- Petitioner
- Jomar Ablaza y Caparas
- Respondent
- People
- Citation
- G.R. No. 217722
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- September 26, 2018
Whether the taking of victim's necklaces constituted robbery with violence/intimidation or simple theft
Summary
Petitioner Jomar Ablaza was charged with robbery for allegedly taking victim's necklaces worth P70,100.00 while riding as motorcycle driver with co-accused as backrider. The RTC and CA convicted him of robbery with violence/intimidation under Article 294(5) of the RPC based on victim's credible identification testimony. However, the Supreme Court partially granted the petition, finding that while the victim's identification was credible, the prosecution failed to prove violence or intimidation was used in taking the necklaces. The Court distinguished the case from typical robbery, noting the victim testified the necklaces were 'grabbed' suddenly without any violence, pushing, harm, or resulting injuries. Following People v. Concepcion precedent, the Court modified the conviction from robbery to simple theft, emphasizing that mere 'grabbing' without violence constitutes theft rather than robbery. The penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence under the theft provisions of the RPC.
Focus of dispute
Whether the taking of victim's necklaces constituted robbery with violence/intimidation or simple theft
Legal facts
On July 29, 2010, at around 8:30 a.m., victim Rosario Snyder was walking along Jolo Street, Barangay Barreto, Olongapo City when two men on a motorcycle approached her. The backrider suddenly grabbed her three necklaces worth P43,800.00, P13,500.00, and P12,800.00 respectively (total P70,100.00). The perpetrators looked back at her before speeding away. Snyder identified petitioner Jomar Ablaza as the motorcycle driver from photographs shown by police. Both accused were found at petitioner's house later that day, with co-accused Jay Lauzon hiding under the kitchen sink.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of Appeals (CA): Affirmed the RTC conviction with modification. Found no merit in the appeal and saw no reason not to believe Snyder's testimony. Concurred with finding of conspiracy and all elements of robbery. Modified the penalty to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum. Clarified that 6% interest should be reckoned from date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 75, Olongapo City: Found petitioner and co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Violence against or Intimidation of Persons under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code. The court found Snyder's testimony credible and unwavering, and determined all elements of robbery were present: taking of personal property, belonging to another, with animus lucrandi, and with violence/intimidation. Sentenced both accused to imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months minimum to 8 years and 20 days maximum, plus solidary payment of P70,100.00 with 6% interest per annum.
Supreme Court (SC): Partially granted the petition. While affirming Snyder's credibility as witness, the Court found petitioner should be held liable only for theft, not robbery. The prosecution failed to establish that violence against or intimidation of persons was used in taking the necklaces. The victim's testimony showed the necklaces were 'grabbed' suddenly but without violence, intimidation, or resulting injuries. Distinguished from People v. Concepcion which involved similar snatching without violence. Modified conviction to theft and imposed indeterminate penalty of 6 months arresto mayor as minimum to 2 years, 11 months and 10 days prision correccional as maximum.