Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > March 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 24534 March 31, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CHAN WAT

049 Phil 114:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 24534. March 31, 1926. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHAN WAT, Defendant-Appellant.

Apolonio Suntay for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY AND THEFT DISTINGUISHED. — The most characteristic difference between robbery and theft consists in the fact that in the former violence or intimidation employed towards the person robbed or force upon the thing taken, while in the latter no such means are employed. Furthermore, in the commission of robbery from the person it is necessary that the taking should be against the will of the owner; in case of theft from the person it suffices that the consent of the owner is lacking.

2. ID.; ID.; RELATION OF ROBBER AND PERSON ROBBED. — The fact that the victim of a robbery is the mistress of the robber does not change the character of the act, all the essential elements of the offense being present.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J. :


This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, finding the appellant, Chan Wat, guilty of the offense of theft and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year, eight months, and twenty-one days, presidio correccional with the accessories prescribed by law, to indemnify Ang Hong (alias Yu Lay), in the sum of P300, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and requiring him to pay the costs.

It appears that during the month of January, 1995, the accused for a time maintained Yu Lay, a Chinese woman 20 years of age, as his mistress in a house situated on Calle Blumentritt, in the City of Manila. Yu Lay was the owner of a pair of gold bracelets of the value of P200 and one gold necklace, with a Chinese gold coin attached, of

The value of P100. This jewelry she was accustomed to wear on her person. The appellant, Chan Wat, being desirous possessing himself of said jewelry, demanded that she should surrender the jewelry to him. This Yu Lay refused to do, and in order to scare the girl into giving it up, he pretended, upon the occasion with which we are here concerned, that a detective was coming to the house and that Yu Lay should place the jewelry in his hands. The ruse proved unavailing, and the appellant thereupon seized Yu Lay’s hands and forcibly removed the bracelets, afterwards drawing the gold necklace from over her head. The jewelry thus taken was never afterwards returned to Yu Lay by the appellant. These are all the facts really material to the case; and that the incident occurred in the manner stated cannot be doubted, being clearly proved by the testimony of Yu Lay herself, corroborated by that of a Chinese woman named Uy Si Ga, who was at the time staying in the house where Yu Lay was kept. The accused admits that he was keeping Yu Lay as a mistress about the time stated, and he claims that he bought her in China and was instrumental in procuring her admission into the Philippine Islands upon a false certificate of residence. He denies, however, that he took from Yu Lay any jewelry whatever upon the occasion mentioned.

The information charges robbery and it is alleged therein that the accused used threats and intimidation against Yu Lay; but the trial court states in the appealed decision that intimidation has not been proved, with which conclusion we agree. It is a plain case of the forcible seizure of jewelry from the person of the owner.

Upon the foregoing facts the trial court found the appellant guilty of the crime of theft. We are of the opinion, however, that the offense exhibits every element of the crime of robbery, and for this offense the accused-appellant should have been sentenced. In United States v. Blanco (10 Phil., 298), it was held that the seizure and appropriation of a pawn ticket by the accused from the hands of the bearer thereof, who was the lawful owner of the document, with intent to gain, constituted the crime of robbery. In the course of the opinion in this case, Mr. Justice Torres, speaking for the court, said: "The substantial difference between robbery and theft Consists of the characteristic circumstance that, in the former, violence or intimidation is employed toward the person, or force upon the thing itself; in the latter no such means are employed. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case before us is fundamentally the same as a criminal case reported from the Supreme Court of Spain under date of February 21, 1873, where it appeared that the appellant had been convicted of theft-for the seizure and taking away of a horse against the will of the owner. It appeared that the appellant in that case had demanded the delivery of a horse which was then in the possession of the offended party. The latter having refused to surrender the horse the appellant entered the stable where the horse was kept and carried the animal off against the will of the owner., Upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Spain it was held that the appellant had been improperly convicted of theft. The point upon which the court there discriminated the offense from theft was that the seizure had been effected against the will of the owner. Upon this feature of the case, the court, after comparing the definitions of theft and robbery in the Penal Code, observed that for robbery it is necessary that there should be a taking against the will of the owner and for theft it suffices that consent on the part of the owner is lacking. (8 Crim. Jur., 235.) In the case before us the offense was committed against the manifest will of Yu Lay and not merely without her consent.

The offense properly falls under paragraph 5 of article 503 of the Penal Code, without aggravating or mitigating circumstance. The judgment will therefore be reversed and the accused is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years, eight months, and one day, presidio correccional, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify Yu Lay in the amount of P300, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

Avanceña, C.J., Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 24850 March 1, 1926 - MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALEZ v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    048 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. 24568 March 2, 1926 - SISENANDO RIVERA v. MANUEL V. MORAN

    048 Phil 836

  • G.R. No. 25007 March 2, 1926 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. ABOITIZ & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 841

  • G.R. No. 25039 March 2, 1926 - VICENTE TUAZON v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

    048 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. 24777 March 3, 1926 - BLOSSOM & COMPANY v. MANILA GAS CORPORATION

    048 Phil 848

  • G.R. No. 24584 March 8, 1926 - CASIMIRO JAPCO, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. 24698 March 9, 1926 - MAXIMO LUNO, ET AL. v. POLICARPO MARQUEZ

    048 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 24367 March 11, 1926 - ROSA JALANDONI v. CONCEPCION CARBALLO

    048 Phil 857

  • G.R. No. 24984 March 13, 1926 - E.S. LYONS v. C. W. ROSENSTOCK, ET AL.

    048 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. 24177 March 16, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CARBONEL, ET AL.

    048 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. 24187 March 15, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TAN BOMPING, ET AL.

    048 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. 23781 March 16, 1926 - FELIPE GUINTO, ET AL. v. FERNANDO LIM BONFING, ET AL.

    048 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. 24400 March 16, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRUNO SOMONTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. 24555 March 16, 1926 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    048 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 24797 March 16, 1926 - DOMICIANO TIZON v. EMILIANO J. VALDEZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 910

  • G.R. No. 24649 March 17, 1926 - CALIXTO SANTIAGO v. RECAREDO M.A CALVO

    048 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 24937 March 20, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIA BINGAAN

    048 Phil 925

  • G.R. Nos. 23929 & 23930 March 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAKPIL, ET AL.

    052 Phil 985

  • G.R. No. 24475 March 6, 1926 - ALFONSO DE CASTELVI v. LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    049 Phil 998

  • G.R. No. 24678 March 6, 1926 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. M. CHONG TIAOPOC, ET AL.

    049 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. 23923 March 23, 1926 - ANTONIO MA. BARRETTO v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON

    050 Phil 888

  • G.R. No. 25425 March 20, 1926 - TRANQUILINO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. HON. FERNANDO SALAS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 23893 March 23, 1926 - MANUEL RIOS, ET AL. v. JACINTO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 23148 March 25, 1926 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. SEYMOUR ADDISON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 24086 March 25, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BENITA DOMINGO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 24589 March 25, 1926 - JOSE LEDESMA v. SALVADOR V. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 24636 March 25, 1926 - MIGUEL BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME LIMPIN, ET AL.

    049 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 24904 March 25, 1926 - ROBINSON, ET AL. v. CRUZ, ET AL.

    049 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 24950 March 25, 1926 - VIUDA DE TAN TOCO v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO

    049 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 24988 March 25, 1926 - F. M. YAP TICO & CO., LTD. v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO

    049 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 25071 March 25, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. UTO ALLI

    049 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 24978 March 27, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FERNANDO DE FERNANDO

    049 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 25044 March 27, 1926 - URQUIJO, ET AL. v. TIMOTEO UNSON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 24137 March 29, 1926 - EULOGIO BETITA v. SIMEON GANZON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 24810 March 29, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN LIMBO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 24935 March 29, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ENRIQUE RAMISCAL

    049 Phil 103

  • G.R. Nos. 24663 & 24809 March 30, 1926 - PHIL. MFG. CO., ET AL. v. CONSORCIA CABAÑGIS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 24534 March 31, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CHAN WAT

    049 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 24658 March 31, 1926 - OHTA DEV’T. CO. v. STEAMSHIP POMPEY, ET AL.

    049 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 24908 March 31, 1926 - PHIL. MFG. CO. v. Hon. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL, ET AL.

    049 Phil 122