G.R. No. 158275 - Roco vs. Contreras

In an information dated 24 September 1987, the accused Diosdado Domondon and Roberto Bulalayao were charged with Robbery with Homicide.
The crime allegedly occurred on 17 September 1987 in Manila, whereby the accused conspired and mutually aided each other to commit the offense by brandishing bladed weapons.

The accused, while aboard a jeepney traveling along the Taft Avenue-Grace Park, allegedly announced a hold-up.
It was claimed that by means of force, violence, and intimidation, they attempted to take personal valuables from the passengers, notably a Seiko 5 wristwatch valued at P1,500.00 owned by Rodolfo Ungsod y Purificacion.
During the incident, an altercation ensued when Jaime Lim y Soriano resisted and fought back, resulting in him being stabbed and suffering fatal injuries.

The passenger jeepney, hailed by several individuals including Ofelia Lim, Jaime Lim, and later boarded by other witnesses such as Grace Cua, followed its regular route.
While the jeepney was traveling near Avenida, Rizal, two men boarded the vehicle and positioned themselves strategically:

One, later identified as accused Domondon, took a seat beside Ofelia Lim.
The other, Roberto Bulalayao, positioned himself at the running board near the rear of the jeepney.

Accused Domondon, armed with a bladed weapon, loudly imperiled the passengers by shouting “This is a Hold-up” and began collecting the passengers’ valuables.
In the ensuing chaos, Jaime Lim resisted and struggled with Roberto Bulalayao, who then stabbed him on various parts of his body.
Following the melee, Bulalayao jumped out of the jeepney and later admitted on the witness stand to having been the one who stabbed Jaime Lim.

After the incident, the jeepney rushed with a critically wounded Jaime Lim to Manila Central University Hospital where he later died despite medical intervention.
Autopsy findings revealed that Jaime Lim’s death was due to severe hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds to the chest.
Accounts from various witnesses (e.g., Ofelia Lim, Grace Cua, and Rodolfo Ungsod) provided different details regarding the collection of valuables and the hold-up scenario.
Testimonies revealed discrepancies: for instance, Rodolfo Ungsod asserted that no personal belongings were taken from him, contrary to the information’s allegation concerning the wristwatch.

Accused Roberto Bulalayao initially claimed an alibi, stating that he was driving a tricycle during the incident.
Accused Domondon offered a defense that he was similarly engaged in driving a tricycle when confronted by hijackers who forced him into a situation which eventually escalated into violence.
On the witness stand, Bulalayao abandoned his initial defense by confessing his involvement in the crime and attempting to absolve Domondon of any participation.

Only Diosdado Domondon appealed the conviction rendered by the trial court on 4 January 1989, which had found both accused guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
Domondon contended that the trial court erred by convicting him beyond reasonable doubt for a crime (robbery with homicide) where the prosecution failed to prove the consummation element of robbery.
He requested instead to be convicted solely of homicide, arguing that he should face a lighter penalty given the lack of evidence of asportation or successful taking of the property.

Whether the prosecution established, beyond reasonable doubt, that a consummated act of robbery occurred considering the variances between the information and eyewitness testimonies.
Whether the element of asportation (the physical removal of the property) was proven, given that several witnesses testified that no personal belongings were taken.

Whether the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, which necessitates a precise, dual-element description (property taking and homicide), can stand when there is a discrepancy in the evidence regarding the property taken.
Whether evidence presented supports a conviction for attempted robbery with homicide instead of the consummated offense of robbery with homicide.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Domondon of the more serious offense even though his plea indicated he was only willing to be convicted for homicide.
Whether Bulalayao’s late admission on the witness stand, which absolved Domondon, was sufficient to mitigate Domondon’s participation in the crime.