FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 19343. January 12, 1923. ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN MANUEL ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Norberto Manikis for Appellants.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; COMPLEX CRIME; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; MURDER IN CONNECTION WITH ROBBERY. — An offense which in other respects falls within the purview of subsection 1 of article 503 of the Penal Code, fixing the penalty of the complex offense or robbery with homicide, is not excluded from that provision by the circumstance that homicide committed with a view to or upon occasion of the robbery rises to the atrocity of murder. The word homicide in said provision is used in a generic sense.
2. ID.; ID.; DOUBLE HOMICIDE OR MURDER IN CONNECTION WITH ROBBERY. — The circumstance that two homicides (or murders) occur in connection with a robbery, in the complex offense of robbery with homicide, does not destroy the essential unity of the crime, nor make two offenses where otherwise there would be only one. The number of victims is immaterial.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; HOMICIDE PRELIMINARY TO ROBBERY. — The circumstance that the malefactors, intending to commit robbery in an inhabited house, kill the inmates prior to the robbery, does not destroy the character of the offense as a complex crime, especially where it appears that the purpose in view in committing the homicide was to prevent the subsequent identification of the robbers by the victims of the crime. It is the intention of the actors which supplies the connection between the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex offense; and if that intention comprehends the robbery in the beginning, it is immaterial that the homicide precedes the robbery in point of time.
2. ID.; ID.; DOUBLE HOMICIDE OR MURDER IN CONNECTION WITH ROBBERY. — The circumstance that two homicides (or murders) occur in connection with a robbery, in the complex offense of robbery with homicide, does not destroy the essential unity of the crime, nor make two offenses where otherwise there would be only one. The number of victims is immaterial.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; HOMICIDE PRELIMINARY TO ROBBERY. — The circumstance that the malefactors, intending to commit robbery in an inhabited house, kill the inmates prior to the robbery, does not destroy the character of the offense as a complex crime, especially where it appears that the purpose in view in committing the homicide was to prevent the subsequent identification of the robbers by the victims of the crime. It is the intention of the actors which supplies the connection between the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex offense; and if that intention comprehends the robbery in the beginning, it is immaterial that the homicide precedes the robbery in point of time.
D E C I S I O N
STREET, J.:
This cause has been elevated to the Supreme Court for the purpose of subjecting to review in this tribunal a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, finding the five appellants, to wit, Juan Manuel (1.
