In Edwin del Rosario v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court clarified the critical distinction between theft and robbery, emphasizing that the presence of violence or intimidation is what sets robbery apart. The Court found Edwin del Rosario guilty of theft, not robbery, because the snatching of a necklace did not involve violence or intimidation. This ruling underscores that not every taking of property constitutes robbery; the manner in which the property is taken is determinative.

Necklace Snatching: When Does a Crime Cross the Line from Theft to Robbery?

The case began when Edwin del Rosario and Roxan Cansiancio were accused of robbing Charlotte Casiano of an Italian gold necklace. According to the prosecution, Edwin signaled to Roxan to snatch Charlotte’s necklace while they were all passengers in a jeepney. Roxan then grabbed the necklace and both men fled. Roxan later pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of attempted robbery, while Edwin maintained his innocence, claiming alibi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Edwin guilty of robbery, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA). Edwin then appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning his conviction.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s analysis was the determination of whether the act constituted robbery or theft. The Court highlighted the elements of robbery, which include: (1) taking personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) taking with intent to gain (animus lucrandi); and (4) taking with violence or intimidation against persons or with force upon things. In contrast, theft involves taking personal property of another with intent to gain, but without violence, intimidation, or force. The presence or absence of violence or intimidation is the key differentiating factor between the two crimes.

The Court referred to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code which defines theft:

Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter’s consent.

Examining the testimonies, the Supreme Court noted the absence of violence or intimidation in the snatching of the necklace. The victim, Charlotte, testified that the necklace was suddenly grabbed from her, but she did not mention any physical harm or threat. Her brother, Kim, corroborated this account, stating that Roxan quickly snatched the necklace. The Supreme Court emphasized that the term “grabbed” does not automatically imply violence or force. It simply suggests a sudden taking, which does not necessarily equate to the employment of violence or physical force.

The Court cited several precedents to support its conclusion. In People v. Concepcion, the Court ruled that snatching a shoulder bag without violence, intimidation, or force constitutes theft, not robbery. Similarly, in Ablaza v. People, the Court clarified that for violence to be present in simple robbery, the victim must sustain at least less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries during the incident. The fact that a necklace was “grabbed” does not automatically mean that force attended the taking. The Court found persuasive the fact that the victim did not allege any pushing or physical harm. Moreover, the court found that the suddenness of the taking shocked the victim and not the presence of violence or physical force.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the fact that Edwin was initially charged with robbery, not theft. It clarified that the character of the crime is determined by the facts alleged in the Information, not by its title or the specific provision of law cited. As the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of theft, Edwin could be convicted of theft even though he was charged with robbery. The court held that even if the prosecution failed to specify the correct crime committed, the conviction of the accused for theft is still valid.

Having established that Edwin committed theft, the Supreme Court then determined the appropriate penalty. Republic Act No. 10951, which amended Article 309(4) of the Revised Penal Code, prescribes the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period for theft where the value of the property stolen is over Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000). The Court considered the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances in this case and applied Article 64(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which states that the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances.

The table below shows the periods in which the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period are contained:

Period	Penalty
Minimum	arresto mayor in its medium period (two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4) months)
Medium	arresto mayor in its maximum period (four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) months)
Maximum	prision correccional in its minimum period (six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months)

As the maximum imposable penalty did not exceed one year, the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) did not apply, and the penalty was fixed at six (6) months of arresto mayor. The court cited Romero v. People, which summarized the application and non-application of the ISL:

It is basic law that x x x the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory where imprisonment exceeds one (1) year, except only in the following cases:

x x x x

h. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one (1) year.

Where the penalty actually imposed does not exceed one (1) year, the accused cannot avail himself of the benefits of the law, the application of which is based upon the penalty actually imposed in accordance with law and not upon that which may be imposed in the discretion of the court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court modified the lower court’s decision, finding Edwin del Rosario guilty of theft and sentencing him to six (6) months of arresto mayor. This case serves as an important reminder of the specific elements that distinguish theft from robbery under Philippine law. While both crimes involve the unlawful taking of property, the presence of violence or intimidation is what elevates the offense to robbery.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the snatching of a necklace constituted robbery or theft, focusing on the presence or absence of violence or intimidation. The Supreme Court ultimately determined that the act was theft because it lacked the elements of violence or intimidation.
What is the main difference between robbery and theft?	The main difference lies in the presence of violence, intimidation, or force. Robbery involves these elements, while theft does not.
What was the court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court found Edwin del Rosario guilty of theft, not robbery. He was sentenced to six months of arresto mayor.
Why was the accused charged with robbery initially?	The initial charge was likely based on the assumption that the snatching of the necklace involved some degree of force or intimidation. However, the evidence presented during trial did not support this claim.
Can a person be convicted of theft if they were charged with robbery?	Yes, if the facts alleged in the Information are sufficient to make out a charge of theft, even if the accused was initially charged with robbery. The crime is determined by the facts, not the title of the charge.
What is the penalty for theft in this case?	The penalty for theft in this case is six (6) months of arresto mayor. This penalty was determined based on the value of the stolen necklace and the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 10951 in this case?	Republic Act No. 10951 adjusted the penalties for various crimes, including theft, based on the value of the stolen property. It amended Article 309(4) of the Revised Penal Code, which was relevant in determining the appropriate penalty in this case.
When does the Indeterminate Sentence Law apply?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies when the maximum period of imprisonment exceeds one year. Since the penalty for theft in this case was six months, the ISL did not apply.
What does “animus lucrandi” mean?	“Animus lucrandi” is a Latin term that means “intent to gain.” It refers to the intent of the offender to obtain some material gain, whether pecuniary or otherwise, as a result of the unlawful act.

This case clarifies the crucial distinction between theft and robbery, highlighting the pivotal role of violence or intimidation. Understanding this distinction is essential for both legal professionals and the public. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the specific facts and circumstances of the taking ensures that the appropriate crime is charged and the corresponding penalty is imposed.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: EDWIN DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 235739, July 22, 2019