G.R. No. L-32798 - Bernal vs. Court of Appeals

Tomas Bernal, the decedent, was married to Fortunata Longasa, with whom he had a daughter, Maria Bernal (the complainant).
Subsequently, Tomas Bernal lived with Fortunata Enverzo for over thirty years and had a son, Silvino Enverzo Bernal (the accused/petitioner).
Upon Tomas Bernal’s death on 18 August 1947, several parcels of land, including the residential lot planted with coconuts, became part of his estate.

During the intestate proceedings for the estate’s settlement, Ambrosio Reyes was appointed as administrator.
An action for recovery of possession was filed by Ambrosio Reyes to reclaim the deceased’s properties, directing Fortunata Enverzo, Silvino Enverzo Bernal, and other defendants to surrender possession.
On 30 March 1952, the court ordered Silvino and his mother, among others, to turn over the estate properties, with the administrator actually taking possession on 18 December 1952.
After the administrator’s death between 1952 and 1954, Maria Bernal assumed possession of the estate properties, including the residential land, without prior court consent, and subsequently placed a tenant, Vicente Lugue, there.

On 5 November 1960, Maria Bernal, accompanied by her son Arturo Berdan, went to the residential lot to gather mature coconuts, engaging the services of Miling Caldoza for the task.
While the coconuts were being piled up, Silvino Enverzo Bernal appeared, half-naked and carrying a bolo, and threatened Maria Bernal by brandishing the bolo and stating he was neither a tenant nor a “scarecrow” on the property.
Out of fear, Maria and her son fled to seek shelter and report the incident to the local authorities.
Following their departure, Silvino collected roughly 100 coconuts and brought them to his residence.

An information for robbery was filed against Silvino Enverzo Bernal in Criminal Case No. 6253 before the Court of First Instance of Samar, prompted by a complaint lodged by Maria Bernal approximately four months after the incident.
On 27 July 1963, the trial court found Silvino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery, sentencing him to an indeterminate sentence ranging from six months and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor, along with accessory penalties and ordering him to pay indemnity of fifteen pesos (P15.00) to Maria Bernal.
Silvino appealed the decision, and on 15 July 1970, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed but denied on 7 October 1970.
Silvino Enverzo Bernal then elevated a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging various factual and legal aspects of the case.

Whether Maria Bernal, as an heir who unlawfully assumed possession of the estate property under custodia legis, had the right to file a complaint for robbery against Silvino.
Whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and factual findings regarding the conduct of Silvino during the incident.
Whether Silvino’s claim of ownership or entitlement to the coconuts, though indirectly testified by his statement, could serve as a valid defense against the charge of robbery.
Whether the failure of Silvino to raise a defense based on co-ownership or entitlement before trial undermined his argument that he did not have the intent to gain, which is an essential element of robbery.