Art. 295.
Robbery with physical injuries
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries,
committed in an uninhabited place and by a band,
or with the use of firearm on a street, road or
alley. — If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions
three, four, and five of the next preceding article
shall have been committed in an uninhabited place
or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street
car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the
passenger's compartments in a train or, in any
manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in
the respective conveyances, or on a street, road,
highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made
with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the proper
penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree
shall be imposed upon the leader of the
band.chanrobles virtual law library
Qualified Robbery with Violence Against or
Intimidation of Persons:
Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 if committed:
1. In an uninhabited place (despoblado); or
2. By a band (en cuadrilla); or
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor
vehicle, or airship; or
4. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a
train, or in any manner taking the passengers by
surprise in their respective conveyances or
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the
intimidation is made with use of firearms, the
offender shall be punished by the maximum period
or the proper penalties prescribed in Art. 294
Art. 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide,
or robbery with rape, or robbery with serious
physical injuries under par. 1 of Art. 263.
Art. 295 provides for different cases in which
robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons is qualified.
This article does not apply:
(1) When by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide is
committed (subdivision 1, Art. 294);
(2) When the robbery is accompanied by rape
or intentional mutilation, or arson
(subdivision 1, Art. 294); or
(3) If by reason or on occasion of robbery, any
of the serious physical injuries resulting in
insanity, imbecility, impotency or
blindness is inflicted (subdivision 2, Art.
294).
The reason is that this article mentions subdivisions
3, 4 and 5 of Art. 294, omitting subdivisions 1 and
2 which refer to robbery with homicide, robbery
with rape, robbery with intentional mutilation, and
robbery with serious physical injuries resulting in
insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness of the
victim. Thus, when robbery with homicide was
committed by attacking a motor vehicle or moving
train, or on the street, road, highway or alley with
the use of firearms, the penalty prescribed by
subdivision 1 of Art. 294 shall not be imposed in the
maximum period. The same is true with respect to
robbery with rape or robbery with intentional
mutilation. However, if there is no mitigating
circumstance to offset it, the fact that robbery with
homicide or robbery with rape is committed in an
uninhabited place or by a band will have the effect
of increasing the penalty to the maximum period,
because it will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance under Art. 14.
Art. 295 is inapplicable to robbery with homicide,
mutilation, and lesiones graves resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness. If the foregoing
classes of robbery which are described in Art. 294
(1) and (2) are perpetrated by a band, they would
not be punishable under Art. 295, but then,
cuadrilla would be generic aggravating
circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code. (People vs.
Salip Mania)
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries
PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, et.al.
G.R. No. 86163, April 26, 1990
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
FACTS: At about noontime of 12 April 1986, a
robbery was staged by the four accused (Petitioner
Salvilla together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and
Simplicio Canasares) at the New Iloilo Lumber
Yard. All armed with homemade guns and a hand
grenade, they entered the establishment and
announced that it was a hold-up. Appellant Salvilla
demanded money from the owner (Severino
Choco) and was given P20,000 (In the defense, it
was only P5,000). Still, not satisfied, accused
Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch
of Severino after his two daughters (Mary and
Mimie), and Rodita Hablero (employee) were kept
in the office as hostages. Appellant Salvilla told
Severino to produce P100,000.00 so he and the
other hostages could be released, but he answered
that he can’t because banks were closed during
Saturday.
Later, they were being surrounded by police and
military authorities and asked the accused to
surrender or to release the hostages, which they
refused. OIC Mayor, Rosa Caram, of Iloilo City
also negotiated with them, they were offered
P50,000 (instead of P100,000 – demand money). It
was then agreed to receive the same and to release
Rodita and Mary Choco in going out of the office,
but only Rodita was released. Finally, the police
and military authorities decided to launch an
offensive and assault the place. This resulted to
injuries of the two daughters and two accused
Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares.
Accused Bienvenido Salvilla appeals alone from the
RTC’s decision finding all the suspects guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Robbery
with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal
Detention" and sentencing them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The defense contends that "The complete crime of
larceny (theft/robbery) as distinguished from an
attempt requires asportation or carrying away, in
addition to the taking, In other words, the crime of
robbery/theft has three consecutive stages: 1) the
giving 2) the taking and 3) the carrying away or
asportation And without asportation the crime
committed is only attempted"
Appellant Salvilla also claimed further that they had
never fired on the military because they intended to
surrender. Appellant's version also was that during
the gunfire, Severino's daughter stood up and went
outside; he wanted to stop her but he himself was
hit by a bullet and could not prevent her. Appellant
also admitted the appeals directed to them to
surrender but that they gave themselves up only
much later.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the lower court erred in
holding that the charged was
consummated
2) Whether or not the lower court erred in
appreciating the mitigating circumstance of
Voluntary surrender
3) Whether or not serious illegal detention
was a necessary mean to facilitate Robbery
RULING:
1) NO. The State established a "taking"
sufficient to support a conviction of
robbery even though the perpetrators were
interrupted by police and so did not pick up
the money offered by the victim, where the
defendant and an accomplice, armed with
a knife and a club respectively, had
demanded the money from the female clerk
of a convenience store, and the clerk had
complied with their instructions and placed
money from the register in a paper bag and
then placed the bag on the counter in front
of the two men; these actions brought the
money within the dominion and control of
defendant and completed the taking.
It is no defense either that Appellant and
his co-accused had no opportunity to
dispose of the personalities taken. That fact
does not affect the nature of the crime,
From the moment the offender gained
possession of the thing, even if the culprit
had no opportunity to dispose of the same,
the unlawful taking is complete. (RPC II)
The crime is consummated when the
robber acquires possession of the property,
even if for a short time, and it is not
necessary that the property be taken into
the hands of the robber, or that he should
have actually carried the property away,
out of the physical presence of the lawful
possessor, or that he should have made his
escape with it" (People vs. Quinn)
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries

(2) NO. The "surrender" by the Appellant and his

co-accused hardly meets these requirements. They
were, indeed, asked to surrender by the police and
military authorities but they refused until only
much later when they could no longer do otherwise
by force of circumstances when they knew they
were completely surrounded and there was no
chance of escape.

The surrender of the accused was held not to be

mitigating as when he gave up only after he was
surrounded by the constabulary and police forces
(People vs. Sigayan et al.,).

Their surrender was not spontaneous as it was

motivated more by an intent to insure their safety.
And while it is claimed that they intended to
surrender, the fact is that they did not despite several
opportunities to do so. There is no voluntary
surrender to speak of (People vs. Dimdiman )

(3) YES. We agree with the Trial Court that a

complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code has been committed such that the
penalty for the more serious offense of Serious
Illegal Detention (Art. 267, Revised Penal Code), or
"reclusion perpetua to death," is to be imposed
instead of the penalty prescribed for Robbery with
Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 294 (3), which is
reclusion temporal.

Under Article 48, a complex crime arises "when an

offense is a necessary means for committing the
other." The phrase "necessary means" merely
signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate
and insure the commission of the other.

The detention was not because the accused were

trapped by the police nor were the victims held as
security against the latter. The detention was not
merely a matter of restraint to enable the
malefactors to escape, but deliberate as a means of
extortion for an additional amount.

In this case, the crime of Serious Illegal Detention

was such a "necessary means" and not incidental
as it was selected by Appellant and his co-accused
to facilitate and carry out more effectively their evil
design to stage a robbery.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from

is hereby AFFIRMED.