United States vs. Turla

When robbery is committed with violence against or intimidation upon persons, the offense is governed by Article 503, No. 5 of the Penal Code, even if the crime is also committed in an inhabited house and involves the breaking of locked furniture; the circumstance of dwelling is thereby relegated to a generic aggravating circumstance and Article 508 does not apply. The use of intimidation is the controlling element that determines the applicable penal provision.

Estanislao Cuevas lived with his family in a house in the barrio of Santo Tomas, municipality of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. On the night of September 23, 1916, four armed malefactors entered the dwelling, ordered the occupants to lie face down, broke open a trunk, and took money, jewelry, and other personal property.

• The Offense: On the night of September 23, 1916, four malefactors armed with revolvers and bolos went up into the house of Estanislao Cuevas in the barrio of Santo Tomas, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. Some of the malefactors remained below while others entered the house.
• Use of Intimidation: The assailants ordered all the occupants to lie face down, employing intimidation to overcome any resistance.
• Taking and Breaking: The malefactors took and broke open a locked trunk. They appropriated, with intent of gain and against the will of the owners, money and jewels belonging to Antonina Cuevas, fourteen cock-spurs (navajas de gallo) belonging to Estanislao Cuevas, and a bolo owned by Meliton Tabada.
• Identification: Two members of the household, Julio Padilla and Antonia Cuevas, recognized the accused Antonio Turla as one of the assailants.
• Value and Recovery: The total value of the stolen property was ₱253. None of the items were recovered.
• Defense of Alibi: Turla attempted to raise an alibi defense, but the trial court and the Supreme Court found it unsubstantiated. The guilt of the accused as a principal in the robbery was established beyond doubt.

• Alibi: The accused-appellant maintained that he was not present at the scene and sought to exculpate himself through an alibi, a defense that both the lower court and the Supreme Court found unproven.

• N/A — The decision does not detail the appellee’s specific arguments; the Attorney-General appeared for the prosecution to seek affirmance of the conviction.

• Proper Classification of the Robbery: Whether the robbery, committed in an inhabited house with the breaking of a locked trunk but involving intimidation upon persons, should be penalized under Articles 508 and 509 (robbery in an inhabited house by a band) or under Article 503, No. 5 (robbery with violence or intimidation).
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the dwelling of the offended party and nocturnity are to be considered generic aggravating circumstances.

• Proper Classification of the Robbery: The crime fell under Article 503, No. 5, not Article 508. The controlling element was the use of intimidation upon the persons of the victims. Spanish jurisprudence interpreting the parallel provisions of the Penal Code of Spain (articles 516, No. 5, and 521) established that when violence or intimidation is employed, the more specific provision on robbery with violence or intimidation applies, even if the robbery also occurred in an inhabited house and involved the breaking of trunks or wardrobes. Thus, the dwelling and the breaking of furniture were subsumed into a generic aggravating circumstance.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The fact that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party and at night (nocturnity) constituted generic aggravating circumstances. No extenuating circumstance was present to offset them, so the penalty was fixed in its medium degree.

• Rule of Intimidation as Determinative of the Applicable Article — Where robbery is perpetrated with violence against or intimidation upon persons, Article 503, No. 5 of the Penal Code (equivalent to Article 516, No. 5 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870) governs to the exclusion of Article 508 (equivalent to Article 521 of the Spanish Code), which penalizes robbery in an inhabited house with the breaking of furniture. The use of intimidation converts the offense into the more specific form of robbery with violence or intimidation, and the circumstance of dwelling is transformed into a generic aggravating circumstance only.
• Generic Aggravating Circumstances — Under the Penal Code, dwelling (morada) and nocturnity (nocturnidad) are generic aggravating circumstances that serve to increase the penalty within the applicable degree when not offset by mitigating circumstances.

• “... inasmuch as the circumstance of the use of violence against or intimidation upon the persons places the case under the provisions of the said article 503, No. 5, and not those of article 508 which is the same as 521 of the Penal Code of Spain.” — This passage is the ratio decidendi, establishing that intimidation determines the applicable provision irrespective of the location or manner of the taking.
• “The fact that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, Estanislao Cuevas, should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance, the same as nocturnity, there being no extenuating circumstance, to counteract the effects of the said aggravating ones.” — This clarifies that dwelling and nighttime are generic aggravating factors in such circumstances.

• Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, December 26, 1870, October 10, 1871, and June 11, 1872 — Followed as controlling authority on the interpretation of the parallel Penal Code provisions. These decisions held that when violence or intimidation is present, Article 516, No. 5 (Article 503, No. 5) applies rather than Article 521 (Article 508), regardless of the robbery’s occurrence in an inhabited house with the breaking of furniture.

• Article 502, Penal Code — Defines robbery as the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation upon persons or force upon things. (Applied as the foundational definition.)
• Article 503, No. 5, Penal Code — Imposes the penalty for robbery with violence or intimidation when the crime is committed in an inhabited house or building. (Held to govern because intimidation was used.)
• Article 504, Penal Code — Provides the penalty for robbery with violence or intimidation committed in a band. (Applied in conjunction with Article 503 to fix the penalty at presidio mayor in its medium degree, given the aggravating circumstances.)
• Article 508, Penal Code — Punishes robbery in an inhabited house with the breaking of trunks, wardrobes, or other locked furniture. (Held inapplicable due to the presence of intimidation.)
• Article 57, Penal Code — Prescribes the accessory penalties for presidio mayor. (Applied to the sentence.)
• Article 51, Penal Code — Governs civil liability and exempts the accused from subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the value of the property taken. (Applied to bar subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.)

Carson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, and Fisher, JJ.

None.