Title
People vs. Salvilla
Case
G.R. No. 86163
Decision Date
Apr 26, 1990
Armed robbery at Iloilo lumber yard led to hostage-taking, ransom demands, and police assault. Accused convicted of complex crime, sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 86163)

Procedural Posture

Bienvenido Salvilla appealed the Regional Trial Court’s August 29, 1988 conviction for Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention (Revised Penal Code Arts. 294(3), 267). The trial court imposed reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court resolved the appeal on April 26, 1990 under the 1987 Constitution.

Facts of the Case

On April 12, 1986, Salvilla and three Canasares brothers conspired to rob the New Iloilo Lumber Company. Armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade, they took hostages—owner Severino Choco, his daughters Mary and Mimie, and employee Rodita Hablero—demanded P100,000 ransom, and initially obtained P20,000 (later clarified as P5,000 by defense). Negotiations ensued with police (Major Sequio) and Iloilo City OIC Mayor Rosa Caram, who delivered P50,000 via Hablero. The accused refused to free all hostages, prompting a police‐military assault that wounded Mimie and Mary Choco (Mary’s injuries necessitated amputation) and two perpetrators (Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares). Salvilla was also hit and eventually surrendered.

Legal Issue on Consummation of Robbery

Salvilla argued that, absent actual “asportation” or taking away of the money and property, the robbery was only attempted. He claimed neither he nor his co-accused physically removed the P5,000, wallet or watches, as those items remained on the office counter and were not recovered from their persons.

Court’s Analysis on Asportation

The Supreme Court reiterated that robbery requires a taking out of the owner’s possession without consent (asportation). Witness Rodita Hablero testified that Salvilla received cash from Choco inside a paper bag and that Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and watch. The Court emphasized that dominion and control—even momentary—complete the taking. Citing Philippine and U.S. precedents, it held that placing money in a bag on the counter before armed perpetrators suffices for a consummated robbery. Thus, the crime was consummated, not attempted.

Credibility of Witness Testimony

Salvilla challenged Hablero’s account, citing poor lighting and her employer status. The Court affirmed the trial court’s credibility findings: as a hostage present throughout, Hablero could observe events, and her testimony—despite minor omissions in prior statements—was reliable. The Supreme Court stressed deference to the trial court’s superior position in assessing witness credibility.

Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender

The defense claimed voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. The Court outlined the requirements for mitigation by surrender: no prior arrest, presentation to authority, and spontaneity. Since the accused yielded only after being surrounded by police and military forces, their surrender was neither voluntary nor spontaneous and thus not mitigating.

Complex Crime Analysis and Penalty Im

...continue reading

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