Complex crime of double murder

 SC: The accused's single act — burning down the victim's house with the intent of killing him and his daughter — results in the "complex crime of double murder." 

Main issue: whether the accused should be held accountable for separate counts of murder or for the complex crime of double murder only. 

Author's note: 

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, reads: 

ARTICLE 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. (End of emphasis). 

In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime. 

There are two kinds of complex crime. 

The first is known as compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. 

The second is known as complex crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. 

The classic example of the first of a kind is when a single bullet results in the death of two or more persons. A different rule governs where separate and distinct acts result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. 

The Supreme Court went on to cite the following cases as examples: 

• People v. Guillen

Example: the single act of throwing a grenade at President Roxas resulting in the death of another person and injuring four others. 

Crime committed: Complex crime of murder and multiple attempted murders. 

PENALTY: Applying Article 48 of the RPC, the penalty for the crime committed is death, the maximum penalty for murder, which is the graver offense. 

NOTE: 

In this case, (PEOPLE vs. AZCUNA, TINGA), the court held: 

In view, however, of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346 (otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines"), we (this Court) reduce the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole[.] 

• People v. Carpo et al.

Example: the single act of hurling a grenade into the bedroom of the victims causing the death of three persons and injuries to one person 

Crime committed: complex crime of multiple murder and attempted murder. 

RATIONALE. 

The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code, which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes committed. The rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions. 

[G.R. No. 168050 September 19, 2008]

People vs. AZCUNA, TINGA, et al.

👨‍⚖️ PUNO, C.J. 

Read the full decision here: 

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_168050_2008.html#fnt23 

FOLLOW US:

🔗 https://bit.ly/m/AttyEblogger 

NOTE: 

By virtue of Proclamation No. 115-A, signed by then-President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and Proclamation No. 360 in 1986, the month of March was declared as “Fire Prevention Month” or “Burn Prevention Month.” 

The fire prevention month campaign, according to the measure, promotes “safety consciousness among our people every day of the year as a positive preventive approach to a problem that can be solved by more caution, vigilance, sobriety, the exercise of common sense, and respect for the law.”

✍️ Philippine Rubber Research Institute 

⚠️ NOTICE 

If you want to prevent accidentally setting your house on fire, 

buy this item 👉 https://invol.co/clhfia1 

📸: #ctto| https://bit.ly/www-facebook_orig_post