EN BANC
[G.R. No. 13441. July 15, 1918. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO TURLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Victoriano Dimaguila, for Appellant.
Attorney-General Paredes, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. ROBBERY; INTIMIDATION AND "MORADA." — Although the crime of robbery was committed in an inhabited house and in its commission a closed piece of furniture was broken open, if, for the purpose of its perpetration, the robbers employed intimidation upon the persons of the inmates of the building, the crime should be punished in accordance with the provisions contained in article 503, No. 5, of the Penal Code, following the rule, now considered authoritative, laid down in several decisions of this court, and in harmony with the one set up by the supreme court of Spain in decisions resolutory of appeals in cassation where application is made of article 516, No. 5, of the Spanish Penal Code, which is article 503, No. 5, of the Code in force in these Islands, this latter being the same Penal Code of 1870, revised and promulgated in these Islands in 1887. The reason for this is that the circumstance of the employment of violence or intimidation upon persons, notwithstanding that the robbery was committed in an inhabited house and in its perpetration chests and wardrobes were broken open, determines the preferent application of said article 503, No. 5, instead of article 508, which is a counter-part of article 521 of the Penal Code of Spain, the morada (or commission of the crime in dwelling place of the offended party) being an aggravating circumstance. (Decisions of December 26, 1870, October 10, 1871, and June 11, 1872.)
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J.:
This is an appeal interposed by the accused Antonio Turla from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, whereby he is found guilty of the crime of robbery in a band and is sentenced, in accordance with articles 508 and 509 of the Penal Code, to suffer the penalty of thirteen years nine months and eleven days of cadena temporal, with the accessory penalties, and to the restitution of the objects taken or of their value.
In the judgment appealed from, the judge found the following facts proved:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"First. That in or about the month of September, 1916, Estanislao Cuevas possessed in the barrio of Santo Tomas, municipality of Peñaranda, Province of Nueva Ecija, a house occupied by himself and his family.
"Second. That on the night of September 23, 1916, four malefactors armed with revolvers and bolos went up into the said house of Estanislao Cuevas, while some remained below; and after having ordered, by means of intimidation, all those who lived in the house to lie with their faces down, they took away and broke open a trunk, appropriating to themselves, with intent of gain and against the will of the owners, all the money and jewels therein contained which belonged to Antonina Cuevas, fourteen cock-spurs (navajas de gallo) belonging to Estanislao Cuevas, and a bolo owned by Meliton Tabada.
"Third. That two members of that family, named Julio Padilla and Antonia Cuevas, recognized the accused. Antonio Turla as one of these assailants.
"Fourth. That the money, jewels, and other objects taken from the house in question, the total value of which amounted to P253, have not been recovered."cralaw virtua1aw library
The evidence adduced during the trial fully establishes the facts which the court considers proved. The only attempted defense was that of alibi, which in our opinion has not been proved; so that the guilt of the accused as one of the principals of the crime prosecuted is beyond doubt.
Therefore the criminal act which is the subject matter of these proceedings presents the elements of the crime of robbery in a band, committed by four armed malefactors of objects the value of which is estimated at P253, a crime provided for and penalized by articles 502 and 503, No. 5, in connection with article 504 of the Penal Code. Further more, as the robbery was committed in an inhabited house and accompanied by the breaking open of a locked piece of furniture and the value of the property taken exceeded 1,250 pesetas, and considering that in the perpetration of the crime the robbers used intimidation upon the person of the injured parties, it is held in the present case that, following the application of the articles of the Penal Code referring to robbery, the doctrine laid down by this court in various decisions which are now considered as authorities, this robbery should be penalized in accordance with the tenor of paragraph 5 of the above-mentioned article 503 of the said Code, being further in harmony with the doctrine laid down by the supreme Court of Spain in deciding cases appealed in cassation, wherein it has been held that, there being violence against or intimidation upon persons, article 516, No. 5, of the Penal Code of Spain should be applied, which is the same as article 503, No. 5, of the Code in force in these Islands and which in return is the same Spanish Penal Code of 1870, amended and promulgated in these Islands in 1887, although the robbery has been committed in an inhabited house and accompanied by the breaking of trunks and wardrobes; inasmuch as the circumstance of the use of violence against or intimidation upon the persons places the case under the provisions of the said article 503, No. 5, and not those of article c)08 which is the same as 521 of the Penal Code of Spain. (Decisions of December 26, 1870, October 10, 1871, and June 11, 1872.)
The fact that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, Estanislao Cuevas, should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance, the same as nocturnity, there being no extenuanting circumstance, to counteract the effects of the said aggravating ones.
In view of the above statements it follows that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and the accused Antonio Turla should be sentenced, as we hereby sentence him to the penalty of ten years of presidio mayor with the accessories prescribed in article 57 of the Code; to restore to the offended party the objects appropriated by him or pay the value thereof, P253, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in accordance with article 51 of the same Code; and to the payment of the costs of both instances. So ordered.
Carson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña and Fisher, JJ., concur.
In the judgment appealed from, the judge found the following facts proved:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"First. That in or about the month of September, 1916, Estanislao Cuevas possessed in the barrio of Santo Tomas, municipality of Peñaranda, Province of Nueva Ecija, a house occupied by himself and his family.
"Second. That on the night of September 23, 1916, four malefactors armed with revolvers and bolos went up into the said house of Estanislao Cuevas, while some remained below; and after having ordered, by means of intimidation, all those who lived in the house to lie with their faces down, they took away and broke open a trunk, appropriating to themselves, with intent of gain and against the will of the owners, all the money and jewels therein contained which belonged to Antonina Cuevas, fourteen cock-spurs (navajas de gallo) belonging to Estanislao Cuevas, and a bolo owned by Meliton Tabada.
"Third. That two members of that family, named Julio Padilla and Antonia Cuevas, recognized the accused. Antonio Turla as one of these assailants.
"Fourth. That the money, jewels, and other objects taken from the house in question, the total value of which amounted to P253, have not been recovered."cralaw virtua1aw library
The evidence adduced during the trial fully establishes the facts which the court considers proved. The only attempted defense was that of alibi, which in our opinion has not been proved; so that the guilt of the accused as one of the principals of the crime prosecuted is beyond doubt.
Therefore the criminal act which is the subject matter of these proceedings presents the elements of the crime of robbery in a band, committed by four armed malefactors of objects the value of which is estimated at P253, a crime provided for and penalized by articles 502 and 503, No. 5, in connection with article 504 of the Penal Code. Further more, as the robbery was committed in an inhabited house and accompanied by the breaking open of a locked piece of furniture and the value of the property taken exceeded 1,250 pesetas, and considering that in the perpetration of the crime the robbers used intimidation upon the person of the injured parties, it is held in the present case that, following the application of the articles of the Penal Code referring to robbery, the doctrine laid down by this court in various decisions which are now considered as authorities, this robbery should be penalized in accordance with the tenor of paragraph 5 of the above-mentioned article 503 of the said Code, being further in harmony with the doctrine laid down by the supreme Court of Spain in deciding cases appealed in cassation, wherein it has been held that, there being violence against or intimidation upon persons, article 516, No. 5, of the Penal Code of Spain should be applied, which is the same as article 503, No. 5, of the Code in force in these Islands and which in return is the same Spanish Penal Code of 1870, amended and promulgated in these Islands in 1887, although the robbery has been committed in an inhabited house and accompanied by the breaking of trunks and wardrobes; inasmuch as the circumstance of the use of violence against or intimidation upon the persons places the case under the provisions of the said article 503, No. 5, and not those of article c)08 which is the same as 521 of the Penal Code of Spain. (Decisions of December 26, 1870, October 10, 1871, and June 11, 1872.)
The fact that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, Estanislao Cuevas, should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance, the same as nocturnity, there being no extenuanting circumstance, to counteract the effects of the said aggravating ones.
In view of the above statements it follows that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and the accused Antonio Turla should be sentenced, as we hereby sentence him to the penalty of ten years of presidio mayor with the accessories prescribed in article 57 of the Code; to restore to the offended party the objects appropriated by him or pay the value thereof, P253, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in accordance with article 51 of the same Code; and to the payment of the costs of both instances. So ordered.
Carson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña and Fisher, JJ., concur.
