Poquiz v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Ruel Poquiz y Orcine and Rey Valencia y Galutan, along with Kim Olorfenes, were charged with Robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information alleged that on September 2, 2015, in Muntinlupa City, Poquiz, armed with a knife, and conspiring with Valencia and Olorfenes, used violence and intimidation against Police Inspector Bob Belver y Tabliga. They allegedly attempted to stab him, punched and kicked him, and took his belongings, including a hanger bag and backpack containing an iPhone, a Cherry Mobile phone, a police flashlight, pistol magazines, and assorted clothing, totaling Php 12,000.00. Procedural History: Poquiz and Valencia pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Belver, who testified that on September 2, 2015, at around 1:00 a.m., while alighting from a bus, he was approached by three men who declared a robbery. Valencia snatched his backpack, and the others attempted to take his hanger bag. Despite identifying himself as a police officer, they proceeded with the robbery, with Poquiz attempting to stab him and Valencia and Olorfenes punching and kicking him. Belver, in self-defense, fired his service pistol, causing the assailants to flee and drop the stolen items. Police officers apprehended Poquiz and Valencia at the hospital, being treated for gunshot wounds. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Poquiz, Valencia, and Olorfenes of Robbery under Article 293, penalized under Article 294(5) of the RPC, sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as maximum. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Poquiz and Valencia filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the element of animus lucrandi (intent to gain) was absent because there was no actual taking as Belver was not totally dispossessed of his possessions. They contended that without unlawful taking, their intent to gain could not be concluded.
Issue(s)
Whether Poquiz and Valencia are guilty of the crime of Robbery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners Ruel Poquiz y Orcine and Rey Valencia y Galutan were declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery under Article 293 and penalized under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Poquiz and Valencia for Robbery, finding all elements of the crime present. Citing Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the Court reiterated that the crime of Robbery requires: (1) taking of personal property; (2) the property belonging to another; (3) taking with animus lucrandi or intent to gain; and (4) taking with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The Court explicitly rejected the petitioners' argument that animus lucrandi was absent due to the victim's subsequent recovery of items, emphasizing that intent to gain is an internal act presumed from the forcible taking of useful property, as established in Consulta v. People. Furthermore, consistent with People v. Hernandez, the Court clarified that taking is considered complete the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if they have no opportunity to dispose of it. In this case, Belver's bag was forcibly taken, and he was dispossessed of it when Poquiz and Valencia fled, making the crime of Robbery fully consummated, regardless of the bag's recovery. The Court also upheld the findings of both the CA and the RTC regarding the credibility of Belver's testimony, applying the jurisprudential doctrine in People v. Eling that the trial court's findings on witness credibility, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to the highest degree of respect and great weight, unless certain facts of substance were overlooked.
Main Doctrine
The crime of Robbery is consummated from the moment the offender gains possession of the personal property of another, even if the offender has no opportunity to dispose of the same, provided that the taking was done with intent to gain and by means of violence or intimidation against persons. The subsequent recovery of the property by the victim does not negate the consummation of the crime or the intent to gain.