Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

B. COMPOUND CRIMES fired at the vehicle.

Thereafter, after uttering


the words, "nataydan, mapan tayon" (They
People vs. Tabaco are already dead. Let us go), Valdez and
FACTS companions left. The shooting incident left 4
Tabaco entered the cockpit with a fully victims dead and two others injured. The
loaded M-14 sub-machine gun. He fired the information charged the complex crime of
weapon, which contained 20 rounds of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated
bullets in its magazine, continuously. When Murder
the rifle was recovered from Tabaco, the ISSUE
magazine was already empty. Four persons Whether there is a complex crime
died. RULING
ISSUE No, The case at bar does not fall under any
Whether this is a compound crime. of the two instances defined under art 48 of
RULING the RPC. The evidence indicates that there
No, the evidence shows that the four (4) was more than one gunman involved, and
victims were FELLED by one single the act of each gunman is distinct from that
shot/burst of fire and/or successive of the other. It cannot be said therefore, that
automatic gun fires, meaning continuous. there is but a single act of firing a single
Hence, it is a complex crime involving four firearm. Each act by each gunman pulling the
murdered victims, under the first category, trigger of their respective firearms, aiming
where a single act of shooting constituted each particular moment at different persons
two or more grave or less grave felonies constitute distinct and individual acts which
(delito compuesto). cannot give rise to the complex crime of
multiple murder. We therefore rule that
The trial court misappreciated the facts in accused-appellant is guilty, not of a complex
People vs. Pama. In said case, there was crime of multiple murder, but of four counts
only one bullet which killed two persons. of murder for the death of the four victims in
Hence, there was only a single act which this case. In the same manner, accused-
produced two crimes, resulting in a specie of appellant is likewise held guilty for two counts
complex crime known as a compound crime, of frustrated murder.
wherein a single act produces two or more
grave or less grave felonies. In the case at C. CONTINUING CRIMES
bench, there was more than one bullet People vs. Madrigal Gonzales
expended by the accused-appellant in killing FACTS
the four victims. Accused, while being administrator of the
Social Welfare Administration (SWA) was
People vs. Valdez charged in 27 cases of falsification and 1
FACTS case of Malversation. That in the
Six teenagers boarded a tricycle, when the commission of malversation several
vehicle took a turn on a barangay road they documents were falsified showing
met the appellant Rolando Valdez and his disbursements for cash aids, reliefs and
companions who were armed with guns. The supplies when in fact there were none.
tricycle's headlight flashed on their faces. In her defense, the accused interposed while
Without warning, they pointed their guns and hypothetically admitting that acts of
falsification which took place within a It will be noted that although all the
specified period and the allegations are the informations in the 27 falsification cases
same, said acts were but the result of a were uniformly worded, the numbers of the
singular criminal intent- to conceal the vouchers alleged to have been falsified and
crime of malversation. the amounts thereof are different. The other
ISSUE informations also show different vouchers,
Whether or not the twenty-seven (27) dates and amounts. These undeniable facts,
falsifications were the product of only one alleged in the informations, evidently show
criminal intent and therefore a cotinuing that different acts of falsification were
crime. committed on different vouchers and
RULING covering distinct amounts. Each information
No, The appellees seem to confuse motive did not refer to all said acts of falsification.
with criminal intent. Motive is not an element Neither is there merit in the argument that
of a felony; it is merely a prospectant said acts of falsification constituted a
circumstantial evidence. Criminal intent continuing offense, so as to have them all
renders an act a felony. Motive is a state of prosecuted in only one information. This
the mind of the accused, and it is he who can Court in a number of cases, dealing on the
state his real motive in committing a crime. same subject.
Whatever the fiscal had manifested, as to
the motive which had impelled the accused Gamboa vs. CA
to transgress the law, FACTS
was but a speculation gathered in the Benjamin Lu Hayco was an employee of
process of investigation. In other words, the Units Optical Supply Company. According to
existence of the motive to conceal the owner, Hayco thru fraud, deceit and
malversation, in the cases at bar, is a machinations, duped him into affixing his
question of fact which should be ventilated in signature and thumbprint on a general power
a formal trial, in connection with the defense of attorney. With the use of this deed, he
of double jeopardy. opened accounts in his own name. He
thereafter collected and received payments
The Court cannot assume that the purpose from customers and deposited it to his
of committing the twenty-seven (27) personal account. After the preliminary
falsifications was to conceal the investigation, the Office of the City Fiscal
malversation. This is so because there is no filed seventy-five cases of estafa against
showing that for every particular amount they Hayco, all of which are cases of estafa with
had malversed on a certain period, they had different dates and amounts.
purposedly perpetrated the corresponding ISSUE
falsification to cover up such amount, until Whether the basic accusations contained in
the whole amount proposed to be malversed, the seventy-five informations constitute but a
shall have been completely single crime of estafa.
misappropriated. In the absence of such RULING
showing, it is to be presumed that in the No, "continuous crime" is a single crime
falsification of each document, the criminal consisting of a series of acts arising from a
intent was separated and distinct. single criminal resolution or intent not
susceptible of division.
Whether the acts done by Mallari constitute
The characterization or description of estafa a continuing crime
as a continuing offense cannot be validly
seized upon by Hayco as basis for its RULING
inference that the acts of abstraction in Yes, A continued crime is a single crime
question constitute but a single continuing consisting of a series of acts but all arising
crime of estafa. The sole import of this from one criminal resolution. It is a
characterization is that the necessary continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set
elements of estafa may separately take on foot by a single impulse and operated by
place in different territorial jurisdictions until an unintermittent force. And although there
the crime itself is consummated. The are series of acts, there is only one crime
moment, however, that the elements of the committed hence only one penalty shall be
crime have completely concurred or imposed. The crime of estafa thru
transpired, then an individual crime of estafa falsification of public document committed by
has occurred or has been consummated. Consuelo Mallari, although consummated
through a series of acts, was done by the
People vs. Mallari single intent or impulse to defraud Remegio
FACTS Tapawan. And contrary to the appellate
Consuelo Mallair together with 3 others were court's observation, there was only one
charged with Estafa thru Falsification of deceit practiced by petitioner on the two (2)
Public Document due to the acts they victims, that being in need of money,
committed when they feloniously defraud Leonora Balderas was willing to mortgage
Saclolo by offering her the title of the land two (2) lots as security for a loan. It was, in
owned by Leonora Balderas as a collateral fact, by mere play of fate that the second
who was then in need of money. The said victim, Julia Saclolo, should be dragged into
title was forged and falsified before Celestino the swindle by reason of Tapawan having
Hallazgo, notary public, by making it appear only P1,500.00 at that time. That there were
that Balderas signed the document which two (2) victims, however, did not accordingly
Julia Saclolo paid for the amount of 1,500. convert the crime into two separate offenses,
as the determinative factor is the unity or
The same also happened to Remegio multiplicity of the criminal intent or of the
Tapawan. It was when Tapawan found out transactions for "the fact should not be lost
that he was tolled because the person who sight of that it is the injury to the public which
posed as Leonora Balderas was a man by a criminal action seeks to redress, and by
the name of Carlos Sunga that led to file the such redress to prevent its repetition, and not
case against Mallari and 3 others involved. the injury to individuals. The singularity of the
Petitioner Consuelo Mallari was sentenced offense committed by Mallari is further
to imprisonment before the CFI. Mallari demonstrated by the fact that the falsification
appealed before the Court of Appeals who of the two (2) public documents as a means
affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification of committing estafa were performed on the
as to the penalty. She then contended that same date, in the same place, at the same
the said decision of CA put her twice in time and on the same occasion. The act of
double jeopardy. taking two or more roosters in the same
ISSUE place and on the same occasion is dictated
by only one criminal design and therefore, policeman and handed over the ID of SPO1
there is only one crime of theft even if the Manio and the money they had taken from
roosters are owned by different persons. the heist. The police became suspicious
because the ID had already expired. He
D. COMPOSITE OR SPECIAL COMPLEX asked Escote if the latter had a new payslip.
CRIMES When Escote could not produce any, he
finally confessed he was not policeman and
People vs. Escote was brought to the station. He was frisked
FACTS and they found five bullets of a 9mm in his
At past midnight Rodolfo Cacatian (driver of pocket.
a passenger bus) drove the bus from Pasay ISSUE
City to Pangasinan. Six additional Whether robbery with homicide is a special
passengers boarded the bus in Balintawak, complex crime
including Acuyan and Escote, who held up RULING
the bus (they had handguns) as they were The SC has ruled over the years that
passing Bulacan. Both fired their guns treachery is a generic aggravating
upward and accosted the passengers, circumstance in the felony of robbery with
divesting them of their money and valuables. homicide, a special complex crime and at the
Apparently, SPO1 Manio was aboard the same time a single and indivisible offense.
bus. When the felons went to him and asked However, in two cases, the SC has held that
for his wallet and ID. When they found out his robbery with homicide is a crime against
was a police officer and saw his service gun, property. Treachery is appreciated only in
they said: “Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin crimes against persons and hence, should
ka namin, baril mo rin ang papatay sayo.” not be appreciated as a generic aggravating
The police officer pleaded for mercy: “Pare circumstance. It held in another case that it
maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya ako.” But the is not appreciated in robbery with rape
two ignored his plea and shot him on the precisely because it is a crime against
mouth, right ear, chest and right side of the property. These ruling finds support in case
body. Manio sustained six entrance wounds. law that in robbery with homicide and rape,
The bus driver was ordered to maintain the the latter are merely incidents of the robbery
speed of the bus. He heard one of them say with robbery being the main purpose and
“Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. Parang object of the criminal. But the SC ruled
pumapatay ng manok.” The other said, “Ayos otherwise in the later case of People v.
na naman tayo, pare. Malaki-laki ito.” They Cando when it ruled that treachery is a
alighted from the bus and instructed the generic aggravating circumstance in robbery
driver not to report the incident (all in all, with homicide when the victim of homicide is
robbery was over in 25 mintues). Naturally, killed with treachery.
the driver and conductor reported the
incident to police. Barely a month after at People vs. Malinao
about midnight, a team of policemen was at FACTS
a checkpoint along the national highway in One afternoon, the car in which Nestor
Tarlac. A white taxicab without a plate was (deceased), his wife Teresita and his
stopped and asked the driver, who was brother-in-law were riding, driven by one
Escote, for his ID. Escote said he was a Rodante Abarcar who was maneuvering it
out of the garage gate of the Otanguin
residence, accidentally hit and injured the Ivler vs. San Pedro
fighting cock of appellant that was tied near FACTS
said gate. Teresita immediately told Following a vehicular collision, Jason Ivler
appellant of the incident and promised to talk was charged before the MeTC, with two
it over with him later as they were in a hurry separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence
to catch up with a plane flight to Tacloban Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal
City. Appellant did not say anything and just Case No. 82367) for injuries sustained by
smiled. Nestor and family left for the airport. Evangeline L. Ponce and (2) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Appellant, armed with revolver, was drinking Damage to Property (Criminal Case No.
with some friends at a table on a sidewalk 82366) for the death of Ponce’s husband
near his house, Nestor was on his way home Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses
from work and passed by the place where Ponce’s vehicle.
appellant was drinking with some friends. As
Nestor was approaching, appellant fired his Ivler pleaded guilty to the charge in Criminal
gun and invited Nestor to join them and Case No. 82367 and was meted out the
offered him a drink which Nestor accepted. penalty of public censure. Invoking this
Then Nestor excused himself for home but conviction, Ivler moved to quash the
appellant offered him another drink, which he Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 for
politely refused. Enraged at the refusal, placing him in jeopardy of second
appellant drew his revolver from his waist punishment for the same offense of reckless
and shot Nestor on the chest. When Nestor imprudence.
fell, appellant shot him again at the back of
the head, resulting in his immediate death. ISSUE
Whether reckless imprudence is a single
Whether or not the use of unlicensed firearm crime.
make this crime a special complex crime. RULING
RULING Yesm “Reckless Imprudence under Article
Yes, Supreme Court held that an accused 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not
who is charged with having committed merely a means to commit other crimes,
murder or homicide with the use of an hence, conviction or acquittal of such quasi-
unlicensed firearm should be liable only for offense bars subsequent prosecution for the
the graver offense of aggravated illegal same quasi-offense, regardless of its
possession of firearm under the second various consequences.The law penalizes the
paragraph of Section 1 of PD 1866 because negligent or careless act, not the result
the situation contemplated therein is from the thereof.And as the careless act is single ,
punitive standpoint, virtually of the nature of whether the injurious result should affect
the so-called special complex crimes, which one person or several persons, the offense
should more appropriately be called criminal negligence remains one and the
composite crimes and only a single penalty same, and cannot be split into different
is imposed for each of such composite crimes and prosecutions
crimes although composed of two or more
offenses.