MARQUEZ VS PEOPLE
686 SCRA 723
FACTS:
At around 2:30 a.m. of April 6, 2002, Marlon Mallari was with petitioners and Benzon in front of the University
of the East (U.E.), Caloocan City. Marquez suggested that the group rob the Rice-in-a-Box store located at
the corner of U.E. Marquez then got a lead pipe and handed it to Magalong, which he and Bernardo used to
destroy the padlock of the [Link] was designated as the look-out while petitioners and Benzon entered
the store and carried away all the items inside it which consisted of rice cookers, a blender and food items.
They then brought the stolen items to the house of Benzon’s uncle. Apprehensive that Mallari might squeal,
the group promised to give him a share if they could sell the stolen items.
At 9:30 a.m. of the same day, Valderosa received information from the daughter of the owner of the premises
where her Rice-in-a- Box franchise store was located, that her store had been forcibly opened and its padlock
destroyed. Upon her arrival thereat, she discovered that the contents of her freezer were missing along with
other items inside the store, such as two rice cookers valued at P3,900.00 each, teppanyaki worth P2,700.00,
a thousand pieces of rice boxes at P5.00 a piece, kitchen utensils valued at P4,500.00, an estimated 48 kilos
of fresh meat at P250.00 per kilo, three boxes of teriyaki sauce worth P3,600.00, a blender costing
P2,200.00, a programmer calculator valued at P3,500.00, and a transistor radio worth P1,500.00. The total
value of these stolen items was approximately P42,000.00. She reported the robbery to the police.
Meanwhile, on April 7, 2002, Mallari informed his older brother of his involvement in the said robbery. At
around 4:00 p.m. of the next day, he again confessed but this time to Valderosa. Later on, the trial court
found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery With Force Upon Things. They
filed a petition to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, the case at bar.
ISSUE:
WON the Petitioners are liable under Art 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building.
RULING:
YES, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, stating Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery to be
one 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 . . .’ Robbery may
thus be committed in two ways: (a) with violence against, or intimidation of persons and (b) by the use of
force upon things. With respect to robbery by the use of force upon things, Article 302, to robbery in an
uninhabited place or in a private building, provides:
ART. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building. - Any robbery committed in an
uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299 , if
the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, provided that any of the following circumstances is present:
xxx
2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken;
Xxx
The term "public building" includes every building owned by the Government or belonging to a private person
but used or rented by the Government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same. Here, the Information
merely stated that petitioners committed the robbery "by means of force upon things, that is, by destroying
the door lock of the stall of one of SONIA VALDEROSA and passing/entering thru the same, once inside, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away the [earlier mentioned] items x x
x." The records show that the store alleged to have been robbed by petitioners is not an inhabited house,
public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and as
defined under Article 301. From Valderosa’s testimony, it can be deduced that the establishment allegedly
robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. In fact, after the robbery took place, there was a need to inform
Valderosa of the same as she was obviously not residing in the store. "If the store was not actually occupied
at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling, since the owner lived in a separate house, the
robbery committed therein is punished under Article 302." Neither was the place where the store is located
owned by the government. It was actually just a stall rented by Valderosa from a private person. Therefore,
the Court found the petitioners guilty of the crime of robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building.
