G.R. No. 86163 - People vs. Salvilla

Case Summary (G.R. No. 86163)

Key Dates

Date of offense: April 12, 1986.
Trial court decision: August 29, 1988 (Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Iloilo City).
Appellate decision date: April 26, 1990. (Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution.)

Applicable Law Charged

Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 294, par. 3, Revised Penal Code) in conjunction with Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267, Revised Penal Code); complex crime analysis under Article 48, Revised Penal Code; consideration of mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as developed in jurisprudence.

Information and Indictment

The Information charged the four accused with conspiracy to commit robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention, alleging use of firearms and a hand grenade, theft of cash and jewelry (alleged values given), serious injuries to victims (especially Mary Choco), illegal detention of four persons on the premises, extortionary demand for ransom (P100,000 later negotiated to P50,000), and recovery of some money, watches, a revolver, and a grenade from the accused.

Factual Narrative Established at Trial

Prosecution evidence established that on April 12, 1986 the four accused, armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade, entered the lumber yard at noon, announced a hold-up, and compelled Severino to produce money. Severino allegedly placed cash in a paper bag (prosecution testimony states P20,000; appellant claimed P5,000) which was handed to appellant; Simplicio allegedly took Severino’s wallet and wristwatch. The offenders then detained Severino, his daughters and Rodita in the office as hostages and demanded P100,000. Authorities surrounded the premises and negotiated for several hours; Mayor Caram delivered P50,000 through Rodita, who then was released while Mary was retained. An assault by police and military ensued; the resulting gunfire injured Mary and Mimie (Mimie is the minor) and resulted in severe injuries to Mary requiring multiple operations and eventual amputation. Some of the alleged property and weapons were recovered from the accused.

Accused’s Version at Trial

Appellant Salvilla admitted entry into the premises and detention of victims, claimed that he demanded P100,000 but only received P5,000 (he placed it on the counter), denied touching Severino’s wallet and watch and claimed he prevented co-accused from taking them. He asserted an intention to surrender and denied firing at authorities, alleging he was hit by a bullet which limited his ability to restrain others. He acknowledged appeals to surrender but maintained surrender occurred later when circumstances compelled it.

Trial Court Ruling and Sentence

The trial court found all four accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention (as charged) and sentenced each to suffer reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties and costs. The appellate court affirmed this conviction and sentence.

Issues on Appeal

Primary assignments of error raised by appellant: (1) the crime was only attempted robbery because asportation (taking/carrying away) was not completed; (2) the surrender constituted a mitigating circumstance that the trial court should have considered.

Legal Analysis — Asportation and Completion of Robbery

The court analyzed the essential element of “taking” (asportation) in robbery: that the offender must have severed the property from the owner’s dominion and acquired possession. The defense argued absence of actual taking because items and money were not recovered from the accused and appellant claimed he only saw P5,000 placed on the counter but not taken. The court relied on eyewitness testimony, particularly that of Rodita, that Severino placed P20,000 in a paper bag and presented it to appellant and that Simplicio took the wallet and wristwatch. The court applied established authority recognizing that taking is complete when the property is brought within the defendant’s dominion and control even if the perpetrators are interrupted before carrying it away, and that possession for even an instant or placing the thing under the taker’s control constitutes asportation. Accordingly, the court concluded the taking was sufficiently proved and the robbery was consummated, not merely attempted.

Credibility and Weight of Witness Testimony

The appellate court gave considerable weight to trial court findings on witness credibility, particularly in assessing Rodita’s testimony. The court rejected arguments that her sworn statement’s omissions or her employment with the victim undermined credibility, noting that affidavits are often incomplete and that the trial judge is in the superior position to observe and evaluate witnesses. The court concluded the prosecution satisfactorily established the taking and other facts by credible testimony.

Voluntary Surrender as Mitigation — Court’s Ruling

The court examined jurisprudential requisites for the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) surrender is to a person in authority or agent; and (c) surrender is voluntary. Applying these standards and precedent, the court found that the appellants did not voluntarily surrender: they repeatedly refused appeals to surrender, were surrounded by police and military, and yielded only when escape was no longer feasible. The court therefore held that surrender was not voluntary and did not mitigate punishment.

Complex Crime Analysis Under Article 48 (Revised Penal Code)

Although charged as “Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention,” the court addressed whether the offenses should be treated as a complex

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 86163)

Procedural Posture

Appeal filed by accused-appellant Bienvenido Salvilla alone from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Iloilo City, dated 29 August 1988, in Criminal Case No. 20092.
Trial court convicted Salvilla and his co-accused Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio Canasares of the crime of "Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention" and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties and costs.
Information charged the four accused with Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention under Art. 294, paragraph 3, in conjunction with Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
The present Decision of the Supreme Court (Melencio-Herrera, J.) affirms the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Proportionate costs were ordered.

Title and Parties

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Defendants-Appellants: Bienvenido Salvilla, Reynaldo Canasares, Ronaldo Canasares, Simplicio Canasares.
Appellant on appeal: Bienvenido Salvilla only.

Charging Instrument — Information (Allegations)

Date and place: On or about 12 April 1986, in the City of Iloilo, within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Conduct alleged: The accused, conspiring and confederating among themselves, armed with guns and a hand grenade, employed violence or intimidation on the persons of Severino Choco, Mary Choco, Mimie (Mimia) Choco and Rodita Hablero, and took cash and personal property with intent of gain.
Property alleged taken: Cash amounting to P20,000.00, two men's wristwatches, one Lady's Seiko quartz wristwatch, one Lady's Citizen wristwatch, assorted jewelry — total alleged value P50,000.00.
Additional allegations: On the occasion of the robbery Mary Choco and Bienvenido Salvilla suffered serious physical injuries and Reynaldo Canasares suffered physical injuries; the accused illegally detained the victims at the compound of the New Iloilo Lumber Company; the accused received ransom money of P50,000.00; aggravating circumstances alleged: band, illegal possession of firearms and explosives.
Recovery alleged: P20,000.00, ransom P50,000.00, two men's wristwatches, two lady's wristwatches, one .38 caliber revolver and one live grenade were recovered from the accused; damages alleged to New Iloilo Lumber Company P120,000.00.

Factual Narrative (Prosecution Version)

Date/time/place: On 12 April 1986 at about noon, four accused entered the New Iloilo Lumber Yard on Iznart Street, Iloilo City.
Preparation: The plan was allegedly hatched about two days before the incident; the accused were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade.
Initial contact: Rodita Hablero, an employee leaving for meal break, was met and told it was a hold-up; she was made to return to the office.
Demand and handing over of money:
- Appellant Salvilla pointed a gun at owner Severino Choco and his daughters Mary and Mimie (Mimie being a minor of 15 years) and demanded money.
- Severino instructed Mary to get a paper bag; Severino placed P20,000.00 in the bag (defense asserted P5,000.00 instead) and handed it to the appellant.
Theft of property: Accused Simplicio Canasares reportedly took Severino's wallet and wristwatch.
Hostage-taking: Severino, his two daughters (Mary and Mimie) and Rodita were herded to the office and kept as hostages; the accused took turns eating while others stood guard; hostages were allowed to eat at about 2:00 p.m.
Additional ransom demand: Appellant demanded P100,000.00 for release of hostages; Severino said he could not produce it because banks were closed (Saturday).
Surrounding and negotiation:
- Police and military surrounded the lumber yard.
- Major Melquiades B. Sequio (Station Commander, INP Iloilo City) negotiated and appealed to accused to surrender, assuring no harm if they surrendered and offering to accompany them to the police station; accused refused.
- OIC Mayor Rosa Caram joined negotiations, which lasted about four hours; appellant demanded P100,000.00, a coaster and raincoats; Mayor Caram offered P50,000.00, explaining Saturday bank closures; the accused agreed to receive P50,000.00 and to release Rodita to go out accompanied by Mary Choco.
- One accused (face covered) gave a key to Mayor Caram; she unlocked a padlocked door, handed P50,000.00 to Rodita, who gave it to an accused; Rodita was later set free but Mary was brought back into the office.
Refusal to surrender: Negotiators continued appeals, but accused refused numerous ultimatums for surrender.
Assault and exchange of fire: Police and military launched an offensive that resulted in injuries to Mimie and Mary Choco and to accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares.
Injuries and medical consequences:
- Mary suffered a "macerated right lower extremity just below the knee" necessitating amputation of her right leg; medical certificate described her in hemorrhagic shock on admission and she underwent several major operations during confinement from April 13, 1986 to May 30, 1986.
Items recovered from accused as alleged: P20,000.00, ransom P50,000.00, two men's wristwatches, two lady's wristwatches, one .38 revolver and one live grenade.

Appellant’s (Salvilla’s) Version at Trial

Admission of entry and demand: Salvilla confirmed that at about noon on 12 April 1986 he and co-accused entered the lumber yard and demanded money from Severino Choco.
Denial/variation on amounts: Appellant claimed he demanded P100,000.00 but was given only P5,000.00, which he placed on the office counter.
Custody of hostages: Admitted that Severino, his daughters and Rodita were kept inside the office.
Denial of touching property: Appellant maintained he stopped his co-accused from taking the wallet and wristwatch of Severino and that the P5,000.00, wallet and watch were left on the counter and were never touched by them.
Claim regarding firing and surrender: Appellant claimed they had never fired on the military because they intended to surrender; during gunfire Severino's daughter stood up and went outside — appellant wanted to stop her but was hit by a bullet and could not prevent her; he admitted the appeals but said they gave themselves up only later.

Trial Court Judgment

Trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention.
Sentence: Each accused was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay cos