- Petitioner
- The United States
- Respondent
- Emiliano Aronce
- Citation
- G.R. No. 4782
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- December 19, 1908
Whether the taking of personal property from an unlocked wardrobe constitutes theft or robbery under the Penal Code
Summary
The Supreme Court reversed a robbery conviction to theft in this 1908 case involving Emiliano Aronce, who stole a watch and necklace from an unlocked wardrobe while the victim slept. The Court distinguished theft from robbery, holding that opening an unlocked wardrobe without force or violence constitutes theft under Article 517, not robbery under Article 508 of the Penal Code. Despite the charge reduction, the Court imposed a heavier sentence of four years, two months, and one day of presidio correccional due to Aronce's recidivism, having been convicted nine times previously including six theft-related offenses. The case establishes important precedent on the distinction between theft and robbery based on the degree of force employed against property.
Focus of dispute
Whether the taking of personal property from an unlocked wardrobe constitutes theft or robbery under the Penal Code
Legal facts
On May 29, 1907, between 3-4 PM, Emiliano Aronce entered the house at No. 151, Calle Santa Rosa, Quiapo, Manila while Leoncia Olivares was sleeping. He opened an unlocked wardrobe and took a gold watch valued at P15 and a gilt necklace and charm valued at P4. Olivares woke up as he was leaving and saw him from behind. Neighbor Vicente Testa witnessed Aronce entering and leaving the house. Aronce pawned the stolen items at a pawnshop under the false name Antonio Reyes. Police recovered the items and arrested Aronce, who had nine previous convictions including six for theft-related crimes.
Judgement and reasoning
Supreme Court (En Banc): Reversed the trial court judgment. Held that the crime constituted theft, not robbery, because the accused did not employ force against things or violence as enumerated in Article 508 of the Penal Code. The wardrobe was not well-secured and could be opened by slight movement without breaking the lock or using false keys. Found aggravating circumstances of commission in dwelling and recidivism (more than twice convicted for crimes against property) without mitigating circumstances. Sentenced accused to four years, two months, and one day of presidio correccional as the penalty immediately higher than arresto mayor due to recidivism under Article 520.
trial judge: Sentenced the accused to three years, six months, and twenty-one days imprisonment and costs for the crime of robbery committed in an inhabited house.