Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y.

Criminal Law II Atty David Yap

Class Student No. 3 ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE DAY 6

PEOPLE VS. MANGULABNAN GR No. L-8919, September 28, 1956 99 Phil. 992

FELIX, J:

FACTS:
On 5 November 1953, the spouses Vicente Pacson and Cipriana Tadeo, the four minor children
and Cipriana’s mother, Monica Del Mundo were awakened by a gunfire. When they went to see, one
person shouted at them to open the living door room, no one obeyed. So the three men removed 3
board pieces in the wall and entered the house. One was recognized as Agustin Mangulabnan, who was
carrying a hunting knife. Mangulabnan then snatched Cipriana’s necklace and took their money, also
demanded Del Mundo to give her jewelry, but to no avail, he struck her twice on the face using a gun.
One of the unidentified person, went on top of a table and fired a gun on the ceiling. Then they left, and
Cipriana saw her husband already dead.

When Cipriana reported the matter to the police and identified Mangulabnan, the latter the
surrenedered and gave his affidavit, stating his participation in the crime. He also identified Dionisio
Sarmiento, together with Arcadio Balmeo, Patricio Gonzales, Florentino Flores, Crispin Estrella, Pedro
Villareal, Claudio Reyes, "Peter Doe" and "John Doe", who were still at large, as defendants.

The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant Agustin Mangulabnan guilty of the crime of
robbery with homicide.

Agustin Mangulabnan moved for a new trial on the ground of the newly discovered evidence
and that it was a mere accident and lastly that the medical report submitted was in carbon copy.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Trial Court is correct in convicting Agustin Mangulabnan of the crime
robbery with homicide?

HELD:
Yes, the Trial Court is correct in convicting Agustin Mangulabnan of the crime robbery with
homicide. In order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with homicide, it is enough that a
homicide would result by reason or on the occasion of the robbery and it is immaterial that the death
would supervene by mere accident provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of
the robbery inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the
circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be
taken into consideration.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case at bar:

Wherefore the decision appealed from being in accordancSe with law and the evidence, is hereby
affirmed with costs against appellant. It is so ordered.