11/29/2016

G.R.No.L28547

TodayisTuesday,November29,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.L28547February22,1974
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
ELIASJARANILLA,RICARDOSUYO,FRANCOBRILLANTESandHEMANGORRICETA,accused.ELIAS
JARANILLA,RICARDOSUYO,andFRANCOBRILLANTES,defendantsappellants.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralFelixV.Makasiar,AssistantSolicitorGeneralFelicisimoR.RoseteandSolicitor
AntonioM.Martinezforplaintiffappellee.
SixtoP.Dimaisipfordefendantsappellants.

AQUINO,J.:p
ThisisanappealofdefendantsEliasJaranilla,RicardoSuyoandFrancoBrillantesfromthedecisionoftheCourt
of First Instance of Iloilo, which convicted them of robbery with homicide, sentenced each of them to reclusion
perpetuaandorderedthemtopaysolidarilythesumofsixthousandpesostotheheirsofRamonitoJabatanand
thesumoffivehundredpesostoValentinBaylonasthevalueoffightingcocks(CriminalCaseNo.11082).
The evidence for the prosecution shows that at around eleven o'clock in the evening of January 9, 1966,
Gorriceta,whohadjustcomefromFortSanPedroinIloiloCity,wasdrivingaFordpickuptruckbelongingtohis
sister, Remia G. Valencia. While he was in front of the Elizalde Building on J. M. Basa Street, he saw Ricardo
Suyo, Elias Jaranilla and Franco Brillantes. They hailed Gorriceta who stopped the truck. Jaranilla requested to
bring them to Mandurriao, a district in another part of the city. Gorriceta demurred. He told Jaranilla that he
(Gorriceta)wasonhiswayhome.
JaranillaprevaileduponGorricetatotakethemtoMandurriaobecauseJaranillaostensiblyhadtogetsomething
from his uncle's place. So, Jaranilla, Brillantes and Suyo boarded the pickup truck which Gorriceta drove to
Mandurriao.
Upon reaching Mandurriao, Gorriceta parked the truck at a distance of about fifty to seventy meters from the
provincialhospital.Jaranilla,SuyoandBrillantesalightedfromthevehicle.JaranillainstructedGorricetatowaitfor
them. The trio walked in the direction of the plaza. After an interval of about ten to twenty minutes, they
reappeared.Eachofthemwascarryingtwofightingcocks.Theyrantothetruck.
JaranilladirectedGorricetatostartthetruckbecausetheywerebeingchased.GorricetadrovethetrucktoJaro
(anotherdistrictofthecity)onthesameroutethattheyhadtakeningoingtoMandurriao.
ItisimportanttonotethepositionsofGorricetaandhisthreecompanionsonthefrontseatofthetrack.Gorriceta
the driver, was on the extreme left. Next to him on his right was Suyo. Next to Suyo was Brillantes. On the
extremerightwasJaranilla.
While the truck was traversing the detour road near the Mandurriao airport, then under construction, Gorriceta
sawinthemiddleoftheroadPatrolmenRamonitoJabatanandBenjaminCastrorunningtowardsthem.Gorriceta
sloweddownthetruckafterPatrolmanJabatanhadfiredawarningshotandwassignallingwithhisflashlightthat
thetruckshouldstop.Gorricetastoppedthetrucknearthepoliceman.Jabatanapproachedtherightsideofthe
trucknearJaranillaandorderedalltheoccupantsofthetrucktogodown.Theydidnotheedtheinjunctionofthe
policeman.
Brillantes pulled his revolver but did not fire it. Suyo did nothing. Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot Patrolman
Jabatan. The shooting frightened Gorriceta. He immediately started the motor of the truck and drove straight
hometoLaPaz,anotherdistrictofthecity.JaranillakeptonfiringtowardsJabatan.
Jaranilla,SuyoandBrillantesalightedinfrontofGorriceta'shouse.Gorricetaparkedthetruckinsidethegarage.
JaranillawarnedGorricetanottotellanybodyabouttheincident.Gorricetawentuptohisroom.Afterawhile,he
heard policemen shouting his name and asking him to come down. Instead of doing so, he hid in the ceiling. It
wasonlyatabouteighto'clockinthemorningofthefollowingdaythathedecidedtocomedown.Hisunclehad
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_28547_1974.html

1/7

11/29/2016

G.R.No.L28547

counselledhimtosurrendertothepolice.ThepolicementookGorricetatotheirheadquarters.Herecountedthe
incidenttoapoliceinvestigator.
Victorino Trespeces, whose house was located opposite the house of Valentin Baylon on Taft Street in
Mandurriao, testified that before midnight of January 9, 1966, he conducted a friend in his car to the housing
project in the vicinity of the provincial hospital at Mandurriao. As he neared his residence, he saw three men
emerging from the canal on Taft Street in front of Baylon's house. He noticed a red Ford pickup truck parked
aboutfiftyyardsfromtheplacewherehesawthethreemen.Shortlythereafter,heespiedthethreemencarrying
roosters. He immediately repaired to the police station at Mandurriao. He reported to Patrolmen Jabatan and
Castrowhathehadjustwitnessed.Thetwopolicemenrequestedhimtotaketheminhiscartotheplacewhere
hesawthethreesuspiciouslookingmen.Uponarrivalthereat,themenandthetruckwerenotthereanymore.
TrespecesandthepolicemenfollowedthetruckspeedingtowardsJaro.Onreachingthedetourroadleadingto
the airport, the policemen left the car and crossed the runway which was a shortcut. Their objective was to
interceptthetruck.TrespecesturnedhiscararoundinordertoreturntoMandurriao.Atthatmomentheheard
gunshots.Hestoppedandagainturnedhiscarinthedirectionwhereshotshademanated.Afewmomentslater,
PatrolmanCastrocameintoview.Hewasrunning.HeaskedTrespecesforhelpbecauseJabatan,hiscomrade,
was wounded. Patrolman Castro and Trespeces lifted Jabatan into the car and brought him to the hospital.
TrespeceslearnedlaterthatJabatanwasdead.
Doctor Raymundo L. Torres, the chief medicolegal officer of the Iloilo City police department, conducted an
autopsyontheremainsofPatrolmanJabatan.Hefound:
(1)Contusiononlefteyebrow.
(2) Bullet wound one centimeter in diameter, penetrating left anterior axilla, directed diagonally
downwardtotheright,perforatingtheleftupperlobeofthelungsthroughandthrough,bittingtheleft
pulmonaryarteryandwasrecoveredattherightthoraciccavityboththoraciccavitywasfullofblood.
Causeofdeath:Shock,hemorrhage,secondarytobulletwound.
ValentinBaylon,theownerofthefightingcocks,returnedhomeataboutsixo'clockinthemorningofJanuary10,
1966.Hediscoveredthatthedoorofoneofhiscockpensorchickencoops(Exhs.AandA1)wasbroken.The
feeding vessels were scattered on the ground. Upon investigation he found that six of his fighting cocks were
missing.Eachcoopcontainedsixcocks.Thecoopwasmadeofbambooandwoodwithniparoofing.Eachcoop
had a door which was locked by means of nails. The coops were located at the side of his house, about two
meterstherefrom.
Baylon reported the loss to the police at Mandurriao. At about ten o'clock, a group of detectives came to his
housetogetherwiththepolicephotographerwhotookpicturesofthechickencoops.Thesixroosterswerevalued
atonehundredpesoseach.Twodayslater,hewassummonedtothepolicestationatMandurriaotoidentifya
rooster which was recovered somewhere at the airport. He readily identified it as one of the six roosters which
wasstolenfromhischickencoop(Exh.B).
Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robo con homicidio with the aggravating
circumstancesofuseofamotorvehicle,nocturnity,band,contemptoforwithinsulttothepublicauthoritiesand
recidivism.ThefiscalutilizedGorricetaasastatewitness.Hence,thecasewasdismissedastohim.
On February 2, 1967, after the prosecution had rested its case and before the defense had commenced the
presentationofitsevidence,Jaranillaescapedfromtheprovincialjail.Therecorddoesnotshowthathehasbeen
apprehended.
ThejudgmentofconvictionwaspromulgatedastodefendantsSuyoandBrillantesonOctober19,1967whenit
wasreadtothemincourt.Theysignedatthebottomofthelastpageofthedecision.
TherewasnopromulgationofthejudgmentastoJaranilla,who,asalreadystated,escapedfromjail(SeeSec.6,
Rule120,RulesofCourt).
However,thenoticeofappealfiledbydefendants'counseldeoficioerroneouslyincludedJaranilla.Inasmuchas
thejudgmenthasnotbeenpromulgatedastoJaranilla,hecouldnothaveappealed.Hisappealthroughcounsel
cannotbeentertained.OnlytheappealsofdefendantsSuyoandBrillanteswillbeconsidered.
InconvictingSuyo,JaranillaandBrillantesofroboconhomicidio,thetrialcourtassumedthatthetakingofthesix
fightingcockswasrobberyandthatPatrolmanJabatanwaskilled"byreasonorontheoccasionoftherobbery"
withinthepurviewofarticle294oftheRevisedPenalCode.
InthisappealtheappellantscontendthatthetrialcourterredinnotfindingthatGorricetawastheonewhoshot
thepolicemanandthatJaranillawasdrivingtheFordtruckbecauseGorricetawasallegedlydrunk.Throughtheir
counsel de oficio, they further contend that the taking of roosters was theft and, alternatively, that, if it was
robbery, the crime could not be robbery with homicide because the robbery was already consummated when
Jabatanwaskilled.
After evaluating the testimonies of Gorriceta and Brillantes as to who was driving the truck and who shot
policeman,thisCourtfindsthatthetrialcourtdidnoterringivingcredencetoGorriceta'sdeclarationthathewas
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_28547_1974.html

2/7

11/29/2016

G.R.No.L28547

drivingthetruckatthetimethatJaranillashotJabatan.
Theimprobabilityofappellants'theoryismanifest.ThetruckbelongedtoGorriceta'ssister.Hewasresponsible
foritspreservation.Hehadtheobligationtoreturnittohissisterinthesameconditionwhenheborrowedit.He
wasdrivingitwhenhesawBrillantes,JaranillaandSuyoandwhenheallegedlyinvitedthemforapaseo.Thereis
noindubitableproofthatJaranillaknowshowtodriveatruck.
The theory of the defense may be viewed from another angle. If, according to the appellants, Gorriceta asked
Jaranillatodrivethetruckbecausehe(Gorriceta)wasdrunkthenthatcircumstancewouldbeinconsistentwith
theirtheorythatGorricetashotJabatan.Beingsupposedlyintoxicated,Gorricetawouldhavebeendozingwhen
Jabatan signalled the driver to stop the truck and he could not have thought of killing Jabatan in his inebriated
state.HewouldnothavebeenabletoshootaccuratelyatJabatan.ButthefactisthatthefirstshothitJabatan.
So,theonewhoshothimmusthavebeenasoberpersonlikeJaranilla.
Moreover,asJaranillaandhistwocomradeswereinterestedinconcealingthefightingcocks,itwasJaranilla,not
Gorriceta,whowouldhavethemotiveforshootingJabatan.Consequently,thetheorythatGorricetashotJabatan
andthatJaranillawasdrivingthetruckappearstobeplausible.
Was the taking of the roosters robbery or theft? There is no evidence that in taking the six roosters from their
coop or cages in the yard of Baylon's house violence against or intimidation of persons was employed. Hence,
article294oftheRevisedPenalCodecannotbeinvoked.
Neithercouldsuchtakingfallunderarticle299oftheRevisedPenalCodewhichpenalizesrobberyinaninhabited
house(casahabitada),publicbuildingoredificedevotedtoworship.ThecoopwasnotinsideBaylon'shouse.Nor
wasitadependencythereofwithinthemeaningofarticle301oftheRevisedPenalCode.
HavingshowntheinapplicabilityofArticles294and299,thenextinquiryiswhetherthetakingofthesixroosters
iscoveredbyarticle302oftheRevisedPenalCodewhichreads:
ART.302.Robberyinanuninhabitedplaceorinprivatebuilding.Anyrobberycommittedinanuninhabitedplace
or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of article 299, if the value of the property
exceeds250pesos,shallbepunishedbyprisioncorreccionalinitsmediumandmaximumperiodsprovidedthat
anyofthefollowingcircumstancesispresent:
1.Iftheentrancehasbeeneffectedthroughanyopeningnotintendedforentranceoregress.
2.Ifanywall,roof,floororoutsidedoororwindowhasbeenbroken.
3.Iftheentrancehasbeeneffectedthroughtheuseoffalsekeys,picklocksorothersimilartools.
4.Ifanydoor,wardrobe,chest,oranysealedorclosedfurnitureorreceptaclehasbeenbroken.
5.Ifanyclosedorsealedreceptacle,asmentionedintheprecedingparagraph,hasbeenremoved,
evenifthesamebebrokenopenelsewhere.
xxxxxxxxx
In this connection, it is relevant to note that there is an inaccuracy in the English translation of article 302. The
controllingSpanishoriginalreads:
ART.302.Roboenlugarnohabitadooedificioparticular.Elrobocometidoenunlugarnohabitado
oenunedificioquenoseadeloscomprendidosenelparrafoprimerodelarticulo299,....(Tomo
26,LeyesPublicas479).
Theterm"lugarnohabitado"iserroneouslytranslated.as"uninhabitedplace",atermwhichmaybeconfounded
with the expression "uninhabited place" in articles 295 and 300 of the Revised Penal Code, which is the
translationofdespobladoandwhichisdifferentfromthetermlugarnohabitadoinarticle302.Thetermlugarno
habitadoistheantonymofcasahabitada(inhabitedhouse)inarticle299.
OneessentialrequisiteofrobberywithforceuponthingsunderArticles299and302isthatthemalefactorshould
enterthebuildingordependency,wheretheobjecttobetakenisfound.Articles299and302clearlycontemplate
thatthemalefactorshouldenterthebuilding(casahabitadaolugarnohabitadooedificio).Iftheculpritdidnot
enter the building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. (See Albert, Revised Penal Code, 1932
edition,p.688).
Thus, where the accused broke the showwindow of the Bombay Palace Bazar at Rizal Avenue, Manila and
removedfortywatchestherefrom,thecrimewastheftandnotrobberybecausehedidnotenterthebuilding.The
showwindowwasoutsidethestore.(Peoplevs.Adorno,CA40O.G.567,perMontemayor,J.,wholaterbecame
amemberofthisCourt).*
Intheinstantcase,thechickencoopwherethesixroostersweretakencannotbeconsideredabuildingwithinthe
meaning of article 302. Not being a building, it cannot be said that the accused entered the same in order to
committherobberybymeansofanyofthefivecircumstancesenumeratedinarticle302.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_28547_1974.html

3/7

11/29/2016

G.R.No.L28547

Theterm"building"inarticle302,formerly512oftheoldPenalCode,wasconstruedasembracinganystructure
notmentionedinarticle299(meaningnotan"inhabitedhouseorpublicbuildingoredificedevotedtoworship"or
anydependencythereof)usedforstorageandsafekeepingofpersonalproperty.Asthusconstrued,afreightcar
usedfortheshipmentofsugarwasconsideredaprivatebuilding.Theunnailingofastripofclothnailedoverthe
door,thecustomarymannerofsealingafreightcar,washeldtoconstitutebreakingbyforcewithinthemeaning
ofarticle512,nowarticle302.(U.S.vs.Magsino,2Phil.710).
The ruling in the Magsino case is in conflict with the rulings of the Supreme Court of Spain that a railroad
employeewho,byforce,opensasealedorlockedreceptacledepositedinafreightcar,doesnotcommitrobbery.
Heisguiltyoftheftbecausearailroadcarisneitherahousenorabuildingwithinthemeaningofarticle302which
correspondstoarticle525ofthe1870SpanishPenalCode.Article302referstohousesorbuildingswhich,while
not actually inhabited, are habitable. Thus, a pig sty is not a building within the meaning of article 302. The
stealing of hogs from a pig sty is theft and not robbery, although the culprit breaks into it. Article 302 refers to
habitable buildings. (Guevara, Revised Penal Code, 1939 Edition, pages 5556, citing II Hidalgo Codigo Penal
6367, 642, which in turn cites the decisions of the Spanish Supreme Court dated March 2, 1886 and April 25,
1887).**
Asmaybeseenfromthephotographs(Exhs.AandA1)Baylon'scoop,whichisknowninthedialectastangkal
orkulungan,isaboutfiveyardslong,oneyardwideandoneyardhigh.Ithaswoodenstiltsandbamboostripsas
bars. The coop barely reaches the shoulder of a person of average height like Baylon. It is divided into six
compartments or cages. A compartment has an area of less than one cubic yard. A person cannot be
accommodated inside the cage or compartment. It was not intended that a person should go inside that
compartment. The taking was effected by forcibly opening the cage and putting the hands inside it to get the
roosters.
Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from their coop should be characterized as theft and not robbery. The
assumption is that the accused were animated by single criminal impulse. The conduct of the accused reveals
thattheyconspiredtostealtheroosters.Thetakingispunishableasasingleoffenseoftheft.Thus,itwasheld
thatthetakingoftworoostersinthesameplaceandonthesameoccasioncannotgiverisetotwocrimesoftheft
(People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437, citing decision of Supreme Court of Spain dated July 13, 1894 and 36 C. J.
799Peoplevs.Tumlos,67Phil.320Peoplevs.Villanueva,49O.G.5448,L10239,August7,1953).
Nocturnity and use of a motor vehicle are aggravating. Those circumstances facilitated the commission of the
theft.Theaccusedintentionallysoughtthecoverofnightandusedamotorvehiclesoastoinsurethesuccessof
theirnefariousenterprise(Peoplevs.Tan,89Phil.647,660Peoplevs.Gardon,104Phil.372).
AlsotobeappreciatedagainstappellantsSuyoandBrillantesistheaggravatingcircumstanceofrecidivismwhich
wasallegedintheinformation.Theyadmittedtheirpreviousconvictionsfortheft(130,132tsnExhs.IandJArt.
14[9],RevisedPenalCode).
The theft of six roosters valued at six hundred pesos is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods (Art. 309[3], Revised Penal Code). That penalty should be imposed in its maximum period
becauseonlyaggravatingcircumstancesarepresent(Art.64[3],RevisedPenalCode).
Although recidivists, appellants Suyo and Brillantes are not habitual delinquents. They are entitled to an
indeterminatesentence(Sec.2,ActNo.4103).
WithrespecttothekillingofPatrolmanJabatan,ithasalreadybeennotedthattheevidencefortheprosecution
pointstoJaranillaasthemalefactorwhoshotthatunfortunatepeaceofficer.Thekillingwashomicidebecauseit
was made on the spur of the moment. The treacherous mode of attack was not consciously or deliberately
adopted by the offender (U.S. vs. Namit, 38 Phil. 926 People vs. Tumaob, 83 Phil. 738 People vs. Abalos, 84
Phil.771).
The twentyfour year old Jabatan was an agent of authority on night duty at the time of the shooting. He was
wearinghisuniform.Thekillingshouldbecharacterizedasadirectassault(atentado)uponanagentofauthority
(Art.148,RevisedPenalCode)complexedwithhomicide.Thetwooffensesresultedfromasingleact.(Art.48,
RevisedPenalCodePeoplevs.Guillen,85Phil.307Peoplevs.Lojo,Jr.,52Phil.390).
The evidence for the prosecution does not prove any conspiracy on the part of appellants Jaranilla, Suyo and
Brillantes to kill Jabatan. They conspired to steal the fighting cocks. The conspiracy is shown by the manner in
which they perpetrated the theft. They went to the scene of the crime together. They left the yard of Baylon's
residence,eachcarryingtworoosters.TheyallboardedthegetawaytruckdrivenbyGorriceta.
The theft was consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the roosters. It is not an
indispenable element of theft that the thief carry, more or less far away, the thing taken by him from its owner
(Peoplevs.Mercado,65Phil.665Duranvs.Tan,85Phil.476U.Svs.Adiao,38Phil.754).
It is not reasonable to assume that the killing of any peace officer, who would forestall the theft or frustrate
appellants'desiretoenjoythefruitsofthecrime,waspartoftheirplan.Thereisnoevidencetolinkappellants
Suyo and Brillantes to the killing of Jabatan, except the circumstance that they were with Jaranilla in the truck
whenthelattershotthepoliceman.GorricetatestifiedthatSuyodidnotdoanythingwhenJabatanapproached
therightsideofthetruckandcameincloseproximitytoJaranillawhowasontheextremeright.Brillantespulled
hisrevolverwhichhedidnotfire(47,5355tsn).Merepresenceatthesceneofthecrimedoesnotnecessarily
makeapersonacoprincipalthereof.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_28547_1974.html

4/7

11/29/2016

G.R.No.L28547

JaranillaheardGorriceta'stestimonythathe(Jaranilla)shotJabatan.Insteadoftakingthewitnessstandtorefute
thetestimonyofGorriceta,Jaranillaescapedfromjail.Thatcircumstanceisanadmissionofguilt.
TheinstantcaseisdifferentfromPeoplevs.Mabassa,65Phil.568wherethevictimwaskilledontheoccasion
whentheaccusedtookhischickensunderthehouse.ItisdistinguishablefromthePeoplevs.Gardon,104Phil.
372 and People vs. SalamudinNo.1, 52 Phil. 670 (both cited by the Solicitor General) where the robbery was
clearly proven and the homicide was perpetrated on the occasion of the robbery. As already noted, theft, not
robbery,wascommittedinthiscase.
The situation in this case bears some analogy to that found in the People vs. Basisten, 47 Phil. 493 where the
homicidecommittedbyamemberofthebandwasnotapartofthecommonplantocommitrobbery.Hence,only
thepersonwhoperpetratedthekillingwasliableforrobberywithhomicide.Theotherswereconvictedofrobbery
only.
ThereisahiatusintheevidenceoftheprosecutionastotheparticipationofSuyoandBrillantesinthekillingof
Jabatan by Jaranilla. As already stated, no robbery with homicide was committed. Therefore, it cannot be
concludedthatthosetwoappellantshaveanyresponsibilityforJabatan'sdeath.Theircomplicityinthehomicide
committedbyJaranillahasnotbeenestablished.
WHEREFORE,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtconvictingappellantsRicardoSuyoandFrancoBrillantesofrobbery
withhomicideisreversed.Theyareacquittedofhomicideonthegroundofreasonabledoubt.
As coprincipals with Elias Jaranilla in the theft of the six fighting cocks, they are (a) each sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arrestomayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of
prisioncorreccionalasmaximumand(b)orderedtoindemnifysolidarilythecomplainant,ValentinBaylon,inthe
sumoffivehundredpesos(P500).Eachappellantshouldpayonethirdofthecosts.
AstotheliabilityofEliasJaranillafortheftandhomicide,withdirectassaultuponanagentofauthority,trialcourt
shouldrenderanewjudgmentconsistentwiththisopinion(SeeSec.19,Art.IV,Constitution).
Soordered.
Zaldivar(Chairman),Fernando,AntonioandFernandez,JJ.,concur.

SeparateOpinions

BARREDO,J.,concurring:
Iconcur.
Iaminfullaccordwiththefindingsoffactandthelegalrationalizationandconclusionsinthemainopinionvery
ablywrittenfortheCourtbyMr.JusticeAquino.
I would like to make the observation, however, that I cannot find any error in the literal translation of the term
"lugar no habitado" used in the controlling Spanish text Article 302 into "uninhabited place" appearing in the
English version. The correct concept of the said term as used in Article 302 is indeed different from the
"uninhabitedplace"contemplatedinArticles295and300,whichmeans"despoblado"oropencountryreferring
toa"lugar",meaningplace,siteorspacewherenobodylivesorisusuallyfound.And,ofcourse,itisalsoclearto
methatArticle302referstoasan"uninhabitedplace"isreallyanunoccupiedoruninhabitedhouse,theantonym
of the "casa habitada" referred to in Article 299. But I cannot bring self to the thought that the word "lugar" in
Article302mayliterallybetranslatedtoanythingelsethan"place,sitespace".Isimplycannotseeinitthespecific
connotationofhouseorbuilding.MaybeitisthewordingoftheSpanishtextthatissomewhatinaccurate,unlessit
canbeshown,whichIamafraidcannotbedone,thatcolloquiallyorsomewhereintheSpanishspeakingworld,
said word means house or building or any structure wherein personal properties may be deposited, stored or
kept.
IwouldprefertofootnoteArticle302thesamewayJusticeLuisB.ReyesoftheCourtofAppealsdoes,thus:
The "uninhabited place" mentioned in Article 302 is a building, because paragraphs Nos. 1 and 3
speak of "entrance," which necessarily refers to a building. (The Revised Penal Code by Luis B.
Reyes,Vol.II,1968,p.617.)
In that way, I believe the true and correct meaning of the provision is clarified without attributing any possible
misconstructiontofaultyliteraltranslation,whichIamconvinceddoesnotexist.Ireiterate,theerrorintranslation
notedinthemainopinionisinevitableforwhiletheliteraltranslationisindubitablyaccurate,ontheotherhand,
as a matter of construction, the correct interpretation is different. Evidently, the Spanish text uses "lugar" for
house,buildingorstructure,and,tomymind,thatisnotthesensethatwordisusuallyunderstoodinSpanish.But
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_28547_1974.html

5/7

11/29/2016

G.R.No.L28547

I agree that what is contemplated in Article 302 is not "despoblado" but simply an unoccupied or uninhabited
house,buildingorstructure.Inotherwords,itappearsthatthecorrectexpressionthatshouldbeinArticle302is
"uninhabited house," disregarding, consequently, the inaccurate reference to "lugar" in the Spanish text and
sticking,bywayofconstruction,tothecorrectconceptofthethingreallycontemplated.

SeparateOpinions
BARREDO,J.,concurring:
Iconcur.
Iaminfullaccordwiththefindingsoffactandthelegalrationalizationandconclusionsinthemainopinionvery
ablywrittenfortheCourtbyMr.JusticeAquino.
Iwouldliketomaketheobservation,however,thatIcannotfindanyerrorintheliteraltranslationoftheterm
"lugarnohabitado"usedinthecontrollingSpanishtextArticle302into"uninhabitedplace"appearinginthe
Englishversion.ThecorrectconceptofthesaidtermasusedinArticle302isindeeddifferentfromthe
"uninhabitedplace"contemplatedinArticles295and300,whichmeans"despoblado"oropencountryreferring
toa"lugar",meaningplace,siteorspacewherenobodylivesorisusuallyfound.And,ofcourse,itisalsoclearto
methatArticle302referstoasan"uninhabitedplace"isreallyanunoccupiedoruninhabitedhouse,theantonym
ofthe"casahabitada"referredtoinArticle299.ButIcannotbringselftothethoughtthattheword"lugar"in
Article302mayliterallybetranslatedtoanythingelsethan"place,sitespace".Isimplycannotseeinitthespecific
connotationofhouseorbuilding.MaybeitisthewordingoftheSpanishtextthatissomewhatinaccurate,unlessit
canbeshown,whichIamafraidcannotbedone,thatcolloquiallyorsomewhereintheSpanishspeakingworld,
saidwordmeanshouseorbuildingoranystructurewhereinpersonalpropertiesmaybedeposited,storedor
kept.
IwouldprefertofootnoteArticle302thesamewayJusticeLuisB.ReyesoftheCourtofAppealsdoes,thus:
The"uninhabitedplace"mentionedinArticle302isabuilding,becauseparagraphsNos.1and3
speakof"entrance,"whichnecessarilyreferstoabuilding.(TheRevisedPenalCodebyLuisB.
Reyes,Vol.II,1968,p.617.)
Inthatway,Ibelievethetrueandcorrectmeaningoftheprovisionisclarifiedwithoutattributinganypossible
misconstructiontofaultyliteraltranslation,whichIamconvinceddoesnotexist.Ireiterate,theerrorintranslation
notedinthemainopinionisinevitableforwhiletheliteraltranslationisindubitablyaccurate,ontheotherhand,
asamatterofconstruction,thecorrectinterpretationisdifferent.Evidently,theSpanishtextuses"lugar"for
house,buildingorstructure,and,tomymind,thatisnotthesensethatwordisusuallyunderstoodinSpanish.But
IagreethatwhatiscontemplatedinArticle302isnot"despoblado"butsimplyanunoccupiedoruninhabited
house,buildingorstructure.Inotherwords,itappearsthatthecorrectexpressionthatshouldbeinArticle302is
"uninhabitedhouse,"disregarding,consequently,theinaccuratereferenceto"lugar"intheSpanishtextand
sticking,bywayofconstruction,tothecorrectconceptofthethingreallycontemplated.
Footnotes
*"CriminalLawQualificationsofthecrimeTheftBreakingshowwindowsEntranceisnecessaryin
thecrimeofrobbery.Theoffensecommittedbytheaccusedismerelythatoftheftandnotof
robbery,orthereasonthatalthoughtheshowwindowwasbrokenopen,theaccuseddidnotenter
thesamebutmerelyintroducedhishandthruthebrokenglassinordertoremovethewatchesfrom
theshowwindow,andforthefurtherreasonthattheshowwindowinquestionwasoutsidethestore.
Thereisrobberywithforceuponthingsonlywhendoorsorwindarebrokeninordertoentera
buildingtostealorwhendoorsorwardrobesarebroken,insideabuilding.Heretherehadbeenno
entrance."(Syllabus,Peoplevs.Adorno,CA40O.G.567.SeePeoplevs.Ingay,IIACR275,per
Albert,J.andU.S.vs.Callotes,2Phil.16,wherethemannerofentrancewasnotproven).
**"Elguardafrenodeunferrocarrilqueibasoloenelfurgondecola,abrioelbauldeunviajero
fracturandolacerradurayextrajoalgunosefectos.Condenadocomoautordeldelitoderobo,
interpusorecursodecasacionalegandoqueeraestafayelMinisteriofiscaldeadheriopor
conceptuarqueeldelitoerahurto.
ElTribunalSupremeestimalaadhesionporconsiderar:queloshechosdeclaradosprobadosno
constituyeneldelitoderoboenlugarinhabitadocalificadoporlaSalasentenciadora,pornoreferirse
losarticulos521y525delCodigoPenalenlasexpresionesdelugarhabitadoeinhabitadoal
materialmovildeferrocarriles,ysitansoloalugaresycasaquepuedanservirdealbergueo
habitacionparalaspersonas,distinguiendolasunicamenteporelobjetoaquesededican."
Sentenciade25deAbrilde1887.
Variossujetossaltandolacereadeunazahurda,penetraronenestaysustrajeroncuatrocerdos.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_28547_1974.html

6/7

11/29/2016

G.R.No.L28547

Condenadoscomoautoresdeldelitoderobo,elTribunalSupremocasayanulalasentencia,por
considerar:
Quesibienesciertoqueeldelitoderobosecaracterizaporlafuerzaenlascosasoviolenciasobre
laspersonasconquerealizaeldelicuentelasustracciondecosaajenaconanimodelucro,es
menesterademasqueelhechoseencuentrecomprendidoenalgunodeloscasosespecificadesen
elcapitulodelCodigoquetratadelosrobos,porquenohayningunarticuloquepenegenericamente
elrobotalcualsedefineenelarticulo515:
Quelasustracciondecerdosimputadaalosrecurrentesnosehallacomprendidaenelarticulo525,
comoerroneamentesuponeelTribunalsentenciador,porquealhablarseendichoarticulodelugar
nohabitado,esencontraposicionalugarocasahabitadadequetrataelarticulo521,yporque,en
unoyotrocaso,elCodigoserefierealugaresocasesquepuedanservirdealbergueohabitacion
paralaspersonas,distinguiendolos,solamenteporelobjetoaqueestoslugaressededican,ynoa
losdemasabiertosomeramentecerrados,cualeslazahurdadecerdosdondelosrecurrentes
realizaronlasustraccion,pueselhechocriminalnoreviste,enesteultimocaso,laimportanciay
transcendenciaqueenaquellos:
QuelaAudienciasentenciadorahaincurridoenerrordederechoalcalificardedelitoderoboun
hechoquesolopuedeserlocomohurtopornohallarsecomprendidoenningunodeloscasos
especificadosenelcapitulosobrelosrobos."Sentenciade2deMarzode1886.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_28547_1974.html

7/7