moreno-gano.doc

8/22/2019 moreno-gano.doc

1/5

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROGELIO MORENO y

REG, accused-appellant. (G.R. No. 140033; January 25, 2002)

PONENTE: DAVIDE, JR., C.J.

FACTS:

This case is an automatic review of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 138,

Makati City, in Criminal Case No.99-026 finding accused-appellant Rogelio Moreno

y Reg (hereafter ROGELIO) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex

crime of robbery with rape.

The victim, 20-year-old MARITES, testified that at about 12:45 A.M. of 8

January 1999, as she was walking along ABC Commercial Complex, Makati, after

her duty as service crew of the Burger Machine outlet located at Guadalupe Nuevo,

Makati, she noticed a man behind her. Suddenly, the man put his arms around her and

pointed a fan-knife at her neck. Since the place was illuminated by streetlights andlights coming from the ABC Commercial Complex, MARITES noticed the tattoos in

his arms and recognized him to be accused-appellant ROGELIO. Prior to 8 January

1999, ROGELIO would pass by their Burger Machine outlet twice a week, but there

was never an occasion that he bought something from Burger Machine.

ROGELIO dragged MARITES and at the same time ordered her to follow him

to the side of ABC Complex, which is about five arms-length away from EDSA.

MARITES removed her ring from her bag and gave it to ROGELIO.The latter told

her, "Mamaya na iyan." "[T]hat will come later on because I will give it back to you

but you have to follow me first."

ROGELIO grabbed MARITESs long-sleeved shirt, unbuttoned it, and pushed

her to the vacant space behind the car then parked on the side of ABC Complex. He

again pointed his knife at her throat and pulled down her pants. To her plea for mercy,

he replied "Huwag kang maingay, kundi papatayin kita." ROGELIO then removed his

pants and again uttered "Huwag kang maingay kundi sasaksakin kita." Still, she told

him that he could get her bag if he needed money, but he replied, "I do not need

money."

ROGELIO ordered MARITES to open her legs apart or else he would kill her.

MARITES was forced to obey him. ROGELIO then went on top of her with his right

hand holding her throat, inserted his sexual organ into hers, and kept on pumping.

After he was through, ROGELIO went again on top of MARITES and ordered her to

put his organ inside her vagina. MARITES said, "Ayoko." At this point, she heardsomeone nearby running. ROGELIO forthwith put on his shorts and snatched the

shoulder bag of MARITES, which contained her ATM card, P200 cash, a small Bible,

coupons of Burger Machine and T-shirt with Burger Machine markings. He then ran

away towards the direction of the other side of EDSA.

The vendors who saw MARITES crying as she was walking inquired about

what happened to her. They brought her back to the Burger Machine outlet and called

the police. MARITES joined the police in the search for ROGELIO around the

vicinity and to the place where the incident happened. One of the two policemen saw

her ring in said place. They continued to search the vicinity until they reached Laperal

Compound. As they were approaching Guadalupe Bridge, several persons who were

talking to each other scampered away upon seeing MARITES and the police officers.One of them was ROGELIO, who immediately went inside a house and turned off its


2/5

lights. With the assistance of the barangay tanod, the police went to the back portion

of the house and saw ROGELIO, who at the time was wearing a hat and a blue jacket

with his head bowed down.

Upon seeing ROGELIO, MARITES exclaimed: "He is the one." ROGELIO

refused to remove his hat when she tried to remove it. After finally succeeding in

removing his hat, MARITES confirmed: "He [was] the one who raped me." She thenremoved his jacket and saw under it her T-shirt with Burger Machine prints at the left

sleeve and catsup stains in the front and upper parts of the shirt. This was the shirt she

used in working at their Burger Machine outlet.

Accused-appellant ROGELIO, 19 years old and a resident of Laperal

Compound, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City, put up the defense of alibi.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Rogelio is liable for robbery with rape?

RULING:

The special complex crime of robbery with rape defined in Article 293 inrelation to paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,

employs the clause "when the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape." In

other words, to be liable for such crime, the offender must have the intent to take the

personal property of another under circumstances that makes the taking one of

robbery, and such intent must precede the rape. If the original plan was to commit

rape, but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the

opportunity presented itself, the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct

crime.

A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this case convinces us that

ROGELIO committed two separate offenses of rape and theft, and not the special

complex crime of robbery with rape. Immediately after ROGELIO put his arms

around MARITES and directed the knife at her neck, he dragged MARITES to the

vacant space in ABC Commercial Complex and removed her clothes. These acts

clearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexual gratification. This intent was

further established by the fact that when MARITES offered to give her ring to

ROGELIO, the latter did not take it and instead replied, "Mamaya na iyan"; "That will

come later on because I will give it back to you but you have to follow me

first." Again, when ROGELIO removed his pants, MARITES told him to get her bag

if he needed money; but ROGELIO replied "I do not need money." After giving vent

to his lustful desire, he snatched the victims shoulder bag, which was then on her

right foot, and then he ran away. Clearly then, the taking of personal property was notthe original evil plan of ROGELIO. It was an afterthought following the rape.

Significantly, the constitutive element of violence or intimidation against

persons in robbery was not present at the time of the snatching of the shoulder bag of

MARITES. The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIO against the victim was

for a reason foreign to the fact of the taking of the bag. It was for the purpose of

accomplishing his lustful desire. Hence, it cannot be considered for the purpose of

classifying the crime as robbery. Accused-appellant may thus be held liable for simple

theft only, in addition to the crime of rape.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.REYDERICK LAGO, appellant.(G.R. No. 121272; June 6, 2001)


3/5

PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.

FACTS:

Before the Court is an appeal by Reyderick Lago, assailing the February 28,

1995 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Metro Manila (Branch

159), in Criminal Case No. 87719, which found him guilty of robbery with homicide.On or about the 24th day of July, 1991, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro

Manila, Philippines, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon,

conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping [or] aiding each other,

with intent to gain, by means of force upon things, did, then and there willfully,

unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of Benjamin Raymundo y Sta. Teresa, by

then and there removing one blade of the glass window jalousie near the door, and

once inside the house, take, steal and carry away cash[,] money and jewelries worth

P92,000.00 belonging to said Benjamin Raymundo y Sta. Teresa, to the damage and

prejudice of the latter; that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of

enabling them to take, steal and carry away the said cash, money and jewelries, in

pursuance of their conspiracy and to insure the success of their criminal act, withintent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab said

Benjamin Raymundo y Sta. Teresa on the vital part of his body, thereby inflicting

upon the latter stab wounds which directly caused his death.

ISSUE:

Whether or not appelant is liable for robbery with homicide?

RULING:

The elements of this special complex crime are the following: (1) the taking of

personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the

property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and (4)

by reason of the robbery or on occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense)

is committed.

The records and the pleadings show that all the above-mentioned elements are

present in the case at bar. Appellant and his cohorts broke into the house of Aragons

uncle; took the victims wallet and cash, wrist watch and several pieces of jewelry

amounting to P67,000; and, in the course of the robbery, stabbed and killed the

victim.

As aforesaid, whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the

occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the asportation will be held guilty of

the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actuallytake part in the homicide, unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to

prevent the killing.

Appellant, upon hearing the groaning emanating from the bedroom, did not do

anything to check on what was happening. Thinking that his cohorts were stabbing the

victim, appellant simply allowed them to finish their dastardly deed. He hid for two

years first in the house of his grandmother and, later on, in that of his mother. On

January 6, 1994, a barangay official apprehended and brought him to the

Mandaluyong jail.

It is therefore clear that appellant did not do anything to prevent his co-

conspirators from stabbing and ultimately killing the victim. When he left the scene of

the crime; he could have gone to the police to report the crime, but he hid and tried to


4/5

escape the arm of the law. Because he did not do anything to prevent the homicide, he

is therefore equally guilty of robbery with homicide.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CASTANITO GANO Y

SAGUYONG a.k.a JERRY PEREZ, ALLAN PEREZ, ALLAN SAGUYONGand JERRY GANO, accused-appellant. (G.R. No. 134373; February 28, 2001)

PONENTE: BELLOSILLO, J.

FACTS:

This is an automatic review of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San

Mateo, Rizal, convicting CASTANITO GANO Y SAGUYONG of the crime of

robbery with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.

ISSUE:Whether the three (3) killings should be appreciated as separate aggravating

circumstances to warrant the imposition of the penalty of death?

RULING:

Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons by reason or on the occasion

of the robbery. The question that needs to be resolved is whether the multiplicity of

homicides could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. For sometime, this

ticklish issue has been the subject of conflicting views by this Court when it held in

some cases that the additional rapes/homicides committed on the occasion of robbery

would not increase the penalty, while in other cases it ruled that the multiplicity of

rapes/ homicides committed could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. But

in People v. Regala this Court spoke with finality on the matter -

It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or

homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of

aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as

opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating

circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for

analogous circumstances.

It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide

on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an anomalous situation where from

the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape would be on thesame level as robbery with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the

legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person

should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.

This case is singular in its barbarity and nauseating in the manner with which

the accused, bolo in hand, butchered his preys. Notwithstanding the viciousness with

which he perpetrated the offense, we are constrained to apply the principle laid down

in People v. Regala, and accordingly, the two (2) other killings contrary to the ruling

of the trial court, should not be appreciated as aggravating circumstances.

Incidentally, we also examined the possibility of appreciating dwelling as a generic

aggravating circumstance, but the attempt was again thwarted by a recent amendment

to Secs. 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.


5/5

With respect to the mitigating circumstance, we note that the trial court

considered the admission by the accused of the killings as a mitigating circumstance,

presumably referring to voluntary confession as provided under Art. 14 of The

Revised Penal Code, notwithstanding his denial of the charge of robbery. In effect,

therefore, the accused was merely confessing to the crime of homicide but not to

robbery with homicide, a considerably graver offense. But we note that for voluntaryconfession to be appreciated as an extenuating circumstance, the same must not only

be made unconditionally but the accused must admit to the offense charged, i.e.,

robbery with homicide in the present case, and not to either robbery or homicide only.

Hence, if the voluntary confession is conditional or qualified, it is not mitigating.

Any person found guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or

intimidation of person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when by

reason or on the occasion of robbery the crime of homicide shall have been

committed. For reasons earlier discussed, the trial court erred in appreciating the two

(2) killings as aggravating circumstances and the voluntary confession as a mitigating

circumstance. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, Art. 63

of The Revised Penal Code dictates that the lesser penalty, or only reclusionperpetua, be imposed.

moreno-gano.doc

Documents