G.R. No. L-11776 - Gonzales vs. Go Tiong

On the night of September 12, 1933, at a little after 2:00 AM, Perfecto Tayag and Atanasio Morales, the appellants, attempted to enter an inhabited house.
The location was Juan Nicasio Go Cuay’s store, which also served as his dwelling, at No. 325-A San Marcelino Street, Manila.
The appellants were armed with a bolo and a screw driver, which they used in an attempt to force open one of the barred doors of the store.

The tools used (a bolo and a screw driver) were not the proper means for the intended purpose of forcefully opening the door.
After managing to loosen one of the bars, the appellants became aware that the inhabitants of the dwelling had been awakened.
In light of the disturbance, they attempted to escape, but their movement did not go unnoticed.

The appellants were detained by policemen A. Santos, J. Rubic, and G. Malap, who had been observing their actions.
Upon arrest, the bolo (Exhibit A) was found in the possession of Perfecto Tayag and the screw driver (Exhibit B) in the possession of Atanasio Morales.
At the scene, Juan Nicasio Go Cuay’s store contained a little more than ₱40 in cash (from the previous day’s sales) and merchandise valued at around ₱1,000.

There was no record or evidence proving that the appellants intended to commit robbery, nor was there any knowledge that specific cash (₱40) would be found.
The prosecution relied on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence to allege an intent to commit robbery, but alternative interpretations of their intention remained.
The evidence suggested that had the appellants succeeded in entering, they would not have been able to carry away all the goods on their own due to a lack of vehicle or other means.
Consequently, the act was interpreted not as attempted robbery but as the crime of attempted trespass to dwelling by means of violence, in line with Article 280, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.

The trial court considered that both appellants were habitual delinquents based on previous criminal records.
Documentary evidence (Exhibits C, D, and E) indicated that the appellants had been charged with theft in related cases, supporting the consideration of aggravating circumstances.
Additional aggravating factors such as nocturnity were also taken into account by the trial court.

Whether the acts of the appellants, in attempting to force entry into an inhabited dwelling, constitute attempted robbery or should be reclassified.
The issue of whether the intent to commit robbery was sufficiently established by the evidence or if it should be considered as an attempt to trespass to dwell by means of violence.

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was competent and conclusive enough to prove the appellant’s criminal intent beyond mere inferences.
If the evidence of previous criminal records could legally justify the imposition of aggravating circumstances in the absence of conclusive proof regarding the specific intent to commit robbery.

Whether the trial court was correct in modifying the penalty from that prescribed for trespass to dwelling by means of violence to a lesser penalty (arresto mayor).
The extent to which the credit for time spent in preventive detention under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code should affect the final sentence.