1

PLURALITY OF CRIME

TYPES OF PLURALITY OF CRIME

1.MATERIAL OR REAL A.SPECIAL COMPLEX/ COMPOSITE CRIME

Person performs 2/more criminal acts one after the other and he is liable for every
criminal act he commits since every crime is motivated by a separate criminal
intent from the other.
In substance, there is more than one crime; but from the eyes of the law, there is only
one. The law treats it as a single crime for which it prescribes a single penalty. It is also
called a composite crime.

Ex: when someone runs amok, he starts shooting people ,even those he doesn’t Requisites:
know. He killed persons one after the other.If he is found guilty of killing 3o 1. 1or more crimes are committed
people, there will be 30 convictions and 30 different penalties. 2. But the law treats them as a single, indivisible,and unique offense
3. Product of single criminal impulse

Examples:
2.FORMAL OR IDEAL 1. RobberywithHomicide(Art. 294(1))
2. Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
Person commits 2/more criminal acts ,there will be 2/more victims but in the eyes 3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries(Art.267(3))
4. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
of the law ,only one crime was committed.

Crime under the RPC declared as Complex without applying Article 48.
It has 3 types:
A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one
a.Special Complex crime or Composite crime crime, but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense.

b.Continuous crime or delicto continuado 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).
c.Complex crime under Art 48

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.- (1) When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies(Compound a.Robbery with Homicide (294)
Crime), or (2) when an offense is a necessary means for committing
the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, 4BLUE 95: When by reason of or on the occasion of robbery, the crime of homicide
the same to be applied in its maximum period (Complex Crime). shall have been committed.

X robbed B.After taking B’s money , X killed him. If you apply Art 48, there seems to be
something wrong. You cannot say there is a single act ,it is very clears that there are 2
acts which are taking of B’s property nad Killing of B, and you cannot say that that one
is necessary to commit the other.

b.Rape with Homicide (266-A)

COMPOUND CRIME VS. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER VS. SPECIAL
COMPLEX CRIME

Compound Crime Complex Crime Special Complex Crime

Proper c.Robbery with Rape
Definition
Single act constitutes An offense is a The law fixes one penalty
two or more grave or necessary means to for two or more crimes 2023 notes: if 1 rape the girl while others don’t, still all are liable for robbery with rape(
Canturia Ruling)
less grave felonies commit another committed.
(Art. 48). offense(Art. 48). PP v Puno: the crime is Robbery only if on the highway they kidnap the girl but they did
Elements not detain her for an appreciable period (exemption to the rule in serious illegal
Requisites: Requisites: Requisites: detention)
1. That only a 1. That at least 1. 2 or more
single act 2 offenses crimes are
isperformed arecommitted committed
by the 2. That one or 2. But the law
offender some of treats them as a
2. That the theoffenses single, Q: Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000 from PY & Sons Construction
single must be indivisible, and Company owned by Pedro and paid the latter a check in the said amount. The following
day, Pedro deposited the check but it was returned dishonored because it was drawn
actsproduces: necessary to unique offense
against a closed account. Jose failed to make good the said check despite written
a. 2 or more commit the 3. Product of
demands. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with the
grave other single criminal Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
felonies,or 3. That both or impulse Code and another for violation of BP Blg. 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose,
b. 1 or more all the claimed that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable for violation of BP 22
grave and 1 or offensesmust and not for estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC because one precludes the other and because
more less be punished BP 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty. The investigating
grave under the fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only one crime was committed, namely, the complex
felonies, or 2 same statute. crime of estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC and another under BP 22. Is the investigating
or more less fiscal correct? (Question reframed) (1987 BAR)
grave felonies
Imposable Penalty
A: NO. The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. There is no complex crime
Penalty for most Penalty for most That which is indicated in of estafa under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A
serious crime shall be serious crime shall be the Revised Penal Code. complex crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the Revised Penal Code.
imposed in its imposed in its
maximum period (Art. maximum period (Art.
48). 48).

B.DELICTO CONTINUADO
Continuing Crime- Single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single
criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division.
Requisites:
1. Plurality of Acts;
2. Unity of Penal provision infringed upon;and
3. Unity of Criminal Intent and Purpose
One Larceny Doctrine
For prosecution of theft cases, the one larceny doctrine provides that the taking of several
things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time and place,
constitutes one larceny only so long as there is a single criminal impulse(Santiago v.
People, G.R. No. 109266 (1993)).
Real or Material Plurality vs. Continuing Crime
Real or Material Plurality Continuing Crime
There is a series of acts performed by the offender.
As to the Number of Crimes Committed
Each act performed constitutes a separate The different acts constitutes only one
crime because each act is generated by a crime because all of the acts performed
criminal impulse arise from one criminal resolution.
Transitory Crime v. Continuing Crime
Offense where some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their
commission occur in one territory and some acts are done in another.
The theory is that a person charged with a transitory offense may be tried in any
jurisdiction where the offense is in part committed.
It is a crime which consists of a series of acts but all coming or emanating from one
criminal resolution. There is only one criminal resolution and it is followed by a
series of acts.
(BAR) X stole 2 roosters. So there are 2 acts of taking ,but if it turned out that there are
also 2 owners, then, there is only one crime of theft .One crime of theft involving 2
roosters since there is a single intent to steal. X did not divide his mind into stealing from
the 2 owners. X did not even know that there are 2 owners of the cocks.
(BAR) X is the class treasurer. The class decided to hold a party and each student
contributed P100 totalling P5000.X disappeared with the money.
HELD: There is only one crime. There was only one intent to defraud. X did not divide
his mind 50 times.
2023 notes: the concept of delicto continuado although a product of the Spanish Penal
Code has been applied to crimes penalized under a special laws.
2023 notes:It will not be applicable when X is the cashier of a corporation, today, X ran
away with the money. Later X, ran away with another money and after one week ,nothing
is left.. This is not continuado since what happen today is dfferent from the intent next
week or tomorrow.
2023 notes: In the theft cases, the trend is to follow the SINGLE LARCENY doctrine,
that is taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the
same time and place, constitutes one larceny only. Many courts have abandoned the
separate larceny doctrine, under which there was distinct larceny as to the property of
each victim.
4blue95: Also abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to
prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims
(Santiago v. Justice Garchitorena, decided on December 2, 1993). Here, the accused was
charged with performing a single act – that of approving the legalization of aliens not
qualified under the law. The prosecution manifested that they would only file one
information. Subsequently, 32 amended informations were filed. The Supreme Court
directed the prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because
(1) they were in violation of the same law-Executive Order No. 324;
(2) caused injury to one party only – the government; and
(3) they were done in the same day.
2023 notes:The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special
laws since in Article 10, the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws,
unless the latter provides the contrary.
Q: Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value.
They succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was
sexually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house, and so raped her. The lady
victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but he watched the
happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A
for robbery with rape? Explain. (1999 BAR)
A: YES. B is as criminally liable for the composite crime of robbery with rape under Art.
294 (1). Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when the
rape was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible
offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to prevent
the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so, he in effect
acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also liable for
robbery with rape.
2
BAR MATTER 2024
Distinction from Complex Crime (CC):
CC is governed by article 48 and penalty is maximized.
DC governed by article 48 but penalty is not maximized
CC ,there is only ONE act, which produces 2/more grave or less grave felonies
DC, offender performs SERIES of acts.
CC, there are 2 acts, one offense is NECESSARY to commit the other
DC, one offense is NOT NECESSARY to commit the other.
Distinction from Transitory(Continuing) Crime:
TC, ingredients of crime took place in 2/more places and the crime may be filed in
the place where the crime was committed ,or where any one of its essential
ingredients took place.
DC,a series of acts emanating from one criminal resolution
TC,issue is to determine in what place or in what court should the person be
prosecuted(ex: Kidnapping).
DC,issue is to determine how many crimes are committed,and whether there are
2/more penalties
TC,applicable to Criminal Procedure(remedial law)
DC is applicable to Criminal Law.
Applying the concept of the ―continued crime‖, the following cases have been
treated as constituting one crime only:
(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the
accused at the same place and period of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil.
320);
(1) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same
coop and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranillo);
(3) The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he
collects veteran’s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney’s
fees shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCAR 156).
The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of
collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made
under the same criminal impulse.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the
following cases:
(1) Two Estafa cases, one which was committed during the period from
January 19 to December, 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July
1956 (People v. Dichupa, 13 Phil 306). Said acts were committed on two
different occasions;
(2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July 1936 and
falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October,
1936. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one
resolution to embezzle and falsify (People v. CIV, 66 Phil. 351);
(3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of
collections from the customers of the employer made on different dates.
The following are NOT COMPLEX Crimes:
a.an INDISPENSABLE means to commit another
if offense is indispensable to commit the second ,there is no complex crime since
the second crime is the crime since the second crime committed is the real crime.
The first crime which is indispensable is only an element of the second crime. It is
ABSORBED.
Ex: when rebellion is committed ,rebels killed the people and destroy property.
They cannot be guilty of complex crime of rebellion with murder or physical
injuries with homicide since the common crime is absorbed since you cannot
convict a person of rebellion without killing. So ,the killing and the destruction is
not only necessary but indispensable.
b.means to CONCEAL the other
Ex: If X goes to the house of Y and kills Y and in order to conseal the crime of
murder, X burns the house down, here, there is no complex crime ,there are 2
separate crimes: Murder and Arson.
c.DIRECT means to commit the other
X,in order to kill Y, who was inside his house,forcibly entered the house of Y and
killed him in there. As such, trespass to dwelling was not the main intent to kill, it
was only incidental.It was the direct means effected to kill Y.So, the crime there is
Murder aggravated by Unlawful entry.
2023 notes: COMPOUND use ―and‖ ; COMPLEX use ―with‖
2023 notes: you can complex 2 crimes in RPC as long as there are: (1) essentially
different and (2) distinctly punished.

C.COMPLEX CRIME
1.COMPOUND (COMPLEX) CRIME
In order for this complex crime to exist ,a single act must constitute either:
a.grave or less grave felonies
b.2 grave felonies
c.2 less grave felonies
Compound (or compound complex crime) is when there exist 2 grave/less grave felonies.
Whereby in complex ,one act is necessary means for the fulfillment of the other act.
An example of compound is when you rape someone,and after raping,the victim said ―di
ako nasarapan!‖so out of anger you killed her, that latter act is not a necessary means to
the act of rape. So you commit 2 crimes, rape and homicide.
An example of complex is when in order to rape a girl, you stab her first.so stabbing her
is a necessary means in order to rape her.so this is complex crime of rape with homicide.
IF A SINGLE ACT PRODUCES A LESS GRAVE AND A LIGHT FELONY.
THEN THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES
(NOT COMPOUND COMPLEX):
a.light felony will be absorved by the less grave
b.there are as many light felonies as there are victims. They are treated as different
crimes. You cannot complex them. They are to be prosecuted severally.
a.Absorbed
(BAR) P ,a policeman was engaged in the discharge of his duties. X approached
him and hit X in the face with his fist. It caused P slight physical injuries. Under
Art 48,the crime is direct assault. But what happens to the physical injuries
sustained? It is absorbed by the element of attacking or employing force, you
cannot say that the crime is direct assault with slight physical injuries.
b.As Many Light Felonies
X threw a stone at A. the stone hit A, but the same stone hit B. You cannot say that
the crime of slight physical injuries committed against A absorbed the injury of B
that X cannot be prosecuted for double slight physical injuries because art 48 does
not apply to light felonies.
As such, there are 2 separate felonies of light physical injuries.
Pp v Buan: X,driver while driving his vehicle recklessly bunped another vehicle
causing : death of A, serious injuriy to B and slight physical injury to C. Prosecutor
should only file one information for homicide ,serious and slight physical injuries,
cannot file 3 or less there will be double jeopardy.
 there is only one crime, that is the crime RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE .,
the homicide ,and physical injuries are only the effects of the imprudent
act which is determinative of the penalty and the civil liability.
 Art 48 applies when a single act results of 2/more grave or less grave
felonies, but here, you cannot consider the homicide and the injury as
separate, Art 48 does not apply to culpable felonies.
 The felony is the imprudent act, the homicide and physical injury will only
determine the penalty.
2023 notes:it is also same with the accused thinking that his wife commits adultery
in their bed killed wife and lover which turned out that no foul play was committed
since lover is merely a blind masseur, so the person is guilty of simple imprudence
or negligence (whereby an act which would otherwise constitute a grave or a less
serious felony).
2023 notes: If one offense is light ,there is no complex crime. The resulting
offenses may be treated as 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 one information
 They are separate offenses subject to distinct penalties.
2023 notes: complex crime (art48) is 1 bullet and it killed many and not many
bullets.
2023 notes:cannot complex grave/less grave with light felony, it must be separate
2023 notes:no complex if felony and crime under special law.
The following are COMPOUND COMPLEX Crimes:
(BAR)X throws a hand grenade to the ground and in so doing, he killed 10 people
and almost killed 5 bystanders
HELD: There is only one complex crime of multiple murder with multiple
frustrated murder. There is only one act of throwing the hand grenade ,although as
a result of that act, several grave or less grave felonies result.
(BAR) X aimed his gun towards other persons. X fired it. The bullet killed 2
people. There is only one act. X did not commit 2 crime of homicide, he
committed the crime of double homicide.
Aberratio Ictus
(BAR) X with intent to kill A and aiming his gun towards A, fired it but because of
poor aim, he did not hit A but instead hit and killed B. X is liable for death of B due
to aberration ictus
the complex crime of homicide with attempted murder is committed. Mere fact of
firing at A is a felony, although attempted .On the other hand, X committed
homicide because he killed B.
In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that
has been considered
3
2.COMPLEX CRIME PROPER ( DELICTO COMPLEJO )
One offense is committed as a NECESSARY means to commit the other.
Ex: Estafa through falsification of commercial documents
Forcible Abduction with Rape
Malversation through falsification of Public document
Kidnapping with Murder
Requisites:
1. That at least2offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
• Does not need to be ―indispensable means‖
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished under thesame statute.
When NO Complex Crime Proper
2. Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with rape, are
separate acts of rape
3. When trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave offense
4. When one offense is committed to conceal the other
5. Where one of the offenses is penalized by special law
6. There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or
other common
7. In case of continuous crimes.
8. When the other crime is an indispensable element of the other offense.
General Rules in Complexing Crimes
1. Information – only one (1) shall be filed
2. Jurisdiction - When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively
within theexclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the
court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
3. Penalty
1. Where both penalties provide for imprisonment -
penalty to be imposed is the penalty for the most serious
crime, applied in its maximum.
2. Where one of the penalties is imprisonment and the
other is fine - only the penalty of imprisonment should be
imposed.
4. When the other offense is not proven - accused can be convicted of the
other.
5. Art. 48 is NOT Applicable in the following instances:
1. When the crimes have common elements;
2. When the crimes involved are subject to the rule of
absorption;
3. Where the two offenses resulting from a single act are
specifically punished as a singlecrime.
Example: Less serious physical injuries with serious
slander of deed, since this is punished under Art. 265 (2)
4. Acts penalized under Art. 365 (those resulting criminal
negligence)
5. In special complex crimes or composite crimes.
Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence, two
or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, although only the first part thereof
(compound crime). The second part of Article 48 does not apply, referring to the
complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of
one offense to commit another offense.
However, a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence, together
with other grave or less grave felonies resulting there from and the Supreme Court held
that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should be made subject of one
information only. The reason being that, there is only one information and prosecution
only. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence similar to
splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases.
4BLUE 95: Although under Article 48, a light felony should not be included in a
complex crime, yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court, the light felony shall be
included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or less grave
felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs counter to the
provision of Article 48.
So while the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony resulting from the same criminal
negligence should be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant
violation of Article 48, instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty should
be imposed for the light felony.
4BLUE 95: This would mean two penalties to be imposed, one for the complex crime and
one for the light felony. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the
culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime
In People v. Jose, there were four participants here. They abducted the woman,
after which, the four took turns in abusing her. It was held that each one of the
four became liable not only for his own rape but also for those committed by the
others. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. In the eyes of the
law, each committed four crimes of rape. One of the four rapes committed by one
of them was complexed with the crime of abduction. The other three rapes are
distinct counts of rape. The three rapes are not necessary to commit the other
rapes. Therefore, separate complaints/information.
In People v. Pabasa, the Supreme Court through Justice Aquino ruled that there is
only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who
abducted the two women and abused them several times. This was only a
dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino, that there could be only one complex
crimeof abduction with rape, regardless of the number of rapes committed
because all the rapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd design
which impelled the offender to abduct the victim.
2023 notes: In adultery, each intercourse constitutes one crime. Apparently, the
singleness of the act is not considered a single crime. Each intercourse brings with it the
danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband.

Special Complex Crime (1989, 1995, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2016 BAR)
Q: After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a
cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to
notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of
the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the court correct? (1997 BAR)
A: NO. The accused should instead be held liable for two separate crimes of robbery and
rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the
complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery
must precede the rape, in order to give rise to the special complex crime for which the
court convicted the accused.
Q: Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime as to
their concepts and as to the imposition of penalties. (2003 BAR)
A: 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 which 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 to
be imposed 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.
Q: Pedro, Pablito, Juan, and Julio, all armed with bolos, robbed the house where Antonio,
his wife, and three (3) daughters were residing. While the four were ransacking Antonio's
house, Julio noticed that one of Antonio's daughters was trying to escape. He chased and
caught up with her at a thicket somewhat distant from the house, but before bringing her
back, raped her. a. What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan, and Julio
commit? Explain. b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three
daughters inside the house, and, to prevent identification, killed the whole family just
before they left. What crime or crimes, if any, did the four malefactors commit? (2016
BAR)
A:
a. Julio is liable for special complex crime of robbery with rape since he had carnal
knowledge of Antonio’s daughter on occasion or by reason of robbery. Even if the place
of robbery is different from that of rape, what is important is the direct connection
between the crimes (People v. Canastre, G.R. No. L-2055, December 24, 1948). Pedro,
Pablito, and Juan are liable for robbery by a band since more than three armed
malefactors took part in the commission of robbery. There were four of them. Under Art.
296 of RPC, any member of a band, who is present at the commission of a robbery by a
band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed, unless it be shown
that he attempted to prevent the same. However, Pedro, Pablito, and Juan are not liable
for rape since they were not present 8 Criminal Law when the victim was raped and thus,
they had no opportunity to prevent the same. They are only liable for robbery by band
(People v. Anticamaray, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011).
b. They are liable for special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It is immaterial
that several persons are killed and the number of rapes committed by reason or on
occasion of the crime. Since homicides are committed by or on occasion of the robbery,
the multiple rapes committed shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of
robbery with homicide (People v. Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013)
Q: 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 submachine 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. a. Was the decision of the trial judge correct?
Explain. b. What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes may be involved in a
complex crime? What is the penalty therefor? (1999 BAR)
A:
a. NO. 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.
b. 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 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)
Q: Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his service pistol inside his house when it fell
from his hand and fired. The bullet hit a neighbor on the stomach and a second 6
Criminal Law neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained by the two neighbors required
thirty-five (35) days and nine (9) days of medical attendance, respectively. The
investigating fiscal later filed an information for frustrated homicide and slight physical
injuries through reckless imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the charge correct? Explain.
(1989 BAR)
A: NO, the charge is not correct. One single act of accidental shooting cannot give rise to
two felonies - one of which is intentional and the other negligent. Frustrated homicide
presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not show any intent to kill on the part of Rodolfo.
At most, he was careless, and therefore only negligent.
4
Composite crime (1998, 1999, 2004, 2017, 2018 Bar)
Q: A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank and when they were about to get out of the
bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers
who fired back and shot it out with them. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the
bullet which killed him came from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime
shall you charge A, B, C and D? (1998, 2004, 2018 Bar)
A: A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the
death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the
occasion of robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by
reason or on the occasion of robbery; Hence, the composite crime of robbery with
homicide.
Q: Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a
sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed
him to go near a bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and
suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene taking
the motorcycle with him. What crime(s) did Raul commit? (1998, 2004 BAR)
A: Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of
R.A. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing ―in the course of‖ or ―on the occasion
of‖ a carnapping. (People v. De la Cruz, 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included in the
definition of a ―motor vehicle‖ in said Republic Act. There is no apparent motive for the
killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to take the motorcycle. The fact that
the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Q: During the nationwide transport strike to protest the phase out of old public utility
vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio, each armed with guns,
hailed several MMDA buses then providing free transport to the stranded public to stop
them from plying their routes. They later on commandeered one of the buses without
allowing any of the passengers to alight, and told the driver to bring the bus to Tanay,
Rizal. Upon reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio forcibly
divested the passengers of their cash and valuables. They ordered the passengers to leave
thereafter. Then, they burned the bus. When a tanod of the barangay of the area came
around to Intervene, Pater fired at him, instantly killing him. After Percy, Pablo, Pater
and Sencio were arrested, the police authorities recommended them to be charged with
the following crimes, to wit: (1) carnapping; (2) robbery, (3) direct assault with homicide;
(4) kidnapping; and (5) arson. State your legal opinion on the recommendation of the
police authorities on the criminal liabilities incurred by Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio.
(2017 BAR)
A: The proper charges should be carnapping and robbery with homicide. Robbery
absorbs kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The detention was only incidental to the
main crime of robbery. If the main objective is to commit robbery while homicide and
arson are perpetrated by reason or on occasion thereof, the crime committed is robbery
with homicide while arson shall be integrated into this special complex crime. However,
the use of fire shall only be considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
Q: Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable
savings. Knowing him to be ―loaded‖, his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to
poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which
to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his
friends. Angered by the betrayal, he decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry
ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink, as
they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already sound asleep,
he hacked them all to death. Then he remembered his losses, he rifled through the
pockets of his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not
before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day, police investigators
found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of
the resort. The Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the complex crime of arson with
quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss. (1995 BAR)
A: NO. Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3)
separate crimes, namely: murder, theft, and arson. Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave
with evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to
commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed
means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel, and Dave. Harry gave them the
liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell asleep. The taking of the money was a mere
afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not
the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed against dead
persons, it is still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims. In
burning the cottage, it is another separate crime of arson. The act of burning was not
necessary for the consummation of the two previous offenses he committed. The fact that
the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry’s crime into a complex crime of
arson with homicide for there is no such crime. Hence, Harry was improperly charged
with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should
have been charged with three separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
Punishable only in cases in w/c the law specially provides a penalty therefore.
CONSPIRACY
exist when 2/more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
& decide to commit it.
For Conspiracy to exist, it is not necessary that there be an agreement for an appreciable
period prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the
offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution (Pp v
Bustamante, March 2010)
Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused before,during and after the
commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose,
concert of action and community of interest (Pp v Bug-atan Sept.15,2010)
Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information,
otherwise, the court will not consider the same.
In Taer v. CA, 186 SCRA 5980, it was held that mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or
approval of the act, without cooperation or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough
to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a
view to further the common felonious objective.
When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the
act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them.
All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants
are not known to each other. Do not think that participants are always known to each
other.
CONSPIRACY does not constitute a CRIME if there is no law that specifically
punishes it.
However, if the conspirators actually committed the crime agreed upon,
CONSPIRACY shall be considered as a means of incurring criminal liability. (aka 2
kinds of conspiracy)
4blue95: even though CONSPIRACY is a Crime, but the conspirators
committed the crime agreed upon, Conspirators shall be held liable for the
crime committed and NOT for Conspiracy to commit it.
EXPRESS CONSPIRACY: exists when there is actual agreement between
parties to commit a crime and decided to committhe same;
IMPLIED CONSPIRACY: present in instances where, although there is no
actual agreement between parties to commit a crime, through their acts and
concerted design, a common goal can be established.
BAR: (2018 BAR EXAM) the places were appellants claim to be at the
time of the incident are a short distance away from the scene of the crime
and one could travel to and from these points in a little over a few seconds
or minutes of leisure walking. Besides , IT IS NOT REQUIRED for
Conspiracy to exist that there be an AGREEMENT, it is sufficient that at
the time of the commission , the accused had the same purpose and were
united in its execution (Pp v Bustamante, March 2010)
BAR: A, B, C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Their
agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. Even if none
of them has performed the act of rebellion, there is already criminal
liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. But if
anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion, the crime of all is
no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion itself. This subsists
even though the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had
already done the act of rebellion.
4blue 95: This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a
crime. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability, none of the
co-conspirators would be liable, unless there is an overt act. So, for as
long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime
was committed, such a desistance would negate criminal liability.
BAR: Three persons plan to rob a bank. For as long as none of the
conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. But when
one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless
a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up,
but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime
5
TWO KINDS OF CONSPIRACY:
(1) Conspiracy as a CRIME;
When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring
about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself.
This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy;
otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the
crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act.
Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d’etat are the only crimes where
the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable.
2022notes: once proposal is agreed and accepted ,even if act is
committed later, then, there is conspiracy (so liability is incurred)
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one
performing one part and the other performing another part so as to
complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object and
their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted
and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association,
concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be
justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a
conspiracy.
Spontaneous Agreement
a. Active cooperation by all offenders;
b. Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a common
criminal intent; and
c. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and
lending moral support thereto.
Proposal to Commit a Felony
When the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.
The law does not require that the proposal be accepted by the
person to whom the proposal is made.
(2) Conspiracy as a MODE of COMMITTING A CRIME
Doctrine of Imputability
A Person is liable for all the NATURAL, DIRECT AND LOGICAL
effects of the act or series of acts committed , whatever the degree of
his participation. Hence, the act of one is the act of all.
Exception to the Doctrine:
1. Parricide : in view of the personal nature of the relationship of the
perpetrator to the victim
2. Qualified Theft: where the qualifying circumstance is relationship
of the perpetrator to the victim.
Again, this is due to the nature of the relation of the victim to the
perpetrator, the same being personal
3. ART.62: A Member of a band is not liable for robbery with
HOMICIDE or RAPE if he is not present when the victim was killed
or raped (PP v Canturia, June 1995)
4blue95: Arturo,being one of the 2 who devised the plan to murder
Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is
needed only is an OVERT ACT and both will incur CRIMINAL
LIABILITY. Arturo’s liability as a conspirator arose from his
participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan to kill Jose.
And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Jose. The
Conspiracy here is ACTUAL not inference only. The overt act was
done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is con-conspirator.
There being a conspiracy, the ACT OF ONE is the ACT OF ALL
BUT his penalty is that of an Accomplice because he was not able to
actually participate in the shooting of Jose, having been apprehended
before reaching the place where the crime was committed
4blue95: When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced
because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreement.
On the other hand, if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act,
the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the OVERT ACT itself.
As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular
place, anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted.
The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind.
Although conspiracy is defined as two or more person coming to an agreement regarding
the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it, the word ―person‖ here should not
be understood to require a meeting of the co-conspirator regarding the commission of the
felony. A conspiracy of the second kind can be inferred or deduced even though they
have not met as long as they acted in concert or simultaneously, indicative of a meeting
of the minds toward a common goal or objective.
 6

STRUCTURES OF MULTIPLE CONSPIRACY: PROPOSAL

1. WHEEL CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy in which a single member (usually the ringleader) or a group engages in
SEPARATE ILLEGAL DEALINGS with 2 or more other member or groups ,and there
exist a shared criminal purpose among all the member/groups engaged in the activity.
4blue95: As example, 2017 Bar Exam re Crime of Plunder (PP v GMA July 19,2016). If
you’ll look at RA 7080, according to Justice Lucas if the crime of plunder is committed
by way of conspiracy, then basically, that conspiracy is WHEEL CONSPIRACY, which
means, walang plunder through conspiracy na ang conspiracy involved is Chain
Conspiracy
2. CHAIN CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy in which the conspirators act separately and successively. In other words, it is
a single conspiracy in which each person is responsible for a distinct act with over-all
plan.
Ex. Narcotic Trade (Bar Exam 2016 – Pp v FErnan April 24,2007)
Exist when person who has decided to commit a felony propose its execution to
some other person/s. Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom
the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal was
accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party makes a
proposition to the other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties
Ex. B approaches A& says : ―I will pay you P1000 if you assassinate X‖
suppose X did not agree, is there still a proposal?Yes, since proposal is
unilateral once proposal is made, it is there whether person to whom proposal
was made accepts it or not.
X should not accept, coz if he does there is now an agreement & proposal
becomes a conspiracy.
suppose at that moment, they are caught and at that moment, they are caught
& arrested is there an attempted murder? Not yet – since in murder offender
will commence the commission of the act so fiscal will charge them with
crime of conspiracy to commit murder
Accused should move to quash the info. Since mere proposal to commit
felony is not punishable the act is only preparatory.

BAR: Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B. Is there a crime

committed? Assuming Union B accepts the proposal, will your answer be
different? There is no crime committed. Proposal to commit sedition is not a
CONSPIRACY BY SILENCE crime. But if Union B accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to
commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code.
Exist from inaction arising from GROSS INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE WOULD
ALMOST ALWAYS be inferred only from the surrounding circumstances and the
parties act or omissions that, taken together , indicated a common understanding and
concurring of sentiments respecting the commission of the offense.
The duties and responsibilities that the occupancy of a public office carry and the degree
There is no criminal proposal when:
of relationship of interdependence of the different offices involved here determine the
existence of conspiracy where gross inexcusable negligence was a mode of commission
of the offense. a. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony;
b. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal; and
For emphasis, the petitioners are all heads of their respective offices that perform c. It is not the execution of the felony that is proposed.
interdependent functions in the processing of cash advances. The petitioners attitude of
buck-passing in the face of the irregularities in the voucher (and the absence of
supporting documents), as established by the prosecution, and their indifference to their
individual and collective duties to ensure that laws and regulations are observed in the
disbursement of the funds of the local government of Cebu can only lead to a finding of
conspiracy of silence and inaction, contemplated in Sistoza. The Sandiganbayan correctly DOCTRINE OF EVOLVING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
observed that
Finally, it bears stressing that the separate acts or omissions of all the accused in the A subsclassification of DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION. However, it only
present case contributed in the end result of defrauding the government. Without anyone applies to crimes which are penalized in their PROPOSAL and
of these acts or omissions, the end result would not have been achieved. Suffice it to say CONSPIRATION stage.
that since each of the accused contributed to attain the end goal, it can be concluded that
their acts, taken collectively, satisfactorily prove the existence of conspiracy among them 4blue95: it provides where crime evolves from proposal stage into conspiration
stage, the perpetrator who proposed to the execution of crime, can no longer be
( PP v Jaca, January 28,2013 case) held liable for PROPOSAL to commit a crime so penalized under the provision of
the RPC.

4blue95: in cases of PP v Hernandez and Enrile v Amin, the crime alleged to have
been committed by the perpetrators were CONSUMMATED REBELLION. Put it
simply, ABSORPTION Doctrine applies only in consummated political crimes but
4BLUE95 Note: Proof of conspiracy may be direct or circumstantial. So long as the not in proposal and conspiracy stage of the POLITICAL CRIME.
evidence presented show a "common design or purpose" to commit the crime, all of the
accused shall be held equally liable as co-principals even if one or more of them did not
participate in all the details of the execution of the crime.

If one fraternity attacks members of another fraternity, considering the group mentality of
fraternities and the fact that fraternity members usually act as one, it is quite possible that
they knew the identities of their attackers but chose not to disclose it without conferring
with their fraternity brothers. If conspiracy is proven, the liability of the assailants should
not be distinguished based on the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims,
because the ―act of one is the act of all‖ in crimes with conspiracy. (People v Feliciano,
G.R. No. 196735, J. LEONEN May 5, 2014)

As a general rule, only public officials can be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. However, private persons may be held liable if they act in
conspiracy with a public official.
 7

Q: As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito engaged in a drinking spree at
Heartthrob Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Manolo Yabang suddenly
approached them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted
killer and fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito ganged
up on Yabang, Warlito, using his own pistol, shot and wounded Yabang. What are
the criminal libailities of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito for the injury to Yabang?
Was there conspiracy and treachery? (1992 BAR)
A: If they have to be criminally liable at all, each will be responsible for their
individual acts as there appears to be no conspiracy, as the acts of the three were
spontaneous and a reflex response to Yabang’s shooting of Sergio. There was no
concerted act that will lead to a common purpose.
Q: As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor,
Jolan, Reden, and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught
him. Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a
knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing
Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter,
the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe, Arthur now claims that
his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who conflicted the fatal blow. Would
you sustain his claim? (1993 BAR)
A: NO. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The offenders acted in conspiracy in
killing the victim and hence, liable collectively. The act of one is the act of all.
The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly deduced or
inferred from the manner they committed the killing, demonstrating a common
criminal purpose and intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each
participant is not considered because their liability is collective.
Q: Mr. X has always been infatuated with Ms. Y. Scorned by Mr. Y's disregard for
his feelings towards her, Mr. X came up with a plan to abduct Ms. Y in order to
have carnal knowledge of her with the help of his buddies, A, B, and C. On the
day they decided to carry out the plan, and while surreptitiously waiting for Ms. Y,
C had a change of heart and left. This notwithstanding, Mr. X, A, and B continued
with the plan and abducted Ms. Y by forcefully taking her to a deserted house
away from the city. There, Mr. X restrained Ms. Y's arms, while A held her legs
apart. B stood as a lookout. Mr. X was then able to have carnal knowledge of Ms.
Y, who was resisting throughout the entire ordeal. Consequently, Mr. X was
charged with the crime of Forcible Abduction under the Revised Penal Code.
Assuming that A, B, and C are also charged, may they be held criminally liable
together with Mr. X? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A: NO. Only A and B may be held criminally liable together with Mr. X.
Under Art. 8, par. 1 of the RPC, a conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. With A holding Ms. Y’s legs apart and B standing as a
lookout, they actively participated in the commission of the crime and are
guilty as coconspirators. (People v. Tumalip, G.R. No. L-28451, October 28,
1974)
C may not be held criminally liable. C dissociated himself from the
conspiracy when he had a change of heart and left. His disavowal of the
conspiracy was effective since he decided not to perform his part in the
conspiracy before any material act of execution leading to the Rape was
committed. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act without
cooperation is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy. (Taer
v. CA, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990)

Q: State the concept of ―implied conspiracy‖ and give its legal effects. (1998,
2003 BAR)
A: An implied conspiracy is one which is only inferred or deduced from the
manner of participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution.
Where the offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that
their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are
pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in
conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual.
The legal effects of an implied conspiracy are:
1. Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered
as coconspirators;
2. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the
crime will be considered as co-conspirators; and
3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without
any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-
conspirator.
Q: Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. (2016, 2017 BAR)
A: There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: wheel or circle
conspiracy and chain conspiracy. A ―wheel conspiracy‖ occurs when there is a
single person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other
persons or groups (the spokes).
The spoke typically interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the
event that the spoke shares a common purpose to succeed, there is a single
conspiracy.
However, in the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the
other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.
A ―chain conspiracy‖, on the other hand, exists when there is successive
communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business
operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and
then retailer and consumer. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965,
February 26, 2002)

Q: During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public plaza. As a result
of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds.
He died a day after. B, C, D and E were proven to be participants in the ―rumble‖,
each using a knife against A, but it could not be ascertained who, among them,
inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of A
and for what? (1997 BAR)
A: B, C, D and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and having been
proven to have inflicted serious physical injuries, or at least, employed violence
upon A, are criminally liable for the latter’s death. And because it cannot be
ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury on A, there being a free-
for-all fight or tumultuous affray, B, C, D and E are all liable for the crime of
death caused in a tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code.

Q: Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by
breaking one of the windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and
as they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was
molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing
to prevent XA from raping OD. What crime/s did XA, YB and ZC commit and
what is the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (2004 BAR)
A: The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery
with Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Art. 294 (1) of the Revised Penal
Code. Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery
and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of
the rape being committed by their coconspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA
from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the commission of the
rape by their co-conspirator XA. The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ, and ZC,
shall be the same, as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape
which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape accompanying the robbery is
just a component.
 8

CRIMINAL ACTORS
REQUISITES TO BE CONSIDERED AS PRINCIPALS

PRINCIPAL Principal by Direct Principal by Inducement Principal by

Participation Indispensable
Cooperation
A.PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION – if there is no principal by direct 1. Offender participated 1. Inducement was made 1. Offender participated in
participation, then there is no principal by inducement & indispensable cooperation in the criminal resolution; with the intention of the criminal resolution
4blue 95:direct part in execution of the act and participated on its resolution (conspiracy) and procuring the commission such that there is anterior
of the crime. conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose and
1.ALL PARTICIPATED IN CRIM. RESOLUTION intentionbefore the
commission of the crime.
9:30 pm WHILE Dino & Raffy were walking along Padre Faura, S & J hit them 2.Offender carried out 2.Said inducement is the 2.Cooperation in
with a rock injuring Dino.Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly Bobby, Steve & their plan and personally determining cause of the thecommission of the
J, D & N surrounded Dino. took part in its execution commission of the crime offense by performing
Bobby stabbed Dino , J & D kept on hitting Dino & Raffy w/rocks by acts which directly by the material executor another act which is
Is there conspiracy? Yes - there is a presumption of conspiracy since it is very tended to the same end. Indispensable, and without
hard to say that there is none. But sometimes it can be proven that they do not which it would not have
know each other. been accomplished.

A has an enemy. B is also the enemy of X. A decided to maul X. B join the other NOTE: NOTE:
and decided to kill X. one day, both of them acting independently, started Presence During Two ways of Inducement
looking for X. A saw X, immediately approached him & started to hit him. At Commission of Crime 1. By using irresistible
that precise moment, B arrived and stabbed X. X died.No conspiracy GR: Principals by direct force or causing
participation must be at uncontrollable fear
IF 1 WENT BEYOND THE AGREEMENT & COMMITTED ANOTHER the scene of the
CRIME NOT CONTEMPLATED IN CONSPIRACY THE OTHER ARE commission of the crime, a. Irresistible Force -
ALSO LIABLE IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE PENAL personally taking part. Such physicalforce as
CODE DEALING WITH THAT KIND OF SITUATION. would produce an effect
--Or when the acts done outside the contemplation of co-conspirators are XPN: When there is a upon the individual that
necessary & logical consequence of the intended crime. conspiracy and the despite all his resistance, it
principal by direct reduces him to a mere
A, B, C and D conspired to commit robbery. At the point of a gun they arrested participation has already instrument.
X of his belongings & then, A attacked x and killed him. This is robbery w/ performed his part prior
homicideArt 296 states that all of them are liable for any assault committed that to the commission of the Force, fear, duress, or
he tried to prevent it. crime. intimidation must be
present, imminent,
296 applies only to robbery w/ homicide & committed by a band. So if there are impending; and of such
only 3 persons, this will not apply. nature as to induce a well-
grounded apprehension of
A, B, & C conspired to injured X. in the course of mauling X, B killed X. death or serious bodily
contemplated victim is X & the one who was killed was X (same victim.In harm if the act be done.
crimes against persons, when victim is killed, the physical injuries are absorbed
A, B, C conspired to kill X. but in the course of killing X, B also killed Y----- b. Uncontrollable Fear-
only B is liable since 2 crime,2 victims. It cannot be said that killing of X is Such fear that must be
absorbed in killing of Y grave, actual, serious, and
of such kind that majority
of men would succumb to
2.PERSONALLY CARRIED OUT THE RESOLUTION BY PERFORMING such moral compulsion.
ACT W/C TEND TO ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVE
Mere threat of future injury
All must be present, if 1 conspirator is absent, then such is not liable, but if is not sufficient.
present in planning only, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit felony w/c is Compulsion must be such
not punishable. that it reduced the offender
A.B.C &D conspired to murder X. Then, while crime was in progress , B left to a mere instrument acting
.Is B liable? Yes—there was no longer a conspiracy to be repudiated since B not only without will but
had already participated in it. against his will as well. It
must be of such character
to leave the accused no
opportunity for escape.

B.PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT- by directly forcing the PDP to commit the 2. By giving of price or
crime , by inducing PDP to commit a crime. offering of reward or
promise or using words
directly take or induce others to commit it of command
1.) Inducement was made w/ intention of procuring, meaning PBI is serious ,
he was really interested in committing the crime, he was not joking. a. By giving of price or
2.) W/o such inducement , the PDP would not have committed the crime. offering of reward or
--words of inducement must be offered PRIOR to commission of crime promise - The one giving
--PDP must have no other reason to commit the crime on his own, the the price or offering the
inducememt is the only determining factor. reward or promise is a
principal by inducement
There was a quarrel bet A&B. At that moment, X arrived and shouted ―Patayin while the one committing
mo na yan siya!!!‖. A killed B. X who uttered the shout is not a PBI since A was the crime in consideration
really going to stab B as there was a personal reason on the part of A. thereof is a principal by
direct participation.
There is collective criminal
responsibility.
C.PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION—the cooperation is not
the execution of crime but another act other than the execution of the crime w/o b. By using words of
w/c the crime would not have been committed. command - person who
used the words of
4blue 95: cooperate in the commission by another act w/o which it would not have command is a principal by
been accomplished inducement while the
What binds them is an agreement (conspiracy), like when A needs B to forge the person who committed the
signature, so that he (A) could steal from the bank since B is the teller. crime because of the words
command is a principal by
direct participation.
 9

ACCOMPLICES ACCESSORIES

Persons who not being included in Art.17 cooperate in execution of offense by 4blue 95: only accessories are exempt from criminal liability in light felonies
previous or simultaneous acts. One can cooperate even w/o agreement,not being in regardless of whatever crime that is.
conspiracy but knowing the criminal intent and latter agree, so latter becomes an
accomplice.
1.) He has knowledge of the commission of crime
2.) But he did not participate as principal or accomplice
3.) But he took part subsequent to the commission of a cirme through the
following:
Ex:SIMULTANEOUS ACTS

X is a taxi driver, One night A&B hired X to take a ride. Then X overheard A&B’s
conversation that latter were going to commit robbery. When they reach
destination, A&B asked X to wait for 30 minutes ―We are just going to the house
and rob somebody‖.
--- A&B did not ask X to join. No agreement, but knowing about their intent to
rob, X stayed. So X is liable as accomplice.
--- But if B told X ―Pare, we are going to rob house, you will be our driver‖ then
X is not anymore an accomplice but is now considered as a principal since there
exist now a conspiracy.
Ex.PREVIOUS ACTS
a.) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the
crime (liable under Fencing law)
b.) in order to prevent its discovery, the accessory concealed or destroyed the
body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof ( liable also under
the Fencing law)
c.) harboring ,concealing or assisting in the escape of the PRINCIPAL (can
be convicted even b4 the principal is even convicted) by either that
accessory acts w/ abuse of public functions or whenever the author
(principal) is guiltly of TREASON, PARRICIDE, MURDER, ATTEMPT
TO TAKE LIFE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE or HABITUALLY GUILTY
OF SOME OTHER CRIME.

B approaches X ―X may baril ka ba?‖, X reply ―Meron, bakit?‖ B: ―Pwede ko
hiramin, babarilin ko lang si Alex‖ So X lent B the weapon and B killed Alex.
X is an accomplice since X cooperated w/ B by lending him the gun, X cooperated
by a previous act.
Accomplice is also liable for some crime committed by principal although penalty
is a little bit lower since in conspiracy, act of one is act of all (COLLECTIVE
LIABILITY).
The Accessory is Exempt from Criminal liability whenever:
1.) Principal is the spouse ,ascendant , descendant, legitimate ,natural or
adopted brothers and sisters, or relative by affinity
2.) Accessory concealed or destroyed body or effects of crime or harbors
,conceals , or assisted in escape of principal (those mentioned in #1) of
the crime
3.) And did not accept profit or assist principal to profit by effects of the
crime ( OTHERWISE, HE WOULD B E LIABLE! )

Other examples:

A do not know B. A wanted to injure X, B wanted to kill X. When A saw X, he 2008 bar: Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise
started to punch X then B entered and stabbed X. A is liable for physical injuries confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot
(How can A concur with B whom A had no in the first place, intention to kill X) Cece in Manila with Domeng’s revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng
and B is liable for PDP.This is known as an INDIVIDUAL ACT , thereby there are asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told him
2 crimes being committed,each to his own. to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later
charged as an accessory to Cece’s murder.
A wanted to injure X. A do not know B. When B saw X, B started stabbing X. A
arrived and said to B ―I’ll join you‖.A attacked X w/ his fist . B is liable for
homicide as PDP and A is liable for homicide as accomplice. When A saw B a) Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain. (4%)
stabbing X, he joined the SIMULTANEOUS ACT of assaulting X, A concurred Mayor Tan cannot be liable as an accesory to ceces' murder.he merely helped an
w/o any conspiracy. This is known as QUASI-COLLECTIVE LIABILITY. accomplice not the principal

When we say COLLECTIVE , the act of 1 is the act of all. In QUASI- b) Can he be held liable for any other offense? Explain fully. (3%)
COLLECTIVE, the other party merely joined in the simultaneous act of the other Mayor Tan can be charged under the special law of Obstruction of
making him an accomplice. Justice(PD1829). PD 1829 penalizes the act of harboring or concealing, or
facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe
or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent
his arrest, prosecution and conviction. Under this special law, there is no
specification of the crime to be committed by the offender for criminal liability to
ACCOMPLICE CONSPIRATOR be incurred and the offender is no longer an accessory. He is simply an offender
without regard to the crime committed by the person assisted to escape and he is
penalized as a principal.

Incurs criminal liability by merely Participates in the commission of a crime

cooperating in the execution of the crime
without participating as a principal, by
prior simultaneous acts
Incurs criminal liability in an individual
capacity by his act alone of cooperating in
the execution of the crime
as a co-principal
Conspirator incurs criminal liability not
only for his individual acts in the
execution of the crime but also for the acts
of the other participants in the
commission of the crime collectively.
COLLECTIVE versus QUASI-COLLECTVIE:
In absolute COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL Responsibility , it is in essence a responsibility
of a group of individuals for a crime or crimes committed by some, or perhaps even only
one, of its members;
while in QUASI-COLLECTIVE Responsibility, some offenders of the crime are
Principals while some are Accomplices.

The acts of the other participants in the

execution of the crime are considered also Criminally liable for GRAVE and LESS GRAVE are : Principals, Accomplices and
as acts of a conspirator for purposes of Accessories.
collective criminal responsibility.

Participates in the execution of a crime
when the criminal design or plan is
already in place
Subjected to a penalty one degree lower
than that of a principal
Conspirator participates in the adoption or
making of the criminal design.
Conspirator incurs penalty of a principal
2008 BAR: Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a
vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated
by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent.
After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the
vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of
the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable?
Explain. (7%)
NO, Ricky did not conspire with the vigilant group, no criminalparticipation and not do
any act which the law punishes as a crime.

PRINCIPAL
Q: Tata owns a three-storey building. She wanted to construct a new building but had no
money to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She
then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her building so she
could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building
resulting to its total loss. What is their respective criminal liability? (1994 BAR)
A: Tata is a principal by inducement for the crime of destructive arson because she
directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi for a price or monetary consideration, to commit
arson which the latter would not have committed were it not for such reason. Yoboy and
Yongsi are principals by direct participation. (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC
Q: Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock
down Jepoy and end his arrogance. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him
with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy’s five-
yearold son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously. What is the
criminal liability of Jonas and Jepoy? (Question reframed) (2000 BAR)
A: Jonas shall be convicted of the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide.
Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as coprincipal by indispensable
cooperation. It is a case of aberratio ictus. The single act of pulling the trigger resulted
into a less grave felony and a grave felony: (1) attempted murder, with respect to his real
target, Jonas; and (2) homicide, with respect to the 5-year-old son. Jaja should be liable as
co- principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas’ criminal design
even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that criminal design by
providing the firearm.
Q: A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a
reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but
because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in
the past. If C killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement? (2002 BAR)
A: NO.
A would not be liable as principal by inducement because the reward he promised B is
not the sole impelling reason which made B kill C. To bring about the criminal liability
of a coprincipal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration
which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would
not have been committed. The facts of the case would indicate that B, the killer
supposedly induced by A had his own reason to kill C out of a long-standing grudge.
Q: Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr.
Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud
voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s
room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White
asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply said, "You already know what I want,"
and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow.
a. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the
death of Mr. Green? b. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White
and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yellow? (2014 BAR)
A:
a. Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the death of Mr. Green as principals by direct
participation. They were the ones who participated in the criminal resolution and who
carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end. Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable as principal by
inducement because his statement that Mr. Blue and Mr. White are to take care of Mr.
Green was not made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime.
There is no showing that the words uttered by him may be considered as so efficacious
and powerful so as to amount to physical or moral coercion (People v. Assad, G.R. No.
L- 33673, February 24, 1931). Neither is there evidence to show that Mr. Red has an
ascendancy or influence over Mr. White and Mr. Blue. (People v. Abarri, F.R. No.
90815, March 1, 1995)
b. Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable as principals by direct participation for the crime of
physical injuries for hurting Ms. Yellow to the extent of the injuries inflicted. Having no
participation in the attack upon Ms. Yellow, Mr. Red would have no criminal liability
therefor.
Q: Roberto and Ricardo have had a longstanding dispute regarding conflicting claims
over the ownership of a parcel of land. One night, Roberto was so enraged that he
decided to kill Ricardo. Roberto asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive
him to Ricardo’s house. Rafael knew about Roberto’s plan to kill Ricardo, but agreed to
lend him a gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto to the street corner nearest the
house of Ricardo. Rafael waited for him there, until the task had been accomplished, so
that he could drive Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. Roberto also asked another
friend, Ruel, to stand guard outside Ricardo’s house, for the purpose of warning him in
case there was any danger or possible witnesses, and to keep other persons away from the
vicinity. All three – Roberto, Rafael and Ruel – agreed to the plan and their respective
roles. On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel to the nearest corner near
Ricardo’s house. Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 meters where Ruel took his post as
guard, and Roberto walked about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo’s
bedroom, and peppered it with bullets. When he thought that he had accomplished his
plan, Roberto ran away, followed by Ruel, and together they rode in Rafael’s car where
they drove to the next town to spend the night there. It turned out that Ricardo was out of
town when the incident happened, and no one was in his room at the time it was peppered
with bullets. Thus, no one was killed or injured during the incident. If a crime was
committed, what is the degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel? (2018 BAR)
A: All the perpetrators (Roberto, Ricardo and Rafael) are criminally liable as principals
since the conspiracy among them was clearly established by their participation. Roberto
is principal by direct participation as he took a direct part in the execution of the plan to
kill Ricardo by firing his gun at the room of the intended victim. Rafael is principal by
indispensable cooperation not only becuase he lent his gun to Roberto fully knowing the
unlawful intent of the latter, but also drove him to the place of the commission of crime
and to a place where he could escape. Ruel being involved in the criminal plan to kill
Ricardo acted in conspiracy with the two (2) other perpetrators staying in the place from
the time they planned the crime up to its finalization. They were together in the car driven
by Rafael going to the next town in escaping from the scene of the crime.
10
ACCOMPLICES (2007, 2009, 2012 BAR)
Q: Who is an accomplice? (2012 BAR) A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being
the principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts
which are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. (Art. 18, RPC)
Q: Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because
Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril
mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife
because he did not want Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot. a. What, if any, is the
liability of Ruben? Explain. b. Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it
was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using Ruben’s gun?
Explain. (2009 BAR)
A:
a. Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in
Pociano’s determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the
killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben’s gun. Neither may
Ruben be regarded as a co- conspirator since he was not a participant in the decision-
making of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying out the criminal
plan which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).
b. NO. The answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his gun purposely for the
killing of Freddie only, not for any other killing. Ponciano’s using Ruben’s gun in killing
a person other than Freddie is beyond Ruben’s criminal intent and willing involvement.
Only Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel. Accessories (1998, 2010 BAR)
Q: Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother
told him to hide in the maid’s quarters until she finds a better place for him to hide. After
two days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the
police. Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime
of murder? Explain. (2010, 1998 BAR)
A: Obviously, Jake’s mother was aware of her son’s having committed a felony, such that
her act of harbouring and concealing him renders her liable as an accessory. But being an
ascendant of Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express provision of Art. 20 of
the RPC.
On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake’s aunt depends on her knowledge of his
commission of the felony, her act of harbouring and concealing Jake would render her
criminally liable as accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise, without knowledge of
Jake’s commission of the felony, she would not be liable.
Recidivism
Q: Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National Penitentiary, serving the
maximum penalty for robbery which they committed some years before and for which
they have been sentenced by final judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money
owed by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe Robbie anything, and after a
shouting episode, Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the ground in
pain, and Rannie left him to go to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the
door to the toilet and with his back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the
back with a bladed weapon that he had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the
nearest ―kubol‖ where he fell. Robbie ran after him· and, while Rannie was lying on the
ground, Robbie continued to stab him, inflicting a total of 15 stab wounds. He died on the
spot. Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasirecidivist? (2018 BAR)
A: Robbie is considered a quasi-recidivist pursuant to Article 160 of the RPC. At the time
he stabbed Rannie which resulted in the latter’s death, he had been convicted by final
judgment and had been serving sentence at the National Penitentiary. In quasi-recidivism,
the first and second offenses need not be embraced in the same title of the RPC. A
recidivist, on the other hand, requires that the crimes committed must be embraced in the
same title of the RPC. Because the killing of Rannie and the robbery, in which Robbie
was previously convicted by final judgment, were not under the same title, Robbie cannot
be considered a recidivist.
Habitual Delinquency
Q: In November 2018, Mr. N, a notorious criminal, was found guilty of three (3) counts
of Murder and was consequently sentenced with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count. A month after, he was likewise found guilty of five (5) counts of Grave
Threats in a separate criminal proceeding, and hence, meted with the penalty of prision
mayor for each count. Is Mr. N considered a habitual delinquent? Explain. (2019 BAR)
20 Criminal Law
A: NO. Mr. N is not a habitual delinquent. Under Art. 62 of the RPC, a person shall be
deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if within the period of 10 years from the date of his
last release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third
time or oftener. Here, Mr. N did not commit the specific crimes above mentioned.