G.R. No. 48801 - People vs. Lareza

The case is styled as THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus MARCELO LAREZA et al., with the People as both the plaintiff and appellee and Lareza and his co-defendants as the defendants and appellants.
The appeal arises from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila, with the decision penned by Associate Justice Jorge C. Bocobo.

The prosecution charged the accused with robbery, basing the allegation on their having “passed through a hole on the ‘ceiling of said bazar, an opening not intended for entrance or egress.”
The information did not specifically allege the use of violence or intimidation or the actual application of force against persons or property.
Instead, it relied on the statutory provision under Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code, which enumerates five distinct methods that constitute the offense.

Article 302 is considered complete in itself, meaning that an information based on it does not need to specifically allege violence or intimidation if any of its five methods are satisfied.
The five methods include:

Entrance through an opening not intended for entrance or egress;
Entrance by means of false keys, picklocks, or similar tools;
Actual breaking of walls, doors, or closed receptacles;
(Other methods implied involve either the use of actual force or force tantamount to actual force.)

The legislative intent is that each method, whether through actual force or its equivalent, fulfills the element of the crime, thus weighing the same in terms of criminal liability.

There is the consideration that the crime was committed “on the occasion of war,” which is an aggravating circumstance under the law.
However, the defendants entered pleas of guilty, which later played a significant role in the court’s assessment of the overall aggravating circumstances in the case.

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court was mandated to impose an indeterminate penalty.
The specified sentence ranged from three months of arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correccional.
Additionally, the court ordered the return of the items stolen by the appellants to their rightful owner.

Whether the allegation “by passing through a hole on the ‘ceiling of said bazar, an opening not intended for entrance or egress” is sufficient under Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code to charge the accused with robbery.
Whether the omission of a specific allegation of violence, intimidation, or force undermines the prosecution’s case under the relevant statutory framework.

Whether the defendants’ plea of guilty effectively offsets the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed on the occasion of war.
How the plea of guilty interacts with the statutory penalties prescribed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Whether Article 302, in its enumeration of the five methods, inherently covers acts that are tantamount to the application of force even when no explicit mention of violence or intimidation is made.
The scope and legislative intent behind considering non-traditional methods (such as entering through an unintended opening) as equivalent to the breaking of walls, doors, or closed receptacles.