G.R. No.

223103, February 24, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. FLORENTINO
LABUGUEN Y FRANCISCO ALIAS “TINONG,” AND ROMEO ZUÑIGA[1] Y
PILARTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Facts:

The deceased Bonifacio Angeles was engaged in buying cows and selling them to the
public market. One day, the accused Vivencio Labuguen went to him and told him that he knows
of three big cows for sale and that the place where they are is near. Believing on such
declaration, he took money from his cabinet at his house and then drove in his motorcycle with
the accused to see the cows. On their way to see the cows, they have been seen together by
several witnesses who later on identified them in court as the victim and the accused
respectively. The accused according to the witness was wearing a jacket and with a handkerchief
tied on his forehead. One of the witnesses, a driver of a minibus testified that while driving on
his way to his destination, he saw a man behind the establishment and he noticed that he was
wiping something from his head and right face.
It was the same man whom his conductor identified as the one who stopped their bus and
rode on it. Its conductor testified further that he noticed that the man’s jacket was soaked with
blood including his pants and that he did not talk when asked where he was headed to and
instead just gave his fare. The conductor even noticed that there was a lot of money on the breast
side pocket of his jacket and that one bill was even falling. The man then alighted from the
minibus after reaching his destination without saying any word. Later that afternoon, a news
broke out that a man’s body was found dead in the middle of the ricefield. He was later on
identified as Bonifacio Angeles. Based on the strength of the testimony of the witnesses,
complaint and information were filed against Vivencio and the Regional Trial Court found him
guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Issue:
Whether or not the court has correctly appreciated the employment of generic aggravating
circumstance of fraud and craft in the commission of the crime even if not alleged in the
information

Held:

Yes, the aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime should be appreciated.

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 the generic sense, was
committed. A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central 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. Craft
involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the offender. Then there is a direct
inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present.

In this case, though not alleged in the information, the generic aggravating circumstances
of fraud and craft were properly appreciated by the trial court. By saying that he would
accompany the victim to see the cows which the latter intended to buy, appellant was able to lure
the victim to go with him. Without doubt, all the elements of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide were proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.