You are on page 1of 2

CRIMINAL LAW 1

People vs SalvillaApril 26, 1990Melencho Herrera, JFacts:

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 hold-up.

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:

WON the crime of robbery was consummated

WON there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender


Ratio:

Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful taking is


complete.
o
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 co-accused and thus the taking was completed.
o
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.

No. The surrender of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be considered in
their favour to mitigate their liability.
o
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