People v. Bulalayao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 17, 1987, in Manila, Diosdado Domondon and Roberto Bulalayao were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged that they conspired to commit robbery by brandishing bladed weapons and announcing a hold-up, taking a Seiko 5 wristwatch valued at P1,500.00 belonging to Rodolfo Ungsod. On the occasion of the robbery, they allegedly attacked and stabbed Jaime Lim with a bladed weapon, causing his death. Procedural History: Both accused pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5, rendered a decision on January 4, 1989, finding both Roberto Bulalayao and Diosdado Domondon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide, sentencing them to life imprisonment, and ordering them to pay damages to the heirs of Jaime Lim. Only Diosdado Domondon appealed. The Petition: Appellant Domondon argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of Robbery with Homicide due to the prosecution's failure to prove the crime of robbery. He prayed to be convicted only of homicide. The Solicitor General agreed that consummated robbery was not proven but contended that the evidence established attempted robbery with homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant Diosdado Domondon is guilty of Robbery with Homicide. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the element of asportation for the crime of robbery. Whether the accused-appellant should be convicted of attempted robbery with homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. Diosdado Domondon was found guilty of Attempted Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Jaime Lim.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the accused-appellant Diosdado Domondon is guilty of Robbery with Homicide: The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the consummation of robbery due to a lack of conclusive evidence of asportation. Eyewitness testimonies indicated that no personal belongings were taken from the passengers, and the alleged stolen wristwatch was not presented as evidence. This variance between the allegation in the information and the proof presented was fatal to the charge of consummated robbery with homicide. On whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the element of asportation for the crime of robbery: The Court held that the element of asportation was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of Rodolfo Ungsod and Ofelia Lim explicitly stated that no personal belongings were taken from them, and Ofelia Lim could only confirm one watch being taken from an unidentified passenger. Grace Cua also testified to seeing an arm take a watch but was not sure. The absence of the alleged stolen item and the conflicting testimonies regarding the taking of valuables meant that the physical act of taking and carrying away property was not proven. On whether the accused-appellant should be convicted of attempted robbery with homicide: The Court ruled that while consummated robbery was not proven, the evidence clearly showed that robbery was attempted. Domondon announced the hold-up with a bladed weapon, indicating a clear criminal design to rob. The robbery would have been complete had it not been for the resistance of Jaime Lim, which led to his death. This scenario falls under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code for attempted robbery with homicide, as the felonious taking of personal property was commenced by intimidation, and the homicide occurred on the occasion of this attempt. The Court also disregarded Roberto Bulalayao's belated admission of guilt as the sole perpetrator, viewing it as an attempt to cover up for Domondon, lacking competent evidence.
Main Doctrine
The crime of robbery with homicide is not consummated if there is no conclusive evidence proving the physical act of asportation. However, if the intent to rob is established and the robbery would have been complete were it not for intervening circumstances, the accused may be convicted of attempted robbery with homicide.