You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

86163 April 26, 1990


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, REYNALDO
CANASARES, RONALDO CANASARES, AND SIMPLICIO CANASARES, BIENVENIDO
SALVILLA, defendant-appellant

FACTS:
1. EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION:
a. The accused stage a robbery at New Ililo Lumber Yard on April 12, 1986 at about
noon time.
b. With homemade guns and a hand grenade, they entered the establishment and
threaten Habiero (sales girl) where she was made to go back to the office where
the owner was.
c. Salvilla pointed his gun at Severino and his two daughters, Mary and Mimie
(15y/o), and told them that all they need is money
d. Severino told Mary to get the paper bag where he placed the P20,000.00
(P5,000 in his defense) and handed it to the accused.
e. Severino asked the accused to leave after heeding their request however the
accused refused and took his watch and wallet at herded him, as well as the
others, to the office and kept them as hostages.
f. Accused told Severino to produce P100,000 so he and other hostages could be
released, but Severino could not do so because all banks are closed (Saturday)
g. In the meantime, police and military authorities had surrounded the premises of
the lumber yard and negotiated with accused to surrender with the assurance
that no harm would befall them as he would accompany them personally to the
police station where the accused refused to surrender or to release the hostages
h. Thereafter, OIC Mayor, Rosa Caram, of Iloilo City arrived and joined the
negotiations where the accused demanded P100,000, a coaster and raincoats,
where she offered them P50,000 instead, to which the accused agreed to and
released Rodita to be accompanied by Mary Choco.
i. Accused face was covered when he gave a key to Mayor Caram to which latter
handed P50,000 to Rodita where he handed it to one of the accused. Rodita was
released but Mary herded back to the office.
j. The police and military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused
still wouldn’t budge after more ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as
well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares.
k. Mary’s right leg had to be amputated due to her injuries.
2. DEFENSE OF ACCUSED SALVILLA:
a. Demanded P100,000 to Severino but was only given P5,000
b. Admitted that he kept Severino, his daughters and Rodita inside
c. He stopped his co-accused from getting the wallet and wristwatch of Severino
d. Claimed that they never fired on the military because they intended to surrender
e. That during the gunfire, Severino’s daughter stood up and went outside to which
he wanted to stop here but couldn’t because he was hit by a bullet
f. Admitted that they only surrender much later.
3. After trial, the Court meted out a judgment of conviction and sentenced each of the
accused reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties
4. The defense contends that "The complete crime of larceny (theft/robbery) as
distinguished from an attempt requires asportation or carrying away, in addition to the
taking. In other words, the crime of robbery/theft has three consecutive stages: 1 ) the
giving 2) the taking and 3) the carrying away or asportation. And without asportation the
crime committed is only attempted

ISSUE: Whether or not the robbery was consummated

HELD: YES
1. Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of the crime of
robbery. Appellant insists that while the "giving" has been proven, the "taking" has not,
and that none of the items (P5,000, wallet and watches) were recovered from them.
However, based on the evidence (money [P20,000] was handed to the accused, the
watches and wallet were taken by his co-accused, and P50,000 was also given to the
accused), the money demanded, and the wallet and wristwatch were within the
dominion and control of the accused and his co-accused and thus constitute the act of
taking as completed.
2. It is no defense either that Appellant and his co-accused had no opportunity to dispose
of the personalities taken. That fact does not affect the nature of the crime. From the
moment the offender gained possession of the thing, even if the culprit had no
opportunity to dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is complete
3. The crime is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property, even if
for a short time, and it is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the
robber, or that he should have actually carried the property away, out of the physical
presence of the lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with it.

You might also like