- Citation
- G.R. No. 44370
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- January 11, 1936
Whether the crime committed was theft or robbery under the Revised Penal Code
Summary
The accused Co Cho was charged with robbery of articles and money totaling P33.50 from Hong Liong's residence on Magdalena Street, Manila. The Court of First Instance convicted him of theft, but the Supreme Court En Banc modified this to robbery. The key legal issue was whether entry through an open window constituted the elements required for robbery versus simple theft. The Supreme Court held that since the door was locked from within and the accused entered through a window not intended for entrance (as he admitted during police investigation), this constituted robbery under Article 299(a)(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The court considered the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and imposed a penalty of one year minimum to three years, six months and twenty-one days of prision correccional maximum. This 1936 decision established important precedent distinguishing theft from robbery in Philippine criminal jurisprudence, specifically regarding unlawful entry through windows not intended for entrance.
Focus of dispute
Whether the crime committed was theft or robbery under the Revised Penal Code
Legal facts
Hong Liong lived with other Chinese including Tee Chuang Tian at house No. 621, Magdalena Street, Manila. On August 21, 1935, they slept with windows open and door locked from within. At dawn, Hong Liong discovered missing his watch valued at P28, P3 in bills, and two sweepstakes tickets. His pants were found under the house minus the watch, and wallet under the bed minus the bills and tickets. Policeman Danganan arrested the accused at dawn in suspicious circumstances, finding in his possession the stolen watch, four one-peso bills, and P1.25 in small change. During police investigation, the accused admitted stealing the items by entering through the water closet window. The door was locked from within and could not be opened from outside without violence.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of First Instance of Manila: Found defendant guilty of theft and sentenced him to four months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months of prision correccional as maximum, with costs.
Supreme Court (SC) En Banc: Modified the judgment to robbery under Article 299, paragraph (a), subsection 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Held that the accused entered the house through a window not intended for entrance, as the door was locked from within and could not have been opened from outside without violence. Evidence included fingerprints on the window and the accused's admission. Considered the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and sentenced appellant to one year minimum to three years, six months and twenty-one days of prision correccional maximum, with costs.