GR 74291; (May, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 74291-93 May 23, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSCAR LAMOSA, GUALBERTO LAMOSA, SANTIAGO LAMOSA, and SOFRONIO QUITER, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The accused-appellants were charged with Robbery with Homicide for the killing of Barbara Garcia and the theft of cash and jewelry from the spouses Lucinario, and with Frustrated Murder for the attack on Iluminado Lucinario. The incidents occurred on October 19, 1977, in Dagami, Leyte. The prosecution evidence established that after a failed settlement of a land dispute earlier that day, the appellants, armed with bolos, went to the Lucinario home that evening. Gualberto Lamosa gained entry by deception. Subsequently, Oscar Lamosa pushed in and hacked Barbara Garcia, causing her death. The group then forcibly broke into the house, where Sofronio Quiter hacked Iluminado Lucinario before he escaped. The appellants chased him but failed to catch him. The trial court convicted the appellants of Robbery in Band with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, imposing the death penalty for the former.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide was duly proven, and whether the crimes were properly qualified and penalized.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. It ruled that the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide was not established. The legal logic requires that the homicide be committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, implying a direct connection where the killing facilitates the theft or is a consequence of it. The evidence showed the appellants’ primary motive was retaliation for the land dispute complaint, not robbery. The killing of Barbara Garcia and the subsequent taking of property were separate acts. The Court found the element of “intent to gain” (animus lucrandi) at the inception of the attack was not proven, as the robbery appeared to be an afterthought. Consequently, the appellants committed two distinct crimes: Homicide for killing Barbara Garcia and Theft for taking the properties. For Homicide, the penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling and breaking a door were properly appreciated. The Court affirmed the conviction for Frustrated Homicide (not Frustrated Murder, as evident premeditation was not proven) against Iluminado Lucinario, as the penalty imposed was within the legal range. The judgment was thus affirmed with modifications regarding the nature of the crimes and the corresponding penalties.