People v. Postrero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendants, including Florencio Postrero, were charged with robbery for allegedly conspiring and, armed with weapons, breaking the lock of a store door and a part of a safe to steal P1,930 and other articles. The incident occurred on or about June 22, 1926, in Jagna, Bohol. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, all defendants pleaded guilty. The Court of First Instance of Bohol found Florencio Postrero and Santiago Rubi guilty as principals and sentenced them to ten years and one day of presidio mayor, with accessory penalties and costs. Juan Tubog was sentenced as an accessory after the fact. The Petition: Florencio Postrero appealed the judgment. His attorney de oficio found the penalty imposed to be in accordance with the law and recommended its confirmation. The Attorney-General also initially agreed but later argued that the penalty should be under Article 512 of the Penal Code due to the information not alleging the store as an 'inhabited house'.
Issue(s)
Whether the information sufficiently alleges robbery in an inhabited house under Article 508 of the Penal Code. Whether a 'store' can be considered an 'inhabited house' within the meaning of Article 508 of the Penal Code. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the lower court. The penalty imposed was reduced to four years, nine months, and ten days of presidio correccional. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the information sufficiently alleges robbery in an inhabited house under Article 508 of the Penal Code: The Court held that the information did not sufficiently allege robbery in an inhabited house. The information described the crime as committed 'in the store' by breaking 'the lock of one of the doors of the store.' This manner of entry implies that no person was inside the store at the time the lock was broken, and it was necessary to break the lock to gain entry. The information did not allege that the store was used or occupied as an 'inhabited house' or that it was attached to or a part of one. Therefore, the crime could not be prosecuted under Article 508, which specifically pertains to robbery in an inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship. On the issue of whether a 'store' can be considered an 'inhabited house' within the meaning of Article 508 of the Penal Code: The Court distinguished between a 'store' and an 'inhabited house.' A 'store' is defined as any place where goods are sold, either by wholesale or retail, or a building or room where goods are kept for sale. An 'inhabited building,' conversely, is any building, any part of which has usually been occupied by any person lodging therein at night. While it is common knowledge that some Chinese use their tiendas or stores as dwellings, this custom is not universally applied and is not in general use among all classes. For the purpose of criminal statutes, a 'store' has a distinct legal meaning separate from 'an inhabited place.' Thus, a store, standing alone, is not considered an inhabited house unless specifically alleged and proven to be occupied as such. On the issue of whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is in accordance with law: Based on the foregoing, the penalty imposed under Article 508 was incorrect. The Court found that the penalty for robbery committed in a store, standing alone, falls under Article 512 of the Penal Code. Article 512 provides that any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in any building other than those mentioned in paragraph one of Article 508 shall be punished by presidio correccional in its medium and maximum degrees. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the lower court was modified and reduced to four years, nine months, and ten days of presidio correccional.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery committed in a 'store' is penalized under Article 512 of the Penal Code, not Article 508, unless the information specifically alleges that the store was an 'inhabited place' at the time of the commission of the crime.