Our repeated ruling is that in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
It is as though each one performed the act of each one of the
conspirators. Each one is criminally responsible for each one of the
deaths and injuries of the several victims. The severalty of the acts
prevents the application of Article 48. The applicability of Article 48
depends upon the singularity of the act, thus the definitional phrase a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. This is
not an original reading of the law. In People v. Hon. Pineda, the Court
already recognized the deeply rooted x x x doctrine that when various
victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and
distinct crimes. As we observed in People v. Tabaco, clarifying the
applicability of Article 48 of the [Revised Penal Code], [this Court]
further stated in [Hon.] Pineda that to apply the first half of Article 48,
x x x there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal
impulse is not written into the law.
Victims:
PO3 De la Cruz(deceased)
T/Sgt. Dacoco(deceased)
Private First Class Haron Angni
PFC Gapor Tomanto
Juanito Ibonalo
Mosanif Ameril
Macasubar Tandayao
Mayor Johnny Tawantawan
Jun Palanas
Facts:
On June 5, 2001. The appelants herein, Wenceslao Nelmida and
Ricardo Ajok, together with 10 other accused, allegedly ambushed the
victims, they were 9 in total and 2 of them, namely P03 De la Cruz and
T/Sgt. Dacoco, immediately died due to the ambush. The act was
perpetrated through the use of high-powered firearms with conspiracy.
The crime was allegedly committed by the accused in relation to the
past Mayoralty Elections in the locality.
The survivors, together with the Samuel Cutad testified the following
narration of events:
Samuels testimony:
That on June 5, 2001 around 3pm, the party of Samuel(accused party),
positioned themselves on both sides of a road in Purok 2, San Manuel,
Lala, Lanao del Norte, and waited for the pickup of the vicitms to pass
by. That upon passing of the victims vehicle, with the use of high
powered firearms, the accused party fired upon them inflicting
numerous injuries and causing the death of the aforementioned
individuals.
That after committing the act, the accused went back to Samuels
house just ten meters away from the scene of the crime and then got
their stuff from the said house and went about their own ways.
Survivors testimony:
The company of Mayor Tawantawan were heading to Salvador, Lanao
del Norte, when suddenly they were fired upon by the accused from
both sides of the road. The driver and Mayor Tawantawan, who was
seated at the passenders seat, were unharmed, but those riding at the
back were all injured. All of them were rushed to the hospital but PO3
Dela Cruz and Sgt. Dacoco wered dead before they arrived at the
hospital. The other five victims required hospitalization for the
treatment of their injuries.
Some of the survivors seated at the back of the pickup also testified
that they saw Wenceslao shooting directly at them while in a squatting
position by the side of the road.
Appellants then appealed their case to the Court. The Court ruled that
they were guilty beyond reasonable ground of the crime but modified
the sentence imposed declaring that the application of Art. 48 on
Complex crimes was erroneous.
Issue:
WON Art. 48 is applicable in the case at bar.
SC Ruling:
No. The concept of a complex crime is defined in Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code which explicitly states that:
ART. 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.
From its factual backdrop, it can easily be gleaned that the killing and
wounding of the victims were not the result of a single discharge of
firearms by the appellants and their co-accused. To note, appellants
and their co-accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle
boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security
escorts died while five (5) of them were wounded and injured. The
victims sustained gunshot wounds in different parts of their bodies.
Therefrom, it cannot be gainsaid that more than one bullet had hit the
victims. Moreover, more than one gunman fired at the vehicle of the
victims. As held in People v. Valdez, 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 a complex crime.
The prosecution was also not able to prove that absent the fact of
medical assistance, the other victims would have naturally died, thus
frustrated murder also cannot be upheld.
With all the foregoing, this Court holds appellants liable for the
separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts of
attempted murder.