PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, REYNALDO CANASARES, RONALDO CANASARES, AND SIMPLICIO CANASARES, BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Salvilla

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Bienvenido Salvilla and three others, all surnamed Canasares, for a single complex crime: robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention, committed at a lumber yard in Iloilo City. The trial court convicted all of them and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. Only Salvilla appealed. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: it fixes the exact moment when robbery is consummated, and it draws the dividing line between a detention that is absorbed in robbery and a detention that forms a complex crime with it under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

The City Fiscal of Iloilo City filed a single Information charging the four accused with robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention, citing the robbery provision in conjunction with the serious illegal detention provision of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 28, rendered judgment on 29 August 1988, finding all four accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs. Only Bienvenido Salvilla appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors: that the trial court wrongly held the robbery consummated rather than merely attempted, and that it failed to appreciate voluntary surrender in his favor. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

At about noon on 12 April 1986, four men armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade entered the New Iloilo Lumber Yard. They met Rodita Habiero, an employee on her way out for her meal break, announced a hold-up, and made her go back inside. Salvilla pointed his gun at the owner, Severino Choco, and at Severino's daughters Mary and Mimie, the latter a minor fifteen years of age, and told them that all they needed was money. Severino told Mary to get a paper bag, placed twenty thousand pesos inside it, and handed it to Salvilla. Simplicio Canasares then took Severino's wallet and wristwatch. The owner, his two daughters, and Rodita were herded into the office and kept there as hostages.

Salvilla then told Severino to produce one hundred thousand pesos so that he and the hostages could be released. Severino answered that he could not, because it was a Saturday and the banks were closed. Police and military authorities surrounded the premises. Major Melquiades Sequio, the station commander, negotiated through a loudspeaker and appealed for surrender, promising that no harm would befall the accused and that he would personally accompany them to the police station. They refused. The officer in charge of the city, Mayor Rosa Caram, then arrived and joined the negotiations, which lasted about four hours. Salvilla demanded one hundred thousand pesos, a coaster, and raincoats. The Mayor offered fifty thousand pesos instead. The accused agreed to receive that amount and to release Rodita, who was accompanied out by Mary. The Mayor unlocked the padlocked door and handed the money to Rodita, who in turn gave it to one of the accused. Rodita was set free, but Mary was herded back inside.

Appeals and ultimatums continued, and the accused refused to budge. The authorities finally assaulted the place. Mary Choco was gravely injured, her right leg had to be amputated, and she was in hemorrhagic shock when brought to the hospital. Salvilla admitted the demand for money, admitted keeping the victims inside the office, and admitted that they surrendered only much later, after the appeals to surrender had been made.

Issues

• Whether or not the crime of robbery was consummated rather than merely attempted, given that the accused never carried the money away and were not found in possession of it.
• Whether or not the accused's surrender, made only after they were completely surrounded, may be appreciated as the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
• Whether or not the serious illegal detention was a necessary means for committing the robbery, such that the two offenses form a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, with the penalty for the more serious offense imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, on complex crimes, provides:

For the purpose of this article, when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the more serious offense shall be imposed.

This is the provision the Court uses to justify imposing the penalty for serious illegal detention, reclusion perpetua to death, instead of the lighter penalty for robbery with serious physical injuries.

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, on serious illegal detention, provides:

The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty.

The Court relies on this provision because the detention of the victims, including two females and a minor, and the continuing detention for the purpose of extorting ransom, brought the acts squarely within it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the robbery was consummated. The essence of asportation is the taking of a thing out of the possession of the owner without his privity and consent and without the intent to return it. The Court quoted with approval the rule that severance of the goods from the possession of the owner and absolute control of the property by the taker, even for an instant, constitutes asportation. It also held that the crime is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property, even 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 it away. The evidence showed that Severino handed the paper bag of money to Salvilla, that Simplicio took the wallet and wristwatch, and that Rodita handed the fifty thousand pesos to one of the holduppers. The money and the valuables were within the dominion and control of the accused, and that completed the taking. The Court added that it is no defense that the accused had no opportunity to dispose of the property, and that Rodita's failure to mention the taking in her sworn statement did not destroy her credibility, since an affidavit is almost always incomplete.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no voluntary surrender. To be mitigating, a surrender must meet three requisites: that the offender had not been actually arrested; that he surrendered himself to a person in authority or to his agent; and that the surrender was voluntary. Here the accused refused every appeal to surrender and gave up only when they were completely surrounded and had no chance of escape. Their surrender was not spontaneous and was motivated more by an intent to insure their own safety.

On the third issue, the Court held that a complex crime was committed. The phrase necessary means does not connote indispensable means; it merely signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate and insure the commission of the other. Here the detention was chosen to facilitate and carry out the robbery more effectively. The Court distinguished this case from the Astor case, where the detention was absorbed in the robbery because the robbery had already been consummated and the detention was merely to forestall capture. In this case, after the twenty thousand pesos was handed over, the accused still refused to leave, took the victims as hostages, and demanded an additional one hundred thousand pesos as a prerequisite for their release. The detention was deliberate, a means of extortion, and not merely a restraint to enable escape. The elements of serious illegal detention were present, and the penalty for the more serious offense was therefore proper.

Doctrine

Robbery is consummated the moment the offender acquires possession of the thing taken, even for an instant, and even if he has no opportunity to dispose of it or to escape with it. Asportation does not require that the property be carried out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor; it is enough that the goods are severed from the owner's possession and brought within the absolute control of the taker.

Voluntary surrender, to be mitigating, requires that the offender had not been actually arrested, that he surrendered to a person in authority or his agent, and that the surrender was voluntary. A surrender made only after the offender is completely surrounded and can no longer escape is not voluntary and does not mitigate liability.

Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime arises when one offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Necessary means does not mean indispensable; it means that one crime was committed to facilitate and insure the commission of the other. Where the detention of the victims is deliberate and used as a means of extorting an additional amount, the detention is not absorbed in the robbery but forms a complex crime with it, and the penalty for the more serious offense is imposed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in full, finding Bienvenido Salvilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sustaining the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with proportionate costs against him.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that severance of the goods from the possession of the owner and absolute control by the taker, even for an instant, completes the asportation and consummates the robbery. Examiners like to use this case to test the consummation of robbery without carrying away, the requisites of voluntary surrender, and the distinction between a detention absorbed in robbery and a detention that forms a complex crime under Article 48.