Title
People vs. Enguero
Case
G.R. No. L-8922-24
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1957
Four armed men committed three separate robberies in Camarines Sur in 1952, targeting different victims and locations. Convicted of three distinct crimes, their penalties were adjusted under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

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

Charges and Initial Ruling

The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur found the defendants guilty of the charges and imposed sentences for each criminal case. Enguero was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 21 days of prision mayor to 14 years, 10 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal for each case, while the other three defendants received lesser sentences of 4 years and 2 months of prision correctional to 8 years and 21 days of prision mayor. The court also ordered restitution to the victims and recovery of various stolen items.

Appeal Process

Following sentencing, the defendants appealed their convictions. However, Jose Tariman later withdrew his appeal. The primary issue brought before the appellate court was whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendants of three separate robberies rather than a single offense of robbery in band. The Court of Appeals subsequently certified the case to the Supreme Court for further review.

Findings of the Lower Court

Evidence indicated that the defendants had collaborated in a series of robbery incidents. They began by meeting at Yabo River, after which they armed themselves with weapons, including a pistol and a bolo, and proceeded to commit acts of violence and intimidation against their victims. The defendants coerced numerous individuals into guiding them to various locations where they conducted multiple robberies, directly threatening victims with weapons.

Description of Criminal Acts

The defendants executed a well-orchestrated plan of robbery, first targeting the home of Cresenciano Magistrado, during which they physically restrained him, his family, and other Victims, leading to theft of multiple goods and cash. Following this, they proceeded to the residence of Anatolia Bragais and then to that of Florentina Ogarte, where they threatened and stole additional items. The total value of the stolen goods from all incidents amounted to substantial sums, aggravating the offenses.

Justification for Multiple Convictions

Counsel de oficio argued that the acts constituted a single crime of robbery; however, the Supreme Court found this argument unmeritorious. The Court indicated that the separate acts of robbery, conducted in different locations and against different victims, constituted distinct offenses punishable under the law.

Applicable Law and Sentencing Guidelines

The Supreme Court referenced Article 294, paragraph 5, of the Revis

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.