CRIMINAL LAW 1 People vs Salvilla April 26, 1990 Melencho – Herrera, J Facts: Petitioner: Bienvenido Salvilla April 12, 1986, at about noon time – Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed Canasares), staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard They were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita Habiero, an employee there who was on her way out for her meal break, and informed her that it was a hold-up. They went inside the office and the petitioner pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two daughters, Mary and Mimmie. They informed Severino that all they needed was money. Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the defense) and handed it to the petitioner. Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and Rodita were kept inside the office. According to the appellant, he stopped Severino from getting the wallet and watches. At about 2:00 of the same day, the appellant told Severino to produce P100,000 so he and the other hostages can be released. Severino told him it would be hard to do that since banks are closed because it was a Saturday The police and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. Major Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with the accused and appealed to them to surrender. The accused refused to surrender and release the hostages. Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a coaster, and some raincoats. Caram offered P50,000 instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and to release Rodita to be accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. One of the accused gave a key to Mayor Caram and with the key, Mayor Caram unlocked the door and handed to Rodita P50,000, which Rodita gave to one of the accused. Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to the office. 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. Mary’s right leg had to be amputated due to her injuries. The appellant maintained that the money, wallet and watches were all left on the counter and were never touched by them. He also claimed that they never fired on the military because they intended to surrender. Issues: WON the crime of robbery was consummated WON there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender Ratio: Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful “taking” is complete. o Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of the crime of robbery. The respondent claimed that none of the items (money, watches and wallet) were recovered from them. However, based on the evidence, the money demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch were within the dominion and control of the appellant and his co-accused and thus the taking was completed. o 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. No. The “surrender” of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be considered in their favour to mitigate their liability. o To be mitigating, a surrender must have the following requisites: that the offender had not been actually arrested, that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to his agent, and that the surrender was voluntary. The “surrender” by the appellant and his co-accused hardly meets these requirements. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of. Note: The nature of the linked offenses (robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention) was also discussed. The detention in the case at bar was not only incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to commit the same so the nature of the offense was affirmed. Held: Judgment appealed is AFFIRMED
