To: The City Prosecutor

From: Karisse Rienzi Uy Santos

Re: Attempted Robbery of a Bank that led to a Death of a Pedestrian and a Subsequent
Crime of Robbery
Date: 14 November 2019

We write to further to our meeting last 10 November 2019 regarding an attempted

robbery incident of a bank that resulted to a subsequent crime of robbery and a death of
a pedestrian.

A. Background

On or about November 3, 2019, Weng and Lloyd asked their friend, JP, to help them
rob a bank. Weng and Lloyd went inside the bank, but were unable to get any
money from the vault because the same was protected by a time-delay mechanism.
They contented themselves with the customer’s cellphones and a total of P5,000 in
cash.

After they dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, JP pulled the car out of
the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the latter’s death. 

B. Issues

1. May Weng, Lloyd and JP, be criminally liable for the robbery of the bank despite
being unsuccessful because of the time-delay mechanism of the vault and for the
death of a pedestrian which occurred by reason thereof?
2. May Weng, Lloyd and JP, and notwithstanding the fact that the objects taken
were different than that of intended to, be criminally liable?

C. Discussion

On the First Issue: On the attempt to rob a bank and the death of the pedestrian as a
result thereof

Weng, Lloyd and JP shall be held criminally liable in committing the special complex
crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide.

for the robbery of the bank despite being unsuccessful. Likewise, all three shall also be
liable for the death of a pedestrian as a result of the attempted robbery.

To be charged with the special complex crime of robbery with

homicide, the prosecution has the onus probandi to establish the
following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of
violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken
belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain
or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by
 reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a
generic sense, was committed.||| (People v. Arondain, G.R. Nos.
131864-65, [September 27, 2001], 418 PHIL 354-374)

On the Death of a Pedestrian

Weng, Lloyd and JP shall all be equally liable for the death of the pedestrian.

In People v Ibañez1, the Court exhaustively explained that “in special complex crime of
Robbery with homicide, x x x Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on
the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or
the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to
prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the
commission of the crime.”

It is immaterial that the death of a pedestrian was caused by a mere accident since it
was committed by reason or on occasion of robbery and was a result of “the escape of
the culprit”. Further, the death may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is
only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes
or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken
into consideration2.

Where there is agreement and conspiracy to commit robbery particularly between the
mastermind and the other accused, all the conspirators are liable for any crime
committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit the robbery.

Weng, Lloyd and JP clearly acted in conspiracy in the special complex crime. All three
shall be equally liable as principal by direct participation in the attempted robbery and
homicide. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code states that:

“x x x There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.”

The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the facts available,
thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design. Stressed is the rule that whenever
homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals for
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take
part in the homicide3.|||

Attempted, not Consummated

1
G.R. No. 191752, June 10, 2013
2
Ibid.
3
People v Silan y borque, G.R. No. 116011, March 7 1996
Although all elements of Robbery with Homicide were present, it was unconsummated
because of some causes or accident other than their spontaneous desistance.

The appellants are 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 desistance4.||| (People v. Barra, G.R. No.
198020, [July 10, 2013], 713 PHIL 698-707)

The attendant circumstances of Weng and Lloyd entering the bank, and JP positioning
himself outside to be the designated driver of the gate-away car, clearly showed the
appellants’ intent to rob the bank. However, the crime of robbery remained
unconsummated because of the presence of the time-delay mechanism of the vault. If it
were it not for its existence, appellants would have successfully consummated their
original plan of robbing the bank. Since the robbery of the bank was not committed
because of the bank’s time-delay vault, the crime committed is attempted robbery.

On the Second Issue: Taking of items other than that of what was initially planned

Weng and Lloyd, being unsuccessful from robbing the bank’s vault contented
themselves by taking the customers’ cash and cellphones, shall be liable for Robbery.
Clearly, there is still an intent to gain from their part by getting the customers’ valuables.

As a co-conspirator, JP shall also be liable for the Robbery. Even if the robbing of the
customers was not initially agreed upon. It is well-settled that the liability of co-
conspirators includes any other crimes even if not agreed upon, provided it was the
direct, natural, logical consequence of, or related to, or was necessary to effect, the
crime agreed upon. The robbery of the customers could be ascertained that it is related
to the attempted robbery of the bank as it was done at the same place. Furthermore, in
People v Paz5:

“Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every

detail of execution. It is sufficient that there is a general plan to
accomplish the result sought, by such measures as may from time to
be found expedient.”|||

Conclusion

Weng, Lloyd and JP, acting in conspiracy with one criminal intent, shall be equally liable
for the special complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide. Because of the the
delay mechanism which prevented them from performing all acts of execution, a cause

4
People v Barra, G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013
5
G.R. Nos. L-15052-53, August 31, 1964
or reason other than their spontaneous desistance, the crime of robbery was not fully
consummated, thereby, making the crime on its Attempted stage. The subsequent
running over of the pedestrian in the course of their escape, qualifies the crime of
Attempted Robbery to the special complex crime of Attempted Robbery with Homicide.

Also, all three shall be charged for the crime of Robbery, for taking the bank customers’
cellphones and a total of Php 5,000 cash. Though it was not initially agreed upon, the
crime was still related to the intended robbery of the bank. Hence, all shall be liable as
co-conspirators.