Funcionalización de los electrodos de oro policristalino con los

 What are the crimes penalized under 294? o 1. Robbery with homicide

o 2. Robbery with rape, intentional mutilation, arson, or personal injuries in subdivision 1 of 263

o 3. Robbery with physical injuries in subdivision 2 of 263

o 4. Robbery with physical injuries in subdivision 3-4 of 263

o 5. Simple robbery

 N.B. The first four are special complex crimes; the fifth is not. Art. 48 will not apply for crimes here in Art. 294

 What is the rule in order?

o The above order must be observed. Thus if there is both homicide and rape, the crime is robbery with homicide. There is no “Robbery with homicide and rape.”

o Is the “extra rape” aggravating?

 The rape is NOT aggravating because it’s not under Art. 14.

 What if the physical injuries are merely LSPI or

slight PI?

o It’s just simple robbery under par. 5.

 Can there be robbery with homicide through

reckless imprudence?

o No.

 When will the special complex crimes arise? o The other crime must be consummated.

 May Art. 48 apply if the constituent elements are

not consummated?

o Yes. If one crime is done to commit another, or a single act resulting into two or more grave or less grave offenses, and one constituent crime is not consummated.

o Otherwise, if both consummated, then it’s a special complex crime.

197

o “Homicide” is used in its generic term. There is no robbery with infanticide, parricide, murder, etc. There is no robbery with multiple counts of homicide.

o DO NOT use the 2nd or 3rd killing as aggravating. It’s just robbery or homicide.

o Is there robbery with homicide and

frustrated homicide?

 No. The frustrated homicide is absorbed by the robbery with homicide.  What do you mean “by reason of the crime of

robbery”?

o The homicide/other constituent crime was not committed in the course of robbery, or shortly thereafter, but there is a LEGAL connection, intimate relation in the commission of robbery

 Ex. Killing the victim to prevent the person from reporting to the authorities

 Ex. Killed noisy neighbor who shouted “magnanakaw!”

o It doesn’t matter if it happens before, during, or after

o P v. Mangulabnan – Person was robbing a house. He heard rumbling noises in the attic and shot a gun at the ceiling, and even without intent to kill, he accidentally killed a hiding person. HELD: Robbery with homicide. (Not robbery with homicide through reckless

imprudence – even if it is by mere accident, it is robbery with homicide)

o What if the person killed is one of the

robbers himself?

 Doesn’t matter. It’s still robbery with homicide.

 Even if the guy who shot a robber is also a fellow robber.

 Is there robbery with homicide AND rape?

o No. As long as there is homicide, it is ALWAYS just robbery with homicide.

o But the rape still has corresponding civil liabilities.

o If a house is burnt to kill another, it is robbery with homicide, not robbery with arson or robbery with homicide and arson

 What if there are multiple people killed or raped? o Irrespective of number of people killed or rape,

it is just robbery with homicide or robbery with rape.

 When do two crimes arise?

o If the original intent is to kill or to rape, but as an afterthought, he stole from the person he killed or raped, then there are TWO CRIMES.

o Separate crimes of homicide and robbery

o Separate crimes of rape and robbery

 Can there be robbery with homicide, if aside from

intent to gain, there is another motive (ex. He wanted to kill the guy)?

198

o Yes. As long as there is intent to rob, even if there are other motives, it is robbery with homicide.

 P v. De Jesus: A group of robbers were robbing in Makati. One of the robbers was shot. There was a chase all the way to Laguna, where a shoot out happened. Another robber got shot by the police.

o HELD: Robbery with homicide. EVEN IF the shoot out happened in some other place, it was intimately connected to the robbery. Also, it does not matter that it was a robber that got killed.

 If a homicide is committed by one robber, ALL of them are liable for robbery with homicide. (“One merges his will into the common intent.”)

o EXCEPT: when one of the robbers overtly attempts to prevent the homicide. He is just liable for robbery, even if he is unsuccessful.

o What is the liability of the look-out?

 Even a look-out is a PDP, because the conspirators are given specific tasks to further the crime.

 Is there a special complex crime of theft with

homicide?

o No.

 Robbery with homicide – does it absorb physical

injuries?

o Yes. Again, follow the order provided.

 May there be a crime of robbery with force upon

things with robbery with rape or robbery with homicide?

o No. Robbery with force upon things cannot be complexed with robbery with rape (or homicide).

 When is there robbery with rape?

o When the robbery is accompanied by rape, AS LONG AS THE ORIGINAL intent is to rob.

o This applies even if the rape was committed even before asportation. The intention to rob must precede the rape, even if the actual robbery comes after.

o Thus, if the accused raped the victim and just he took the jewelry as a memento, there are two crimes of robbery and rape – the original intention in this case is not to rob.

 What if there are multiple rapes?

o Even if there are multiple rapes, it is just robbery with rape.

o What if each of the accused raped the

victim?

 Even if each of the accused raped the victim, there is only one crime of robbery with rape.

o Accused robbed the victim, raped her twice,

and then he inserted his finger in the vagina of the woman. What was the crime?

199

 HELD: Robbery with rape. The second rape and insertion of the finger are absorbed. Even the insertion of a finger was absorbed!

o Three robbers took victim of robbery in a

taxi and went to Quiapo. One robber made the other two go down, and then he took the woman to a motel. What was the crime?

 HELD: All of them were guilty of robbery. The other one is also liable for rape, separately. If the place of the rape is far from the situs of the robbery, there are TWO crimes, but not robbery with rape.

 When is there Robbery with arson?

o Arson must be contemporaneous to robbery.

o When is there robbery with arson?

 There must be violence and intimidation upon persons first and thereafter, the premises are burned and there is NO killing, rape, or mutilation.

 Why not force upon things?

 This will give rise to two crimes: robbery and arson. This is because the arson is deemed a cover-up of the robbery. It is not complex because neither is a means to commit the other

(because both are Crimes against Property).

 When is dwelling aggravating and when is it

absorbed?

o It is aggravating in robbery with homicide

o Inherent in robbery with force upon things and the place broken into is the dwelling

 X raped Y, killed her, and robbed the place.

Crime?

o 1) Rape with homicide and 2) robbery

 X raped Y, killed her, and took things from her

person. Crime?

o 1) Rape with homicide and 2) theft

 X robbed Y, raped her, and then killed her.

Crime?

o Robbery with homicide

 X raped Y, robbed her, and then killed her.

Crime?

o Robbery with homicide

ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES THAT ARE COMMITTED IN