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 appellants then forcibly broke into the house, where Sofronio Quiter hacked Iluminado Lucinario before he escaped by jumping out a window. The appellants chased him but he reached safety. 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 trial court correctly convicted the appellants of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, or whether separate crimes were committed.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. It held that the appellants should be convicted of two separate crimes of Homicide and Theft, not the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The legal logic is rooted in the requirement that for the complex crime to exist, the homicide must be committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, implying a direct causal connection. In this case, the evidence showed the appellants’ primary motive was to kill the victims due to a prior land dispute. The robbery was merely an afterthought, as the taking of property occurred after the hacking of Barbara Garcia and the attack on Iluminado Lucinario had commenced. The intent to rob did not precede the assault; therefore, the killing was not a means to commit robbery nor incidental to it. Consequently, the elements of the complex crime were not satisfied. The Court affirmed the conviction for Frustrated Homicide against Iluminado Lucinario, noting the proper aggravating circumstances of dwelling and breaking a door. The penalties were adjusted accordingly: for Homicide, an indeterminate penalty; for Theft, another indeterminate penalty; and for Frustrated Homicide, the trial court’s penalty was affirmed. The indemnity for the death was also increased.