View full case

JOMAR ABLAZA Y CAPARAS v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Jomar Ablaza, along with his co-accused Jay Lauzon, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City for the crime of Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons. The information filed stated that they conspired and forcefully took three necklaces from the victim, Rosario Snyder, with a total value of P70,100. Snyder testified that she was walking along a street when two men on a motorcycle grabbed her necklaces. Despite shouting for help, the assailants managed to quickly escape. She positively identified Ablaza as the driver of the motorcycle. The stolen necklaces were not recovered.

During the trial, Ablaza and Lauzon pleaded not guilty. Ablaza claimed that they were asleep in his house during the incident and denied any involvement. However, the RTC gave credence to Snyder's testimony and found her to be honest and without improper motive. The elements of robbery were found to be present, and Ablaza and Lauzon were both convicted.

Ablaza filed a Notice of Appeal, which was granted by the RTC. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with a modification on the interest imposed on the monetary award. Ablaza then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that he should only be held liable for theft and that Snyder's testimony was unreliable and inconsistent. The case is now before the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court can review the credibility of witnesses in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

  2. Whether the snatchers should be held liable for robbery or theft.

  3. Whether the use of force is an element of the crime of simple robbery under paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

  4. Whether the phrase "by means of violence against or intimidation of persons" applies to the kinds of robbery falling under Section One, Chapter One, Title Ten of the RPC.

  5. Whether or not the elements of violence or intimidation were present in the commission of the crime.

RULING:

  1. The Court cannot review the credibility of witnesses in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, as it is not a trier of facts. The assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the domain of trial courts, unless there are facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case.

  2. The snatchers should be held liable for theft instead of robbery. The prosecution failed to establish that violence, intimidation, or force was used in snatching the victim's shoulder bag or necklaces. Therefore, the act constitutes theft, which is taking the personal property of another with intent to gain without violence or intimidation.

  3. The use of force is not an element of the crime of simple robbery under paragraph 5, Article 294 of the RPC. The elements of robbery, in general, are as follows: (1) there is taking of personal property; (2) the personal property belongs to another; (3) the taking is with animus lucrandi; and (4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things. However, for simple robbery under paragraph 5, force is not required.

  4. The phrase "by means of violence against or intimidation of persons" applies to the kinds of robbery falling under Section One, Chapter One, Title Ten of the RPC, which includes paragraphs one to four of Article 294. It does not apply to cases of simple robbery under paragraph 5. Intimidation is defined as "unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear." It does not necessarily require the use of material violence.

  5. The Supreme Court held that the elements of violence or intimidation were not present in the commission of the crime. The victim did not sustain any kind of injury and there was no evidence to show that violence was used against her. Additionally, the sudden act of the perpetrators in grabbing the victim's necklaces could not have produced fear or duress to deprive her of the exercise of her will. Therefore, the petitioner should be held liable only for the crime of theft, not robbery.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of pure questions of law and does not allow the review of questions of fact.

  • The findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

  • Robbery is committed by using violence against any person, intimidation of any person, or force upon anything, while theft is committed without violence, intimidation, or force upon things.

  • Violence, intimidation, or force must be present to constitute robbery, while theft only requires the intent to gain without the use of violence, intimidation, or force.

  • Force is not an element of the crime of simple robbery under paragraph 5, Article 294 of the RPC.

  • The phrase "by means of violence against or intimidation of persons" applies to the kinds of robbery falling under Section One, Chapter One, Title Ten of the RPC, and not to cases of simple robbery under paragraph 5. Intimidation does not necessarily require the use of material violence.

  • The constitutive acts of the offense must be established with unwavering exactitude and moral certainty for a finding of guilt.

  • Violence or intimidation must be present in the commission of robbery.

  • The fear produced in the mind of the victim must hinder the exercise of the will for intimidation to be present.