G.R. No. L-8922-24 - People vs. Enguero

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8922-24)

The Three Robberies and the Amounts Alleged Taken

The trial court found that at about 3:00 p.m. of July 9, 1952, the four defendants met at Yabo River, Lupi, Camarines Sur, after Enguero had previously obtained a pistol. They went to Enguero’s house, took supper, and became armed: Enguero gave Nazario Narvarte a bolo, Jose Tariman a balisong, Dionisio Bueno a piece of hardwood, and kept the pistol himself. At about 7:00 p.m., they proceeded to Jaloban, Pigbasagan, Lupi, and before reaching the barrio proper, they stopped at the house of Teodulo Banta and used a pistol to compel Banta and Banta’s brother-in-law, Francisco Bugagao, to guide them. The group tied the hands of these men behind their backs and later met Pedro Bragais and Ernesto Belgado, whom they likewise tied and compelled to accompany them.

They arrived at about 8:00 p.m. at the store of Cresenciano Magistrado, which adjoined Magistrado’s house. The defendants made the tied men sit on the ground in front of the store, with Narvarte guarding them. Enguero entered the store, pointed his pistol at Magistrado, and demanded money. Magistrado, fearing for his life, ordered his wife to give the money. Enguero and his co-accused then took money and searched the house where Juan Margarte, the barrio school teacher lodging with the Magistrados, was found in one of the rooms. Bueno brought Margarte down, tied his hands behind his back, and forcibly took a birthstone ring from Margarte’s finger. The defendants drank wine secured through intimidation and seized goods displayed in the store, passing these items to each other and piling them in front of the store.

The trial court specified the goods taken from Magistrado’s store in this first incident: Coca-Cola, Sardines, Hoctung wine, Pomade, Purico, and matches, together with the money taken from Magistrado’s wife, for a total value of P39.13. In addition, they carried away items belonging to Margarte: a birthstone ring valued at P70, tennis shoes (P5.50), socks (P2), a cake of soap (P.30), a medal and crucifix (P10), for a total value of P87.80. After these acts, at about 10:00 p.m., the defendants moved with Magistrado, Margarte, and the other tied individuals to the nearby house of Victorino Togno.

At the Togno house, the trial court found that Enguero demanded money from Anatolia Bragais by pointing a sharp instrument at her neck. Carulla opened a trunk and took P3. When Anatolia was threatened with having her throat cut, she stated she had no other money. Enguero then took from the house a pair of shoes (P18), a jacket (P12), a blue pant (P12), and a hammer, including the P3 cash already taken, for a total value of P45. The trial court noted that Clementino Carulla was originally accused with the defendants but the case against him was dismissed on motion of the provincial fiscal.

The group then proceeded to the house of Florentina Ogarte, wife of Ireneo Binaday, about 54 meters from Magistrado’s house, arriving at about 11:00 p.m.. Enguero and Carulla went inside while Tariman, Narvarte, and Bueno stood guard with forced escorts. Enguero pointed a pistol at Florentina and ordered her to produce money and jewels. When she claimed she had none, he searched her waistline and then began to hold her private parts. She pleaded for pity and suggested that the goods in her store could instead be taken. Enguero left her and seized store goods: Sardines, Salmon tins, tinapa tins, Hoctung wine bottles, and additional money amounting to P4.80. The trial court computed the total value of goods and money taken in this incident as P36.75. The defendants obtained empty sacks, gathered the items, left after warning Florentina not to report, returned to Magistrado’s store with the stolen goods, later found persons to carry the goods (Glicerio Buensalida and Absalon Medrano), untied the hands of the coerced victims, and left.

Apprehension, Written Confessions, and Recovery of Property

After the robberies, the defendants were apprehended pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Justice of the Peace Court of Lupi on July 16, 1952. Following arrest, the trial court found that investigators conducted a question-and-answer investigation reduced to writing, subscribed and sworn to by the defendants before Mamerto M. Bonot, Justice of the Peace of Lupi. The trial court identified Exhibit S as the sworn statement of Enguero, Exhibit T for Bueno, Exhibit U for Narvarte, and Exhibit V for Tariman. These exhibits reflected admissions and confessions of each accused’s participation in the three robberies and pointed to the whereabouts of some stolen articles.

Guided by the confessions, Sgt. Fernando Narvaez recovered items on July 22, 1952 from the respective houses of the accused. From Florentino Enguero, the trial court found the recovery of, among others, a skin gray suit (Exhibits K and K-l), a Siu Tung wine bottle (Exhibit B), tennis shoes (Exhibit D), a raincoat (Exhibit L), a balisong (Exhibit M), a flashlight (Exhibit N), and a .45 caliber pistol with one magazine and ammunition (Exhibit as stated in the narration). From Nazario Narvarte, it found a towel (Exhibit O), a skin pant (Exhibit P), a pair of shoes (Exhibit Q), and a hammer (Exhibit I). From Dionisio Bueno, it found a birthstone ring (Exhibit E), a skin pant (Exhibit H), a jacket (Exhibit G), and a pair of red leather shoes (Exhibit F) was recovered from Jose Tariman.

The trial court stated that the recovered articles were listed in an inventory, Exhibit J, prepared by Sgt. Narvaez, and that each accused certified that the goods were taken from their custody. The record reflected that each accused signed Exhibit J corresponding to the items recovered from him (Exhibits J-l, J-2, J-3, and J-4).

Conviction and Sentences Imposed by the Court of First Instance

The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur convicted the accused as charged in three criminal cases and imposed separate penalties for each robbery in band. In Criminal Case No. 2714, Enguero was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty not less than 8 years and 21 days of prision mayor nor more than 14 years, 10 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal; each of Tariman, Narvarte, and Bueno received an indeterminate penalty not less than 4 years and 2 months of prision correctional nor more than 8 years and 21 days of prison mayor. The court ordered indemnities in P36.75 in favor of Florentina Ogarte de Binaday and assessed costs.

In Criminal Case No. 2715, the same pattern of penalties was imposed, while indemnities were awarded in favor of Cresenciano Magistrado and Juan Margarte in the amounts of P38.88 and P17.80, respectively, plus costs. In Criminal Case No. 2716, Enguero and the other accused were again sentenced under the same indeterminate structure, with indemnity awarded in favor of Anatolia Bragais in the amount of P3, plus costs.

The trial court also provided that none of the accused would suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency because of the nature of the principal penalties, and it ordered disposition of the recovered articles and confiscation of certain items, including balancing (Exh. M), the bolo (Exh. C) and its scabbard (Exh. C-l), and noted that a pistol earlier confiscated in Criminal Case No. 2729 was already confiscated.

The Appellants’ Sole Assignment of Error and the People’s Position

On appeal, counsel de oficio for the remaining appellants argued that the appellants were guilty of only one crime, relying on People vs. de Leon, 49 Phil., 437. The theory was that the acts should not be treated as three separate robberies. The People defended the trial court’s conviction and sentencing for three robberies in band, as reflected by the trial court’s treatment of each house attacked and each set of goods seized.

The trial court addressed the People vs. de Leon argument as without merit, explaining that in de Leon the accused took fighting cocks belonging to different persons after entering a single yard, whereas here the defendants committed an initial robbery in band, then went to another house and committed a second robbery in band, and after committing it proceeded to a third house to commit a third robbery in band. The trial court therefore held that the rule invoked by counsel could not apply to the present facts.

Legal Characterization of the Offense and Penalty Determination

The trial court ruled that the offense committed was robbery in band punished under Article 294, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18, in connection with Article 295 of the same Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 373. It treated the fact of commission in band as controlling for penalty purposes and held that the penalty to be imposed should be the maximum period of the proper penalty, which it described as prison mayor in its medium period, from 3 years and 1 day to 10 years.

The trial court further reasoned that the second paragraph of Article 295 imposing a penalty next higher in degree upon the leader of the band had been left out by Republic Act No. 373. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it fixed the penalty for each appellant as the next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for each robbery, with 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum and 8 years and 1 day of prison mayor as maximum, in each of the three crimes, with accessories of the law.

Supreme Court Disposition and Reasoning

The Supreme Court resolved the controversy based on the undisputed factual findings by the trial court. With no question of fact raised, the Court treated the principal error assignment as the legal issue of whether the defendants’ acts constituted one or three robberies in band.

The decision sustained the trial court’s distinction among the sequential robberies at different houses and held that the defense’s reliance on People vs. de Leon was inapposite. The Court emphasized that the record showed that after committing the first robbery in band,

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-8922-24)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Florentino Enguero, Jose Tariman, Nazario Narvarte, and Dionisio Bueno for robbery in band in three separate informations.
The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur conducted a joint trial and convicted all four accused in each case.
The trial court imposed separate penalties per case and ordered indemnities and recovery or return of specified exhibits.
The accused appealed the convictions.
Jose Tariman withdrew his appeal, leaving remaining issues for appellate review.
The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court because no question of fact was raised and the only assigned error was the alleged legal error of convicting for three robberies in band instead of only one.

Key Factual Allegations

On or about July 9, 1952, the four accused met at Yabo River, Lupi, Camarines Sur after Florentino Enguero had previously secured a pistol.
The group proceeded from the river to Enguero’s house for supper, where Enguero armed the co-accused with a bolo, a balisong, and a piece of hardwood while Enguero retained the pistol.
Around 7:00 p.m., they headed toward Jaloban, Pigbasagan, Lupi, stopping first at the house of Teodulo Banta where Enguero, at gunpoint, caused Banta and his brother-in-law Francisco Bugagao to guide them and had their hands tied.
They then compelled Pedro Bragais to go with them and later compelled Ernesto Belgado to accompany them, in each instance tying their hands.
At about 8:00 p.m., the group arrived at the store adjoining the house of Cresenciano Magistrado and made the tied men sit on the ground while Enguero entered the store.
With the pistol pointed at Magistrado, Enguero demanded money, and Magistrado ordered his wife to surrender money out of fear.
Enguero, Bueno, and Tariman took money from Magistrado’s wife and then forced Juan Margarte to be brought down, tied him, and forcibly took a birthstone ring.
Afterward, Enguero and Tariman drank wine with Magistrado, and the group took various merchandise displayed in the store.
The trial court catalogued the goods taken from the Magistrado store, stated their total value, and also listed additional articles taken from Margarte with a combined total value.
At about 10:00 p.m., the group and the compelled victims proceeded to the nearby house of Victorino Togno.
In the Togno house, Enguero demanded money from Anatolia Bragais while Carulla opened a trunk and took P3, and Enguero threatened to cut her throat to compel disclosure of the rest of the money.
Enguero then took additional items from Anatolia’s house, including shoes, a jacket, a blue pant, and a hammer, and the group left.
At about 11:00 p.m., the accused and the compelled victims proceeded to the house of Florentina Ogarte, wife of Ireneo Binday, where Enguero ordered Florentina to produce money and jewels.
When Enguero searched without finding money, he threatened and began to hold her private parts, but Florentina suggested the store goods could be taken instead.
Enguero then took specified store goods and money totaling P36.75, placed the goods into empty sacks, cautioned Florentina not to report, and the group proceeded back to the Magistrado store.
After gathering the stolen goods at the store, the accused secured help in carrying the goods, untied the compelled victims, warned them not to report, and then left with the loot.
Several days later, the accused were apprehended pursuant to a warrant issued by the Justice of the Peace Court of Lupi on July 16, 1952.

Confessions and Apprehension Evidence

After arrest, Enguero and Tariman were investigated by Capt. Dominador M. Gutierrez and Narvarte and Bueno by First Lieut. Jaope Nobleza, all from the 1st Camarines Sur PC Company.
The inv