329 SCRA 707 (2000)

People vs. Biruar
There is no law or jurisprudence which requires the
presentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that it
had been taken away.

People vs. Calixtro

When death results, the crime is still robbery with
homicide, regardless of the circumstances, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime

Poeple vs. Quinones

There is no such crime as robbery with multiple
homicide. There is only the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, regardless of the fact that 3
persons were killed in the commission of the crime. In
robbery, all homicides and murders are merged in the
composite. As such, the single indivisible penalty of
reclusion perpetua should be imposed only once even
if multiple killings accompanied the robbery.

People vs. Dinola

Facts: Dinola saw victim Marilyns watch after he had
raped her. She refused to give him the watch so he
took if forcibly from her and left. Dinola was convicted
of robbery with rape.
Held: The crime of robbery and rape should be
punished as 2 separate offences. If the original design
was to commit rape but the accused after committing
rape also committed robbery (more of an afterthought,
even accidental) because the opportunity presented
itself, the criminal act should be viewed as 2 distinct
offences. If the intention of the accused was to commit

FACTS: Sixteen-year old, Nerissa Tagala, and her

grandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping, when
appellant Armando Regala and his two other
companions entered the former's house. Regala and
his companions entered the house through the kitchen
by removing the pieces of wood under the stove.
Regala went to the room of Nerissa and her
grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun on them, one
after the other. Nerissa and her grandmother were
hogtied by appellant and his companions. Thereafter,
Nerissa was raped by twice by Regala in bed and in the
kitchen. After the rape, appellant and his two
companions counted the money which they took from
the "aparador. Appellant and his companions then ran
away with P3,000 in cash, 2 pieces of ring and two
wrist watches.
HELD: It should be noted that there is no law providing
that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be
considered as aggravating circumstance. The
enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as
opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same
code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is
a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for
analogous circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in. the
case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation"
where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense,
robbery with one rape would be on the same level as
robbery with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies
with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed
in favor of the offender and no person should be
brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by
the statute.

PEOPLE vS. REGALA

G.R. No. 130508. April 5, 2000.
Robbery with rape

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of

robbery with rape.
Held:
It should be noted that there is no law providing that
the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be
considered as aggravating circumstance. The
enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as
opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same
code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is
a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for
analogous circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the
case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery) would result in an anomalous situation
where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense,
robbery with one rape would be on the same level as
robbery with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies
with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed
in favor of the offender and no person should be
brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by
the statute.
In view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed
by herein accused-appellant should not be considered
as aggravating. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper.

People v. Sultan
G.R. No. 132470(April 27, 2000)
The victim was abducted by the appellant, who brought
her to his house. When they arrived at the appellants
house the victim was divested of her jewelry and other
valuables, afterwhich she was raped several times.
The appellant was convicted of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide. Whether multiple rape
can be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
HELD:
No. In several cases 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. It further observed that the enumeration
of aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the
Revised Penal Code is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the
same Code which enumerates the mitigating
circumstances where analogous circumstances may be
considered, hence, the remedy lies with the legislature.
Consequently, 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), of
the Revised Penal Code which provides that (i)n all
cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed
of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
observed in the application thereof x x x x 2. (w)hen

there are neither mitigating nor aggravating

circumstances in the commission of the deed, the
lesser penalty shall be applied, the lower penalty
of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on accusedappellant.

People vs Salvilla
April 26, 1990Melencho Herrera, J
Facts:
Petitioner: Bienvenido Salvilla
April 12, 1986, at about noon time Petitioner,
together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all
surnamedCanasares), staged a robbery at the New
Iloilo Lumber Yard
They were armed with homemade guns and a hand
grenade
On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita
Habiero, an employee there who was on her way out
for her meal break, and informed her that it was a holdup.
They went inside the office and the petitioner pointed
his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two
daughters, Maryand Mimmie. They informed Severino
that all they needed was money.
Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag wherein he
placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the defense) and
handed it to the petitioner.
Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of
Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and
Rodita werekept inside the office.
According to the appellant, he stopped Severino from
getting the wallet and watches.
At about 2:00 of the same day, the appellant told
Severino to produce P100,000 so he and the other
hostages can bereleased. Severino told him it would be
hard to do that since banks are closed because it was a
Saturday
The police and military authorities had surrounded the
lumber yard. Major Melquiades Sequio, Station
Commander of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with
the accused and appealed to them to surrender. The
accused refused to surrender and release the hostages.
Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the
negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a coaster,
and someraincoats. Caram offered P50,000 instead.
Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and to
release Rodita to beaccompanied by Mary in going out
of the office. One of the accused gave a key to Mayor

Caram and with the key,Mayor Caram unlocked the

door and handed to Rodita P50,000, which Rodita gave
to one of the accused.
Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to
the office.
The police and military authorities decided to assault
the place when the accused still wouldnt budge after
moreultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls,
as well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo
Canasares. Marysright leg had to be amputated due to
her injuries.
The appellant maintained that the money, wallet and
watches were all left on the counter and were never
touched bythem. He also claimed that they never fired
on the military because they intended to
surrender.Issues:
ISSUES:

No. The surrender of the appellant and his coaccused cannot be considered in their favour to
mitigate their liability.
To be mitigating, a surrender must have the following
requisites: that the offender had not been
actuallyarrested, that the offender surrendered himself
to a person in authority or to his agent, and that the
surrender wasvoluntary. The surrender by the
appellant and his co-accused hardly meets these
requirements. There is novoluntary surrender to speak
of.
Note: The nature of the linked offenses (robbery with
serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention)
was also discussed.The detention in the case at bar
was not only incidental to the robbery but was a
necessary means to commit the same so thenature of
the offense was affirmed.
Held:
Judgment appealed is AFFIRMED

WON the crime of robbery was consummated

WON there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender
People vs. Apduhan
Ratio:
Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the
unlawful taking is complete.
Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an
essential part of the crime of robbery. The
respondentclaimed that none of the items (money,
watches and wallet) were recovered from them.
However, based on theevidence, the money
demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch were within
the dominion and control of theappellant and his coaccused and thus the taking was completed.
It is not necessary that the property be taken into the
hands of the robber or that he should have actually
carriedthe property away, out of the physical presence
of the lawful possessor, or that he should have made
his escapewith it.

Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and

was sentenced to death because the court considered
the use of unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating
circumstance under Art 296. SC rejected this. SC
believes that: (1) Art 296 is exclusively linked and
singularly applicable to Art 295 on robbery in band, (2)
RPC 295 is explicitly limited to scope to pars. 3, 4, 5 of
Art 294, and (3) par 3, 4, 5 of Art 294 does not include
cases where homicide, rape, intentional mutilation,
impotence, imbecility, blindness and insanity occurred
by reason or on the occasion of accompanying robbery.
Thus, since Apduhan was convicted of robbery with
homicide under par 1 Art 294, Art 296 in relation to par
3, 4, 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. Hence, the use of an
unlicensed firearm should not have been considered as
a special aggravating circumstance.