In the Philippines, a complex crime occurs when a single act results in multiple felonies or when one offense is a necessary means to commit another. However, when multiple shots fired by assailants result in deaths and injuries, the Supreme Court has clarified that each shot constitutes a separate act, leading to convictions for multiple crimes rather than a single complex crime. This distinction is crucial for determining the appropriate penalties and ensuring justice for each victim.

Ambush in Lanao del Norte: Single Impulse or Multiple Felonies?

The case of People vs. Nelmida arose from an ambush in Lanao del Norte, where multiple assailants fired upon a vehicle carrying Mayor Tawan-tawan and his companions. Two security escorts died, and several others were injured. The accused, Wenceslao Nelmida and Ricardo Ajok, were initially convicted of double murder with multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder. However, the Supreme Court re-evaluated the convictions, focusing on whether the incident constituted a complex crime or separate offenses. The central question was whether the series of gunshots constituted a single act or multiple, distinct actions that would warrant convictions for separate crimes.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the applicability of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines complex crimes. This article states:

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.

The court distinguished between a compound crime, where a single act results in multiple felonies, and a complex crime proper, where one offense is a necessary means to commit another. It emphasized that deeply rooted in Philippine jurisprudence is the doctrine that:

when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.

The Supreme Court found that the ambush did not stem from a single act but from multiple, individual actions by the assailants. Each gunshot aimed at different individuals constituted a distinct act. The court clarified that each assailant’s 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. This meant that the accused could not be convicted of a single complex crime but rather of multiple separate crimes.

To further elaborate on the concept of treachery, the Supreme Court explained that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. It is an element of surprise and lack of opportunity for the victim to defend themselves. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

The court acknowledged previous cases, such as People v. Lawas, where multiple killings were considered a single offense due to a single criminal impulse and the impossibility of determining individual responsibility for each death. However, the court distinguished the Nelmida case, highlighting that conspiracy was evident among the assailants. Conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and then decide to commit it. This meant that the actions of one conspirator were attributable to all, thus establishing collective criminal responsibility.

The Supreme Court also addressed the matter of the penalties to be imposed. For each count of murder, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Given the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the court imposed reclusion perpetua for each count. For each count of attempted murder, the court imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to 10 years of prision mayor. It is important to note that the Indeterminate Sentence Law allows for a range of possible penalties, providing the court with discretion to consider the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate sentence.

Regarding damages, the Supreme Court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages to the heirs of the deceased victims. Moral damages are awarded to compensate for emotional distress, while exemplary damages serve as a deterrent against similar conduct. Temperate damages are awarded when pecuniary loss is proven but the exact amount cannot be determined. The surviving victims were also entitled to moral, temperate, and exemplary damages.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of credible witness testimonies in establishing the guilt of the accused. The court affirmed the trial court’s findings that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were consistent, straightforward, and credible, positively identifying the accused as among the perpetrators of the crime. The court also found that the accused’s defenses of denial and alibi were weak and unsubstantiated, failing to overcome the strong evidence presented by the prosecution.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the ambush constituted a complex crime or separate offenses of murder and attempted murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the multiple shots fired by the assailants constituted separate acts, leading to convictions for multiple crimes.
What is a complex crime under Philippine law?	A complex crime occurs when a single act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when one offense is a necessary means to commit another. The penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period.
What is the difference between murder and attempted murder?	Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with qualifying circumstances such as treachery. Attempted murder is when the offender commences the commission of murder directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
What is treachery?	Treachery is the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons, ensuring its execution without risk to the offender from the defense the offended party might make. It is the essence of an attack that is deliberate, without warning, swift, and unexpected.
What is the penalty for murder in the Philippines?	The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. The specific penalty depends on the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
What is the penalty for attempted murder in the Philippines?	The penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated murder. This generally results in a penalty of prision mayor, with the specific range determined by the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
What damages can be awarded in a murder case?	Damages that can be awarded include civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages. Civil indemnity and moral damages are mandatory, while exemplary and temperate damages are discretionary based on the circumstances.
What is the significance of conspiracy in this case?	The presence of conspiracy meant that the actions of one assailant were attributable to all conspirators. This established collective criminal responsibility, making each conspirator liable for all the resulting deaths and injuries.

The People vs. Nelmida case serves as a critical reminder of how the Philippine legal system differentiates between complex crimes and separate offenses, especially in cases involving multiple victims and assailants. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of proving individual acts and collective responsibility through conspiracy, ensuring that justice is served for each victim. This ruling clarifies the proper application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code and provides a clear framework for future cases involving similar circumstances.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012