G.R. No. 131864 -65 September 27, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN and JOSE PRECIOSO, accused, SHERJOHN ARONDAIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Sherjohn Arondain and Jose Precioso were charged with Frustrated Robbery with Homicide and Arondain separately with Illegal Possession of Firearm. The prosecution evidence established that on October 3, 1996, police responded to a reported hold-up, finding taxi driver Teodorico Parreño, Jr. dead in his cab with scattered money. A security guard witnessed two men flee the scene. Police later apprehended Arondain and Precioso in a nearby field, with Arondain possessing a .38 caliber revolver. When questioned, Arondain allegedly stated he shot the victim because the driver resisted his demand for money. The defense, however, interposed self-defense, claiming an altercation over fare led to a struggle for the victim’s gun, which accidentally discharged.
The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of Frustrated Robbery with Homicide, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, and separately convicted Arondain of Illegal Possession of Firearm, imposing the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the special complex crime of Frustrated Robbery with Homicide, and whether Arondain was correctly convicted for Illegal Possession of Firearm under P.D. No. 1866.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It acquitted Arondain of Illegal Possession of Firearm, applying the ruling in People v. Molina that when an unlicensed firearm is used in a homicide or murder, it is absorbed as an element of the crime, and a separate conviction under P.D. 1866 is improper. The Court also found the conviction for Frustrated Robbery with Homicide erroneous. For this complex crime, the prosecution must prove two elements: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, and the killing on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The evidence failed to establish the robbery component. While money was scattered, the victim’s wallet with money was found beside him, and there was no proof of actual asportation or intent to gain. Arondain’s alleged extrajudicial statement to police was deemed inadmissible for being obtained without counsel. Absent clear proof of robbery, the homicide cannot be complexed. The killing was thus adjudged as a simple Homicide, qualified by treachery as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring no risk to the assailants. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Arondain and Precioso were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The awards for damages were also modified accordingly.