G.R. No. 26017 , November 11, 1926
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ATANACIO JAGON and LUIS DAYAO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On or about January 20, 1926, in Talavera, Nueva Ecija, accused Atanacio Jagon and Luis Dayao, armed with bolos and accompanied by two others, conspired to rob the house of spouses Martin Dasig and Ismaela Ramos. Ismaela Ramos was in the house when she saw and recognized Atanacio Jagon outside. The accused then proceeded to the field where Martin Dasig was sleeping, threatened him with a revolver, tied him to a post, and left him. The accused then entered the Dasig residence, broke open a valise and a trunk, and stole cash and valuables totaling P1,013.20. The spouses positively identified the accused, whom they had known for years. The accused denied the charges and presented alibis, which were uncorroborated and given by close relatives.

The trial court convicted both accused of the crime of robbery under Article 508, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code (robbery in an inhabited house), sentencing each to *cadena temporal* of 12 years and 1 day. Both the prosecution and the defense appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to convict the accused of the specific crime of robbery in an inhabited house under Article 508 of the Penal Code, or only of the lesser crime of robbery in an uninhabited house under Article 512.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction for robbery in an inhabited house under Article 508 of the Penal Code.

The Court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged all the elements of the crime. It specifically stated that the accused “go up in the house of Martin Dasig” and that the stolen items belonged to “Martin Dasig and Ismaela Ramos.” The use of the phrase “the house of Martin Dasig” and the designation of the owners as spouses collectively indicated that the house was a dwelling. This was a sufficient allegation that the house was inhabited, distinguishing it from the complaint in *People vs. Callueng*, which was found deficient.

The Court found the testimonies of the victims credible and their identification of the accused positive and reliable, as they had known the accused for several years and had no motive to falsely testify. The alibis presented by the accused were weak, uncorroborated, and came from biased witnesses.

Therefore, the elements of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, committed in an inhabited house, were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION:
Justice Malcolm dissented, arguing that the complaint was insufficient to charge robbery in an inhabited house. Relying on the precedent in *People vs. Callueng*, he contended that the complaint did not specifically allege that the house was “inhabited.” Merely stating it was “the house of Martin Dasig” did not necessarily mean it was a dwelling at the time of the robbery. Since this qualifying circumstance was not expressly alleged, the accused should only be convicted of the lesser crime of robbery in an uninhabited house under Article 512.