In People v. Roberto Milliam and Ricky Milliam, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between the complex crime of robbery with homicide and the separate offenses of homicide and theft. The Court emphasized that for robbery with homicide to exist, the intent to rob must be the primary motive, with the killing occurring on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. If the intent to rob is not proven as the primary motive, the accused may be convicted of the separate crimes of homicide and theft. This ruling highlights the importance of establishing the specific intent behind the actions of the accused in determining the proper classification and penalty for crimes involving both theft and death.

When Does Taking a Weapon After a Killing Constitute Robbery with Homicide?

The case revolves around the death of Felix Demarayo, a soldier who was fatally shot by Roberto and Ricky Milliam. After the shooting, the accused took Demarayo’s M-16 rifle. The trial court convicted the Milliams of robbery with homicide, believing that the taking of the rifle was part of the crime. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, leading to a modification of the conviction. The central legal question is whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the primary intention of the accused was to rob the victim, with the homicide occurring as a result or on the occasion of the robbery.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the elements of robbery with homicide. It reiterated that four elements must be present to constitute this complex crime. First, there must be a taking of personal property. Second, the taking must involve violence or intimidation against a person. Third, the property taken must belong to another. Finally, the taking must be characterized by intent to gain, known as animus lucrandi. The Court emphasized that it must be concretely established that robbery was the principal purpose of the accused, and that the homicide was committed either by reason of or on the occasion of such robbery. This is a critical distinction, as the absence of a primary intent to rob alters the nature of the crime.

Building on this principle, the Court cited People v. Salazar, where the accused stabbed a security guard and then took his gun. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that because the prosecution failed to establish that the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of stealing the security guard’s firearm, the accused could only be convicted of the separate crimes of homicide and theft. Similarly, in the present case, the Court found a lack of evidence to prove that the primary motive of the Milliams was to steal Demarayo’s service firearm. The Court noted that while the accused were seen taking the gun from the victim, this could have been an afterthought, done to prevent the victim from retaliating, especially since he was still conscious after the initial gunshot wound.

The absence of a proven intent to rob led the Supreme Court to conclude that the prosecution had not convincingly established that the homicide was committed for the purpose or on the occasion of robbing the victim. This determination is crucial, as it shifts the legal consequences significantly. Instead of robbery with homicide, the accused were found to be properly convicted of the separate offenses of homicide and theft, both of which were duly proven by the evidence presented.

The Court also addressed the issue of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The accused-appellants argued that the affidavits executed by Rolando Santos and Lt. Wilfredo Brillantes contradicted their testimonies in open court. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument, citing the established principle that when there is an inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight. Affidavits, especially those taken ex parte, are often considered inaccurate because they are prepared by other persons who may use their own language in writing the affiant’s statements. Omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not uncommon, particularly under circumstances of haste or impatience.

To further strengthen its decision, the Court pointed to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, Santos and Torres. There was no evidence suggesting that these witnesses had any ill motive to falsely implicate the accused-appellants. In fact, Santos and Torres only learned the names of the Milliams after identifying them at the police station. The Court emphasized that where there is no evidence that the principal witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. This lack of motive bolstered the reliability of their identification of the accused as the perpetrators.

In contrast to the prosecution’s evidence, the defense presented an alibi, claiming that the accused were drinking at Josefa San Juan’s store when the incident occurred. However, the Court found this alibi to be inherently weak, particularly because the accused themselves admitted that they were only approximately forty meters away from the crime scene. This proximity failed to satisfy the requirements of a solid alibi, which necessitates proving that the accused were not at the scene of the crime and that it was physically impossible for them to have been there when the crime was committed.

Even though the alibi was supported by three defense witnesses, the trial court found their testimonies to be unreliable and biased. Unlike the prosecution witnesses, who had no apparent reason to testify against the accused, the defense witnesses were long-time neighbors who likely had a vested interest in helping the accused. The Court also questioned the credibility of Hylene Hurtada’s testimony, finding it contrary to human experience. Her claim that she waited at the corner of Quezon Street to meet her brother, knowing he wouldn’t be out of school until an hour later, seemed unnatural, especially considering her house was only thirty meters away.

The Court emphasized its deference to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that the trial court had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude. Unless there is a strong and valid reason to overturn the factual assessment by the trial court, the appellate court will generally not disturb its findings. This principle underscores the importance of the trial court’s role in evaluating the evidence and determining the veracity of the witnesses’ statements.

Moreover, the Court considered the paraffin test results, which indicated the presence of gunpowder nitrates on the hands of both accused. This evidence, coupled with the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, further supported the conclusion that the accused were Demarayo’s assailants. Additionally, the Court found Roberto Milliam’s claim that Excel Maravilla was the real killer to be an afterthought, as he had not initially identified Maravilla when first accused of the crime. His delayed revelation and flimsy excuse for not mentioning Maravilla earlier were deemed unbelievable and indicative of a fabricated defense.

The Court then addressed the proper classification of the crime. While the information specifically charged the accused with robbery with homicide, the Court reiterated that the nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the designation of the specific crime but by the facts alleged in the information. Based on the evidence, the Court concluded that the accused should be held guilty of homicide and theft, rather than robbery with homicide.

Finally, the Court determined the appropriate penalties for the separate crimes of homicide and theft. Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal, while theft, where the value of the stolen article is P10,000.00, is punishable by prision correccional medium to prision correccional maximum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed specific prison terms for each crime, taking into account the absence of any modifying circumstances. The decision underscored the importance of accurately classifying crimes and applying the appropriate penalties based on the evidence presented and the specific intent of the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the accused committed robbery with homicide or the separate crimes of homicide and theft. The Supreme Court focused on determining whether the primary intent of the accused was to rob the victim, with the homicide occurring as a result or on the occasion of the robbery.
What are the elements of robbery with homicide?	The elements are: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) intent to gain (animus lucrandi); and (d) homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. All four elements must be proven to establish the crime of robbery with homicide.
Why were the accused not convicted of robbery with homicide?	The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the primary motive of the accused was to rob the victim. The taking of the gun appeared to be an afterthought, and there was no concrete evidence to suggest that the homicide was committed for the purpose of or on the occasion of the robbery.
What is the significance of ‘animus lucrandi’ in this case?	‘Animus lucrandi’ refers to the intent to gain, which is a crucial element in robbery. The absence of a proven intent to gain through the taking of the victim’s property led the Court to conclude that the crime was not robbery with homicide.
How did the Court address the inconsistencies in witness testimonies?	The Court applied the principle that testimonies in court command greater weight than affidavits, especially when affidavits are taken ‘ex parte.’ Omissions and inaccuracies in affidavits are common due to how they are prepared.
What role did the paraffin test results play in the decision?	The paraffin test results, which showed traces of gunpowder nitrates on the hands of the accused, served as corroborative evidence. Along with the positive identification by witnesses, these results supported the conclusion that the accused were involved in the shooting.
Why was the defense of alibi rejected by the Court?	The alibi was deemed weak because the accused admitted to being only forty meters away from the crime scene, failing to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be present. Also, the defense witnesses were deemed biased.
What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and how was it applied in this case?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts to impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment. The Court applied this law to determine the penalties for homicide and theft, considering the absence of any modifying circumstances.

In conclusion, People v. Roberto Milliam and Ricky Milliam serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of establishing the specific intent behind criminal actions. The Supreme Court’s meticulous analysis underscores that without a proven primary intent to rob, a homicide occurring alongside a theft cannot be classified as robbery with homicide. This distinction has significant implications for the accused, affecting the penalties and legal classifications of their crimes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Milliam, G.R. No. 129071, January 31, 2000