Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > November 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 26284 November 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL.

049 Phil 620:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 26284. November 17, 1926. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL., Defendants. FLORENCIO POSTERO (alias Dionisio Castrero), Appellant.

Eulalio Chaves for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. WHEN CONVICTION UNDER ARTICLE 508 WILL NOT BE SUSTAINED. — An information which charges that the crime of robbery was committed "in the store of the Chinaman Jo Ebe" will not sustain a conviction under article 508 of the Penal Code for the commission of a "robbery in an inhabited house."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. THE WORD "STORE" DEFINED. — The word "store" is a "place where goods are sold, either by wholesale or retail," or "a building or room in which goods of any kind are kept for sale, and especially for the sale of goods," or "a place where traffic is carried on in goods, wares and merchandise."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. CUSTOM IS NOT OF GENERAL USE. — Although it is a matter of common knowledge that many Chinese use and occupy a tienda or store as a dwelling, that custom is confined and limited to Chinese and is not of general use.

4. WHAT INFORMATION MUST ALLEGE. — Although a store may be used as a dwelling, yet, where robbery is committed in a store, to sustain a conviction for that crime," in an inhabited house" under article 508 of the Penal Code, the information must further allege that the store was used and occupied as a dwelling.


D E C I S I O N


STATEMENT

This is an appeal by the defendant Florencio Postero (alias Dionisio Castero) from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bohol finding him and his co-defendants guilty of the crime of robbery. The information is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about June 22, 1926, in municipality of Jagna, Province of Bohol, Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named defendants did wilfully and criminally, with intent of gain and through force upon things, conspiring and armed with weapons, did take steal and carry away the iron safe ’Safe Thomas Perry & Son, Bilston’ containing the sum of P1,930 and other articles in the store of the Chinaman Jo Ebe, who is the owner of the safe, said defendants having broken the lock of one of the doors of the store and a part of the safe for the purpose of opening the same, and the defendant Juan Tubog as accessory after the fact.

"Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon arraignment all of the defendants plead guilty, and as to the defendant Santiago Rubi (alias Santiago Lucero) and the appellant, as principals, each was sentenced to ten years and one day of presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties, and to pay one-fourth of the costs. The defendant Juan Tubog was sentenced to five months and ten days of arresto mayor. From this judgment the defendant Florencio Postero appeals without assigning any error.

JOHNS, J. :


His attorney de oficio in his brief says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That after a careful study of the case, the undersigned attorney de oficio finds that the penalty imposed by the trial court is in accordance with the law, and, therefore, recommends that same be confirmed."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Attorney-General says that the penalty is in accord with the provisions of article 808 of the Penal Code. He then cites the decision of this court in People v. Callueng, G.R. No. 19939, promulgated on September 15, 1923, 1 in which in the opinion written by the present Chief Justice, it is said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is not alleged in the information that the house where the robbery was committed was inhabited. The crime of robbery in an inhabited house is different from that of robbery in an inhabited house, and the penalty prescribed by law for the one and the other is also different, the penalty for the latter crime being less severe. While the evidence shows that the house in question was inhabited, yet as this circumstance is not alleged in the information, we can only convict the defendant in accordance with the terms of the information, considering the robbery as committed in an uninhabited house.

"Therefore, the judgment appealed from is modified, and the defendant is sentenced, under article 512 of the Penal Code, to one year and one day, presidio correccional, and in addition to pay the indemnity imposed in the judgment appealed from, with costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Attorney-General then says that in the instance case, the information does not alleged that the store in which the robbery was committed was inhabited at the time of the commission of the crime, and that for want of which, the penalty should be imposed under article 512 of the Penal Code.

Article 508 is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any armed person who shall commit a robbery in an inhabited house public building or edifice devoted t religious worship shall suffer a penalty ranging from presidio mayor in its medium degree to cadena temporal in its minimum degree . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be noted that the language thus used in confined and limited to "a robbery in an inhabited house." It will also be noted that in the instance case, the robbery was "in the store of the Chinaman Jo Ebe, who is the owner of the safe," and that it is alleged "said defendants having broken the lock of one of the doors of the store." That is to say, the information alleges that the crime was committed "in the store" through the breaking of "the lock of one of the doors of the sore," and the information does not allege that the store was used or occupied as "an inhabited house." It does not even allege that the store is attached to, connected with, or a part of, "an inhabited house." The question is thus presented as to whether the word "store" is "an inhabited house," within the meaning of article 508.

In the case of United States v. Vega (31 Phil., 450), this court held: An information which charges the commission of a crime under paragraphs 2 and 4, of article 508, of the Penal Code, is sufficiently explicit as to the character of the building broken into the effect that it was an inhabited house building or edifice "by alleging that it was the tienda of the Chinaman Go Bongco." That opinion was signed by Arellano, Chief Justice, and Justices Torres, Trent, and Carson. Justice Johnson concurred in the result. Justice Araullo wrote a very forcible charged the commission of the crime of robbery as defined and penalized in article 508, and that it was committed in the tienda of a Chinaman by forcibly breaking with arms the wall of the building.

In the instance case, the appellant is not specifically charged with a violation of article 508, and the information alleges that the entrance was made by breaking "the lock alleges that the entrance was made by breaking "the lock of one doors of the store." The fact that entrance was made in that manner clearly implies and carries with the further fact that there was no person inside the store at the time the lock was broken, and that the defendants had to break the lock to get into the store.

In criminal statute the word "store" has a well-defined legal meaning, which is clearly distinguished from the meaning of the words "an inhabited place."cralaw virtua1aw library

Words and Phrases, vol. 7, page 6672, it is said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Store’ is defined by Webster as any place where goods are sold, either by wholesale or retail.

"‘Store’ is defined by Worcester as a building or room in which goods of any kind are kept for sale, and especially for the sale of goods.

"The word ’store’ as applied to a building is intended to designate a place where traffic is carried on its goods, wares and merchandise."cralaw virtua1aw library

Page 6673.

"The use of the word ’store’ in an indictment charging breaking into a store is not sufficient to show the breaking and entering of a building, in violation of a statute making the breaking of certain designated buildings and other buildings criminal, but which does not include stores among the buildings specifically enumerated. (Commonwealth v. Monagle, 1 Mass., 517.)"

Defining "an inhabited building," the same author in vol. 4, page 3604, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any building which has usually been occupied by any person lodging therein at night is an ’inhabited building.’

"An ’inhabited building’ is any building, any part of which has usually been occupied by any person lodging therein at night."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is a matter of more or less common knowledge that many Chinese use and occupy a tienda or store as a dwelling. Even so, that custom is largely confined to that particular class of people, and is not in general use among all classes.

For failure of the information to allege that the store was used and occupied as "an inhabited place" at the time of the commission of the crime, the contention of the Attorney-General must be sustained.

As the law now exists, the penalty for the commission of robbery committed in "an inhabited place" comes under article 508, and the penalty for the commission of that crime in a store, standing alone and within itself, comes under the provisions of article 512 which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in any building other than those mentioned in paragraph one of article five hundred and eight shall be punished by presidio correccional in its medium and maximum degrees," etc.

For such reasons, the penalty of the lower court is modified and reduced, and the defendant is sentenced to four years, nine months, and ten days of presidio correccional, and all other respects, the judgment is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Not reported.




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






November-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 25966 November 1, 1926 - MANUEL TORRES, ET AL. v. MARGARITA LOPEZ

    049 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 25706 November 2, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANUNCIACION ROSAL

    049 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 24084 November 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    048 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 24224 November 3, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON MAZA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 25241 November 3, 1926 - HARRIE S. EVERETT, ET AL. v. ASIA BANKING CORP., ET AL.

    049 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 26008 November 4, 1926 - GREGORIO MONTINOLA v. MARIA PIEDAD VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 25795 November 6, 1926 - C. T. WILLIAMS v. TEOFULO SUÑER

    049 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 24914 November 6, 1926 - JEREMIAS YNUMERABLE v. ENRIQUE V. FILAMOR

    048 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 25888 November 6, 1926 - GERARDO GUSTILO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ

    049 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 25292 November 10, 1926 - HILADO & HILADO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROV. OF OCC. NEGROS

    049 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 25777 November 10, 1926 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CEBU v. PHIL. RAILWAY CO., ET AL.

    049 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. 26017 November 11, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ATANACIO JAGON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 25445 November 12, 1926 - SINGH v. JUAN SULSE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 563

  • G.R. Nos. 25642 & 25643 November 12, 1926 - BPI v. GABRIELA ANDREA R. DE COSTER, ET AL.

    049 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 26323 November 12, 1926 - AGAPITA VILLADOS, ET AL. v. EGMIDIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 25912 November 15, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BENIGNO PALAMOS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 24794 November 17, 1926 - AURELIO CECILIO v. GABRIEL BELMONTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 26418 November 18, 1926 - AQUILINO CALVO, ET AL, v. Hon. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 26555 November 16, 1926 - BALDOMERO ROXAS, ET AL. v. Hon. MARIANO DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 25920 November 17, 1926 - M.W. STAIGHT v. A.D. HASKELL, ET AL.

    049 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 26284 November 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL.

    049 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 26130 November 18, 1926 - PEDRO RIVERA, ET AL. v. Hon. C. CARBALLO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 23999 November 21, 1926 - GREGORIO ZAGALA v. EUSTACIO S. ILUSTRE

    048 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 25254 November 22, 1926 - Mons. ALFREDO VERZOSA v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    049 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 25726 November 22, 1926 - PANTALEON E. DEL ROSARIO v. RESTITUTO VILLEGAS

    049 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 24804 November 24, 1926 - LEANDRA MANLAPAS, ET AL. v. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 25729 November 24, 1926 - BELGIAN CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES, INC. v. MAGALLANES PRESS INC., ET AL.

    049 Phil 647