People vs. Domondon

Consummated robbery with homicide requires proof of completed asportation as charged; where the taking remains at the attempted stage but homicide is committed by reason or on occasion thereof, liability is for attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code.

On September 7, 1987, a passenger jeepney plying the Taft Avenue-Grace Park, Monumento route picked up Ofelia Lim and her brother Jaime Lim in front of the Philippine General Hospital, with Ofelia seating herself immediately behind the driver and Jaime near the rear door. The jeepney continued through Port Area and Sta. Cruz via Avenida Rizal, picking up Grace Cua and her friends in Intramuros after a Basil Valdez concert and later Rodolfo Ungsod, a Department of Agriculture cashier. Near the corner of Avenida Rizal and Pampanga Street, two men hailed and boarded the loaded jeepney, one seating himself beside Ofelia Lim and the other standing on the running board at the back.

Before reaching Aurora Boulevard, the man beside Ofelia Lim, later identified as Diosdado Domondon, drew a bladed weapon and shouted in a loud clear voice that it was a hold-up, then proceeded to collect valuables while the man on the running board, Roberto Bulalayao, likewise with drawn bladed weapon threatened the passengers. Jaime Lim refused to surrender his valuables and grappled with Bulalayao, who stabbed him on different parts of the body, including the left side. When Jaime's grip weakened, Bulalayao extricated himself and jumped out of the jeepney, followed by Domondon, who while alighting was kicked in the seat of his pants by Ungsod, thrown through the backdoor onto the pavement. The jeepney rushed the still-living Jaime Lim to Manila Central University Hospital where he was operated on but died despite medical efforts; autopsy attributed death to severe hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds of the chest. His body was waked for 15 days and buried on October 4, 1987 in La Union.

According to Domondon, he had been driving a tricycle near Avenida Rizal and Cavite Street when two men hired him to Bulacan Street, then poked a bladed weapon at him, took his P40.00 earnings and wallet, and tried to take his wristwatch before he escaped and boarded the jeepney at Avenida Rizal. He claimed the same two men overtook and boarded the jeepney, with Bulalayao on the running board, and that his shout of hold-up was meant to attract attention from other jeepneys while he was about to surrender his watch when Jaime Lim wrestled Bulalayao. Bulalayao initially set up alibi as a tricycle driver for one Mang Boy, but after Domondon testified, Bulalayao sought recall without objection, abandoned alibi, admitted sole authorship of the hold-up and fatal stabbing, and absolved Domondon. The trial court disbelieved both defenses, credited the prosecution eyewitnesses on conspiracy and the hold-up, and convicted both of robbery with homicide.

• Failure to Prove Consummated Robbery: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide because the prosecution failed to prove the robbery component, pointing to Rodolfo Ungsod's testimony that no personal belongings were taken from the passengers or from him.
• Proper Crime as Homicide Only: Petitioner maintained that the decision should be modified so that he stands convicted only of homicide, not robbery with homicide, and that the award of P1,500.00 as pecuniary damages lacked basis.

• Consummated Robbery Not Proved: Respondent countered through the Solicitor General that the evidence indeed failed to establish consummated robbery beyond reasonable doubt, agreeing with appellant on that limited point.
• Attempted Robbery with Homicide: Respondent argued that the prosecution evidence clearly established attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, Domondon having announced the hold-up with a bladed weapon and acted in conspiracy with Bulalayao when homicide was committed on the occasion thereof.

• Consummated Robbery: Whether appellant may be convicted of consummated robbery with homicide where the information alleged taking of Rodolfo Ungsod's Seiko watch but proof of completed asportation and ownership was lacking.
• Correct Liability: Whether appellant should be convicted only of homicide, as he prayed, or of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Conspiracy and Exculpatory Admission: Whether conspiracy between appellant and Bulalayao was established notwithstanding Bulalayao's belated admission of sole authorship and exoneration of appellant.

• Consummated Robbery: No. Consummated robbery with homicide was not established, the prosecution having failed to prove completed asportation with the precision required for each element of a complex crime.
• Correct Liability: Attempted robbery with homicide. Under Article 297, homicide committed by reason or on occasion of attempted robbery punishes the guilty participant with reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua.
• Conspiracy and Exculpatory Admission: Yes. Conspiracy was proved by concerted positioning, threats with bladed weapons, and collection of valuables, and Bulalayao's unsupported afterthought admission could not exonerate appellant.

• Consummated Robbery: In a complex crime each constituent element must be charged and proved with the same precision as if separately prosecuted, and in crimes against property ownership and taking must be alleged and proved, variance being fatal. Here the information alleged taking of one Men's Seiko 5 wristwatch belonging to Rodolfo Ungsod valued at P1,500.00, yet Ungsod testified none was taken from passengers or from him, Ofelia Lim and Grace Cua gave inconclusive accounts of one watch taken from an unnamed passenger, and no watch was submitted in evidence, leaving asportation unproved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Correct Liability: The taking was commenced but not consummated by reason of cause other than spontaneous desistance, Domondon having announced the hold-up with a bladed weapon to intimidate passengers into fear, manifesting criminal design to rob by prior, contemporaneous, and subsequent acts. The robbery would have been completed were it not for Jaime Lim's resistance which led to his death, bringing the case squarely within attempted robbery with homicide where homicide supervenes on occasion of the attempt.
• Conspiracy and Exculpatory Admission: Once aboard, the two positioned themselves strategically, Domondon threatening and collecting while Bulalayao threatened from the running board, and their successive flight confirmed common design, making each liable for the homicidal act of the other on occasion of the robbery. Bulalayao's turnaround from alibi and announced rebuttal to full assumption of responsibility, unsupported by competent evidence, was deemed a mere afterthought and cover-up properly disregarded by the trial court.

• Complex crime pleading and proof — Each element of a complex offense must be charged with the same precision as if the constituent offenses were separately prosecuted; a defendant may be convicted only of the offense actually proved. Applied to reduce liability from consummated robbery with homicide to the attempt form where asportation failed.
• Ownership as essential description in crimes against property — In larceny, robbery, embezzlement and kindred offenses, the property must be that of another and the indictment must name the owner or allege unknown; variance between allegation and proof on ownership is fatal. Applied where the alleged taking of Ungsod's watch was contradicted by his own testimony and unsupported by corpus delicti.
• Attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 — When by reason or on occasion of attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the guilty person suffers reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua unless the homicide deserves a higher penalty. Applied because homicidal violence interrupted and arose from the attempted hold-up.
• Conspiracy in robbery with homicide — Concerted acts showing common design — strategic positioning, simultaneous intimidation with weapons, collection, and joint flight — render each conspirator liable for homicide committed by the other on occasion of the robbery. Applied to hold Domondon liable though Bulalayao inflicted the fatal stab.
• Criminal design inferred from conduct — Intent to rob is determined by acts prior to, contemporaneous with, and subsequent to the commission. Applied to find attempted robbery from brandishing a bladed weapon, announcing hold-up, and collecting valuables.

• "In charging the complex crime of robbery with homicide, the information should charge each element of the complex offense with the same precision as if the two (2) constituent offenses were the subject of separate prosecutions." — States the pleading standard for complex crimes and grounds the rule that only the offense proved may sustain conviction.
• "when by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua unless the homicide committed shall deserve a high penalty under the provisions of this Code." — Reproduces the governing penalty rule of Article 297 applied to fix appellant's liability.
• "The requisite criminal design to rob, determined by his acts, prior to, contemporaneous with, and subsequent to the commission of the crime was duly proven" — Defines how intent to rob was inferred from announcement of hold-up and intimidation despite non-consummation.
• "was in conspiracy with accused Bulalayao in the hold-up, and the role which Domondon played was to threaten with a bladed weapon the passengers inside the jeepney and collect the passenger's valuables." — Captures the trial court's conspiracy finding adopted to attribute Bulalayao's fatal stabbing to Domondon.

• U.S. vs. Lahoy Lahoy and Madanlog, 38 Phil. 330 (1918) — Controlling precedent for requiring allegation of ownership as essential description in property crimes and treating variance as fatal; followed to reject consummated robbery.
• People vs. Pacala, 58 SCRA 370 — Cited with People vs. Cruz as authority that a complex crime must charge each component with precision as in separate prosecutions.
• People vs. Cruz, 133 SCRA 426 — Cited for the same complex-crime pleading rule supporting conviction only for the offense proved.
• People vs. Guipan, 129 SCRA 539 (1984) — Source of the formulation on criminal design to rob inferred from prior, contemporaneous, and subsequent acts; applied to establish attempted robbery.
• People vs. Lapan, 211 SCRA 337; People vs. Espera, 175 SCRA 729; People vs. Puloc, 202 SCRA 179 (1991); People vs. Patricio, 79 Phil. 227 (1947) — Cluster cited to support non-consummation and asportation analysis where taking was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
• People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459; People vs. Samillano, 207 SCRA 50 — Cited to correct the trial court that life imprisonment is not synonymous with reclusion perpetua and is not in the Revised Penal Code scale, the penalty for robbery with homicide being reclusion perpetua to death.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Punishes robbery with homicide with reclusion perpetua to death; noted to correct the trial court's erroneous imposition of life imprisonment.
• Article 297, Revised Penal Code — Punishes attempted and frustrated robbery under certain circumstances where homicide is committed by reason or on occasion thereof with reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua; applied to sentence appellant where robbery remained attempted but homicide resulted.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to impose an indeterminate sentence with minimum within prision mayor maximum and maximum within reclusion temporal maximum in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Nocon and Puno, JJ., concur.