PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES VS. CESAR CONCEPCION Y BULANIO, G.R. No. 200922, July 18,
2012.
“x x x.
Robbery vs. Theft
On the second and
third issues, 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.” Robbery with homicide occurs when, by
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been
committed5. 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.6 The penalty for the crime of robbery with homicide is reclusion
perpetua to death.7
Theft, on the other
hand, is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the
personal property of another without the latter’s consent8. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods is imposed upon persons guilty of theft, if the value of the
thing stolen is more than P200 but does not exceed P6,000.
By definition in the
RPC, robbery can be committed in three ways, by using: (a) violence against any
person; (b) intimidation of any person; and/or (c) force upon anything. Robbery
by use of force upon things is provided under Articles 299 to 305 of the RPC.
The main issue is
whether the snatching of the shoulder bag in this case is robbery or theft. Did
Concepcion employ violence or intimidation upon persons, or force upon things,
when he snatched Acampado’s shoulder bag?
In People v.
Dela Cruz,9 this Court found the accused guilty of theft for snatching a basket
containing jewelry, money and clothing, and taking off with it, while the
owners had their backs turned.
In People v.
Tapang,10 this Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for frustrated
theft because he stole a white gold ring with diamond stones from the victim’s
pocket, which ring was immediately or subsequently recovered from the accused
at or about the same time it was stolen.
In People v.
Omambong,11 the Court distinguished robbery from theft. The Court held:
Had the appellant
then run away, he would undoubtedly have been guilty of theft only, because the
asportation was not effected against the owner’s will, but only without his
consent; although, of course, there was some sort of force used by the
appellant in taking the money away from the owner.
x x x x
What the record does
show is that when the offended party made an attempt to regain his money, the
appellant’s companions used violence to prevent his succeeding.
x x x x
The crime committed
is therefore robbery and not theft, because personal violence was brought to
bear upon the offended party before he was definitely deprived of his money.12
The prosecution
failed to establish that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in
snatching Acampado’s shoulder bag. 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.
Concepcion’s crime of theft was aggravated by his use of a motorcycle in
committing the crime. Under Article 14(20) of the RPC, the use of a motor
vehicle as a means of committing a crime is a generic aggravating circumstance.
Thus, the maximum period of the penalty for the crime of theft shall be imposed
upon Concepcion due to the presence of a generic aggravating circumstance and
the absence of any mitigating circumstance.
Based on the RTC
Decision’s statement of facts which was affirmed by the CA, Concepcion’s
co-conspirator, Rosendo Ogardo, Jr. y Villegas (Ogardo), who was driving the
motorcycle, died because he lost control of the motorcycle and crashed in front
of de Felipe’s taxi. 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.
X x x.”
