Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y.

Criminal Law II Atty David Yap

Class Student No. 3 ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE DAY 6

PEOPLE VS. DANIELA G.R. No. 139230. April 24, 2003 401 SCRA 519

CALLEJO, SR., J:

FACTS:
On 30 March 1996, accused-appellants Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis went to the house of
the spouses, Ronito Enero and Maria Fe to borrow some money. Ronito advised them that they don’t
anything to spare them, Daniela and Baylosis stayed and eventually had a drinking spree together with
Ronito. When Maria Fe woke up, she advised them to sleep, at around 2:00am, while everyone was
asleep, Daniela went to the spouses room with a gun and a lamp, followed by Baylosis, advised Maria Fe
to hand over their money, took her jewelry and tied her and also tied her cousin. Daniela ordered
Baylosis to use the blanket and kill Ronito who was then sleeping, Baylosis stabbed him several times
using a kitchen knife, and Daniela also stabbed Ronito. When they saw Julifer, “tomboy” housemaid,
they raped her. When they were done, they threatened to kill them if they will report the incident.
Maria Fe and Julifer went to the Brgy Chairman when the accused-appellants left.
During the trial, Julifer refused to take the stand with regards to the rape issue.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellants Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis of robbery with
homicide, sentencing them to death.
The appellants contend that the penalty should be lower since they pleaded guilty and that they
did not have intention to rob, but Ronito refused to give Daniela’s share in a previous robbery incident
they did.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court is correct in convicting them robbery with homicide?

HELD:
Yes, the trial court is correct in convicting them robbery with homicide. The elements of the
crime are as follows: (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 done with animo lucrandi;
and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. A conviction for
robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the
malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The animo lucrandi must proceed the
killing. If the original design does not comprehend robbery, but robbery follows the homicide either as
an afterthought or merely as an incident of the homicide, then the malefactor is guilty of two separate
crimes, that of homicide or murder and robbery, and not of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, a single and indivisible offense. It is the intent of the actor to rob which supplies the
connection between the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex crime of
robbery with homicide. However, the law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is
robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. In People vs. Tidula, et al., this
Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his
conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In People v. Damaso, this Court held
that the fact that the intent of the felons was tempered with a desire also to avenge grievances against
the victim killed, does not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with
homicide. A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before,
during or after the commission of the rob bery. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur
of the moment or by mere accident. Even if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and
physical injuries are inflicted on another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is only one
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What is primordial is the result obtained without
reference or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the commission
of the crime.

1
Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y. Criminal Law II Atty David Yap
Class Student No. 3 ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE DAY 6

The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. CBU-
42044, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.