GR L 13715; (January, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13715; January 22, 1919
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIXBERTO VENTURA and DOMINGO VICENTE, defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
On the night of August 18, 1917, or early the next morning, the four defendantsFelixberto Ventura, Domingo Vicente, Pio Apostol, and Ramon Carchaconspired to rob the small store of Calixto Dizon located on the ground floor of his house in Calasiao, Pangasinan. Ventura and Vicente opened a hole in the bamboo partition of the store, entered, and stole merchandise worth P67, while Apostol and Carcha acted as lookouts. After the robbery, Apostol was given a two-peso bill to ensure his silence. Upon investigation, Apostol and Carcha were arrested, confessed, and implicated Ventura and Vicente. Carcha later testified for the prosecution after his conviction became final. The trial court convicted Ventura and Vicente of robbery, classifying it as robbery in an inhabited house or dependency thereof under Article 508 of the Penal Code, and sentenced each to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of presidio correccional. Ventura and Vicente appealed, arguing the crime was not committed in an inhabited house and contesting the use of their co-defendants’ testimonies.
ISSUE:
Whether the crime committed was robbery in an inhabited house (or dependency thereof) under Article 508 of the Penal Code, warranting a higher penalty, or simple robbery in an uninhabited place under Article 512.
RULING:
The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, affirmed the conviction but modified the classification and penalty. The Court held that the store was a dependency of Dizon’s inhabited house, as both formed a single building with interior communication, making the robbery fall under the last paragraph of Article 508. The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was present, with no offsetting mitigating circumstance. However, in a separate opinion, Justice Malcolm dissented, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove any interior communication between the house and the store. He contended the crime should be classified as robbery in an uninhabited place under Article 512, with a lower penalty. The majority maintained the classification under Article 508 but the penalty was ultimately imposed considering nocturnity. The guilt of Ventura and Vicente was upheld based on the credible testimonies of their co-defendants, Apostol and Carcha, whose statements were admissible and corroborative.