Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes.

- When a single act constitutes two or more grave or

less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.
G.R. No. L-27097 January 17, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO TOLING y ROVERO and JOSE TOLING y ROVERO, defendants-appellants.
Antonio Toling and Jose Toling, twins, boarded the Bicol Express train. While in transit, both
picked each a pair of scissors and started stabbing and butchering their co- passengers,
thereby causing several casualties. They were charged with multiple murder and an attempted
murder.
Issue: whether there is a case of complex crime
Held:
The eight killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by means of different
acts. Hence, they cannot be regarded as constituting a complex crime under Article
48 of the Revised Penal Code which refers to cases where a single act constitutes
two or more grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.

G.R. No. L-38755 January 22, 1981

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSE PINCALIN, RODOLFO BELTRAN, EDUARDO EMPLEO and ALEJANDRO
JANDOMON, accused-appellant.
Defendants planned and executed the killing of fellow convicts in the national
penitentiary. While armed with improvised weapons referred to as matalas
attacked and slaughtered the victims in their separate quarters.
Issue: whether there is a complex crime
Held:
We find that the four accused are guilty of the complex crime of double murder and frustrated
murder aggravated by quasi-recidivism. This case is governed by the rule that when for the
attainment of a single purpose, which constitutes an offense various acts are executed, such
acts must be considered as only one offense, a complex one.

In other words, where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their
individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of
execution, giving rise to a complex offense. Various acts committed under one criminal impulse
may constitute a single complex offense.

G.R. Nos. 100382-100385 March 19, 1997

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARIO TABACO, accused-appellant.
Tabaco entered the cockpit with a fully loaded M-14 sub-machine gun. He fired the
weapon, which contained 20 rounds of bullets in its magazine, continuously. When the
rifle was recovered from Tabaco, the magazine was already empty. Four persons died.
Issue: whether there is a complex crime
Held:
The evidence shows that the four (4) victims were FELLED by one single shot/burst of
fire and/or successive automatic gun fires, meaning continuous. Hence, it is a complex
crime involving four murdered victims, under the first category, where a single act of
shooting constituted two or more grave or less grave felonies (delito compuesto),
G.R. No. 139857

September 15, 2006

LEONILA BATULANON, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Petitioner was the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative, Inc. She falsified cash/
check vouchers making it appear that certain loans were granted to several persons when in
truth and in fact those persons never made or received a loan. Four informations for estafa thru
falsification of commercial documents were filed against Batulanon.
Issue: Whether there is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document.
Held: As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document, If the
falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime
to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a
document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa.

G.R. No. 124213 August 17, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DANTE ALFECHE y TAMPARONG, alias WILLY, and JOHN DOE, accused, DANTE
ALFECHE y TAMPARONG,accused-appellant.
On 11 September 1994, at about 10:30 p.m., ANALIZA was watching television in the sala of her
employers when she heard a sound from the front door, then somebody gagged her mouth, and
pointed a knife at her. Herein accused with his two companions, While she was thus gagged
and held at the point of a knife, Willy boxed her on her side, as a result of which she lost
consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, ANALIZA found her short pants removed and
her private part bleeding, which was unusual because she was not menstruating before she was
attacked.
Again, on 18 September 1994, at about 11:00 a.m., ANALIZA was alone with her ward in her
employers residence. She was sauting pork when suddenly, the three accused again intruded
into the house through the back door. Willy held her hand and gagged her mouth, while John
Doe then laid her on the floor and pointed a knife at her. Thereupon, DANTE knelt on her legs,
undressed her, inserted his private part into hers, and made a "push and pull motion." DANTE
and his companions forthwith left.

Issue: whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery may be appreciated on a crime of

rape
Held: by quoting the words of the Supreme Court:
The foregoing notwithstanding, it is timely to remind prosecutors to exercise due care in the
preparation of complaints or informations to the end that circumstances which by specific
provisions of law change the nature of the crime or upgrade the penalty therefor must be
specifically alleged using the language of the law. 70
Parenthetically, we also note that the complaints allege treachery as an aggravating
circumstance. Under Article 14 of the Penal Code treachery is applicable only to crimes against
persons. At the time ANALIZA was raped, rape was a crime against chastity, although under the
Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R.A. No. 8353), approved on 30 September 1997, rape is already a
crime against persons.

G.R. No. 92163 June 5, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, petitioner

vs.
JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR (Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City [Br.
103], SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AURELIO TRAMPE, PROSECUTOR FERDINAND R.
ABESAMIS, AND CITY ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR EULOGIO MANANQUIL,
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR ALFREDO LIM, BRIG. GEN. EDGAR
DULA TORRES (Superintendent of the Northern Police District) AND/ OR ANY AND ALL
PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE ACTUAL CUSTODY OVER THE PERSON OF JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, respondents.
G.R. No. 92164 June 5, 1990
SPS. REBECCO E. PANLILIO AND ERLINDA E. PANLILIO, petitioners,
vs.
PROSECUTORS FERNANDO DE LEON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE, FFRDINAND R.
ABESAMIS, AND EULOGIO C. MANANQUIL, and HON. JAIME W. SALAZAR, JR., in his
capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 103, respondents.

Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. - The crime of rebellion or insurrection is
committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government
for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of
the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces,
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).

Hernandez doctrine: murders which have been committed on the occasion of and in furtherance
of the crime of rebellion must be deemed absorbed in the offense of simple rebellion
Facts: 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 The warrant had issued on an information. 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. 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 alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having
been held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute books;
Issue: whether the crime of rebellion may complexed with other offenses committed on the
occasion thereof
Held:
which have been committed on the occasion of and in furtherance of the crime of rebellion must
be deemed absorbed in the offense of simple rebellion. People vs. Hernandez,
there is no such crime in our statute books as rebellion complexed with murder, that murder
committed in connection with a rebellion is absorbed by the crime of rebellion, and that a resort
to arms resulting in the destruction of life or property constitutes neither two or more offenses
nor a complex crime but one crime-rebellion pure and simple.
the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco
and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are
entitled to bail,
G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROLANDO VALDEZ, accused-appellant.
Six teenagers boarded a tricycle, when the vehicle took a turn on a barangay road they met the
appellant Rolando Valdez and his companions who were armed with guns. The tricycle's
headlight flashed on their faces. Without warning, they pointed their guns and fired at the
vehicle. Thereafter, after uttering the words, "nataydan, mapan tayon" (They are already dead.
Let us go), Valdez and companions left.
The shooting incident left 4 victims dead and two others injured.
The information charged the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder
Issue: whether there is a complex crime
Held:
The case at bar does not fall under any of the two instances defined under art 48 of the RPC.
The evidence indicates that there was more than one gunman involved, and the act of each
gunman is distinct from that of the other. It cannot be said therefore, that there is but a single act
of firing a single firearm. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective
firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual
acts which cannot give rise to the complex crime of multiple murder. We therefore rule that

accused-appellant is guilty, not of a complex crime of multiple murder, but of four counts of
murder for the death of the four victims in this case. In the same manner, accused-appellant is
likewise held guilty for two counts of frustrated murder.

G.R. No. 141125

February 28, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JEFFREY GARCIA y CARAGAY and THREE JOHN DOES, accused.
JEFFREY GARCIA y CARAGAY, accused-appellant.
The victim, who was a physical therapy student, was crossing a street when a van boarded by
the accused with four other John Does pulled he inside, she lost her consciousness during the
abduction. She awoke inside a room where her molester took turns in raping her and she
blacked out. When she regained consciousness, she was lying by the roadside.
Accused was found guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape and three counts of Rape
Issue: whether there is a complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape
Held: he trial court, therefore, did not err in convicting accused-appellant of the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape. The two elements of forcible abduction, as defined in Article 342 of
the Revised Penal Code, are: (1) the taking of a woman against her will and (2) with lewd
designs. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when there is
carnal knowledge with the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using
force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
(3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. 39
In the case at bar, the information sufficiently alleged the elements of forcible abduction, i.e., the
taking of complainant against her against her will and with lewd design. It was likewise alleged
that accused-appellant and his three co-accused conspired, confederated and mutually aided
one another in having carnal knowledge of complainant by means of force and intimidation and
against her will.
Aside from alleging the necessary elements of the crimes, the prosecution convincingly
established that the carnal knowledge was committed through force and intimidation. Moreover,
the prosecution sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant succeeded
in forcibly abducting the complainant with lewd designs, established by the actual rape. 40
Hence, accused-appellant is guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. He
should also be held liable for the other three counts of rape committed by his three co-accused,
considering the clear conspiracy among them shown by their obvious concerted efforts to
perpetrate, one after the other, the crime. As borne by the records, all the four accused helped

one another in consummating the rape of complainant. While one of them mounted her, the
other three held her arms and legs. They also burned her face and extremities with lighted
cigarettes to stop her from warding off her aggressor. Each of them, therefore, is responsible not
only for the rape committed personally by him but for the rape committed by the others as
well. 41
However, as correctly held by the trial court, there can only be one complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape. The crime of forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape. Thus,
the subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as separate complex crimes of
forcible abduction with rape. They should be detached from and considered independently of
the forcible abduction. Therefore, accused-appellant should be convicted of one complex crime
of forcible abduction with rape and three separate acts of rape. 42
The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be imposed
in its maximum period. Rape is the more serious of the two crimes and, when committed by
more than two persons, is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death under Article 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Thus, accused-appellant
should be sentenced to the maximum penalty of death for forcible abduction with rape.

G.R. Nos. L-25375 and 25376

October 8, 1926

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
VICENTE DE LEON Y FLORA, defendant-appellant.
People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437, where the crimes committed by means of separate acts were
held to be complex on the theory that they were the product of a single criminal impulse or intent
Facts: Vicente De Leon entered the yard of Vicente Magat and stole two fighting cocks, without
force upon things. He was prosecuted for two crimes of theft since the two game roosters
belong to different owner. De Leon pleaded guilty to the charged.
The trial court found the accused of one crime of theft, holding that the theft of the two roosters
constituted but one crime.
Issue: whether or not the fact that the accused, with intent to gain, on the same occasion and in
the same place, took the two roosters, one belonging to Vicente Magat and the other to Ignacio
Nicolas, constitutes two crimes of theft.
Held: the act of taking the two roosters, in response to the unity of thought in the criminal
purpose on one occasion, is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance
that the article unlawfully belonged to two distinct persons. There is no series of acts here for
the accomplishment of different purposes, but only one of which was consummated, and which

determines the existence of only one crime. The act of taking the roosters in the same place
and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an independent existence of
their own, because there are not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that characterize
two separate crimes.
G.R. No. 109266 December 2, 1993
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Petitioner, while being the Commissioner of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
was charged with violation Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by her
favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. 32 different
informations were file corresponding with the 32 names approved. Petitioner avers that while
hypothetically admitting that the allegations were true the 32 informations should be
consolidated because of the concept of delito continuado.

Issue: whether the crimes charged in the 32 informations filed constitute only one
crime
Held: The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period
of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval
of the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of
the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.
For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of
time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that
two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or
resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-41054 November 28, 1975

JOSE L. GAMBOA and UNITS OPTICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and BENJAMIN LU HAYCO, respondents.
Facts:
Hayco was a former employee of petitioner company in its optical supply business. The owner
was duped into signing a special power of attorney which Hayco used to close and open
accounts on several banks and with the same authority received payments in his own accounts.
He was charged with 75 cases of estafa committed on separate dates and places.
The court of appeals ordered the consolidation of all information on the reason that
the crimes charged were committed in view of a single purpose.
Issue: Whether there is a case of delito continuado
Held: The intention of the Code in installing this particular provision is to regulate the two cases
of concurrence or plurality of crimes which in the field of legal doctrine are called "real plurality"
and "ideal plurality". 2 There is plurality of crimes or "concurso de delitos" when the actor
commits various delictual acts of the same or different kind. "Ideal plurality" or "concurso ideal"
occurs when a single act gives rise to various infractions of law. This is illustrated by the very
article under consideration: (a) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies (described as "delito compuesto" or compound crime); and (b) when an offense is a
necessary means for committing another offense (described as "delito complejo" or complex
proper). "Real plurality" or "concurso real", on the other hand, arises when the accused
performs an act or different acts with distinct purposes and resulting in different crimes which
are juridically independent. Unlike "ideal plurality", this "real plurality" is not governed by Article
48.
\

Apart and isolated from this plurality of crimes (ideal or real) is what is known as "delito
continuado" or "continuous crime". This is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising
from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. For Cuello Calon, when the
actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each of which,
although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular
delict, such concurrence or delictual acts is called a "delito continuado". In order that it may
exist, there should be "plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of
penal provision infringed upon or violated and unity of criminal intent and purpose, which
means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are united in one and the same
intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim."
The test is not whether one of the two offenses is an essential element of the other. 6 In People
v. Pineda , 7 the court even expressed that "to apply the first half of Article 48, ... there must be
singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law."

In the case before Us, the daily abstractions from and diversions of private respondent of the
deposits made by the customers of the optical supply company from October 2, 1972 to
December 30, 1972, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, which We assume ex hypothesi,
cannot be considered as proceeding from a single criminal act within the meaning of Article 48.
The abstractions were not made at the same time and on the same occasion, but on variable
dates. Each day of conversion constitutes a single act with an independent existence and
criminal intent of its own. All the conversions are not the product of a consolidated or united
criminal resolution, because each conversion is a complete act by itself. Specifically, the
abstractions and the accompanying deposits thereof in the personal accounts of private
respondent cannot be similarly viewed as "continuous crime". In the above formulation of Cuello
Calon, We cannot consider a defalcation on a certain day as merely constitutive of partial
execution of estafa under Article 315, para. 1-b of the Revised Penal Code. As earlier pointed
out, an individual abstraction or misappropriation results in a complete
execution or consummation of the delictual act of defalcation. Private respondent cannot be
held to have entertained continously the same criminal intent in making the first abstraction on
October 2, 1972 for the subsequent abstractions on the following days and months until
December 30, 1972, for the simple reason that he was not possessed of any fore-knowledge of
any deposit by any customer on any day or occasion and which would pass on to his
possession and control. At most, his intent to misappropriate may arise only when he comes in
possession of the deposits on each business day but not in futuro, since petitioner company
operates only on a day-to-day transaction. As a result, there could be as many acts of
misappropriation as there are times the private respondent abstracted and/or diverted the
deposits to his own personal use and benefit. Thus, it may be said that the City Fiscal had acted
properly when he filed only one information for every single day of abstraction and bank deposit
made by private respondent. 10 The similarity of pattern resorted to by private respondent in
making the diversions does not affect the susceptibility of the acts committed to divisible crimes.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-46353-46355 December 5, 1938

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RESURRECCION B. PEAS, defendant-appellant.
Aniceto B. Fabia for appellant.
Assistant Solicitor-General Abad Santos and J. G. Bautista for appellee.

DIAZ, J.:
The appellant was convicted on three separate charges for estafa with falsification
of public documents for the three money orders placed in his name while being an
assistant postmaster. He even forged the signature of the head postmaster to
accomplish his crime.
Issue: Whether his acts constitute separate crimes
Held:
Since the accused was aware that no money order could be brought or issued for a
sum greater than $100, as expressly provided in section 1968 of the Administrative
Code, in order to issue a money order for P600, it was necessary to make three
separate money orders. That the appellant falsified the same on a single date:
November 24, 1936, and he collected them also on a single date, January 4, 1937
from which it is inferred that the three acts of falsification and the said three acts of
appropriation of the sum of P200 in each case proceed from a single purpose of the
appellant, namely, to appropriate for himself the sum of P600.

If he had to resort to this means falsifying three money orders, it was because he
was aware that he could not do otherwise, in view of the legal provision, which he
was supposed to know, limiting the issuance of money orders to sums not greater
than P100 or P200. When, for the attainment of a single purpose which constitutes
an offense, various acts are executed, such acts must be considered only as one
offense.
Under this view, the appellant committed only the complex crime of estafa with
falsification of three postal money orders which are, without doubt, official and
public documents, the falsification being the means he employed to appropriate, as
he did for himself the sum of P600, to the prejudice of the Government.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-16688-90

April 30, 1963

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
PACITA MADRIGAL-GONZALES, (formerly Pacita M. Warns), ET AL., accusedappellees.
Accused, while administrator of the Social Welfare Administration (SWA) was
charged in 27 cases of falsification and 1 case of Malversation. That in the

commission of malversation several documents were falsified showing

disbursements for cash aids, reliefs and supplies when in fact there were none.
In her defense, the accused interposed while hypothetically admitting that acts of
falsification which took place within a specified period and the allegations are the
same, said acts were but the result of a singular criminal intent- to conceal the
crime of malversation.
Issue:
Whether or not the twenty-seven (27) falsifications were the product of only one
criminal intent.
Held:
The appellees seem to confuse motive with criminal intent. Motive is not an element
of a felony; it is merely a prospectant circumstantial evidence. Criminal intent
renders an act a felony. Motive is a state of the mind of the accused, and it is he
who can state his real motive in committing a crime. Whatever the fiscal had
manifested, as to the motive which had impelled the accused to transgress the law,
was but a speculation gathered in the process of investigation. In other words, the
existence of the motive to conceal malversation, in the cases at bar, is a question of
fact which should be ventilated in a formal trial, in connection with the defense of
double jeopardy. The Court cannot assume that the purpose of committing the
twenty-seven (27) falsifications was to conceal the malversation. This is so because
there is no showing that for every particular amount they had malversed on a
certain period, they had purposedly perpetrated the corresponding falsification to

cover up such amount, until the whole amount proposed to be malversed, shall
have been completely misappropriated. In the absence of such showing, it is to be
presumed that in the falsification of each document, the criminal intent was
separated and distinct.