PEOPLE vs. PUNO PEOPLE vs.

GUILINAO

Plaintiff/Appellee: People of the Philippines

Accused/Appellants: Isagani Gulinao

Paras, J.

Facts:
Gulinao was charged and convicted of 3 separate offenses: Murder committed
with the use of an unlicensed firearm, Robbery and Carnapping.

It was found that Gulinao, Dr, Chua, Victor Caguioa and several others had a
caucus (meeting or “inuman”) in a house in Malabon on the night of Mar. 3,
1987. After which (Mar. 4, na) they went to a bar in Valenzuela, wherein
Gulinao, shot Dr. Chua in the head and afterwards took his ring. Gulinao then
poked a gun at Caguioa, who was inside Dr. Chua’s car and forced him to get
out, after which he took the car and drove off.

During the prosecution of the case Gulinao refused to present any evidence and
was uncooperative towards his counsels. In his appeal he questions the charge
of illegal possession of firearms alleging double jeopardy and his robbery and
carnapping conviction .

Decision:
The Court held that his contention of double jeopardy can’t stand as he was
charged for 2 separate incidents. The first charge was due to an incident which
occurred on Mar. 5, 1987 (illegal possession), whereas the second charge was
due to an incident that occurred on Mar. 4, 1987 (murder w/ an unlicensed
firearm). No double jeopardy as there is no identity of the crimes charged.

Also, the Court held that he was not guilty of robbery w/ the use of violence but
of theft as the taking of his ring after he killed Dr. Chua was merely an
afterthought. The violence upon Dr. Chua’s person was not intended to facilitate
the taking, but was for intended to kill Dr. Chua.

Also, Gulinao’s allegation that there was no proof of intent to gain in his taking of
Dr. Chua’s car is without merit. Intent to gain is an internal act that is presumed
from the unlawful taking of the car.

Held: Judgment of the lower court Modified.

PEOPLE vs. CONSEJERO ♦ The trial court convicted them of the crime of robbery with homicide.
Facts:
♦ May 25, 1989 – Melchor Pulido was invited by Consejero, a CAFGU Issue: WON the accused is guilty of the complex crime of Robbery with
member, to gather fish caught in the Cagayan River. Melchor Pulido homicide? NO
agreed, and, together with Consejero, who was then carrying an M-14
armalite rifle, rode a banca towards Barangay Jurisdiccion, Lal-lo, Ratio:
Cagayan. That was between the hours of 8:00 o'clock and 9:00 o'clock ♦ Elements of robbery with homicide:
in the evening. With them was accused Rommel Malapit, who was o the taking of personal property with the use of violence or
also carrying an M-14 armalite. intimidation against a person
♦ After emptying the contents of the fishnets, they noticed at a distance a o the property thus taken belongs to another
motorized banca carrying two persons. They paddled towards the o the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrand
motorized banca. When they got nearer Consejero asked the two o on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime
persons in the boat, "Were you not the ones who usually demand of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was
quota from Barangay Captain Bacuyan?" The two replied, "No." Then, committed
accused-appellant asked the two if there was a nearby store. They ♦ People vs. Amania – Court had occasion to rule that in robbery with
answered in the affirmative, Consejero told them to accompany him homicide, the killing must have been directly connected with the
and to the store. The two bancas then proceeded to the river bank. robbery. It is necessary that there must have been an intent on the part
Upon reaching the bank, however, Consejero said that only one should of the offenders to commit robbery from the outset and, on occasion or
accompany them. Thus, Dionisio Usigai1, went with Larry Consejero by reason thereof a killing takes place. The original design must have
and Rommel Malapit towards the northeast direction. Left behind were been robbery, and the homicide, even if it precedes or is subsequent to
Melchor Pulido and Modesto Castillo. After ten (10) minutes, accused- the robbery, must have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with
appellant and accused Rommel Malapit returned holding an armalite, a view to consummate the robbery. The taking of the property should
rifle and a ten-inch bolo, respectively. Dionisio Usigan was not with not be merely an afterthought which arose subsequent to the killing
them anymore. ♦ The primary purpose of Consejero in accosting the two deceased was
♦ Upon orders of Consejero, Rommel Malapit tied the hands of Modesto to rob the engine of the motorized banca. From all indications
Castillo at his back using a portion of a fishnet and, thereafter, they Consejero was primarily interested in taking the life of the two
brought him to the same northeast direction where Usigan was taken. deceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from the Barangay
Again, only Larry Consejero and Rommel Malapit came back; Modesto captain, and the taking of the sub1ect engine was merely an
Castillo was no longer with them. afterthought that arose subsequent to the killing of the victims.
♦ Consejero detached the engine of the motorized banca ridden by ♦ Criminal acts of Consejero constitute not a complex crime of robbery
Usigan and Castillo, while Melchor Pulido was told to stand as look-out. with homicide, but three separate offenses two crimes for the killing of
After they loaded the engine in their banca, the three of them headed the two deceased, and one for the taking of the Briggs and Straton
home. On the way, the two accused told Melchor Pulido that Usigan engine of Jaime Israel.
and Castillo were already dead. Consejero threatened to kill Melchor ♦ People vs. Basao - the Court ruled that where the taking of the
Pulido and his family if Pulido reveals what he knew. personal property was merely an afterthought and was done after the
♦ May 26, 1989 – body of Modesto Castillo and Dionisio Usigan were culprit has successfully carried out his primary criminal intent to kill the
found not far from the river bank of Barangay Jurisdiccion, Lal-lo, victim, and hence, the use of violence or force is no longer necessary,
Cagayan. The motorized banca ridden by the two deceased was the crime committed is theft. Conformably, since the taking of the
nowhere to be found. engine in the present case was merely an afterthought, and was
♦ September 12, 1990 – Pulido executed a sworn statement. He perpetrated after accused-appellant had already accomplished his
explained that he was afraid that accused-appellant would make good original criminal purpose of killing the two deceased, the felony
his threat to kill him and his family if he would reveal what he knew. In committed is theft.
fact, they had to move to the house of his parents-in-law in order to
avoid accused-appellant, who happened to be their neighbor. It was
only when accused-appellant was no longer a member of the CAFGU
that he gathered enough courage to report to the authorities.
 PEOPLE vs. ESCARDA [2001]  In this case, Rosalina Plaza, as the caretaker of the carabaos, is
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines considered as the owner. Her consent was needed before Villacsatin could
Accused-Appellant: Jose Villacasatin, Jr. have taken the carabaos.
Accused: Joselito Escarda, Jose Villacasatin, Jr., Hernani  Besides, this issue was raised belatedly.
Alegre, Rodolfo Canedo
3. WON PD 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law) superseded the crime of
Facts: qualified theft of large cattle under Articles 309 & 310 of the RPC. –
 July, 29, 1987, 2 a.m.: Villacsatin & co. passed by Dionesio Himaya’s house NO.
in Hacienda Ricky. He saw them remove the cyclone wired used as corral  PD 533 only modified the penalties in the RPC by imposing stiffer penalties
for the 2 carabaos of Rosalina Plaza. They then untied the 2 carabaos, rode under special circumstances.
on them & proceeded to the canefields.  Sec. 8 of PD 533 punishes any person convicted of cattle rustling
 Plaza testified that Himaya informed him of the incident & indeed, when she irrespective of the value of the large cattle involve w/prision mayor max to
checked the corral, the carabaos were no longer there. She claims she reclusion temporal med if such is committed w/o violence/intimidation or
knew Villacsatin because he always passed by their house. She then force. Reclusion temporal max to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if
informed the owner of the carabaos, Joel Barrieses of the incident & she violence, intimidation/force is present. Accused’s case falls under the latter
likewise reported to the 334th PC Company. since force was used when they cut through the cyclone wire.
 Escarda & Villacsatin denied charges claiming that they did not know each
other. Escarda claimed that he was sleeping at the house of Gilda Labrador 4. WON Villacsatin’s identity was properly established. – YES.
when the incident happened while Villacsatin claimed that he was then Himaya recognized accused because he was the nephew of witness’ wife & he
sleeping in his house. Both were arrested while watching a dance in the knew him long before the incident.
dance hall & they both claimed that they were maltreated & forced to make
a confession. 5. WON accused’s alibi is acceptable. – NO.
 Escarda & Villacsatin pleaded not guilty while other accused are still at  Claim that he slept for 11 hours that night, just like Escarda, is difficult to
large. believe.
 RTC: decided in favor of the plaintiff. Accused guilty as charged for violating  He failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law & sentenced to indemnify Barrieses. Cases scene of the crime. His house was only a 15-minute walk away.
against Canedo & Alegre were dismissed for lack of evidence. Meanwhile,
Escarda withdrew his appeal. Thus, case on appeal only applies to 6. Aggravating Circumstances
Villacsatin.  Nighttime – not specified in the charge filed before the trial court
 Unlawful entry - not specified in the charge filed before the trial court
Issues & Ratio: (Relevant issues: #1-3)  Recidivism - not specified in the charge filed before the trial court; Although
1. WON Villacsatin committed cattle rustling. – YES. they indicated that accused was convicted for cattle rustling while case was
 Cattle rustling: taking away by means, method or scheme w/o consent of being tried, they failed to indicate that such conviction was already final.
the owner/raiser of cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass or other domesticated Accused didn’t admit his previous conviction either. There can be no
member of the bovine family WON for profit or gain or whether committed recidivism w/o final judgment.
w/violence against/intimidation of any person or force upon things. It
includes killing of large cattle or taking its meat or hiding w/o the consent of Holding: Affirmed w/modification.
the owner.
 Villacsatin took away the carabaos w/o the consent of the caretaker as
attested to by Himaya & Plaza.

2. WON the presentation of the certificate of ownership of the stolen

carabaos is needed to warrant accused’s conviction. – NO.
 Owner as used in the cattle rustling definition includes the herdsman,
caretaker, employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the raising of
large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of such.