People v. Tayag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of September 12, 1933, Perfecto Tayag and Atanasio Morales were found by policemen attempting to enter a store and dwelling at No. 325-A San Marcelino Street, Manila. They used a bolo and a screwdriver to force open one of the doors. Upon realizing they had been noticed and the inhabitants awakened, they attempted to escape but were apprehended. The bolo was found in Tayag's possession and the screwdriver in Morales'. The store contained over P40 in cash and merchandise valued at around P1,000. Procedural History: The defendants were convicted of attempted robbery in an inhabited house by the trial court. The court imposed upon Perfecto Tayag a penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional, plus an additional six years and two months of prision correccional due to habitual delinquency with a greater number of former convictions. The defendants appealed the sentence. The Petition: The defendants appealed their conviction and sentence.
Issue(s)
Whether the acts of the appellants constitute attempted robbery in an inhabited house. Whether the appellants are habitual delinquents. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and previous convictions should be considered.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It ruled that the appellants were guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling by means of violence, not attempted robbery. The sentence was modified to three months and one day of arresto mayor, with accessory penalties, and to pay proportionate costs. The appellants were to be credited with one-half of their preventive imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the acts constitute attempted robbery: The Court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming regarding the attempt to enter the dwelling by force. However, the Court found absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants' intention was to commit robbery, or that they knew money was present. The Court emphasized that guilt must be proven by competent and conclusive evidence and cannot be based on mere inferences, however reasonable. It would be arbitrary to suppose they intended to carry away all the goods, especially without a vehicle. Therefore, the act committed simply constitutes the crime of attempted trespass to dwelling, as defined in Article 280, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, which is trespass committed by means of violence. On habitual delinquency: The documentary evidence (Exhibits C, D, and E) did not conclusively show that the appellants were habitual delinquents. The documents only indicated that they committed theft at about the same time. Thus, the finding of habitual delinquency by the trial court was not sufficiently supported by the presented evidence. On aggravating circumstances: The Court considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, as the offense was committed at night. It also considered the aggravating circumstance of previous convictions, as the records showed prior offenses, although not sufficient to establish habitual delinquency. The Court noted that the penalty for trespass to dwelling by means of violence is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods. A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the offense was applied, resulting in the modified sentence.
Main Doctrine
The act of attempting to force open a door with tools, without proof of intent to rob, constitutes attempted trespass to dwelling by means of violence, not attempted robbery.