In People v. 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 as a result or on the occasion of the robbery. If the intent to rob is not proven, the accused can only be convicted of the separate crimes of Homicide and Theft.

Was the Taking a Primary Motive or a Mere Afterthought?

Roberto and Ricky Milliam were initially convicted of Robbery with Homicide for the death of Felix Demarayo, a soldier, and the taking of his M-16 rifle. The prosecution argued that the Milliams conspired to shoot Demarayo and steal his firearm. Rolando Santos, a tricycle driver, testified that he witnessed the shooting and later transported the assailants. Napoleon Torres, another witness, corroborated the account, stating he saw Roberto Milliam shoot the victim and take the rifle.

However, the defense presented an alibi, claiming the accused were elsewhere when the incident occurred. The trial court found the prosecution’s witnesses credible and convicted the Milliams of Robbery with Homicide. The accused-appellants appealed, alleging inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, acknowledged the inconsistencies between the affidavits and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but gave greater weight to the testimonies presented in court. The Court cited the case of People v. Castro, G.R. No. 119068, 12 July 1997, 276 SCRA 1997, emphasizing that affidavits are often inaccurate due to being prepared ex parte.

We have repeatedly held that when there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight. For, oftentimes, affidavits taken ex parte are considered inaccurate as they are prepared by other persons who use their own language in writing the affiant’s statements.

The Court also noted the absence of ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, strengthening their credibility, in line with People v. Leoterio, G.R. Nos. 111940-06, 21 November 1996, 264 SCRA 608. The defense of alibi was deemed weak, as the accused admitted to being near the crime scene. Furthermore, paraffin tests indicated the presence of gunpowder nitrates on their hands, supporting their involvement in the shooting.

Despite affirming the factual findings of the trial court, the Supreme Court disagreed with the characterization of the crime as Robbery with Homicide. The Court emphasized the elements necessary to constitute Robbery with Homicide, citing People v. Nang, G.R. No. 107799, 15 April 1998, 289 SCRA 16:

(a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and, (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof the crime of homicide was committed.

The crucial element in determining whether the crime is Robbery with Homicide is the intent to gain (animus lucrandi) in relation to the homicide. The Court referred to People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 99355, 11 August 1997, 277 SCRA 67, where the accused stabbed a security guard and took his gun. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that because the prosecution failed to prove the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the accused were convicted of separate crimes of Homicide and Theft. Similarly, in the case of Milliam, the Court found no concrete evidence that the primary motive was to steal Demarayo’s firearm. The taking of the gun appeared to be an afterthought, possibly to prevent retaliation.

Building on this principle, the Court stated that because the prosecution did not convincingly establish that the homicide was committed for the purpose or on the occasion of robbing the victim, accused-appellants should properly be convicted of the separate offenses of Homicide and Theft, which were both duly proved.

The Supreme Court then modified the lower court’s decision. The Milliams were found guilty of Homicide under Article 249 and Theft under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing separate penalties for each crime. For Homicide, they were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six years, four months, and twenty days of prision mayor as minimum to sixteen years, two months, and ten days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and were ordered to pay the heirs of Felix Demarayo ₱50,000.00 as indemnity for his death and ₱20,920.00 for burial and wake expenses. For Theft, they received an indeterminate prison term of one year, four months, and twenty days of the medium period of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum as minimum, to four years, two months, and ten days of the medium period of prision correccional medium and maximum as maximum, and were ordered to pay ₱10,000.00 to the Government representing the value of the M-16 rifle.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the crime committed was Robbery with Homicide or the separate offenses of Homicide and Theft, based on the intent behind the taking of the victim’s firearm. The court needed to determine if the robbery was the primary motive or merely an afterthought.
What is the significance of establishing intent in Robbery with Homicide cases?	Establishing intent to rob (animus lucrandi) is crucial. If the prosecution cannot prove that the primary motive was robbery, the accused cannot be convicted of Robbery with Homicide, even if a death occurred and property was taken.
What is the difference between an affidavit and a court testimony?	The Supreme Court gives more weight to court testimony because affidavits are often prepared ex parte and may not accurately reflect the witness’s complete account. Testimonies are subject to cross-examination, providing a more reliable basis for judgment.
What elements are necessary to prove Robbery with Homicide?	The prosecution must prove the taking of personal property, the property belongs to another, there was intent to gain, and the homicide occurred as a result or on the occasion of the robbery. All these elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Why was the defense of alibi deemed weak in this case?	The alibi was weak because the accused admitted to being near the crime scene when the incident happened. To be credible, an alibi must demonstrate that the accused was so far away that it was physically impossible for them to commit the crime.
What role did the paraffin test results play in the decision?	The positive paraffin test results indicated that the accused had recently fired a gun, corroborating the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and weakening the defense’s claim of innocence. This evidence supported the conclusion that the accused were involved in the shooting.
What are the penalties for Homicide and Theft under the Revised Penal Code?	Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal, while Theft, depending on the value of the stolen item, is punishable by prision correccional. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied to determine the specific prison terms.
How did the Supreme Court apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law in this case?	The Court imposed minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment, taking into account the penalties for Homicide and Theft. The minimum term was taken from the penalty next lower in degree, while the maximum term was taken from the medium period of the imposable penalty.

The People v. Milliam case serves as a reminder of the importance of establishing the specific intent behind a crime. The ruling clarifies that for Robbery with Homicide to exist, the intent to rob must be the primary motive, and the killing must occur as a result or on the occasion of the robbery.

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