Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rticle Omplex Rimes
Rticle Omplex Rimes
Compound Crime
- Requisites:
1. that only a single act is performed by the offender
2. that the single act produces (i) 2 or more grave felonies, (ii) one or more grave & one or more less grave
felonies, (iii) 2 or more less grave felonies
The single act should produce a grave felony or a less grave felony or a combination of both
Light felonies produced by the same single act should be treated and punished as separate offenses or may be
absorbed by the grave felony
Supposing, you shot your neighbor then the bullet hit two children ; the result was your neighbor died, two
children slightly injured, the result was 1 grave and 2 light felonies, is the crime complex or separate?
Separate, because the single act should produce a grave or less grave felony only
Supposing, a single criminal act produced 1 grave felony and 10 light felonies, is the crime complex or
separate? Separate
Supposing, a single criminal act produced 1 less grave felony and several light felonies , is the crime complex or
separate? Separate
Supposing, a single criminal act produced a crime punishable by the RPC and a crime punishable by special
law, is the crime complex or separate? Separate, considered as separate violations
Supposing, Prof. Amurao throws a grenade in class, 5 students died, is the crime complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, using the same facts above, in addition 3 light felonies were produced, is the crime complex or
separate? Separate
Supposing, Prof. Amurao switched the machine gun to automatic and shot at the students with one single
act of pressing the trigger, producing several injuries, is the crime complex or separate? Separate, because
the what is considered is the no. of bullets discharged (People v. Desierto)
Supposing, Prof. Amurao switched the machine gun to not automatic and fired one bullet aimed at someone
but hit 3 others producing serious physical injuries, is the crime complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, the act of firing a machine gun produces the crimes of attempted murder and physical injuries ,
is the crime complex or separate? Separate, as held by the Court of Appeals
Supposing, two shots were fired directed against two different persons, is the crime complex or separate?
Separate
Supposing, in a notorious village, a commander ordered all his soldiers to shoot at the residents , is the
crime complex or separate? Complex, the SC held in People v. Lawas that it was a complex crime because there
was a single offense since there was a single criminal impulse/intent/purpose
Supposing, a person stole the fighting cocks of his neighbor alternately with three separate, independent
acts, is the crime complex or separate? Complex, as held by the SC in People v. De Leon, the criminal act was
done on the same occasion and the offender was motivated by one criminal impulse
Supposing, a libelous article was published defaming 5 congressmen specifically identified by their names , is
the crime complex or separate? Separate, because there are as many crimes of libel as there are persons
libeled, provided that the persons are expressly specified; because each of the 5 congressmen may file for libel
Supposing, using the same facts above except that the congressmen were not identified , is the crime
complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, in a local publication, news writers wrote that the Herrera doctors are inefficient , is the crime
complex or separate? Complex, because the identification was in general terms, not specifically identified
Supposing, the accused kidnapped a girl with intent to kill, brought the victim somewhere then killed her , is
the crime complex? NO, the crime is only murder, because the kidnapping was only a means to commit the crime
of murder
Supposing, law students made a falsified solicitation letter and collected money , is the crime complex? YES,
the falsification of the private document was necessary for the crime of estafa
Supposing, a public official committed malversation through falsification of public documents , is the crime
complex? YES, because the falsification was necessary to commit malversation
Supposing, the accused killed his victim in a building, then committed arson to conceal the murder , is the
crime complex? NO
In the crimes of estafa and falsification, you look at the crime first committed if it was necessary for the
commission of the other; the common element in estafa and falsification is the intent to cause damage
Supposing, a city treasurer malversed P5million pesos out of taxes then falsified documents to conceal the
malversation, is the crime complex? NO, the crimes are separate
Supposing, in the crime of rebellion, an NPA commander burned villages and killed the villagers in
furtherance of his acts of rebellion, is the crime complex? NO, because the acts he committed were
absorbed in the crime of rebellion
Supposing, in the crime of rebellion, the NPA commander killed someone for personal reasons , is the crime
complex? NO, the crimes are separate
In the crimes of treason or rebellion, when common crimes are committed, (1) in furtherance of or is related to
treason or rebellion, the crimes are absorbed, but (2) for personal reasons or for a private purpose, the crimes
are separate
There is no complex crime of rebellion with common crimes
Article 49
ARTICLE 49 – PENALTY FOR PRINCIPALS OF CRIME COMMITTED WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS INTENDED
applicable only to mistake in identity
Steps
1. identify lesser penalty
2. whichever penalty is prescribed by law,
3. the lesser penalty is always applied or imposed
Article 50-57
ARTICLES 50-57 – DEGREES TO WHICH PENALTIES SHOULD BE LOWERED (reading matter)
Participants’ liability lowered by degrees
Principals 0 1 2
Accomplices 1 2 3
Accessories 2 3 4
All penalties for each crime in the RPC = generally, shall always be imposed unless the law itself expressly
provides, except Article 60
Degree – one whole penalty; one entire penalty or one unit of penalties enumerated in the graduated scales
Period – one of the 3 equal portions (minimum, medium, maximum)
Article 58-60
ARTICLE 58 – ADDITIONAL PENALTY UPON ACCESSORIES OF ART.19(3)
- Absolute perpetual disqualification if guilty of a grave felony
- Absolute temporary disqualification if guilty of a less grave felony
Article 19(3) – public officers who help the author of the crime by misusing their office and duties shall suffer
the additional penalties
ARTICLE 59 – PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
- Arresto mayor, with fine of P200-P500
Basis for imposition:
- social danger
- degree of criminality
ARTICLE 60 – EXCEPTIONS TO ARTICLE 50-57
- shall not be applicable to cases in which the law prescribes a penalty for frustrated and attempted stages or to
be imposed on accomplices or accessories
Article 61
ARTICLE 61 – RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES
Divisible Penalties – divided into three, so effects of ordinary mitigating circumstances and generic aggravating
circumstances can be applied
Indivisible Penalties – eg. reclusion perpetua, public censure, fine
First Rule and Second Rule
Penalty only consists of a degree
The penalty next lower by one degree = penalty immediately following the penalty prescribed by the law
- single and indivisible = Reclusion perpetua
- penalty next lower in degree = Reclusion temporal
Supposing, accused shot the victim qualified by treachery, but the victim survived, thus accused was
convicted of frustrated murder, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua, but since it was frustrated, the
penalty next lower in degree applies, which is reclusion temporal
Third Rule
- when three penalties are imposed in one (eg. Reclusion temporal – Death)
- since Death is not imposed, three periods lowered immediately following
Article 62
ARTICLE 62 - EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY
Second rule
- Aggravating circumstances are not applicable if inherent in the crime, eg. evident premeditation in robbery or
theft; advantage taken by public position in malversation; sex in crimes against chastity; breaking wall in malicious
mischief
Third rule: Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances arising from:
1. Moral attributes
Supposing, the victim gave sufficient provocation, which irritated the accused who called his brother for
assistance, then they both killed the victim, can the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation be
appreciated for both of them? NO, only to the one who was the target of the provocation (the accused) and not
his brother
2. Private relations
Supposing, your neighbor slapped your mom, then you asked your friend to accompany you to kill your
neighbor, can the aggravating circumstance of immediate vindication of a relative for a grave offense be
appreciated for the both you? NO, only to you because it was your mom who was offended first and not your
friend
3. Personal cause
Supposing, you and your friend entered your neighbor’s house, not knowing that your friend is afflicted
with kleptomania, can the mitigating circumstance of illness be appreciated for the both of you? NO, illness can
be appreciated only to your friend
Article 64
ARTICLE 64 – RULES FOR PENALTIES WITH 3 PERIODS
- In accordance w/ Articles 76-77 whether there are attending circumstances
First rule
- if neither a mitigating or aggravating circumstance is present = medium period is imposed
Second rule
- if there is a mitigating circumstance = minimum period is imposed
Third rule
- if there is an aggravating circumstance = maximum period is imposed
Fourth rule
- if there is both a mitigating and aggravating circumstance = courts shall offset the circumstances according to
relative weight
Fifth rule
- if there are 2 or more mitigating circumstances and absolutely no aggravating circumstances = the penalty next
lower in degree is imposed
Sixth rule
- whatever the number or nature of aggravating circumstances = courts cannot impose a greater penalty than
prescribed by law in maximum
Seventh rule
- Courts can determine extent of penalty within the limits of each period
Mitigating circumstance must be ordinary = not privileged
Aggravating circumstance must be generic = not qualified or inherent
Article 65-67
ARTICLE 65 – RULES FOR PENALTIES NOT IN THREE PERIODS
(reading matter)
ARTICLE 66 – IMPOSITION OF FINES
(reading matter)
- ¼ of the maximum fine is either added (for aggravating circumstances) or deducted (for mitigating
circumstances) from the maximum fine
- courts must consider:
1. mitigating or aggravating circumstances
2. wealth or means of the culprit
ARTICLE 67 – PENALTY FOR INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ACCIDENT
- Arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum (grave felonies)
- Arresto mayor minimum to Arresto mayor medium (for less grave felonies)