People v. Dio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 24, 1971, Crispulo P. Alega was with his girlfriend, Remedios Maniti, when they were accosted by two individuals, Danilo Tobias and Hernando Dio (appellant). The assailants attempted to take Alega's Seiko wrist watch. During the struggle, one of the assailants stabbed Alega, who subsequently died. The wrist watch was still on Alega's wrist at the time of his death. Procedural History: An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Danilo Tobias and a John Doe. The information was later amended to include Hernando Dio as the John Doe. The accused pleaded not guilty. The Circuit Criminal Court, 7th Judicial District, found Hernando Dio guilty of robbery with homicide and imposed the death penalty. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The accused-appellant, through his counsel de oficio, argued that the trial court erred in convicting him of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and in sentencing him to death.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was consummated robbery with homicide or attempted robbery with homicide. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court. It found the accused-appellant guilty of attempted robbery with homicide and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court also ordered the appellant to indemnify the heirs of the victim and pay costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of consummated robbery with homicide versus attempted robbery: The Supreme Court agreed with the defense that the robbery was not consummated. The evidence showed that the appellant and his companion were unsuccessful in divesting the victim of his wrist watch, as the watch was still on the victim's wrist when he died. The Court held that the killing of Crispulo Alega was incidental to and an offshoot of the plan to carry out the robbery, which was not consummated due to the victim's resistance. Consequently, the crime committed was attempted robbery with homicide, which is penalized under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code. This article provides that when by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the offender shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed deserves a higher penalty. The Court noted that the penalty prescribed for attempted robbery with homicide is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were proven, the penalty should be applied in its medium period. The Indeterminate Sentence Law was also applied. On the issue of the death penalty: The Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. This was based on the reclassification of the crime from consummated robbery with homicide to attempted robbery with homicide. The penalty for attempted robbery with homicide, as provided by Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The Court determined that the medium period of this penalty, considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, was the appropriate sentence. The Indeterminate Sentence Law was then applied to arrive at the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is not consummated if the intended property is not taken, in which case the offense may be classified as attempted robbery with homicide, punishable under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code.