G.R. No. L-52 - People vs. De la Cruz y Tojos

The appellant, Teodoro de la Cruz y Tojos, was charged with robbery in band.
The robbery took place on July 25, 1945, at approximately 8:30 p.m.
The crime was committed at Dr. Gregorio B. Sison’s drug store located at 389 Dimasalang, Manila.
Four men, armed with revolvers, executed the holdup, forcing the occupants to lie face downward and maintaining a strict watch.

The assailants, with one guarding the door and two proceeding upstairs, systematically controlled the scene.
One of the robbers manipulated his revolver and threatened the victims by instructing his colleague, “shoot their heads if they moved.”
They succeeded in looting significant amounts:

P200 from the cash register.
P7,000 in bills.
P500 in silver coins.
A pair of earrings with diamonds valued at P300, kept in a drawer in the kitchen.

Two key witnesses for the prosecution identified the appellant as one of the perpetrators:

Dr. Gregorio B. Sison testified that he recognized the man who stuck a revolver against his ribs. He described the robber as wearing a fatigue uniform with a cap.
Luz Mendoza de Sison testified that she heard one robber calling the appellant “Doro” during the incident, and she saw his face clearly when he manipulated his revolver.

Detective Alejandro Euge~nio testified that during a prior investigation related to another holdup, the appellant was identified as “Doro” when presented to the victim for identification.
The cumulative effect of these testimonies conclusively established the appellant as the one who:

Kept watch over the victims inside the drug store.
Participated directly by using his revolver in a threatening manner, which included dropping bullets to the floor.

The appellant denied any participation in the commission of the robbery.
He claimed uncertainty about his whereabouts at the time of the crime, saying he could not remember whether he was at home or at Felix Huertas'.
He admitted to living by selling items such as bread, shoes, pomade, etc., and also acknowledged being a gambler.
The defense's argument of possible extreme necessity or poverty was countered by the facts that:

The appellant had a trade that reportedly earned more than enough to satisfy his basic needs.
He engaged in activities like gambling, indicating discretionary spending.

The Court of First Instance of Manila had sentenced the appellant to an indeterminate term (from not less than 6 months to not more than six years, ten months and one day).
The sentence included indemnification of the offended party amounting to P8,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in the case of insolvency.
The appellant’s appeal sought his acquittal and challenged the imposition of these penalties.
The prosecution recommended affirming the lower court’s decision with the modification of eliminating the subsidiary imprisonment clause and indicating that the principal penalty should be read as higher than prision correccional (i.e., prision mayor), attributing any discrepancy to a lapsus plumae.

Whether the identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses was reliable and conclusive.
Whether the manner in which the witness testimonies were presented and the circumstances under which the identification took place supported the conclusion that the appellant was one of the robbers.

Whether the appellant’s claim of possible extreme necessity or pressing need (implied by his trade and financial status) could justify or mitigate his participation in the robbery.
Whether there was any merit in applying the propositions of Saint Thomas Aquinas or Saint Ambrose regarding the appropriation of another’s goods in circumstances of extreme need.

Whether the form of the sentencing, particularly the use of terms like prision correccional versus prision mayor and the subsidiary imprisonment clause, required correction or reinterpretation.
Whether the elimination of subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency was properly recommended and applied.