FRANSDILLA V.
PEOPLE  penalty for the complex crime under Article 48
FACTS:
1. Fransandilla seeks to reverse the decision where
the CA afirmed the conviction and of her co-
accused for the crime of robbery on the basis of
conspiracy.
2. Feb. 20, 1991, appellant Aurora and other 4 co-
accused went in front of the gate of the domicile
of Lalaine, upon noticing, Aurora then asked
about Cynthia, the sister of Lalaine.
3. The appellant further claimed that she was from
POEA which urged Lalaine to allow the accused
to went inside their house.
4. After series of distraction made by the accused to
Lalaine, acused Cacal pulled up a gun and
wrapped it around the neck of Lalaine saying it
was an hold-up.
5. Cuanang and 2 other men went to the kitchen and
herded the maids, complainants cousins and
neice inside the bodega.
6. The accused were able to get the vault that was
found in Cynthia’s room and some jewelries and
other valuable things found in Lalaine’s room.
7. Appellants and their co- accused then left the
house onboard two (2) cars that were waiting
for them just outside the house, and one of
which, a black Colt Mirage, was driven by accused
Manuel Silao, together with appellant Edgardo
Silao who was seated at the front passenger seat.
8. RTC convicted Fransandilla and other co-accused
of the crime of robbery under Article 299 where
the CA also affirmed its conviction.
ISSUE:
WON all the accused including Fransdilla were guilty of
committing the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited
house under Article 299 and robbery with intimidation or
violence under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:
1. Citing Napolis v. CA
 guilty of committing the complex crime of
robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299
 robbery with intimidation or violence under
Article 294
more serious offense (maximum period)
 This case also abandons US v. De los Santos:
penalty imposed for Art. 299 and 294 should be
the latter one which is lighter because violence
or intimidation against persons was the
“controlling qualification” on the theory that the
robbery against persons was graver than ordinary
robbery committed against things.
4. Napolis as the controlling cases: 2 instances
CONSPIRACY
 the above named accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping one
another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously with intent to gain, and by means
of violence and intimidation upon person rob the
residence
 the Prosecution competently proved the
commission of the complex crime by showing
during the trial that the accused, after entering the
residential house and in the process committed an
act of violence or intimadation of persons
during the robbery by slapping and threatening
Lalaine and tying her up and herding other
members in the household.
5. Art. 48 complex crime is that for the more serious
felony, which, in this case, was the robbery in an
inhabited house by armed men punishable by reclusion
temporal, to be imposed in the maximum period of
reclusion temporal. (17 years, four months and one day)
Art. 294 Par. 5
 prison correcional (max) to prison mayor (med)
Art. 299 (a) (4)
 by usisng any fictitious name or pretending the
exercise of public authority
(B) (2)
 By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or
forced open outside the place of the robbery.
Relevant are paragraph (a) 4 because Fransdilla pretend
ed to be from the POEA;
paragraph (b) 2 because the accused brought the vault
down from Cynthia's upstairs bedroom and forced it op
en outside the place where the robbery was committed
supra.
The penalty for the crime is reclusion temporal.
NAPOLIS V. CA
FACTS:
 Napolis and Satimbre are guilty beyond reason
able doubt of the crime of robbery in band;
 robbers went inside the store by breaking the
walls and doors in order to gain entry. Once t
hey were inside the store, they didn’t take anyt
hing
 they proceeded to the bedroom of the spouses
which is adjacent to the store and pointed guns
at the victims the reason in which they gave t
heir valuables.
 Ignacio got hit after he received a stunning blo
w and was hogtied.
HELD:
1. there was only 1 robbery because there was on
ly 1 taking. The most serious crime to be imp
osed (vioence and intimidation against person)
bears a lesser penalty compared to force upon
things. Thus making no sense that the crime
was not committed in 2 ways.
2. Law to be applied is ART. 294 and NOT 29
9
This is on the theory that ‘robbery which is characteriz
ed by violence or intimidation against the person is evi
dently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force
upon things, because where violence or intimidation ag
ainst the person is present there is greater disturbance o
f the order of society and the security of the individual.
’
3. Therefore, the crime is a COMPLEX CRIME
- ROBBERY WITH ROBBERY (ART. 48)
as the SC made it complex to impose greater
penalty which made this case as an EXCEPTI
ON.
 penalty for more serious offense in its maxim
um period.
 19 years, 1 month and 11 days to 20 years
of RECLUSION TEMPORAL - owing to the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime.