PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO BARTOLOME y GARCIA, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 191726 , February 6, 2012.

DOCTRINE: The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against an accused is violated when there is a variance between the offense charged in the Information and the offense proved during trial, if such variance is substantial and prejudices the accused’s substantial rights. Conviction for a crime not alleged is a denial of due process.

FACTS

1. An Information was filed charging Joselito Bartolome with the crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The allegations stated that he took cash and, “on the occasion or by reason of the robbery,” stabbed and killed the victim.
2. During trial, the prosecution’s evidence established that Bartolome and his companions entered the victim’s house, stabbed him, and *then* took his money. The sequence of events proved that the killing preceded the taking.
3. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Bartolome of Robbery with Homicide. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction.
4. Before the Supreme Court, Bartolome argued, among others, that he could not be convicted of Robbery with Homicide because the evidence showed the killing occurred *before* the robbery, which is not the sequence contemplated under Article 294(1) for the special complex crime.

ISSUE

Whether the accused may be validly convicted of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the RPC when the evidence proves that the homicide was committed *before* the robbery.

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court REVERSED the convictions for Robbery with Homicide.

The Court held that the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) requires that the homicide be committed *by reason, on the occasion, or as a consequence* of the robbery. This implies a logical and causal connection where the robbery is the main purpose, and the killing is incidental to facilitate the robbery or escape. The sequence where the killing comes *first* and the taking follows is not the “robbery with homicide” punished under Article 294(1). Instead, such facts constitute two separate crimes: Homicide (or Murder) and Theft (or Robbery).

Here, the evidence clearly established that the accused killed the victim *first* and *then* took his money. This variance between the crime charged (Robbery with Homicide) and the crime proved (Homicide followed by Theft/Robbery) is substantial and violates the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. Convicting him of Robbery with Homicide based on evidence proving a different set of crimes would be a denial of due process.

However, the Court did not acquit Bartolome. Applying the doctrine that an accused may be convicted of a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged, and considering the allegations in the Information sufficiently charged the separate crimes of Homicide and Robbery, the Supreme Court modified the judgment. The Court found Bartolome guilty of the separate crimes of Homicide and Simple Robbery, meting out the appropriate penalties for each.