SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

Art. 299, 302

People v. Valenzuela
Ability to freely dispose a property is not an element of theft. What is important is taking. If
there is taking = consummated theft; no taking, attempted. No occasion frustrated theft
anymore.

People v. Salvilla
Ability to freely dispose a property is not an element in robbery.

People v Marquez – no longer controlling

Frustrated robbery with homicide – no longer applicable

People v
No allegation of consummation of theft in the information – cannot convict the accused of such
crime

Barrens rule – crime in the information is necessarily included in the

Special Complex Crime

Two requisites:
1. Original design is to commit the principal components of the SCC
2. direct connection or intimate relationship between and among the special complex
crimes

1ST element: ORIGINAL DESIGN IS TO COMMIT THE PRINCIPAL CRIME

Rape w/ homicide- the original design must be to commit rape

People v. Butler
Murder, two
Abuse of superior strength

People v. Laspardas

People v Bernabe

Theft, Rape, Kil

 identify the original design to identify the principal crime
 assess if the other crime(s) are attached to the principal crime to form the SCC
 there is no ‘rape with theft’ – these are separate crimes of rape and theft

people v. Flores
people v. cruz

people v. denola
there is no ‘rape with robbery’.

Art. 294 – Robbery with rape

People v. Canastre
Robbery with rape whether the rape was committed before or after the robbery

People v. Orosque
If the killing was to eliminate the witness but the original design was to commit robbery –
Robbery with homicide

People v. Lamsing

People v. Daniela

People v. Flores / Magu-ad/ Tuangco

People v. Lascuña

Carnapping

People v. Latayda
Carnapping in the aggravated form / Qualified carnapping: the original design must be to
commit carnapping

People v. Calacroso
Homicide and simple carnapping

Destructive Arson and PD 1613

Malicious mischief

Art. 332
Intestate estate v. Gonzales

People v. Viilacorta

People v. Sedillo
 If the principal objective was to kill, but fire was deliberately employed as a means to kill
– MURDER (arson is absorbed)
 People v. Gaffud
1. Intention was to kill the person, arson is absorbed.
2. Single act of burning the building constituting two crimes of murder (complex crime)

 If principal objective was to burn the building – ARSON with homicide

People v. De Leon
Intent to burn is presumed
Intent to kill must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
In the absence of circumstance showing reason and motive to kill, arson with homicide.

People v. Malngan

 If the principal objective was to conceal the murder

Exception to SCC:
Kidnapping with Homicide (People v. Ramos/Laranaga/Mercado/Montanil/Dionaldo)

If the kidnap victim died as a consequence of the detention, whether the killing was purposely
sought or was mere afterthought – kidnapping with homicide/murder

It is important that there is the (1) intent to deprive of liberty and (2) deprivation of liberty.

People v. Estacio
At the precise moment that the victim was brought to the locus criminis, the accused wasted no
time to kill the victim – there was deprivation of liberty arising from the transportation of the
victim to another place is just incidental to the main intention of killing  MURDER.

The accused demanded for ransom – SC: the crime of murder cannot be converted to one of
kidnapping.

2nd element: DIRECT CONNECTION OR INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OR AMONG THE

CRIMES

People v. Jugueta/De Leon

Robbery with homicide – death must result by reason or on occasion

Article 4, RPC.
Wrongful acts:
1. Wrongful act done
2. Wrongful act intended

Robbery with homicide, components:

 Robbery by means of violence or intimidation
People v Pelagio

People v. Jaranilla
Since the taking is not committed, Art. 294 of the RPC is not applicable.

People v. Concepcion
Riding in tandem
Snatching without violence or intimidation is theft.

Even if the victim of homicide is a co-robber, still robbery with homicide

People v. Umbao
What is important is that death results by reason or on occasion of robbery – robbery with
homicide.

Attempted robbery with homicide

People v. Manalili
To be held liable, the accused must be guilty of the all offenses.

Suicide
People v. Arpa
Death was imputable to the victim yet still considered homicide.

MASTER
Doctrine of absorption
Robbery in dwelling
Qualifying circumstances of Treachery
Multiple homicides / rapes
Collective responsibility
Allegation

Doctrine of Absorption
People v. De Leon/De Jesus/Diu/Jugueta
GR:
If the crime committed is robbery with homicide and other crimes are committed, the latter
shall be integrated in the former as long as they have been committed by reason or on occasion
of robbery.

Exception:
Rape with homicide and (theft)

Forcible Abduction
Man abducting a woman with lewd design. The conversion of the organ from penis to vagina
shall not make one a woman. Illegal detention.

Rape thru Sexual Intercourse

Gender crime – man having carnal knowledge with a woman; with lewd design

Rape through Sexual Assault – gender free crime; gender is irrelevant

1. Instrument or object rape – by inserting the instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice
2. Sodomy
3. Oral intercourse

Use of picklocks is not qualifying circumstance because it was used to commit rape.

Robbery with use of force upon things

 Force upon the building
1. Actual force – breaking of the window, door, wall
2. Constructive force – picklocks, simulation, use of fictitious name
 Force upon sealed receptacle
1. Actual – actual breaking
2. Intended – People v. Macamay

People v. Fernandez
People v. Marquez

Robbery in an uninhabited place (building or house)

 Private building must be habitable
 Closed or sealed receptacles

People v. Adorno
Breaking window but not intended to enter the building – not qualifying circumstance for
robbery with use of force upon things; THEFT with ordinary aggravating circumstance of
breaking the window

People v. Sebastian

People v. Napoles
The Sebastian doctrine defies logic.

People v. Fransdilla
Reaffirmed Napoles ruling.

Two occasions when not to apply Fransdilla

 1. No robbery with force upon things
2. Qualified piracy

People v. Apdo

People v. Lamosa

People v. Baguio

People v. Lamahang

People v. Escote

People v. Baron / Ancheta

People v. Vivas
There is no such thing as Robbery with Murder. Consider treachery as qualifying circumstance

People v. Bacero
Abuse of superior strength not as a qualifying circumstance

Qualified piracy

Multiple rapes, homicides

Issue 1: Doctrine of absorption
Issue:2: Aggravating circumstance

Regardless of the number of homicides committee, the same shall be integrated into the SCC of
Robbery with Homicide

People v. Siyo
Regardless of the number of people killed, since the acts were committed

Exception: Kidnapping, two or more kidnap victims

People v. Laranaga – Kidnapping with Homicide event though accused also committed rape to
the two victims

Collective Responsibility
Band – more than three or at least four
 Robbery by band – special aggravating circumstance
People v. Hamiana

People v. De la Cruz / Castro

People v. Anturia

Allegation
People v. Legaspi
People v. Umawid
People v. Laoag (Lawag)

COMPLEX CRIMES
a. Compound crime
b. Complex crime proper

People v. Abiado
SPI cannot be made a component of a compound crime

People v. Desierto

Criminal Impulse Rule

People v. Mison

People v. Remolino

People v. Pineda

People v. Lawas