GR 198020; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198020 ; July 10, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH BARRA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On the night of October 9, 2003, in Tigaon, Camarines Sur, appellant Joseph Barra entered the house of Elmer Lagdaan. Prosecution witness Ricardo de la Peña, who was ten meters away, testified that he saw appellant, under the light of a lamp and a bright moon, poke a gun at the victim’s forehead and demand money. When Lagdaan stated he did not have the money, appellant shot him. Another witness, Ely Asor, testified to seeing appellant at the victim’s residence that same night and later hearing a gunshot. The victim died from a close-range gunshot wound. The prosecution presented no evidence that any money or property was actually taken from the victim.
Appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was in Batangas City at the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the conviction to attempted robbery with homicide, affirming the penalty of reclusion perpetua due to the aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted appellant of attempted robbery with homicide instead of the consummated special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s modification, holding appellant liable only for attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code. For the consummated crime of robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove all elements of robbery, including asportation or the taking of personal property with intent to gain. Here, the evidence only established that appellant demanded money and shot the victim when he refused. No evidence was presented to show that appellant actually succeeded in taking any money or property from the victim. The fact of asportation was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
The legal logic is clear: the homicide occurred by reason of or on the occasion of an attempted robbery, not a consummated one. Appellant commenced the robbery by overt acts (entering the dwelling, poking a gun, and demanding money) but did not perform all acts of execution because the victim refused and no property was taken. The killing was directly linked to this attempted robbery. Consequently, the proper classification is attempted robbery with homicide. The penalty imposed by the CA was affirmed, and the Supreme Court modified the damages by increasing exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00 and imposing legal interest on all monetary awards.