This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, with their technical signification and effects, the indeterminate sentence law is applicable in this case. Accordingly, for the crime of highway robbery, the indeterminate prison term is from seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.[27] | |||||
|
2000-06-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case of People v. Puno,[47] it was held that P.D. No. 532 amended Art. 306 of the Revised Penal Code and that it is no longer required that there be at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers.[48] The number of offenders is no longer an essential element of the crime of highway robbery.[49] Hence, the fact that there were only three identified perpetrators is of no moment. P.D. No. 532 only requires proof that persons were organized for the purpose of committing highway robbery indiscriminately.[50] "The robbery must be directed not only against specific, intended or preconceived victims, but against any and all prospective victims."[51] In this case, the accused, intending to commit robbery, waited at the Barangay Mapili crossing for any vehicle that would happen to travel along that road. The driver Rodito Lasap and his passengers were not predetermined targets. Rather, they became the accused's victims because they happened to be traveling at the time when the accused were there. There was, thus, randomness in the selection of the victims, or the act of committing robbery indiscriminately, which differentiates this case from that of a simple robbery with homicide. | |||||