G.R. No. 238715, January 11, 2021
Ruel Poquiz y Orcine and Rey Valencia y Galutan, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Ruel Poquiz and Rey Valencia, along with Kim Olorfenes (at-large), were charged with Robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. The Information alleged that on September 2, 2015, around 1:00 a.m., in Muntinlupa City, the accused, with Poquiz armed with a knife, conspired and, by means of violence and intimidation against Police Inspector Bob Belver y Tabliga (who had just alighted from a bus), tried to stab him, punched and kicked him, and took his hanger bag and backpack containing various items. Belver identified himself as a police officer, but the assailants ignored him. Poquiz attempted to thrust a knife at Belver, who evaded it, and then Olorfenes and Valencia punched and kicked him. In self-defense, Belver drew his service pistol and fired at the feet of Valencia and Poquiz, causing them to flee and leave behind their knives and Belver’s bag. Responding police officers brought Belver to the station and later found Poquiz and Valencia at Ospital ng Muntinlupa being treated for gunshot wounds. Belver positively identified the accused and recovered his belongings. The prosecution presented Belver’s testimony, medico-legal report, and other evidence.
The defense presented a different version. Poquiz claimed he was drunk, had a quarrel with another tricycle driver, and mistakenly punched Belver, thinking he was the driver’s companion. He stated that after punching Belver, he left, heard a gunshot, saw Valencia shot, threw a bottle at Belver in retaliation, and was then shot by Belver. Olorfenes corroborated this. Defense witnesses Joel De Asis and Joyce Clinton Ditapat testified they saw Poquiz intoxicated, causing a commotion, and punching Belver, who then drew his gun and fired.
The RTC convicted all accused of Robbery under Article 293, penalized under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty. The RTC found Belver’s testimony credible and the defense version improbable and inconsistent. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty. The CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners Ruel Poquiz and Rey Valencia are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution.
The crime of Robbery under Article 293 requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) there is a taking of personal property; (2) the personal property belongs to another; (3) the taking is with intent to gain (animus lucrandi); and (4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things. All elements are present in this case. The petitioners, with intent to gain, took Belver’s bag when he alighted from the bus. The taking was effected through violence—Poquiz attempted to stab Belver, and Valencia and Olorfenes punched and kicked him. The fact that Belver eventually recovered his belongings does not negate the crime, as robbery is consummated from the moment the offender gains possession of the property, even momentarily. The Court upheld the findings of the RTC and CA, giving great weight to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, particularly Belver’s straightforward and categorical testimony, which was free from serious flaw and not impelled by ill motive. The defense’s version was deemed unbelievable and fraught with contradictions. The CA’s modified penalty—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—was sustained.