People v. Torres (2014) G.R. No.

189850
22 September 2014 DEL CASTILLO, J.:
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Art. 294 Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
SUMMARY: Espino was in his car when one of the Torres brothers went to the middle of the road to block his path.
Espino alighted from his car a struggle ensued for the possession of the belt bag of Espino. The remaining Torres
brothers (including the Bobby) approached together with an unidentified companion all of whom had bladed
weapons. While the unidentified companion held the neck of Espino, the Torres brothers hacked and stabbed Espino.
Espino fell to the ground and the assailants then took his belt bag, wallet, and jewelry and then fled. An information
for Robbery with Homicide was filed against Bobby, the lone assailant who was arrested. The RTC however convicted
him for Murder, holding that it had not been indubitably shown that the main purpose of the assailants was to rob
Espino. The CA modified the conviction to Robbery with Homicide. The SC affirmed the CAs decision. Like the CA,
the SC appreciated the fact that the cars path was blocked and immediately thereafter a struggle for the possession of
the belt bag had ensued, and the fact that as soon as Espino fell to the ground that the assailants took possession of the
belt bag, wallet, and jewelry and then immediately fled to conclude that the primary intention of the assailants was to
rob Espino, the killing only being incidental to the robbery.

DOCTRINE: Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the
robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1)
the taking of personal property belonging to another (2) with intent to gain (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.

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. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur
before, during or after the robbery.

FACTS:
INFORMATION: Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide (against the Torres siblings; only Bobby
was arrested, Reynaldo, Jay, and Ronnie remained at large).
Version of the Prosecution (Eyewitnesses: Umali, a butcher; Macapar, a cigarette vendor)
o 10p, 21 Sep 2001: Jaime Espino (ESPINO), 61 yo at the time, was driving along CM Recto Ave., Mla.,
when Ronnie blocked his path.
Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie Ronnie tried to grab his belt bag.
[NOTE: the testimony of Macapar and Umali contradicted one another on whether
there had been an exchange of heated words according to Macapar (10m away) there
had been such an exchange, but according to Umali (5m away) there had not.]
Espino struggled for the possession of the belt bag but Jay, Reynaldo, and Bobby, and an
unidentified companion, suddenly appeared.
All of the Torres siblings and their unidentified companion were brandishing bladed
weapons.
While the unidentified companion held Espino by the neck, Bobby and his siblings took turns
in stabbing Espino in different parts of his body.
When Espino was sprawled on the ground, they took his belt bag, wallet, jewelries and then
immediately fled.
[NOTE: on cross-examination of Macapar, he admitted that he did not see who took
the items because once Espino fell to the ground, the assailants surrounded Espino.]
Although Espino was rushed to the hospital, he was pronounced dead on arrival.

DODOT Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

 o Medico-Legal Report (Dr. Salen): death was due to multiple stab wounds caused by sharp bladed
instruments; based on the number and the varying measurements of the wound, Dr. Salen concluded
that there were more than one assailants.
Back of the head: 2 stab wounds.
Body: 4 stab wounds (fatal).
o [Civil aspect, attested to by Winnie, Espinos daughter.]
Jewelry, P80k Total: P35k necklace, P15k bracelet, P10k wristwatch, P20k rings (2 pcs.).
Expenses, P62k Total: P25k burial lot, P37k funeral expenses.
Lost earnings: P3k/day (meat vendor).
Version of the Defense (Note: only Bobby)
o According to Bobby: At the time of the alleged commission of the crime, Bobby said that he was with
his girlfriend, Merlita Hilario (MERLITA).
They proceeded to the house of their friend, Marilou Garcia (MARILOU), where they had a
drinking session they did not leave until the following morning.
When they went home, they were told that the police were looking for Bobby his brothers
had apparently gotten involved in an altercation that resulted in someones death.
This account was corroborated by Merlita and Marilou.
o According to the wife of Ronnie, Jorna Yabut-Torres (JORNA): She, Ronnie, and other vendors were
sharing jokes with one another when a car stopped a few meters from their stall the driver thereof,
seemingly drunk as he was walking unsteadily, alighted and asked why they were laughing.
Ronnie told the driver that their laughter had nothing to do with the latter but the driver
went to his car, came back to Ronnie, and stabbed Ronnie on the wrist with a knife.
Jay saw the attack, got his bolo, and repeatedly hacked the driver with it.
Ronnie and Jay then fled.
This account was corroborated by a vegetable vendor, Ditas Biescas-Mangliya (DITAS).
RTC: guilty of MURDER
o The RTC based on doubt as to who had actually taken the jewelries, and on the cloud of suspicion
arising from the contradictory testimony of Umali and Macapar, and considering that the victim and
the assailants were apparently familiar with one another (noting, for instance, that the stall of Espinas
daughter was only several meters away from the stall of Ronnie) concluded that the perpetration of
Robbery at that particular place was unlikely.
o Even assuming arguendo that the element of taking was present, the RTC held that Bobby could still
NOT be held liable for the complex crime of robbery with homicide since it had NOT been indubitably
shown that the main purpose of the accused was to rob Espino.
o The RTC concluded that Bobby could only be held liable for the killing of Espino.
MURDER (qualifying circumstance: abuse of superior strength; conspiracy attended the crime).
CA: guilty of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
o CA found that the primary intention of Bobby, et al. was to rob Espino the killing being only
incidental. (The intent to rob could be seen in the blocking of the path of the car and then the
subsequent struggle for the possession of the belt bag.)

ISSUES:
1. Did the conviction for robbery, notwithstanding the acquittal for robbery at the level of the RTC, constitute
double jeopardy?
2. ***Is Bobby guilty of Murder or of Robbery with Homicide?***

HELD:
1. NO. In an appeal by the accused, he waives his right NOT to be subject to double jeopardy. Upon appeal, it became
the duty of the CA to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment including issues NOT raised by the
DODOT Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
 appellant. (Note that the contention of Bobby was that he had only intended to appeal the conviction for murder,
and not the acquittal for robbery.)

2. ***Bobby is guilty of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, not murder.***

[SEE Doctrine re: when conviction for Robbery with homicide is proper.]
Case at Bar: the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the primary intention of Bobby, et al.
was to rob Espino.
o Like the CA, the SC gave weight to the fact of the blocking of the path of Espinos car followed by a
struggle for the possession of the belt bag and that it was only during the struggle that the others
joined in and began stabbing Espino.
o The SC observed that as soon as Espino fell, Bobby, et al. got hold of the wallet, belt bag, and jewelry
and then fled.
o SC: Had they primarily intended to kill Espino, they would have immediately stabbed him to death.
Here, the killing had merely been incidental.
Regarding the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies: only involved minor details did not take away the
fact that the prosecutions witnesses saw the ROBBERY and FATAL STABBING of Espino by the accused.
Regarding Bobbys allegation that it went against human nature for a person to alight from his vehicle at10p
with large amounts of money w/o fear of an impending hold up: Espino was unlikely to have been fearful as
he was a vendor doing business in the area and had been familiar with the people there and their activities.
Regarding Bobbys allegation that the evidence was insufficient for his conviction as the weapons used: the
weapons are NOT the corpus delicti.
o Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of
the crime even a single credible witness testimony may suffice, it may even be established by
circumstantial evidence.
o Case at Bar: the corpus delicti was established by the evidence on record.
Testimony of prosecutions witnesses: the accused used knives to perpetrate the crime.
Supported by the findings of the medico-legal.
The defense of denial and alibi CANNOT prosper
o Re alibi: must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime
scene at the time the crime was committed. (Case at bar: only 2 km away.)
o Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has
sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.
On the circumstance of abuse of superior strength: adequately proved.
o There is abuse of superior strength when the offenders took advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the offense. (Case at bar: while Espino was unarmed and defenseless, Bobby, et
al. were armed with knives AND took advantage of their numerical superiority; the unidentified
companion also locked his arm around the neck of Espino while the others stabbed and hacked him.)
o NOTE: When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide,
it is to be regarded as a GENERIC CIRCUMSTANCE, robbery with homicide being a composite crime
with its own definition and special penalty in the RPC.
Effect: qualifies the imposition of the death penalty. (HOWEVER, in view of RA 9346, the
proper penalty that should be imposed is reclusion perpetua w/o eligibility for parole.)
Effect (Civil): award of exemplary damages.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of is AFFIRMED with further MODIFICATIONS. Appellant
Bobby Torres @ Roberto Torres y Nava is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Jaime M. Espino, P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The interest rate of 6% per annum
is imposed on all damages awarded from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

DODOT Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons