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.