Note: Usual phrase to answer in the exam regarding complex crimes in imposing

penalties: When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period irrespective of the presence of modifying circumstances.

PEOPLE OF vs CELERINO CASTROMERO

There is a complex crime if the victim of the crime of rape jumped out of the window,
where she incurred serious physical injuries, in order to escape from the offender.
There is complex crime of rape with serious physical injuries.

Ruling: The settled principle that a person who creates in another's mind an
immediate sense of danger that causes the latter to try to escape is responsible for
whatever the other person may consequently suffer.

PEOPLE vs. COMADRE

The offender threw a grenade which killed some and injured the others. Petitioners
argue that all are separate crimes. SC ruled that it was a complex crime of murder
with several attempted murders. The throwing of a grenade was a single act which
resulted to multiple grave and less grave offenses.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBIOS

Respondent stabbed the shoulder of the deceased, who was 6 months pregnant, who
died as a consequence, as well as the unborn child. There is a complex crime of
homicide/murder with unintentional abortion.

PEOPLE vs BALOTOL.

Facts: Offender stabbed his intended victim and penetrated through another person.
The accused is charged with the complex crime of double murder.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MACAGALING

The offender pointed a gun and then fire at his own nephew. The bullet missed his
nephew but wounded a bystander on the right chest causing the latter to collapse
and expire. Petitioner contends death of bystander was accidental.

Ruling: For the killing of the bystander, the same cannot be said to be accidental as it
was the result of an aberratio ictus, or miscarriage of the blow. As a matter of law,
since such death resulted from a culpable aberratio ictus, appellant should be
punished under Article 48, in relation to Article 4, of the Revised Penal Code. Having
committed attempted homicide as against his nephew and consummated homicide
with respect to the bystander when he fired the 1st shot, appellant committed two
grave felonies with one single act and, accordingly, he would be liable for a complex
crime in the nature of a compound crime.

PEOPLE vs. SANCHEZ

The offenders used M-16 and baby armalite rifles which was executed in automatic
firing mode. There were three bursts of gunfire. The question is whether the act of
shooting the victims using armalites in automatic firing mode constitutes a single act
and, thus, the felonies resulting therefrom are considered as complex crimes. We rule
in the negative.
Although each burst of shots was caused by one single act of pressing the trigger of
the sub-machinegun, in view of its special mechanism the person firing it has only to
keep pressing the trigger of the sub-machinegun, with his finger and it would fire
continually. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered
as producing the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced
them.
LONTOK, JR vs. GORGONIO

Offender was recklessly driving his car then bumped a passenger jeep causing
damage to it (damage to property; ) and that the bumping also caused physical
injuries to three passengers (slight physical injury; light felony).

Applying article 48, it follows that if one offense is light. There is no complex crime.
The resulting offenses may be treated as a separate or the light felony may be
absorbed by the grave felony. Thus, the light felonies of damage to property and
slight physical injuries, both resulting from a single act of imprudence, do not
constitute a complex crime. They cannot be charged in 1 information. They are
separate offenses subject to distinct penalties. They should be filed separately if the
crime has not prescribed.

PEOPLE vs. TALO

Offender abducted the victim in her parents house, took her to a ricefield and then
had carnal knowledge with her. Offender is guilty of complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape.

PEOPLE vs SABREDO

Offender grabbed and forcibly dragged his niece at knife's point, to the highway
where he made her board a truck, moved to another place and after a few days,
sexually assaulted the victim.
Is there a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape? SC held NO. The elements
of forcible abduction are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of
age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that the abduction is against her will; and (3) that
the abduction is with lewd designs. The prosecution's evidence clearly shows that the
victim was forcibly taken. We note that while the information sufficiently alleges the
forcible taking of complainant from Cebu to Masbate, the same fails to allege "lewd
designs." When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is
charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic that the prosecution
must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well
as all the elements of the crime of rape. 6 When appellant, using a blade, forcibly
took away complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did
rape her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction. 7 Hence, the crime committed
by appellant is simple rape only.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF GONZALES vs PEOPLE
Offender presented a document to deceased and induced her to sign and thumbmark
the same because she was made to believe that the said document was in
connection with her taxes when it was in fact a special power of attorney (SPA; public
document) authorizing his minor daughter to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise
dispose of Manolitas properties which he later sold (Deed of Absolute Sale is also a
public document). SC ruled that there is a complex crime of estafa with falsification
of public document.
For this reason, while a conviction for estafa through falsification of public document
requires that the elements of both estafa and falsification exist, it does not mean that
the criminal liability for estafa may be determined and considered independently of
that for falsification. The two crimes of estafa and falsification of public documents
are not separate crimes but component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa
and falsification of public documents.
The situation would have been different if Sato, using the same inducement, had
made Manolita sign a deed of sale of the properties either in his favor or in favor of
third parties. In that case, the damage would have been caused by, and at exactly
the same time as, the execution of the document, not prior thereto. Therefore, the
crime committed would only have been the simple crime of estafa.[63] On the other
hand, absent any inducement (such as if Manolita herself had been the one who
asked that a document pertaining to her taxes be prepared for her signature, but
what was presented to her for her signature was an SPA), the crime would have only
been the simple crime of falsification.[64]
Note: Absolutory clause under Art. 332 exempts the offender from simple estafa but
not from the complex crime of estafa with falsification of public documents.

PEOPLE vs. TUMLOS

The offender stole first, 8 cows belonging to Owner1 and 5 belonging to his son
Owner2 then grazing together. Owner 1 instituted a criminal complaint after he was
convicted of Owner2s complaint. Offender contends that he cannot be tried for the
second time. SC: He cannot be tried again.

Ruling: The fact that eight of said cows pertained to one owner and five to another
does not make him criminally liable for two distinct offenses, for the reason that in
such case the act must be divided into two, which act is not susceptible of division.

The intention was likewise one, namely, to take for the purpose of appropriating or
selling the thirteen cows which he found grazing in the same place. As neither the
intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division, the offense arising from the
concurrence of its two constituent elements cannot be divided, it being immaterial
that the subject matter of the offense is singular or plural, because whether said
subject matter be one or several animate or inanimate objects, it is but one.

Therefore, as the five cows alleged to be stolen by the offender were integral parts of
the thirteen cows which were the subject matter of theft, and as he had already been
tried for and convicted of the theft of the other five.

PEOPLE vs JARANILLA

Offenders, who were on a truck and were just done from committing robbery, saw in
the middle of the road some patrolmen running towards them to arrest them.
Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot one patrolman which frightened the latter and then
escaped but still continued shooting. The patrolman subsequently died. Jaranilla is
convicted of a complex crime of Direct Assault with Homicide.

Direct assault (any person who attacks any person in authority engaging in the
performance of his duties)

SANTIAGO vs. GARCHITORENA

Petitioner was charged with 32 complaints for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act for her favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien
Legalization Program.

The trend in theft cases is to follow the so-called "single larceny" doctrine, that is, the
taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the
same time and place constitutes but one larceny. Many courts have abandoned the
"separate larceny doctrine," under which there is a distinct larceny as to the property
of each victim. Also abandoned was the doctrine that the government has the
discretion to prosecute the accused or one offense or for as many distinct offenses as
there are victims.

The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same
period of time. 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. The 32 complaints are
then turned into one. There is a continued crime.

ENRILE vs. AMIN

ILAGAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS

This doctrine in People vs Hernandez is applicable in the case at bar. If a person

cannot be charged with the complex crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to be
applied, neither can he be charged separately for two (2) different offenses where
one is a constitutive or component element or committed in

Petitioners worked as an agent for respondent corporation. He first received a

complaint from respondent corporation for the crime of estafa. Next, he received 8
different complaints from private individuals who are clients of respondent
corporation. Petitioner contends that the crime of estafa should only be considered
as one offense. Petitioners contentions are untenable.

Ruling: The damage sustained by the lot buyers is distinct from that suffered by
respondent corporation. We reject petitioners' plea for the dismissal of the
subsequent complaints. The felonious acts perpetrated against the lot buyers do not
constitute a delito continuad. The seven acts of defraudation under said informations
constitute material or real plurality, hence there are seven crimes of estafa. We rule
that said seven cases fall under the category of concurso real, hence there are seven
juridically independent crimes involving said lot buyers.

The series of acts committed against the seven lot buyers was not the product of a
single criminal intent. The misrepresentation or deceit was employed against each lot
buyer on different dates and in separate places, hence they originated from separate
criminal intents and consequently resulted in separate felonies. 14 Furthermore, even
assuming arguendo that the defraudations were pursuant to an identical design, they
were committed over a period of about one and a half years and at substantial
intervals both in time and in distance of situs.

More conclusive is the fact that, after the commission of one estafa, the accused
could not have had the foreknowledge as to when or whether they could replicate the
same felony against another victim still necessarily unknown. This lack of prevision
on their part definitely proves that the criminal intent entailed in a preceding swindle
could not operate as the same criminal intent in futuro as regards another
subsequent estafa. 15 The inescapable conclusion is that, all told, a total of eight
crimes of estafa were actually committed by the accused against different victims.

Enrile was accused as having committed rebellion complexed with murder and in a
separate complaint, violation of PD 1829.

In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the prosecution's theory must fail. The
rationale remains the same. All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or
general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance
thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and
charged as separate crimes in themselves. Thus:

The Hernandez and other related cases mention common crimes as absorbed in the
crime of rebellion. These common crimes refer to all acts of violence such as murder,
arson, robbery, kidnapping etc. as provided in the Revised Penal Code. The attendant
circumstances in the instant case, however, constrain us to rule that the theory of
absorption in rebellion cases must not confine itself to common crimes but also to
offenses under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political
offense.

The Court in upheld the prosecution for illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866
because no separate prosecution for subversion or rebellion had been filed. 3 The
prosecution must make up its mind whether to charge Senator Ponce Enrile with
rebellion alone or to drop the rebellion case and charge him with murder and multiple
frustrated murder and also violation of P.D. 1829. It cannot complex the rebellion with
murder and multiple frustrated murder. Neither can it prosecute him for rebellion and
violation of PD 1829. It should be noted that there is in fact a separate prosecution
for rebellion already filed. In such a case, the independent prosecution under PD
1829 cannot prosper.

PEOPLE vs. YABUT

Offender was accused of estafa by means of false pretenses. Offender issued the
checks at Caloocan City but was encashed by the private complainant in Bulacan.
The estafa case was then filed in Bulacan City. Petitioner contends that it is in the
jurisdiction of the Caloocan courts and not in Bulacan. SC held it can be tried in both
Bulacan and Caloocan courts.

SANTIAGO PAERA vs PEOPLE

Offender, as punong barangay, reminded the father of the complainant (F) of the
water

distribution

scheme

and cut his access.

The

following

day,

petitioner

discovered a tap from the main line which he promptly disconnected. To stem the
flow of water from the ensuing leak, petitioner, using a borrowed bolo, fashioned a
wooden plug. It was at this point when F arrived. Petitioner, picked-up his bolo and
charged towards F, shouting I will kill you! F ran for safety, passing along the way his
wife (W), who had followed him to the water tank. Next, petitioner shouted at W that
he will kill her. W similarly scampered. Unable to pursue W, he passed Vicente, and,
recognizing the latter, repeatedly thrust his bolo towards him, shouting: Even if you
are old, I will crack open your skull! Petitioner contends that the proper charge is a
complex crime of grave threats and not 3 separate offenses. SC held that it is 3

Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check may be a transitory or continuing

offense. Its basic elements of deceit and damage may independently arise in
separate places. Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: "In
all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the Court of the
municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the
essential ingredients thereof took place." The theory is that a person indicted with a
transitory offense may be validly tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in
part committed. Deceit has taken place in Bulacan, while the damage in Caloocan
City, where the checks were dishonored by the drawee banks there. While the
subject checks were perfected in Caloocan City, they were not completely made or
drawn there, but in Bulacan, where they were uttered and delivered. The place where
the bills were written, signed, or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the
place where they were executed. What is of decisive importance is the delivery
thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation
as an obligation. The place of business of the offended party is at Bulacan, from
where the tire and gas purchases were made. As a consequence, payment and
delivery thereof should be considered effected at Bulacan.

separate offenses.
Petitioners intent to threaten F, W, and Vicente with bodily harm arose only when he
chanced upon each of his victims. Indeed, petitioners theory holds water only if the
facts are altered that is, he threatened F, W and Vicente at the same place and at the
same time.
PEOPLE vs HERNANDEZ
Offender is charged convicted of, rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and
robberies. Petitioner contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson
and robbery.
Ruling: We hold that, under the allegations of the amended information
against Defendant-Appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders, arsons and robberies
described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed
by said Defendants, as means necessary for the perpetration of said offense of
rebellion; that the crime charged in the aforementioned amended information is,
therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
arsons and robberies.
ENRILE vs. SALAZAR

Enrile was arrested with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murders allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court in the People vs
Hernandez case.

The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary ruling of the Court,
which is that Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof,
either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an
activity that constitutes rebellion.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. MANTALABA,

Petitioner was caught selling shabu through a buy bust operation. He was charged
with 2 complaints. One was illegal possession of dangerous drugs and the other is
selling of said drug and was sentenced to Reclusion perpetua to death (Sec.5 of RA
9165) but was lowered to Reclusion Perpetua (Sec.98 of RA9165) because he was a
minor.

Consequently, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority 39 can now be

appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed. The RTC, as affirmed by the
CA, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without considering the minority of
the appellant. Thus, applying the rules of the RPC, the proper penalty should be one
degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated.

PEOPLE vs QUITORIO; PEOPLE vs SARCIA; PEOPLE vs QUITORIO; ATIZADO vs

PEOPLE; PEOPLE vs JACINTO; PEOPLE vs MISA

Same ruling in case of minors: The proper penalty should be one degree lower. In
case of doubt in the minority of the accused, it should be ruled in favour of minority
(Pp. Vs Sarcia). In all cases, the lowering of the criminal liability does not lower the
civil liability.

PEOPLE vs BON

The offender was convicted with the crime of attempted qualified rape. The issue is
whether the proper reckoning point of the penalty in lowering the imposable penalty
should be from Death or from Reclusion Perpetua since RA 9346 commuted all
sentences of the Death penalty to Reclusion perpetua.

Ruling: "Death," as utilized in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, shall no longer
form part of the equation in the graduation of penalties. For example, in the case of
appellant, the determination of his penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned not
from two degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua.
Hence, the maximum term of his penalty shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as
ruled by the Court of Appeals, but instead, prision mayor.

PEOPLE vs SARCIA; PEOPLE vs JACINTO

Privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should be reckoned from death and

not from reclusion perpetua. (Atty. Mamburam said that the 2 cases overturned the
case of People vs Bon)