[CRIMINAL LAW

2]
nd
2 semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

Napolis v. CA
G.R. No.: L-28865
Ponente: C.J. Concepcion
Date: February 28, 1972
Petitioner: Nicanor Napolis
Respondent: CA and People
Relief: Appeal from a decision of CA
FACTS:

At about 1am of October 1, 1956, Casimira Lagman Peaflor (47-yo wife of Ignacio Peaflor owner of store at new highway, Hermosa,
Bataan), after answering a minor call of nature, heard the barkings of the dog nearby indicating the presence of strangers around the
vicinity. On instinct, she woke up her husband who took his flashlight and .38 caliber revolver and went down the store to take a look.
As he approached the door of the store, it suddenly gave way having been forcibly pushed and opened by 4 men, 1 of them holding and
pointing a machinegun.
Ignacio fired his revolver but missed. He then received a stunning blow on the head, fell down, and pretended to be dead (but in fact did
not lose consciousness). He was hogtied by the men.
The men went up the house. One of the robbers asked Casimira for money saying that they are people from the mountain. Casimira,
realizing the danger, took from under the mat the bag containing P2,000 in cash and 2 rings worth P350 and delivered them to the
robber. That same robber opened and ransacked the wardrobe. The revolver of Ignacio valued at P150 was also taken. Then they tied
the hands of Casimira and those of her 2 sons. After telling them to lie down, the robbers covered them with blanket and left.
The spouses thereafter called for help and their neighbor, Councilor Almario, came and untied Ignacio. The robbery was reported to the
chief of police of Hermosa and to the Philippine Constabulary.
Chief of Police Delfin Lapid testified that he went to the premises upon receiving the report of Councilor Almario and found Ignacio with a
wound on the head, and the wardrobe ransacked and things scattered around. It appears that the robbers bore a hole (removed the
adobe stone) on the sidewall of the ground floor of the store and passed through it to gain entrance.
In that same morning, policeman Melquiadea Samaniego reported seeing a suspicious character passing through a nearby field and
when the field was inspected, the authorities were able to locate a greasegun with 5 bullets and a pistol with 3 bullets.
Shortly after the occurrence, a criminal complaint for robbery in band was filed in the peace of court of Hermosa, Bataan. Named as
defendants in the subsequently amended complaint were Nicanor Napolis, Bonifacio Malana, Ben dela Cruz, Mauricio Anila alias Mori,
Jose Escabel alias Pepe, Antonio Bedia, alias Toning, John Doe, alias Somray Casimiro, Apolinario Satimbre, Paul Doe, et al.
Defense testimonies: Napolis on the said date, he was in his house in Olongapo, Zambales, because of a tooth extracted from him by
one Dr. Maginas; Satimbre he was reluctant to sign exhibit B but eventually signed in order that he may not be implicated in a robbery
that took place in Balamja, Bataan
CFI of Bataan dismissed the case as against Flores, Anila, Casimiro and Dela Cruz; and convicted Napolis, Malana and Satimbre.
Upon appeal, CA dismissed Malanas appeal and affirmed the CFI decision for Napolis and Satimbre. Satimbre did not appeal from CA
decision, whereas Napolis alleged that CA erred in its decision concerning his case.

ISSUE1:
WON Napolis has not been sufficiently identified as one of those who perpetrated the crime charged NO
Napolis: He was identified by Casimira in consequence of the suggestion resulting from his picture from the Olongapo polices files, shown by the
police to her before he was taken to her for identification. Defense further alleges that Casimira could not have recognized Napolis in the evening of
the occurrence because it was dark, and the flashlight used by the malefactor was then focused downward.
HELD/RATIO1:
Appellants defense is devoid of factual basis. Record shows that authorities were notified immediately after the occurrence and soon after, 2 police
officers went to the house of Peaflor and investigated. Casimira was later brought to the offices of the police force in Olongapo, after she
exonerated 2 arrested individuals, and was shown the pictures of police character on files therein. She noticed the picture of the appellant, who,
she believed, was one of the culprits. When appellant was arrested and brought to Casimira, the latter positively identified him as one of the
malefactors. In other words, it was Casimira herself was the one who positively identified the appellant and not just as suggested by the police
officers. Also, the series of acts performed by the appellants in Casimiras presence consumed sufficient time (10 to 20 mins) to allow her eyesight
to be adjusted to existing conditions and hence, to recognize some of the robbers.
ISSUE2:
WON Napolis conviction was based upon his extrajudicial confession and that the same has been made under duress NO
HELD/RATIO2:
Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee

[CRIMINAL LAW
2]
nd
2 semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

Said extrajudicial confession was merely one of the factors considered by the CFI and the CA in concluding the evidence for the defense cannot be
relied upon and that the witness for the prosecution had told the truth. Besides, the appellants confession was not tainted with duress, as properly
stated by the CA. When inquired whether Napolis was coerced in giving the confession, he replied no, and then affirmed the contents of the same.
According to Napolis, it was he who talked to Casimira and it was he who got the moneybag.

ISSUE3:
WON the evidence for the prosecution id contradictory and hence unworthy of credence NO
Counsel for defense: Ignacio said that the thieves had entered his house by forcing its door open; Casimira testified that their entry was effected
through an excavation by the side of the house; chief of police affirmed that the malefactors had removed a piece of wood and an adobe stone to
get into said house
HELD/RATIO3:
No such contradictions exist. The house of Peaflor consisted of 2 parts, one which was a store and the other the dwelling proper, adjoining the
store, which had a door leading thereto. Casimira testified that the culprits had entered the store by removing an adobe stone from a wall thereof,
and this was corroborated by the chief of police, although he added that the malefactors also had removed a piece of wood from said wall. On the
other hand, Ignacios testimony referred to a door inside the store, leading to the dwelling proper, as distinguished from the store.
ISSUE4:
WON the case was decided in accordance with the provision of law and jurisprudence on the matter, and the crime characterization and penalty
imposed were correct YES
HELD/RATIO4:
CA affirmed the decision of CFI convicting Napolis, Malana and Satimbre of the crime of robbery committed by armed persons, in an inhabited,
entry therein having been made by breaking a wall, as provided in Art 299(a) of RPC and sentencing Napolis and Satimbre to an indeterminate
penalty ranging from 10 yrs 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 yrs 4 mos 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. In addition, the
malefactors had also used violence against Ignacio and intimidation against his wife, thereby infringing Art 294 Subpar 5 of RPC, which prescribes
the penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium (lighter than penalty for Art 299).
Court has previously ruled that where robbery, though committed in an inhabited house, is characterized by intimidation, this factor supplies the
controlling qualification so that the law to apply is Art 294 and not Art 299 of RPC. This is on the theory that the robbery which is characterized by
violence or intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things, because where violence or
intimidation against the person is present, there is great disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual. And this view is
followed even where the penalty to be applied under Art 294 is lighter than that which would result from the application of Art 299. (People v.
Sebastian) ruling abandoned, defies logic and reason!
Court now rules that Art 294 applies only where robbery with violence against or intimidation of person takes place without entering an inhabited
house, under the conditions set forth in Art 299.
In the case at bar, the Court deemed it more logical and reasonable to hold that when the elements of both provisions are present, that crime is a
complex one, calling for the imposition of the penalty for the most serious offense, in its maximum period (Art 48), which in this case is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period. Penalty for appellant should be an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 yrs 1 day of prision mayor to 19 yrs 1 mo
11 days of reclusion temporal, owing to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
DISPOSITIVE:
Thus modified as to the penalty, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with costs against herein appellant,
Nicanor Napolis. It is so ordered.
NOTES:
On appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals, the findings of fact made in said decision are final, except
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
(2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee.

Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee

[CRIMINAL LAW
2]
nd
2 semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee