ART.
294 ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE the first, second, third and fourth paragraphs
AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery
(taking of personal property belonging to another
with intent to gain), the crime of homicide is
committed;
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson;
3. When by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in
insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness is
inflicted;
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery,
any of the 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, a hand, a foot, an
arm, or a leg or the loss of the use of any such
member or incapacity for the work in which the
injured person is theretofore habitually engaged
is inflicted;
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
clearly unnecessary for the commission of the
crime;
6. When in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery
any of the physical injuries in consequence of
which the person injured becomes deformed or
loses any other member of his body or loses the
use thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in which he is
habitually engaged for more than 90 days or the
person injured becomes ill or incapacitated for
labor for more than 30 days;
7. If the violence employed by the offender does
not cause any of the serious physical injuries
defined in Art. 263, or if the offender employs
intimidation only.
The crime defined in this article is a special
complex crime
Art. 48 does not apply to the crimes covered by
Art. 294 for it provides a specific penalty for each
kind of robbery with violence against persons in
thereof. There is only one penalty prescribed,
even if two crimes are committed. Art. 48 applies
only when a complex crime is not punished with
a specific penalty.
On the occasion or by reason of the
robbery
These phrases mean that the homicide or
serious physical injuries defined in par 1 and 2 of
Art. 263 must be committed in the course or
because of the robbery
Robbery and homicide are separate offenses,
when the homicide was not committed "on
the occasion" or "by reason" of the robbery.
(See People vs. Atanacio, p. 665)
Where the original design comprehends
robbery, and homicide is perpetrated by
reason or on occasion of the consummation
of the former, the crime committed is robbery
with homicide.
-Conviction for robbery with homicide requires
certitude that the robbery was the main purpose
and objective of the criminals and that the killing
was merely incidental
- Robbery with homicide arises only when there
is a direct relation, an intimate connection,
between the robbery and the killing, even if the
killing is prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent
to the robbery.
1. HOMICIDE COMMITTED ON THE
OCCASTION OF ROBBERY
Simple complex crime, punished as a single
crime
Homicide- is to be understood in its generic
sense as to include parricide and murder
The juridical concept of robbery with
homicide does not limit the taking of life to
one single victim or to ordinary homicide.
-All the homicides or murders are merged in the
composite, integrated whole that is robbery with
homicide so long as all the killings were
perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery
-There is no special complex crime of robbery in
band with double homicide and/or serious, less
serious or slight physical injuries, the crime is
still robbery with homicide under Art 294 (1), but
the circumstance that it was committed by a
band is merely a generic aggravating
circumstance
-Robbery with homicide absorbs physical injuries
where injuries were committed apart from
robbery and homicide
There is no such crime as robbery with
murder.
Treachery cannot be considered as a qualifying
circumstance of murder, but only a generic agg.
because the crime charged is the special crime
of robbery with homicide
Robbery with homicide in a dwelling does
not require that robbery with force upon
things is first committed
-What makes the crime of robbery with violence
against person, is the injuring or killing of a
person on the occasion or by reason of the
taking of personal property belonging to another,
with intent to gain.
-Robbery with homicide need not be committed
inside a building.
An intent to take personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain must
precede the killing.
-If taking the personal property with intent to gain
came to the mind after killing the victim, two
separate crimes of homicide or murder, and theft
are committed.
The crime is robbery with homicide, even if
the motive of the offenders was that of
robbery as well as vengeance, such as when
intent to commit robbery preceded the killing, it
is immaterial that the offenders had also a desire
to avenge grievances against the person killed.
Homicide may precede robbery or may occur
after robbery
-But the offender must have the intent to take
personal property before the killing
-The phrase "by reason" covers homicide
committed before or after the taking of personal
property of another, as long as the motive of the
offender is to deprive the victim of his personal
property which is sought to be accomplished by
eliminating an obstacle or opposition, or to do
away with a witness or to defend the possession
of the stolen property
-It is immaterial that the death supervened mere
accident provided that the homicide be produced
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery
Homicide, to eliminate an obstacle to the
commission of robbery to the effectuation of
their unlawful design. There is direct connection
between the killing and the robbery (See People
v. Libre p. 669)
When homicide is committed to remove
opposition or to suppress evidence, it is
robbery with homicide
Killing a person to escape after the
commission of robbery is robbery with
homicide (People v. Gardon, p.670).
Is it robbery with homicide if the person
killed is a robber himself?
-The law does not require that the person killed
is the owner of the property taken. The killing of
any person by reason or on the occasion of
robbery should be punished with the highest
penalty regardless of the person killed
-There is robbery with homicide, even if the
person killed was an innocent bystander and not
the person robbed
It is robbery with homicide even if the death
of a person supervened by mere accident, it
is enough that a homicide resulted by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery.
When homicide is not proved, the crime is
only robbery.
Ex, if body was dumped and was never seen, no
sufficient evidence to prove the homicide
When robbery is not proved, the crime is
only homicide.
-When no evidence that certain personal
property was taken by the accused.
Without separate proof of corpus delicti, the
extrajudicial confessions wil not support
conviction for robbery
In robbery with homicide, must the person
charged as accessory have knowledge of the
commission, not only of robbery, but also of
homicide?
-Their complicity must accordingly be limited to
the robbery, not with the killing. He should be
held as accessory only of simple robbery, not of
the grave offense of robbery with homicide.
Article 53 provides that the penalty to be
imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a consummated felony is the
penalty lower by two degrees
In robbery with homicide, there is no legal
basis for imposing upon the accessory the
penalty lower by two degrees. Robbery cannot
be separated from homicide, because they are
merged in the composite, integrated whole
the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide punishable with one penalty
All who participated in the robbery as
principals are principals in the single and
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide,
although they did not take part in the killing,
unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
prevent the same
Robbery with Homicide Distinguished from
Highway Robbery.
Highway robbery as defined in P.D. 532 requires
proof that several accused were organized for
the purpose of committing it indiscriminately
-The objective to deter and punish lawless
elements who commit acts of depredation upon
persons and properties of innocent and
defenseless inhabitants who travel from one
place to another, thereby disturbing the peace
and tranquility of the nation and stunting the
economic and social progress of the people.
2. ROBBERY WITH RAPE
Rape committed on the occasion of the
robbery, offender must have the intent to take
the personal property belonging to another with
intent to gain, and such intent must precede the
rape
Even if the rape was committed in another
place, it is still robbery with rape
-It is not necessary that the rape be committed
prior to or simultaneously with the robbery.
-But if the rape is committed against a woman in
a house other than that where the robbery is
committed, the rape should be considered a
separate offense
Rape was committed before taking of
personal property.
-Even if the rape was committed before the
taking, they were guilty of robbery with rape.
Rape was not their primary objective (See p
675)
There is no such crime as robbery with
attempted rape
Art 294 (2) only covers consummated rape.
-The crime cannot be complexed because a
robbery cannot be a necessary means to commit
attempted rape; nor attempted rape, to commit
robbery. Both crimes cannot be the result of a
single act.
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 (See People v.
Buena p. 676).
Additional rapes committed on the same
occasion of robbery will not increase the
penalty
-The special complex crime of robbery with rape
has, therefore, been committed by the felonious
acts of appellant and his cohorts, with all acts of
rape on that occasion being integrated in one
composite crime
-There are likewise cases which held that the
multiplicity of rapes committed could be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
The characterization of the offense as robbery
with rape is not changed because there were
several rapes committed. The multiplicity of
rapes should instead be taken into account
in raising the penalty to death
-There is no law providing that the additional
rape/s or homicide/s should be considered
as aggravating circumstances. The
enumeration of aggravating circumstances is
exclusive. The remedy lies with the legislature
When the taking of property after the rape is
not with intent to gain, there is neither theft
nor robbery committed
Ex: Rape was primary objective, taking was not
with intent to gain but just to have some tokens
of the supposed consent to the intercourse,
crime committed is rape and unjust vexation
Civil liability for robbery with rape.
The civil liability for rape in robbery with rape has
been set at P50.000.00.
-If the accused is married, he should be
sentenced also to support the offspring, but not
to acknowledge the offspring on account of his
married status.
When rape and homicide co-exist in the
commission of robbery, the crime is robbery
with homicide and rape under paragraph 1 of
Art. 294, the rape to be considered as an
aggravating circumstance only
Robbery with serious physical injuries under
Art. 263, par. 2 (Art. 294, par. 3).
-See comparison of two cases, p. 678
Robbery with unnecessary violence and
intimidation (Art 294 par 4).
-The violence need not result in serious physical
injuries.
When the violence or intimidation is
necessary, par. 4 of Art. 294 is not
applicable.
-If the beating was to compel the victim to show
the place where he kept his money, which the
robbers would not have been able to ascertain
had they not resorted to the violence.
Inflicting serious physical injuries upon any
person not responsible for its commission."
The penalty prescribed in paragraph 4 of Art.
294 should not be applied. The offender who
inflicted on another robber, physical injuries
which later resulted in deformity, would be liable
for (1) robbery, and (2) serious physical injuries
under Art. 263, paragraph 3
The serious physical injuries defined in
subdivisions 3 and 4 of Art. 263, inflicted in
connection with the robbery, must be
inflicted "in the course of its execution."
-It is necessary to determine whether the
physical injuries were inflicted in the course of
the execution of the robbery.
If they were inflicted after the taking of the
personal property had been complete, the
serious physical injuries mentioned should be
considered as separate offense
-In paragraph 4 of Art. 294, the phrase "by
reason" is not used.
Requisites of robbery under the second case
of par 4 of Art. 294
1. That any of the physical injuries defined in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of Art. 263 was inflicted in
the course of the robbery;
2. That any of them was inflicted upon any
person not responsible for the commission of the
robbery
Robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person under paragraph 5
of Art. 294.
There is simple robbery, because the use of
violence against any person does not result in
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or any of
the serious physical injuries defined in Art. 263,
which may give rise to special complex crime.
-When injury inflicted is qualified only as less
serious physical injuries or slight injuries
-There is violence, even if the physical force
employed by the offender merely consists in his
pushing the victim
Violence or intimidation need not be present
before or at the exact moment of taking,
because asportation is a complex fact, a whole
divisible into parts, a series of acts, in the course
of which personal violence or intimidation may
be injected
When the act of snatching a thing from his Gain of the culprit is Gain of the culprit is
hands did not result in violence against the not immediate immediate
person of the offended party, theft, not
robbery is committed
Robbery with Grave Coercion
-If victim did not feel anything at the time her violence
watch was snatched from her wrist, crime is only Violence is used
simple theft Intent to gain No intent to gain
Purpose is to compel
(See illustrative cases of intimidation p.681) another to do
Purpose in taking something against his
There must be acts done by the accused somebodys property will, without authority
which, either by their own nature or by by force or of law, but believing
reason of the circumstances under which intimidation is to himself of be the
they are executed, inspire fear in the person obtain gain creditor or owner,
against whom they are directed thereby seizes the
property
Not applicable if fear only occurred to his mind
or came from himself alone; if fear was not
inspired by threats, either by acts, spoken Robbery Bribery
words, or gestures, employed by the accused Victim not commit a
crime and he is Victim has committed
The fright of him who is robbed must be under intimidated with a crime and gives
the law an objective fright, as arrest and /or money or gift to avoid
contradistinguished from subjective fright; it must prosecution to arrest or prosecution
have been due, in short, to some act on the part deprive him of his
of the accused, and not arise from the mere personal property * if the victim
temperamental timidity of the person committed a crime
*When the victim did and the public officer
The intimidation consists in causing or creating not commit any accepted bribe, the
a fear in the mind of a person or in bringing in a crime, there is latter thereby agreed
sense of mental distress in view of a risk or evil nothing that would to refrain from doing
that may be impending really or in imagination" have required the something which it
and such fear of injury to person or property public officer to was his official duty
exercise his duty or to do.
must continue to operate on the mind of the
function.
victim at the time of the delivery of the money
Victim is deprived of
He parts with his
Threats to extort money distinguished from his money or property
money or property in
robbery thru intimidation by force or
a sense voluntarily
intimidation
Threats Robbery Neither mutual or
There is intimidation voluntary, but Transaction is mutual
The purpose is to obtain consummated by the and voluntary
Intimidation is Intimidation is actual use of force
conditional or future, and immediate
that is not immediate
Intimidation may be Intimidation is
through an personal
intermediary
Intimidation may refer Intimidation is
to the person, honor directed only to the
or property of the person of the victim
offended party or his
family
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries,
committed in an uninhabited place and by a
band, or with the use of firearm on a street,
road or alley
When is robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons qualified?
If any of the offenses defined in subdivisions 3, 4
and 5 of Art. 294 is committed
(1) in an uninhabited place, or
(2) by a band,or
(3) by attacking a moving train, street car, motor
vehicle, or airship, or
(4) by entering the passengers' compartments in
a train, or in any manner taking the passengers
thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or
(5) on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the
intimidation is made with the use of firearms, the
offender shall be punished by the maximum
periods of the proper penalties prescribed in Art.
294
Must be alleged in the information.
Such qualifying circumstances with physical
injuries or intimidation must be alleged in the
information and proved during the trial.
Being qualifying, it cannot be offset by a
generic mitigating circumstance.
Ex: If robbery by a band is committed in an
uninhabited place, "by a band" is qualifying and
"uninhabited place" would be generic
aggravating circumstance only.
(2) When the robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation, or arson (subdivision 1,
Art. 294); or
(3) If by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of
the serious physical injuries resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted
(subdivision 2, Art. 294).
Ex: When robbery with homicide was committed
by attacking a motor vehicle or moving train, or
on the street, road, highway or alley with the use
of firearms, the penalty prescribed by
subdivision 1 of Art. 294 shall not be imposed in
the maximum period. The same is true with
respect to robbery with rape or robbery with
intentional mutilation.
However, if there is no mitigating circumstance
to offset it, the fact that robbery with homicide or
robbery with rape is committed in an uninhabited
place or by a band will have the effect of
increasing the penalty to the maximum period,
because it will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance under Art. 14.
Art. 295 is inapplicable to robbery with
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, and
lesiones graves resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness.
-If the foregoing classes of robbery which are
described in Art. 294 (1) and (2) are perpetrated
by a band, they would not be punishable under
Art. 295, but then, cuadrilla would be generic
aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of
the Code.

The intimidation with the use of firearm

qualifies only robbery on a street, road,
highway or alley.

Art. 295 provides for different cases in which

robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons is qualified. This article does not
apply:

(1) When by reason or on occasion of the

robbery, the crime of homicide is committed
(subdivision 1, Art. 294);