Robbery With Violence Against Or Intimidation Of Persons



1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, homicide is committed;
2. When the robbery is accompanied w/ rape or intentional mutilation or arson;
3. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency, or blindness is inflicted;
4. When by reason of or on occasion of the robbery, serious physical injuries resulting in the loss of the use of speech, or the power to hear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, hand, foot, arm, leg, or the loss of the use of any such member or incapacity for work in w/c victim is habitually engaged is inflicted;
5. If the violence / intimidation employed in committing the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the crime;
6. When in the course of its execution, offender inflicts upon any person not responsible for the commission of robbery any of the physical injuries resulting to deformity, loss of any part of the body or the use thereof, or illness or incapacity for the performance of the work for > 90 days or > 30 days;
7. If the violence employed does not cause any serious physical injuries defined in Art. 263, or if offender employs intimidation only


1. Robbery with homicide is committed if original design is robbery and homicide was committed although homicide precedes the robbery by an appreciable time. If original design is not robbery  but robbery was committed after homicide as an afterthought, offender committed 2 separate offenses of robbery and homicide. The crime is still robbery with homicide if the person killed was an innocent bystander and not the person robbed and even if the death supervened by mere accident.

2. In robbery with rape, the intent to commit robbery must precede rape. Prosecution of the crime need not be by the offended party and the fiscal can sign the information. When rape and homicide co-exist in a robbery, rape should be considered as aggravating only and the crime is still robbery with homicide.

1996 Bar Examination Question - Conspiracy; Complex Crime with Rape

3. Robbery with intimidation is committed when the acts done by the accused, by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances, inspire fear in the person against whom the acts are directed.

The crime defined in this article is a special complex crime.

The violence must be against the person of the offended party, not upon the thing taken. It must be present before the taking of personal property is complete.

Exception: When the violence results in:
   (1) homicide,
   (2) rape,
   (3) intentional mutilation, or
   (4) any of the serious physical injuries penalized in paragraphs 1 & 2 of Art. 263,

- the taking of personal property is robbery complexed with any of those crimes under Art. 294,
- even if the taking was already complete when the violence was used by the offender.

There is no crime as robbery with murder.

The crime is still robbery with homicide if, in the course of the robbery, a person was killed even if it was another robber or a bystander.

Even if the rape was committed in another place, it is still robbery with rape.

When the taking of personal property of a woman is an independent act following defendant’s failure to consummate the rape, there are two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape and theft.

Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty.

When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide, the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance only.

Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of personal property grave coercion if there is violence used (Art. 286).

PEOPLE vs. COMILING, G.R. No. 140405. 3/4/04
As correctly stressed by the Solicitor General, robbery with homicide is a “special complex crime.” It is enough that in order to sustain a conviction for this crime, the killing, which is designated as “homicide,” has a direct relation to the robbery, regardless of whether the latter takes place before or after the killing. For as long as the killing occurs during or because of the heist, even if the killing is merely accidental, robbery with homicide is committed.

PEOPLE vs. BOLINGET, G.R. Nos. 137949-52. 12/11/03
Well entrenched in this jurisprudence is the doctrine that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on occasion a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually took part in the homicide. The only exception is when it is clearly shown that the accused endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing.

PEOPLE vs. HIJADA, G.R. No. 123696. 311/04
There is no crime of Robbery with Multiple Homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The crime is Robbery with Homicide notwithstanding the number of homicides committed on the occasion of the robbery and even if murder, physical injuries and rape were also committed on the same occasion.

1. If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) and force upon things(299/302) exist it will be considered as violation of Art 294 because it is more serious than in Art 299/302.
2. BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the complex crime should be imputed for the higher penalty to be imposed without sacrificing the principle that robbery w/ violence against persons is more severe than that w/ force upon things

When taking of victims gun was to prevent the victim from retaliating crimes are theft and homicide not robbery w/homicide

Bar Exam Question (2000)

Robbery under RPC (2000)

A, B, C, D, and E were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having a drinking spree. At about 1 o'clock in the morning, they decided to leave and so asked for the bill. They pooled their money together but they were still short of Php 2,000.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C, and D would go out, flag a taxicab, and rob the taxi driver of all his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse. A. B, C, and D agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab they
encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to Php 1,000.00 only, they needed Php 1,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they decided to hail another taxicab and they again robbed driver T of his hard-earned money amounting to Php 1,000. On their way back to the beerhouse, they were apprehended by a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of the first cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D, and E commit? Explain fully.

Suggested Answer:

A. B, C, D, and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code; not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but only committed the robbery to raise money to pay their bill because it happened that they were short of money to pay the same.

Bar Exam Question (2005)

Robbery w/ Homicide - R.A. No. 7659 (2005)

Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that Jose won P500,000.00 in the lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose’s house and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having his dinner. Henry found the P500,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200 meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the P500,000.00. Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime. Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with Henry to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider the decision,
asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide with no aggravating circumstance, considering
that he and Mario did not benefit from the P500,000.00. He further alleged that arson is a felony and not an aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was lighted at the time he was killed. Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry. 

Suggested Answer:

Mario is not correct. Mario conspired and acted in concert with Henry to commit robbery. Hence, the act of one is the act of all and the extent of the specific participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary, each being held liable for the criminal deed(s) executed by another or others. As a conspirator, Mario casts his lot with his fellow conspirators and becomes liable to any third person who may get killed in the course of implementing the criminal design. (People v. Punzalan, et al.. G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1990)

Henry is incorrect, since he acquired possession of the money. The crime of robbery with force and intimidation is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property, even if for a short time. It is no defense that they had no opportunity to dispose of or benefit from the money taken. (People v. Salvilia, et al., G.R. No. 88163, April 26, 1990)

Since the crime in robbery with force and intimidation against persons (robbery with homicide), dwelling is aggravating. Arson, which accompanied the crime of robbery with homicide is absorbed (Art. 294, RFC as amended by R.A. No. 7659) and is not aggravating because the RPC does not provide that such crime is an aggravating circumstance. (People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000) Nighttime, likewise, is not aggravating. There is no showing that the same was purposely sought by the offenders to facilitate the commission of the crime or impunity.

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Robbery w/ Homicide (1996)

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. 
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. 
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June 1995}
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that several persons were killed [homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the additional killing synonymous with cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)

Bar Exam Question (1998)

Robbery w/ Homicide (1998)

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.

1. 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?
2. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A, B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B, and C) were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument? 

Suggested Answer:

1. 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 the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
2.The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with homicide which is a single, indivisible offense.

Alternative Answer:

2. The argument raised by A, B and C is not correct because their liability is not only for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery "and" Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide, not two crimes.

Bar Exam Question (2003)

A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to $10,000 from his daughter working in the United States. With the intention of robbing B of those dollars, A entered B's house at midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain entry, and began quietly searching the drawers, shelves, and other likely receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A turned over B's pillow and found the latter's wallet underneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for. A took the bills and left the house. What crime or crimes were committed? 

Suggested Answer:

The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so because A's primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the robbery and the killing were consummated, thus giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the "occasion" of the robbery, though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime of robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense.

Bar Exam Question (1995)

Robbery w/ Homicide; Special Complex Crime (1995)

Victor, Ricky, Rod, and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed MangPandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky. Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod, and Ronnie.

Suggested Answer:

All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in scooping up money from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and announcing the escape, are all indicative of conspiracy. The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing (People vs. Baello, 224 SCRA 218) . Further, the aggravating circumstance of craft could be assessed against the accused for pretending to be customers of Mang Pandoy.

Bar Exam Question (2002)

Robbery with Intimidation vs. Theft (2002)

A entered the house of another without employing force or violence upon things. He was seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing so because A threatened her with a gun. A then took money and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of theft or of robbery? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on the maid before the taking of the money and other valuables. It is the intimidation of person relative to the taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of simply theft. The non-employment of force upon things is of no moment because robbery is committed not only by employing force upon things but also by employing violence against or intimidation of persons.

Bar Exam Question (1999)

Robbery w/ Rape (1999)

Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value. They succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her. The lady victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B watched the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain. 

Suggested Answer:

Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1). Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when the rape was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with rape.

Bar Exam Question (2004)

Robbery w/ Rape; Conspiracy (2004)

Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking one of the windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and as they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD. What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. 

Suggested Answer:

The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their co-conspirator XA. The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape accompanying the robbery is just a component.

Bar Exam Question (1997)

Robbery; Rape (1997)

After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the court correct?

Suggested Answer;

No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the rape. In order to give rise to the special complex crime for which the court convicted the accused.