Robbery with Homicide

A. This is committed “ When by reason or on the occasion of robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed”. This phrase requires that there is a causal connection between the robbery and the death, had it not been for the robbery, there would have been no death.



B. Both the robbery and the homicide should be consummated to be penalized by Reclusion Perpetua to Death.

1. If it was the Robbery which was not consummated, but there was a killing, it is still a special complex crime of Attempted or Frustrated Robbery with Homicide but the penalty is as provided for under Article 297

2. If both the robbery and the killing are either attempted or frustrated, the result is either a complex crime of Attempted/Frustrated Robbery with Attempted/Frustrated Homicide under Article 48, or as separate crimes depending on the circumstances

3. If the Robbery is consummated but the homicide is attempted or frustrated, they may be ordinary complex crimes or separate crimes depending on the circumstances



C. The term “Homicide” is used in its generic sense and it includes any kind of killing whether it be murder, parricide or infanticide, and irrespective of how many killings were there. The following are not proper terms:

1. Robbery with Murder: if there is any qualifying circumstance which was present, such as treachery, it will be considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance

2. Robbery with Double, Triple or Multiple Homicide:



D. The killing may be intentional, or accidental. The killing may be by the acts of the robber, or by the act of the victim, or act of a third person. The person killed may be the victim of the robbery or his friend, or family member. The person killed may even be one of the robbers themselves, or a person wanting to assist or even a total stranger.



E. The following will constitute robbery with homicide:



1. The robber fired his gun upwards to frighten the victim but the bullet killed a person who was hiding in the ceiling

2. The victim drew a gun to defend but his aim was deflected and instead hit his companion

3. It was a responding policeman who was killed by a robber.

4. The responding policeman fired a shot but missed and killed the victim of robbery

5. The several robbers fought over the loot and one killed another, even if this took place after the taking had taken place and the robbers had fled the scene of robbery

6. One of the victims suffered a stroke due to the tension and dies

7. The gun of a robber accidentally fell and killed a person outside the house



F. The killing may be before, during, or immediately after the taking provided that the original intent of the robbers must have been to rob and not to kill, which need not be the sole motive either.



Example: X pointed a knife at Y and divested him of his cell phone. X turned and ran whereupon Y chased him so that X stabbed and killed Y.   



G. If the original intention was to kill and the idea of taking came only thereafter, there results two separate crimes of theft and murder or homicide. Example: The accused shot to death his enemy. Then he decided to take the victim’s necklace.



H. All those who conspired in the robbery will be liable for the death unless he proved he endeavored to prevent the killing. Physical absence in the place where the killing took place is not a defense, or that the accused was not aware his co-accused would resort to a killing.

Example: A, B, C and D conspired to rob a housel with D acting as look-out at the road. Jose, an occupant refused to give money so A leveled his gun at him. B shielded Jose with his body as he did not like any killing A pushed B aside and shot Jose. C was then at the rooms ransacking it. A, C and D will be liable for Robbery with Homicide, but not B, who tried to prevent it.