NAPOLIS v CA
ISSUE: W/N the defendants are liable for a complex crime. (YES)
PONENTE: Concepcion, CJ.
DOCTRINE: Complex crimes and Special complex crimes (Art. 48)
RULING FORMAT:
FACTS:
(1) At about 1am on Oct. 1, 1956, Casimira Peaflor, 47-year old wife
of Ignacio Peaflor, the owner of a store located at a highway in
Bataan, heard barkings of the dog nearby indicating the presence of
strangers around the vicinity. Acting on instinct, she woke her
husband up.
(2) Ignacio took a flashlight and his revolver and went down the store
to take a look. As he approached the door of the store, 4 men
forcibly entered; one of them holding and pointing a machinegun.
(3) Ignacio fired his revolver but missed. He then received a stunning
blow from one of the men, causing him to fall down. Ignacio
pretended to be dead, and was subsequently hogtied by the men.
(4) The men went up the house and asked Casimira for money. Upon
realizing the danger, she handed over a bag of cash and 2 rings.
(5) The robbers tied the hands of Casimira and her two sons; asked
them to lie down, and covered them with blankets. Before they left,
they ransacked the wardrobe and took the revolver of Ignacio with
them.
(6) The spouses thereafter called for help and Councilor Almario, a
neighbor, came and untied Ignacio. The robbery was then reported
to the police.
(7) The police testified that the robbers bore a hole on the sidewall of
the ground floor of the store by removing the adobe stone,
allowing them to gain entrance.
(8) Shortly after the occurrence, a criminal complaint for robbery in
band was filed against Nicanor Napolis, Bonigacio Malana, et al.
(9) CFI convicted Nicanor Napolis, Bonifacio Malana and Apolinario
Satimbre, while it dismissed the case against the other defendants.
HELD:
The CA affirmed the decision of the CFI convicting Napolis, Malana and
Satimbre of the crime of robbery committed by armed persons in an
inhabited house, entry having been made by breaking a wall, as provided in
Article 299(a). In addition, however, to performing said acts, the
malefactors had also used violence against Ignacio Peaflor, and
intimidation against his wife, thereby infringing Article 294 of the same
Code, under conditions falling under sub-paragraph (5) of said article,
which prescribes the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its medium period, which is lighter than that prescribed
in said Article 299, although, factually, the crime committed is more serious
than that covered by the latter provision
We cannot accept the conclusion deducted therefrom. 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.
When the elements of both provisions are present, that the crime is a
complex one, calling for the imposition -- as provided in Art. 48 of said
Code -- of the penalty for the most serious offense, in its maximum period,
which, in the case at bar, is reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
This penalty should, in turn, be imposed in its maximum period -- from
nineteen (19) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days to twenty (20) years
of reclusion temporal owing to the presence of the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime.