People v. Dio

Where a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of an attempted robbery that was not consummated, the offender is liable for attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, not for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, the latter requiring that the robbery be actually consummated.

Hernando Dio and Danilo Tobias were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide arising from the fatal stabbing of Crispulo Alega on July 24, 1971, in Pasay City, during an attempt to take his Seiko wristwatch. Tobias remained at large throughout the proceedings. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review because the trial court imposed the death penalty, which at the time mandated automatic appellate review.

At about noontime on July 24, 1971, Crispulo Alega, a civil engineer employed at the Sugar Construction Company with a monthly salary of more than ₱500.00, went to Southeastern College in Pasay City to fetch his girlfriend, Remedios Maniti, a third-year high school student. They proceeded to the Pasay City Public Market. As they were going up the stairs leading to the Teresa and Sons Restaurant, Remedios, walking about an arm's length ahead of Crispulo, suddenly heard the dropping of her folders and other things being carried by him. When she looked back, she saw a man — later identified as Danilo Tobias, who remained at large — twisting the neck of Crispulo, while Hernando Dio held Crispulo's two hands. Dio and Tobias attempted to divest Crispulo of his Seiko wristwatch, but Crispulo resisted and fought them. At that juncture, the man twisting Crispulo's neck stabbed him on the left side of his chest. Crispulo ran down the stairs, followed by Remedios who shouted for help. When he reached the front of the Pasay Commercial Bank, he fell down and expired. At the time of his death, the Seiko watch was still strapped to his wrist.

An autopsy conducted by Dr. Ricardo Ibarola, medico-legal officer of the NBI, revealed that the cause of death was a stab wound below the left breast that penetrated the heart, inflicted by a single-bladed pointed instrument. The necropsy report documented abrasions on the right zygomatic region, infralabial region, right forearm, left forearm, right knee, and right leg; two superficial incise wounds on the left supero-lateral aspect of the neck; and a stab wound at the left inframammary region penetrating the pericardium and the left ventricle of the heart to an approximate depth of 11.0 cm.

After Dio's arrest on October 24, 1972, he was investigated at the Detective Bureau of the Pasay City Police Department and gave a sworn statement in the presence of Pat. Arturo Rimorin, admitting that on the date and time of the incident, he and his co-accused Danilo Tobias held up a man and a woman; that they did not get the watch of the man; that he held the victim's hands but the latter was able to free himself; that Tobias stabbed the man; and that when the victim ran, they also ran away. At trial, Dio belatedly claimed his confession was extracted through intimidation and physical abuse, but the defense counsel himself conceded that the prosecution's factual version — corroborated by the eyewitness testimony of Remedios Maniti, the extrajudicial confession, and the testimony of investigating officers — must be sustained over the accused's uncorroborated denial.

• Improper Conviction for Robbery with Homicide: Appellant argued that he should not have been convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code because the robbery was not consummated, there being only an attempted robbery since the watch was never taken from the victim.
• Impropriety of the Death Penalty: Appellant maintained that even assuming the crime committed was robbery with homicide, the trial court erred in sentencing him to death because the information did not allege any aggravating circumstance, nor was any proved during trial.

• Agreement on Attempted Robbery: The Solicitor General, representing the People, agreed with the defense that the evidence showed the appellant and his companion were unsuccessful in divesting the victim of his wristwatch, and that the killing was merely incidental to and an offshoot of the plan to carry out the robbery, which was not consummated due to the victim's resistance; the case therefore properly falls under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Agreement on Absence of Aggravating Circumstances: The Solicitor General likewise agreed that the prosecution presented no evidence of any aggravating circumstance and that the trial court made no finding in this respect.

• Proper Classification of the Crime: Whether the accused was properly convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, or whether the crime should be classified as attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297.
• Propriety of the Death Penalty: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed absent any aggravating circumstance alleged in the information or proved during trial.

• Proper Classification of the Crime: No. The conviction for robbery with homicide under Article 294 was incorrect; the proper offense is attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297, because the robbery was not consummated — the watch remained strapped to the victim's wrist at the time of his death.
• Propriety of the Death Penalty: No. The death penalty was improperly imposed. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present, the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua was to be applied in its medium period, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied.

• Proper Classification of the Crime: The special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 requires that the robbery be consummated. The evidence established that the appellant and his companion attempted to divest the victim of his Seiko wristwatch but were unsuccessful. When the victim expired, the watch was still securely strapped to his wrist. The killing was incidental to and an offshoot of the plan to carry out the robbery, which was not consummated because of the resistance offered by the deceased. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code expressly covers the situation where, by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery, a homicide is committed, prescribing the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Both the defense and the Solicitor General agreed on this characterization.

• Propriety of the Death Penalty: The information did not allege any aggravating circumstance, and the prosecution presented no evidence of one. The trial court likewise made no finding of any aggravating circumstance. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the prescribed penalty under Article 297 — reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua — was to be applied in its medium period, i.e., 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years. The Indeterminate Sentence Law was also required to be applied, resulting in an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• Distinction between robbery with homicide (Art. 294) and attempted/frustrated robbery with homicide (Art. 297) — The special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 requires that the robbery be actually consummated. Where the taking of personal property is not accomplished and a homicide results by reason or on the occasion of the attempted or frustrated robbery, the offense falls under Article 297, which prescribes a lesser penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The Court applied this distinction by finding that the victim's watch was never taken — it remained strapped to his wrist at death — thus downgrading the conviction from robbery with homicide to attempted robbery with homicide.

• Application of penalty absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances — Where neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the prescribed penalty is applied in its medium period. The Court applied this principle to the penalty under Article 297, fixing the medium period at 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years, and further applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to set the minimum and maximum of the indeterminate sentence.

• "The evidence adduced show that the appellant and his companion were unsuccessful in their criminal venture of divesting the victim of his wrist watch so as to constitute the consummated crime of robbery. When the victim expired, the 'Seiko' watch was still securely strapped to his wrist." — This passage articulates the factual basis for distinguishing attempted robbery with homicide from consummated robbery with homicide, the critical turning point of the decision.

• "The killing of Crispulo Alega may be considered as merely incidental to and an offshoot of the plan to carry out the robbery, which however was not consummated because of the resistance offered by the deceased. Consequently, this case would properly come under the provision of Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code." — This states the ratio decidendi for reclassifying the crime under Article 297 rather than Article 294.

• People vs. Pereto, 21 SCRA 1469 — Cited by defense counsel for the proposition that testimony of neutral and disinterested government employees who testified as to what transpired in the performance of their duties should be given more weight than that of the accused.
• People vs. Del Castillo, 25 SCRA 716 — Cited alongside People vs. Pereto for the same proposition regarding the credibility of disinterested prosecution witnesses.
• People vs. Castro, 11 SCRA 699 — Cited for the proposition that where an alleged confession reveals spontaneity of declarations belying the claim that they were concocted or dictated by police, the court will reject the claim that the confession was involuntary.

• Article 294, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The trial court convicted the accused under this provision, imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled this provision inapplicable because the robbery was not consummated.
• Article 297, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when, by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery, a homicide is committed, the offender shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide deserves a higher penalty. The Supreme Court applied this provision, finding that the killing occurred on the occasion of an attempted, not consummated, robbery.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate penalty, resulting in 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, and Cuevas, JJ., concurred.