G.R. No. L-28865 February 28, 1972
NICANOR NAPOLIS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

In the early morning of October 1, 1956, armed men forcibly entered the dwelling of spouses Ignacio Peñaflor and Casimira Lagman in Hermosa, Bataan, by boring a hole through a sidewall. The robbers, one armed with a grease gun, attacked Ignacio, hitting him on the head and hogtying him. They then proceeded upstairs, threatened Casimira at gunpoint, and demanded money. She surrendered cash and jewelry. The robbers also ransacked the house and took a revolver and other items, with total property valued at P2,557.00. The crime was reported, and an investigation led to the filing of an information for robbery in band against several individuals, including petitioner Nicanor Napolis.
Napolis was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Bataan for the crime of robbery in band. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Napolis appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the penalty imposed was incorrect. The core legal question pertained to the proper classification and penalty for a robbery committed by a band with violence against persons inside an inhabited house.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed is simple robbery in band under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code or a complex crime under Articles 294 and 299, given that the robbery with violence was committed by a band inside an inhabited house.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the penalty but affirmed the conviction. The Court abandoned the previous doctrine established in U.S. v. De los Santos and related cases, which held that when robbery with violence under Article 294 is committed inside an inhabited house, the penalty should be that for the lesser crime of robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299. The old rationale was that Article 294’s penalty was deemed too severe when the more aggravating circumstance of dwelling was present, leading to an absurd reduction.
The Court found this old doctrine illogical. It ruled that when the elements of both provisions are present—robbery with violence against persons under Article 294 and commission by a band inside an inhabited house under Article 299—the crime is complex under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for the most serious offense must be imposed in its maximum period. Here, robbery in an inhabited house by a band (Article 299) carries a heavier penalty than robbery with violence (Article 294). Therefore, the penalty for the former, which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, was applied. This penalty was further imposed in its maximum period (19 years, 1 month, and 11 days to 20 years) due to the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Consequently, Napolis was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 19 years, 1 month, and 11 days of reclusion temporal as maximum.