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 CA’s decision. Like the CA, the SC
appreciated the fact that the car’s 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.]
DODOT Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
  Although Espino was rushed to the hospital, he was pronounced dead on
arrival.
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, Espino’s 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 someone’s 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 Espina’s 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.)

DODOT Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

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 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 Espino’s
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 prosecution’s witnesses saw the ROBBERY and FATAL
STABBING of Espino by the accused.
 Regarding Bobby’s 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 Bobby’s 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 prosecution’s 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
DODOT Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
 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