Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

People v. Salvilla | G.R. No.

86163 | April 26, 1990 | Ponente: Melencio-


Herrera, J.
Nature of the Case: appeal from decision of RTC Branch 28, Iloilo City
Petitioner: People of the PH
Respondent: SUMMARY:
Bienvenido 4 Salvilla;
accused went in NewRonaldo,
Reynaldo, Iloilo Lumber Yard toall
Simplicio surnamed
Canasares hold up victims and after receiving 20k, further held
them hostage as a means of extortion for an addtl 100k.
after negotiating and being surrounded by authorities,
they were assaulted into surrender. accused claims 1)
there was no actual taking/asportation; 2) mit. circ of
voluntary surrender should be appreciated; 3) serious
illegal detention should be absorbed in robbery and not
charged as a complex crime citing People v. Astor
DOCTRINE:
1) “taking”/“asportation” defined or when
consummated2) requisites of voluntary surrender3)
complex crimes under art 48, definition of “necessary
means”

FACTS:

• PROSECUTION: Apr 12 1996 noon a robbery was staged by the four accused at the
New Iloilo Lumber Yard
• plan was hatched 2 days prior
• accused were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade
• entered establishment and met one Rodita Habiero (an employee) on her way
out for lunch break and announced to her it was a hold-up
• they went inside w/ her and appellant Salvilla pointed his gun at owner
Severino Choco (SC) + 2 daughters Mary and Mimie (15 y.o.) and told them all
they needed was money
• SC told Mary to get a paper bag and placed 20,000 inside and handed it to
appellant
• accused didnt stop at that and leave, instead took the wallet and watch of SC
and thereafter took him and his daughters to the office to hold them hostage
• they all ate around 2pm, but appellant told SC to produce 100,000 before they
could be released
• by this time, police+military authorities had surrounded the premises led by
Major Melquiades Sequio (Station Commander of INP) and OIC Mayor Rosa
Caram
• tried negotiating with accused for 4 hours, accused were demanding 100k, a
coaster, and raincoats. mayor offered 50k instead because banks were closed
on Saturdays, accused agreed
• Rodita sent to get 50k from mayor and later on released
• ultimatums were given but accused wouldnt budge, so authorities decided to
launch an offensive and assault the place
• Mimie and Mary, along with accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo suffered injuries
• Mary had to undergo major operations and her right leg had to be amputated :
(
• DEFENSE: generally same except for the ff:
• instead of 20k, claims the paper bag only contained 5k which he merely
placed on the counter
• appellant Salvilla maintains he stopped his co-accused from getting watch
and wallet, and like the 5k, were all left on counter and never touched by them
• they never fired on military bec they intended to surrender
• during gunfire, when Mary stood up, appellant wanted to stop her but he
himself was hit by a bullet and couldnt prevent her

ISSUES and RATIO

A. WON the crime committed is CONSUMMATED or merely ATTEMPTED? Court:


CONSUMMATED

HELD: The crime of Robbery has 3 consecutive stages: 1) the giving; 2) the taking; 3)
the carrying away/ ‘asportation’
• Appellant claims that since they left the victim’s possessions on the counter and
did not touch them, the taking was not sufficiently proved. The court disagrees.
• As held in Johnson v. State even though the perpetrators were interrupted by
police and so “did not pick up the money offered by victims ,” the money +
wallet + watch demanded were “WITHIN THE DOMINION AND CONTROL” of the
appellant, and completed the taking.
• Further in Adams v. Commonwealth, “severance of the goods from possession
of owner and absolute control by the taker, EVEN FOR AN INSTANT,
constitutes asportation”
• It is no defense either that appellant had no opportunity to dispose of personalities
taken. Therefore, a conviction for CONSUMMATED and not merely attempted
Robbery is in order.
• Appellant also discredits Rodita as a witness because the place was dark, doors
closed and no windows, so she could not have seen the taking. NO MERIT.
• 1) Rodita was a hostage herself and could observe events firsthand
• 2) the fact that she is an employee of SC do not lessen her credibility.
Improper motive to testify against accused not proven
• 3) findings of Trial Court re: credibility of witnesses entitled to great weight

B. WON the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated?


Court: NO

HELD: To be mitigating, must have the ff reqs: 1) offender had not been actually
arrested; 2) offender surrendered himself to a person in authority/his agent; 3)
surrender was VOLUNTARY
• Their “surrender” hardly meets these reqs. They refused to surrender even with
pleading and negotiations until only much later when they no longer had a choice
because they were surrounded and escape became impossible.
• In People v. Sigayan, the surrender of the accused was held NOT to be mitigating
when he gave up only after he was surrounded by the constabulary

C. WON the crime charged should be Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries AND
Serious Illegal Detention sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua? Court: YES
HELD: A complex crime committed under Art 48 imposes the penalty for the more
serious offense, in this case, Serious Illegal Detention under Art 267, or reclusion
perpetua to death.
• Under Art 48 a complex crime arises “when an offense is A NECESSARY MEANS
FOR COMMITTING THE OTHER;” this term does not connote indispensable means
• “necessary means” merely signifies that one crime is committed to FACILITATE and
INSURE the commission of the other
• as in this case, the crime of Serious Illegal Detention was such a “necessary
means” as it was selected by appellant to facilitate and carry out more effectively
their evil design to stage a robbery
• differentiated from People v. Astor where it was held that the detention was
absorbed in the crime of robbery:
• 1) there were 2 separate Informations filed in Astor; here only one charging a
COMPLEX crime
• 2) robbery was consummated in Astor and the detention was merely to
FORESTALL their capture by the police; here, detention was availed of as a
means of insuring the consummation of the robbery
• 3) in Astor, detention was only INCIDENTAL to the main crime of robbery; here,
it was NECCESSARY bec after receiving the 20k, accused didnt leave and held
victims hostage to further produce 100k. Detention was not bec the accused
were trapped by the police and held victims hostage for security, but
deliberate as a means of EXTORTION FOR AN ADDT’L AMOUNT.

RULING: Judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen