Complex Crimes Digested!!
Complex Crimes Digested!!
In other words, where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their
individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of
execution, giving rise to a complex offense. Various acts committed under one criminal impulse
may constitute a single complex offense.
vs.
JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR (Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City [Br.
103], SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AURELIO TRAMPE, PROSECUTOR FERDINAND R.
ABESAMIS, AND CITY ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR EULOGIO MANANQUIL,
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR ALFREDO LIM, BRIG. GEN. EDGAR
DULA TORRES (Superintendent of the Northern Police District) AND/ OR ANY AND ALL
PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE ACTUAL CUSTODY OVER THE PERSON OF JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, respondents.
G.R. No. 92164 June 5, 1990
SPS. REBECCO E. PANLILIO AND ERLINDA E. PANLILIO, petitioners,
vs.
PROSECUTORS FERNANDO DE LEON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE, FFRDINAND R.
ABESAMIS, AND EULOGIO C. MANANQUIL, and HON. JAIME W. SALAZAR, JR., in his
capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 103, respondents.
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. - The crime of rebellion or insurrection is
committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government
for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of
the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces,
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
Hernandez doctrine: murders which have been committed on the occasion of and in furtherance
of the crime of rebellion must be deemed absorbed in the offense of simple rebellion
Facts: Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement
officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a
warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar The warrant had issued on an information. charging
Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime
of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of
the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990.
Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila,
without bail. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas
Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the
Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres.
On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition
for habeas corpus alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having
been held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute books;
Issue: whether the crime of rebellion may complexed with other offenses committed on the
occasion thereof
Held:
which have been committed on the occasion of and in furtherance of the crime of rebellion must
be deemed absorbed in the offense of simple rebellion. People vs. Hernandez,
there is no such crime in our statute books as rebellion complexed with murder, that murder
committed in connection with a rebellion is absorbed by the crime of rebellion, and that a resort
to arms resulting in the destruction of life or property constitutes neither two or more offenses
nor a complex crime but one crime-rebellion pure and simple.
the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco
and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are
entitled to bail,
G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROLANDO VALDEZ, accused-appellant.
Six teenagers boarded a tricycle, when the vehicle took a turn on a barangay road they met the
appellant Rolando Valdez and his companions who were armed with guns. The tricycle's
headlight flashed on their faces. Without warning, they pointed their guns and fired at the
vehicle. Thereafter, after uttering the words, "nataydan, mapan tayon" (They are already dead.
Let us go), Valdez and companions left.
The shooting incident left 4 victims dead and two others injured.
The information charged the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder
Issue: whether there is a complex crime
Held:
The case at bar does not fall under any of the two instances defined under art 48 of the RPC.
The evidence indicates that there was more than one gunman involved, and the act of each
gunman is distinct from that of the other. It cannot be said therefore, that there is but a single act
of firing a single firearm. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective
firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual
acts which cannot give rise to the complex crime of multiple murder. We therefore rule that
accused-appellant is guilty, not of a complex crime of multiple murder, but of four counts of
murder for the death of the four victims in this case. In the same manner, accused-appellant is
likewise held guilty for two counts of frustrated murder.
one another in consummating the rape of complainant. While one of them mounted her, the
other three held her arms and legs. They also burned her face and extremities with lighted
cigarettes to stop her from warding off her aggressor. Each of them, therefore, is responsible not
only for the rape committed personally by him but for the rape committed by the others as
well. 41
However, as correctly held by the trial court, there can only be one complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape. The crime of forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape. Thus,
the subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as separate complex crimes of
forcible abduction with rape. They should be detached from and considered independently of
the forcible abduction. Therefore, accused-appellant should be convicted of one complex crime
of forcible abduction with rape and three separate acts of rape. 42
The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be imposed
in its maximum period. Rape is the more serious of the two crimes and, when committed by
more than two persons, is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death under Article 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Thus, accused-appellant
should be sentenced to the maximum penalty of death for forcible abduction with rape.
October 8, 1926
determines the existence of only one crime. The act of taking the roosters in the same place
and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an independent existence of
their own, because there are not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that characterize
two separate crimes.
G.R. No. 109266 December 2, 1993
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Petitioner, while being the Commissioner of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
was charged with violation Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by her
favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. 32 different
informations were file corresponding with the 32 names approved. Petitioner avers that while
hypothetically admitting that the allegations were true the 32 informations should be
consolidated because of the concept of delito continuado.
Issue: whether the crimes charged in the 32 informations filed constitute only one
crime
Held: The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period
of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval
of the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of
the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.
For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of
time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that
two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or
resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.
Apart and isolated from this plurality of crimes (ideal or real) is what is known as "delito
continuado" or "continuous crime". This is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising
from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. For Cuello Calon, when the
actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each of which,
although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular
delict, such concurrence or delictual acts is called a "delito continuado". In order that it may
exist, there should be "plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of
penal provision infringed upon or violated and unity of criminal intent and purpose, which
means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are united in one and the same
intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim."
The test is not whether one of the two offenses is an essential element of the other. 6 In People
v. Pineda , 7 the court even expressed that "to apply the first half of Article 48, ... there must be
singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law."
In the case before Us, the daily abstractions from and diversions of private respondent of the
deposits made by the customers of the optical supply company from October 2, 1972 to
December 30, 1972, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, which We assume ex hypothesi,
cannot be considered as proceeding from a single criminal act within the meaning of Article 48.
The abstractions were not made at the same time and on the same occasion, but on variable
dates. Each day of conversion constitutes a single act with an independent existence and
criminal intent of its own. All the conversions are not the product of a consolidated or united
criminal resolution, because each conversion is a complete act by itself. Specifically, the
abstractions and the accompanying deposits thereof in the personal accounts of private
respondent cannot be similarly viewed as "continuous crime". In the above formulation of Cuello
Calon, We cannot consider a defalcation on a certain day as merely constitutive of partial
execution of estafa under Article 315, para. 1-b of the Revised Penal Code. As earlier pointed
out, an individual abstraction or misappropriation results in a complete
execution or consummation of the delictual act of defalcation. Private respondent cannot be
held to have entertained continously the same criminal intent in making the first abstraction on
October 2, 1972 for the subsequent abstractions on the following days and months until
December 30, 1972, for the simple reason that he was not possessed of any fore-knowledge of
any deposit by any customer on any day or occasion and which would pass on to his
possession and control. At most, his intent to misappropriate may arise only when he comes in
possession of the deposits on each business day but not in futuro, since petitioner company
operates only on a day-to-day transaction. As a result, there could be as many acts of
misappropriation as there are times the private respondent abstracted and/or diverted the
deposits to his own personal use and benefit. Thus, it may be said that the City Fiscal had acted
properly when he filed only one information for every single day of abstraction and bank deposit
made by private respondent. 10 The similarity of pattern resorted to by private respondent in
making the diversions does not affect the susceptibility of the acts committed to divisible crimes.
DIAZ, J.:
The appellant was convicted on three separate charges for estafa with falsification
of public documents for the three money orders placed in his name while being an
assistant postmaster. He even forged the signature of the head postmaster to
accomplish his crime.
Issue: Whether his acts constitute separate crimes
Held:
Since the accused was aware that no money order could be brought or issued for a
sum greater than $100, as expressly provided in section 1968 of the Administrative
Code, in order to issue a money order for P600, it was necessary to make three
separate money orders. That the appellant falsified the same on a single date:
November 24, 1936, and he collected them also on a single date, January 4, 1937
from which it is inferred that the three acts of falsification and the said three acts of
appropriation of the sum of P200 in each case proceed from a single purpose of the
appellant, namely, to appropriate for himself the sum of P600.
If he had to resort to this means falsifying three money orders, it was because he
was aware that he could not do otherwise, in view of the legal provision, which he
was supposed to know, limiting the issuance of money orders to sums not greater
than P100 or P200. When, for the attainment of a single purpose which constitutes
an offense, various acts are executed, such acts must be considered only as one
offense.
Under this view, the appellant committed only the complex crime of estafa with
falsification of three postal money orders which are, without doubt, official and
public documents, the falsification being the means he employed to appropriate, as
he did for himself the sum of P600, to the prejudice of the Government.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-16688-90
cover up such amount, until the whole amount proposed to be malversed, shall
have been completely misappropriated. In the absence of such showing, it is to be
presumed that in the falsification of each document, the criminal intent was
separated and distinct.