Home

Law Firm
Law Library
Laws
Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1996 > November 1996 Decisions > G.R.
No. 118076 November 20, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR N. GAVINA:

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 118076. November 20, 1996.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CESAR GAVINA y NAVARRO, Accused-

Appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; ELEMENTS OF THE
CRIME. — In the offense of robbery with homicide a crime primarily classified as
one against property and not against person, the prosecution has to firmly
establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use
of violence or intimidation against a person: (b) the property thus taken belongs
to another; (c) taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and
(d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide,
which is therein used in a generic sense. was committed.

2 ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ELEMENT OF ASPORTATION; PRESENT ONCE THE PROPERTY IS IN FACT
FROM OWNER, EVEN FOR JUST AN INSTANT. — The element taking or asportation was
completed when appellant violently got hold of the bag however momentarily. In
robbery, the element of asportation — which requires the unlawful taking of
personal property from the possession of its owner, without his privity and consent
and without animus revertendi — is present once the property is in fact taken from
the owner, even for just an instant. The subsequent disposition of the property
taken, or the failure to dispose o t the same, is of no moment in so far as the
characterization of the offense as robbery is concerned.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ELEMENT OF ANIMUS LUCRANDI; AN INTERNAL ACT WHICH CAN BE
ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE OVERT ACTS OF THE OFFENDER. — With regard to appellant’s
contention that animus lucrandi was not established by the prosecution, the same is
completely devoid of merit. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain, as the Solicitor
General correctly submits, is an internal act which can be established through the
overt acts of the offender. As this Court pithily put it in the early case of
People v. Sia Teb Ban, "one’s intention may be gathered from one’s deeds."
Appellant’s act of obtaining possession of the victim’s clutch bag through violence
speaks for itself. And, the fact that the clutch bag of the victim was later found
to contain a considerable amount of money only confirms that appellant had intended
to rob Tandingan all along.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ELEMENT THAT THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAKEN BELONGS TO ANOTHER;
IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE PERSON UNLAWFULLY DIVESTED OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY BE
THE OWNER THEREOF; ACTUAL POSSESSION SUFFICES. — At all events, in robbery by the
taking of property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary that the
person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner thereof. Article
293 of the Revised Penal Code employs the phrase "belonging to another" and this
has been interpreted to merely require that the property taken does not belong to
the offender. Actual possession of the property by the person dispossessed thereof
suffices.

5. ID.; PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS BUT
DISTINCT IN NATURE, IN DURATION, AND IN ACCESSORY PENALTIES. — There are obvious
errors in the disposition made by the court below concerning the penalty imposed
and the order for restitution of the amount of P89,200.00 to Ruben Go, which thus
calls for modification of its judgment. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
specifically imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death in robbery with
homicide. Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous but are
distinct in nature, in duration, and in accessory penalties.

D E C I S I O N

REGALADO, J.:

Accused-appellant Cesar Gavina y Navarro argues in this appeal that, for lack of
the requisite element of animus lucrandi, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, of
Dagupan City should have found him guilty in Criminal Case No. D-11417 of only the
lesser offense of homicide and not the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. The evidence for the prosecution, however indubitably established the
contrary. The trial court stamped its imprimatur thereon and rendered a
condemnatory verdict. We affirm.

On February 20, 1993, Accused-appellant was charged with the felony of robbery with
homicide, the accusatory part of the corresponding information reading —

"That on or about the 19th day of February, 1993, in the City of Dagupan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, CESAR GAVINA y Navarro, being then armed with a knife, with intent to gain
and by means of violence against person, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and criminally, rob one CIPRIANO TANDINGAN of his cash in the amount of P70,800.00,
by stabbing him on vital part parts (sic) of his body with the said weapon, thereby
causing the death of the latter due to ‘Cardio respiratory arrest, Massive
Intrathoracic and Mediastinal Hemorrhage, Multiple stab wound’ as per Autopsy
Report issued by Dr. Tomas G. Cornel, Asst. City Health Officer, this city, to the
damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of said deceased, CIPRIANO TANDINGAN, in
the amount of not less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) Philippine currency,
and other consequential damages." 1

At his arraignment on June 22, 1993, appellant with the assistance of counsel de
oficio, registered his negative plea to the indictment. 2 Trial thereafter ensued
and eventually, on September 27, 1994, the lower court rendered its adverse
decision 3 finding the accused guilty as charged. The penalty of life imprisonment
was imposed upon appellant who was at the same time ordered to indemnify the heirs
of Cipriano Tandingan in the amount of P100,000.00, to restitute to Ruben Go, the
victim’ s employer, the amount of P89,200.00, and to pay the costs of the suit. 4
Prosecution eyewitness SPOI Esteban Martinez narrated on the witness stand that on
February 19, 1993, he was on duty and was posted along the junction of A. B.
Fernandez Avenue and Nable Street in Dagupan City. At a little past noon of that
day, he noticed from across the street where he was standing that two men were
grappling for possession of a black bag. Sensing trouble, he forthwith ran to where
the two men were thus preoccupied and, as he was on his way, one of the men, whom
he later identified as the appellant, pulled out a knife and stabbed the other
three times. 5

As Martinez neared the duo, appellant who was by then in possession of the black
bag, scampered away upon seeing the onrushing police officer and, in his haste, he
dropped both the black bag and the knife. Appellant then boarded a passing jeepney
and it was in said jeepney that SPOI Martinez, still in hot pursuit, was able to
pounce on and arrest him. Recovered at the crime scene were the black bag, which
turned out to contain more than P70,000.00 in cash, and the knife which appellant
had used in stabbing his victim, Cipriano Tandingan. 6

Another prosecution eyewitness, Angel Sarmiento, testified and corroborated the

account of SPO1 Martinez that appellant tried to escape by boarding the public
utility jeepney which he was then driving along A. B. Fernandez Avenue on the day
and time in question. 7 The employer of the victim, one Ruben Go, likewise appeared
in court and recalled that on that particular day he instructed the victim, who was
then employed as a cashier in Go’s grocery store, to encash a check in the amount
of P160,000.00 at the Dagupan City branch of Solidbank. 8

Cipriano Tandingan apparently was able to encash the same just before he was
waylaid by appellant. Tandingan’s sister, Eleanor Tandingan Penullar, confirmed
that her brother was indeed an employee of Ruben Go at the time of his demise. She
also testified as to her brother’s income at that time, as well as the expenses
they incurred for his funeral wake and burial which amounted to approximately
P52,500.00. 9 Dr. Conrad Cornel, a medico-legal and assistant city health officer
in Dagupan City, informed the trial court that the victim suffered multiple stab
wounds on the chest, all of which proved to be fatal. 10

While appellant admitted having killed the victim, he advanced an altogether

different version of the incident. He claimed that on February 19, 1993, he left
for and arrived at around noontime in Dagupan City. He was then in front of
Covelandia, a commercial establishment located along A. B. Fernandez Avenue, when
he chanced upon the victim and it was with the latter that he decided to have his
P500.00 bill changed into smaller denominations. The victim agreed to do so and
appellant, after receiving the bills, then hurriedly left as someone was waiting
for him. At this point, he noticed that he had been shortchanged in the amount
P10.00 and, for that reason, he had to go back. 11

Appellant met Tandingan along the way and he confronted the latter. To appellant’ s
surprise, the victim retorted with fist blows which thus prompted him to kick
Tandingan in retaliation. The victim then reached for a knife, but appellant beat
him to the draw by pulling out his own knife which he used in stabbing the victim
to death. He then immediately boarded a jeepney and it was there that he was
accosted by SPO1 Martinez. Appellant vehemently denied having taken the clutch bag
of the victim which contained cash and contended that he never intended to rob
Tandingan whom he had met for the first time that day. 12

There appears to be no reversible error in the factual findings of the trial court
that appellant indeed committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The witnesses for the prosecution had credible stories to narrate to the court a
quo, particularly SPO1 Martinez whose testimony is entitled to much weight
considering the fact that he is a police officer. In contrast, applicant’s defense
consisting of bare denials, especially when viewed alongside the positive and
forthright testimony of SPO1 Martinez, suffers from inherent vulnerability and
generates total disbelief.

In the offense of robbery with homicide, a crime primarily classified as one

against property and not against persons, the prosecution has to firmly establish
the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of
violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to
another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and
(d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide,
which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. 13

In the case under review, there is no dispute that appellant employed undue
violence and, on the occasion thereof, killed Cipriano Tandingan while wresting the
clutch bag from the possession of the victim. SPO1 Martinez clearly established
that appellant and the victim were struggling with each other for possession of the
bag. In the course of the altercation, appellant pulled out a knife which he then
used in repeatedly stabbing his quarry. It was decidedly through such homicidal
violence that appellant was able to get hold of the clutch bag, but had to shortly
thereafter let go thereof together with the knife when SPO1 Martinez closed in on
him.

From the foregoing testimony of said police officer, no other conclusion can be
deduced than that appellant was initially seen by him in the act of unlawfully
taking away the bag of Tandingan and that he in fact succeeded in forcibly taking
possession of the same. In short, the element of taking or asportation was
completed when appellant violently got hold of the bag however momentarily. In
robbery, the element of asportation — which requires the unlawful taking of
personal property from the possession of its owner, without his privity and consent
and without animus revertendi — is present once the property is in fact taken from
the owner, even for just an instant. The subsequent disposition of the property
taken, or the failure to dispose of the same, is of no moment in so far as the
characterization of the offense as robbery is concerned. 14

With regard to appellant’s contention that animus lucrandi was not established by
the prosecution, the same is completely devoid of merit. Animus lucrandi or intent
to gain, as the Solicitor General correctly submits, is an internal act which can
be established through the overt acts of the offender. As this Court pithily put it
in the early case of People v. Sia Teb Ban, 15 "one’s intention may be gathered
from one’s deeds." Appellant’s act of obtaining possession of the victim’s clutch
bag through violence speaks for itself. And, the fact that the clutch bag of the
victim was later found to contain a considerable amount of money only confirms that
appellant had intended to rob Tandingan all along.

As to the ownership of the money recovered from the crime scene, there is ample
proof showing that the same belonged to the victim "s employer, Ruben Go. There
seems to be an apparent variance, therefore, between the allegation in the
indictment and the proof regarding the same. Based on the testimony of Ruben Go,
however, the victim had been lawfully authorized to have in his possession the
money which he obtained by encashing a check with Solidbank upon the express
instructions of Ruben Go.

At all events, in robbery by the taking of property through intimidation or

violence, it is not necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the personal
property be the owner thereof. Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code employs the
phrase "belonging to another" and this has been interpreted to merely require that
the property taken does not belong to the offender. Actual possession of the
property by the person dispossessed thereof suffices. In fact, it has even been
held that robbery may be committed against a bailee or a person who himself has
stolen it. 16 So long as there is apoderamiento of personal property from another
against the latter’s will through violence or intimidation, with animo de lucro,
robbery is the offense imputable to the offender. And, if the victim is killed on
the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the offense is controverted into the
composite crime of robbery with homicide.

There are, however, obvious errors in the disposition made by the court belour
concerning the penalty imposed and the order for restitution of the amount of
P89,200.00 to Ruben Go, which thus calls for modification of its judgment. Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code specifically imposes the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death in robbery with homicide. Reclusion perpetua and life
imprisonment are not synonymous but Are distinct in nature, in duration, and in
accessory penalties. 17 As regards the order of restitution, there is clearly no
ground to order the same since it was lucidly demonstrated at the trial that the
cash money, which was immediately recovered at the scene of the crime, actually
amounted to only P70,800.00 and not P160,000.00.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the court a quo is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Cesar

Gavina y Navarro is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
and the order for the restitution to Ruben Go of the further amount of P89,200.00
is deleted for lack of basis. In all other respects, the judgment appealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Puno, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1. Original Record, 1.

2. Ibid., 24.

3. Per Judge Deodoro J. Sison.

4. Original Record, 208.

5. TSN, February 1, 1994, 2; March 22, 1994, 2-4.

6. Ibid., id.. 3-5; id., 4-7.

7. Ibid., July 22, 1993, 2-4.

8. Ibid., January 18, 1994, 2-4; January 11, 1994, 2-5.

9. Ibid., October 12, 1993, 2-6.

10. Ibid., September 2, 1993, 2-5.

11. Ibid., August 8, 1994, 3.

12. Ibid., id., 4-9.

13. People v. Esperraguerra, Et Al., G.R. No. 113785, September 14, 199S, 248. SCRA
207.

14. People v. Apolinario, Et Al., G.R. No. 97426, June 3, 1993, 223 SCRA 94.
15. 54 Phil. 52 (1929).

16. U.S. v. Albao, 29 Phil. 86 (1914).

17. People v. Samson, Et Al., G.R. No. 100911, May 16, 1995, 244 SCRA 146; People
v. Magalong, Et Al., G.R. No. 100125, May 12, 1995, 244 SCRA 117.

Back to Home | Back to Main

chanrobles.com

Custom Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

November-1996 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 87098 November 4, 1996 - ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (PHIL.) v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96551 November 4, 1996 - PREMIUM MARBLE RESOURCES, INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 116422 November 4, 1996 - AVELINA B. CONTE, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

G.R. No. 120817 November 4, 1996 - ELSA B. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996 - DANILO E. PARAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 116018 November 13, 1996 - NELIA A. CONSTANTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 117174 November 13, 1996 - CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. v. SECRETARY MA. NIEVES
R. CONFESOR , ET AL.

G.R. No. 117397 November 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERMELINDO SEQUIÑO, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 117878 November 13, 1996 - MANILA FASHIONS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117945 November 13, 1996 - NILO B. CALIGUIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 124089 November 13, 1996 - HADJI NOR BASHER L. HASSAN v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 103883 November 14, 1996 - JACQUELINE JIMENEZ VDA. DE GABRIEL v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 107841 November 14, 1996 - REINO R ROSETE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 109775 November 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ENCARNACION MALIMIT

G.R. No. 112519 November 14, 1996 - CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BALANGA v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET. AL.

G.R. No. 112984 November 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO DE GRACIA ET
AL.

G.R. No. 114132 November 14, 1996 - FE M. ALINDAO v. FELICISIMO O. JOSON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 120959 November 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YIP WAI MING

G.R. No. 121545 November 14, 1996 - EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 110494 November 18, 1996 - REY O. GARCIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96700 November 19, 1996 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL
SUR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105396 November 19, 1996 - STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC.,
ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 108556 November 19, 1996 - MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 108574 November 19, 1996 - COCO-CHEMICAL PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 108871 November 19, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY BALLABARE, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 114971 November 19, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE ISLETA

G.R. No. 116854 November 19, 1996 - AIDA G. DIZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 118823 November 19, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ROSARE

G.R. No. 123354 November 19, 1996 - PHIL. INTEGRATED LABOR ASSISTANCE CORP. v.
NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 103134-40 November 20, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIP C. TAN

G.R. No. 118076 November 20, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR N. GAVINA

G.R. No. 124134 November 20, 1996 - DI SECURITY AND GENERAL SERVICES v. NLRC, ET
AL.
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1354 November 21, 1996 - PDCP DEVELOPMENT BANK v. AUGUSTINE
A. VESTIL

.G.R. No. 95748 November 21, 1996 - ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 106063 November 21, 1996 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVT., INC., ET AL. v.
MAYFAIR THEATER, INC.

G.R. No. 109262 November 21, 1996 - DOMINGO R. CATAPUSAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.
AL.

G.R. No. 109656 November 21, 1996 - LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC. v. BERNARDO T.
PONFERRADA, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 110109 November 21, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPOLO VERANO

G.R. No. 110833 November 21, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO LAYNO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 115217 November 21, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANNY PAREDES, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 116618 November 21, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO BENITEZ

G.R. No. 118077 November 21, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR A. CABALUNA

G.R. Nos. 119405-06 November 21, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO S. LEOTERIO

G.R. No. 119591 November 21, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO BALAMBAN, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 119675 November 21, 1996 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA,
ET. AL.

G.R. No. 120389 November 21, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER BENEMERITO,
ET. AL.

G.R. No. 121488 November 21, 1996 - ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.
AL.

Adm. Case No. 2995 November 27, 1996 - ROMULO G. DINSAY v. ATTY. LEOPOLDO D. CIOCO

G.R. Nos. 56219-20 & 56393-94 November 27, 1996 - JAIME T. PANES, ET AL. v. VISAYAS
STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 121195 November 27, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENEMESIO ABELLANOSA, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 64888 November 28, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET. AL. v. REPUBLIC
TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. 92772 November 28, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL JEEPNEY SERVICE, ET. AL. v. NLRC, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 106564 November 28, 1996 - VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 111651 November 28, 1996 - OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115068 November 28, 1996 - FORTUNE MOTORS (PHILS.) INC. v. METROPOLITAN
BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL.

G.R. No. 116740 November 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY GUMAHOB

G.R. No. 118990 November 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND BALISNOMO

G.R. No. 122359 November 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO CATOLTOL, SR.

G.R. No. 124471 November 28, 1996 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 125812 November 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO PARUNGAO

Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-731 November 29, 1996 - EDNA D. DEPAMAYLO v. JUDGE AQUILINA
B. BROTARLO

G.R. No. 108259 November 29, 1996 - AG & P UNITED RANK & FILE ASSOCIATION v. NLRC,
ET. AL.

G.R. No. 114311 November 29, 1996 - COSMIC LUMBER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz