THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MAURO VALLENTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Vallente

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Mauro Vallente, a criminal case on automatic review of a death sentence. The accused was charged, together with several others, with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide for a holdup inside a passenger jeepney in Tondo, Manila, in which the taking of a bag of money was followed by the shooting of a passenger who tried to stop the robbers. The case matters for two reasons. First, it states the rule on when robbery is consummated even though the robber never enjoyed the loot. Second, it states the rule that every conspirator in an armed robbery answers for the killing done on the occasion of that robbery, unless he clearly tried to prevent it.

Procedural History

The information was filed with the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila. After trial, that court rendered judgment convicting four of the accused as principals and acquitting the rest. Three of those convicted, among them Mauro Vallente, were sentenced to death; Carlos Medina was sentenced to life imprisonment. Because the penalty of death was imposed, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review. In the meantime, two of the condemned men died of gunshot wounds while in custody, and the Court dismissed the cases against them as to their criminal liability only. Carlos Medina did not appeal, so the judgment against him became final and executory. Mauro Vallente escaped from the New Bilibid Prison and remained at large. The Court nonetheless proceeded with the review of his case, holding that the escape of the accused does not preclude the mandatory review of his death sentence.

Facts

On the morning of April 6, 1973, several men met at the house of Carlos Medina in Balut, Tondo, Manila, and talked over a plan, hatched days earlier, to rob a Caltex gasoline station. They agreed to carry out the robbery the following day. On the evening of April 7, 1973, Natividad Pacheco, the proprietor of the gasoline station, accompanied by her driver Vito Robles, boarded a passenger jeepney carrying the day's sales of 830 pesos in a paper bag. Reynaldo Dantes, Mauro Vallente, and Rodolfo Balinas, who had seen her come out with the bag, boarded the same jeepney and spread themselves among the passengers.

After the jeepney had picked up more passengers, Balinas ordered the driver to stop. He and Dantes warned the passengers not to interfere and announced a hold-up. Vallente grabbed the paper bag on Pacheco's lap but failed. Robles wrestled with Vallente for his gun, and the struggle continued outside the jeepney. Dantes hit Robles on the face with his firearm, and in the commotion one of the robbers seized the bag of money. The three robbers fled but, seeing Robles chase them, turned and faced him. As Robles turned back in response to Pacheco's shouts, Dantes fired and hit him in the back. Robles was brought to the hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival.

Carlos Medina was arrested the next day and disclosed his companions, leading to the arrest of the others. Vallente and Dantes were identified by Pacheco and by the jeepney driver in a police line-up, and Vallente was likewise identified by a passenger. In his written statement, Dantes admitted that Vallente had grabbed the bag of money and that he himself had shot the man who chased them.

Issues

• Whether or not the crime committed was consummated robbery with homicide rather than merely attempted robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not Mauro Vallente participated as a principal in the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of craft and taking advantage of superior strength were properly appreciated against him.
• Whether or not the death penalty was properly imposed on him, considering that a co-accused was sentenced to life imprisonment and others were acquitted.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the law on the consummation of robbery. The Court states the governing rule thus:

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.

This rule defeats the argument that the crime was only attempted because the robbers were caught in flight or never enjoyed the money.

The decision also applies the rule on liability for the homicide in robbery with homicide, as stated in the case of People versus Pujimo:

One who participated in the commission of the crime of robbery in connection with which homicide was also committed will be equally guilty as principal of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is clear evidence that he tried to prevent the commission of the latter offense.

This rule makes the shooting by Dantes the liability of Vallente as well, absent proof that Vallente tried to stop it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the robbery was consummated. Pacheco's testimony, taken together with the statement of Dantes, showed that the bag of money was forcibly taken from her. Her inability to say which of the two robbers actually took the bag did not matter, because the bag was in fact taken by force. The Court rejected as mere conjecture the suggestion that the bag may have fallen, been picked up by a passenger, or been thrown away, and held that the taking was complete the moment the robbers gained possession of the thing.

On the second issue, the Court held that Vallente was a principal. It was he who grabbed the bag and grappled with Robles. The Court held that when a group conspires to commit robbery and arms itself for that purpose, no member may disclaim responsibility for violence perpetrated by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. The three armed men turned and faced Robles when he chased them, showing a common determination to stop him at any cost, and there was no showing that Vallente tried to prevent any of his companions from harming Robles.

On the third issue, the Court sustained both aggravating circumstances. Superior strength arose from the robbers' number, their concerted action, and their firearms, against an unarmed victim. Craft arose from their pretense of being ordinary jeepney passengers, a device adopted precisely to avoid the risk of being seen robbing the gasoline station directly.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the acquittal of the other accused and the finality of the sentence against Medina could not erase Vallente's own criminal liability. The judgment against Medina had become final and beyond review, and the acquittals, even if erroneous, could no longer be corrected. The Court affirmed the judgment in all respects, but for lack of the necessary votes the death sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and the indemnity for the death of Vito Robles was increased from 12,000 pesos to 30,000 pesos.

Doctrine

Robbery is consummated from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing taken, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of it, and even if the property is thrown away in flight or lost without his knowledge. In robbery with homicide, every participant in the robbery is equally guilty as principal of the homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery, unless there is clear evidence that he tried to prevent it. When conspirators arm themselves to commit robbery, the use of their weapons to overcome opposition is attributable to the entire group. Craft and superior strength may be appreciated where the offenders feign being ordinary passengers and use their number and firearms against an unarmed victim.

Disposition

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, but the death sentence imposed on Mauro Vallente was reduced to reclusion perpetua for lack of the necessary votes, and the indemnity to the heirs of Vito Robles was increased to 30,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that robbery is complete the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he never gets to enjoy it. Examiners use this case to test consummation of robbery and the liability of every conspirator for a killing done on the occasion of an armed robbery.