Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

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.[1] 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. [2]

Contents
[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
proper.[3] Under Article 48 of the 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).[4]

Complex crime proper


A complex crime proper exists when an offense is a necessary means for committing 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, theft, or malversation, a complex crime is formed by the two crimes.[6] The
falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing 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 falsified 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
felonies.[9] 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]

In the landmark case People vs. Guillen,[11] 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. [12]

In People vs. Carpo et al.,[13] 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.

In People vs. Comadre,[14], 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 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.[15]

In People vs. Gaffud, Jr.,[16], 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
same to be applied in its maximum period." In People vs. Gaffud, Jr.,[17], 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
eligibility for parole.[20] 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 subdivision 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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen