G.R. No. 198020 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSEPH BARRA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Joseph Barra GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 291(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. To pay the surviving heirs of Elmer Lagdaan, the sum of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death, as actual damages in the amount of Php55,579.80, as moral damages in the sum of Php50,000.00 and to pay the costs. The accused is entitled to the full credit of his preventive imprisonment if he abides by the disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners during his confinement, otherwise he shall only be entitled to four-fifths (4/5) thereof. [13] However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals only found appellant guilty of attempted robbery with homicide. It stated that: Regarding the trial courts finding that accused-appellant is responsible for the death of Lagdaan, WE will not disturb the same as it is well supported by the evidence on record and in accord with prevailing law and jurisprudence. However, WE disagree with its determination of the nature of the crime that accused-appellant committed. Instead of robbery with homicide at its consum[m]ated stage, accused-appellant should have been declared guilty only of attempted robbery with homicide. As correctly observed by the OSG, [14] the only evidence introduced by the government to establish robbery is the statement of De la Peña that when accused-appellant reached the victims place, the latter barged into the said residence, poked a gun at the victims forehead, demanded money and when the victim refused to accede to his demand, fired a gun and shot the victim. Indeed, no iota of evidence was presented to establish that accused-appellant took away the victims money or any property, for that matter. The fact of asportation must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Since this fact was not duly established, accused-appellant should be held liable only for the crime of attempted robbery with homicide as defined and penalized under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code which provides When by reason of or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua , unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code. The appellant is guilty of attempted robbery with homicide only when he commenced the commission of robbery directly by overt acts and did not perform all the acts of execution which would produce robbery by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The claim of the defense that accused-appellant should be convicted only of the crime of homicide is bereft of merit. The killing of the victim herein was by reason of or on the occasion of robbery. The attendant circu