THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LAOYAN DOLUNEN (ALIAS QUIBATAY), DALOCDOC Y GUAY, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

United States versus Dolunen

The Case

This is a criminal case of robbery with homicide. The Government of the United States, as plaintiff, prosecuted Laoyan Dolunen, also known as Quibatay, and his companion Dalocdoc, for going to the house of a man, asking permission to cook rice, and then, when the man came out, attacking and killing him and carrying off his carabao and other property. The case matters to a reviewee because it is an early statement of two rules that still govern examination answers: the crime is robbery with homicide when a killing is committed by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery, and the mitigating circumstance of having acted with the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury does not apply to such a crime. The Court also affirmed the death penalty and the indemnity imposed below.

Procedural History

The case was tried in the Court of First Instance of the Mountain District, where the trial judge convicted the two accused and imposed the death penalty and an indemnity. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. On appeal they invoked the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code, which provides for exemption from criminal liability when a person acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Moreland, held that this provision is not applicable in cases of this kind, following the established rule, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Facts

The two accused, Laoyan Dolunen, also known as Quibatay, and Dalocdoc, went to the house of the victim and asked permission to cook rice. When the victim came out of his house in response to their request, the two men attacked and killed him.

After killing the victim, the accused took away a carabao and other property belonging to the deceased. The taking of the carabao and the other property, together with the killing, gave rise to the charge of robbery with homicide.

The trial court convicted the accused and imposed upon them the death penalty and an indemnity. On appeal, the accused did not deny the acts attributed to them; instead, they sought the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code, claiming that they had acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused are guilty of robbery with homicide for attacking and killing the victim and taking away his carabao and other property.
• Whether or not the accused may invoke the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code, which exempts from criminal liability a person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Applicable Provisions

Article 11 of the Penal Code, as invoked by the accused on appeal, provides:

Article 11. Are exempt from criminal liability: 1. An imbecile or lunatic, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or lunatic has committed a crime, the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. 2. A person who, at the time of the commission of the crime, was deprived of all volition, or who, without his fault, was so deprived, by reason of some physical or moral force which, in the circumstances, was irresistible. 3. A person who, at the time of the commission of the crime, was under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

This provision bears on the case because the accused relied on it to escape liability, and the Court held that it does not apply to robbery with homicide.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction for robbery with homicide. The accused went to the victim's house under the pretext of asking permission to cook rice; when the victim came out, they attacked and killed him; and they then took away his carabao and other property. The killing and the taking together constitute robbery with homicide, and the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty and an indemnity.

On the second issue, the Court held that article 11 of the Penal Code is not applicable in such cases, following the established rule. The exemption for one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury cannot be invoked by persons who commit robbery with homicide. The judgment of the trial court was therefore affirmed in full.

Doctrine

First, when a killing is committed by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery, the crime is robbery with homicide, and the accused are liable for the composite crime, not merely for the taking of property. Second, the exemption from criminal liability under article 11 of the Penal Code, based on an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury, does not apply to robbery with homicide. A reviewee should state these rules as the Court stated them: the benefit of article 11 is not available in cases of this character, following the established rule.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused of robbery with homicide and imposing the death penalty and an indemnity.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code, the uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury, is not applicable to robbery with homicide. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a candidate can distinguish a valid exempting circumstance from one that cannot be invoked in a composite crime involving a killing and a taking of property.