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, such that the accused is convicted of an offense that is not necessarily included in the crime charged. Conviction for an offense not charged constitutes a denial of due process.

FACTS

1. Joselito Bartolome y Garcia was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide under an Information alleging that he, with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation, took cash and in the course thereof, shot and killed the victim.
2. During trial, the prosecution evidence established that Bartolome and an accomplice entered the victim’s store, declared a hold-up, and took money. The victim was then shot and killed. However, the evidence specifically proved that the taking of the property was completed *before* the shooting occurred.
3. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Bartolome of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction.
4. Bartolome appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the facts proved did not constitute the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, as the killing was not committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery since the robbery had already been consummated.

ISSUE

Whether the accused may be validly convicted of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide when the evidence shows that the robbery was already consummated before the homicide was committed.

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the conviction for Robbery with Homicide.

The Court held that for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide to exist, the killing must have been committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The robbery is the main purpose and objective, and the killing is merely incidental. The evidence in this case clearly showed a chronological break: the robbery (taking of money) was completed before the shooting transpired. The killing was not necessary to carry out the robbery, nor did it occur during or as a consequence of the forcible taking. Therefore, the facts proved two separate and distinct crimes: (1) consummated Robbery, and (2) Homicide/Murder.

Crucially, the accused was charged *only* with Robbery with Homicide. He was not separately charged with Homicide or Murder. Convicting him of two separate crimes (Robbery and Homicide) would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him, as he was not arraigned or given the opportunity to defend himself against a charge of Homicide independent of the robbery.

Since the crime charged (Robbery with Homicide) was not proven, and the crime proven (Homicide) is not necessarily included in the crime charged (as the element of killing by reason or on the occasion of the robbery is absent), the accused cannot be convicted of either. The Court acquitted Bartolome of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. However, due to the presence of qualifying circumstances (treachery, evident premeditation) in the killing, the Court found that the proper charge should have been Murder. The case was REMANDED to the trial court for the proper filing of a new Information for Murder, to afford the accused due process.