You are on page 1of 2


CC, upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to killing AA, his wife. After trial, the court convicted CC to be
"GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Parricide" and is sentenced with "DEATH." CC
appealed contending that the death penalty imposed is mitigated by his voluntary confession; hence,
the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Is CC correct?
YES, CC is correct, the proper penalty should be Reclusion Perpetua.
For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession to apply, the following requisites must
concur: (1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open
court, that is, before a competent court trying the case; and (3) the confession of guilt was made prior to
the presentation of evidence by the prosecution (Article 13(7), RPC).
Here, CC made his confession of guilt before the presentation of evidence by the prosecution
since he pleaded guilty during the arraignment. He also confessed voluntarily and spontaneously despite
knowing the serious nature of the charge against him. Lastly, CC made his confession openly before the
judge and the parties in the hearing. Clearly therefore, all the requisites of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary confession were present (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARLON JUAN Y LESTE; G.R. No.
152289. January 14, 2004.; CORONA, J).


AA, BB and CC decided to rob EE. When AA and BB abducted EE to rob him, CC acted as the
lookout. BB, using DD’s gun, killed the latter, a policeman on patrol, who went to investigate the scene.
Upon learning that only P5,000.00 will be robbed from EE, he was killed by BB. AA, BB and CC were
charged with robbery with homicide. After trial, the court found BB guilty of the crime charged. BB
appealed contending that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime robbery with
homicide because while the prosecution have proved the killing of DD and EE (homicide), it, failed to
prove that they have divested EE of P5,000.00 (Robbery). BB further contends that if he is to be
convicted, it should only be for homicide and not for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Will
the case prosper?
Yes the case will prosper.
To prove robbery with homicide, 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 animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with
homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. 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
only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no
such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive
elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.
Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with
homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into
one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.
Here, AA, BB and CC, intended to divest EE of money. Each of them had specific tasks to perform. The trio
performed their tasks with precision. In the process, DD, who was on patrol, was killed. BB and AA
abducted EE while it was BB who killed DD. Hence, the case of robbery with homicide will prosper (PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs . EDUARDO DE JESUS y ENRILE; G.R. No. 134815. May 27, 2004).