Complex Crimes

Page 1 of 5

Complex crimes In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime. crime .

[1]

The underlying philosophy of complex

crimes in the Revised Penal Code, Code, which follows the pro 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 .

[2]

Contents

[hide hide]]

1 Kinds of complex crimes o

1.1 Complex crime proper 

o

1.2 Compound crime

o

1.3 Penalty for complex crimes

2 Special complex crimes 3 References

Kinds of complex crimes  Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides 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." Article 48 provides for two kinds of complex crimes, the compound crime and the complex crime [3]

proper .

Under Article 48 of the RPC RPC,, a complex crime refers to (1) the commission of at least two

grave or less grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one offense must be a necessary means for committing the other (or others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime when (1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; or (2) committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others). others) .

[4]

Complex crime proper   A complex crime proper exists when an offense is a necessary means for comm itting the other .

[5]

For 

instance, whenever a person carries out on a public, official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to perpetrate another  crime, like estafa estafa,, theft theft,, or malversation or malversation,, a complex crime is formed by the two crimes. crimes .

[6]

The

falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa estafa,, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification

Page 2 of 5

has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial document. In other words, the crime of  falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that f alsified public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa.

[7]

Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents. The issuance of the falsified credit certificates of time deposit (CCTD) for the sole purpose of obtaining or purchasing various machinery and equipment amounts to the criminal offense of  estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the RPC. The accused falsified the subject CCTDs, which are commercial documents, to defraud the victim. The falsification of the CCTDs was the necessary means for the commission of estafa .

[8]

Compound crime  A compound crime exists when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave [9]

felonies.

The classic example of the first of kind is when a single bullet results in the death of two or 

more persons. A different rule governs where separate and distinct acts result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.

[10]

[11]

In the landmark case People vs. Guillen,

the Court held that the single act of throwing a grenade at

President Roxas resulting in the death of another person and injuring four others produced the complex crime of murder and multiple attempted murders. Under Article 248 of the RPC, murder is committed when a person is killed by means of explosion. Applying Article 48 of the RPC, the penalty for the crime committed is death, the maximum penalty for murder, which is the graver offense . [13]

In People vs. Carpo et al.,

[12]

we held that the single act of hurling a grenade into the bedroom of the

victims causing the death of three persons and injuries to one person constituted the complex crime of multiple murder and attempted murder. [14]

In People vs. Comadre,

, the single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may

quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be considered onl y 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  [15]

degree of perversity.

[16]

In People vs. Gaffud, Jr.,

, the single act of burning a house, with the main objective of killing the

victim and his daughter, resulting in their deaths, resulted in the complex crime of double murder .

Penalty for complex crimes

Page 3 of 5

The penalty for complex crimes is one of the special circumstances separately treated by the Revised Penal Code for purposes of the application of penalties. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code also provides that in case of complex crimes, "the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the [17]

same to be applied in its maximum period." In People vs. Gaffud, Jr.,

, the single act of burning a

house, with the main objective of killing the victim and his daughter, resulting in their deaths, resulted in the complex crime of double murder. In a complex crime of double murder, the imposable penalty is death, instead of two death penalties for two counts of murder. However, with the abolition of  the death penalty, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole.

[18]

Special complex crimes Qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form. When the owner, driver or occupant of  the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof - the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.

[19]

The killing (or 

the rape) merely qualifies the crime of carnapping. The carnapping and the killing (or the rape) may be considered as a single or indivisible crime or a special complex crime which, however, is not covered by Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. See Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 . Robbery with Homicide is a single indivisible crime punishable with reclusion perpetua to death under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The presence of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance would have merited the imposition of the death penalty. However, in view of  the subsequent passage of Republic Act No. 9346, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without [20]

eligibility for parole.

See Robbery .

Special complex crime of Rape with Homicide. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7659, provides that when by reason or on the occasion of the rape a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. However, in view of the passage on 24 June 2006 of  R.A. 9346, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. See Rape.

References 1. ↑ People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 2. ↑ People vs. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, 8 June 2004, cited in People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 3. ↑ People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 4. ↑ Ambito vs. People, G.R. No. 127327, 13 February 2009 5. ↑ Revised Penal Code, Art. 48 6. ↑ Ambito vs. People, G.R. No. 127327, 13 February 2009

Page 4 of 5

7. ↑ Ambito vs. People, G.R. No. 127327, 13 February 2009 8. ↑ Ambito vs. People, G.R. No. 127327, 13 February 2009 9. ↑ Revised Penal Code, Art. 48 10. ↑ People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 11. ↑ 85 Phil. 307, 318 (1950) 12. ↑ People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 13. ↑ G.R. No. 132676, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 248 14. ↑ G.R. No. 153559, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 366, 384 15. ↑ As cited in People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 16. ↑ G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 17. ↑ G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 18. ↑ People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008 19. ↑ Republic Act No. 6539, Sec. 14, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which took effect on 31 December 1993 20. ↑ People vs. Baron, G.R. No. 185209, 28 June 2010

 As complex as these three terms used in criminal law are, the complexity is unlocked when these terms are analyzed.A complex crime is committed either 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. In both cases, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and is to be applied in its maximum period. It has two kinds: compound crime and complex crime proper. Special complex crime or composite crime is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of  the law warrants a single indivisible offense. They are regarded as a special species of complex crime  because there is one specific penalty imposed. An example of special complex crime is rape with homicide, when the homicide is consummated; otherwise they are separate offenses; kidnapping with homicide; robbery with arson. Delito continuado or continued crime or continuous crime exists where there is plurality of acts over 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 the same intent or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. In appearance, a delito continuado consists of several crimes but in reality there is only one crime on the mind of the perpetrator. To sum up, the following are its requisites: multiplicity of acts, unity of criminal purpose or intent; and unity of criminal offense violated. A good example of this is a robbery planned in one residential subdivision where several owners of such s ubdivision were robbed of their belongings.

Intent vs. Motives

Page 5 of 5

In most criminal investigations, the police authorities may inquire of the motive of killing. In their parlance, the motive of the suspect seems to hold water more than the intent. However, in  jurisprudence, it is the intent which plays a vital role in the determination of the offense. Motive is the moving power which impels one to commit an act for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. An extreme form of eviltry may lead a man to commit a crime irrespective of his actual motive but just for the pleasure of doing it. Correlatively, the manifest lack of motive in committing the act does not necessarily imply the absence of it for it is practically impossible to delve into the deepest recesses of the conscience of man. Whether or not the motive of the offender is good or bad, that does not prevent the prosecution of the crime if all the elements in its commission are present. Hence, a man who stole some medicines in the pharmacy to save his dying wife may have a very good intention, but the act itself is punishable by law. The law may   be compassionate, however by considering some mitigating circumstances that will lessen the punishment but the prosecution takes it course notwithstanding. Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and hence, need not be proved for purposes of  conviction. Intent is an element of the crime, except in unintentional felonies, that is to say, culpable felonies. The motive of the offender is essential only when the identity of the perpetrator is in doubt. The intent however of the offender is essential in intentional felonies. However, it is to be noted that the motive of the offender becomes relevant when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant, in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of  the killing, where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt and if the evidence is merely circumstantial. These points are worthy of being considered by an investigator of a crimes.