B. COMPOUND CRIMES
Thereafter, after uttering
People vs. Tabaco
FACTS
Tabaco entered the cockpit with a fully
loaded M-14 sub-machine gun. He fired the
weapon, which contained 20 rounds of
bullets in its magazine, continuously. When
the rifle was recovered from Tabaco, the
magazine was already empty. Four persons
died.
ISSUE
Whether this is a compound crime.
RULING
No, the evidence shows that the four (4)
victims were FELLED by one single
shot/burst of fire and/or successive
automatic gun fires, meaning continuous.
Hence, it is a complex crime involving four
murdered victims, under the first category,
where a single act of shooting constituted
two or more grave or less grave felonies
(delito compuesto).
The trial court misappreciated the facts in
People vs. Pama. In said case, there was
only one bullet which killed two persons.
Hence, there was only a single act which
produced two crimes, resulting in a specie of
complex crime known as a compound crime,
wherein a single act produces two or more
grave or less grave felonies. In the case at
bench, there was more than one bullet
expended by the accused-appellant in killing
the four victims.
People vs. Valdez
FACTS
Six teenagers boarded a tricycle, when the
vehicle took a turn on a barangay road they
met the appellant Rolando Valdez and his
companions who were armed with guns. The
tricycle's headlight flashed on their faces.
Without warning, they pointed their guns and
fired at the vehicle.
the words, "nataydan, mapan tayon" (They
are already dead. Let us go), Valdez and
companions left. The shooting incident left 4
victims dead and two others injured. The
information charged the complex crime of
Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated
Murder
ISSUE
Whether there is a complex crime
RULING
No, The case at bar does not fall under any
of the two instances defined under art 48 of
the RPC. The evidence indicates that there
was more than one gunman involved, and
the act of each gunman is distinct from that
of the other. It cannot be said therefore, that
there is but a single act of firing a single
firearm. Each act by each gunman pulling the
trigger of their respective firearms, aiming
each particular moment at different persons
constitute distinct and individual acts which
cannot give rise to the complex crime of
multiple murder. We therefore rule that
accused-appellant is guilty, not of a complex
crime of multiple murder, but of four counts
of murder for the death of the four victims in
this case. In the same manner, accused-
appellant is likewise held guilty for two counts
of frustrated murder.
C. CONTINUING CRIMES
People vs. Madrigal Gonzales
FACTS
Accused, while being administrator of the
Social Welfare Administration (SWA) was
charged in 27 cases of falsification and 1
case of Malversation. That in the
commission of malversation several
documents were falsified showing
disbursements for cash aids, reliefs and
supplies when in fact there were none.
In her defense, the accused interposed while
hypothetically admitting that acts of
falsification which took place within a
specified period and the allegations are the
same, said acts were but the result of a
singular criminal intent- to conceal the
crime of malversation.
ISSUE
Whether or not the twenty-seven (27)
falsifications were the product of only one
criminal intent and therefore a cotinuing
crime.
RULING
No, The appellees seem to confuse motive
with criminal intent. Motive is not an element
of a felony; it is merely a prospectant
circumstantial evidence. Criminal intent
renders an act a felony. Motive is a state of
the mind of the accused, and it is he who can
state his real motive in committing a crime.
Whatever the fiscal had manifested, as to
the motive which had impelled the accused
to transgress the law,
was but a speculation gathered in the
process of investigation. In other words, the
existence of the motive to conceal
malversation, in the cases at bar, is a
question of fact which should be ventilated in
a formal trial, in connection with the defense
of double jeopardy.
The Court cannot assume that the purpose
of committing the twenty-seven (27)
falsifications was to conceal the
malversation. This is so because there is no
showing that for every particular amount they
had malversed on a certain period, they had
purposedly perpetrated the corresponding
falsification to cover up such amount, until
the whole amount proposed to be malversed,
shall have been completely
misappropriated. In the absence of such
showing, it is to be presumed that in the
falsification of each document, the criminal
intent was separated and distinct.
It will be noted that although all the
informations in the 27 falsification cases
were uniformly worded, the numbers of the
vouchers alleged to have been falsified and
the amounts thereof are different. The other
informations also show different vouchers,
dates and amounts. These undeniable facts,
alleged in the informations, evidently show
that different acts of falsification were
committed on different vouchers and
covering distinct amounts. Each information
did not refer to all said acts of falsification.
Neither is there merit in the argument that
said acts of falsification constituted a
continuing offense, so as to have them all
prosecuted in only one information. This
Court in a number of cases, dealing on the
same subject.
Gamboa vs. CA
FACTS
Benjamin Lu Hayco was an employee of
Units Optical Supply Company. According to
the owner, Hayco thru fraud, deceit and
machinations, duped him into affixing his
signature and thumbprint on a general power
of attorney. With the use of this deed, he
opened accounts in his own name. He
thereafter collected and received payments
from customers and deposited it to his
personal account. After the preliminary
investigation, the Office of the City Fiscal
filed seventy-five cases of estafa against
Hayco, all of which are cases of estafa with
different dates and amounts.
ISSUE
Whether the basic accusations contained in
the seventy-five informations constitute but a
single crime of estafa.
RULING
No, "continuous crime" is a single crime
consisting of a series of acts arising from a
single criminal resolution or intent not
susceptible of division.

The characterization or description of estafa
as a continuing offense cannot be validly
seized upon by Hayco as basis for its
inference that the acts of abstraction in
question constitute but a single continuing
crime of estafa. The sole import of this
characterization is that the necessary
elements of estafa may separately take
place in different territorial jurisdictions until
the crime itself is consummated. The
moment, however, that the elements of the
crime have completely concurred or
transpired, then an individual crime of estafa
has occurred or has been consummated.
People vs. Mallari
FACTS
Consuelo Mallair together with 3 others were
charged with Estafa thru Falsification of
Public Document due to the acts they
committed when they feloniously defraud
Saclolo by offering her the title of the land
owned by Leonora Balderas as a collateral
who was then in need of money. The said
title was forged and falsified before Celestino
Hallazgo, notary public, by making it appear
that Balderas signed the document which
Julia Saclolo paid for the amount of 1,500.
The same also happened to Remegio
Tapawan. It was when Tapawan found out
that he was tolled because the person who
posed as Leonora Balderas was a man by
the name of Carlos Sunga that led to file the
case against Mallari and 3 others involved.
Petitioner Consuelo Mallari was sentenced
to imprisonment before the CFI. Mallari
appealed before the Court of Appeals who
affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification
as to the penalty. She then contended that
the said decision of CA put her twice in
double jeopardy.
ISSUE
Whether the acts done by Mallari constitute
a continuing crime
RULING
Yes, A continued crime is a single crime
consisting of a series of acts but all arising
from one criminal resolution. It is a
continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set
on foot by a single impulse and operated by
an unintermittent force. And although there
are series of acts, there is only one crime
committed hence only one penalty shall be
imposed. The crime of estafa thru
falsification of public document committed by
Consuelo Mallari, although consummated
through a series of acts, was done by the
single intent or impulse to defraud Remegio
Tapawan. And contrary to the appellate
court's observation, there was only one
deceit practiced by petitioner on the two (2)
victims, that being in need of money,
Leonora Balderas was willing to mortgage
two (2) lots as security for a loan. It was, in
fact, by mere play of fate that the second
victim, Julia Saclolo, should be dragged into
the swindle by reason of Tapawan having
only P1,500.00 at that time. That there were
two (2) victims, however, did not accordingly
convert the crime into two separate offenses,
as the determinative factor is the unity or
multiplicity of the criminal intent or of the
transactions for "the fact should not be lost
sight of that it is the injury to the public which
a criminal action seeks to redress, and by
such redress to prevent its repetition, and not
the injury to individuals. The singularity of the
offense committed by Mallari is further
demonstrated by the fact that the falsification
of the two (2) public documents as a means
of committing estafa were performed on the
same date, in the same place, at the same
time and on the same occasion. The act of
taking two or more roosters in the same
place and on the same occasion is dictated
by only one criminal design and therefore,
there is only one crime of theft even if the
roosters are owned by different persons.
D. COMPOSITE OR SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIMES
People vs. Escote
FACTS
At past midnight Rodolfo Cacatian (driver of
a passenger bus) drove the bus from Pasay
City to Pangasinan. Six additional
passengers boarded the bus in Balintawak,
including Acuyan and Escote, who held up
the bus (they had handguns) as they were
passing Bulacan. Both fired their guns
upward and accosted the passengers,
divesting them of their money and valuables.
Apparently, SPO1 Manio was aboard the
bus. When the felons went to him and asked
for his wallet and ID. When they found out his
was a police officer and saw his service gun,
they said: “Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin
ka namin, baril mo rin ang papatay sayo.”
The police officer pleaded for mercy: “Pare
maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya ako.” But the
two ignored his plea and shot him on the
mouth, right ear, chest and right side of the
body. Manio sustained six entrance wounds.
The bus driver was ordered to maintain the
speed of the bus. He heard one of them say
“Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. Parang
pumapatay ng manok.” The other said, “Ayos
na naman tayo, pare. Malaki-laki ito.” They
alighted from the bus and instructed the
driver not to report the incident (all in all,
robbery was over in 25 mintues). Naturally,
the driver and conductor reported the
incident to police. Barely a month after at
about midnight, a team of policemen was at
a checkpoint along the national highway in
Tarlac. A white taxicab without a plate was
stopped and asked the driver, who was
Escote, for his ID. Escote said he was a
policeman and handed over the ID of SPO1
Manio and the money they had taken from
the heist. The police became suspicious
because the ID had already expired. He
asked Escote if the latter had a new payslip.
When Escote could not produce any, he
finally confessed he was not policeman and
was brought to the station. He was frisked
and they found five bullets of a 9mm in his
pocket.
ISSUE
Whether robbery with homicide is a special
complex crime
RULING
The SC has ruled over the years that
treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in the felony of robbery with
homicide, a special complex crime and at the
same time a single and indivisible offense.
However, in two cases, the SC has held that
robbery with homicide is a crime against
property. Treachery is appreciated only in
crimes against persons and hence, should
not be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance. It held in another case that it
is not appreciated in robbery with rape
precisely because it is a crime against
property. These ruling finds support in case
law that in robbery with homicide and rape,
the latter are merely incidents of the robbery
with robbery being the main purpose and
object of the criminal. But the SC ruled
otherwise in the later case of People v.
Cando when it ruled that treachery is a
generic aggravating circumstance in robbery
with homicide when the victim of homicide is
killed with treachery.
People vs. Malinao
FACTS
One afternoon, the car in which Nestor
(deceased), his wife Teresita and his
brother-in-law were riding, driven by one
Rodante Abarcar who was maneuvering it
out of the garage gate of the Otanguin
residence, accidentally hit and injured the
fighting cock of appellant that was tied near
said gate. Teresita immediately told
appellant of the incident and promised to talk
it over with him later as they were in a hurry
to catch up with a plane flight to Tacloban
City. Appellant did not say anything and just
smiled. Nestor and family left for the airport.
Appellant, armed with revolver, was drinking
with some friends at a table on a sidewalk
near his house, Nestor was on his way home
from work and passed by the place where
appellant was drinking with some friends. As
Nestor was approaching, appellant fired his
gun and invited Nestor to join them and
offered him a drink which Nestor accepted.
Then Nestor excused himself for home but
appellant offered him another drink, which he
politely refused. Enraged at the refusal,
appellant drew his revolver from his waist
and shot Nestor on the chest. When Nestor
fell, appellant shot him again at the back of
the head, resulting in his immediate death.
Whether or not the use of unlicensed firearm
make this crime a special complex crime.
RULING
Yes, Supreme Court held that an accused
who is charged with having committed
murder or homicide with the use of an
unlicensed firearm should be liable only for
the graver offense of aggravated illegal
possession of firearm under the second
paragraph of Section 1 of PD 1866 because
the situation contemplated therein is from the
punitive standpoint, virtually of the nature of
the so-called special complex crimes, which
should more appropriately be called
composite crimes and only a single penalty
is imposed for each of such composite
crimes although composed of two or more
offenses.
Ivler vs. San Pedro
FACTS
Following a vehicular collision, Jason Ivler
was charged before the MeTC, with two
separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal
Case No. 82367) for injuries sustained by
Evangeline L. Ponce and (2) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property (Criminal Case No.
82366) for the death of Ponce’s husband
Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses
Ponce’s vehicle.
Ivler pleaded guilty to the charge in Criminal
Case No. 82367 and was meted out the
penalty of public censure. Invoking this
conviction, Ivler moved to quash the
Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 for
placing him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence.
ISSUE
Whether reckless imprudence is a single
crime.
RULING
Yesm “Reckless Imprudence under Article
365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not
merely a means to commit other crimes,
hence, conviction or acquittal of such quasi-
offense bars subsequent prosecution for the
same quasi-offense, regardless of its
various consequences.The law penalizes the
negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof.And as the careless act is single ,
whether the injurious result should affect
one person or several persons, the offense
criminal negligence remains one and the
same, and cannot be split into different
crimes and prosecutions