RPC, Art.

17-100, PAGE 1

Article 17:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILFREDO TALLA et.al
G.R. No. L-44414, January 18, 1990
Facts:
The two accused, conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, armed with
a firearm locally known as "pugakhang" without any justifiable motive, with treachery
and evident premeditation, and with a decided purpose to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one ERNESTO MADERSE.
Inflicting upon said Ernesto Maderse gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body which
caused his death thereafter.
The Court finds Wilfredo Talla guilty of the crime of murder. While, the accused
Jolito Talla is acquitted of the offense charged.
Accused-appellant further argues that, although the witness may have seen him
and his brother at the scene of the crime, he could not have seen him actually shoot
Ernesto considering that the place was full of talahib, tall grass and big stones enough to
hide people. He added that since Ernesto suffered eight (8) gunshot wounds, it is
probable that other persons had also shot him right after the first shot, even assuming
that the latter shot was fired by him (appellant) or his brother.
Issue:
Whether or Not the court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder.
Ruled:
No. Even though, the Court is convinced that it was not the appellant who fired the
fatal shot. And although appellant did not pull the trigger, his actual presence, and his
act of pointing a gun towards Ernesto and their act of fleeing together when Ernesto who
fell down after the shot fired by Jolito, are all indicative of an existing conspiracy between
him and his brother. Their acts show a unity of purpose and unity in the execution of
their unlawful objective. No conclusion can be drawn from the acts of appellant except
that he consented and approved the act of his brother in firing upon Ernesto. It is well
settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between
them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of
the crime charged. Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly to commit the felony and forthwith to pursue it. Once the assent is established
each and every one of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually
committed by anyone of them. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is
AFFIRMED in toto.
______
Vino vs. People
GR no. 84163 October 19, 1989
FACTS:
Roberto Tejada while on his way home on the night of March 21, 1985, had been
shot with a gun allegedly by Jessie Salazar. Upon hearing 2 gunshots, the father of
Roberto ran towards outside of the house and saw Roberto was crying for help.
In that moment, Robertos father and brother saw Vino driving the bicycle while
Salazar was riding on it carrying an armalite/gun. Roberto was brought to the hospital
but later on died.
Vino and Salazar were charged with murder, however on January 21, 1986, the trial
court rendered decision finding Vino guilty as an accessory, while Salazar was tried
separately but later on acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution
failed to establish the identity of Salazar as the perpetrator.
ISSUE:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 2

1 Whether or not Vino can thereafter be convicted as an accessory in as much as

he was charged in the information as principal for the crime of murder.
2 Whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result
of the separate charge against the principal.
3 Whether or not the conviction of Vino as an accessory be maintained even the
alleged principal was acquitted.
HELD:
First Issue:
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. While the petitioner was being
held responsible as principal in the information but the evidence adduced however
showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. This was being corroborated
by the witnesses, when they seen Vino who was driving the bicycle while the alleged
assailant riding on it carrying a gun/armalite. This clearly shows that Vino assisted the
assailant in his escape. Therefore he is liable for the crime as an accessory.
Second Issue:
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The corresponding responsibilities
of the principal, accomplice and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the
commission of the offense is duly established in evidence, the determination of liability
of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal.
Third Issue:
The Supreme Court held that the identity of the assailant is of no material
significance for the purpose of the prosecution of the accessory. What is important is that
the commission of the crime was established. In this case, there was crime committed
and Vino was seen and identified, that he assisted in the escape of the perpetrator.
_____________
Article 17:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILFREDO TALLA et.al
G.R. No. L-44414, January 18, 1990
Misajon, Juvelyn M.
Facts:
The two accused, conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, armed with
a firearm locally known as "pugakhang" without any justifiable motive, with treachery
and evident premeditation, and with a decided purpose to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one ERNESTO MADERSE.
Inflicting upon said Ernesto Maderse gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body which
caused his death thereafter.
The Court finds Wilfredo Talla guilty of the crime of murder. While, the accused
Jolito Talla is acquitted of the offense charged.
Accused-appellant further argues that, although the witness may have seen him
and his brother at the scene of the crime, he could not have seen him actually shoot
Ernesto considering that the place was full of talahib, tall grass and big stones enough to
hide people. He added that since Ernesto suffered eight (8) gunshot wounds, it is
probable that other persons had also shot him right after the first shot, even assuming
that the latter shot was fired by him (appellant) or his brother.
Issue:
Whether or Not the court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder.
Ruled:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 3

No. Even though, the Court is convinced that it was not the appellant who fired the
fatal shot. And although appellant did not pull the trigger, his actual presence, and his
act of pointing a gun towards Ernesto and their act of fleeing together when Ernesto who
fell down after the shot fired by Jolito, are all indicative of an existing conspiracy between
him and his brother. Their acts show a unity of purpose and unity in the execution of
their unlawful objective. No conclusion can be drawn from the acts of appellant except
that he consented and approved the act of his brother in firing upon Ernesto. It is well
settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between
them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of
the crime charged. Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly to commit the felony and forthwith to pursue it. Once the assent is established
each and every one of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually
committed by anyone of them. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is
AFFIRMED in toto.
__________________
Vino vs. People
GR no. 84163 October 19, 1989
Plaza, Mariafe M.
FACTS:
Roberto Tejada while on his way home on the night of March 21, 1985, had been
shot with a gun allegedly by Jessie Salazar. Upon hearing 2 gunshots, the father of
Roberto ran towards outside of the house and saw Roberto was crying for help.
In that moment, Robertos father and brother saw Vino driving the bicycle while
Salazar was riding on it carrying an armalite/gun. Roberto was brought to the hospital
but later on died.
Vino and Salazar were charged with murder, however on January 21, 1986, the trial
court rendered decision finding Vino guilty as an accessory, while Salazar was tried
separately but later on acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution
failed to establish the identity of Salazar as the perpetrator.
ISSUE:
(1)Whether or not Vino can thereafter be convicted as an accessory in as much as
he was charged in the information as principal for the crime of murder.
(2)Whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result
of the separate charge against the principal.
(3)Whether or not the conviction of Vino as an accessory be maintained even the
alleged principal was acquitted.
HELD:
First Issue:
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. While the petitioner was being
held responsible as principal in the information but the evidence adduced however
showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. This was being corroborated
by the witnesses, when they seen Vino who was driving the bicycle while the alleged
assailant riding on it carrying a gun/armalite. This clearly shows that Vino assisted the
assailant in his escape. Therefore he is liable for the crime as an accessory.
Second Issue:
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The corresponding responsibilities
of the principal, accomplice and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the
commission of the offense is duly established in evidence, the determination of liability
of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal.
Third Issue:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 4

The Supreme Court held that the identity of the assailant is of no material
significance for the purpose of the prosecution of the accessory. What is important is that
the commission of the crime was established. In this case, there was crime committed
and Vino was seen and identified, that he assisted in the escape of the perpetrator.
_____________________
People v. Nunag
G.R. No. L-54445, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 274
Lopena, Maria Lourdes M.
Facts:
Accused-appellants Nunag, Mandap, Salangsang, Carpio, and Manalili were charged
before the CFI of Pampanga with the crime of rape with the aggravating circumstance of
night time. The complainant, Lorenza Lopez, then about fifteen years old, declared that
in May 1978, as she was watching a television program in the house of her neighbor
Carmen Laxamana, the accused Mario Nunag came towards her, staggering and
appearing to be drunk. Nunag asked her to go with him. But she refused, so that Nunag
held her by the hand and poked a knife at her stomach and threatened to kill her. Nunag
then placed something in her mouth and led her to a nearby ricefield, behind the house
of Laxamana. Thereafter, they were joined by the other four accused-appellants who
held hands and feet, and forced her on the ground. She struggled to free herself, but the
accused held her tightly. Nunag then had sexual intercourse with her followed by
Mandap. After Mandap had finished, she lost consciousness and regained it while Manalili
was abusing her. The five accused warned her not to report the incident to anybody,
otherwise, they would kill her, her parents and brothers. After the incident, the
complainant got pregnant and only then did she tell her mother and brothers that she
was raped by the five accused-appellants. Several months after, she gave birth
prematurely to female twins who both died after a few hours. During trial, all the
accused-appellants denied the charge of rape. Nunag, Salangsang and Manalili admitted
having sexual intercourse with Lopez on her initiation on three separate instances.
Carpio and Mandap on the other hand, denied having sexual intercourse with the
complainant at any time. However, the trial judge found the accused guilty of the
charge. From this judgment, all the five (5) accused appealed to SC assailing the trial
court for giving credence to the testimony of the complainant, which they claim to be
concocted and fraught with irreconcilable contradictions.
Issue:
Whether or not each accused is guilty of five (5) distinct and separate crimes of rape.
Held:
No. There is no conclusive evidence that the accused-appellants Carpio and Salangsang
had sexual intercourse with complainant Lopez, who narrated that she lost
consciousness after the second man, Arnel Mandap (the first being Mario Nunag) had
sexually abused her and only regained consciousness while Diosdado Manalili was
abusing her sexually, and that she merely assumed that Danilo Carpio and Efren
Salangsang had also sexually abused her because they were in the company of the three
(3) accused. Therefore, each of the five (5) accused-appellants must be found guilty of
three (3) distinct and separate crimes of rape, the first three, namely, Mario Nunag, Arnel
Mandap and Diosdado Manalili, by direct act and participation and the other two, namely
Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang, by indispensable cooperation.
People v Dela Cerna (21 SCRA 569, 1967)
Ignacio, Jacqueline Leslie
People v Dela Cruz (97 SCRA 385, 1980)
Jalinao, Laarni
People v. Montealegre
G.R. No. L-67948
May 31, 1988

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 5

Ceballos, Jesus C.
Facts:
While the victim was in the process of arresting the accused and Capalad for smoking
marijuana, the accused and Capalad suddenly attacked the victim. Capalad stabbed the
victim while the accused held the hands of the victim. The lower court convicted the
accused for complex crime of murder being a principal by indispensable cooperation.
Issue:
WON the lower court was correct in finding the accused guilty of murder as a
principal.
Held:
Yes, the lower court was correct. The act of the accused in holding both hands of the
victim prevented him from reaching his sidearm and defend himself from the duo,
without which the crime would not have been accomplished making him a principal by
indispensable cooperation under Art. 17 par. 3 of the RPC.
_____________________
People v Hernandez
GR 6025-26; July 18, 1956
Facts:
Defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of Congress of Labor
Organizations. CLO is an affiliate of Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, a known group
performing rebellious activities. Hernandez was charged and convicted of the crime of
rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robbery and was sentenced to life
imprisonment. Prosecution maintains that capital punishment may be imposed for the
crime he was convicted of. Defense contends that there is no complex crime in the crime
of rebellion. It was deemed best not to disturb the course of action taken by the lower
court, which denied bail to Hernandez, hence the motion to post bail.
Issue:
Whether or not equal protection was observed in the administration of justice?
Decision:
Motion for bail granted. The ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and,
hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately there from.
Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a
punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In
directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case, imposed in its
maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty
lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The
reason for this benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily discernible. When two or more
crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he
commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each
crime independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the
more serious one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the
separate penalties for each offense.
__________________
Enrile vs Salazar
G.R. No. 92163; June 5, 1990
Facts:
In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile
was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National
Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941. The
warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a panel of
prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor
Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging
Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 6

crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed
during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990.
Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue,
Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed
in the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp
Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to the custody of the
Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres. On the
same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for
habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on March 2,
1990), alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from an
offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the
second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code?
Held:
There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the Penal
Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion,
and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the
following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of
rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period,
depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of
prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the
absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon
him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in
the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in
conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.
__________________
Enrile vs. Amin
G.R. No. 93335; September 13, 1990
Facts:
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged as having committed rebellion complexed with
murder. Another separate information was filed against petitioner for violation of PD
1829 when he allegedly harbored and concealed Ex-Lt. Col. Gregorio Honasan in his
house during a mass and party on December 1, 1989.
On March 2, 1990, petitioner filed an omnibus motion but was denied. A motion for
reconsideration and to quash/dismiss the information was filed, but was again denied.
In return, Sen. Enrile, filed for certiorari on the Supreme Court imputing grave abuse of
discretion committed by the respondent court on the following grounds: (a) the facts do
not constitute an offense; (b) the alleged harboring of Honasan is absorbed in complexed
rebellion; (c) that justice requires only one prosecution for all the components of
rebellion; (d) no probable cause for the violation of PD 1829; and (e) no preliminary
investigation was conducted for the alleged violation of PD 1829.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner could be separately charged for violation of PD 1829
notwithstanding the rebellion case earlier filed against him.
Held:
NO. The Court held that the petitioner cannot be tried separately under PD 1829 in
addition to his being prosecuted in the rebellion case.
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code says that 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 also held the ruling in the light of Hernandez doctrine where all crimes, whether
punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere components or
ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of
rebellion and cannot be isolated as separate crimes in themselves.
________________

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 7

People vs. Yabut

G.R. Nos. 115719-26; October 5, 1999 :
THE FACTS:
Appellant Yabut was charged with 8 counts of estafa and illegal recruitment in large
scale. The trial court acquitted him of the 8 counts of estafa but convicted him of illegal
recruitment in large scale. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court.
THE ISSUE
May the appellant be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal
of the crime of estafa?
THE RULING
[The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction of the appellant of the crime of ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT in large scale.] YES, the appellant be convicted of illegal recruitment in
large scale despite his acquittal of the crime of estafa. In this jurisdiction, it is settled
that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately
of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the
criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se
where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses
under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.
Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code
does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that
one's acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa
_______________
People v Hernandez
GR 6025-26; July 18, 1956
Facts:
Defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of Congress of Labor
Organizations. CLO is an affiliate of Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, a known group
performing rebellious activities. Hernandez was charged and convicted of the crime of
rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robbery and was sentenced to life
imprisonment. Prosecution maintains that capital punishment may be imposed for the
crime he was convicted of. Defense contends that there is no complex crime in the crime
of rebellion. It was deemed best not to disturb the course of action taken by the lower
court, which denied bail to Hernandez, hence the motion to post bail.
Issue:
Whether or not equal protection was observed in the administration of justice?
Decision:
Motion for bail granted. The ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and,
hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately there from.
Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a
punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In
directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case, imposed in its
maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty
lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The
reason for this benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily discernible. When two or more
crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he
commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each
crime independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the
more serious one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the
separate penalties for each offense.
___________________
Enrile vs Salazar
G.R. No. 92163; June 5, 1990
Facts:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 8

In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile
was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National
Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941. The
warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a panel of
prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor
Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging
Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the
crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed
during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990.
Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue,
Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed
in the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp
Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to the custody of the
Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres. On the
same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for
habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on March 2,
1990), alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from an
offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the
second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code?
Held:
There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the Penal
Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion,
and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the
following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of
rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period,
depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of
prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the
absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon
him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in
the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in
conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.
_________
COMPLEX CRIME
People of the R.P. vs. Castromero
G.R.No. 118992
09October1997
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Celerino Castromero was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape with Serious Physical Injuries sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. That
on the February 26, 1993 at about 2am in the province of Batangas Philippines, the
accused armed with a balisong wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge
w/ the offended party Josephine Baon against her will and consent and as a consequence
thereof she suffered serious physical injuries, by jumping down through the 2nd floor
window of her house.
Castromero and Baon are relatives. Josephine Baon's husband is the second-cousin of
Castromero. They were neighbors wherein their houses are located a mere 50 meters
apart. During the incident Castromero's penis due to their movement sideways was able
to touch Baon's private parts. When Baon, noticed that Castromero was no longer
holding the knife she tried to escape by pushing him off and jumping through the 2nd flr
window. Upon falling down she yelled for help wherein her in laws came out to help her
and bring her to the hospital, as she was experiencing intense pain.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Can the accused be charge of a complex crime of rape with serious physical injuries?
HELD:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 9

JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED APPELANT CASTROMERO IS GUILTY

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.
Well settled is the principle that the mere touching of the external genitalia of the penis
capable of consummating a sexual act constitutes carnal knowledge. This case Rape was
consummated, because sexual assault was perpetrated by force and intimidation. In
relation to the charge that rape was complexed with the crime of serious physical
injuries, we stress the settled principle that a person who creates in anothers mind an
immediate sense of danger that causes the latter to try to escape is responsible for
whatever the other person may consequently suffer. In this case, Josephine jumped from
a window of her house to escape from Appellant Castromero; as a result, she suffered
serious physical injuries, specifically a broken vertebra which required medical attention
and surgery for more than ninety days. This being the case, the court a quo correctly
convicted Appellant Castromero of the complex crime of rape with serious physical
injuries.
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.
_________________
PEOPLE V. COMADRE
(GR 153559, 2004)
FACTS:
August 6, 1995 at around 7:00 in the evening while the victims were having a
drinking spree, the above-named accused lobbed a hand grenade that landed and
eventually exploded at the roof of the house of Jaime Agbanlog trajecting deadly
shrapnels that hit and killed one ROBERT AGBANLOG, and causing Jerry Bullanday, Jimmy
Wabe, Lorenzo Eugenio, Rey Camat, Emelita Agbanlog and Elena Agbanlog to suffer
shrapnel wounds on their bodies.
On trial, accused-appellants denied their participation and presence in the
grenade-throwing incident.
RTC: Found accused Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple
Attempted Murder and sentencing them to suffer the imposable penalty of death;
Hence, automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE: WON the court erred on imposing upon the accused-appellants the supreme
penalty of death despite the evident lack of the quantum of evidence to convict them of
the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:
No. 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.

The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may quantitatively

constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 10

criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single
penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a single criminal impulse which
shows his lesser degree of perversity.

Under the aforecited article (ART. 48), when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period irrespective of the presence of modifying
circumstances, including the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery in this case.
Applying the aforesaid provision of law, the maximum penalty for the most
serious crime (murder) is death. The trial court, therefore, correctly imposed
the death penalty
_________________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MELECIO ROBIOS y DOMINGO
G.R. No. 138453. May 29, 2002
Facts :
That on or about March 25, 1995 at around 7:00 a.m. in Brgy. San Isidro, Municipality of
Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused Melecio Robinos, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously stab by means of a bladed knife 8 inches long, his legitimate wife Lorenza
Robinos, who was, then six (6) months pregnant causing the instantaneous death of said
Lorenza Robinos, and the fetus inside her womb
RTC: Found accused Melecio Robios guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex
crime of parricide with unintentional abortion, this Court hereby renders judgment
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of DEATH by lethal injection
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in sentencing the accused-appellant of Death
Penalty
Held :
Yes , it nonetheless erred in imposing the death penalty on appellant.It imposed
the maximum penalty without considering the presence or the absence of aggravating
and mitigating circumstances. The imposition of the capital penalty was not only
baseless, but contrary to the rules on the application of penalties as provided in the
Revised Penal Code. Even the Office of the Solicitor General concedes this error in the
imposition of the death penalty.
Since appellant was convicted of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion, the penalty to be imposed on him should be that for the graver offense which is
parricide. This is in accordance with the mandate of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code,
which states:
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, x x x, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, x x x.
The law on parricide, as amended by RA 7659, is punishable with reclusion perpetua
to death. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible
penalties, the court is mandated to impose one or the other, depending on the presence
or the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The rules with respect to
the application of a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties are prescribed by
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the pertinent portion of which is quoted as follows:
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties,
the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
2.When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of
the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Hence, when the penalty provided by law is either of two indivisible penalties and
there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lower penalty shall be

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 11

imposed. Considering that neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances were

established in this case, the imposable penalty should only be reclusion perpetua.
Indeed, because the crime of parricide is not a capital crime per se, it is not always
punishable with death. The law provides for the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death -- two indivisible penalties, the application of either one of which depends on the
presence or the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
_________________
Article 48: Complex Crimes
Kinds of Complex Crimes
Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. LEONITO MACAGALING
G.R. Nos. 109131-33 October 3, 1994
Facts: On July 19, 1991, accused-appellant Leonito Macagaling was charged with the
crimes of murder and homicide and, on October 29, 1991, an additional charge was filed
for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. These cases were filed following the
incident on the occasion of the barangay fiesta. The accused, using a gun, fired at his
own nephew Dennis Macagaling. The accused missed his target and hit one Teotimo
Fameronag instead. He then pursued his target and killed him in the process. Accussed
pleaded not guilty in all circumstances and claimed self-defense instead. However, the
Trial Court ruled against the accused-appellant finding him guilty as charged. Hence this
appeal.
Issue: WON the cases against the accused were correctly filed and appreciated.
Ruling:
For the killing of Teotimo Fameronag, it cannot be said to be accidental as it was the
result of an aberratio ictus, or miscarriage of the blow. As a matter of law, since such
death resulted from a culpable aberratio ictus, appellant should be punished under
Article 48, in relation to Article 4, of the Revised Penal Code. Having committed
attempted homicide as against Dennis Macagaling and consummated homicide with
respect to Teotimo Fameronag when he fired the first shot, appellant committed two
grave felonies with one single act and, accordingly, he would be liable for a complex
crime in the nature of a delito compuesto, or a compound crime. However, not having
been so charged, he cannot be convicted of a complex crime. Hence the court below did
not err in finding him guilty of simple homicide.
_________________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ELADIO BALOTOL
G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949
FACT:
The appellant saw Potenciano Sabasido at a cockpit in the barrio of Silaga, Sabasido was
standing outside the ring close behind Bernardino Lacambra. The appellant approached
Sabasido from behind and stabbed him with a bolo in the back. The weapon pierced thru
the body of Sabasido at the abdominal region and wounded Lacambra also. Sabasido fell
face downward and the appellant stabbed him again in the back near the right shoulder,
the bolo again piercing thru his body. Sabasido died instantaneously and Lacambra,
seven days later.
ISSUE:
WON the crime committed was double murder.
HELD:
Yes. The crime committed by the appellant was double murder, defined and penalized in
article 248, in relation to article 48, of the Revised Penal Code. Article 48 provides that
when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 12

The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Since
under article 48 this penalty must be applied in its maximum period, the appellant
should be sentenced to death. However, in view of the lack of the necessary number of
votes to impose the death penalty, we are constrained to apply the penalty next lower in
degree, which is life imprisonment.
_____________
Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v. People and Sato
G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010
FACTS:
William Sato, the son-in-law of Manolita Carungcong (who was already 79 years old and
blind). induced the latter to sign and thumbmark an SPA in favor of his daughter. Wendy.
The old woman believed that the SPA involved only her taxes, while in fact, it authorized
Wendy, to sell Manolitas properties.
As a defense, the accused applies Art 332 of the Revised Penal Code. He cites that
he falls under the enumeration of those relatives who shall be exempt from criminal
prosecution. Being a relative by affinity, he cannot be held liable for the crime of estafa
as stated in the law.
He further said that the death of his spouse though dissolved the marriage with
the accused, did not on the other hand dissolve the mother-in-law and son-in-law
relationship between Sato and his wifes mother, Manolita.
ISSUES:
Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his
relationship to Manolita.
HELD:
No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies
to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the
State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the
offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to hold
the offender civilly liable.
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned
therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that it
applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It
does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with
another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the
offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief
and considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by the offender
against certain family members as a private matter and therefore subject only to civil
liability. The waiver does not apply when the violation of the right to property is achieved
through (and therefore inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public interest in
the integrity and presumed authenticity of public documents. For, in the latter instance,
what is involved is no longer simply the property right of a family relation but a
paramount public interest.
___________________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. IRINEO TUMLOS
G.R. No. L-46428, April 13, 1939
A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is defined as a single crime,
consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there
is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed; hence, only one penalty shall be
imposed.
Facts:
On or about November 21, 1937, eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and five
belonging to his son-in-law, Ambrosio Pecasis, then grazing together in the barrio of
Libong-cogon, municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo, were taken by Tumlos, the
defendant without the consent of their respective owners. The deputy fiscal of Iloilo filed
on July 11, 1938, an information against the said defendant for the offense of theft of the
eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega, which resulted in his being sentenced on

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 13

July 15, 1938, to an indeterminate penalty of from one year, eight months and twentyone days to five years, five months and eleven days of prision correccional, with the
accessories prescribed by law and costs. In the information filed in the present case the
same defendant is charged with the theft of five cows belonging to Ambrosio Pecasis,
committed on November 21, 1937, the date of the commission of the theft to the eight
cows of Maximiano Sobrevega were charged to the previous information.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant is charged with continued crime under the Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code?
Rulings:
Yes. The theft of the thirteen cows committed by the defendant took place at the same
time and in the same place; consequently, he performed but one act. The fact that eight
of said cows pertained to one owner and five to another does not make him criminally
liable for two distinct offenses. The intention was likewise one, namely, to take for the
purpose of appropriating or selling the thirteen cows which he found grazing in the same
place. As neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division, the offense
arising from the concurrence of its two constituent elements cannot be divided, it being
immaterial that the subject matter of the offense is singular or plural, because whether
said subject matter be one or several animate or inanimate objects, it is but one.
Therefore, as the five cows alleged to be stolen by Irineo Tumlos were integral parts of
the thirteen cows which were the subject matter of theft, and as he had already been
tried for and convicted of the theft of the other five.
__________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
ELIAS JARANILLA, RICARDO SUYO, and FRANCO BRILLANTES
GR.No. L-28547 February 22, 1974
AQUINO, J.:
FACTS:
At around eleven o'clock in the evening of January 9, 1966, Ricardo Suyo, Elias Jaranilla
and Franco Brillantes hailed Gorriceta who was driving a Ford pickup truck. Jaranilla
requested to bring them to Mandurriao, a district in another part of Ilo-ilo City.
Upon reaching Mandurriao, Gorriceta parked the truck at a distance of about fifty to
seventy meters from the provincial hospital.Jaranilla instructed Gorriceta to wait for
them. Ricardo Suyo, Elias Jaranilla and Franco Brillantestook away the 6 fighting cocks
from the door of one cock pens or chicken coops of ValentinBaylon. The coop was made
of bamboo and wood with nipa roofing which was locked by means of nails. They ran to
the truck and Jaranilla directed Gorriceta to start the truck because they were being
chased. Gorriceta drove the truck to Jaro, another district of the city, on the same route
that they had taken in going to Mandurriao.
While the truck was traversing the detour road near the Mandurriao airport, Gorriceta
saw in the middle of the road Patrolmen RamonitoJabatan and Benjamin Castro ordering
them to stop the truck, Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot Patrolman Jabatan. The shooting
frightened Gorriceta. He immediately started the motor of the truck and drove straight
home to La Paz, another district of the city.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner is charged with continued crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code
Held:
Yes,the petitioner is charged with continued crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code. There is no evidence that in taking the six roosters from their coop or cages in the
yard of Baylon's house violence against or intimidation of persons was employed.
Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from their coop should be characterized as theft.
The assumption is that the accused were animated by single criminal impulse. The
conduct of the accused reveals that they conspired to steal the roosters. The taking is
punishable as a single offense of theft. Thus, it was held that the taking of two roosters
in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes of theft.
With respect to the killing of Patrolman Jabatan, it has already been noted that the
evidence for the prosecution points to Jaranilla as the malefactor who shot that

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 14

unfortunate peace officer. The killing was homicide because it was made on the spur of
the moment. The treacherous mode of attack was not consciously or deliberately
adopted by the offender.It is not reasonable to assume that the killing of any peace
officer, who would forestall the theft or frustrate appellants' desire to enjoy the fruits of
the crime, was part of their plan.
_________________
Santiago vs Garchitorena
G.R. No. 109266
December, 2 1993
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Puno,
JJ., concur.
Facts:
On May 1, 1991, petitioner Santiago was charged by the Sandiganbayan with violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by her favoring "unqualified" aliens with the
benefits of the Alien Legalization Program.
On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the
Sandiganbayan from proceeding with criminal case on the ground that said case was
intended solely to harass her as she was then a presidential candidate. She alleged that
this was in violation of Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution which provides that
"(b)ona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment
and discrimination." The petition was dismissed on January 13, 1992.
On October 16, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice
Garchitorena, which motion was set for hearing on November 13, 1992. ten days after,
the Sandiganbayan (First Division), of which Presiding Justice Garchitorena is a member,
set the criminal case for arraignment on November 13, 1992. On November 6, 1992,
petitioner moved to defer the arraignment on the grounds that there was a pending
motion for inhibition, and that petitioner intended to file a motion for a bill of particulars.
However, on November 9, 1992, the Sandiganbayan (First Division) denied the motion to
defer the arraignment.
More so, the petitioner cannot accept the legal morality of Sandiganbayan Justice Francis
Garchitorena who would her from going abroad for a Harvard scholarship because of
graft charges against her. It appears that petitioner tried to leave the country without
first securing the permission of the Sandiganbayan, prompting it to issue the holddeparture order which. The letter of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, written in defense of
the dignity and integrity of the Sandiganbayan, merely stated that all persons facing
criminal charges in court, with no exception, have to secure permission to leave the
country.
The court issued the Resolution dated March 25, 1993, ordering Presiding Justice
Garchitorena "to CEASE and DESIST from sitting in the case until the question of his
disqualification is finally resolved by this Court and from enforcing the resolution dated
March 11, 1993, ordering petitioner to post bail bonds for the 32 Amended Informations
and from proceeding with the arraignment on
April 12, 1993.
Issue:
(a) Whether the petitioner is charged with continued crime (delito continuado) under
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code?
Held:
The 32 Amended Informations charged to the petitioner is known as delito continuado or
"continued crime" and sometimes referred to as "continuous crime." In fairness to the
Ombudsman's Office of the Special Prosecutor, it should be borne in mind that the

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 15

concept of delito continuado has been a vexing problem in Criminal Law difficult as it
is to define and more difficult to apply.
The concept of delito continuado, although an outcry of the Spanish Penal Code, has
been applied to crimes penalized under special laws, e.g. violation of R.A. No. 145
penalizing the charging of fees for services rendered following up claims for war
veteran's benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156 [1964] ). Under Article 10 of the
Revised Penal Code, the Code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter
provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be
applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws.
In the case at bench, the original information charged petitioner with performing a single
criminal act that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not qualified
under the law to enjoy such privilege. The original information also averred that the
criminal act : (i) committed by petitioner was in violation of a law - Executive Order No.
324 dated April 13, 1988, (ii) caused an undue injury to one offended party, the
Government, and (iii) was done on a single day, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988.
The Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan
(First Division) is affirmed and its Resolution dated March 11, 1993 in Criminal Case No.
16698 is modified in the sense that the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of
the Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32 Amended Informations (Criminal Cases
Nos. 18371 to 18402) into one information charging only one offense under the original
case number, i.e., No. 16698. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on
March 25, 1993 is lifted insofar as to the disqualification of Presiding Justice Francis
Garchitorena is concerned.
_____________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ASIA MUSA y PINASALO, ARA MONONGAN y
PAPAO, FAISAH ABAS y MAMA, and MIKE SOLALO y MILOK
G.R. No. 199735
October 24, 2012
FACTS:
Information charged the accused Aisa Musa y Pinasilo (Musa), Ara Monongan y
Papao, Faisah Abas y Mama (Abas), and Mike Solano y Mlok (Solano) with the following:
That, on or about the 1st day of June, 2004 in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, in conspiracy with one another and acting as an organized or syndicated crime
group, without being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell and give away to one PO1 Rey Memoracion one (1) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 4.05 grams of white crystalline substance, which
was found positive for Methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as "shabu", a
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the penalty imposed was proper in the case at bar.
HELD
Yes. The February 28, 2011 CA Decision CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03758 finding accusedappellants guilty of violating Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 is hereby affirmed with
modifications that: (a) accused-appellant Ara Monongan y Papao is sentenced to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum; and (b) each of the accused-appellants shall pay a fine
in the amount of five hundred thousand pesos (PhP 500,000).
_____________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENE ESCARES
G.R. Nos. L-11128-33, December 23, 1957
FACTS:
On September 13, 1950, six separate informations for robbery were filed against
Salvador Poblador, Armando Gustillo and Rene Escares. Rene Escares was still at large

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 16

when these cases were called for hearing on March 2, 1951, by agreement of the parties,
they were tried jointly against Salvador Poblador and Armando Gustillo and they were
found guilty of the crimes charged.
On April 21, 1954, Rene Escares was arraigned and pleaded not guilty in each of
the six above-mentioned cases but later he asked permission to withdraw his former plea
of not guilty and substitute it for a plea of guilty. The trial court granted the petition and
sentenced him to twelve (12) years, six (6) months, and one (1) day in all the cases, with
all the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs.
Rene Escares appealed from the decision; his appeal refers to the penalty imposed.
He contended that since he pleaded guilty to all the crimes charged and there is no
aggravating circumstance to offset it, the penalty to be imposed on him should be
reduced to the minimum.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court properly imposed the penalty upon the appellant.
HELD:
It should be noted that the imposable penalty in each of the six cases where
appellant pleaded guilty in accordance with paragraph 5, Article 294, of the Revised
Penal Code, is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period, which should be applied in its minimum period in view of the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty, not offset by any aggravating circumstance, or from 4
years 2 months and 1 day to 6 years one month and 10 days. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant should be sentenced for each crime to an
indeterminate penalty the minimum of which shall not be less than 4 months and 1 day
of arresto mayor nor more than 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, and the
maximum shall not be less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional nor
more than 6 years 1 month and 10 days of prision mayor. But in applying the proper
penalty, the trial court imposed upon appellant the three-fold rule provided for in
paragraph 4 of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. This is an error for said article can
only be taken into account, not in the imposition of the penalty, but in connection with
the service of the sentence imposed.
The penalty imposed upon appellant by the trial court should therefore be modified
in the sense that he should suffer in each of the six cases an indeterminate penalty of
not less than 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor and not more than 4 years 2 months
and 1 day of prision correccional, plus the corresponding accessory penalties provided
for by law. These penalties should be served in accordance with the limitation prescribed
in paragraph 4, Article 70, of the Revised Penal Code.
_______________
ARTURO A. MEJORADA vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. Nos. L-51065-72, June 30, 1987
FACTS:
Arturo Mejorada was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section3(E)
of RA. 3019, aka Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Mejorada was a right-away agent
whose duty was to process the claims for compensation of damage
of property owners affected by highway construction and improvements. He required the
claimants to sign blank copies of Sworn Statements and Agreements to Demolish, where
it appeared that the properties of the claimants have higher values than the actual value
being claimed by them. However, the claimants did not bother reading through the
paper because they very much interested in the compensation of damages. After
processing the claims, instead of giving to the claimants the proper amount, Mejorada
gave one of them Php 5,000 and the rest, Php 1,000 each, saying that there are many
who would share in said amounts. The claimants werent able to complain because they
were afraid of the accused and his armed companion. The Sandiganbayan
sentenced Mejorada 56 years and8 years of imprisonment which is equivalent to the
eight (8) penalties for the eight (8) informations filed against him. Contention of the
State: Section 3 of RA 3019 states that Mejorada should be punished with imprisonment
for not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years as stated in Sec 9 of the same Act. In
this case, there are 8 charges against him and each charge should be served with the

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 17

penalty prescribed by the law. Contention of the Accused: Mejorada states that the
penalty imposed upon him is contrary to the three-fold rule and states that the duration
should not exceed 40years. This is in accordance to Article 70 of the RPC.
ISSUE:
WON the penalty imposed upon him violates the three-fold rule under Article 70 of
the RPC.
RULING:
The Court favors the State. Article 70 of the RPC does not state anything about the
imposition of penalty. It only explains the service of sentence, duration of penalty
and penalty to be inflicted.
It should be interpreted that the accused
cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of these penalties the
maximum of which is forty (40) years. As stated in a previous case, The courts can still
impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses committed, since
for every individual crime committed, a corresponding penalty is prescribed by law.
With these reasons, Mejorada cannot correctly contend that his penalty is excessive.
There are eight charges against him and each has an equivalent penalty as prescribed
by RA 3019, thus, Sandiganbayan has imposed the correct penalty.
_______________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO BON
G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006
FACTS:
Eight (8) Informations were filed within the period 21 August 2000 to 23 February
2001 by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Gumaca, Quezon against Alfredo Bon
(appellant), charging him with the rape of AAA and BBB, the daughters of his older
brother. All these cases were consolidated for trial. The rapes were alleged to have been
committed in several instances over a span of six (6) years. Both AAA and BBB testified
against appellant, their uncle, and both identified him as the man who had raped them.
The RTC convicted appellant on all eight (8) counts of rape. It further considered
the qualifying circumstances of minority of the victims and the relationship of the victims
and appellant, the latter being the former's relative by consanguinity within the third
degree.
The Court of Appeals downgraded the convictions in Criminal Case Nos. 6906 and
6908 to attempted rape. The sentence was prescribed by the appellate court prior to the
enactment of R.A. No. 9346 which ended the imposition of death penalty. The proximate
concern as to the appellant is whether his penalty for attempted qualified rape which
under the penal law should be two degrees lower than that of consummated rape, should
be computed from death or reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:
What is the properly penalty for the crimes convicted?
HELD:
The sentence of death imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals
can no longer be affirmed in view of Rep. Act No. 9346, Section 2 of which mandates
that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.
Correspondingly, the Court can no longer uphold the death sentences imposed by lower
courts, but must, if the guilt of the accused is affirmed, impose instead the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment when appropriate.
Upon the other hand, Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code establishes that the
penalty to be imposed upon the principals of an attempted felony must be a penalty
lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.
The penalty "lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law" for attempted rape
is the prescribed penalty for the consummated rape of a victim duly proven to have been
under eighteen years of age and to have been raped by her uncle, is death under Article
266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The determination of the penalty two degrees lower
than the death penalty entails the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal
Code. Following the scale prescribed in Article 71, the penalty two degrees lower than

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 18

death is reclusion temporal, which was the maximum penalty imposed by the Court of
Appeals on appellant for attempted rape.
Hence, the Court of Appeals sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty for
attempted rape, with a maximum penalty within the range of reclusion temporal, and a
minimum penalty within the range of the penalty next lower, or prision mayor. If Rep. Act
No. 9346 had not been enacted, the Court would have affirmed such sentence without
complication. However, the enactment of the law has given rise to the problem
concerning the imposable penalty. Appellant was sentenced to a maximum term within
reclusion temporal since that is the penalty two degrees lower than death. With the
elimination of death as a penalty, does it follow that appellant should now be sentenced
to a penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua, the highest remaining penalty
with the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9346? If it so followed, appellant would be sentenced
to prision mayor in lieu of reclusion temporal.
The consummated felony previously punishable by death would now be punishable
by reclusion perpetua. At the same time, the same felony in its frustrated stage would,
under the foregoing premise in this section, be penalized one degree lower from death,
or also reclusion perpetua. It does not seem right, of course, that the same penalty of
reclusion perpetua would be imposed on both the consummated and frustrated felony.
Thus, RA 9346 should be construed as having downgraded those penalties
attached to death by reason of the graduated scale under Article 71. Only in that manner
will a clear and consistent rule emerge as to the application of penalties for frustrated
and attempted felonies, and for accessories and accomplices. In the case of appellant,
the determination of his penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned not from two
degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. Hence, the
maximum term of his penalty shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as ruled by the
Court of Appeals, but instead, prison mayor.
____________
PEOPLE v. SARCIA
G.R. No. 169641, September 20, 2009
Facts:
Sometime in 1996, when AAA, then 5 years old, together with her cousin and other
friends were playing in the yard of a neighbor, Richard Sarcia, then allegedly 18 years of
age, appeared and invited AAA to the back of neighbors house. AAA went with Sarcia
where upon reaching the place, the latter removed AAAs to shorts and underwear as he
also removed his trousers and brief. Thereafter, Sarcia ordered AAA to lie on her back
and he then lay on top of her and inserted his penis into AAAs private organ followed by
up-and-down movements. Unknown to Sarcia, the cousin of AAA followed them and
witnessed the acts. Later on, AAA together with her cousin reported the said incident to
her mother. However, it was only after 4 years when AAAs father filed for acts of
lasciviousness against Sarcia.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Sarcia of rape against AAA and sentenced him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with civil indemnities. However upon appeal
upon the Court of Appeals, the penalty was thereby increased to death still with
indemnities.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals rightfully increased the penalty imposed upon
Sarcia.
Ruling:
The Court ruled on the negative.
The Court agrees that the governing law at the time of commission of the alleged
rape was Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7569 and
that since it was alleged in the information and proven that the victim was only 5 years
old at that time, the rightful penalty should have been the death penalty. However, the
Court finds the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68 (2)

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 19

of the Revised Penal Code attendant and thus a valid ground for the modification of
penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals.
The Court based its judgment on the fact that since the prosecution was not able
to prove the exact date and time when the rape was committed, it is not certain that the
crime of rape was committed on or after he reached 18 years of age in 1996. It further
held that in assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all
doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter.
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18
years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in
the proper period. For the purpose of determining the proper penalty to be imposed, the
penalty imposed by law shall be taken as the benchmark. Since the death penalty is the
prescribed penalty pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next
lower than that prescribed by law, in reference to Article 71 of the same Code, and ,thus,
the proper imposable penalty against Sarcia is reclusion perpetua.
_________________
People v. Jacinto
G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011
FACTS:
In the evening of January 28, 2003 at about 6 oclock in the evening, FFF, the
father
of
thevictim,AAA, sent his 8 year old daughter CCC to buy cigarettes at the store of Rudy H
atague. AAA followed CCC. When CCC returned without AAA, FFF was not worried as he
thought AAA was watching television at her aunt Rita Lingcays house. Julito Apike went
to the same store at around 6:20 PM to buy a bottle of Tanduay Rum and saw appellant
place AAA on his lap. Julio, Hermie and AAA left the store at the same time, Julito
proceeded to Ritas house while Hermie and AAA to the lower area. AAA was brought
by Hermie to the rice field near the house of spouses Alejandro and Gloria Perocho, there
AAA was made to lie down on the ground, her panties removed and was boxed by the
accused in the chest. Half-naked, accused mounted AAA and made a push and pull
movement causing AAA to cry. Appellant then went to the house of the Perochos while
the victim went home crying. Medico-legal exam revealed hymenal laceration at 5 and 9
oclock. RTC finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced to
reclusion perpetua, a fine of PHP75,000 as rape indemnity and PHP 50,000 as moral
damages. CA on appeal affirmed the lower courts decision with the following
modifications: (1) accused should suffer an indeterminate penalty from 6 years and 1
day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion
temporal as maximum and fined PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral
damages, and PHP 25,000 as exemplary damages.
ISSUE:
Is the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape?
RULING:
Yes, the Court considered three well-entrenched principles: (1) accusation of rape
can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though
innocent, to disprove, (2) testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution, (3) evidence for prosecution must stand on its own merit and not depend on the
weakness of the defense. The Court finds that the testimony of the victim was credible,
natural and convincing as proven by victims positive identification of the accused,
description of what was done to her and how the accused spread her legs, inserted his
penis and made push and pull movements. This was corroborated by medico-legal
findings of hymenal lacerations. Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but imposes a penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and affirms the damages awarded by the CA of PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity,
PHP 75,000 as moral damages and increasing exemplary damages to PHP 30,000.

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 20

Furthermore, in accordance with Section 38 of RA 9344, automatic suspension of

sentence is applied and in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344, accused is confined to
an agricultural camp or other training facility established, maintained, and controlled by
BUCOR in coordination with the DSWD.
____________
CASE DIGEST:
People v. Nunag
G.R. No. L-54445, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 274
PADILLA, J.
Facts:
Accused-appellants Nunag, Mandap, Salangsang, Carpio, and Manalili were charged
before the CFI of Pampanga with the crime of rape with the aggravating circumstance of
night time. The complainant, Lorenza Lopez, then about fifteen years old, declared that
in May 1978, as she was watching a television program in the house of her neighbor
Carmen Laxamana, the accused Mario Nunag came towards her, staggering and
appearing to be drunk. Nunag asked her to go with him. But she refused, so that Nunag
held her by the hand and poked a knife at her stomach and threatened to kill her. Nunag
then placed something in her mouth and led her to a nearby ricefield, behind the house
of Laxamana. Thereafter, they were joined by the other four accused-appellants who
held hands and feet, and forced her on the ground. She struggled to free herself, but the
accused held her tightly. Nunag then had sexual intercourse with her followed by
Mandap. After Mandap had finished, she lost consciousness and regained it while Manalili
was abusing her. The five accused warned her not to report the incident to anybody,
otherwise, they would kill her, her parents and brothers. After the incident, the
complainant got pregnant and only then did she tell her mother and brothers that she
was raped by the five accused-appellants. Several months after, she gave birth
prematurely to female twins who both died after a few hours. During trial, all the
accused-appellants denied the charge of rape. Nunag, Salangsang and Manalili admitted
having sexual intercourse with Lopez on her initiation on three separate instances.
Carpio and Mandap on the other hand, denied having sexual intercourse with the
complainant at any time. However, the trial judge found the accused guilty of the
charge. From this judgment, all the five (5) accused appealed to SC assailing the trial
court for giving credence to the testimony of the complainant, which they claim to be
concocted and fraught with irreconcilable contradictions.
Issue:
Whether or not each accused is guilty of five (5) distinct and separate crimes of rape.
Held:
No. There is no conclusive evidence that the accused-appellants Carpio and Salangsang
had sexual intercourse with complainant Lopez, who narrated that she lost
consciousness after the second man, Arnel Mandap (the first being Mario Nunag) had
sexually abused her and only regained consciousness while Diosdado Manalili was
abusing her sexually, and that she merely assumed that Danilo Carpio and Efren
Salangsang had also sexually abused her because they were in the company of the three
(3) accused. Therefore, each of the five (5) accused-appellants must be found guilty of
three (3) distinct and separate crimes of rape, the first three, namely, Mario Nunag, Arnel
Mandap and Diosdado Manalili, by direct act and participation and the other two, namely
Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang, by indispensable cooperation.
__________
CASE DIGEST
Villaseor and Mesa vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 180700, March 4, 2008
REYES, R.T., J.
Facts:
Petitioners GERARDO R. VILLASEOR and RODEL A. MESA, together with other
officials of the City Engineering Office of Quezon City, are criminally charged before the
5th Division of the Sandiganbayan for the crime of multiple homicide through reckless
imprudence and for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 21

Practices Act). They were also charged administratively with gross negligence, gross
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service.
The charges were in relation to the fire that struck the Quezon City Manor Hotel on
August 18, 2001, resulting in the death of seventy-four (74) people and injuries to scores
of others. Investigation into the tragedy revealed that the hotel was a veritable fire trap.
In two separate Orders in the administrative case, petitioners Villaseor and Mesa were
preventively suspended for a period of six (6) months. And during the pendency of the
criminal case, on the motion of the Ombudsmans Special Prosecutor, the
Sandiganbayan suspended the petitioners for a period of ninety (90) days. Petitioners
opposed8 the motion, contending that they had already been suspended for six (6)
months relative to the administrative case and that any preventive suspension that may
be warranted in the criminal case was already absorbed by the preventive suspension in
the administrative case. But the Sandiganbayan, denied their motion for reconsideration.
Thus, Petitioners seek to annul and set aside the Sandiganbayan 1 Resolution ordering
their suspension.
Issues:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayans suspension of the petitioners in connection with the
pending criminal case is valid.
Held:
Yes. Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, unequivocally provides that the accused
public officials "shall be suspended from office" while the criminal prosecution is pending
in court. It is well-settled that preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019
is mandatory. Imposed during the pendency of proceedings, preventive suspension is not
a penalty in itself. It is merely a measure of precaution so that the employee who is
charged may be separated, for obvious reasons, from office. Thus, preventive suspension
is distinct from the penalty. While the former may be imposed on a respondent during
the investigation of the charges against him, the latter may be meted out to him at the
final disposition of the case. Clearly, there can be no doubt as to the validity of the
Sandiganbayans suspension of petitioners in connection with the pending criminal case
before it. It was merely doing what was required of it by law.
__________