Opic in Yllabus Ummary: Dodot
Opic in Yllabus Ummary: Dodot
Opic in Yllabus Ummary: Dodot
189850
22 September 2014 DEL CASTILLO, J.:
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Art. 294 Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
SUMMARY: Espino was in his car when one of the Torres brothers went to the middle of the road to block his path.
Espino alighted from his car a struggle ensued for the possession of the belt bag of Espino. The remaining Torres
brothers (including the Bobby) approached together with an unidentified companion all of whom had bladed
weapons. While the unidentified companion held the neck of Espino, the Torres brothers hacked and stabbed Espino.
Espino fell to the ground and the assailants then took his belt bag, wallet, and jewelry and then fled. An information
for Robbery with Homicide was filed against Bobby, the lone assailant who was arrested. The RTC however convicted
him for Murder, holding that it had not been indubitably shown that the main purpose of the assailants was to rob
Espino. The CA modified the conviction to Robbery with Homicide. The SC affirmed the CAs decision. Like the CA,
the SC appreciated the fact that the cars path was blocked and immediately thereafter a struggle for the possession of
the belt bag had ensued, and the fact that as soon as Espino fell to the ground that the assailants took possession of the
belt bag, wallet, and jewelry and then immediately fled to conclude that the primary intention of the assailants was to
rob Espino, the killing only being incidental to the robbery.
DOCTRINE: Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the
robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1)
the taking of personal property belonging to another (2) with intent to gain (3) with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in
its generic sense, was committed.
A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is
merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur
before, during or after the robbery.
FACTS:
INFORMATION: Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide (against the Torres siblings; only Bobby
was arrested, Reynaldo, Jay, and Ronnie remained at large).
Version of the Prosecution (Eyewitnesses: Umali, a butcher; Macapar, a cigarette vendor)
o 10p, 21 Sep 2001: Jaime Espino (ESPINO), 61 yo at the time, was driving along CM Recto Ave., Mla.,
when Ronnie blocked his path.
Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie Ronnie tried to grab his belt bag.
[NOTE: the testimony of Macapar and Umali contradicted one another on whether
there had been an exchange of heated words according to Macapar (10m away) there
had been such an exchange, but according to Umali (5m away) there had not.]
Espino struggled for the possession of the belt bag but Jay, Reynaldo, and Bobby, and an
unidentified companion, suddenly appeared.
All of the Torres siblings and their unidentified companion were brandishing bladed
weapons.
While the unidentified companion held Espino by the neck, Bobby and his siblings took turns
in stabbing Espino in different parts of his body.
When Espino was sprawled on the ground, they took his belt bag, wallet, jewelries and then
immediately fled.
[NOTE: on cross-examination of Macapar, he admitted that he did not see who took
the items because once Espino fell to the ground, the assailants surrounded Espino.]
Although Espino was rushed to the hospital, he was pronounced dead on arrival.
ISSUES:
1. Did the conviction for robbery, notwithstanding the acquittal for robbery at the level of the RTC, constitute
double jeopardy?
2. ***Is Bobby guilty of Murder or of Robbery with Homicide?***
HELD:
1. NO. In an appeal by the accused, he waives his right NOT to be subject to double jeopardy. Upon appeal, it became
the duty of the CA to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment including issues NOT raised by the
DODOT Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
appellant. (Note that the contention of Bobby was that he had only intended to appeal the conviction for murder,
and not the acquittal for robbery.)
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of is AFFIRMED with further MODIFICATIONS. Appellant
Bobby Torres @ Roberto Torres y Nava is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Jaime M. Espino, P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The interest rate of 6% per annum
is imposed on all damages awarded from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.