Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2
PEOPLE V. DE JESUS
Digest by: Manipon, K
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENT: EDUARDO DE JESUS y ENRILE, appellant
DOCTRINE: In robbery with homicide, while 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 even immaterial that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers
the felony would still be robbery with homicide.
The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value or the
property stolen or amount stolen from the victimwhether the robber
knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment
because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount
or value involved.
FACTS:
1. SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco was a policeman assigned to a Makati Police
Station. After his tour of duty, he worked every afternoon to deliver money
for a money changer in the vicinity of the Intercontinental Hotel and the
Rustans Supermarket in Makati City. The money was placed in a plastic
bag and he used a bicycle for this extra job. He frequently passed by dela
Rapa who was selling cigarettes in the vicinity.
2. Dante Manansala, Eduardo de Jesus, and Crispin Del Rosario agreed to
stage a robbery. Del Rosario was told that the financier for the heist was
Christopher Nash, a British national residing in the Philippines. The
appellant knew that Ybasco was to deposit US$250,000 in the bank every
afternoon for his employer.
3. On March 7, 1994, Del Rosario and the appellant took a Toyota Corolla
car owned by Nash from Rolando Fajardo in Tanauan, Batangas.
4. The appellant was armed with a caliber .45 handgun. Manansala waited
for Ybasco near the office of the money changer while Del Rosario acted
as a lookout. Then Ybasco emerged from the office of his employer
holding a plastic bag. Manansala and the appellant confronted Ybasco
and told him, May arrant of arrest ka. They grabbed Ybasco, handcuffed
him and dragged him to the car.
Group 4
5. Roberto Acosta, a roving security guard, saw the incident and sped
towards the scene to confront Del Rosario and eventually grappled with
the latter for the possession of the gun. Del Rosario, as instructed by
Manansala, shot Acosta in the mouth. Dela Rapa and a certain Juanito
Mendoza, who had just stepped out from the Rustans Supermarket saw
the shooting incident.
6. They boarded the car, and sped towards a sugar farm in Cabuyao,
Laguna.
7. Manansala looked inside Ybascos bag and found that it only contained
P5,000 instead of the expected US$250,000. Manansala and the
appellant took him out of the car and the latter suddenly shot Ybasco on
the head.
8. Dela Rapa gave a sworn statement at the Makati Police. Del Rosario
testified on how he, Manansala and the appellant perpetrated the crime.
9. The court, thereafter, rendered judgment convicting Del Rosario and De
Jesus of robbery with homicide. Manansala died while under detention
due to a mauling incident.
ISSUES:
1. Did De Jesus conspire with Del Rosario And Manansala to commit
Robbery with homicide?
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES.
De Jesus, Del Rosario and Manansala, intended to abduct Ybasco and
divest him of money in the amount of US$250,000, which they thought
Ybasco was about to deposit in the bank. Each of them had specific tasks
to perform and performed their tasks with precision.
Del Rosario was a co-conspirator and that he implicated the appellant and
Manansala in the killing of Ybasco and the taking of P5,000 from the
latter. The testimony of a co-conspirator may be given full probative
weight if it is shown to be candid and straightforward, and is full of details
which by its nature could not have been contrived, besides being
corroborated by independent evidence. The testimony of Del Rosario is
Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2 Group 4
not only replete with details; it is also corroborated by independent
evidence, including the medico-legal report of Dr. Joselito A. Rodrigo and
his testimony that Ybasco was shot once on the right cheek, the sworn
statement of Mendoza, the sworn statements and testimony of Dela
Rapa, as well as the results of the investigation of the police operatives.

In the process, Del Rosario shot and killed Acosta. The appellant insists
that it was Del Rosario who shot Ybasco. However, the identity of the
conspirator who shot Ybasco and Acosta is of no moment. When
homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those
who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as
principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide
although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly
appears that they endeavored to prevent the same.

DISPOSITION: De Jesus guilty of robbery with homicide.

NOTES:
Homicide committed on the occasion of robbery, examples
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the
occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate
the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the
possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the
commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the
commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the
robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a
place other than the situs of the robbery.
Aggravating Circumstances in this case
Treachery
Use of a vehicle in committing robbery with homicide (which was not
alleged in the Information).
The additional killing is not an aggravating circumstance in robbery
with homicide.
Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2
PEOPLE vs LEGASPI
Digest by: Regalado, Mica Janine B.
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENT: DENNIS LEGASPI AND EMILIO FRANCO
DOCTRINE: In the crime of robbery with homicide, the homicide may
precede the robbery or may occur after the robbery, as what is essential
is that there is a direct relation, an intimate connection between the
obbery and the killing.
FACTS:
1. Carlos Deveza went to the Cartimar Plaza Market, Pasay City to fetch his
wife who was then closing the family chain of stalls for the day. He parked
his car along Cartimar Avenue, specifically in front of the stall owned by
them. His wife approached him (Deveza still in drivers seat) and gave him
a black leather bag which contained P300, 000 cash, pieces of jewelry,
and checks.
2. As his wife left to make a phone call, Deveza alighted the car and stood
on the left side of the vehicle with both arms resting on the vehicles
window.
3. Legazpi then approached Deveza from behind. He positioned himself two
and a half meters away from Deveza, leveled and poked a gun at
Devezas nape and eventually pulled the trigger.
4. Wilfredo Dazo suddenly heard a gunshot prompting him to dart his eyes
toward the direction of the gunfire where he saw Deveza stooping and
about to fall on the ground.
5. Fatally wounded, Deveza fell on the pavement. Legazpi then picked up
Devezas black shoulder bag and causally walked away from the scene of
the crime, toward the direction where Dazo was, as if nothing happened.
6. Dazo hid behind a post for 3-4 seconds and waited in ambush for Legaspi
and Franco. He intended to seize and stop Legaspi who was then holding
a gun, but in the process mistakenly grabbed the unarmed Franco by the
waist. Thereafter, Dazo and Franco wrestled for about thirty seconds
causing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing Legaspi to take an aim and
shoot at Dazo twice.
Group 4
7. At the height of the struggle between Dazo and Franco, two shots were
fired by Legaspi. After hearing the first gunfire, Dazo, thinking he was
shot, looked back and say Legaspi aiming at him a .38 caliber pistol. As a
result, Dazo lost hold of Franco causing the latter to escape.
8. Legaspi then fired the second shot, which bullet hit Dazo on the right jaw.
Realizing he was hit, Dazo spinned and shouted, May tama ako!
ISSUES: Whether or not Legaspi and Franco are guilty of Robbery with
Homicide
RULING + RATIO:
Legaspi is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to clearly
establish Francos actual participation in the commission of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide, as well as his overt acts that tend to
show his conspiracy with Legaspi.
In the crime of robbery with homicide, the homicide may precede the robbery
or may occur after the robbery, as what is essential is that there is a direct
relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing.
This special complex crime is primarily a crime against property and not
against persons, homicide being a mere incident of the robbery with the latter
being the main purpose and the object of the criminal. While the records show
that the fatal shooting of Deveza preceded the robbery, it was for the purpose
of removing an opposition to the robbery or suppressing evidence thereof.
The phrase by reason covers homicide committed before or after the taking
of personal property of another, as long as the motive of the offender (in killing
a person before the robbery) is to deprive the victim of his personal property
which is sought to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition,
or to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of stolen
property.Obviously, the killing of Carlos Deveza and the shooting of Wilfredo
Dazo were perpetrated by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. Thus,
the physical injuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in the crime of
robbery with homicide. Taken in its entirety, the overt acts of Legaspi prove
that the lone motive for the killing of Deveza and the shooting of Dazo was for
the purpose of consummating and ensuring the success of the robbery.
DISPOSITION: Dennis Legaspi is GUILTY of robbery with homicide. Emilio
Franco is ACQUITTED.
Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GAGA LATAM, ET AL
Digest by: Valencia, Nicole
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENT: GAGA LATAM, SALIGO KUYAN & KAMISON
AKOY
DOCTRINE: There is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a
band. If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable
offense would still be denominated as robbery with homicide under
Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The element of band would be
appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
FACTS:
10. At around 6:45 p.m. of February 8, 1998, Gaga, Saligo, Ngano Sugan,
Nga Ben Latam and one alias Francing, all armed with guns, entered
Fortunato Delos Reyes residence in South Cotabato, and declared a hold
up. Kamison and Cosme Latam stayed outside and acted as lookouts.
11. Once inside, the armed men ordered Fortunato, his wife Thelma Delos
Reyes, and their son Nestor Delos Reyes, to drop to the floor.
12. The men took cash amounting to P10,000.00, personal belongings worth
P5,000.00, and an air gun valued at P2,800.00. Ngano then brought
Nestor outside the house, and shot him.
13. Reggie Delos Reyes, brother of Nestor, ran to his parents house when he
heard the gunshot. When he arrived, Kamison and Cosme pointed a knife
and a gun at him, respectively, and told him not to enter the house.
Reggie then heard Nestor shout that he had been hit.
14. Thereafter, all the seven armed men left.
15. Reggie rushed Nestor to the hospital, but the latter died due to multiple
gunshot wounds.
16. The prosecution charged the appellants and their companions with the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide before the RTC.
17. Gaga, Saligo and Kamison all pleaded not guilty to the charge upon
arraignment. Ngano, Nga Ben and alias Francing remain at large. Cosme
died on July 23, 2000 while under detention.
18. The RTC found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery
with homicide committed by a band.
Group 4
19. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA held that
Fortunato and Thelma positively identified the appellants as among the
persons who robbed their house; Fortunato, in fact, saw Ngano shoot
Nestor. Reggie corroborated their testimonies on material points.
ISSUES:
1. Are all the accused guilty of robbery with homicide?
2. Are the accused guilty of robbery with homicide in a band?
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES
There is robbery with homicide when a homicide is committed either
by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for
robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following
elements:
(1) the taking of personal property belonging to another;
(2) with intent to gain;
(3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and
(4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of
homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed.
A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose
and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to
the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life
but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
In the present case, no doubt exists, based on the appellants and
their companions actions that their overriding intention was to rob
Fortunatos house.
While it was undisputed that only Ngano shot Nestor, the lower courts
correctly found the appellants liable for robbery with homicide. Case
law establishes that whenever homicide has been committed by
reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of
robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide,
unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing.
The foregoing circumstances prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellants acted in concert to attain a common purpose. The
Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2 Group 4
evidence does not show that any of the appellants sought to avert the Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The element of band would
killing of Nestor. be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
2. NO
The lower courts found the appellants guilty of robbery with homicide DISPOSITION: Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with
committed by a band. This is an erroneous denomination of the crime MODIFICATIONS.
committed, as there is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by Appellants are guilty of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
a band. If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable
offense would still be denominated as robbery with homicide under
Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2 Group 4

PEOPLE VS. HIPONA

Digest by: Marinduque, Ian Clark

1. Whether or not the RTC and CAs ruling of Rape with Homicide (and
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Robbery) is correct.
RESPONDENT: MICHAEL A. HIPONA
RULING + RATIO:
DOCTRINE: 1. NO.
FOR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUFFICE TO CONVICT AN The court gathers, that from the evidence for the prosecution that robbery
ACCUSED, THE FOLLOWING REQUISITES MUST CONCUR: was the main intent of the accused, and the victims death resulted by
(1) THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CIRCUMSTANCE; reason of or on the occasion thereof.
(2) THE FACTS FROM WHICH THE INFERENCES ARE DERIVED ARE
PROVEN; AND Following Article 294 and 62 of the Revised Penal Code, rape should
(3) THE COMBINATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS SUCH AS TO have been appreciated as an aggravating circumstance instead.
PRODUCE A CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

FACTS:
1. Victim is the aunt of the accused (being the youngest sister of the mother DISPOSITION:
of the accused).
2. Victim was found dead in her house. Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with
3. Victim was raped, physically manhandled and strangled to death. MODIFICATION. Michael Hipona is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
4. Victims brown bag worth P3,800, cash money of no less than P5,000 and Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. He is
a gold necklace were missing, apparently taken by the accused. accordingly sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua.
5. Investigators drawn a conclusion that the case was inside job, due to the
perpetrators familiarity with the victims house.
6. Police investigators called for a meeting of all the victims relatives this
led to the confession of the accused of the crime he committed.
7. Accused confirmed the commission of the crime thru media interview and
that he did it because of his friends and of poverty.
8. Post mortem examination revealed that the victim was raped.
9. Cause of death: Asphyxia by strangulation.
10. The RTC and CA convicted the accused for the special complex crime of
Rape with Homicide (and Robbery).
11. Accused was sentenced to suffer supreme penalty of DEATH by lethal
injection.
12. Case was forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUES:
Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2
PEOPLE vs EVANGELIO
Digest by: Alegre, Kristine Joyce
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENT: EDGAR EVANGELIO, JOSEPH EVANGELIO, ETC.
APPELLANT: JOSEPH EVANGELIO
DOCTRINE:
To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must
concur: (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 characterized by intent to gain
or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.
For a conviction of the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must
be shown that the rape was committed by reason or on the
occasion of a robbery and not the other way around.
FACTS:
1. Respondents armed with a handgun and bladed weapons, forcibly
entered into the home of BBB and took several items (bracelet,
necklaces, a wallet, watches) from BBB, CCC, and Josefina Manlolo.
2. They also raped AAA a 17- year old minor on the occasion of the said
robbery
3. Joseph Evangelio, one of the accused and the appellant in this case,
denied the allegation. He claimed he was sleeping at home during the
commission of the crime.
4. RTC found Joseph guilty of Robbery with Rape.
ISSUES: Whether or not Evangelio was guilty of robbery with rape?
RULING + RATIO:
Group 4
Here, the prosecution established that appellant and his three co-accused
took the pieces of jewelry and valuables of the spouses BBB and CCC by
means of violence and intimidation. Intent to gain is presumed from the
unlawful taking of things. Hence, the first three elements of the crime of
Robbery with Rape was established.
Further, the rape was proved by circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence
Also known as indirect or presumptive evidence, refers to proof of
collateral facts and circumstances whence the existence of the main
fact may be inferred according to reason and common
experience.Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction
if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which
the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can
be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain
that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.
The following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, when
analyzed and taken together, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the
appellant raped AAA: first, while two of the robbers were stealing, appellant
and one of the robbers brought AAA inside the comfort room; second, inside
the comfort room, AAA was stripped off her clothes and her panty; third, when
AAA resisted and struggled, appellant and the other robber banged her head
against the wall, causing her to lose consciousness; fourth, when she
regained consciousness, the culprits were already gone and she saw her
shorts and panty strewn at her side; and fifth, she suffered pain in her knees,
head, stomach and, most of all, in her vagina which was then bleeding.
In the case at bar, the original intent of the appellant and his co-accused was
to rob the victims and AAA was raped on the occasion of the robbery.
Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2
DISPOSITION: Joseph Evangelio is GUILTY of robbery with rape.
PEOPLE V. LUMIWAN (1998)
Digest by: Banaria, Gwen
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENT: CARINIO LUMIWAN (P), MARCOS GADDAWAN
(P), MANAO BAWAGAN (P) and MANUEL
BAWISAL (at large),accused.CARINIO LUMIWAN
(P), MARCOS GADDAWAN (P) and MANAO
BAWAGAN
DOCTRINE: When more than three armed malefactors take part in the
commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a
band. Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a
robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the
assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same.
FACTS:
1. On his way to school, Carig (17) was accosted by 4 men armed with
garands and a hand grenade.
2. While asking for Carigs resident certificate, one of the accused,
Bawagan, saw P150 in Carigs wallet and took it.
3. Not satisfied from what they were getting, they proceeded to the Carigs
grocery store and demanded at gunpoint, through Lumiwan, the amount
of P5,000 from Carigs mother.
4. The mother could not produce the cash, so they took some grocery items
instead which was valued at P2,000.
5. After raiding the grocery store, Carig with 3 other companions (Lascota,
Lacer, and Manipon) were ordered to go with the armed men to Mt.
Simacbot.
6. The accused dispatched Lascota to inform the families of his companions
that they should immediately raise the amount of P100,000 for the boys
release.
7. Carigs grandmother and grandaunt went to Mt. Simacbot and brought
food, clothing, and P5,000 in a futile attempt to ransom Carig.
Group 4
8. The kidnappers took the money and released 2 other victims, but Carig
and another victim were still held captive.
9. While buying corn grains, Asuncion and her 2 helpers were approached
by 2 armed men and at gunpoint took her P6,800. She was also taken
away to the mountains.
ISSUES:
1. What were the crimes committed?
RULING + RATIO:
1. Kidnapping. Robbery in Band. Simple Robbery.
Robbery in BandCarig testified that Lumiwan, Gaddawan, Bawagan
and Bawisal, who were all armed with garands and a hand grenade,
approached him, demanded to be shown his residence certificate, and
seeing his allowance ofP150.00, took it.Thereafter, the felons succeeded
in taking by force grocery items worth P2,000.00 from the Carigs
store.Assayed against the elements of the crime of robbery in band, the
prosecution has successfully established that four (4) armed malefactors,
with intent to gain and with the use of intimidation, had conspired to take
the property of another.
Simple RobberyWith regard to Asuncion, only simple robbery was
committed against her. Only two armed men accosted her and took her
money. The element of more than three armed malefactors to robbery in
band is lacking.
The crime of robbery under Art. 293 of the Revised Penal Code has the
following elements: (a) intent to gain, (b) unlawful taking, (c) personal
property belonging to another, and (d) violence against or intimidation of
person or force upon things. Under Art. 296 of the same Code, "when
more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of
robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band."It further
provides that "[A]ny member of a band who is present at the commission
Digest Authors: Manipon, Regalado, Valencia,
Marinduque, Alegre, Banaria
CRIMINAL LAW 2 Group 4
of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the
assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same."

DISPOSITION: All three accused-appellants are found guilty of 2 counts of

kidnapping each and 1 count of robbery in band each. Lumiwan and
Gaddawan are also guilty of simple robbery. However, Bawagan is acquitted
on reasonable doubt.