People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Barra

Where the element of taking, or asportation, is not established beyond reasonable doubt, the killing of the victim on the occasion of an attempted robbery constitutes attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, not robbery with homicide under Article 294.

On March 21, 2004, an information for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide was filed against Joseph Barra, alleging that on or about 11:00 p.m. of October 9, 2003, at Barangay Tinawagan, Tigaon, Camarines Sur, Barra, while armed with a firearm and after gaining entrance into the residence of Elmer Lagdaan y Azur, with intent to gain and by means of force and intimidation, took and stole money from Lagdaan; and that on the occasion of the robbery, with intent to kill, he shot Lagdaan, inflicting a gunshot wound that caused his death, to the prejudice of the victim's heirs. Barra pleaded not guilty on arraignment, and trial ensued.

Dr. Peñafrancia N. Villanueva, Municipal Health Officer of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, examined the corpse of Elmer Lagdaan and reported a gunshot wound, point of entry, 0.5 x 0.5 cms, circular, with inverted edges at the mid left frontal area, with hematoma formation at the site of entry, and listed the cause of death as massive hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound. She testified that the victim sustained a gunshot wound due to the circular and inverted edges of the point of entry, and concluded that, since there was no point of exit, the victim was shot at close range.

Ricardo de la Peña testified that he had known Barra for a long time. On his way home to the neighboring barangay at around 9:00 p.m. on October 9, 2003, in the light of a bright moon, he saw Barra enter the house of Lagdaan, which was lit with a lamp, poke a gun at the victim's right forehead, and demand money. De la Peña hid behind a tree ten meters away. When the victim stated that the money was not in his possession, Barra shot him. De la Peña went home and reported the incident the following morning.

Ely Asor testified that on the night of October 9, 2003, while on his way to the victim's house to collect his daily wage, he saw Barra in the yard of the victim's house and asked whether the victim was around; Barra replied that the victim was not around, so Asor went home. While in his house, Asor heard a gunshot, and it was only the following morning that he learned the victim had died, after which he proceeded to report the incident. Flora Lagdaan, the victim's mother, testified that she spent ₱33,300.00 for funeral and burial expenses.

For his part, Barra denied the charges and claimed that he was in Batangas City with his brother Benjamin, visiting their sister, when he was arrested and brought to Camarines Sur and charged with the crime of "robbery with murder." His brother Benjamin tried to corroborate his testimony.

The Regional Trial Court found the affirmative testimony of the prosecution's witnesses more weighty than Barra's defense of denial and alibi, found the prosecution's witnesses credible, and found that the killing of the victim was by reason of the robbery. The Court of Appeals likewise found the trial court's finding that Barra was responsible for the death of Lagdaan to be well supported by the evidence, but found that no evidence established that Barra took away the victim's money or any property.

• Identity of the Perpetrator: Appellant argued that his identity as the perpetrator of the crime was not sufficiently established by the prosecution.
• Inconsistencies in Testimony: Appellant stated that the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses were rife with inconsistencies.
• Absence of the Element of Taking: Appellant argued that the elements for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide were not proven, particularly the element of taking of personal property.

• Absence of Asportation: The Office of the Solicitor General, as observed by the Court of Appeals, maintained that the only evidence introduced by the government to establish robbery was De la Peña's statement that appellant barged into the victim's residence, poked a gun at his forehead, demanded money, and shot him when the victim refused, and that no evidence was presented to establish that appellant took away the victim's money or any property.

• Identity of the Perpetrator: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established appellant's identity as the perpetrator of the crime despite the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of its witnesses.
• Nature of the Crime: Whether appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide under Article 294 or only of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, given that no personal property was shown to have been taken.
• Damages: Whether the awards of damages made by the Court of Appeals were in order.

• Identity of the Perpetrator: Yes. The trial court's findings of fact and assessment of the probative weight of testimonial evidence are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, absent a showing that it ignored, misunderstood, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances that would change the outcome of the case.
• Nature of the Crime: Attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code. The element of taking was not complete, asportation not having been established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Damages: In order, subject to modification. Exemplary damages are increased to ₱30,000.00, and all monetary awards for damages earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Identity of the Perpetrator: Citing People vs. Bocalan and Gatdula, findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration and assessment of the probative weight of the testimonial evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing at close range the demeanor, conduct, and deportment of witnesses as they testify, unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, would change the outcome of the case. Although appellant questioned the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, he presented no sufficient evidence to prove that the RTC ignored, misunderstood, or misinterpreted the facts and circumstances of the case; a review of the records disclosed nothing indicating any misinterpretation or misapprehension of facts on the part of the appellate court that would substantially alter its conclusions.

• Nature of the Crime: Appellant was charged with robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Under People vs. Quemeggen, the prosecution must prove: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. Appellant's intention was to extort money from the victim, and by reason of the victim's refusal to give up his money, the victim was shot in the head, causing his death. The element of taking, however, was not complete, making the crime one of attempted robbery with homicide rather than robbery with homicide. Appellant is therefore liable under Article 297, not Article 294. Under People vs. Macabales, the elements of robbery with homicide as defined in Article 297 are: (1) there is an attempted or frustrated robbery; and (2) a homicide is committed. The crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim refused to give his money to appellant and no personal property was shown to have been taken; it was for this reason that the victim was shot. Since the RTC and the Court of Appeals found the crime aggravated by disregard of dwelling, the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• Damages: After a careful review of existing rules and recent jurisprudence, the awards of damages by the Court of Appeals were found to be in order and need not be disturbed. In conformity with current policy, however, interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum was imposed on all monetary awards for damages from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid, and the amount of exemplary damages was increased to ₱30,000.00.

• Attempted Robbery with Homicide (Article 297, Revised Penal Code) — When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses is punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed deserves a higher penalty under the Code. The elements are: (1) there is an attempted or frustrated robbery; and (2) a homicide is committed. The Court applied this provision because the robbery remained unconsummated — the victim refused to give his money and no personal property was shown to have been taken — yet a homicide was committed on the occasion of the attempted robbery.

• Robbery with Homicide (Article 294, Revised Penal Code) — The requisites to be proven by the prosecution are: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. The Court held these requisites were not fully satisfied because the taking was not complete.

• Asportation as an Essential Element of Consummated Robbery — The fact of asportation must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Absent proof that the offender took away the victim's money or any property, the robbery is only attempted, and the killing committed on that occasion is punished under Article 297 rather than Article 294.

• Deference to the Trial Court's Factual Findings and Credibility Assessment — Findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration and assessment of the probative weight of testimonial evidence, and its conclusions anchored on such findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the trial court's unique advantage in observing at close range the demeanor, conduct, and deportment of witnesses as they testify, unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, would change the outcome of the case.

• Aggravating Circumstance of Disregard of Dwelling — Where the crime is found aggravated by disregard of dwelling, the maximum penalty prescribed for attempted robbery with homicide, which is reclusion perpetua, is correctly imposed.

• "In the present case, the crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim refused to give his money to appellant and no personal property was shown to have been taken. It was for this reason that the victim was shot. Appellant can only be found guilty of attempted robbery with homicide, thus punishable under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the failure to establish asportation reduces the crime from robbery with homicide to attempted robbery with homicide.

• "The elements of Robbery with Homicide as defined in Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) There is an attempted or frustrated robbery. (2) A homicide is committed." — This is the canonical formulation of the elements of the offense under Article 297, quoted from People vs. Macabales and adopted in the Decision.

• "Findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration and assessment of the probative weight of the testimonial evidence of the parties and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing at close range the demeanor, conduct and deportment of the said witnesses as they testify, unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood and misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which if considered will change the outcome of the case." — This states the standard of appellate deference to the trial court's factual and credibility findings, the basis for rejecting appellant's challenge to the witnesses' credibility.

• "In the case before us, appellant's intention was to extort money from the victim. By reason of the victim's refusal to give up his personal property - his money - to appellant, the victim was shot in the head, causing his death." — This establishes the appellant's intent to gain and the causal link between the attempted robbery and the homicide, supporting conviction under Article 297.

• People vs. Bocalan and Gatdula, 457 Phil. 472, 481 (2003) — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that the trial court's findings of fact and assessment of witness credibility are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the appellate court.
• People vs. Quemeggen, G.R. No. 178205, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 94, 103 — Cited for the requisites of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Macabales, 400 Phil. 1221, 1235-1236 (2000) — Cited for the elements of robbery with homicide as defined in Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Esoy, G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 552, 566 — Cited in connection with the review of the awards of damages.
• People vs. Deligero, G.R. No. 189280, April 17, 2013 — Cited for the imposition of interest at the legal rate on monetary awards for damages.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposed when, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide is committed. The Court held this provision inapplicable because the element of taking was not complete.
• Article 297, Revised Penal Code — Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances; when by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the offender is punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide deserves a higher penalty. The Court held appellant liable under this provision.
• Article 291(1), Revised Penal Code — Cited in the RTC's decretal portion as the provision under which appellant was convicted of robbery with homicide; the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court instead applied Article 297.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice, Chairperson); Lucas P. Bersmain; Martin S. Villarama, Jr.; Bienvenido L. Reyes.