Consulta vs. People

Intent to gain (animus lucrandi) is not conclusively presumed from the mere taking of another’s property; it is negated when special circumstances—such as a proven hostile relationship and threatening language—show the taking was prompted by coercion or harassment rather than a desire for material profit. Where the crime charged (robbery) includes the offense proved (grave coercion), the accused may be convicted of the lesser included offense under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.

Nelia Silvestre and her family, on one side, and Pedro Consulta and his family, on the other, were entangled in an acrimonious relationship. Consulta had formerly rented the ground floor of Nelia’s house in Pateros, with Nelia as his godmother. Disputes arose over to whom rent should be paid—Nelia or her parents, who lived next door. Nelia’s parents filed a maltreatment case against Consulta that was dismissed; Nelia herself filed grave threats and light threats cases which were either dismissed or ended in acquittal. Consulta claimed that even after he and his family moved repeatedly to avoid her, Nelia tracked them down and provoked scandals. The incident of June 7, 1999 occurred against this backdrop.

• Nature: The Information charged Pedro Consulta with robbery with intimidation of persons, alleging that on June 7, 1999, in Makati City, with intent of gain and by means of force, violence, and intimidation, he took, stole and carried away Nelia Silvestre’s 18K gold necklace with crucifix pendant worth P3,500.
• Prosecution’s version of the incident: At around 2:00 p.m., Nelia Silvestre, Maria Viovicente, and Veronica Amar were riding a tricycle towards Pembo, Makati City. On Ambel Street, appellant and his brother Edwin blocked the tricycle; under threats, the driver alighted and left. The brothers shouted invectives at Nelia, including “Putang ina mong matanda ka, walanghiya ka, kapal ng mukha mo, papatayin ka namin.” Appellant added, “Putang ina kang matanda ka, wala kang kadala dala, sinabihan na kita na kahit saan kita matiempuhan, papatayin kita.” Appellant then grabbed Nelia’s necklace, kicked the tricycle, and departed, mocking the nurses that they could not send him to jail because his family had many lawyers. Nelia and her companions reported the incident at the barangay hall and later at the police precinct. Nine days later, Nelia submitted a medico‑legal report and her sworn statement.
• Antecedents and defense version: Consulta denied the charge, insisting it was fabricated to spite him. He used to rent the ground floor of Nelia’s house; Nelia was his godmother. Receipts of rent payments caused quarrels between Nelia and her parents, who lived next door. Nelia’s parents disliked Consulta’s family for siding with Nelia and filed a maltreatment case against him that was dismissed. Nelia then ordered his family to move out and lodged cases for grave threats and light threats, both dismissed or ended in acquittal. Despite frequent transfers of residence, Nelia tracked his whereabouts and caused scandals. Defense witness Darius Pacaña testified that Nelia and her two companions approached him on Ambel Street, asking about a bald, stout man with a sister named Maria, and asked to be brought to Consulta’s house. When the group arrived, Consulta told them to leave to avoid trouble; Nelia retorted, “Mga hayop kayo, hindi ko kayo titigilan.” Another witness, Thelma Vuesa, corroborated Pacaña’s account.
• RTC findings: The trial court held that intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking, disregarded appellant’s denial, and convicted him of robbery with intimidation of persons under Article 294(5) in relation to Article 293, RPC. The penalty imposed was one year, seven months and eleven days of arresto mayor as minimum to eight years, eight months and one day of prision mayor as maximum, with indemnity of P3,500.
• CA action: The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and modified the penalty.

• Validity of Arraignment and Due Process: Petitioner argued that he was not validly arraigned and was denied due process because his counsel during arraignment, pre‑trial, and the initial presentation of prosecution witnesses was not a member of the Philippine Bar.
• Insufficient Proof of Robbery: Petitioner maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the crime of robbery beyond reasonable doubt, as the taking of the necklace was not accompanied by intent to gain but was instead part of a personal feud.

• Curability of Counsel Defect: Respondent maintained that any defect in representation was cured when petitioner was subsequently represented by a public attorney who handled the remainder of the trial, and that petitioner’s factual liability remained unchanged.
• All Elements of Robbery Established: Respondent argued that all elements of robbery, including animus lucrandi inferred from the forcible taking of the necklace, were proven, warranting the conviction.

• Validity of Arraignment and Due Process: Whether petitioner was denied due process because his initial counsel was not a member of the Bar, and whether his arraignment was therefore invalid.
• Intent to Gain: Whether the prosecution proved the element of animus lucrandi beyond reasonable doubt, given the existence of a pre‑existing acrimonious relationship between the parties.
• Variance and Grave Coercion: Whether, in the absence of intent to gain, petitioner could be convicted of the lesser included offense of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Validity of Arraignment and Due Process: The claim of denial of due process was rejected. The initial counsel withdrew with petitioner’s conformity as early as July 28, 2000, and the trial court approved the withdrawal on August 4, 2000. Thereafter, petitioner was represented by a public attorney who handled the defense during the remaining prosecution testimony and throughout the presentation of petitioner’s evidence. The irregularity in the initial representation did not alter the proven fact that petitioner committed the acts complained of. People v. Elesterio was controlling: representation by a non‑lawyer chosen by the accused does not negate the criminal act, especially when a member of the bar later takes over.
• Intent to Gain: The conviction for robbery was reversed because animus lucrandi was not established. Intent to gain is an internal act that may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property belonging to another, but that presumption does not hold when special circumstances indicate a different intent. Here, the uncontroverted evidence of a rancorous relationship—marked by multiple dismissed complaints, the tone of the insults, and the threat to kill—demonstrated that the taking of the necklace was motivated by ill will and a desire to harass, not by a purpose to obtain material gain. The overt acts, therefore, did not support a finding of animus lucrandi.
• Variance and Grave Coercion: Because the Information alleged violence and intimidation coupled with a taking, and because the proven act lacked intent to gain, petitioner could properly be convicted of grave coercion under Article 286 as an offense included in the charge of robbery. Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court permit conviction for an offense proved that is included in the offense charged when some of the essential elements of the former constitute the latter. The elements of grave coercion—preventing another by violence, threats, or intimidation from doing something not prohibited by law—were fully satisfied by petitioner’s blocking of the tricycle, uttering of threats, and physical intimidation, which prevented Nelia from proceeding to her destination. The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P6,000 was imposed; absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the medium period was applied, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law yielded a minimum of six months of arresto mayor and a maximum of three years and six months of prision correccional medium.

• Animus Lucrandi in Robbery — Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act that can be established through the overt acts of the offender. While it may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property belonging to another, that presumption is rebuttable; it does not arise where special circumstances reveal a different intent, such as personal animosity, threats to kill, and a history of litigation, which show the taking was meant to harass or coerce rather than to derive material benefit.
• Distinction Between Robbery and Grave Coercion — The decisive difference between robbery and grave coercion lies in the intention of the accused. If the purpose, with intent to gain, is to take the property of another by force or intimidation, robbery is committed. If the purpose, without authority of law, is to compel another to do something against his will or to prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, and property is seized as part of that coercion, the crime is grave coercion. The motives of the accused are the prime criterion; where the taking is not animated by animus furandi but by a desire to enforce a perceived right or to harass, coercion, not robbery, is the proper offense.
• Variance Doctrine — Under Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court, when there is a variance between the offense charged and that proved, and the offense proved is included in the offense charged, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements of the former, as alleged in the Information, constitute the latter.

• “Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender. It may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.” — This passage anchors the ruling that the presumption of intent to gain is not absolute and gave way to the proven hostile relationship.
• “The distinction between the two lines of decisions, the one holding to robbery and the other to coercion, is deemed to be the intention of the accused. Was the purpose with intent to gain to take the property of another by use of force or intimidation? Then, conviction for robbery. Was the purpose, without authority of law but still believing himself the owner or the creditor, to compel another to do something against his will and to seize property? Then, conviction for coercion under Article 497 of the Penal Code. The motives of the accused are the prime criterion.” — The Court quoted United States v. Villa Abrille to articulate the controlling principle for distinguishing the two crimes.

• People v. Elesterio, G.R. No. 63971, May 9, 1989 — Followed. The Court relied on Elesterio for the proposition that representation by a non‑lawyer chosen by the accused does not alter the factual basis of the crime, especially where a member of the bar subsequently handles the defense.
• United States v. Villa Abrille, 36 Phil. 807, 809 (1917) — Quoted with approval. This case provided the prime criterion that the motives of the accused determine whether the offense is robbery or coercion.
• People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 528 — Cited for the rule that intent to gain may be presumed from furtive taking unless special circumstances reveal a different intent.

• Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Defines the elements of robbery: taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The absence of intent to gain precluded conviction under this article.
• Article 294(5), Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for robbery with violence or intimidation of persons in cases not falling under the preceding paragraphs. Inapplicable because the felony was reclassified as grave coercion.
• Article 286, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes grave coercion: any person who, without authority of law, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, prevents another from doing something not prohibited by law or compels him to do something against his will. Applied as the offense proved.
• Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5, Rules of Court — Allowed conviction for the lesser included offense where the Information alleged elements that also constituted grave coercion and the proof established only that offense.

Quisumbing, J. (Chairperson), Tinga, J., Velasco, Jr., J., and Brion, J., concurred.