Tag: Attempted Robbery

When Intent to Steal Turns Deadly: Understanding Attempted Robbery with Homicide in the Philippines

In People v. Barra, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between robbery with homicide and attempted robbery with homicide. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Joseph Barra guilty of attempted robbery with homicide, not robbery with homicide, because the element of taking personal property was not proven. This means that while Barra intended to rob the victim and the victim died as a result, the robbery itself was not completed. This ruling underscores the importance of proving all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction for the specific offense charged, highlighting the nuances in Philippine criminal law concerning crimes of intent and consequence.

The Unsuccessful Heist: When a Demand for Money Leads to Murder, but Not Robbery

The case revolves around the tragic events of October 9, 2003, in Barangay Tinawagan, Tigaon, Camarines Sur. Joseph Barra was accused of entering Elmer Lagdaan’s residence, armed with a firearm, with the intent to steal. According to witness Ricardo de la Peña, Barra poked a gun at Lagdaan’s forehead, demanding money. When Lagdaan claimed he didn’t have the money, Barra shot him, resulting in Lagdaan’s death. The prosecution initially charged Barra with robbery with homicide, a special complex crime under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Barra guilty as charged, but the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the conviction to attempted robbery with homicide. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence supported a conviction for robbery with homicide or merely attempted robbery with homicide.

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the elements of robbery with homicide. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code defines robbery with violence or intimidation against persons and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The Court referenced People v. Quemeggen, outlining the requisites for conviction:

The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;

The property taken belongs to another;

The taking is animo lucrandi; and

By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.

The crucial element missing in Barra’s case was the actual taking of personal property. While the prosecution established Barra’s intent to rob Lagdaan (animo lucrandi) through the testimony of de la Peña, and the fact that Lagdaan’s death occurred on the occasion of that attempted robbery, there was no evidence presented that Barra successfully took any money or property from Lagdaan. The absence of this element distinguished the case from consummated robbery with homicide, leading the Court of Appeals to correctly identify the crime as attempted robbery with homicide, punishable under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code. This article addresses situations where robbery is attempted or frustrated, and a homicide results:

Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. — 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 higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proving each element of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution successfully proved the intent to rob and the commission of homicide. The robbery, however, remained unconsummated. The Court, citing People v. Macabales, reiterated the elements of attempted robbery with homicide:

The elements of Robbery with Homicide as defined in Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) There is an attempted or frustrated robbery. (2) A homicide is committed.

Because the taking did not occur, Barra could only be convicted of the attempted crime. The legal implications of this distinction are significant. It underscores the principle that criminal liability is directly tied to the completed acts, not merely the intention to commit a crime, unless the law specifically punishes the attempt itself. The court carefully distinguished the difference between intent and action. While the intent to rob was clear, the action of successfully taking property was not completed, leading to the reduced charge.

The Court also upheld the appellate court’s finding of the aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling, justifying the imposition of the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua. This aspect of the ruling highlights how specific circumstances surrounding a crime can influence the severity of the punishment. The fact that Barra violated the sanctity of Lagdaan’s home further cemented the gravity of the offense in the eyes of the court. The court system clearly wanted to communicate that such actions would not be taken lightly, and justice would be served even if the original charges were modified.

Regarding the award of damages, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, deeming it in line with existing rules and jurisprudence. These damages serve to compensate the victim’s heirs for the loss and suffering endured as a result of the crime. The awards included civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages. Moreover, the Court imposed a legal interest of 6% per annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid. This addition ensures that the compensation keeps pace with the time it takes for the judgment to be fully satisfied.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused, Joseph Barra, should be convicted of robbery with homicide or attempted robbery with homicide, based on the evidence presented. The court focused on whether the element of ‘taking’ of personal property was proven.
What is the difference between robbery with homicide and attempted robbery with homicide?	Robbery with homicide requires the completion of the robbery, meaning the taking of personal property must occur, along with the commission of homicide. Attempted robbery with homicide occurs when the robbery is not completed (attempted or frustrated), but a homicide results on the occasion of the attempted robbery.
What evidence was presented in the case?	The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony that the accused entered the victim’s home, demanded money, and shot the victim when the demand was not met. However, no evidence was shown that the accused successfully took any personal property from the victim.
Why was the accused not convicted of robbery with homicide?	The accused was not convicted of robbery with homicide because the prosecution failed to prove that the taking of personal property actually occurred, which is a necessary element of the crime. The court determined the robbery was only attempted, and a homicide occurred during that attempt.
What is the penalty for attempted robbery with homicide in the Philippines?	Under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, attempted robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The penalty can be influenced by aggravating circumstances, such as disregard of dwelling.
What damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs?	The victim’s heirs were awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages. The Supreme Court also imposed a legal interest of 6% per annum on all monetary awards from the date the decision becomes final until fully paid.
*What does animo lucrandi* mean?**	Animo lucrandi is a Latin term that refers to the intent to gain or to profit. In the context of robbery, it means that the perpetrator must have the intention of unlawfully taking the property of another for personal gain.
How does ‘disregard of dwelling’ affect the penalty?	‘Disregard of dwelling’ is an aggravating circumstance that can increase the penalty imposed on the accused. It means the crime was committed in the victim’s home, violating the sanctity and security of their residence, as was deemed to happen in this case.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Barra serves as a clear illustration of the importance of proving each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It also highlights the practical differences between related offenses and how the presence or absence of certain elements can drastically alter the outcome of a case. This ruling reinforces the principle that intent alone is not sufficient for a conviction; the actions taken must align with the elements of the crime charged to secure a guilty verdict.

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 of the Philippines vs. Joseph Barra, G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

When Intent Falters: Distinguishing Attempted Robbery with Homicide from Consummated Robbery with Homicide

In People v. Bocalan, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between attempted and consummated robbery with homicide. The Court ruled that for robbery to be considered consummated, there must be clear evidence that the perpetrator successfully took property from the victim. This decision emphasizes the necessity of proving actual taking for a conviction of consummated robbery; otherwise, the charge may be reduced to attempted robbery with homicide, especially if the intent to rob was evident and led to the victim’s death.

Taxi of Terror: When Does an Aborted Robbery Lead to Homicide Charges?

Randy Bocalan appealed his conviction for robbery with homicide, arguing the prosecution’s witness, Joevilyn Alidon, lacked credibility. The victim, taxi driver Peter Allan Maneclang, was fatally stabbed after resisting a robbery attempt by Bocalan and his accomplices. The lower court convicted Bocalan based on Alidon’s testimony, a state witness who was present during the crime. The central legal question was whether the crime constituted consummated robbery with homicide or merely attempted robbery with homicide, given the lack of evidence that any property was actually taken from the victim.

The Supreme Court affirmed Alidon’s credibility, emphasizing the trial court’s advantage in assessing witness demeanor. The Court noted Bocalan failed to prove any ill motive on Alidon’s part for falsely accusing him. The absence of direct corroboration of Alidon’s testimony was not critical. The physical evidence—the autopsy report detailing multiple stab wounds—supported her account of the events. The Court underscored that the credibility of a state witness is not diminished merely because they were initially charged as a co-conspirator.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court’s finding of consummated robbery. The Court differentiated between the two crimes, pointing out that consummated robbery requires proof that the offender acquired possession of the victim’s property, however briefly. In this case, the assailants demanded money, and the victim resisted and fled, with no property taken. Therefore, the Court held that the crime was not consummated robbery, but rather attempted robbery with homicide. Bocalan and his group commenced the robbery by demanding money from the victim. But the victim resisted; therefore, the offenders failed to execute all the elements necessary for a completed robbery.

The Court found the actions of Bocalan and his accomplices sufficient to establish attempted robbery. Specifically, the demand for money coupled with the violent act of stabbing the victim indicated a clear intent to rob that was thwarted by the victim’s resistance. This aligns with previous jurisprudence, such as in People v. Basilan, where a similar threat of violence during a robbery attempt was deemed sufficient to classify the crime as attempted robbery with homicide. For attempted robbery with homicide, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed deserves a higher penalty. Although the killing involved abuse of superior strength (which could elevate it to murder), this was not specifically alleged in the Information. Thus, it could not be considered an aggravating circumstance in determining the penalty.

Consequently, the Court adjusted Bocalan’s sentence to an indeterminate penalty, reflecting the gravity of the attempted robbery combined with the resulting homicide. The Court ordered Bocalan to pay the victim’s heirs P50,000 as civil indemnity, P36,000 as actual damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages, to compensate for the moral and material losses suffered by the victim’s family. The distinction between consummated and attempted robbery with homicide has significant implications for sentencing, influencing the length of imprisonment and the extent of civil liabilities imposed on the offender. This ruling serves as a clear reminder that the element of “taking” is critical in determining the severity of the crime.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was determining whether the crime committed was consummated robbery with homicide or attempted robbery with homicide, based on whether any property was actually taken from the victim.
What is the difference between consummated and attempted robbery?	Consummated robbery requires proof that the offender acquired possession of the victim’s property, while attempted robbery involves overt acts towards committing the robbery without completing the taking due to external reasons.
Why was Joevilyn Alidon’s testimony considered credible?	The court found Alidon’s testimony credible because the defense failed to prove she had any ill motive to falsely accuse Bocalan, and her account was consistent with the physical evidence from the autopsy report.
What evidence supported the charge of homicide?	The autopsy report confirmed the victim died from multiple stab wounds inflicted during the attempted robbery, establishing the causal link between the crime and the death.
What was the basis for reducing the charge from robbery with homicide to attempted robbery with homicide?	The charge was reduced because there was no proof that Bocalan or his companions successfully took any property from the victim before he died.
What is the penalty for attempted robbery with homicide?	The penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed deserves a higher penalty.
What civil liabilities were imposed on Bocalan?	Bocalan was ordered to pay the victim’s heirs P50,000 as civil indemnity, P36,000 as actual damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
Can a person initially charged as a co-conspirator testify as a state witness?	Yes, being initially charged as a co-conspirator does not disqualify a person from testifying as a state witness, as long as their testimony is found credible by the court.

This case underscores the critical importance of proving all elements of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. The element of taking in robbery offenses plays a critical role in determining the culpability of the offender. By clarifying this distinction, the Supreme Court has provided essential guidance for future cases involving similar factual circumstances.

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

September 4, 2003

Liability in Failed Robbery: Intent and the Complex Crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide

In People vs. Amba, the Supreme Court clarified the elements necessary to prove attempted robbery with homicide, emphasizing the importance of intent and the causal link between the attempted robbery and the resulting death. The Court affirmed the conviction of Jose Ishikawa Amba for this complex crime but adjusted the penalties and damages awarded. This decision underscores that even if a robbery is not completed, the intent to rob coupled with a homicide directly related to that attempt can lead to a conviction for attempted robbery with homicide.

From Snack Stop to Tragedy: Did Intent to Rob Lead to Unlawful Death?

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on February 10, 1998, when Stephanie Sy and her friend Jennifer Llamas were walking to a Seven-Eleven store in Marikina City. As they approached the store, a man attacked Stephanie, attempting to rob her. During the struggle, Stephanie was stabbed and ultimately died from her injuries. Jose Ishikawa Amba was later identified as the assailant and charged with robbery with homicide. The central legal question is whether Amba’s actions constituted attempted robbery with homicide, and if so, what the appropriate penalties should be.

At trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies from Llamas, Carlos Sian III, and Nelson Almuete, all of whom identified Amba as the perpetrator. Llamas’s testimony was particularly crucial, as she was with Stephanie when the attack occurred. She recounted seeing Amba grab Stephanie, a struggle ensuing, and then Amba stabbing Stephanie. Sian, another eyewitness, corroborated this account, stating that he saw Amba stab a woman across the street. Almuete, Amba’s brother-in-law, also testified, claiming he witnessed Amba following and attacking Stephanie.

Amba, in his defense, claimed alibi, stating that he was at work in San Juan at the time of the incident. He also challenged the credibility of the eyewitnesses, arguing that their testimonies were conflicting and influenced by police procedures, such as being shown photographs of him before identification. However, the trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible and convicted Amba of attempted robbery with homicide. The court also appreciated the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.

The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, upheld the conviction but modified the lower court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, stating that appellate courts should not disturb these findings unless there is clear evidence that the trial court overlooked significant facts. As the Supreme Court stated in People vs. Sagun, “Appellate courts will not disturb the findings on the credibility, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimony of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily certain facts and circumstances of significance in the case.” The Court found the eyewitness testimonies to be consistent and convincing, supporting the conclusion that Amba was indeed the assailant.

The Court then addressed the elements of robbery with homicide, referencing People vs. Faco, which stated that to be liable, the prosecution must establish: “(a) the taking of the personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus 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, which therein used in a generic sense, was committed.” The Court noted that while it was not definitively proven what Amba intended to steal, his actions clearly indicated an intent to rob Stephanie. The crime was not completed due to Stephanie’s resistance, thus constituting attempted robbery.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s assessment that treachery and abuse of superior strength were present. Treachery, as defined in People vs. Cabareño, requires that “the means, method or form of execution gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation.” The Court found that Stephanie had, in fact, struggled against Amba and even managed to kick him, indicating that she had an opportunity for self-defense. Therefore, the element of treachery was not present.

Consequently, the Court adjusted the penalty. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code governs attempted robbery with homicide and prescribes a penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Because there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentencing Amba to an indeterminate penalty of 14 years and eight months of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Finally, the Court modified the damages awarded. While the P50,000 indemnity for death and P75,000 for funeral expenses were upheld, the P150,000 for moral and exemplary damages was adjusted. Citing prevailing jurisprudence, the Court reduced the moral damages to P50,000. It denied the award for exemplary damages, as Article 2231 of the Civil Code stipulates that such damages are only awarded when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, which were not present in this case. Therefore, the final award included P50,000 for death indemnity, P50,000 for moral damages, and P75,000 for funeral expenses.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Jose Ishikawa Amba was guilty of attempted robbery with homicide in the death of Stephanie Sy, and what the appropriate penalties and damages should be. The Court needed to determine if the elements of the crime were met and if the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were applicable.
What is attempted robbery with homicide?	Attempted robbery with homicide is a complex crime where the offender attempts to commit robbery, and on the occasion or by reason of such attempt, a homicide occurs. It requires proving intent to rob along with the causal connection between the attempted robbery and the resulting death.
What evidence did the prosecution present?	The prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies from Jennifer Llamas, Carlos Sian III, and Nelson Almuete, all of whom identified Jose Ishikawa Amba as the assailant. They also presented documentary evidence and expert testimony from the Medico Legal Officer.
What was the accused’s defense?	Jose Ishikawa Amba claimed alibi, stating that he was at work at the time of the incident. He also challenged the credibility of the eyewitnesses, arguing that their testimonies were conflicting and influenced by police procedures.
Did the Supreme Court agree with the trial court’s findings on treachery?	No, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding that treachery was present. The Court noted that Stephanie Sy had struggled against Amba, indicating that she had an opportunity for self-defense, which negated the element of treachery.
How did the Supreme Court modify the penalty?	The Supreme Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentencing Amba to an indeterminate penalty of 14 years and eight months of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. This replaced the trial court’s original sentence of reclusion perpetua.
What damages were awarded in this case?	The Supreme Court awarded P50,000 for death indemnity, P50,000 for moral damages, and P75,000 for funeral expenses to the heirs of Stephanie Sy. The original award of P150,000 as moral and exemplary damages was adjusted.
What is the significance of establishing intent to rob?	Establishing intent to rob (animus lucrandi) is crucial because it is a key element of the crime of robbery with homicide. Without proving that the accused intended to gain from the victim, the charge of robbery with homicide cannot be sustained.

In conclusion, the People vs. Amba case serves as an important reminder of the legal consequences of attempted robbery when it results in death. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the elements necessary to prove this complex crime and underscores the significance of intent and causation in determining liability. The adjustment of penalties and damages further highlights the Court’s careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the crime.

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

September 20, 2001