3

RODEL CRISOSTOMO VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES boy arrived and identified him in a police lineup as one of
the three robbers who killed Janet.
G.R. NO. 171526 SEPTEMBER 1,
 RTC rendered its Decision convicting petitioner of robbery
2010
with homicide. The filed for Motion for Reconsideration and
DEL CASTILLO, J.: Inhibition but to no avail.
 When raised to the CA, it affirmed the RTC.
FACTS:
 February 12, 2001, at around 12:20 in the afternoon,

Rodelio Pangilinan was working at a gasoline station owned ISSUE: WoN the appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide
by Jose Buencamino at Buliran, San Miguel, Bulacan. He was
RULING:
by the gasoline tank which was two or three arms-length
from the cashier’s office when three armed men on board a Robbery with homicide exists "when a homicide is committed
motorcycle arrived. either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a
 Two of the men immediately went to the cashier while the conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove
driver stayed on the motorcycle. Inside the office, one of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property
the men pulled out a fan knife while the other, armed with belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of
a gun, fired a shot at Janet Ramos, the cashier. violence or intimidation against a person; and,4) on the occasion
 They forcibly took the money in the cash register and the or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its
man with the gun fired a second shot that fatally hit Janet in generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude that
the right side of her head. The two armed men returned to the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor
their companion waiting by the motorcycle and together and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to
sped away from the scene of the crime. rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may
 Rodelio gave a description of the driver of the motorcycle occur before, during or after the robbery."
but not of the two armed men who entered the cashier’s
In this case, the prosecution successfully adduced proof beyond
office since they had their backs turned to him.
reasonable doubt that the genuine intention of the petitioner and
 Jose, the owner of the gas station, stated that the stolen
his companions was to rob the gasoline station. Rodelio testified
money was worth ₱40,000.00. Receipts in the amount of
that at around 12:20 in the afternoon of February 12, 2001, the
₱14,500.00 were presented as funeral expenses.
petitioner and his companions arrived on board a motorcycle at the
 On February 23, 2001, the petitioner was detained after
gas station located at Buliran, San Miguel, Bulacan. While the
being implicated in a robbery that occurred in San Miguel,
petitioner stayed on the motorcycle, his companions entered the
Bulacan. During his detention, Rodelio and another gasoline
cashier’s office. One of them pulled out a fan knife while the other
fired his gun at Janet. After divesting the amount of ₱40,000.00, the
man with the gun fired a fatal shot to the head of Janet. The
petitioner’s companions returned to and boarded their motorcycle,
and sped away together.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the overriding intention of the

petitioner and his cohorts was to rob the gasoline station. The
killing was merely incidental, resulting by reason or on occasion of
the robbery.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-

H.C. No. 01192 that affirmed with modification the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 12, in Criminal Case
No. 1632-M-2001 is AFFIRMED with further MODIFICATION that
petitioner is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim moral
damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00.
*NOTE: Mainly crim pro yung case. Nagdefine lang talaga ng

COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE sa case na ‘to.
*Emphasis on bold phrases/sentences*

3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RODEL CRISOSTOMO VS.

 February 12, 2001, at around 12:20 in the afternoon,

From the foregoing, it is clear that the overriding intention of the

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-

*NOTE: Mainly crim pro yung case. Nagdefine lang talaga ng

Emphasis on bold phrases/sentences

You might also like