THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TEODORO DE LA CRUZ Y TOJOS, ET AL., DEFENDENTS, TEODORO DE LA CRUZ Y TOJOS, APPELLANT.

Appellant is charged with the crime of robbery in band committed on June 25,
1945. The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to suffer an
indeterminate sentence of not less than 6 months nor more than six years, ten
months and one day of imprisonment, to indemnify the offended party in the sum
of P8,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
costs. He appealed from this sentence, praying that he be acquitted. The
prosecution recommends affirmance, with the elimination of the subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, the principal penalty imposed being higher
than prisión correccional.

At about 8:30 p.m, on July 25, 1945, while Dr. Gregorio B. Sison was closing
the door of his drug store at 389 Dimasalang, Manila, four men armed with
revolvers got near him, stuck revolvers over his ribs, pushed him inside the
drug store, and ordered him and all other persons inside to lie down face
downward. One remained to watch the door, another, who was manipulating his
revolver several times, kept watch of the persons lying down, and the remaining
two went upstairs. The one watching the door called several times the other
watching the persons lying down, telling him to shoot their heads if they
moved.

The malefactors were able to get P200 from the cash register, P7,000 in
bills, P500 in silver coins, and one.pair of earrings with diamonds valued at
P300, all located in one of the drawers in the kitchen.

The main question in this case revolves on appellant’s identity. He denies
having participated in the commission of the crime. At the hour and on the day
the robbery was committed, appellant does not remember whether he was at home or
at Felix Huertas. He alleges that he lives by selling bread, shoes, pomade, and
other things in the market, and admits that he gambles. Two witnesses for the
prosecution recognized appellant as the one watching the people who were ordered
to lie down in the drug store. Dr. Gregorio B. Sison testified that he was able
to recognize appellant “when he stuck the revolver against my ribs, I happened
to look at him; he was wearing a fatigue uniform with cap, and before I lied
down I had a good look at him.” (P. 2, t. s. n.)

Luz Mendoza de Sison testified that she heard one of the robbers called
appellant by the name Doro. She declared that while she was lying down lfI tried
to raise my head to look at him and then one of his companions shouted ‘Doro’,
shoot her, she is raising her head.” ( P. 9, t. s. n.) At that time she was able
to see appellant’s face. There were three gas lights inside the drug store then.
The witness testified that she saw appellant twice, the first time “when he
pushed my husband” (p. 13, t. s. n.) inside the drug store, and the last time
when she looked at him “while he was manipulating the gun * * * to see his
face”. (P. 13, t. s. n.)

Detective Alejandro Euge~nio testified that appellant, being one of those
arrested in connection with the holdup of Dr. Teodoro Virata and being named as
Doro, was brought to the drug store on July 17, where he, in a group composed of
said detective and detective Querijero, in plainclothes, and two uniformed
policemen, following the practice of presenting persons caught as holdup men to
victims for identification, was identified by Luz Mendoza de Sison.

The analysis of the testimonies given in this case convinces us that
appellant was conclusively identified as the robber who kept watch of the people
inside the drug store while lying down; who, upon entering the drug store,was
one of those who stuck a revolver at the ribs of Dr. Gregorio B. Sison; who,
during the watch, was manipulating his revolver to the extent of dropping two
bullets to the floor, and who was being named as Doro.

The fact that the prosecution witnesses singled him out as the only one among
the four robbers they could identify, it appearing that there were circumstances
which made his identification possible, and that no unreasonable motive was
shown why they should point him out, instead of any one of the three remaining
gangsters, only serves to strengthen the credibility of said identification.

There are no words strong enough to condemn banditry and gangsterism. During
the enemy occupation, our peace citizenry had to endure the scourge of frequent
wanton robberies. The abnormal conditions then reigning, the example of outlawry
given by the masters of the situation, hunger and misery in some cases, the
moral distress or mental disequilibrium in others, which produced the
extraordinary situation, might explain the robberies and lootings perpetrated
under the regime of greatest looters ever known in our country. But now, when
everybody is given full opportunity to earn an honest and decent living, under a
régime of law and freedom, of peace and justice, of noble principles and high
ideals, any act such as the one committed by appellant and his co-gangsters does
not merit the least attenuation. The authors of such acts must be branded
forever with the stigma of infamy. They are the shame of a race and the ignominy
of a people, the disgrace of humankind.

One of the geniuses who flourished in the thirteenth century, the philosopher
and theologian whose exalted native endowment and original creative power in the
intellectual field is the admiration of Christian world, Saint Thomas Aquinas,
maintained that the appropriation of others’ goods which they (the owners) do
not need, if made in obedience to extreme necessity, does not constitute
robbery. He declared that the supeuluous things in the possession of some
persons, by natural law, are goods for the maintenance of the poor. Evident and
urgent necessity makes the one who appropriates the goods of another for the
maintenance of his own life the legal owner of said goods (Summa
Theologica, 2d part, Question LXVI, Art. Vll) . To strengthen his position,
he quoted from Saint Ambrose (serm. 64, De temp. Decret. 47,
cap. Sicut hi) the following: “The bread you are retaining belongs to
the hungry; the cloth you are keeping aside belongs to the naked; the money you
are hiding underground is for the redemption and absolution of the unfortunate.”
But, without subscribing necessarily to the above propositions of the two
saintly authors, in the present case, there is absolutely no showing that
extreme necessity impelled accused to perpetrate the robbery here in question.
There is not the remotest hint that appellant would have died of hunger without
the money and jewel which he and his fellow gangsters took from complainants1
drug store, or that he would face an imminent danger of losing any vital limb or
right. On the contrary, he testified that he was engaged in selling foodstuffs,
such as bread; wearing apparel, such as shoes; and even articles of luxury, such
as pomade. And it is evident that he earned more than enough to satisfy his
prime needs, for he allowed himself the leisure and the spare money for
gambling. He robbed, therefore, not because he was compelled by any pressing
necessities, but by following impulses of moral perversity. For such individual,
and for all individuals belonging to his depraved tribe, there is no reason to
waste any pity or leniency. The race of robbers, bandits, gangsters, and other
malefactors of the same brand, should be ostracized perpetually from human
society until the shame shall have disappeared completely from memory.

With the elimination of the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, as recommended by the prosecution (case 3, article 39, Penal Code),
we affirm the decision of the lower court. The correction of form suggested by
the Solicitor General to the effect that the designation of prisión correccional
used in the lower court’s decision must be read as prisión mayor, being an
evident lapsus plumae. does not need from us any specific pronouncement. The
costs in this instance ‘shall be taxed against appellant.

Ozaete, De
Joya, Hilado, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.