FACTS:

Appellant Joseph Barra was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution alleged that on October 9, 2003, Barra, armed with a firearm, gained entrance into the house of Elmer Lagdaan and demanded money. When Lagdaan said he didn't have any money, Barra shot him, causing his death. Dr. Villanueva, the municipal health officer, examined Lagdaan's corpse and confirmed that his cause of death was massive hemorrhage due to a gunshot wound. Witnesses, Ricardo de la Peña and Ely Asor, testified that they saw Barra at the victim's house on the same night. De la Peña saw Barra enter the house and demand money at gunpoint, while Asor encountered Barra in the yard and later heard a gunshot. The victim's mother, Flora Lagdaan, testified that she spent for funeral and burial expenses. Appellant, on the other hand, denied the charges and claimed that he was in Batangas City during the incident. The RTC found appellant guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with various monetary awards. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision and found appellant guilty of attempted robbery with homicide instead, as the evidence failed to establish that appellant actually took the victim's money or property.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the accused should be found guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide or attempted robbery with homicide.

2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the asportation necessary for the crime of robbery.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that the accused is responsible for the death of the victim. However, it disagreed with the trial court's determination of the nature of the crime committed. Instead of robbery with homicide, the accused should only be declared guilty of attempted robbery with homicide.

2. The Court of Appeals held that there was no evidence presented to establish that the accused actually took away the victim's money or any property. Hence, the accused cannot be held liable for the crime of robbery which requires the element of asportation to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

• In robbery, the asportation or taking away of the personal property of another with intent to gain must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• The absence of evidence establishing the asportation necessary for robbery would result in the accused being held liable only for attempted robbery.