Robbery with Homicide

1. E, F, G and H, all armed, ransacked the house of I, a paralytic, and in the process, E shot I
to death when he refused to bring out his money. The shooting awakened the ten-year
old son of I who immediately rushed to his father, but he, too, was shot to death in cold
blood. In the meantime, F went to the room of the wife of I and had carnal knowledge
with her through force. Thereafter; E, F, G and H fled with their loot. What criminal liability
did E, F, G and H incur?

a. Robbery with Murder

b. Robbery with Violence or Intimidation against persons
c. Robbery with Homicide
d. Robbery with Multiple Homicide and Rape

Answer
C. E, F, G and H are all liable for robbery with homicide since they constitute a band. The
others who were present at the time of the commission of the robbery did not prevent
the killings of I and his ten-year old son by E and the rape of the wife of I by F. The two
killings are merged in the composite, integrate whole that is, robbery with homicide,
which is a single and indivisible offense, as the killings were perpetrated by reason or on
occasion of the robbery. Although rape also accompanied the robbery, the legal definition
of the crime is still robbery with homicide but the rape is to be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.

2. Insulted by the manager of the bank where he was employed as security guard, A,
enraged, shot the former, who died on the spot. As A was about to leave the bank
premises, he noticed the vault open. He entered it, forced open a locked container and
got the jewelry therein. If you were the fiscal, for what crime or crimes would you
prosecute A?

a. Murder
b. Robbery with Homicide
c. Homicide
d. Homicide and Robbery

Answer
D. Homicide and Robbery. It is not robbery with homicide because the purpose of A, the
security guard, was not to commit robbery. It is not murder because the aggression was
preceded by the insult of the manager which enraged the offender. So, the killing was
attended by passion which negates the presence of treachery. The taking of the jewelries
was an afterthought as the offender entered the vault only when he noticed it was open
when he was about to leave the bank premises. The jewelries were in a locked receptacle
which he forced open while inside the bank premises. This is robbery with force upon
things under Article 299, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
3. A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank,
policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who
fired back and shot it out with them. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet
which killed him came from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you
charge A, B. C and D?

a. Robbery with Violence or Intimidation against persons

b. Robbery with Homicide
c. Robbery with Force upon things
d. Robbery and Homicide

Answer
B. A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the
death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on occasion
of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason
or on occasion of a robbery; hence, the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

4. An armed band tried to stop a grab car. The driver, who sensed that the band might
commit robbery, did not stop the grab car and instead drove it faster. The members of
the band then fired at the grab car, killing one passenger who was hit in the head.

a. Attempted Robbery with Homicide

b. Attempted Robbery and Homicide
c. Attempted Carnapping with Homicide
d. Attempted Carnapping and Homicide

Answer
B. They committed the crime of attempted robbery with homicide with band as a generic
aggravating circumstance. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
"Attempted... robbery committed under certain circumstances. -- When... on the
occasion of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such
offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal”

5. A, B, C, D, and E, who was armed with a gun, entered the house of Y, who was living by
himself, ransacked his things and took his jewelry collection and cash worth P10000. W
saw them going towards the hut and sensing their evil intentions called some friends to
act as a rescue party. As the five men were going out with their loot, the rescue party
opened fire and there was an exchange of gunshot between the rescue party and E. Killed
were A, in the five-man team, and another in the rescue party. The articles taken were
recovered. What is the criminal liability of B, C, D, and E?

a. Robbery with Homicide

b. Robbery by a Band and Homicide
c. Only Robbery by a Band for B, C, D and Robbery with Homicide for E
 d. Only Robbery by a Band for B, C, D and Robbery and Homicide for E

Answer
A. Although the killing was committed after the consummation of the robbery, robbery
with homicide is committed because the killing was committed by reason of or on the
occasion of the robbery. If the killing is prior or subsequent to the robbery so long as it is
directly related to the robbery, the crime committed is robbery with homicide. Moreover,
even if the victim of the robbery is not the victim of the homicide, robbery with homicide
is still committed because the law does not require that the person killed is the victim of
the robbery.

Kidnapping with Murder

6. Juan and Pedro harbored a long-standing grudge/resentment against Jose, who eloped
with their sister, Maria, and later abandoned her. They laid meticulous plans to kill him.
After weeks of waiting, their chance came when late one night, they cornered Jose as he
was coming out of a disco-beer house in Makati, Metro Manila. The two forcibly shoved
him into a waiting car and drove to Tagaytay City, where they kept Jose hog-tied in a 2 x
3 meter room. Two (2) days later, they killed Jose and dumped his body into ravine. What
was the crime/crimes committed by Juan and Pedro?

a. Kidnapping
b. Murder
c. Kidnapping with Murder
d. Kidnapping and Murder

Answer
B. Murder, since the purpose or intention of Juan and Pedro was to kill the victim, the
killing being qualified by evident premeditation. The detention of the victim for two days
before he was killed was merely incidental.