TodayisSaturday,October18,2014

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L26222July21,1967
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLEJUDGEHERNANDOPINEDAoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLanaodelNorte
andTOMASNARBASA,TAMBACALINDOandRUFINOBORRES,respondents.
DominadorL.Padillaforpetitioner.
Narbasa,TambacAlindoandBorresforrespondents.
SANCHEZ,J.:
RespondentsTomasNarbasa,TambacAlindoandRufinoBorresstandindictedbeforetheCourtofFirstInstanceof
LanaodelNorte,asprincipals,infive(5)separatecases,fourformurder,viz:
CriminalCase1246murderofNeceforoMendoza
CriminalCase1247murderofEpifaniaMendoza
CriminalCase1248frustratedmurderofValerianaBontilaodeMendoza
CriminalCase1249murderofTeofiloMendoza
CriminalCase1250murderofMarceloMendoza.
The five informations were planted upon facts gathered by the prosecuting attorney from his investigation. Of
course,thetruthofthesefactsisyettobetestedinthecrucibleofafulldresstrialonthemerits.
Theindictmentsarebottomeduponthefollowingallegedpivotalfacts:
OnthenightofJuly29,1965,theoccupantsofthehomeofthespousesTeofiloMendozaandValerianaBontilaode
Mendoza in Pugaan City of Iligan, were asleep. It was then that guns (rifle, caliber 22) and paliuntod(homemade
gun) were fired in rapid succession from outside the house. Teofilo Mendoza fell dead. Thereafter, defendants
belowdestroyedthedoorofthehouse,enteredtherein,andletlooseseveralshotskillingNeceforoMendoza,all
minorchildrenofthecoupleandwoundingValerianaBontilaodeMendoza.
TwoofthethreedefendantsinthefivecriminalcasesheretoforelistedTomasNarbasaandTambakAlindo
movedforaconsolidationthereof"intoone(1)criminalcase."Theirpleaisthat"saidcasesaroseoutofthesame
incidentandmotivatedbyoneimpulse."
Givingthenodtodefendants'claim,respondentJudge,inanorderdatedMay13,1966,directedtheCityFiscalto
unifyallthefivecriminalcases,andtofileonesingleinformationinCase1246.Healsoorderedthattheotherfour
cases,Nos.1247,1248,1249and1250"bedroppedfromthedocket."
TheCityFiscalbalkedattheforegoingorder,soughtreconsiderationthereof,uponthegroundthat"morethanone
gunwasused,morethanoneshotwasfiredandmorethanonevictimwaskilled."Thedefenseopposed.
OnMay31,1966,respondentJudgedeniedthemotiontoreconsider.Hetookthepositionthattheactscomplained
of "stemmed out of a series of continuing acts on the part of the accused, not by different and separate sets of
shots,movedbyoneimpulseandshouldthereforebetreatedasonecrimethoughtheseriesofshotskilledmore
thanonevictim"andthatonlyoneinformationformultiplemurdershouldbefiled,toobviatethenecessityoftrying
fivecasesinsteadofone."
PrimarilytoannulrespondentJudge'sordersofMay13,1966andMay31,1966,ashavingbeenissuedwithoutor
in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion, the People came to this Court on certiorariwith a
prayerforawritofpreliminaryinjunction,andforotherreliefs.
ThisCourt,onJuly1,1966,issuedtheceaseanddesistorderprayedfor.
Thequestionherepresented,simplyisthis:Shouldtherebeoneinformation,eitherforthecomplexcrimeofmurder
and frustrated murder or for the complex crime of robbery with multiple homicide and frustrated homicide? Or,
shouldthefiveindictmentsremainastheyare?
1. The case before us calls into question the applicability of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
whichreads:
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies,orwhenanoffenseisanecessarymeansforcommittingtheother,thepenaltyforthemostserious
crimeshallbeimposed,thesametobeappliedinitsmaximumperiod.
Read as it should be, Article 48 provides for two classes of crimes where a single penalty is to be imposed: first,
whereasingleactconstitutestwoormoregraveorlessgravefelonies(delitocompuesto)and,second,whenan
offenseisanecessarymeansforcommittingtheother(delitocomplejo).
1
Best exemplified by the first of the two cases is where one shot from a gun results in the death of two or more
persons.Jurisprudenceteachesthat,inthisfactualsetting,thecomplexcrimedefinedinthefirstpartofArticle48
finds application.
2
A similar rule obtains where one stabbed another and the weapon pierced the latter's body
through and wounded another. The first died instantaneously the second, seven days later. This Court convicted
theassailantofdoublemurder.
3
Sowhereapersonplantsabombinanairplaneandthebombexplodes,withthe
resultthatanumberofpersonsarekilled,thatsingleactagainproducesacomplexcrime.
4
Adifferentrulegovernswhereseparateanddistinctactsresultinanumberkilled.Deeplyrootedisthedoctrinethat
when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.
5
Thus,where
the six defendants, with others (armed with pistols, carbines and also a submachine gun and Garand rifles), fired
volleys into a house killing eleven and wounding several others, each of the said accused is "guilty of as many
crimesofmurderasthereweredeaths(eleven).
6
Again,elevenpersonswereindictedforquadruplemurderwith
theuseofbolos,apistol,abarbedarrowandapieceofbambooofaman,hiscommonlawwife,andtheirtwo
childrenincoldblood.Theaccusedwerefoundguiltybythetrialcourtofsuchoffense.ThisCourt,inreversingthis
rulingbelow,heldthat"[t]hefourvictimswerenotkilledbyasingleactbutbyvariousactscommittedondifferent
occasionsandbydifferentparties"thatsuchacts"maynotberegardedasconstitutingonesinglecrime"andthat"
[t]hey should be held as separate and distinct crimes."
7
And a third. At the commencement exercises of an
elementaryschool,"ashotsuddenlyrangout"followedbya"seriesofshots"fromapistol.Twopersonslaydead
andathirdseriouslywoundedbutwholateronalsodied.ThisCourtthereruledthattherewere"threedistinctand
separate murders" committed by appellant Juan Mones.
8
And finally, in People vs. Gatbunton, L2435, May 10,
1950, the spouses Mariano Sebastian and Maxima Capule who were asleep were killed by one burst of
machinegun fire and then, by a second burst of machinegun fire, two of the couple's children also asleep
werekilled.Theaccused,TomasGatbunton,wasfoundguiltybythetrialcourtofquadruplemurder.Onappeal,this
Courtdeclaredthat"appellantmustbedeclaredguiltyoffourmurders."
9
The present ease is to be differentiated from People vs. Lawas, L761820, June 30, 1955. There, on a single
occasion,aboutfiftyMaranaoswerekilledbyagroupofhomeguards.Itwasheldthattherewasonlyonecomplex
crime. In that case, however, there was no conspiracy to perpetuate the killing. In the case at bar, defendants
performedseveralacts.Andtheinformationschargeconspiracyamongstthem.Needlesstostate,theactofoneis
theactofall.
10
Notmaterialhere,thereforeisthefindinginLawasthat"itisimpossibletoascertaintheindividual
deathscausedbyeachandeveryone"oftheaccused.Itistobeborneinmind,atthispoint,thatapplythefirsthalf
ofArticle48,heretoforequoted,theremustbesingularityofcriminalactsingularityofcriminalimpulseisnotwritten
intothelaw.
11
TherespondentJudgereasonsoutinhisorderofMay31,1966thatconsolidationofthefivecasesintoonewould
have the salutary effect of obviating the necessity of trying five cases instead of one. To save time, indeed, is
laudable.Nonetheless,thestatuteconfersuponthetrialjudgethepowertotrythesecasesjointly,suchthatthefear
entertainedbyrespondentJudgecouldeasilyberemedied.
12
Upon the facts and the law, we hold that the City Fiscal of Iligan City correctly presented the five separate
informationsfourformurderandoneforfrustratedmurder.
2. We have not overlooked the suggestion in the record that, because of an affidavit of one of the witnesses,
possibilityexiststhattherealintentoftheculpritswastocommitrobbery,andthattheactsconstitutingmurdersand
frustratedmurdercomplainedofwerecommittedinpursuancethereof.Iftrue,thiswouldbringthecasewithinthe
coverage of the second portion of Article 48, which treats as a complex crime a case where an offense is a
necessarymeansforcommittingtheother.
A rule of presumption long familiar, however, is that official duty has been regularly performed.
13
IftheFiscalhas
notseenfittogiveweighttosaidaffidavitwhereinitisallegedthatcertainpersonalproperties(transistorradioand
money)weretakenawaybytheculpritsaftertheshooting,wearenottojettisontheprosecutor'sopinionthereon.
TheFiscalcouldhavehadreasonsforhisact.Foronething,thereisthegraveproblemofprovingtheelementsof
that offense robbery. For another, the act could have been but a blind to cover up the real intent to kill.
Appropriately to be noted here is that all the informations charged evident premeditation. With ponderables and
imponderables,wearereluctanttohazardaguessastothereasonsfortheFiscal'saction.Wearenotnowtosay
that,onthispoint,theFiscalhasabusedhisdiscretion.Aprosecutingattorney,bythenatureofhisoffice,isunder
nocompulsiontofileaparticularcriminalinformationwhereheisnotconvincedthathehasevidencetopropupthe
avermentsthereof,orthattheevidenceathandpointstoadifferentconclusion.Thisisnottodiscountthepossibility
of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that a prosecuting
attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him the
benefit thereof. A contrary rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped with unmeritorious cases.
Worsestill,acriminalsuspect'srighttodueprocessthesportingideaoffairplaymaybetransgressed.Soit
is, that in Peoplevs.Sope 75 Phil. 810, 815, this Court made the pronouncement that "[i]t is very logical that the
prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to
befiledandcannotbecontrolledbytheoffendedparty."
14
3.TheimpactofrespondentJudge'sordersisthathisjudgmentistobesubstitutedforthatoftheprosecutor'son
thematterofwhatcrimeistobefiledincourt.Thequestionofinstitutingacriminalchargeisoneaddressedtothe
sounddiscretionoftheinvestigatingFiscal.Theinformationhelodgesincourtmusthavetobesupportedbyfacts
broughtaboutbyaninquirymadebyhim.Itstandstoreasonthentosaythatinaclashofviewsbetweenthejudge
whodidnotinvestigateandthefiscalwhodid,orbetweenthefiscalandtheoffendedpartyorthedefendant,those
oftheFiscal'sshouldnormallyprevail.Inthisregard,hecannotordinarilybesubjecttodictation.Wearenottobe
understoodassayingthatcriminalprosecutionmaynotbeblockedinexceptionalcases.Areliefinequity"maybe
availedoftostopitpurportedenforcementofacriminallawwhereitisnecessary(a)fortheorderlyadministrationof
justice (b) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner (c) to avoid
multiplicityofactions(d)toaffordadequateprotectiontoconstitutionalrightsand(e)inpropercases,becausethe
statuterelieduponisunconstitutionalorwas'heldinvalid.'"
15
Nothingintherecordwouldasmuchasintimatethat
thepresentcasefitsintoanyofthesituationsjustrecited.1wph1.t
Andatthisdistanceandintheabsenceofanycompellingfactorcircumstance,weareloathetotagtheCityFiscal
ofIliganCitywithabuseofdiscretioninfilingseparatecasesformurderandfrustratedmurder,insteadofasingle
caseforthecomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicideandfrustratedhomicideundertheprovisionsofArticle294(1)
of the Revised Penal Code or, for that matter, for multiple murder and frustrated murder. We state that, here, the
Fiscal'sdiscretionshouldnotbecontrolled.
Upontherecordasitstands,thewritofcertiorariprayedforisherebygrantedtheordersofrespondentJudgeof
May 13, 1965 and May 31, 1966 are hereby set and declared null and void, and, in consequence, the writ of
preliminaryinjunctionheretoforeissuedismadepermanentinsofarasitstopsenforcementofthesaidordersand
therespondentJudge,orwhoevertakeshisplace,isherebydirectedtoreinstateCriminalCases1246,1247,1248,
1249and1250astheywerecommenced,andtotakestepstowardsthefinaldeterminationthereof.
CostsagainstrespondentsTomasNarbasa,TambacAlindoandRutinoBorres.Soordered.
Reyes,J.B.L.,Makalintal,BengzonJ.P.,Zaldivar,Castro,AngelesandFernando,JJ.,concur.
Concepcion,C.J.andDizon,J.,tooknopart.
Footnotes
1
TomoI,CuelloColon,DerechoPenal,1960ed.,p.635.
2
InPeoplevs.Pama(C.A.),44O.G.No.9,pp.3339,33453346,wherefourbulletswerefiredcausingfour
mortal wounds to a person, but one of which also struck a child resulting in the latter's death, the Court of
Appealsheldthat,bytheonesingleshot, a single information should have been filed to cover both deaths,
andasinglepenaltyshouldbeimposed.
InPeoplevs.Buyco,80Phil.58,6769,wheretheaccusedfiredseveralbulletsinsuccessionfroma
submachine gun with a single pull of the trigger, killing one person with treachery and another only
accidentally,thisCourt,citingIIViada,5thed.,p.629,categorizedthefactsasconstitutingonesingle
actacomplexcrimeofmurderandhomicide.Cf.Peoplevs.Gatbunton,infra.
InPeoplevs.Deveza(C.A.),44O.G.No.5,pp.1501,15071511,oneshotfrom a pistol caused the
deathofapersonandseriousphysicalinjuriestoanotherthecourtconsideredthefactualsituationas
acomplexcrimeofhomicideandseriousphysicalinjuries.
3
Peoplevs.Balotol,84Phil.289,290291.
4
People vs. Largo, 99 Phil. 10611062. In pari materia, see: People vs. Fulgencio, L5370, November 10,
1952Peoplevs.Guillen,85Phil.307,318319.Seealso:Angelesvs.Jose,96Phil.151,152.
5
Peoplevs.Pardo,79Phil.568,577578Peoplevs.Buyco,supra,atp.69Peoplevs.Ordonio,82Phil.324,
334 People vs. Chan, 90 Phil. 1, 5 People vs. Basarain, L6690, May 24, 1955 People vs. Moro, L6771,
May 28, 1957 People vs. Remolino, L14008, September 30, 1960. See also: People vs. Torres, L4642,
May29,1953.
6
Peoplevs.Macaso,85Phil.819,828.
7
Peoplevs.Daligdig,89Phil.598,615.
8
Peoplevs.Mones,86Phil.331,333,339.
9
Tothesameeffect:Peoplevs.Desierto,(C.A.)45O.G.No.10,pp.4542,45494550.
10
People vs. Masin, 64 Phil. 757, 767, citing cases People vs. Timbang, 74 Phil. 295, 299 People vs.
Santos, 84 Phil. 97, 104 People vs. Domenden L17822, October 30, 1962 People vs. Ambran, L15581,
April29,1963.
11
SeeIPadilla,CriminalLaw,1964ed.,p.548,atfootnote.
12
Section15,Rule119,RulesofCourt,reads:
"SEC 15. Consolidation of trials of related offenses. Charges for offenses founded on the same
facts, or which form or are a part of a series of offenses of the same or similar character may, in the
discretionofthecourt,betriedjointly."
13
Section5(m),Rule131,RulesofCourt.
14
See: Gonzales vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, 63 Phil. 846, 855, citingcases Zulueta vs. Nicolas
102Phil.944,946,citingPeoplevs.Liggayu,97Phil.865,andPeoplevs.Natoza100Phil.533Bagatuavs.
Revilla,L12247,August26,1958.
15
Hernandezvs.Albano,L19272,January25,1967,citingcases.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation