People v. Tabaco of reclusion perpetua for all four murder charges.

of reclusion perpetua for all four murder charges. The trial court explained the single sentence for four murder
G.R. Nos. 100382-100385. March 19, 1997 charges in this wise:
 

FACTS: “Whether or not the criminal cases Nos. 259, 270, 284 and 317, involving the killings of Oscar Tabulog, Jorge
Arreola, Felicito Rigunan and Romeo Regunton, respectively, should have been prosecuted under only one
Information.
The group of the late Mayor Jorge Arreola of Buguey, Cagayan, arrived at the cockpit arena while the  accused
Mario Tabaco was seated on the arm of the bench situated at the lower portion of the arena about more than three
(3) meters away, from the place where the late Mayor and his group were seated when he suddenly without The law provides:
warning or provocation, shot the late mayor Jorge Arreola, with his M-14 rifle, followed by several successive
burst of gunfire, resulting in the shooting to death of  Mayor Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Felicito Rigunan and
Pat. Romeo Regunton, although the latter managed to run passing through the western gate near the gaffers cage Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
but was chased by accused Tabaco. Regunton was later found dead inside the canteen of Mrs. Amparo Go inside
the Octagon cockpit arena.
‘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
Pat. Mariano Retreta of INP Buguey, who was then at the Co’s canteen, saw the accused going out rushing from maximum period. (as amended by Art. No. 400). (Art. 48, Revised Penal Code).’
the cockpit arena, at a distance of one meter. He tried to pacify Tabaco. Meanwhile, Sgt. Benito Raquepo,one of
those assigned to maintain peace and order at the Octagon cockpit arena, who was at the canteen taking snacks,
heard five (5) successive gun reports coming from inside the cockpit arena, and saw the accused Tabaco coming Read as it should be, this article provides for two classes of crimes where a single penalty is to be imposed; first,
from inside the cockpit arena.  They stood face to face holding their rifles and when Tabaco pointed his gun where the single act constitutes two or more g rave or less grave felonies (delito compuesto); and second, when
towards Sgt. Raquepo, Pat. Retreta grappled for the possession of the gun to disarm Tabaco, and in the process, the offense is a necessarily means for committing the other (delito complejo) and/or complex proper (People vs.
the gun went off hitting Sgt. Raquepo and also the late Jorge Siriban who happened to be near Raquepo. Siriban Pineda, 20 SCRA 748).
died on the spot while Raquepo survived his wounds on his legs due to adequate medical treatment.

In the cases at bar, the Provincial Prosecutor filed four (4) separate Informations of murder, which should have
There were other persons injured that evening namely: (1) Antonio Chan injured on his right foot; (2) Salvador been otherwise, as the shooting to death of the four (4) victims should have been prosecuted under one
Berbano injured on his right forearm and on his right abdomen and (3) Rosario Peneyra on his face and right information, involving four (4) murder victims.
shoulder. But, the three, did not file their complaints.”

The evidence shows that the four (4) victims were FELLED by one single shot/burst of fire and/or successive
After trial, the court a quo, in a joint decision, found accused-appellant guilty as charged on all counts. 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).
ISSUES:

Paraphrasing a more recent decision of the Supreme Court, we say — as the deaths of Oscar Tahulog, Jorge
1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crimes charged. Arreola, Felicito Rigunan and Romeo Regunton, were the result of one single act of the accused Mario Tabaco,
2. Whether the trial court was in error in imposing only a single penalty of reclusion perpetua for all the penalty — is the penalty imposed for the more serious offense.
four murder cases.
3. What penalties shall be imposed?
The more serious offense is murder, the killing have been attended by TREACHERY because the victims were
completely taken by surprise and had no means of defending themselves against Mario Tabaco’s sudden attack.
RULING:
The penalty is imposable in its maximum degree, but as the death penalty is no longer permitted the same is
hereby reduced to a single penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for the four (4) murders.

1.After a careful examination of the records, we find no ground or reason to set aside or disturb the trial court’s
assessment of credibility of the eyewitnesses when they testified pointing to accused-appellant as the assailant in
Accordingly,  for homicide with Frustrated Homicide and it appearing also that the death of Jorge Siriban and the
the shooting of the group of Ex-Mayor Arreola and his companions.
wounding of Benito Raquepo, was the result of one single act of the accused Tabaco, the applicable penalty is the
penalty imposed for the more serious offense. The more serious offense is HOMICIDE, to be imposed in its
maximum degree of reclusion temporal.
Accused-appellant cannot evade responsibility for his felonious acts, even if he did not intend the consequences
thereof for, in accordance with Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
There being no modifying circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty that should
be imposed, and which is hereby imposed, upon the accused Mario Tabaco is 10 years and 1 day of Prision
Mayor as the minimum, to 17 years, 4 months, 1 day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, plus P30,000.00
2.We note that while the accused was found guilty in all four (4) murder charges and the penalty of reclusion actual damages for medical expenses of Benito Raquepo.
perpetua should have been imposed on him in all four (4) murder charges, the trial court imposed the penalty
It was duly proved beyond doubt that the gun used by the accused, is admittedly an automatic powerful weapon,
more powerful than an M-16 armalite rifle. It is so powerful that the bullets can penetrate even more than five
persons resulting to their deaths.
We hold that the trial court was in error in imposing only a single penalty of reclusion perpetua for all four
murder cases. The trial court holding that a complex crime was committed since “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 (emphasis ours)” does not hold water.
“In the case at bar, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the death of each of the five
persons who were killed by appellant and the physical injuries inflicted upon each of the two other persons
injured were not caused by the performance by the accused of one simple act as provided for by said article.
Although it is true that several successive shots were fired by the accused in a short space of time, yet the factor
which must be taken into consideration is that, to each death caused or physical injuries inflicted upon the
victims, corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by the accused, who thus made himself criminally liable
for as many offenses as those resulting from every singe act that produced the same. Although apparently he
perpetrated a series of offenses successively in a matter of seconds, yet each person killed and each person
injured by him became the victim, respectively, of a separate crime of homicide or frustrated homicide. Except
for the fact that five crimes of homicide and two cases of frustrated homicide were committed successively
during the tragic incident, legally speaking there is nothing that would connect one of them with its companion
offenses.”
Furthermore, the trial court’s reliance on the case of People vs. Lawas is misplaced. The doctrine enunciated in
said case only applies when it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused by numerous killers. In the
case at bench, all of the deaths are attributed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to the accused-appellant.
3.Consequently, the four murders which resulted from a burst of gunfire cannot be considered a complex crime.
They are separate crimes. The accused-appellant must therefore be held liable for each and every death he has
caused, and sentenced accordingly to four sentences of reclusion perpetua.
No reversible error having been committed by the trial court in finding accused-appellant guilty of four (4) counts
of Murder and one (1) count of Homicide with frustrated homicide, the judgment appealed from should be, as it
is, hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that four sentences of reclusion perpetua be hereby imposed.
ID.; DOCTRINES ENUNCIATED IN PEOPLE v.  PAMA PEOPLE v.  LAWAS AND PEOPLE v.  PINEDA, NOT
APPLICABLE IN THE CASE AT BENCH. — We hold that the trial court was in error in imposing only
a single penalty of reclusion perpetua for all four murder cases. The trial court's holding that a
complex crime was committed since "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" does not
hold water. 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.
6.ID.; THE FIRING OF SEVERAL BULLETS BY THE ACCUSED ALTHOUGH RESULTING FROM ONE
CONTINUOUS BURST OF GUNFIRE CONSTITUTES SEVERAL ACTS AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A
COMPLEX CRIME; CASES, OF PEOPLE v.  DESIERTO AND PEOPLE v.  PARDO APPLIED IN THE CASE AT
BENCH. — What is on all fours with the case at bench is the ruling laid down in  People vs.  Desierto.
The accused in that case killed five persons with a Thompson sub-machine gun, an automatic
firearm which, like the M-14, is capable of firing continuously. As stated therein: "In the case at
bar, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the death of each of the five
persons who were killed by appellant and the physical injuries inflicted upon each of the two
other persons injured were not caused by the performance by the accused of  one simple act as
provided for by said article. Although it is true that several successive shots were fired by the
accused in a short space of time, yet the factor which must be taken into consideration is that,  to
each death caused or physical injuries inflicted upon the victims, corresponds a distinct and separate
shot fired by the accused, who thus made himself criminally liable for as many offenses as those
resulting from every single act that produced the same. Although apparently he perpetrated a series
of offenses successively in a matter of seconds,  yet each person killed and each person injured by
him became the victim, respectively, of a separate crime of homicide or frustrated homicide. Except for
the fact that five crimes of homicide and two cases of frustrated homicide were committed
successively during the tragic incident, legally speaking there is nothing that would connect one of
them with its companion offenses." In Desierto, although the burst of shots was caused by one
single act of pressing the trigger of the Thompson sub-machine gun, in view of its special
mechanism, the person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger with his finger and it would
fire continually. Hence, it is not the act of pressing, the trigger which should produce the several
felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them. . . . The firing of several bullets by
Tabaco, although resulting from one continuous burst of gunfire, constitutes several acts. Each
person, felled by different shots, is a victim of a separate crime of murder. There is no showing
that only a single missile passed through the bodies of all four victims. The killing of each victim is
thus separate and distinct from the other. In People vs.  Pardo we held that: "Where the death of
two persons does not result from a single act but from two different shots, two separate murders,
and not a complex crime, are committed." . . . Consequently, the four murders which resulted
from a burst of gunfire cannot be considered a complex crime. They are separate crimes. The
accused-appellant must therefore be held liable for each and every death he has caused, and
sentenced accordingly to four sentences of reclusion perpetua.
|||  (People v. Tabaco, G.R. Nos. 100382-100385, [March 19, 1997], 336 PHIL 771-804)
COMPLEX CRIME; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — It is clear from the evidence on record,
however, that the four crimes of murder resulted not from a single act but from several individual
and distinct acts. For one thing, 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. There were also several empty
bullet shells recovered from the scene of the crime. This confirms the fact that several shots were
fired. Furthermore, considering the relative positions of the gunmen and their victims, some of
whom were riding the motorized tricycle itself while the others were seated inside the sidecar
thereof, it was absolutely impossible for the four victims to have been hit and killed by a single
bullet. 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.||| (People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, [March 11, 1999], 364 PHIL 259-280)
4. People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, [September 19, 2000],
FACTS:
Four Informations were filed against appellant Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Zamboanga City (Branch 16), three of which he was found guilty, to wit: 1) maintaining a drug den in
violation of Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972); 2)
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended
by Republic Act. No. 8294; and 3) direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. The following
information was provided by the prosecution:
1) In the afternoon of September 24, 1997, more than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to the house
of appellant and his wife to serve the search warrant when they were met by a volley of gunfire
coming from the second floor of the said house. They saw that it was the appellant who fired the M14
rifle towards them.
2) After gaining entrance, two of the police officers proceeded to the second floor where they earlier
saw appellant firing the rifle. As he noticed their presence, the appellant jumped from the window to
the roof of a neighboring house. He was subsequently arrested at the back of his house after a brief
chase.
3) Several firearms and ammunitions were recovered from appellant’s house. Also found was a pencil
case with fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside, each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride.
4) A paraffin test was conducted and the casts taken both hands of the appellant yielded positive for
gunpowder nitrates.
5) Records show that appellant had not filed any application for license to possess firearm and
ammunition, nor has he been given authority to carry firearms.
ISSUE:
Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
HELD:
No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any
firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, “unless no other crime was committed”. Furthermore, if
homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the crime committed was direct
assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating
circumstance.
Title III. Crimes Against Public Order
Direct Assault
People vs Ladjaalam
Facts: Appellant Ladjaalam was charged with the following:
(1) The Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
(2) Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition
(3) Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide
By virtue of a Search Warrant No. 20, thirty members of the Zamboanga City Police
conducted a police raid on the residence of herein appellant Ladjaalam and his wife. 10
meters before approaching the main gate of the said house of Ladjaalam, three
bystanders near the area shouted “Police Raid! Police Raid!”. Thereafter, the policemen
were met by a rapid burst of gunfire coming from the second floor. There was also gunfire
at the back of the house.
The police saw appellant Ladjaalam firing the M14 gun at the window of the second floor.
Upon reaching the second floor of the house, one of the policemen saw an M14 rifle,
unloaded it and counted 17 live ammunition inside the magazine.
The said M14 was unlicensed. Thus, appellant Ladjaalam was found guilty of “Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition”. Also, for firing at the members of the police who
went to his residence to serve a search warrant, appellant Ladjaalam was found guilty of
Direct Assault with Attempted Homicide.
Issue: Whether or not appellant Ladjaalam should be liable for the crime of Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition, as a separate offense from the crime of Direct
Assault with Multiple Homicide
Held: No.
Ruling:
Where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted
homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve
a search warrant, he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of
firearms. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct
assault.
Section 1 of RA 8294, which amended PD 1866 provides that:
“Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of
Firearms or Ammunition Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of
Firearms or Ammunition. -- The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and
a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low
powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar
firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended
to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other
crime was committed.
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm
which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .30 caliber and 9 millimeter such
as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful
such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 centerfire magnum and other firearms with firing
capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no
other crime was committed by the person arrested.
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.”
A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the
commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of
firearms. Hence, if the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms
becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense.
Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this
case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms.
Appellant is only guilty of two offenses: (1) Direct Assault and Multiple Attempted
Homicide with the use of a weapon; and (2) Maintaining a Drug Den
Other Notes: The Search Warrant No. 20 served by the Zamboanga City Police was
eventually declared Null and Void for indicating several offenses in only search warrant.
Despite this, the arrest was still considered lawful.
PEOPLE V. WALPAN LADJAALAM
G.R. NO. 136149-51

The accused was convicted of the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for
firing an M14 rifle to police men who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant.  to report the incident to the Apalit police.
Further, he was also convicted for illegal possession of firearm.
HELD:   Corporal Santiago Rodriguez, Station Commander of the San Simon Police Station at San Simon, Pampanga
RA no. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested
committed “no other crime”.  Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide,
illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a separate offense.  Hence,
where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an
unlicensed M14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant, he cannot be
held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms.  Neither can such unlawful act
be considered to have aggravated the direct assault.
FACTS:
On January 20, 1986 at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Constancio Gomez was then plying his
route from Balagtas, Bulacan along the MacArthur Highway going towards Malolos, Bulacan on board a
passenger jeepney with six (6) passenger. pon reaching Bry. Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan, a group of four (4) male
passengers boarded the jeepney. Suddenly, the man who was later identified to be appellant Eduardo Pulusan,
who sat behind the driver, poked a knife at Constancio Gomez and announced: "Hold-up ito, huwag kayong
kikilos. Appellant Pulusan's three (3) companions followed suit, poked their knife and "sumpak" (homemade
shotgun) at the passengers and divested them of their valuables. Thereafter, appellant Pulusan took over the
wheels from driver Gomez and drove towards Pampanga. He later stopped at Quezon Road, Bgy. San Pablo,
San Simon, Pampanga. He parked the jeepney in a "talahiban" where there were no people around except for
the occupants of the passenger jeepney. Afterwards, appellant Rolando Rodriguez (Rodriguez) dragged Marilyn
Martinez, 17 year old, to the "talahiban" a few meters away from the parked jeepney where his three (3)
companions, including appellant Pulusan, were left guarding Gomez and his other passengers. Appellant
Rodriguez, then armed with a kitchen knife, through force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of Marilyn Martinez who was then still virgin. Subsequently, Pulusan and two other companions
similarly took turns in having carnal knowledge of Marilyn Martinez at the "talahiban". Subsequently, the four
called three other passengers inside the jeepney one by one. When the three (3) passengers managed to run
towards the "talahiban" but his captors pursued and eventually killed him. Subsequently, Cresenciono
Pagtaluan was hit with pipe and clubbed by appellant and their companions but one of them uttered: Pare,
huwag na yan, matanda na yan, hindi na papalag”. Thereafter, Gomez was ordered to start the jeepney while a
shotgun was aimed at his temple and threatened not to report the incident (ibid.) Eventually, their captors
boarded Marilyn Martinez in the jeepney and threatened her not to report the incident and sent them home.
Appellants and his companions then dispersed to different directions.
Gomez and his two surviving passengers Marilyn Martinez and Cresenciano Pagtalunan, left their four (4) co-
passengers who had been killed by their captors and proceeded to the Municipal Building of Apalit, Pampanga
Thereafter, Pat. Maniago, Investigator of San Simon, prepared an "Initial Investigation Report" addressed to
concerning the "Robbery In Band, Rape, Multiple Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearms/Deadly Weapons"
committed on or about 9:30 to 10:30 P.M. of January 20, 1986 at Quezon Road, San Pablo Propio, San Simon,
Pampanga.
In the afternoon of January 23, 1986, the joint police and PC team informed the three (3) surviving victims
Gomez, Pagtalunan and Martinez that the suspects had been arrested and invited them and the wives of the
victims who were killed, including Lucila Cruz, Susana Surio and Mrs. Cundangan, to go to the PC Headquarters
in the morning of January 24, 1986.
Three persons, including appellants Pulusan and Rodriguez, were presented to Gomez, Martinez and
Pagtalunan and they were asked if they knew them. Pagtalunan pinpointed only two of them, appellants
Pulusan and Rodriguez as the persons who held them up in Malolos on January 20, 1986.
Rolando Tayag and John Does alias Ramon or Efren remain at large. Pulusan and Rodriguez pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged.
Both accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court of the offense of Robbery with
Homicide penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences each of them to
suffer and undergo imprisonment for life or RECLUSION PERPETUA,indemnify the heirs of the late Rodolfo Cruz,
Magno Surio, Constancio Dionisio and Armando Cundangan the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00) for each dead victim as civil indemnification for their death, pay, jointly and severally, as
indemnification to the rape victim Marilyn Martinez, the amount of SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60.000.00), pay
moral damages to the respective heirs of the deceased Magno Surio, Rodolfo Cruz, Constancio Dionisio and
Armando Cundangan, the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), ay moral damages to the
respective heirs of the deceased Magno Surio, Rodolfo Cruz, Constancio Dionisio and Armando Cundangan, the
amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) to each victim and to rape victim Marilyn Martinez the
amount of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40.000.00).
Both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez are hereby furthermore ordered, jointly, and severally, to reimburse the
heirs of the dead victims for the funeral expenses incurred by them, finally, both accused Pulusan and Rodriguez
are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to return to the victims or their heirs the items they have taken during
the robbery or to reimburse the value.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the testimonies against the accused are credible.
2) Whether or not they should be charged of highway robbery attended with multiple
homicide with multiple rape or the crime of robbery with homicide.
RULING:
1) Yes, it still is. Witnesses testifying on the same event do not have to be consistent in every detail
considering the inevitability of differences in their recollection, viewpoint or impression. Total recall
or perfect symmetry is not required as long as the witnesses concur on material points.
2)  The crime committed was robbery with homicide. A conviction for highway robbery requires proof
that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. There is
no such proof in this case. Neither is there proof that the four men previously attempted to commit
similar robberies indiscriminately. Rape had not been proven to be the original intention of the
appellants, the crime having been committed simply because there was a female passenger in the
jeep. Hence, rape can only be considered as an aggravating circumstance and not a principal
offense.
.
CASE 2019-0061: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOHN SANOTA Y SARMIENTO, DEO DAYTO Y GENORGA @
“RUBROB” AND ROLANDO ESPINELI Y ACEBO @ “LANDOY” (G.R. NO. 233659. DECEMBER 10, 2019) (BRIEF
TITLE: PEOPLE VS SANOTA ET AL.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a commentJanuary 25, 2020

CASE 2019-0061: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOHN SANOTA Y SARMIENTO, DEO DAYTO Y GENORGA @
“RUBROB” AND ROLANDO ESPINELI Y ACEBO @ “LANDOY” (G.R. NO. 233659. DECEMBER 10, 2019) (BRIEF
TITLE: PEOPLE VS SANOTA ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

UBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THERE WAS ONLY ONE WITNESS. HE DID NOT SAW THE ACTUAL ROBBERY AND HOMICIDE. THERE WAS NO
DIRECT EVIDENCE PRESENTED. YET THE COURT CONVICTED THE ACCUSED. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS
SUFFICIENT.
Criminal Law Reviewer, Volume I, 2017 Edition

Page 93

v. Other crimes – In robbery with homicide, it is immaterial that aside from the homicide, other crime
such as rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the
occasion of the crime. In this special complex crime, all the felonies committed by reason of or on the
occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. (People
vs. De Leon, supra; People vs. De Jesus, supra; People vs. Ebet, supra; People vs. Diu, supra;
People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016).

Direct assault with attempted homicide (2009 Bar Exam) or multiple rapes or acts of lasciviousness
(2016 Bar Exam) committed by reason or on occasion of robbery shall be considered shall be
integrated into the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

People vs. Ebet