Case Digest (G.R. No. 8098)
Facts:
The United States v. Fulgencio Gernale, G.R. No. 8098, November 19, 1912, the Supreme Court, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Fulgencio Gernale (defendant and appellant) with robbery for his role in the nocturnal taking of money and a bill of exchange from the safe of the firm of Lizarraga Brothers represented locally by Eduardo Rotaeche. The act was carried out with the aid of Brigido Marcial, a servant of Rotaeche, who, by prior arrangement with Gernale, entered Rotaeche’s room at about 10 o’clock, took from Rotaeche’s trousers pocket the key to the safe, and admitted Gernale into the ground-floor office. Using the key furnished by Marcial, Gernale opened the safe and, together with Marcial, removed P1,038 in coin and banknotes and a bill of exchange for 1,200 (the aggregate value exceeding 1,250 pesetas under the Penal Code).
Marcial was prosecuted separately and, according to his testimony, was convicted in that separate proceeding. In Gernale’s case the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon found his responsibility established on the facts; the prosecution’s proof was corroborated by the fiscal’s discovery of money hidden by the defendant in a fence and by Gernale’s voluntary delivery of another portion of the money to the justice of the peace. The trial court classified the offense as robbery without weapons, committed in an inhabited house with force against things by the use of false keys, and, because the value exceeded 1,250 pesetas, sentenced Gernale under Article 508 (subparagraph applicable) to two years, four months, and one day of presidio correccional and ordered joint restitution with Marcial of P356.61 for the unrecovered remainder.
The Attorney-General contended the crime was theft, not robbery (arguing lack of force against things and absence of false keys as legally un...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the offense committed by Gernale robbery or theft under the Penal Code?
- If robbery, what penalty degree is proper given the value of the property taken and the attending circumstance of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)