PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

RESPONDENT: EDUARDO DE JESUS y ENRILE, appellant

FACTS:
1. SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco was a policeman assigned to a Makati Police Station. After his tour of duty, he
worked every afternoon to deliver money for a money changer in the vicinity of the Intercontinental Hotel
and the Rustan’s Supermarket in Makati City. The money was placed in a plastic bag and he used a
bicycle for this extra job. He frequently passed by Yolanda dela Rapa who was selling cigarettes in the
vicinity.

2. Dante Manansala, Eduardo de Jesus, and Crispin Del Rosario agreed to stage a robbery. Del Rosario
was told that the financier for the heist was Christopher Nash, a British national residing in the Philippines.
The appellant knew that Ybasco was to deposit US$250,000 in the bank every afternoon for his employer.

3. On March 7, 1994, Del Rosario and the appellant took a Toyota Corolla car owned by Nash from
Rolando Fajardo in Tanauan, Batangas.

4. The appellant was armed with a caliber .45 handgun. Manansala waited for Ybasco near the office of
the money changer while Del Rosario acted as a lookout. Then Ybasco emerged from the office of his
employer
holding a plastic bag. Manansala and the appellant confronted Ybasco and told him, “May warrant of
arrest ka.” They grabbed Ybasco, handcuffed him and dragged him to the car.

5. Roberto Acosta, a roving security guard, saw the incident and sped towards the scene to confront Del
Rosario and eventually grappled with the latter for the possession of the gun. Del Rosario, as instructed
by
Manansala, shot Acosta in the mouth. Dela Rapa and a certain Juanito Mendoza, who had just stepped
out from the Rustan’s Supermarket saw the shooting incident.

6. They boarded the car, and sped towards a sugar farm in Cabuyao, Laguna.

7. Manansala looked inside Ybasco’s bag and found that it only contained P5,000 instead of the expected
US$250,000. Manansala and the appellant took him out of the car and the latter suddenly shot Ybasco on
the head.

8. on Arraignment: Del Rosario, Manansala and de Jesus pleaded not guilty. Del Rosario requested to be
the witness and was and the court granted it.

9. Dela Rapa gave a sworn statement at the Makati Police. Del Rosario testified on how he, Manansala
and the appellant perpetrated the crime.

10. De Jesus denied the involvement and that he is just a tricycle driver, and have known Manansala in
Pampanga, and that del Rosario is his brother in law.

11. The RTC, thereafter, rendered judgment convicting Del Rosario and De Jesus of robbery with
homicide. Manansala died while under detention due to a mauling incident.

12 De Jesus on appeal claimed among others that: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE WAS COMMITTED DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO
ROBBERY ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.

ISSUES:

1. Did De Jesus committed Robbery with homicide?

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. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without
reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the
crime that has to be taken into consideration.

There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The
constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.

It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of homicide is other than the
victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional
mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial
is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide. 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. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus,
includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
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 involved.
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.107

De Jesus, Del Rosario and Manansala, intended to abduct Ybasco and divest him of money in the
amount of US$250,000, which they thought Ybasco was about to deposit in the bank. Each of them had
specific tasks to perform and performed their tasks with precision.

Del Rosario was a co-conspirator and that he implicated the appellant and Manansala in the killing of
Ybasco and the taking of P5,000 from the latter. The testimony of a co-conspirator may be given full
probative weight if it is shown to be candid and straightforward, and is full of details which by its nature
could not have been contrived, besides being corroborated by independent evidence. The testimony of
Del Rosario is not only replete with details; it is also corroborated by independent evidence, including the
medico-legal report of Dr. Joselito A. Rodrigo and his testimony that Ybasco was shot once on the right
cheek, the sworn statement of Mendoza, the sworn statements and testimony of Dela Rapa, as well as
the results of the investigation of the police operatives.

In the process, Del Rosario shot and killed Acosta. The appellant insists that it was Del Rosario who
shot Ybasco. However, the identity of the conspirator who shot Ybasco and Acosta is of no moment.
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.

DISPOSITION:
 IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is rendered AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 4. The appellant Eduardo de Jesus is
found GUILTY of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, and sentenced to suffer the death penalty. The said appellant is
hereby ORDERED to pay to the heirs of the victim SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco the amount of ₱5,030.00 as
actual damages; ₱75,000 as civil indemnity; ₱75,000 as moral damages, and ₱25,000 as exemplary
damages. The appellant is, likewise, ORDERED to pay to the heirs of Roberto Acosta ₱75,000 as civil
indemnity and ₱25,000 as exemplary damages. Costs de oficio.

Doctrine

1. In robbery with homicide, while the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life, the
homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery; There is no such felony of robbery with
homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence—the constitutive elements of the crime,
namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.-
2. It is immaterial that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers—the felony would still be robbery with
homicide; The word “homicide” is used in its generic sense, thus, it includes murder, parricide, and
infanticide.

3. 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; The prosecution is not
burdened to prove the actual value or 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 involved.+

NOTES:

Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was
committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the
culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses
in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the
latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery.

Aggravating Circumstances in this case