G.R. No. 246580 , June 23, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONILEE CASABUENA Y FRANCISCO AND KEVIN FORMARAN Y GILERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Ronilee Casabuena and Kevin Formaran, along with Jimmy Arizala, were charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that they, armed with a gun and bladed weapons, robbed passengers inside a jeepney. On the occasion of the robbery, their co-accused Jimmy Arizala was killed. During trial, PO2 Ramilo De Pedro testified that after announcing the arrest of the accused-appellants, Arizala took a pistol from his backpack. PO2 De Pedro wrestled with Arizala for possession of the pistol, was able to grab it, and fired twice, with the second shot hitting Arizala in the chest, causing his death.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellants can be held guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide when the person killed was one of the robbers and the killing was committed by a third person, a responding police officer, and not by any of the persons guilty of the robbery.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice Caguioa argues that accused-appellants should be convicted only of Robbery, not Robbery with Homicide. The dissent submits that for a conviction under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the homicide must have been committed by the person or persons guilty of the robbery. The provision’s overarching statement, “Any person guilty of robbery,” modifies the enumerated paragraphs, meaning the overt acts (like homicide) refer back to the robber as the agent. Since the killing of Arizala was committed by PO2 De Pedro, a third person and not by the accused-appellants, the element that “the crime of homicide shall have been committed” by the robbers is absent. The dissent emphasizes that when PO2 De Pedro shot Arizala, he did not commit a “crime of homicide” in the context of the robbery, and the accused-appellants likewise did not commit the killing. Applying the rule of statutory construction that penal laws must be construed strictly in favor of the accused (in dubio pro reo), the dissent concludes that the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is not consummated. The dissent further notes that the killing by the police officer does not align with the jurisprudential motives for a homicide to be considered “by reason or on occasion of robbery,” such as to eliminate an obstacle, silence a witness, facilitate escape, preserve loot, or prevent discovery. Therefore, accused-appellants should be held liable only for the crime of Robbery.