Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-20721             April 30, 1966

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
MARTIN ALAGAO, et al., defendants-appellees.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and
Solicitor R. Pronove, Jr. for plaintiff-appellant.
De Santos and Delfino for defendants-appellees.

ZALDIVAR, J.:

This is an appeal by the City Fiscal of Manila from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Manila sustaining the motion to quash the information in its Criminal Case No. 66655.

On October 20, 1962 the City Fiscal of Manila filed an information against the defendants-
appellees charging them of having committed the complex crime of incriminatory
machinations through unlawful arrest, as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of February, 1961, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, being then members of the Manila Police Department, conspiring and
confederating together and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously incriminate or impute to one Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of the
crime of bribery through unlawful arrest, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused,
on the aforesaid date, without reasonable ground therefor and for the purpose of delivering
said Marcial Apolonio y Santos to the proper authorities, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously arrest said Marcial Apolonio y Santos; that after the said Marcial
Apolonio y Santos had been arrested in the manner aforestated, and while the latter was
supposedly being investigated by the said accused, the said accused did then and there
place or commingle a marked P1.00 bill together with the money taken from said Marcial
Apolonio y Santos, supposedly given to the latter by one Emerita Calupas de Aresa, so
that he (Marcial Apolonio y Santos), then an employee of the Local Civil Registrar's Office
of Manila, would appear to have agreed to perform an act not constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his (Marcial Apolonio y Santos') duties, which was to
expedite the issuance of a birth certificate, thereby directly incriminating or imputing to said
Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of the crime bribery.

On October 25, 1962 the defendants, through counsel, moved to quash the information against
them on the grounds that (1) the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense;
and (2) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Later on, the
defendants filed a supplemental motion to quash, alleging that the information charges more than
one offense.

The contention of the defense in the motion to quash is that "... the information would seem to
indicate that the accused are charged with a complex crime, that is, the accused without
reasonable ground arrested Marcial Apolonio y Santos for the purpose of incriminating him by
planting on his person a marked P1.00 bill. We have searched the penal laws in vain for a crime
such as set out in the information at bar." Then the motion to quash further states: "... there would
either be only the singular crimes of incriminatory machinations or unlawful arrest, or perhaps two
crimes, incriminatory machinations and unlawful arrest. If such would be the case then this
Honorable Court would not have any jurisdiction over any crime or crimes charged. For certainly,
incriminatory machinations and unlawful arrest would come within the jurisdiction of the inferior
court.

The City Fiscal opposed the motion to quash, contending that "A perusal of the information will
readily conclude that it is a complex crime in the sense that unlawful arrest was used as a means
for incriminatory machination." The City Fiscal further contended that the motion to quash raises
a question of fact which should be raised during the trial and not during the stage of the
proceedings when the allegations in the information should be controlling. The City Fiscal also
contended that the crime of unlawful arrest, being punishable by arresto mayor and a fine of not
exceeding P500.00, the same falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

On November 9, 1962, the Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order sustaining the
motion to quash, the pertinent portion of which order reads as follows:

A careful perusal of the information quoted above shows clearly that it is defective.
Assuming the truth of the allegations of the information, the Court is of the opinion that
there is no complex crime involved. The alleged unlawful arrest committed by the
defendants cannot be said to have been used as a necessary means to commit the crime
of incriminatory machination. The latter crime could be committed without the unlawful
arrest. The acts constituting the two offenses — unlawful arrest and incriminatory
machination — are two separate and independent acts that preclude the concept of a
complex crime. The alleged planting of evidence took place while the victim was already
under investigation, long after the consummation of the alleged unlawful arrest.

It is true that under an information charging a complex crime the Court may convict the
defendant of two component crimes, if the evidence of record does not establish the
complexity of the crime. This cannot be done, however, in the case at bar for the simple
reason that one of the component offenses of the alleged complex crime, that is, —
incriminatory machination, — does not fall within the concurrent, much less original
exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
 Consequently, the motion to quash is granted and the case is hereby dismissed, without
prejudice for the prosecution to file the proper informations against the defendants in the
proper court.;

The City Fiscal of Manila, on November 28, 1962, filed a motion for reconsideration of the
foregoing order, but on December 19, 1962 the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the
motion for reconsideration. Hence this appeal of the City Fiscal of Manila to this Court.

In the present appeal, the main question to be resolved is whether the information filed in the
court below alleges the complex crime of "incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest." It
is the view of the court a quo that the information alleges the commission of two distinct crimes,
one, for unlawful arrest, and, the other, for incriminatory machinations. The lower court discarded
the theory of the prosecution that the offense of unlawful arrest was a necessary means to
commit the crime of incriminatory machinations, because of the allegation in the information that
the accused had first unlawfully arrested the offended party Marcial Apolonio y Santos and after
the arrest he was investigated and it was during the investigation that the accused had
commingled the marked P1.00 bill among the paper bills that were taken from the possession of
the said offended party. The trial court is of the opinion that "the alleged planting of evidence took
place while the victim was already under investigation, long after the consummation of the
alleged unlawful arrest."1

We cannot sustain the view of the trial court. It is the general rule that in resolving the motion to
quash a criminal complaint or information the facts alleged in the complaint or information should
be taken as they are. The exceptions to this general rule are those cases where the Rules of
Court expressly permit the investigation of facts alleged in the motion to quash. 2 The grounds, or
facts, relied upon in the motion, to quash in the present case, are not included in the exceptions
we have adverted to. We find that the information in the present case specifically alleges that the
accused did "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously incriminate and impute to one Marcial Apolonio y
Santos the commission of the crime of bribery through unlawful arrest ... ."3 The information
further alleges that "... the said accused ... without reasonable ground therefor and for the
purpose of delivering said Marcial Apolonio y Santos to the proper authorities did there and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously arrest said Marcial Apolonio y Santos; that after the said
Marcial Apolonio y Santos had been arrested in the manner aforestated, and while the latter was
supposedly being investigated by the said accused, the said accused did then and there placed
or commingled a marked P1.00 bill together with the money taken from the said Marcial Apolonio
y Santos ...". It is very apparent that by the use of the phrase "through unlawful arrest" in the
information an idea is conveyed that the unlawful arrest was resorted to as a necessary means to
plant evidence in the person of the offended party, thereby incriminating him. From a reading of
the information we find a close connection between the act of the accused in first unlawfully
arresting the offended party and then investigating him; and it was during that investigation that
they planted incriminatory evidence against him. We agree with the Solicitor General in his
contention that the accused first had to resort to unlawful arrest in order to be able to plant the
P1.00 bill among the money taken from the offended party. We find merit in the following
argument, as stated in the brief of the Solicitor General:

Under the circumstances of the case, the accused had to arrest Marcial because it was
the only way that they could with facility detain him and, more importantly, search his
person or effects and, in the process, commingle therewith the marked peso bill. It should
be observed that without detaining, investigating and searching Marcial it would have been
impossible, if not difficult, for the accused to plant the marked one peso bill, because then
they could not have simply held Marcial and placed the marked one peso bill in his pocket,
without the latter vigoriously protesting the act. Besides, if the accused simply held Marcial
and planted in his pockets the marked one peso bill without arresting him, they could not
have possibly accomplished their purpose, because Marcial would have surely and easily
discovered what they were up to. Indeed, the accused had to arrest Marcial, even in the
absence of a valid reason, so that under the semblance of a police investigation, they
could get whatever money was inside his pockets and include in it the marked one peso
bill. In short, the accused had to arrest Marcial so that he could be detained and
pretending to investigate him, search his person and thereby have the opportunity of
planting the marked one peso bill among his belongings.1äwphï1.ñët

In declaring that the information did not allege a complex crime the trial court expressed the view
that the alleged planting of evidence took place while the victim was already under investigation,
"long after the consummation of the alleged unlawful arrest." This observation of the trial court
does not find support in the allegations contained in the information in question. The statement in
the information that the offended party was investigated "after" the unlawful arrest does not
necessarily convey the idea that the investigation took place "long after" the arrest had been
effected. It should be a matter of evidence first, before any conclusion is arrived at: that the
investigation, during which the incriminating evidence was planted, had taken place immediately
after the arrest or long after the arrest. The allegation in the information that the accused
committed the complex crime of incriminatory machinations thru unlawful arrest, and also the
allegation that the act of planting the incriminatory evidence took place during the supposed
investigation after the unlawful arrest, are basis for the logical assumption, in the absence of
evidence, that the two acts imputed to the accused — that of unlawfully arresting and that of
planting incriminatory evidence — had closely followed each other, and that the former was a
necessary means to commit the latter.

For a criminal complaint or information to charge the commission of a complex crime, the
allegations contained therein do not necessarily have to charge a complex crime as defined by
law. It is sufficient that the information contains allegations which show that one offense was a
necessary means to commit the other.4 On this particular point this Court has ruled, as follows:

In order to determine whether two offenses constitute a complex crime, we should not find
out whether, in accordance with their definition by law, one of them is an essential element
of the other, such as physical injuries which cause the death of the victim, or stealing of
 personal property without the consent of the owner through force or violence, for in such
cases there would be only one single offense of homicide in the first and robbery in the
second case. But we should take into consideration the facts alleged in a complaint or
information and determine whether one of the two separate and different offenses charged
therein was committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense; if it were, the
two offenses constitute one complex crime; otherwise the complaint or information
charges two crimes or offenses independent from one another. (Parulan vs. Rodas and
Reyes, 78 Phil. 855, 856)

We, therefore, held that the information in question in the present case contains allegations
properly charging the commission of the complex crime of incriminatory machinations thru
unlawful arrest, and the court a quo committed error when it ordered its dismissal.

We likewise hold that the court a quo has jurisdiction to try the accused of the offense charged in
the information. The crime of unlawful arrest is punishable with arresto mayor or imprisonment of
from one month and one day to six months, and a fine not exceeding P500.00; 5 and the crime of
incriminatory machinations is punishable with arresto mayor, or imprisonment of from one month
and one day to six months. 6 Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, in complex crimes, the
penalty for the most serious offense shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period. And so, in the present case, in the event of conviction, the penalty for the crime of
unlawful arrest should be imposed in its maximum period. 7

In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is reversed and set aside, and this case is
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. No costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal,
Bengzon, J.P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1
Emphasis supplied.

2
Rule 117, Sec. 2, pars.(f) and (h); and Secs. 4 and 5; People vs. Cadabis, G.R. No. L-
7713, August 31, 1955.

3
Emphasis supplied.

4
Article 48, Revised Penal Code.

5
Article 269, Revised Penal Code .

6
Article 366, Revised Penal Code.

7
U.S. vs. Mallari, 24 Phil. 366, 368; People vs. Cuello, G.R. No. L-14307, March 27, 1961
Definitions:

Incriminatory machinations: acts done for mere vexing, harassing or injuring one's
adversary and which tend to directly cause false prosecution.

INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS

Art. 363. Incriminating innocent person. — Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury,
shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be
punished by arresto menor.

Art. 364. Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200
pesos shall be imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor
or reputation of a person.

COMPLEX CRIMES
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies,
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall
be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the offender, who,
instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for every resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only,
although it is the penalty for the most serious one and is in the maximum period. Purpose is in the pursuance of
the rule of pro reo.
If be complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore.
Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right).
Penalty: If complex – Reclusion temporal maximum to death.
If treated individually – Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua.
Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code.
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
(1) Compound crime;
(2) Complex crime; and
(3) Composite crime.
A COMPOUND CRIME is one where a single act produces two or more crimes.
A COMPLEX CRIME strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an offense as a means for the
commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is committed as a necessary means to commit the other
offense. “Necessary” should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and
not giving rise to a complex crime.
A COMPOSITE CRIME is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of
the law only a single indivisible offense is. This is also known as special complex crime. Examples are robbery
with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eyes of the law are
regarded only as a single indivisible offense.
COMPOSITE CRIME/SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
This is one which in substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only a
single indivisible offense. This is also known as a special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide,
robbery with rape, and rape with homicide.
The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. But in such
article, a compound crime is also designated as a complex crime, but “complex crimes” are limited only to a
situation where the resulting felonies are grave and/or less grave.
Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gravity of the resulting crimes as long as a single act
brings about two or more crimes. Strictly speaking, compound crimes are not limited to grave or less grave
felonies but covers all single act that result in two or more crimes.
Illustration:
A person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade exploded, no one
was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although the
resulting felonies are only slight.
Illustration of a situation where the term “necessary”‖ in complex crime should not be understood as
indispensable:
Abetting committed during the encounter between rebels and government troops such that the homicide
committed cannot be complexed with rebellion. This is because they are indispensable part of rebellion.
The complex crime lies actually in the first form under Article 148.
The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes two or
more grave and/or less grave felonies. The basis in complexing or compounding the crime is the act. So that
when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes, there is no
complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under
separate information.
When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty, although
in the maximum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. The presumption is that, since
there is only one act formed, it follows that there is only one criminal impulse and correctly, only one penalty
should be imposed.
Conversely, when there are several acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct
criminal impulse and for every criminal impulse, a separate penalty. However, it may happen that the offender
is impelled only by a single criminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than one
crime, considering that Criminal Law, if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the
commission of the crime, the offender should be penalized only once.
There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme Court where the offender has performed a series of acts but the
acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse, the ruling is that a complex crime is committed. In
this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been considered. There are
cases where the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is complex even though the offender performed
not a single act but a series of acts. The only reason is that the series of acts are impelled by a single criminal
impulse.
Penalty for Complex Crimes

ART.48

Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies,
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

COMPLEX CRIME – although there actually are two or more crimes, the law treats them as
constituting only one - as there is only one criminal intent. Only one information need to be filed.

2 Kinds Of Complex Crimes:

1. Compound crime – a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies.

Requisites:
a. that only one single act is performed by the offender
b. that the single act produces
i. 2 or more grave felonies
ii. one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies
iii. 2 or more less grave felonies

2. Complex crime proper – when an offense is a necessary means for committing another.

Requisites:
1. That at least 2 offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute

No Single Act In The Following Cases:

1. When 2 persons are killed one after the other, by different acts, although these 2 killings were the
result of a single criminal impulse. The different acts must be considered as distinct crimes.
2. When the acts are wholly different, not only in themselves but also because they are directed
against 2 different persons, as when one fires his gun twice in succession, killing one and injuring the
other.

Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate offenses or may
be absorbed by the grave felony.

NOTES:

When in obedience to an order, several accused simultaneously shot many persons, w/o evidence
how many each killed, there is only a single offense, there being a single criminal impulse.

For the attainment of a single purpose w/c constitutes an offense, various acts are executed, such
acts must be considered only as one offense.

When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused can be convicted of
the other.

There is no complex crime of arson w/homicide.

Art 48 is applicable to crimes through negligence.

Kidnapping the victim to murder him in a secluded place – ransom wasn’t paid so the victim was
killed. The kidnapping was a necessary means to commit murder. But where the victim was taken
from his home but it was solely for the purpose of killing him and not for detaining him illegally or for
the purpose of ransom, the crime is simple murder.

“Necessary means” does not mean “indispensable means”. Indispensable would mean it is an
element of the crime. The crime can be committed by another mean. The means actually employed
(another crime) was merely to facilitate and insure the consummation of the crime.

It is not a complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave offense. Like
rape, there is no complex crime of trespass to dwelling with rape. Trespass will be considered as
aggravating (unlawful entry or breaking part of a dwelling)

When the offender had in his possession the funds w/c he misappropriated, the falsification of a
public or official document involving said funds is a separate offense. But when the offender had to
falsify a public or official document to obtain possession of the funds w/c he misappropriated, the
falsification is a necessary means to commit malversation.

There is no complex crime of rebellion w/ murder, arson, robbery or other common crimes. They are
mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion – absorbed already.

When 2 crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of 2 courts
of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.

Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit.

The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its
maximum period. If the different crimes resulting from one single act are punished w/ the same
penalty, the penalty for any one of them shall be imposed, the same to be applied in the maximum
period. The same rule shall be observed when an offense is a necessary means to commit the other.

A complex crime of the second form may be committed by two persons.

But when one of the offenses, as a means to commit the other, was committed by one of the accused
by reckless imprudence, the accused who committed the crime by reckless imprudence is liable
for his acts only.

When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by imprisonment and fine,
respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed. Reason: Fine is not included in
the list of penalties in the order of severity and it is the last in the graduated scales in Art. 71.

When a single act constitutes two grave or less grave or one grave and another less grave, and the
penalty for one is imprisonment while that for the other is fine, the severity of the penalty for the more
serious crime should not be judged by the classification of each of the penalties involved, but by
the nature of the penalties.

In the order of severity of the penalties, arresto mayor and arresto menor are considered more severe
than destierro and arresto menor is higher in degree than destierro.

There is NO COMPLEX CRIME in the following:

1. In case of continuing crimes
2. When one offense is committed to conceal the other
3. When the other crime is an indispensable part or an element of the other offenses as defined
4. Where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law
5. When the law provides one single penalty for special complex crime:
   a. Robbery with Homicide
   b. Robbery with Rape
   c. Rape with Homicide
   d. Kidnapping with Serious Physical Injuries
   e. Kidnapping with Homicide

PLURALITY OF CRIMES – consists in the successive execution by the same individual of different
criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared.

Kinds Of Plurality Of Crimes:

1. Formal or Ideal – only one criminal liability. Formal or ideal crimes are further divided into three
groups, where a person committing multiple crimes is punished with only one penalty:
a. when the offender commits any of the complex crimes defined in Art. 48
b. when the law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more offenses committed: robbery w/
homicide, kidnapping w/ serious physical injuries
c. when the offender commits continued crimes

2. Real Or Material – there are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender. In
such cases, the offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he committed

Under Art.49 - Lesser penalty to be imposed in its maximum period

Under Art.48 - Penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.

CONTINUED CRIME – refers to a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one
criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed, so
only one penalty shall be imposed.

Example of continued crimes:

 a. A collector of a commercial firm misappropriates for his personal use several amounts collected by
him from different persons. There is only one crime because the different and successive
appropriations are but the different moments during w/c one criminal resolution arises.
b. Juan steals 2 books belonging to 2 different persons. He commits only one crime because there is
unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the offender

NOTE: A continued crime is not a complex crime, as the offender does not perform a single act but a
series of acts. Therefore:
a. penalty not to be imposed in the maximum
b. no actual provision punishing continued crime – It is a principle applied in connection with 2 or
more crimes committed with a single intention.

NOTE: A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is different from a transitory crime. Transitory
crime is “moving crime”.

2004 Bar Exam Question

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal
Code.

COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which
two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first part of Article 48,
Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence,
light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same single act.

COMPLEX CRIMES results when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means for
committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more
serious crime shall be imposed.

2005 Bar Exam Question

Distinguish the following from each other: Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime vs. Delito
Continuado.

An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one information either because they were
brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing
the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one information so that only one penalty shall be
imposed. As to penalties, ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed and in its maximum period.

A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are
considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the
Revised Penal Code. As to penalties, special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically
prescribed for all the component crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The
component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime
is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for
the special complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty.

DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one crime a
series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which is
carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating one and the same penal
provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal
provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal
provision, and Impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).

2003 Bar Exam Question (complex crime and rebellion and sedition)

1. Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with rebellion?

2. Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition?

1. Yes, if there was a conspiracy between the offender/offenders committing the coup d'etat and the
offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the other
and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup d'etat may be any person or persons
belonging to the military or the national police or a public officer, whereas rebellion does not so
require. Moreover, the crime of coup d'etat may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a
public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. Since the two
crimes are essentially different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to
the application of art.48 of the revised penal code.

2. Yes, coup d'etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are essentially different
and distinctly punished under the revised penal code. Sedition may not be directed against the
government or non-political in the objective, whereas coup d'etat is always political in objective as it is
directed against the government and led by persons or public officer holding public office belonging to
the military or national police. Art.48 of the code may apply under the condition therein provided.

Alternative Answer:

The crime of coup d'etat cannot be complexed with the crime of rebellion because both crimes are
directed against the government or for political purposes, although the principal offenders are
different. The essence may be the same and thus constitute only one crime. In this situation, the two
crimes are not distinct and therefore, may not be proper to apply art.48 of the code.

1999 Bar Exam Question (Complex Crimes; Determination of the Crime)

A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a group of
persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four
(4) persons were killed thereby, each having hit by different bullets coming from the sub-machine gun
of A. Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime
committed by A for the reason that, since A performed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of
his gun only once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to just
one penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain.

The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender made use of an automatic firearm, the
acts committed are determined by the number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being
automatic, the offender need only press the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death
caused by a distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. 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.

1999 Bar Exam Question (Complex Crimes; Nature & Penalty Involved)

What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes may be involved in a complex crime? What is
the penalty therefor? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave or less grave felonies or
when an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At
least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime; either two or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a necessary means for committing another.
The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC)

2003 Bar Examination Question (Complex Crimes; Ordinary Complex Crime vs. Special Complex
Crime)

Distinguish between ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime as to their concepts and as
to the imposition of penalties. 2%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

IN CONCEPT -
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one Information either because they were
brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing
the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one Information so that only one penalty shall be
imposed.

A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes that are
considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the
Revised Penal Code.

AS TO PENALTIES -In ORDINARY COMPLEX

CRIME, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period.

In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component
crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as
distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in
its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the special complex crime that shall be
applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty.

1994 Bar Examination Question (Continuing Offense vs. Delito Continuado)

Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one crime a
series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which are
carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating one and the same penal
provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal
provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal
provision, and impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).