Group 2

Compound crime (delito compuesto); When a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies; What are the requisites?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. JULIO GUILLEN, defendantappellant
G.R. No. L-1477; January 18, 1950
FACTS: Julio Guillen y Corpus, although not affirmed with any particular political group, has
voted for the defeated candidate in the presidential elections held in 1946. According to Guillen,
he became disappointed in President Roxas. After he had pondered for some time over the ways
and means of assassinating President Roxas, the opportunity presented itself on the night of
March 10, 1947, when at a popular meeting held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda,
Quiapo, Manila attended by a big crowd. When he reached Plaza de Miranda, Guillen was
carrying two hand grenades concealed in a paper bag which also contained peanuts. He buried
one of the hand grenades in a plant pot located close to the platform. General Castaeda, who
was on the platform, saw the smoking, hissing, grenade and without losing his presence of mind,
kicked it away from the platform, along the stairway, and towards an open space where the
general thought the grenade was likely to do the least harm; and, covering the President with his
body, shouted to the crowd that everybody should lie down. The grenade fell to the ground and
exploded in the middle of a group of persons who were standing close to the platform. Confusion
ensued, and the crowd dispersed in a panic. It was found that the fragments of the grenade had
seriously injured Simeon Varela (or Barrela ) who died on the following day as the result of mortal
wounds caused by the fragments. Guillen was arrested by members of the Police Department
about two hours after the occurrence. The police operatives interrogated Garcia and Robles, and
Julio Guillen was, within two hours after the occurrence. During the investigation conducted by
the police he readily admitted his responsibility, although at the same time he tried to justify his
action in throwing the bomb at President Roxas.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in applying sub-section 1 of article 49 of the Revised
Penal Code in determining the penalty to be imposed upon the accused.
RULING: Yes. Art. 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes- When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other,
the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period. It is the above-quoted article and not paragraph 1 of article 49 that is applicable. The
case before us is clearly governed by the first clause of article 48 because by a single act, that a
throwing highly explosive hand grenade at President Roxas, the accused committed two grave
felonies, namely:
(1) murder, of which Simeon Varela was the victim; and (2) multiple
attempted murder, of which President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio
Maglalang were the injured parties

Group 2
Material plurality; In crimes committed by a public officer; What were the crimes
committed? Is this a complex crime?
UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee vs. LAMBERTO A. GETA, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-17144; September 29, 1921
FACTS: Two informations were presented against the accused Lamberto A. Geta in the Court of
First Instance of Province of Samar, one for misappropriation of public funds and the other for
falsification of public documents. When the case for malversation was called for trial the attorney
for the accused asked for the consolidation of this case with that for falsification, the ground that
both were founded upon the same facts, but the court denied the petition. About June, 1918, at
Catubig, Samar, while the accused was postmaster of said municipality, he received from Severo
Segundo the sum of P1,250 to be transmitted as telegraphic money order to Leon Badilla at
Gubat, Sorsogon. As the addressee could not be found at Gubat and as the change of addressee
proposed by Severo Segundo could not be effected due to the fact, as the accused stated, that
the telegraph lines were out of order, the latter on July 24 following demanded of the accused
the return of the above amount to which the accused replied that he had telegraphed to the
Director of Posts for authority to do so. On September 16 of the same year, Severo Segundo
again went to the accused for the same purpose and the latter paid him P417, on account,
stating that he had no more money at the time but that the balance would be paid later. The
accused admits that he only refunded Severo Segundo P417 of the P1,250 received.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is liable for malversation to which the plaintiff alleged that
the said malversation was also committed when he did the falsification of funds and
misappropriation of public funds
RULING: The information for malversation filed against the accused refers to the appropriation
by the latter of said sum of P833 and the information for falsification of public documents refers
to the falsification of Exhibit B, the supposed receipt for the sum of P1,250 signed by Severo
Segundo. We hold that the guilt of the accused as to the malversation is fully proved, but we
abstain from making any finding as to the falsification of Exhibit B in view of the decision that we
are to render in this case.
The trial court erred in including in the judgment rendered in the case for malversation that
which should have been rendered in the case for falsification. When evidence was presented in
the case for malversation it was understood by all the parties and the court itself that the trial
did not include the case for falsification, inasmuch as the court denied the consolidation of both
cases. It therefore results that the judgment of the court with respect to the offense of
falsification was rendered without due process of law.
On the other hand, the court also erred in considering in this case the offense of malversation
and that of falsification as a complex crime in the sense that the latter was a necessary means to
commit the former. Under the circumstances revealed by the record, the falsification of Exhibit B
was not a means, and much less, a necessary means, to commit the malversation. The amount

appropriated to himself was in the possession and at the disposal of the accused and he could
have appropriated it to himself without the necessity of Exhibit B. This document, for all that
appears, was used by the accused, not as a means for the commission of the malversation, but
rather to conceal this offense. It was the result rather than the means.

Group 2
When rebellion is committed, what happens to the other crimes committed? What is
the meaning of a complex crime is only one crime?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,
defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-6025; G.R. No. L-6026; May 30, 1964
FACTS: Defendant petitioned for bail but was denied. He was convicted of rebellion complexed
with murders, arsons and robberies. The defense contended that rebellion cannot be complexed
with murder, arson and robbery. Defendants have synchronized activities of Congress on Labor
Organization with the rebellious activities of the Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan and other
instrumentalities of the PKP, promoting the prosecution and rebellion against the Republic of the
Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson and robbery
RULING: Such common offenses are absorbed or inherent in the crime of rebellion.
In the complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only
one crime in the eyes of the law, as well as the conscience of the offender. The offender has only
one criminal intent. Even in the case where an offense is necessary means for committing the
other, the evil intent of the offender is only one.

Group 2
What is a special complex crime? What is the effect of a offense labeled as a special
complex crime?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO I. TORRES @ Pang-ae,
JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, accused.
DANILO I. TORRES @ Pang-ae, accused-appellant
G.R. No. 130661; June 27, 2001
FACTS: Vicente Galanao, his sons Julian and Macky and Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with
their employer, Boloy , to buy copra and abaca. They were onboard a truck driven by Boloy. On
the way, they were stopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the road.Torres approached
the left side of the truck, went up the truck, and shot Boloy once. After shooting, two persons
armed with guns appeared from nowhere and approached the back of the truck and told them to
lie face downward.The two persons came from the portion where bamboos grew by the side of
the road. Afterwards the men ran towards the mountainside with the victims bag
containingP500,000.00, The victims necklace, ring and his wristwatch.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is liable of robbery with homicide?
RULING: Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime against property. Homicide is
incidental to the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. In charging robbery with
homicide, the onus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of
violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is
characterized with animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof,
the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed. The phrase "by
reason" covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another, as
long as the motive of the offender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprive the victim
of his personal property which is sought to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or
opposition or in killing a person after the robbery to do away with a witness or to defend the
possession of the stolen property. Thus, it matters not that the victim was killed prior to the
taking of the personal properties of the victim. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that
there be a direct relation and intimate connection between robbery and killing, whether both
crimes be committed at the same time.
Special complex crime or composite crime is made up of more than one crime, but which in the
eyes of the law warrants a single indivisible offense. They are regarded as a special species of
complex crime because there is one specific penalty imposed.

The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no evidence of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances against or in favor of appellant, the lower of the two
indivisible penalties shall be imposed, without the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
WHEREFORE, DANILO TORRES Y IRADIEL, guilty of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.