Annotation Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

708

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

ANNOTATION THE COMPLEX MURDER

CRIME

OF

KIDNAPPING

WITH

By Prof. LOHEL A. MARTIREZ § 1. The Crime of Murder, p. 708 § 2. Complex Crimes, p. 710 § 3. Corpus delicti, extrajudicial confessions, p. 713 ————— The crime of Kidnapping with Murder seemed to have been the preoccupation of people whose hatred towards their fellowman far exceeded those of ordinary criminals. The press have made extensive news reports of wealthy businessmen, women, and even children being kidnapped and the later on put to death. There is no appropriate penalty than the death penalty. The case under annotation is entitled, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, versus DATU OMBRA KIRAM, ET AL., Defendants, ESMAEL KUDANDING and MAGANDINGAN GUIAMAN, DefendantsAppellants, G.R. No. L28485, promulgated on October 30, 1979. § 1. The Crime of Murder Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes Murder. It states: Any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246,

shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 709

VOL. 93, OCTOBER 30, 1979

709

The Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment, or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste or ruin; 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity: 5. With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. Since Treachery was one of the qualifying circumstances alleged and proven, it may be well to consider some points on treachery. As was pointed out by the Supreme Court on several occasions, treachery, just like any element of the crime committed, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence—that is, evidence sufficient to establish its existence beyond reasonable doubt. It is not to be presumed or taken for granted from a mere statement that “the attack was sudden”; there must be a clear showing from the narration of facts why the attack or assault is said to be “sudden”. A nebulous atmosphere surrounding the attack is not to be tolerated especially where the liberty and life of an individual is at stake. Instances where Alevosia was present: (a) The attack was so sudden and unexpected that the

victim was not in a position to offer an effective defense. (People vs. Cuadra, 85 SCRA 576) (b) A deliberate surprise attack was made upon the unarmed victim without any risk to the assailant. (People vs. Alegria, 84 SCRA 614); (c) A sudden atsd unexpected attack under circumstances which render the victim unable to defend himself by reason of the 710

710


suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia. (People vs. Candado, 84 SCRA 508); (d) The appellant without warning, immediately fired upon the victim twice in succession, giving him no time for preparation, resistance or escape. (People vs. Barba, 97 Phil. 991); (e) There is treachery because the attack on the victim was sudden and unexpected and from behind. (People vs. Lopez, 80 SCRA 18).

§ 2. Complex Crimes 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 (As amended by Act No. 4000.) Two kinds of complex crimes: 1. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. 2. When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. No. 1 is otherwise known as compound crime. No. 2 is the complex crime proper. Penalty for complex crimes. The penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed,

the same to be applied in its maximum period. “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies”. Requisites: 1. That only one single act is performed by the offender. 2. That the single act produces (1) two or more grave felonies, or (2) one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies, or (3) two or more less grave felonies. Article 48 is not applicable to light felonies, Thus, in a collision between two automobiles in a careless and negligent manner, resulting in the slight physical injuries of the passengers and damage to one of the cars, there is no 711


711


complex crime, because the crime of slight physical injuries is a light felony. (People vs. Turk, 50 Phil. 1001) Examples of compound crime: (a) The one single act of Pama in firing a shot, the same bullet causing the death of two persons who were standing on the same line of the bullet. (People vs. Pama, 44 O.G. 3339) (b) The act of raping a girl causing her physical injuries requiring 35 days of medical attendance. (U.S. vs. Andaya, 34 Phil. 890) (c) The act of raping a girl transmitting to her a venereal disease which caused peritonitis from which the girl died. (People vs. Acosta, 60 Phil. 158) (d) After a justice of the peace had read to the accused a sentence of conviction, the latter took a dagger and stabbed said justice of the peace at the back, the wound incapacitating him for ordinary work for more than 30 days. When an offense is a neceseary means for committing the

other.” Although the law uses the term “offenses” the Supreme Court, in the case of People vs. Araneta, 48 Phil. 650, held that this kind of complex crime does not exist when the two crimes are punished under different statutes. Requisites: 1. That two offenses are committed. 2. That one of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other. 3. That both offenses must be punished under the same statute.

KINDS OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES There are two kinds of plurality of crimes: (1) formal or ideal plurality, and (2) real or material plurality. Article 48 provides for two cases of formal plurality of crimes. There is but one criminal liability in this kind of plurality. In real or material plurality, there are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender. In such cases, the 712

712


offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he has committed. CONTINUED CRIME A continued, continuous, or continuing crime is a single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. A continuing offense is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy. (22 C.J.S. 52) Although, there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.

(Note: The foregoing, were lifted verbatim from The Revised Penal Code by Luis B. Reyes, 2nd Ed.) In the determination of whether or not two offenses constitute a complex crime, the Supreme Court in Parulan vs. Rodas, 76 Phil. 855 held:— “In order to determine whether two offenses constitute a complex crime, we should not find out whether, in accordance with their definition by law, one of them is an essential element of the other, such as physical injuries which cause the death of the victim, or stealing of personal property without the consent of the owner through force or violence, for in such cases there would be only one single offense of homicide in the first and robbery in the second place. But we should take into consideration the facts alleged in a complaint or information and determine whether one of the two separate and different offenses charged therein was committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense; if it ware the two offenses constitute one complex crime; otherwise the complaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independent from one another. “For example, the crime of falsification of a private document is not, in general an essential element of the crime of estafa, because this offense may be committed through many and varied means; but if a defendant is charged in a complaint or information with having committed falsification of a private document as a means for committing estafa, the offense charged would be a complex offense of estafa through falsification. Also, abduction is, in general, not an essential 713


713


element of rape because rape may be committed anywhere without necessity of forcibly abducting or taking the victim to another place for that purpose; but if the offense charged is that the defendant abducted or carried by force the victim from one place to another wherein the latter was raped by the former, the crime charged would be a complex crime of rape through abduction, the abduction being in such a case a necessary means to commit the rape. And although homicide or murder may be committed wherever the victim may be found, yet if the charge in a complaint or information is that the victim was kidnapped and taken to another distant place in order to demand ransom for his

release and kill him if ransom is not paid the offense charged would evidently be a complex crime of murder through kidnapping the latter being a necessary means to commit the former.”

Justification for the imposition of the penalty for the most serious crime. The Court said:—“If one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily discernible. When two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes through separate distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties for each offense. (People vs. Hernandez, et al., 52 O.G. 5506)

§ 3. Corpus delicti, extrajudicial confessions To quote Justice De Castro in this particular case under annotation, he penned thus:—“With such independent and very credible proof of the corpus delicti, as has just been shown, it cannot be successfully contended that the extrajudicial confessions of appellants would not suffice to form the basis of their conviction. The rule is wellsettled that an extrajudicial 714

714


confession, if corroborated by proof of the corpus delicti, independent of the confession itself would be sufficient basis for conviction. “The only question that remains to be answered is

whether the extrajudicial confessions of the appellants are admissible in evidence with their claim of having been tortured into making them. In the first place, by the abundance of details which could not have been set forth in the confessions except by the declarants themselves, so evident on the face of the confessions, particularly the mention of the names of their confederates who went into hiding, including the individual role and distinct participation performed by each, the voluntariness of the confession is vividly manifested.” In People vs. Pena, 80 SCRA 589, No. L36435, December 20, 1977, the Supreme Court ruled, that, “The result is that the fact of the commission of the rape or the corpus delicti was proven by the testimony of Esther Tayag and the medical certificate and testimony of the medico legal officer of the Constabulary crime laboratory. “Appellant’s voluntary extrajudicial confession, that he raped Esther, was, therefore, corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti.” In People vs. Ventura, 80 SCRA 515, No. L32716, December 1, 1977, the Supreme Court ruled, that, “Appellant’s contentions are devoid of merit and do not deserve serious consideration. His detailed confession bears the earmarks of voluntariness. There is a photograph of Ventura signing his confession before Fiscal Nocon. There are twentyone pictures of Ventura replaying his role as the assassin of Carlos. “His averment that the police threatened to kill him if he did not cooperate is a very transparent concoction. His testimony intimating that Alfredo Alcantara shot Carlos, as directed by his brother Nicolas Alcantara, is an eleventh hour fabrication.” In another case, the Court ruled, thus: “This is a clear case where appellant’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti and is, therefore, a sufficient ground for convicting him of robbery with homicide. Ap 715


715


peilant’s culpability was established beyond reasonable doubt.” (People vs. De la Cruz, 85 SCRA 285, No. L45485,

September 19, 1978.) Still in another case, the Court said: “The defense of all the accused is anchored on the inadmissibility of the extra judicial confession of Florencio Geraldes and the extra judicial admission of Lorenzo Soberano on the ground that those were obtained by force and promise of freedom and hence, involuntary. As we have mentioned earlier, it does not behoove this Court to determine the voluntariness or involuntariness of both extrajudicial statements, it being enough that other evidence adduced at the trial fulfill the required quantum of evidence to convict the accused. Likewise, we have found that the extrajudicial statement of Soberano contains the indicia of voluntariness and his testimony in the court as prosecution witness negates the suspicion of a promise of freedom. Woven together with the other evidence of the prosecution, the pattern for the crime has thus been formed, and the claim of Soberano as to the involuntariness of his admission as well as that of his testimony must fall.” (People vs. Navasca, 76 SCRA 70, No. L28107, March 15,1977) Section 3, Rule 133, Rules of Court Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction.—“An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary on “Corpus Delicti”, The body of the offence; the essence of the crime. It is a general rale not to convict unless the corpus delicti can be established, that is, until the fact that the crime has been actually perpetrated has been first proved. Hence, on a charge of homicide, the accused should not be convicted unless the death be first distinctly proved, either by direct evidence of the fact or by inspection of the body. (Best, Pres. 201; 2 Hale, P.C. 290) Instances have occurred of a person being convicted of having killed another, who, after the supposed criminal has been put to death for the supposed offence, has made his appearance alive. The wisdom of the rule is apparent; but it has 716

716

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People vs. Villa

been questioned whether, in extreme cases, it may not be

competent to prove the basis of the corpus delicti by presumptive evidence. (3 Benth. Jud. Ev. 234) In cases of felonious homicide, the corpus delicti consists of two fundamental and necessary facts: first, the death; and secondly, the existence of criminal agency as its cause. (Pitts vs. State, 43 Miss. 472) A like analysis would apply in the case of any other crime. When the body of a murdered man was mutilated and burned beyond recognition, testimony that a piece of charred cloth found in the ashes with the body were like the trousers that a certain man wore, and that a slate pencil found there was identical with one he carried about him, was competent evidence to establish the identity of the body. (State vs. Martin, 47 S.C. 67, 25 S.E.113) A confession alone ought not to be considered sufficient proof of the corpus delicti. (Springfellow vs. State, 26 Miss. 157, 59 Am. Dec. 247) It may be proved by circumstantial evidence. (Dimmick vs. U.S., 135 Feb. 257, 70 CCA. 141) ——o0o——

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Annotation Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

Recommend Documents