Practice question
An offender first kills an enemy for an independent reason and only afterward forms a new, separate decision to take the enemy’s property. Does the later taking alone establish the prior robbery design required for robbery with homicide?
- Yes, any property found after a death proves the design.
- Yes, because sequence never matters.
- Yes, because a killing automatically supplies intent to gain.
- No; the robbery design must precede the killing for the stated composite offense, and the hypothetical places it afterward.
- No offense of any kind can exist.
Legal references
- People v Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, en banc main decision, Article 48 and composite crimes: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_202124_2016.html
- People v Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015, main decision, robbery with homicide as composite crime: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/gr_195244_2015.html
- Revised Penal Code, Article 48 as amended, text and current two-branch rule reproduced in People v Reyes, G.R. No. 260030, May 19, 2025: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_260030_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.