Treachery in Robbery with Homicide: When Does it Aggravate the Crime?

In Philippine law, robbery with homicide is a grave offense, carrying severe penalties. This case clarifies how treachery, often associated with murder, functions as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, even if the primary intent was robbery, not murder. It underscores that while treachery doesn’t elevate robbery with homicide to murder, it significantly impacts the punishment. Understanding this distinction is crucial for both legal professionals and individuals facing such charges.

G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a seemingly minor crime escalating into a tragedy. A group of employees, fueled by alcohol and anger over unpaid wages, decide to rob their workplace caretaker. This decision, tragically, leads to the caretaker’s death. The ensuing case, People of the Philippines vs. Roger Cando, et al., delves into the complexities of robbery with homicide, particularly how aggravating circumstances like treachery and mitigating circumstances like intoxication are weighed in the eyes of Philippine law. This case serves as a stark reminder that even crimes initially intended as property offenses can carry the gravest consequences when they result in loss of life, especially when committed with elements of deceit and vulnerability.

This Supreme Court decision tackled the conviction of Roger Cando, Arnel Vargas, and Wilberto Rapcing for robbery with homicide. The central legal question was whether the trial court correctly appreciated treachery and evident premeditation as aggravating circumstances, potentially warranting the death penalty, and if the mitigating circumstance of intoxication should be considered.

LEGAL CONTEXT: ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

In the Philippines, robbery with homicide is defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. It’s a special complex crime, meaning it’s a single, indivisible offense resulting from the combination of robbery and homicide. Crucially, the law doesn’t require the intent to kill to be present at the start; the homicide simply needs to occur “on occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery.

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code states:

“Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusión perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.”

Aggravating circumstances, as defined in the Revised Penal Code, are factors that increase the criminal liability of the offender. Treachery (alevosia), defined in Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, is one such circumstance:

“There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.”

Previous Supreme Court jurisprudence has consistently held that treachery can be considered a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, even though robbery is primarily a crime against property. This is because the homicide, though linked to the robbery, is still a crime against a person, and treachery relates to the manner of committing that personal harm. However, as Justice Vitug points out in his separate opinion, there’s a valid argument to reconsider this long-standing doctrine, suggesting treachery should be confined to crimes against persons, not property-related offenses like robbery with homicide.

Mitigating circumstances, on the other hand, lessen the penalty. Intoxication, as outlined in Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, can be a mitigating circumstance if it’s not habitual or intentional to commit the crime, and if it impairs the offender’s reason and control.

CASE BREAKDOWN: PEOPLE VS. CANDO, VARGAS, AND RAPCING

The story unfolds at the Rosarian Candle Factory in Manila. Roger Cando, Arnel Vargas, and Wilberto Rapcing, employees of the factory, engaged in a drinking session. Angered by his inability to get his salary and a loan from the caretaker, Luis Remoriata, Cando, along with Vargas and Rapcing, decided to rob Remoriata.

Here’s a chronological breakdown of the events:

1. Planning and Entry: After drinking, the trio, armed with knives and a lead pipe, scaled the factory fence and entered the building through a window.
2. Attack and Robbery: They proceeded to Remoriata’s room, where Cando struck the sleeping caretaker multiple times with a lead pipe after demanding money. They stole a radio cassette and later took the factory van.
3. Discovery and Investigation: Mrs. Chu, the factory owner, discovered Remoriata’s body and the missing van the next morning. Police investigation ensued.
4. Apprehension and Confessions: Vargas confessed to the NBI and implicated Cando and Rapcing. Rapcing also confessed. All three were assisted by a lawyer during custodial investigation. Fingerprint evidence linked Vargas to the van and Cando to the stolen stereo cassette.
5. Trial Court Decision: The Regional Trial Court convicted all three of robbery with homicide, appreciating both treachery and evident premeditation as aggravating circumstances, and sentenced them to death.
6. Supreme Court Appeal: The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, questioning the presence of aggravating circumstances and seeking a reduction in penalty.

In its decision, the Supreme Court focused on the aggravating circumstances. Regarding treachery, the Court stated:

“The killing of the sleeping victim herein was attended by treachery since he was in no position to flee or defend himself.”

However, the Court clarified that in robbery with homicide, treachery acts as a generic aggravating circumstance, not qualifying the crime to murder. The Court disagreed with the trial court on evident premeditation, finding no clear evidence of a plan to kill Remoriata beyond the intent to rob and harm him. On mitigating circumstances, the Court acknowledged the appellants’ intoxication, noting it was not habitual or calculated to commit the crime.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. While affirming the conviction for robbery with homicide, the Court removed evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance but maintained treachery as generic aggravating circumstance. Considering the mitigating circumstance of intoxication offsetting the treachery, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No. 95-142748 is hereby MODIFIED as follows: appellants ROGER CANDO Y PAGDANGANAN, ARNEL VARGAS Y MAGTANGOB, and WILBERTO RAPCING Y BROÑOLA are hereby found guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua…”

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT THIS CASE MEANS FOR YOU

This case highlights several critical points in Philippine criminal law, particularly concerning robbery with homicide and the role of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Firstly, it reinforces that robbery with homicide is a distinct crime with severe penalties, even if the initial intent was only to steal. The “on occasion of” or “by reason of” clause in Article 294 casts a wide net, encompassing killings that are directly linked to the robbery, regardless of premeditation to kill.

Secondly, it clarifies the application of treachery in robbery with homicide. While treachery is often associated with murder, this case confirms it can aggravate robbery with homicide, increasing the severity of the punishment, even if it doesn’t change the nature of the crime itself. This means that if a robbery results in death and is carried out in a treacherous manner, the perpetrators will face a harsher sentence.

Thirdly, the case underscores the importance of mitigating circumstances like intoxication. While intoxication is not a complete defense, it can lessen the penalty if it impairs the offender’s judgment and isn’t a deliberate tactic to commit the crime. This highlights the court’s consideration of the offender’s state of mind and capacity at the time of the crime.

Key Lessons:

• Grave Consequences: Participating in robbery, even without intending to kill, can lead to a robbery with homicide charge if a death occurs during or because of the robbery.
• Treachery Matters: Committing robbery with methods that ensure the victim cannot defend themselves, like attacking a sleeping person, will be considered treachery and will aggravate the crime.
• Mitigation is Possible: Intoxication at the time of the offense, if proven and not intentional, can be a mitigating circumstance, potentially reducing the sentence.
• Legal Counsel is Crucial: Understanding the nuances of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is complex. Legal representation is essential for anyone facing robbery with homicide charges.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is Robbery with Homicide under Philippine law?

A: Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime defined as robbery followed by homicide. The homicide must occur “on occasion of” or “by reason of” the robbery. It doesn’t require intent to kill at the outset.

Q: What is treachery and how does it apply to Robbery with Homicide?

A: Treachery (alevosia) is when the offender employs means to ensure the crime is committed without risk to themselves from the victim’s defense. In robbery with homicide, treachery is considered a generic aggravating circumstance, making the penalty harsher.

Q: Can intoxication be a valid defense in Robbery with Homicide cases?

A: No, intoxication is not a complete defense. However, it can be a mitigating circumstance if it was not habitual or intentional to commit the crime and if it impaired the offender’s mental faculties.

Q: What is the penalty for Robbery with Homicide in the Philippines?

A: The penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, depending on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Q: What is the difference between murder and robbery with homicide?

A: Murder is homicide qualified by circumstances like treachery, evident premeditation, etc., with intent to kill. Robbery with homicide is primarily robbery, where a killing occurs during or because of the robbery, regardless of initial intent to kill. Treachery in murder qualifies the crime; in robbery with homicide, it aggravates it.

Q: If I participate in a robbery and someone dies, even if I didn’t directly kill them, am I liable for Robbery with Homicide?

A: Yes, under the principle of conspiracy, all participants in a robbery can be held liable for robbery with homicide if a killing occurs, even if they didn’t directly commit the homicide, unless they actively tried to prevent it.

Q: What should I do if I am accused of Robbery with Homicide?

A: Seek legal counsel immediately. Do not make any statements to the police without consulting a lawyer. A lawyer can advise you on your rights, defenses, and the complexities of the charges.

ASG Law specializes in Criminal Defense and Litigation in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.