People v. Gavina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 19, 1993, in Dagupan City, accused-appellant Cesar Gavina y Navarro allegedly robbed Cipriano Tandingan of P70,800.00 cash by stabbing him multiple times, causing his death. The information charged the accused with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Procedural History: The accused pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide and imposed the penalty of life imprisonment, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Cipriano Tandingan and to restitute Ruben Go, the victim's employer, P89,200.00. The Petition: The accused appealed, arguing that the crime should only be homicide due to the lack of animus lucrandi. The prosecution presented eyewitness SPO1 Esteban Martinez, who testified that he saw the accused and the victim grappling for a black bag. The accused pulled out a knife and stabbed the victim three times, then fled with the bag. SPO1 Martinez pursued, and the accused dropped the bag and knife, then boarded a jeepney where he was arrested. The bag contained over P70,000.00 cash. Another witness corroborated the chase and arrest. The victim's employer testified that the victim was instructed to encash a check for P160,000.00. The victim's sister testified on his income and funeral expenses. The medico-legal officer confirmed the victim died from multiple stab wounds.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the element of animus lucrandi was sufficiently established, and relatedly, the issue of ownership of the money and the nature of robbery. Whether the trial court erred in its imposition of penalty and order of restitution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide but modified the penalty and deleted the order for restitution to Ruben Go. The accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for robbery with homicide: The Court held that the prosecution indubitably established the elements of robbery with homicide. The evidence showed the accused employed undue violence, killing Cipriano Tandingan while wresting the clutch bag from his possession. SPO1 Martinez's testimony clearly established the struggle for the bag, the stabbing, and the subsequent flight of the appellant with the bag. The Court emphasized that the element of taking or asportation was completed when the appellant violently got hold of the bag, even if momentarily, and that the subsequent disposition or failure to dispose of the property is of no moment for the characterization of the offense as robbery. On the issue of animus lucrandi and the issue of ownership of the money and the nature of robbery: The Court found the contention that animus lucrandi was not established to be devoid of merit. The Court reiterated that intent to gain is an internal act that can be established through overt acts. Appellant's act of obtaining possession of the victim's clutch bag through violence speaks for itself. Furthermore, the fact that the clutch bag contained a considerable amount of money confirmed that the appellant had intended to rob Tandingan all along. The Court cited People vs. Sia Teb Ban for the principle that one's intention may be gathered from one's deeds. The Court clarified that in robbery by taking property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary that the person dispossessed be the owner. Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code requires only that the property taken does not belong to the offender. Actual possession by the person dispossessed suffices, and robbery can even be committed against a bailee or a thief. The Court noted that while there was an apparent variance between the indictment and proof regarding the ownership of the money (employer's money vs. victim's possession), this did not negate the commission of robbery as the victim was in lawful possession. On the issue of penalty and restitution: The Court found errors in the trial court's disposition regarding the penalty and restitution. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code mandates the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for robbery with homicide, and reclusion perpetua is distinct from life imprisonment. Regarding restitution, the Court noted that the recovered cash amounted to P70,800.00, not P160,000.00 as implied by the order to restitute P89,200.00 to Ruben Go, thus deleting the order for restitution of the further amount for lack of basis.
Main Doctrine
The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is established when personal property is taken from another with the use of violence or intimidation against a person, and on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the victim is killed. The element of animus lucrandi (intent to gain) is presumed from the overt acts of the offender, and the completion of the taking or asportation, even momentarily, is sufficient for the crime of robbery.