PEOPLE v.
BIRUAR
Plaintiff: The People of the Philippines
Defendants: Onting Biruar, Eugene Ruslin, Abraham
Lim, Angel Dy, Ceferino Caturan, Edgardo Seneres,
Romualdo Raboy, Satrunino Galliano,
Date September 4, 1986
DOCTRINE
To determine the number of robberies committed, look
at the elements of robbery and determine is the
multiplicity will result to more than one count of robbery
(SHORT VERSION)
The accused first robbed the Mosende spouses taking
their cash and shotgon. Afterwards, the group went to
the house of Kalitas and robbed the said household and
burned their house. In their appeal, the accused allege
that there is only one count of robbery in this case since
the events are continuing in nature. The court held that
the accused committed multiple robbery. See Doctrine.
FACTS
Evening of July 2, 1966, two men arrived in the house
of the spouses Mosende and called “Good, evening
Tiyo.” thinking that they were relatives, the spouses let
them come up. The two were identified as Romualdo
Raboy, and Edgardo Seneres, robbed spouses and took
their shotgun and cash with the amount of P170.
After the two left the house, they proceeded to the
house of George Kalitas. Together with the other
accused, they opened fire at the house and the same was
set on fire. Kalitas, among other members of the
household, was hit by the bullets. The robbers entered
the house and forcibly opened a trunk containing P
40,000 hidden under the bed of the spouses. The robbers
held Mrs Kalitas by the neck and kicked the wounded
Kalitas. After taking the money, the robbers left. George
Kalitas died.
When the crime was reported to the police, a light green
Buik Electra Sedan came into suspicion when it was
seen refueling in a gasoline station and proceeded to the
direction of the house of Kalitas at the night the crime
was committed. Onting Biruar was indentified to be the
owner of the car. The accused were eventually arrested.
They were charged with Robbery in Band, Arson, and
Robbery with Homicide. All of them, except Abraham
Lim denied the charges.
Onting Biruar testified that he has no knowledge and
participation in the commission of the crime and that one
of the accused, Abraham Lim borrowed his car for the
purpose of bringing his (lim) wife to the hospital.
Abraham Lim admitted that he borrowed the car from
Onting and that he used it to bring his wife to the
Hospital, but aside from that, he used the car to go the
the house of George Kalitas to the collect the debt of the
latter to him. He allege that he was in agreement with
Kalitas regarding their Copra business, Lim will provide
the capital, Kalitas will find the suppliers of copra. He
also added that he knew Kalitas as a trustworthy old
man. When he demanded to be paid, Kalitas refused and
when the agruments between the two that is when the
situation heated up, it was alleged that Kalitas was the
one who first to bring his gun but it was grabbed by Lim
while the latter took out his own gun and pointed it at the
back of the head of Kalitas. He (lim) dragged Kalitas to
the main door where they were welcomed with shots
coming from which Lim thinks to be neighbors of
Kalitas. Kalitas was hit in the upper body and ordered
the shooting group to stop and surrender the weapon. In
addition he allege that the Statement he signed for the
information was acquired under violence and
intimidation for the police started abusing him in order
to confess.
Other accused had their own alibis but the court did not
give credit to them. However, Onting Biruar was
acquitted because the court believed his statement.
The court also did not give gredit to the claim of Lim
that his sole purpose in going to the house of Kalitas was
merely to collect debt. The court question questioned
that act of Lim bringing a large group of men if his real
purpose was only to collect debt from the old man which
in addition, was described by him to be trustworthy.
The trial court held them guilty of robbery.
ISSUES/HELD
(1) WON there was robbery held in the house of
Mosende-YES
RATIO
(1) It was contended that only one offense of robbery
was committed since the robbery in the house of
Spouses Mosende and Kalitas is one continuing offense,
committed at the same time and on one occasion, and
arising from one criminal resolution, and the burning of
the house was the means to commit the crime of
robbery.
The court held that there were two separate crimes
since they are different acts with distinct purposes
which resulted in judicially independent crimes.
There were multiplicity of acts resulting to multiplicity
of robbery. The accused entered two different houses
and robbed two different households.

The burning of the house was also held not to be a

necessary mean to commit the crime. If the intention is
to enter the premises, breaking the door is sufficient.

DECISION Judgment affirmed. The accused are guilty

of 3 counts of robbery since it was known that the group
also robbed a store afterwards.