GR 86453; (December, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86453 December 5, 1991
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Lawrence Ponciano y Sabolan, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Lawrence Ponciano, was charged with Robbery with Homicide for events occurring on July 29, 1986, in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. The information alleged that, armed with a bladed instrument and with intent to gain, he took various electronic items and wristwatches from the house of Ricardo Rivera. During the robbery, he stabbed and killed Ricardo Rivera, Alicia Rivera, and Regina Villanueva. The trial court convicted him of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced him to three counts of reclusion perpetua.
The prosecution evidence established that the accused was drinking with the victims and others at the Rivera residence. Rowena Fernandez-Rivera testified that after she and Alicia asked the group to leave, the accused brandished a knife, lunged at Alicia, and attacked the others. She hid and later discovered the robbery and the deaths. Eulogio Sanchez, another drinking companion, testified he awoke to find Alicia wounded and later saw the accused holding a knife in the kitchen.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court modified the conviction, finding the appellant guilty not of the complex crime but of separate offenses of homicide and theft. The legal logic is that for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide to exist, the homicide must be committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, implying a logical connection where the killing is perpetrated to facilitate the robbery or to escape, or is an essential part of the robbery itself. Here, the evidence failed to establish that the appellant killed the victims for the purpose of robbing them. The testimonies indicated the killings preceded the taking of the items. The robbery was merely an afterthought, not the motivating purpose for the violence. Consequently, the killings constitute separate crimes of homicide, and the taking of property constitutes simple theft.
The Court further ruled that voluntary intoxication is not an exempting circumstance as it was habitual and induced to fortify the resolve to commit the crime; it was instead considered aggravating. The penalties for the three counts of homicide were modified to indeterminate sentences, and the civil indemnities were adjusted accordingly. The conviction for theft was also imposed separately.