Art. 294. Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons — Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusión perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed. (Revised Penal Code)


What is Robbery with homicide

Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime punished under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. It is perpetrated when, by reason or on the occasion of robbery, homicide is committed (People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019).


Elements of robbery with homicide

In order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the following elements must be proven by the prosecution: 
  1. the taking of personal property belonging to another; 
  2. with intent to gain or animus lucrandi; 
  3. with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and
  4. on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed (People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 08, 2020).

Main purpose and objective

● In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life (People v. Layug, G.R. No. 223679, September 27, 2017).

● A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. (People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 08, 2020).

● Unless the prosecution convincingly proves that the main purpose of the culprit(s) was the asportation of personal property and that the death was merely incidental to such asportation, there can be no conviction for this special complex crime (People v. Salazar, G R. No. 99355, August 11, 1997).


Robbery and homicide must be consummated

● It is necessary that the robbery itself be proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. For there to be robbery, there must be taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person or by using force upon things (People v. Madrelejos, G.R. No. 225328, March 21, 2018).

●The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated  (People v. Madrelejos, G.R. No. 225328, March 21, 2018).


Time of killing 

The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery (People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 08, 2020).


Killing by mere accident

It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident, the felony would still be robbery with homicide. (People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019).


Homicide 

The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide (People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019).


Direct, intimate connection

● Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time (People v. Quemeggen, G.R. No. 178205, July 27, 2009).


People v. Barrut

Fact: While pasturing his cow, A saw five persons going to the hut of B, an octogenarian. Sensing that the group had evil intentions, A informed his neighbors that B was in trouble. A, and other neighbors constituted themselves as rescue party. After robbing B by means of violence and intimidation, a fight ensued between A's group and the robbers wherein a member of the rescue party died. 

Held: Although the killing was perpetrated after the consummation of the robbery and after the robbers had left the victim's house, the homicide is still integrated with the robbery or is regarded as having been committed "by reason or on the occasion" thereof, as contemplated in article 294(i) of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Barrut, G.R. No. L-42666 March 13, 1979). [The fight was inseparable part of robbery].


People v. Quemmegen

Fact: A, B, C and D announced hold-up. After taking the passengers' personal belongings, the four alighted from the jeepney. Some of the passengers, however, decided to report the incident to the nearest police station. Police X, Y, and Z went back to the place where the robbery took place. Initially, they saw no one; then finally, police Z saw the suspects on board a pedicab. A, B, C were caught and left under the care of X while Y and Z pursued D. It was then that X was killed. A, B, C then escaped. Subsequently, A and D were arrested and were charged with Robbery with Homicide.

Held: There is no connection between the robbery and the homicide. At the moment A, B, C and D alighted from the jeepney, robbery was consummated. Clearly, the killing was distinct from the robbery. There may be a connection between the two crimes, but surely, there was no "direct connection. D was held guilty of robbery while A was held guilty of two separate crimes of robbery and homicide (People v. Quemeggen, G.R. No. 178205, July 27, 2009). [There is an appreciable interval of time between the robbery and the pursuit of the robbers].


Victim of homicide

● In robbery with homicide, it is immaterial that the victim of homicide is:
  1. other than the victim of robbery
  2. one of the robbers
  3. or that two or more persons are killed  (People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019).
● There is robo con homicidio even if the victim killed was an innocent bystander and not the person robbed. The law does not require that the victim of the robbery be also the victim of the homicide (People v. Barrut, G.R. No. L-42666 March 13, 1979).

●  There is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The charge should have been for robbery with homicide only regardless of the fact that three persons were killed in the commission of the robbery. In this special complex crime, the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294 of the said Code (People v. Vivas, G.R. No. 100914. May 6, 1994).


Killer

● It is of no moment if the death was not caused by the accused. In order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with homicide it is enough that a homicide would result by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (based on the Spanish text). It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident, provided that the homicide be produced by reason on or occasion of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into consideration (People v. Ombao, G.R. No. L-30492 February 26, 1981)

● In robbery with homicide, it is immaterial that the victim was killed by a stray bullet coming from a police officer, or one of the robbers was killed by a police officer or by a co-robber.


Other crimes committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery

Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide (People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019).


Who are liable

When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same.

If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized (People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 08, 2020).


Stolen property need not be presented in court;
Value of stolen property need not be proved

Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful taking of personal property. When the fact of asportation has been established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property stolen may have been abandoned or thrown away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner. The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involve (People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322, September 08, 2020).


Reason for higher penalty

Robo con homicidio is an indivisible offense, a special complex crime. The penalty for robbery with homicide is more severe because the law sees, in this crime, that men placed lucre above the value of human life, thus, justifying the imposition of a more severe penalty than that for simple homicide or robbery (People v. Salazar, G R. No. 99355, August 11, 1997).


Treachery

Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance but "a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and a single and indivisible crime". Corollarily, "Article 62, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in diminishing or increasing the penalty for a crime, aggravating circumstances shall be taken into account. However, aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime especially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty". In the case at bar, "treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide". Neither is it "inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide". As such, treachery may be properly considered in increasing the penalty for crime (People v. Baron, G.R. No. 185209, June 28, 2010).


Distinguished from complex crime under Article 48 

Robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Code is distinguished from the complex crime punished in Article 48, which contemplates a situation where one offense is a necessary means to commit the other or where a single act results in two or more offenses. The homicide in Article 294(1) is not necessary for the accomplishment of the robbery (People v. Salazar, G R. No. 99355, August 11, 1997).


Robbery by means of violence against or intimidation of persons 

● Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime founder under Art. 294, RPC which governs robbery by means of violence or intimidation.

● There is no robbery by using force upon things with homicide under Art 299, RPC.


No crime of theft with homicide

Fact: Y, while on board a motorcycle driven by his companion Z, snatched A's shoulder bag which was hanging on the latter's left shoulder. Accused used no violence or intimidation in snatching the shoulder bag. Z, however, died because he lost control of the motorcycle and crashed in front of a taxi.

Held: Given the facts, Y's snatching of A's shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery. Y's crime of theft was aggravated by his use of a motorcycle in committing the crime. Under Article 14(20) of the RPC, the use of a motor vehicle as a means of committing a crime is a generic aggravating circumstance. Thus, the maximum period of the penalty for the crime of theft shall be imposed upon Y due to the presence of a generic aggravating circumstance and the absence of any mitigating circumstance. Since Y, as passenger in the motorcycle, did not perform or execute any act that caused the death of Z, Y cannot be held liable for homicide (People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012).


No crime of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence

There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence (People v. Madrelejos, G.R. No. 225328, March 21, 2018; People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019).