FACTS:
According to Analiza, a state witness, in the evening of June 1, 2001, she was introduced to Victorino Paule with whom she spent the night at Benzi Lodge for P500.00.
Analiza brought Victorino to the house of appellant Wilfredo Layug where she joined appellants Wilfredo and Noel, and accused Reynaldo in their shabu session, while Victorino waited inside the tricycle driven by Analiza’s brother-in-law, Jesus.
After a few minutes, Wilfredo and Noel, and Reynaldo, asked Analiza to go with them to their hideout. Victorino went with them because the former knew them as fellow residents of the same Barangay.
They all boarded the tricycle, and upon reaching Sitio Bucia, Noel asked Jesus to stop the tricycle saying that they have to walk because the tricycle cannot enter the place.
After more or less three steps from the tricycle, Noel held the shoulder of Victorino and stabbed him twice in front of his body which led the latter to lean forward. Appellant Wilfredo and accused Reynaldo surrounded Victorino and helped appellant Noel in stabbing Victorino.
Victorino shouted “Tulungan ninyo ako,” as accused Reynaldo took his wallet, wristwatch and necklace. Because of fear, Analiza and Jesus remained in the tricycle, while Victorino was being stabbed and robbed. Thereafter, the three boarded the tricycle, and warned Analiza and Jesus not to report the incident to anybody or else they will also get killed.
Appellants and accused Reynaldo denied that they had any participation in the incident.
The RTC found appellants and accused Reynaldo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
According to the RTC, all the elements of the crime of robbery with homicide are present. It also held that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications, as against accused-appellant Wilfredo Layug and Noel Buan.
Hence, the present appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
The appeal must fail.
The prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime.
In People v. De Jesus, this Court had the occasion to meticulously expound on the nature of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, thus:
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or any person shall suffer:
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
For the accused to be convicted of the said crime, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life.
The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery.
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime.
Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. The word “homicide” is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
The aggravating circumstance of treachery is appreciated in the crime of robbery with homicide only as to the killing but not as to the robbery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression, thus, insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.16 The CA, therefore, is correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery in imposing the higher penalty as it was shown that the killing of the victim was done treacherously.
Evident premeditation, on the other hand, cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide because the elements of which are already inherent in the crime. Evident premeditation is inherent in crimes against property.