Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 355 views

    People v. Barra PDF

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision finding Joseph Barra guilty of attempted robbery with homicide rather than the crime of robbery with homicide. While Barra demanded money from the victim at gunpoint, no money or property was actually taken. The elements of robbery were not fully established. However, when the victim refused to give his money, Barra shot and killed him, committing homicide by reason of the attempted robbery. The Court found the elements of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 were satisfied and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Barra PDF

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    355 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision finding Joseph Barra guilty of attempted robbery with homicide rather than the crime of robbery with homicide. While Barra demanded money from the victim at gunpoint, no money or property was actually taken. The elements of robbery were not fully established. However, when the victim refused to give his money, Barra shot and killed him, committing homicide by reason of the attempted robbery. The Court found the elements of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 were satisfied and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower courts.

    Original Title

    People v. Barra.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision finding Joseph Barra guilty of attempted robbery with homicide rather than the crime of robbery with homicide. While Barra demanded money from the victim at gunpoint, no money or property was actually taken. The elements of robbery were not fully established. However, when the victim refused to give his money, Barra shot and killed him, committing homicide by reason of the attempted robbery. The Court found the elements of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 were satisfied and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    355 views2 pages

    People v. Barra PDF

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision finding Joseph Barra guilty of attempted robbery with homicide rather than the crime of robbery with homicide. While Barra demanded money from the victim at gunpoint, no money or property was actually taken. The elements of robbery were not fully established. However, when the victim refused to give his money, Barra shot and killed him, committing homicide by reason of the attempted robbery. The Court found the elements of attempted robbery with homicide under Article 297 were satisfied and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. 198020 People v.

    Barra July 10, 2013

    People of the Philippines, Joseph Barra,


    plaintiff-appellee accused-appellant
    Leonardo-De Castro, J.

    FACTS:
    Information: Charging appellant with special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
    Ricardo De la Pea knew Barra for a long time. He was on his way home to the neighboring barangay,
    when, at around 9:00PM, in the light of a bright moon, he saw Barra enter the house of Elmer Lagdaan,
    which was lit with a lamp, and poked a gun to Lagdaan 's right forehead and demanded money. De la Pea
    hid behind a tree ten meters away. When Lagdaan stated that the money was not in his possession, Barra
    shot him. De la Pea went home and reported the incident the following morning.
    Ely Asor testified that on the same night, he was on his way to the victim's house to collect his daily wage
    when he saw Barra in the yard of the victim's house. He inquired from Barra if the victim was around.
    Barra responded that the victim was not around. Asor went home. It was while Asor was in his house that
    he heard a gunshot. It was the following morning that he learned that the victim died.
    Barra claimed that he was in Batangas City, with his brother Benjamin, visiting his sister. Appellant's brother
    tried to corroborate his testimony.
    RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide as defined and penalized
    under Article 291(1) of the RPC.
    CA: Only found appellant guilty of Attempted Robbery with Homicide.
    o The only evidence introduced by the government to establish robbery is the statement of De la Pea
    that when accused-appellant reached the victim's place, the latter barged into the said residence, poked
    a gun at the victim's forehead, demanded money and when the victim refused to accede to his demand,
    fired a gun and shot the victim. Indeed, no iota of evidence was presented to establish that accused-
    appellant took away the victim's money or any property, for that matter.
    o The fact of asportation must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Since this fact was not duly
    established, accused-appellant should be held liable only for the crime of attempted robbery with
    homicide as defined and penalized under Article 297 of the RPC which provides
    "When by reason of or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed,
    the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period
    to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the
    provisions of this Code."
    o The appellant is guilty of attempted robbery with homicide only when he commenced the commission
    of robbery directly by overt acts and did not perform all the acts of execution which would produce
    robbery by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
    o The claim of the defense that accused-appellant should be convicted only of the crime of homicide is
    bereft of merit. The killing of the victim herein was by reason of or on the occasion of robbery.
    The attendant circumstances clearly show accused-appellant's intent to rob the victim. That motive
    was manifested by accused-appellant's overt act of poking a gun at the victim's forehead
    demanding money from the latter. When the victim refused to accede to the demand, accused-
    appellant shot the former. The killing was an offshoot of accused-appellant's intent to rob the
    victim. Accused-appellant was bent on resorting to violent means to attain his end. Due to the
    victim's failure to give his money, the crime of robbery was, however, not consummated.
    Appellant argues that his identity as the perpetrator of the crime was not sufficiently established by the
    prosecution. The testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses were rife with inconsistencies. Moreover,
    G.R. No. 198020 People v. Barra July 10, 2013

    appellant argued that the elements for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide were not proven
    particularly the element of taking of personal property.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
    crime charged. NO

    HELD:
    SC: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Robbery with Homicide.
    While appellant questions the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, he does not present any sufficient
    evidence to prove that the RTC indeed ignored, misunderstood and misinterpreted the facts and
    circumstances of the case. We also found, after reviewing the records, nothing that would indicate any
    misinterpretation or misapprehension of facts on the part of the appellate court that would substantially
    alter its conclusions.
    This Court gave the requisites to be proven by the prosecution for appellant to be convicted of robbery
    with homicide, to wit:
    (1) The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
    (2) The property taken belongs to another;
    (3) The taking is animo lucrandi; and
    (4) By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.
    Appellant's intention was to extort money from the victim. By reason of the victim's refusal to give up his
    personal property his money to appellant, the victim was shot in the head, causing his death. The
    element of taking was not complete, making the crime one of attempted robbery with homicide
    as opposed to the crime appellant was convicted in the RTC. Appellant is, therefore, liable under Article
    297 of the RPC, not under Article 294 as originally held by the RTC.
    The elements of Robbery with Homicide as defined in Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code are:
    (1) There is an attempted or frustrated robbery.
    (2) A homicide is committed.
    The crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim refused to give his money to appellant
    and no personal property was shown to have been taken. It was for this reason that the victim was shot.
    Appellant can only be found guilty of attempted robbery with homicide.
    Since the RTC and the Court of Appeals found appellant's crime to be aggravated by disregard of dwelling,
    the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua.

    You might also like