Complex crime is defined under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which reads: 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.
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. A complex crime is either: a) a compound crime or delito compuesto which arise when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or b) a complex proper or delito complejo when an offense is a necessary means for committing another offense.
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.
In the landmark case of Guillen, the Supreme 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.[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.
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.
In another case, the Court ruled that the single act of burning the house of AAA, with the main objective of killing the latter and his daughter, BBB, resulting in their deaths — resulted in the complex crime of double murder and not two counts of murder.
Aside from these, there is also what is called as a special complex crime. Although similar in terminology, it is different from the complex crime that is provided for under Article 48 of the RPC. A special complex crime is one that is defined and given a specific penalty under the Code. Similar to complex crime, in a special complex crime two or more crimes are committed but the law expressly treats them as a single indivisible and unique offense as the acts are a product of a single criminal impulse. It is legislative wisdom which treats and classifies the attendant crimes as a unique offense, that is, a special complex crime.
In addition to that, there is what we called a continuing crime or delito continuado, a series of acts is committed, each of which is a crime of itself but there is also only a single crime. In which case, although there are diverse acts, in the eyes of the law, they merely constitute a partial execution of a single crime as there is only a single criminal resolution.
A continuing crime is also referred to as a transitory crime. Jurisprudence on the matter instructs that a continuing crime has two variations. In the first, there are series of acts, each material and essential to the crime that occur in different locations. In which case, the court where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took place has the jurisdiction to try the case. For instance, in the crime of estafa, the element of deceit takes place where a worthless check is issued and delivered, which may be different from where the damage was inflicted upon the check’s dishonor by the drawee bank. Under the second type, all the elements occurred in a single place but the very nature of the offense committed is such that the violation of the law is deemed continuing. An example of this is the crime of libel where the libelous matter is published or circulated from one province to another.
In addition to the foregoing, it is noteworthy that the concept of continuing crime has been applied only when the acts complained of are crimes punishable by the RPC. Jurisprudence for instance had the occasion to rule that the crimes of estafa, kidnapping, rebellion, and robbery – are continuing offenses under certain circumstances. In a continuing crime, it is the singularity or multiplicity of this criminal intent that determines the penalty to be imposed, without any regard to the number of criminal transgressions.
[1] G.R. No. 168050