People vs. Domasig

A conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that a robbery actually took place — that there was a taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence or intimidation — and that the homicide was committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Where the prosecution fails to establish the element of taking, the killing is classified as simple homicide or murder, depending on the presence of qualifying circumstances, and not as robbery with homicide.

The accused-appellant was charged by Information dated 5 October 2004 with robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 63, paragraph 1 thereof. The charge arose from the killing of AAA, a 14-year-old street child, on the night of 5 September 2004 in Sorsogon City. The victim, who earned money by buying and selling plastic bottles and scrap materials, allegedly kept his earnings in a plastic container inside the cart that served as his makeshift bed.

On 5 September 2004, Gerald Gloriana was outside the City Mart along Magsaysay Street with his friend, 14-year-old victim AAA. They had just finished buying and selling plastic bottles and scrap materials. The victim put his earnings for the day, amounting to P300.00, inside a plastic container which he placed inside the cart that served as his makeshift bed, as he often slept on the streets. At around 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Gloriana went down a nearby bridge to defecate, leaving behind the victim who was sleeping inside the cart. As Gloriana was climbing up from under the bridge, he saw accused-appellant standing over the sleeping victim. Accused-appellant then stabbed the victim several times before running away. Gloriana, shocked and terrified, went back under the bridge where he spent the night in hiding. When the victim's body was discovered the following morning, police officers recovered the plastic container inside the cart, but the money was missing.

Gloriana testified that he was approximately six to eight meters away from the incident, but he recognized accused-appellant because the area was well-lit and because of a conspicuous tattoo on accused-appellant's right arm. He added that he and the victim used to be friends with accused-appellant. Dr. Inocencio Lee, who conducted the post-mortem examination, affirmed that the victim suffered three stab wounds on the shoulder and one on the chest which pierced the left lateral surface of the heart, causing instantaneous death. Dr. Lee further stated that the victim died in a prone position without any defensive wounds.

Accused-appellant denied robbing and killing the victim. He claimed that on 5 September 2004, he was at Barangay Bato, Nabua, Albay, working as a caller in a bingo game at an amusement park where he had been employed since 2003. The manager prohibited workers from leaving the grounds during work hours. He further denied knowing the victim and Gloriana.

On appeal, accused-appellant argued that Gloriana made contradictory statements regarding the name of the perpetrator — identifying him as "Mando" in one instance while his sworn statement gave the full name; that Gloriana's attention was not focused on the stabbing incident because he was answering the call of nature; that Gloriana was six to eight meters away; and that Gloriana failed to describe the clothing or any other striking feature of accused-appellant for identification purposes.

• Contradictory Identification: Accused-appellant argued that Gloriana made contradictory statements regarding the name of the perpetrator, identifying him as "Mando" on one hand while his sworn statement revealed the full name of the accused-appellant.
• Lack of Focus: Accused-appellant argued that Gloriana's attention was not focused on the stabbing incident because he was answering the call of nature at that time.
• Distance and Identification: Accused-appellant argued that Gloriana was around six to eight meters away from the incident and failed to describe the clothing or any other striking feature of accused-appellant for purposes of identification.

N/A — The decision does not separately recount the prosecution's appellate arguments beyond its position that the eyewitness testimony established guilt.

• Proof of Robbery with Homicide: Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for robbery with homicide has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Proof of Robbery with Homicide: No. The prosecution failed to establish the element of taking — the eyewitness did not see accused-appellant take the P300.00, and the victim's possession of the money was based solely on the witness's presumption. The conviction was downgraded to homicide.

• Proof of Robbery with Homicide: The Court applied the elements of robbery with homicide: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi or intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide was committed. The Court examined Gloriana's testimony and found that he merely saw accused-appellant stab the victim; he did not see accused-appellant taking the P300.00. The claim that the victim had P300.00 was based solely on Gloriana's declaration that the victim kept his earnings in a plastic container. Even assuming the victim had the money, it was not impossible that someone other than accused-appellant took it. Gloriana merely presumed the victim was killed because of the P300.00; he had no personal knowledge that the victim was robbed. The element of taking, as well as the existence of the money, was not adequately established. The Court further held that the prosecution must establish with certitude that the killing was a mere incident to the robbery, the latter being the perpetrator's main purpose — a mere presumption is not sufficient. There was no showing of accused-appellant's intention, determined by his acts prior to, contemporaneous with, and subsequent to the commission of the crime, to commit robbery. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing is classified as simple homicide or murder, not robbery with homicide. However, Gloriana's positive identification of accused-appellant as the stabber, corroborated by Dr. Lee's findings, established homicide. The Court noted that accused-appellant's alibi could have been easily proven by his manager and co-employees but he failed to present any proof. The Court also applied the rule that the nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts alleged in the information, not the designation; since the information failed to allege any circumstance qualifying the killing to murder, accused-appellant was liable only for homicide. The penalty was set at an indeterminate period of six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with civil indemnity and moral damages of P50,000.00 each, plus interest at 6% per annum from finality.

• Elements of Robbery with Homicide — The onus probandi requires establishing: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi or intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, used in the generic sense, was committed. The Court applied these elements and found the taking element unproven.
• Robbery as the Main Purpose — A conviction for robbery with homicide requires that robbery is the main purpose 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. The prosecution must establish with certitude that the robbery was the perpetrator's main purpose; a mere presumption is insufficient.
• Determination of the Crime Charged — The nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the given designation of the specific crime but by the facts alleged in the information. Where the information fails to allege circumstances qualifying the killing to murder, the accused may only be held liable for homicide.
• Positive Identification vs. Denial and Alibi — Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness, prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.

• "From the above testimony, it can be inferred that Gloriana merely saw accused-appellant stab the victim. He did not see accused-appellant taking the P300 00 which the victim allegedly had." — This passage identifies the fatal gap in the prosecution's evidence: the eyewitness did not witness the taking, which is the essential element of robbery.
• "Thus, it appears that Gloriana had no personal knowledge that the victim was robbed. The element of taking, as well as the existence of the money alleged to have been lost and stolen by accused-appellant, was not adequately established." — This states the core ratio decidendi: the prosecution's failure to prove the taking element defeats the robbery charge.
• "Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing of the victim would be classified either as a simple homicide or murder, depending upon the absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance, and not the crime of robbery with homicide." — This articulates the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to prove robbery, directing the downgrade to homicide.
• "The established rule, however, is that the nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the given designation of the specific crime but by the facts alleged in the information." — This states the rule applied to determine the proper crime, given that the information failed to allege qualifying circumstances for murder.

• People vs. Beriber, 693 Phil. 629 (2012) — Cited as authority for the elements of robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Palma, 754 Phil. 371 (2015) — Cited for the proposition that the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, though the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery.
• People vs. Orias, 636 Phil. 427 (2010) — Cited for the requirement that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element, and for the rule that failure to prove robbery results in homicide or murder classification.
• People vs. Abundo, 402 Phil. 616 (2001) — Cited for the requirement that a robbery must have actually taken place and a homicide committed on the occasion thereof.
• People vs. Obedo, 451 Phil. 529 (2003) — Cited for the definition of robbery: taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence or intimidation.
• People vs. Algarme, 598 Phil. 423 (2009) — Cited for the rule that mere presumption of intent to rob is insufficient; certitude is required.
• People vs. Canlas, 423 Phil. 665 (2001) — Cited for the requirement that the prosecution firmly establish the offender's intent to take personal property before the killing.
• People vs. Caisip, 352 Phil. 1058 — Cited for the rule that positive identification prevails over denial and alibi.
• Espino vs. People, 713 Phil. 377 (2013) — Cited for the rule that the nature of the crime is determined by the facts alleged in the information, not the designation.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for the prevailing jurisprudence on civil indemnity and moral damages.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining and penalizing robbery with homicide; the Court found this provision inapplicable because the robbery element was not proven.
• Article 63, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Cited in the RTC decision in relation to the penalty for robbery with homicide; rendered inapplicable upon the downgrade to homicide.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the provided text.