JOMAR ABLAZA Y CAPARAS VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:
Snyder was suing her cellphone while walking along the streets of
Olongapo City, two male persons onboard a motorcycle suddenly stopped beside
her and grabbed her three necklaces. Snyder recovered from shock and
managed to shout. Snyder managed to see the face of the backrider. A tricycle
passed by making the male persons on board the motorcycle sped away. Snyder
went to the Police Station to report the incident. Ablaza claimed that at the date
and time of the incident, he and Lauzon were asleep in his house since they had
a drinking spree the night before. The RTC finds Lauzon and Ablaza guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery defined under Article 294 (5) of the RPC.
CA affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC.

Issue:
1. Are the accused guilty of robbery?
2. Did the CA erred in convicting the petitioner for the crime charged
despite the fact that his guilt had not been proven guilty beyond reasonable
doubt?

Ruling:
1. No, the accused are not guilty of robbery.
Article 293 or the Revised Penal Code defines robbery as a crime
committed by any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal
property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of
any person, or using force upon anything.
In this case, Snyder did not sustain any kind of injury at all. And as already
mentioned, her testimony was bereft of any showing that violence was used
against her by petitioner and his co-accused in that she was pushed, or
otherwise harmed on the occasion of the robbery. While one can only imagine
how pulling three necklaces at the same time from the victim's neck could not
have caused any mark, bruise, or pain to the latter, suffice it to state that such a
matter must have been adequately proved by the prosecution during trial as the
Court cannot rely on mere assumptions, surmises, and conjectures especially
when it is the life and liberty of the petitioner which is at stake. The petitioner is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime theft.
2. No, the CA did not erred in convicting the petitioner for the crime
charged despite the fact that his guild has not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
As a general rule, the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of pure
questions of law. Otherwise stated, a Rule 45 petition does not allow the review
of questions of fact because the Court is not a trier of facts. A lthough, there are
several exceptions to the rule that factual questions cannot be passed upon, the
Court does not find the existence of any in this case. At any rate, the assessment
of credibility of witnesses is a task most properly within the domain of trial
courts.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS CONCEPCION
G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012

Facts:
Jennifer Acampado was at the corner of Mother Ignacia Street, Quezon
City when a motorcycle boarded by two persons came from behind her and
snatched her bag. As the motorcycle sped away, the taxi driver witnessed the
snatching incident and chased the motorcycle. Ogardo, one of the accused lost
control of the motorcycle and crashed on front of the taxi. Police Officers arrived
and brought the badly injured snatchers to the hospital.Ogardo died at the
hospital.
The RTC found Concepcion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of robbery with homicide. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue:
Is Concepcion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime robbery with
homicide?

Ruling:
No, Concepcion is not guilty of the crime robbery with homicide.
Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime committed by "any
person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to
another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything."
In Article 249 of the RPC, any person who shall kill another shall be
deemed guilty of homicide. Homicide, as used in robbery with homicide, is to be
understood in its generic sense to include parricide and murder.
In this case, Acampado herself merely testified that Concepcion snatched
her shoulder bag which was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did not say
that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder
bag. Given the facts, Concepcion’s snatching of Acampado s shoulder bag
constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery. On the other hand, since Concepcion,
as passenger in the motorcycle, did not perform or execute any act that caused
the death of Ogardo, Concepcion cannot be held liable for homicide. Hence,
Concepcion is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of THEFT with the
presence of a generic aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the
commission of the crime.
 VALENZUELA VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007

Facts:
In the open parking area of the supermarket, a security guard saw the
accused, Valenzuela hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and
unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela
returned inside the supermarket and later emerged with more cartons of
detergent. Valenzuela called for a taxi and started loading the detergents inside.
Upon almost leaving with the taxi, the security guard asked Valenzuela for the
receipt of the merchandise. Valenzuela run but were later apprehended at the
scene. RTC convicted Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime consummated theft.
CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue:
Are the accused guilty of consummated theft?

Ruling:
Yes, they are guilty of consummated theft.
Under Article 308 of the RPC, the elements of theft are: (1) that there be
taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the
taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent
of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
In this case, the accused is guilty of consummated theft. Theft or robbery
in the crime is consummated after the accused had material possession of the
thing with intent to appropriate the same, although his act of making use of the
thing was frustrated.