22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Batas.org

Please donate to keep Batas.org free.

Go to www.batas.org/donate to donate

150 Phil. 348

G.R. No. L-28865, February 28, 1972

NICANOR NAPOLIS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF
APPEALS, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Appeal taken by Nicanor Napolis from a decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, the dispositive part of
which reads as follows:
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the
Court hereby finds the accused Bonifacio Malana, Nicanor Napolis
and Apolinario Satimbre guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of robbery in band and sentences Bonifacio Malana as an accessory
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 1 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

after the fact to suffer imprisonment of from six (6) months, arresto
mayor, as minimum to six (6) years, prision correccional, as maximum and
to indemnify the offended party, Ignacio Peaflor in the sum of
P80.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case or insolvency but not to
exceed ,one-third (1/3) of the principal penalty and the accused
.Nicanor Napolis and Apolinario Satimbre to suffer imprisonment of
from ten (10) years and one (1) day, prision mayor, as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, reclusion
temporal, as maximum, both to indemnify the spouses Ignacio
Peaflor and Casimira Lagman in the sum of Two Thousand Five
Hundred Fifty-Seven Pesos (P2,557.00) without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and all three to pay the
proportionate part of the costs."
The main facts, on which there is no dispute, are set forth in the decision of the
Court of Appeals, from which We quote:
"At about 1:00 o'clock in the early morning of October 1, 1956, Mrs.
Casimira Lagman Peaflor, 47-year old wife of Ignacio Peaflor, the
owner of a store located at the new highway, Hermosa, Bataan, after
answering a minor call of nature, heard the barkings of the dog
nearby indicating the presence of strangers around the vicinity.
Acting on instinct, she woke up husband Ignacio Peaflor who, after
getting his flashlight and .38 caliber revolver, went down the store to
take a look. As he approached the door of the store, it suddenly gave
way having been forcibly pushed and opened by 4 men, one of them
holding and pointing a machinegun. Confronted by this peril,
Ignacio Peaflor fired his revolver but missed. Upon receiving from
someone a stunning blow on the head, Ignacio fell down but he
pretended to be dead. He was hogtied by the men. The fact,
however, was that he did not lose consciousness (tsn. 5, 1). The men
then went up the house. One of the robbers asked Mrs. Casimira L.
Peaflor for money saying that they are people from the mountain.
Mrs. Casimira L. Peaflor, realizing the danger, took from under the
mat the bag containing P2,000.00 in cash and two rings worth
P350.00 and delivered them to the robber. Thereupon, that robber
opened and ransacked the wardrobe. Then they tied the hands of
Mrs. Casimira L. Penaflor and those of her two sons. After telling
them to lie down, the robbers covered them with blankets and left.
The revolver of Ignacio, valued at P150.00, was taken by the
robbers. The spouses thereafter called for help and Councilor
Almario, a neighbor, came and untied Ignacio Peaflor. The robbery
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 2 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

was reported to the Chief of Police of Hermosa and to the

Philippine Constabulary.
"Chief of Police Delfin Lapid testified that he went to the premises
upon receiving the report of Councilor Almario and found owner
Ignacio Peaflor with a wound on the head (tsn. 23, I). The
wardrobe was ransacked and things scattered around. It appears that
the robbers bore a hole on the sidewall of the ground floor of the
store and passed through it to gain entrance. According to Chief of
Police Delfin Lapid; 'they removed the adobe stone and that is the
place where they passed through' (tsn. 24, I). In that same morning,
policeman Melquiades Samaniego reported seeing suspicious
characters passing through a nearby field and when the field was
inspected, the authorities were able to locate a greasegun with 5
bullets and a pistol with 3 bullets (tsn. 24, I, testimony of Chief of
Police).* * *."
It appears that, shortly after the occurrence, a criminal complaint for robbery in
band was filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Hermosa, Bataan. Named
as defendants in the complaint, as subsequently amended, were Nicanor
Napolis, Bonifacio Malana, Ben de la Cruz, Mauricio Anila, alias Mori, Jose
Escabel, alias Pepe, Antonio Bededia, alias Toning, John Doe, alias Sommy
Casimiro, Apolinario Satimbre, Paul Doe, et al. Napolis, Malana, Anila and
Casimiro having waived their right to a preliminary investigation, the case,
insofar as they are concerned, was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of
Bataan, where the corresponding information was filed. As subsequently
amended, by the inclusion, as defendants therein, of Antonio Bededia alias
Toning, Domingo Flores alias Eko, Ben de la Cruz, Jose Escabel alias Pepe,
Apolinario Satimbre, Carlito Veloso and Paul Doe, it is alleged in said
information:
"That on or about 1:00 o'clock in the early morning of October 1,
1956, in the Municipality of Hermosa, Province of Bataan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
herein accused Bonifacio Malana, Nicanor Napolis, Ben de la Cruz,
Mauricio Anila Alias Mori, Jose Escabel Alias Pepe, Antonio Bededia,
alias Toning, John Doe, Alias Sommy Casimiro, Apolinario Satimbre,
Carlito Veloso, Domingo Flores, Alias Eko, and Paul Doe, by
conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with the intent to
gain and armed with a Grease Gun, Three (3) caliber .45 pistols and
two (2) revolvers, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, entered the dwelling of the spouses IGNACIO
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 3 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

PEAFLOR and CASIMIRA L. PEAFLOR by boring a hole

under the sidewall of the ground floor of the house and once inside,
attack, assault and hit Ignacio Peaflor with the handle of the Grease
Gun causing him to fall on the ground arid rendering him
unconscious lied his hands and feet and then leave him; that the same
accused approached Casimira L. Peaflor threatened her at gun point
and demanded money: that the same accused while inside the said
house searched and ransacked the place and take and carry away the
following cash money and articles belonging to said spouses Ignacio
Peaflor and Casimira L. Peaflor, to wit: P2,000.00 in cash,
Philippine Currency, One (1) ring (Brillante) valued at P350.00, One
(1) licensed Comando Colt Revolver, Serial No. 532132 and One (I)
Flashlight, valued at P7.00, to the damage and prejudice of said
spouses in the total sum of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
FIFTY-SEVEN PESOS, (P2,557.00) Philippine Currency."
At the trial of Malana, Napolis, Satimbre, De la Cruz, Casimiro and Flores,[1]
the evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimony of the offended
parties, Ignacio Peaflor and his wife Casimira Lagman Peaflor and his wife
Casimira Lagman Peaflor, Provincial Fiscal Eleno L. Kahayon, Clerk of Court
Pedro Aldea, Deputy Clerk of Court Eulogio C. Mina, Delfin Lapid, the Chief
of Police of Hermosa, Bataan, and Lt. Luis Sacramento of the Constabulary
and the affidavits, Exhibits A, B and C of defendants Napolis, Satimbre and
Malana, respectively, admitting their participation in the Commission of the
crime charged.
Mr. and Mrs. Peaflor testified mainly on the robbery involved in the charge,
whereas Fiscal Kahayon narrated the circumstances under which the affidavit
Exhibit A was subscribed and sworn to before him by appellant Napolis; Police
Chief Lapid and Lt. Sacramento dwelt on the investigations conducted by them
and the circumstances; under which said defendants made their aforementioned
affidavits and Clerk of Court Pedro Aldea and Deputy Clerk of Court Eulogio
C. Mina explained how Exhibits B and C were subscribed and sworn to before
them by defendants Satimbre and Malana, respectively.
Upon the other hand, Napolis tried to establish an alibi. Testifying in his own
defense, he would have Us Believe that on October 1, 1956, he was in his
houses in Olongapo, Zambales, because of a tooth extracted from him by one
Dr. Maginas.
Defendant Satimbre, in turn, introduced his own testimony and that of his wife
Engracia Mendoza. Satimbre claimed td be innocent of the crime charged and
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 4 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

said that, although reluctant to sign Exhibit B, he eventually signed thereon,

upon the advice of his wife Engracia Mendoza who sought to corroborate him
and Mayor Guillermo Arcenas of Hermosa, in order that he may not be
implicated in a robbery that took place in Balanga, Bataan, and that he could be
sent back to his hometown, Hermosa, Bataan.
Before the conclusion of the trial, the court of first instance of Bataan
dismissed the case as against defendants Flores, Anila, Casimiro and De la
Cruz.
In due course, said court convicted Nicanor Napolis, Bonifacio Malana and
Apolinario Satimbre, as above indicated. Said defendants appealed to the Court
of Appeals which, however, dismissed Malana's appeal, and affirmed the
decision of the Court of First Instance, insofar as Napolis and Satimbre are
concerned. Satimbre did not appeal from said decision of the Court of
Appeals, whereas Napolis alleges that said court has erred
"I. In affirming in toto the conviction of petitioner herein, of the
crime charged based upon a lurking error of identity.
"II.
In affirming, the conviction of petitioner based upon an
extra-judicial confession extracted through duress.
"III. In affirming the decision of the court a quo based upon the
evidence on record adduced during the trial.
"IV. In deciding the case not in accordance with the provision of law
and jurisprudence on the matter."
Under the first assignment of error it is urged that appellant has not been
sufficiently identified as one of those who perpetrated the crime charged. In
support of this contention, it is argued that the identification made by Mrs.
Peaflor was due to a picture of appellant taken by Lt. Sacramento from the
files of the police in Olongapo, Zambales, and then shown to her, before he
(appellant) was apprehended and then brought to her presence for
identification. It is thus implied that Mrs. Peaflor identified him in
consequence of the suggestion resulting from the picture she bad seen before
he was taken to her for said purpose. The defense further alleges that she could
not have recognized appellant herein, in the evening of the occurrence, because
the same was dark, and the flashlight used by the malefactors was then focussed
downward.

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 5 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

Appellant's pretense is, however, devoid of factual basis. The record shows that
the authorities were notified immediately after the occurrence; that, soon after,
peace, officers - Police Chief Lapid and PC Lt. Sacramento repaired to the
house of Mr. and Mrs. Peaflor and investigated them; that based upon the
description given by Mrs. Peaflor, one individual was apprehended and then
presented to Mrs. Peaflor, who said that he was not one of the thieves; that
another person subsequently arrested and taken to Mrs. Peaflor was, similarly,
exonerated by her; that in the course of the investigation conducted by the
Philippine Constabulary, Lt. Sacramento later brought Mrs. Peaflor to the
offices of the police force in Olongapo and showed her the pictures of police
characters on file therein; that among those pictures, she noticed that of
appellant herein, who, she believed, was one of the culprits; and that appellant
was, therefore, arrested and brought to Mrs. Peaflor, who positively identified
him as one of the malefactors.
In other words, Lt. Sacramento did not suggest to Mrs. Peaflor, through the
aforementioned picture of appellant, that he was one of the thieves. It was she
who told Lt. Sacramento that said picture was that of one of the thieves.
Besides, the fact that Mrs. Peaflor readily exonerated the first two suspects,
arrested by the authorities, shows that appellant herein would not have been
identified by her if she were not reasonably certain about it.
Then, again, she had ample opportunity to recognize appellant herein because it
was he who demanded money from her and to whom she delivered P2,000 in
cash and two (2) rings worth P350; it was, also, he who opened and ransacked
her wardrobe; and it was he who tied her hands and those of her two sons.
These series of acts, performed in her presence, consumed sufficient time
from 10 to 20 minutes to allow her eyesight to be adjusted to existing
conditions, and, hence, to recognize some of the robbers. The night was dark;
but, there were two flashlights switched on, namely, that of her husband, and
the one used by the thieves. Although the tatter was, at times, focussed
downward, it had to be aimed, sometimes, in another direction, particularly
when the money and rings wore delivered to appellant herein and when he
opened and ransacked the wardrobe of Mrs. Peaflor. Lastly, her testimony was
confirmed by other circumstances presently to he mentioned, in connection
with the consideration of the other alleged errors pointed out by appellant
herein.
The second assignment of error is based upon a wrong premise that
appellant's conviction was based upon his extrajudicial confession and that the
same had been made under duress.

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 6 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

Said extrajudicial confession was merely one of the factors considered by His
Honor, the trial Judge, and the Court of Appeals in concluding that the
evidence for the defense cannot be relied upon and that the witnesses for the
prosecution had told the truth. Besides, appellant's confession was not tainted
with duress. In this connection, the Court of Appeals had the following to say:
"Apart from the 'reliability of Mrs. Casimira Lagman Penaflor's
identification, we have the extrajudicial confession of appellant
Nicanor Napolis, marked Exh. A, subscribed and sworn to by said
accused on October 26, 1956, 25 days after the occurrence, before
Provincial Fiscal Eleno L. Kahayon; the 64-year old prosecutor who,
since July 18, 1946, was the Provincial Fiscal of Bataan up to the
present: His testimony shows that he read the confession, Exh. A, to
said accused in the Tagalog dialect; asked him whether he understood
it to which appellant Napolis answered 'yes'; inquired whether he was
coerced to which he replied. 'No'; and then, required him to raise his
hand in affirmation which he did (tsn.. 14-15, 1). Thereupon,
appellant Napolis signed the confession in his (Fiscal's) presence.
Provincial Fiscal Eleno L. Kahayon further testified that he saw no
signs of physical violence on the person of the appellant who
appeared normal in his appearance (tsn. 15, I). In this confession;
Exh. A, appellant Napolis related that it was co-accused Antonio
Bededia (still-at-large) who pointed the greasegun to husband Ignacio
Peaflor and who hit him (Peaflor) on the head and that it was coaccused Ben de la Cruz (whose case was dismissed) who wrested
Peaflor's revolver. For his part, appellant -Napolis admitted that it
was he who talked to Mrs. Casimira L. Penaflor and it was he who
got the money bag. The loot, according to him, was split from which
he received a share of P237.00 (Answer to Q. A, Exh. A). Among
others, he mentioned appellant Bonifacio Malana as the owner of the
greasegun and the one who got Peaflor's revolver from the hands
of co-accused Ben de la Cruz. * * *."
It may not be amiss to advert to the fact that, on appeal from a decision of the
Court of Appeals, the findings of fact made in said decision are final, except"(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises or conjectures: (2) when the inference is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) when the Court Of Appeals, in making its findings,
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 7 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee."[2]
and that the case at bar does not fall under any of the foregoing exceptions.
The third assignment of error is predicated upon the theory that the evidence
for the prosecution is contradictory and, hence, unworthy of credence. Counsel
for the defense alleges that, whereas Ignacio Peaflor said that the thieves had
entered his house by forcing-its door open, Mrs. Peaflor testified that their
entry was effected through an excavation by the side of the house, and the
chief of police affirmed that the malefactors had removed a piece of wood and
an adobe stone to get into said house. No such contradictions, however, exist.
The house of Mr. and Mrs. Peaflor consisted of two (2) parts, one of which
was a store and the other the dwelling proper adjoining the store, which had a
door leading thereto (to the dwelling proper). Mrs. Peaflor testified that the
culprits had entered the store by removing an adobe stone from a wall thereof,
and this was corroborated by the chief of police, although he added that the
malefactors had, also, removed a piece of wood from said wall. Upon the other
hand, the testimony of Mr. Peaflor referred to a door, inside the store Ieading
to the dwelling proper, as distinguished from the store.
In the light of the foregoing, and considering that the findings of fact made by
the Court of Appeals are supported by those of His Honor, the trial Judge,
who had observed the behavior of the witnesses during the trial, it is clear to
Us that the first three (3) assignments of error are untenable.
The fourth assignment of error refers to the characterization of the crime
committed and the proper penalty therefor. It should be noted that the Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting Napolis, Malana
and Satimbre of the crime of robbery committed by armed persons, in an
inhabited house, entry therein having been made by breaking a wall, as provided
in Article 299(a) of the Revised Penal Code, and, accordingly, sentencing
Napolis and Satimbre to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months and one (I) day of reclusion temporal, as miximum, which is in accordance
with said legal provision.
In addition, however, to performing said acts, the malefactors had, also, used
violence against Ignacio Peaflor, and intimidation against his wife, thereby
infringing Article 294 of the same Code, under conditions failing under subparagraph (5) of said article, which prescribes the penalty of prision correctional in
its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, which is lighter than
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 8 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

that prescribed in said Article 299, although, factually, the crime committed is
more serious than that covered by the latter provision. This Court had previously
ruled * * * that where robbery, though committed in an inhabited house,
is characterized by intimidation, this factor 'supplies the controlling
qualification,' so that the law to apply is article 294 and not article 299
of the Revised Penal Code. This is on the theory that 'robbery which
is characterized by violence or intimidation against the person is
evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon
things, because where violence or intimidation against the person is
present there is greater disturbance of the order of society and the
security of the individual.' (U.S. vs. Turla, 38 Phil. 346; People vs.
Baluyut, 40 Phil. 89.) And this view is followed even where, as in the
present case, the penalty to be applied under article 294 is lighter than
that which would result from the application of article 299. * * * "[3]
Upon mature deliberation, We find ourselves unable to share the foregoing
view. Indeed, one who, by breaking a wall, enters, with a deadly weapon, an
inhabited house and steals therefrom valuable effects, without violence against
or intimidation upon persons, is punishable under Art. 299 of the Revised
Penal Code with reclusion temporal,[4] Pursuant to the above view, adhered to in
previous decisions,[5] if, aside from performing said acts, the thief lays hand upon
any person, without committing any of the crimes or inflicting any of the
injuries mentioned in subparagraphs (1) to (4) of Art. 294 of the same Code,
the imposable penalty under paragraph (5) thereof shall be much lighter.[6] To
our mind, this result and the process of reasoning that has brought it about,
defy logic and reason.
The argument to the effect that the violence against or intimidation of a person
supplies the "controlling qualification," is far from sufficient to justify said
result. We agree with the proposition that robbery with "violence or
intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery
committed by force upon things," but, precisely, for this reason, We cannot accept
the conclusion deduced therefrom in the cases above cited reduction of the
penalty for the latter offense owing to the concurrence of violence or
intimidation which made it a more serious one. It is, to our mind, more plausible
to believe that Art. 294 applies only where robbery with violence against or
intimidation of person takes place without entering an inhabited house, under
the conditions set forth in Art. 299 the Revised Penal Code.
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 9 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

We deem it more logical and reasonable to hold, as We do, when the elements
of both provisions are present, that the crime as a complex one, calling for the
imposition as provided in Art. 48 of said Code of the penalty for the most
serious offense, in its maximum period, which, in the case at bar, is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period. This penalty should, in turn, he imposed in its
maximum period from nineteen (19) years, one (1) month and eleven (11)
day's to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal owing to the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime. In short, the doctrine adopted in U.S.
vs. de los Santos[7] and applied in U.S. vs. Manansala,[8] U.S. vs. Turla,[9] People
vs: Baluyut,[10] Manahan vs. People,[11] and People vs. Sebastian,[12] is hereby
abandoned and appellant herein should be sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty ranging from ten (10) years, and one (1) day of prision mayor to nineteen
(19) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal.
Thus modified as to the penalty, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby affirmed in all other respects, with costs against herein appellant,
Nicanor Napolis. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J. B. L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, and
Villamor, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., did not take part.
[1] Other defendants were granted a separate trial, whereas still others had not

been apprehended as yet.

[2] Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, L-26490, June 30, 1970, citing Roque vs. Buan,

et al., L-22459, Oct. 31, 1967: Ramos vs. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., L-22533, Feb.
9. 1967: Hilario, Jr. vs. City of Manila. L-19570, Sept. 14, 1967.

[3] People vs. Sebastian, 85 Phil. 601, 603. See, also, Manahan vs. People, 73 Phil.

691; U.S. vs. Manansala, 9 Phil. 529, $30; U.S. vs. De los Santos, 6 Phil. 411, 412.

[4] From twelve (12) years and one (I) day to twenty (20) years of reclusion

temporal.

[5] People vs. Sebastian, 85 Phil. 601; Manahan vs. People, 73 Phil. 691; People vs.

Baluyut, 40 Phil 89; U.S. vs. Turla, 38 Phil. 346; U.S. vs. Manansala, 9 Phil. 529;
U.S. vs. De los Santos, 6 Phil. 411.
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 10 of 11

22/11/2016, 6(21 PM

[6] From four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccionaI to

ten (10) years of prision mayor.

[7] Supra.
[8] Supra.
[9] Supra.
[10] Supra.
[11] Supra.
[12] Supra.

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org

G.C.A.

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20L-28865,%20February%2028,%201972.htm

Page 11 of 11