CRIMINAL LAW

1. GR NO. 195248 NOVEMBER 22, 2017

JOHN DENNIS G. CHUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND

CRISTINA YAO

Criminal Law; BP. No. 22; Requisites. The following are the essential
elements must that must be present for the violation of BP. No. 22: a.)
the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account
or for value; b.) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and c.) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment. Absent any of the following will not render the
accused guilty of this crime.

Same; same; Section 2. The making, drawing and issuance of a check

payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, shall be prima facie evidence of
that the maker or drawer has knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder the amount
due, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such
check. The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this
section cannot arise, if such notice of non-payment by the drawee
bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to
when such notice was received by the drawer.

MARTIRES, J.;

2. GR NO. 218575 OCTOBER 4, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCIS URSUA y BERNAL

Criminal Law; R.A. No. 7610; Article III; Section 5(b). The elements
of sexual abuse under this law are: a.) the accused commit the act of
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; b.) the said act is performed
with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and
c.) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Records of the case show that these elements were sufficed.

Same; What constitutes acts of lasciviousness under of the RPC, in

relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. This can only be
committed against a victim who is less than 12 years old; and that
when the victim is aged 12 years old but under 18, or is above 18
years old under special circumstances. Before an accused can be
convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below
12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness of the RPC
must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. When the victim, at the time the offense
was committed is aged 12 years or over but under 18, or is 18 or
older but unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect
himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition,
the nomenclature of the offense should be Lascivious Conduct under
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.

3. Gr No. 229701 November 29, 2017

EDWINA RIMANDO Y FERNANDO VS PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

Criminal Law. Revised Penal Code. Illegal possession and use of false
treasury and bank notes and other instrument of credit. Elements –
that any treasury bank or note or certificate or other obligation and
security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or
other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified
by another person; 2) that the offender knows that any of said
instruments is forged or falsified; and 3) That he either possessed
with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instrument.

Same. Same. Conspiracy. – Mere presence at the scene of the crime at

the time of its commission is not by itself sufficient to establish
conspiracy. To establish conspiracy evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the cat, without
cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute
one party to a conspiracy.

4. Gr No. 229701 November 29, 2017

EDWINA RIMANDO Y FERNANDO VS PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

Criminal Law. Revised Penal Code. Illegal possession and use of false
treasury and bank notes and other instrument of credit. Elements –
that any treasury bank or note or certificate or other obligation and
security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or
other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified
by another person; 2) that the offender knows that any of said
instruments is forged or falsified; and 3) That he either possessed
with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instrument.

Same. Same. Conspiracy. – Mere presence at the scene of the crime at

the time of its commission is not by itself sufficient to establish
conspiracy. To establish conspiracy evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the cat, without
cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute
one party to a conspiracy.

5. GR. No. 223679 September 27, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs WILFREDO LAYUG et al.

Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Robbery with Homicide. For the
accused to be convicted with robbery with homicide, the prosecution
is burdened to prove the confluence of the following element: 1) the
taking of 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.

Same; Same; Same. Homicide is said to be 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.
Same; Same; Same; Treachery. Robbery with homicide is classified as
a crime against property. Treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed
treacherously. 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.
GR NO. 195248 NOVEMBER 22, 2017

JOHN DENNIS G. CHUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND

CRISTINA YAO

Criminal Law; BP. No. 22; Requisites. The following are the essential
elements must that must be present for the violation of BP. No. 22: a.)
the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account
or for value; b.) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and c.) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment. Absent any of the following will not render the
accused guilty of this crime.

Same; same; Section 2. The making, drawing and issuance of a check

payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, shall be prima facie evidence of
that the maker or drawer has knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder the amount
due, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such
check. The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this
section cannot arise, if such notice of non-payment by the drawee
bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to
when such notice was received by the drawer.

MARTIRES, J.;

FACTS:
　　　　Cristina Yao met Chua’s mother, who mentioned that her son
would be reviving their sugar mill business. She asked whether Yao
could lend them money. Yao acceded and loaned petitioner a total of
six million pesos. As payment, petitioner issued four checks. However,
when the said checks were presented for payment, those were
dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account. Because
of that, Yao personally delivered her demand letter to the office of the
petitioner which was received by his secretary. Due to his failure to
pay, Yao then charged Chua with four counts of violation of B.P.Blg.
22. The MeTC found Chua guilty of four counts of violation of B.P. Blg.
22. The MeTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish that
the checks issued by petitioner were payments for a loan; and that
upon dishonor of the checks, demand was made upon petitioner
through his personal secretary. Chua then appealed to the RTC which
affirmed the conviction of petitioner. Hence, this petition.
　　　　
ISSUE: Whether or not Chua is guilty of violation of BP. No. 22.

HELD:
　 　 　 　 NEGATIVE. The court ruled that to be liable for violation of
B.P. Blg. 22, the following essential elements must be present: a.) the
making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or
for value; b.) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and c.) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment. In the present case, the existence of the second
element is in dispute. The second element involves a state of mind
which is difficult to establish. However, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22
created a prima facie presumption of such knowledge. It provides that
the making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is
refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with
such bank, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the
holder the amount due, or makes arrangements for payment in full by
the drawee of such. Hence, the presumption that the issuer had
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is brought into existence only
after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and
that within five days from receipt, he failed to pay the amount of the
check or to make arrangement for its payment. The presumption or
prima facie evidence as provided in this section cannot arise, if such
notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or
drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by
the drawer,

　　　　 In the instant case, the proof of receipt of notice of dishonor

was not satisfied. Even though Yao testified that the personal
secretary of petitioner received the demand letter, said personal
secretary was not presented to testify. It must be pointed out that it is
not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was
sent to the accused. The prosecution must also prove actual receipt of
said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is
reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused
which was not proved by the respondent.
　 　 　 　 Hence, the presumption that he had knowledge of
insufficiency of funds cannot arise which led to Chua’s acquittal.
GR NO. 218575 OCTOBER 4, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCIS URSUA y BERNAL

Criminal Law; R.A. No. 7610; Article III; Section 5(b). The elements
of sexual abuse under this law are: a.) the accused commit the act of
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; b.) the said act is performed
with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and
c.) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Records of the case show that these elements were sufficed.

Same; What constitutes acts of lasciviousness under of the RPC, in

relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. This can only be
committed against a victim who is less than 12 years old; and that
when the victim is aged 12 years old but under 18, or is above 18
years old under special circumstances. Before an accused can be
convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below
12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness of the RPC
must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. When the victim, at the time the offense
was committed is aged 12 years or over but under 18, or is 18 or
older but unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect
himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition,
the nomenclature of the offense should be Lascivious Conduct under
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610

PERALTA, J.;

FACTS:
　 　 　 　 AAA who was then 14 years old was Ursua's biological
daughter. AAA alleged that when his father was drunk, he woke up
AAA and instructed her to buy porridge. After eating, he told her to
turn off the light and close the door. As they were sleeping in one bed,
he undressed her, touched her vagina, and held her breast. He then
removed his short pants and brief, moved on top of her, pulled his
penis, and inserted it into her vagina. He told her not to make any
noise. She merely cried and did not shout, resist, or ask her father to
stop. After the acts were done, they went to sleep. The next morning,
Ursua repeated the dastardly acts on AAA. He held her vagina and
breast and inserted his penis into her vagina. Again, she did not ask
for any help. She did not shout because her father almost hit her. Then
that night, Ursua once again repeated the sexual acts against her
daughter.
　 　 　 　 AAA, assisted by a liaison officer of the DSWD, executed a
sworn statement alleging the acts made by her father towards her. A
medical examination of AAA was conducted where it was found out
that there were deep healed lacerations on her vagina. Three charges
for qualified rape were then filed against Ursua. Ursua contradicted
the allegations against him by denying having any carnal knowledge
of AAA.
　 　 　 　 The trial court convicted Ursua of three counts crime of
qualified rape. It found AAA’s testimony credible. On appeal, the CA
ruled that Ursua’s denial cannot overcome the positive testimony of
AAA, hence found the accused guilty of the crime charged
modification. It found Ursua guilty of 2 counts of rape and the third
count of rape was modified to acts of lasciviousness. Hence, the
present petition.
　　　　
ISSUE: Whether or not Ursua is guilty of two counts of rape and acts
of lasciviousness.

HELD:
　 　 　 　 Affirmative. There is no reason to reverse the judgment of
conviction, but a modification of the penalties imposed, the damages
awarded, and the nomenclature of the offense committed. Article 266-
A of the RPC, Article 266-B (1) of the RPC provides that the death
penalty shall be imposed if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of
age and the offender is the parent. Thus, the proper nomenclature of
the offense is qualified rape. Likewise, this Court ruled that Ursua
should be held guilty of Sexual Abuse instead of mere rape and acts of
lasciviousness. AAA merely testified that her father touched her
breasts and vagina, and thereafter placed himself on top of, and there
was no specific mention of a penetration of Ursua's penis or fingers
into AAA' vagina. Ursua should be convicted of sexual abuse under
Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. The elements of sexual
abuse under the said law are: a.) the accused commit the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct; b.) the said act is performed with a
child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and c.) the
child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. These
elements were sufficed in the present case. First, accused-appellant's
touching of AAA's breasts and vagina with lewd designs constitute
lascivious conduct. Second, appellant, as a father having moral
ascendancy over his daughter, coerced AAA to engage in lascivious
conduct, which is within the purview of sexual abuse. Third, AAA is
below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense.
Accordingly, Ursua should be convicted of sexual abuse under Section
5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, and not just acts of lasciviousness.
The Court further ruled that the crime of acts of lasciviousness under
of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, can
only be committed against a victim who is less than 12 years old; and
that when the victim is aged 12 years old but under 18, or is above 18
years old under special circumstances, the proper designation of the
offense is sexual abuse or lascivious conduct.

Gr No. 229701, November 29, 2017

EDWINA RIMANDO Y FERNANDO VS PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Criminal Law. Revised Penal Code. Illegal possession and use of false
treasury and bank notes and other instrument of credit. Elements –
that any treasury bank or note or certificate or other obligation and
security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or
other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified
by another person; 2) that the offender knows that any of said
instruments is forged or falsified; and 3) That he either possessed
with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instrument.

Same. Same. Conspiracy. – Mere presence at the scene of the crime at

the time of its commission is not by itself sufficient to establish
conspiracy. To establish conspiracy evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the cat, without
cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute
one party to a conspiracy.

Facts: Alex Munez, bank officer of the Investigation Division Task

Department of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, received a confidential
information that Romeo Rimando and his cohorts are counterfeiting
US Dollars. His team subsequently conducted a test-buy around 3
o’clock in the afternoon, and they were able to buy 3 pieces of
counterfeited USD100 for 500 pesos per piece, which he recognized
and confirmed that the bills are fake. Thereafter, they conducted an
entrapment operation against the petioner and their cohorts. It was
agreed that they are going to meet again with the accused to buy 100
pieces of US Dollars at Savory Restaurant in Makati. The team
coordinated with the PNP for the operation. When Romeo Rimando
arrived he was accompanied by Edwina Rimando, the former handed
him the counterfeited notes while Alex gave him the marked money,
Romeo went over to Edwina and put the money in her bag. Alex
signaled the team by placing his eyeglasses on top of his head, the
team then closed in and arrested the accused.
On their part the accused and her husband presented a different
set of facts alleging that they were about to meet with certain Emily
for an old coin transaction and was looking for a restaurant when they
were apprehended by police men. An information was filed against
Romeo and Edwina charging them with violation of Art 168 of the
Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court, rendered the decision
finding the accused guilty. Initially Romeo signified his intention to
appeal his case. However he decided to withdraw his appeal, and only
Edwina filed a petition for review on Certiorari. But the decision of the
RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Whether or Not Edwina Rimando is guilty as a conspirator on

the crime of Illegal Possession and use of False treasury or bank
notes.

Held: Negative.
 The SC ruled that Edwina Rimando is acquitted of the crime
charged. Conspiracy requires that the same degree of proof is needed
to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The mere presence at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission without the proof of
cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one
party to a conspiracy. It is necessary that a conspirator should have
performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the
execution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist of active
participation on the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may
consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime
itself or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirator.
The petitioner did not perform any overt acts in the case at bar
that will hold him equally liable. The elements of the crime charged
against the petitioner are: 1) that any treasury bank or note or
certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any
instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable
to bearer is forged or falsified by another person; 2) that the offender
knows that any of said instruments is forged or falsified; and 3) That
he either possessed with intent to use any of such forged or falsified
instrument.
The prosecution in this case was not able to present evidence on
the existence of these elements in the case against the petitioner.
There was no showing that Edwina Rimando had a hand in the
consummation of the illegal transaction. The fact that the petitioner
accompanied her husband at the restaurant and allowed her husband
to place the money inside her bag would not be sufficient to justify the
conclusion that conspiracy existed.
GR No. 227425 September 04, 2017
People of the Philippines vs. Brahim Lidasan et al

Criminal Law. Revised Penal Code. Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetual to death: 1. If the kidnapping or
detention shall have lasted more than five days. 2. If it shall have been
committed simulating public authority. 3. If any serious physical
injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made. 4. If the
person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public
officer. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or
any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned
were present in the commission of the offense.

Facts: Michele Ragos was in her residential house when suddenly

Bansuan and two companions entered into her bedroom and declared
kidnapping, Adil served as lookout while the other men tied Ragos
hands and sealed her mouth. The accused took with them cash and
personal items amounting to 200,000. Ragos was brought to a
bungalow house where she was guarded by 6 men who took turns on
guarding her, she was transferred to a house in Las Pinas and was
kept on a room there, alternately guarded by ten to twenty men. The
kidnapper initially demanded a ransom money in the amount of 30
million but was then reduced to 4.3 million. Following the incident,
Presidential Anti Organized Crime Task Force were formed to monitor
the kidnapping. Upon entrapment, the task force were able to witness
the pay off and when the ransom money was loaded to another car
they chased the kidnappers leading to their arrest.
All the accused denied the charges against them. The RTC found that
the elements of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom was established,
and thus they were found guilty. The CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC.
Issue: Whether or Not the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom was
committed in the case at bar.
Held: Affirmative.
The elements of the crime are as follows: (a) the offender is a
private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another or in any manner
deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping
must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense any if the
following circumstances is present: 1. The kidnap-ping or detention
lasts for more than three days. 2. It is committed by stimulating public
authority 3. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; 4. The person
kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. Notably
the duration of detention is immaterial if the victim is a minor or if the
purpose of the kidnapping is to extort ransom. The prosecution must
establish the deprivation of liberty of the victim under any of the
mentioned circumstances coupled with indubitable proof of intent of
the accused to effects the same. There must be a purposeful or
knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim coupled
with intent.
In the case at bar the prosecution was able to prove the existence
of all the elements, as it is undisputed that accused appellants among
others illegally detained the victim Ragos against her will for the
purpose of extorting ransom from her family. This the Court ruled to
uphold the conviction of herein accused.

GR. No. 223679 September 27, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs WILFREDO LAYUG et al.
Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Robbery with Homicide. For the
accused to be convicted with robbery with homicide, the prosecution
is burdened to prove the confluence of the following element: 1) the
taking of 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.

Same; Same; Same. Homicide is said to be 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.

Same; Same; Same; Treachery. Robbery with homicide is classified as

a crime against property. Treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed
treacherously. 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.

PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
On June 1, 2001, at around seven o’clock in the evening, Analiza L.
Paule was at the plaza of Barangay Luacan, Dinalupihan, Bataan,
talking with Ramil Ambrosio about her supposed date with Victorino
Paule. She then went to the house of Wilfredo Layug where they had
shabu session as well with Noel Buan and afterwards, they went to
the house of Reynaldo Langit. During their session, Analiza overherad
Reynaldo giving instructions about a hold up but she did not hear the
name of the person. She then went to the public plaza to meet up with
Victorino who was already with Reynaldo. She and Victorino then
boarded on the tricycle of Jesus Ronquillo and proceeded to Benzi
Lodge to have sex in which she was promised a payment of Php500.
Three hours after, they went back to the plaza where Victorino gave
her the payment. Analiza then brought Victorino to the house of
Wilfredo. Fifteen to thirty minutes thereafter, Wilfredo asked her to go
with them to their hideout in Sitio Bucia. Upon reaching the place,
Noel asked Jesus to stop the tricycle and that they have to walk
because the tricycle cannot enter the place. After alighting from their
ride, Noel held the shoulder of Victorino and stabbed him twice in
front of his body which led the latter to lean forward. Wilfredo and
Reynaldo surrounded Victorino helped Noel in stabbing the same and
then Reynaldo took Victorino’ss wallet, wristwatch and necklace. The
three boarded the tricycle and warned Jesus and Analiza not to report
or else they’d be killed. Jesus was thereafter incarcerated due to the
death of Victorino which compelled Analiza to execute a worn
statement regarding the incident. An information was then filed
against Noel, Wilfredo and Reynaldo.
The three accused denied their participation in the incident. The
three then pointed out a certain Boy Timog to be the one responsible
for the death of Victorino and that they didn’t know Analiza. However,
The Regional Trial Court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of robbery with homicide on the grounds that all the
elements of the crime were present, that the prosecution was able to
prove the existence of treachery, evident premeditation and taking
advantage of superior strength and imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Noel and Wilfredo appealed while Reynaldo withdrew. The
Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the
RTC on the same grounds and ruled for the award of damages.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are guilty of robbery with

homicide.

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused are
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. The court had time and
again deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and evaluation of
the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. The Supreme Court gives full credence to the testimonies of
Analiza and Ambrosio as no evidence was presented to refute the
same. Moreover, the prosecution was able to prove the existence of all
the elements of the crime as provided in Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code, to wit; 1) the taking of 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. It is
immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident or that
the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery. All the
felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of robbery are
integrated into one. The word homicide is used in its generic sense
which include murder, infanticide, and parricide. Through the
convincing testimony of Analiza, it was established that personal
properties and cash belonging to Victorino were taken by Noel and
Wilfredo by means of force and with obvious intent to gain. Treachery
was also present as the sudden attack gave the victim no opportunity
to defend himself. Evident premeditation, on the other hand is
inherent in crimes against property. Considering the above premises,
Noel Buan and Wilfredo Layug were found guilty and penalized with
reclusion perpetua and to award damages amounting to Php100,000
pesos to the heirs of Victorino Paule.