STUDENT NAME: SEVILLES, ANNE DOREEN M.

STUDENT NUMBER: 2022300016

Facts:
A criminal case was filed against the accused Cesar Concepcion y Bulanio (Concepcion) for
the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

On May 25 2004, around 11:00 AM, in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused, conspiring
together, confederating with his co-accused Rosendo Ogardo, Jr. y Villegas (Ogardo), rob
one Jennifer Acampado y Quimpo while complainant was walking along Panay Avenue
corner Timog Avenue, accused suddenly appeared from behind riding in a Suzuki
motorcycle with Plate no. RG-7037and forcibly took, robbed and carried away
complainant’s shoulder bag containing wrist watch, earring, brochure, bracelet and wallet
all valued at P3,000.00, Philippine Currency, which was witnessed by Joemar E. Felipe
while driving his taxi and that on the occasion of the witness chasing robbers, accused
Ogardo lost control of the motorcycle and crashed infront of the witness’ taxi which caused
Ogardo’s death.

Concepcion testified, in his defense, that he and Ogardo were riding in a motorcycle when
suddenly there was this chasing by another motorcycle. A taxi bumped their motorcycle
and Ogardo was thrown to the gutter. Ogardo was severely injured. They were brought by
the police to the hospital where Ogardo died. He, the accused, was then brought to the
police station where a woman pointed him as snatcher.

The Regioal Trial Court (RTC) declared Concepcion guilty beyond resanoable doubt of the
crime of robbery with homicide having all elements of robbery were duly proven. The
RTC’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Issue:
1. Did the RTC and CA gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the highly
inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses?
2. Whether the snatching of the shoulder bag in this case is robbery or theft.
3. Is the accused appellant liable for the death of Ogardo?

Ruling:
1. No. It is a general principle of law that factual findings of the trial court are not disturbed
on appeal unless the court a quo is perceived to have overlooked, misunderstood or
misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of weight, which, if properly considered,
would have materially affected the outcome of the case. The Supreme Court finds no
compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, in this
case.

2. Theft. By definition in the RPC, robbery can be committed in three ways, by using: (a)
violence against any person; (b) intimidation of any person; and/or (c) force upon
anything. Robbery by use of force upon things is provided under Articles 299 to 305 of the
RPC. The prosecution failed to establish that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or
force in snatching Acampado’s shoulder bag. Acampado herself merely testified that
Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag which was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado
did not say that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder

1
bag. Given the facts, Concepcion’s snatching of Acampado’s shoulder bag constitutes the
crime of theft, not robbery. Concepcion’s crime of theft was aggravated by his use of a
motorcycle in committing the crime. 

3. No. Ogardo died because he lost control of the motorcycle and crashed in front of de
Felipe’s taxi. Since Concepcion, as passenger in the motorcycle, did not perform or execute
any act that caused the death of Ogardo, Concepcion cannot be held liable for homicide.

People of the Philippines, Plantiff-Appellee

Facts:
Edgardo T. Cruz (Cruz) was employed by Eduardo S. Carlos (Carlos) to register and
manage the latter’s business Chromax Marketing. Cruz is responsible for attending the
customer’s needs, receiving orders, issuance of receipts and acceptance of payments, and to
prepare daily sales report. Through time and despite the increase of clients of the business,
Chromax’ financial capital remained unimpressive.

Carlos then discovered that Cruz’ advances totalled to P97,984.00. At the bottom of the
balance sheet, Cruz acknowledged that he used the amount stated as lost, even promising
to pay Carlos back. Irregularity in receipts issued was also discovered. Cruz issued a receipt
to a customer for P1,259.00 but showed to Carlos the receipt for the same transaction
indicating the amount P579.00.

Issue:
Did Cruz commit qualified theft?

Ruling:
Yes. The RTC and CA both found Cruz guilty of qualified theft. The Supreme Court affirmed
the court a quo’s decision. The elements of Qualified Theft committed with grave abuse of
confidence are as follows:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owners consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation
against persons, nor of force upon things; and
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

All the elements of Qualified Theft are present in this case. Cruz is guilty of qualified theft
and is setenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay private
complainant in the amount of P97,984.00 as actual damages, which shall earn legal interest
of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Court's Decision until full
payment as per BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013.

2
3