COMPLEX CRIME PROPER

a. Tanenggee Vs. People ; G.R. No. 179448 ; June 26, 2013

Crime: COMPLEX CRIME OF ESTAFA through FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS

RATIONALE:

Falsification is necessary to commit estafa.

FACTS:

    Tanenggee executed promissory note to Metrobank with the name of "ROMEO TAN" and forged the signature of Romeo Tan, four (4) times making it appear that Romeo Tan had participated in the preparation, execution and signing of the said Promissory Note and the signing and endorsement of the said METROBANK CASHIER’S CHECK and that Romeo Tan obtained a loan of ₱16,000,000.00 from METROBANK.

    Romeo Tan did not obtain such loan from METROBANK, neither did he participate in the preparation, execution and signing of the said promissory note and signing and endorsement of said METROBANK CASHIER’S CHECK, much less authorize herein accused to prepare, execute and affix his signature in the said documents.

    Once the said documents were forged and falsified in the manner above set forth, accused Tanenggee released, obtained and received from the METROBANK the sum of ₱15,363,666.67 purportedly representing the proceeds of the said loan, which amount, once in his possession, with intent to defraud, he misappropriated, misapplied and converted to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said METROBANK in the same sum of ₱15,363,666.67, Philippine currency.

HELD:

    Liable for the commission of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document. The crime of falsification was established to be a necessary means to commit estafa. Pursuant to Article 48 of the Code, the penalty to be imposed in such case should be that corresponding to the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period. The applicable penalty therefore is for the crime of estafa, being the more serious offense than falsification.

b. Batulanon Vs. People; G.R. No. 139857 ; September 15, 2006

CRIMES: (separate)

Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626 and 3453:  GUILTY of three counts of falsification of private documents

Criminal Case No. 3627: GUILTY of estafa

RATIONALE:

As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document

important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa.

If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa.

c. People Vs. Reyes; G.R. No. L-34516  November 10, 1931

CRIME: defendant's falsification of the time book, with the intent of gain at the expense of the Calamba Sugar Estate constitutes the crime of

falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person (Art. 304 of the Penal code)

US vs. Victoria: 

The fact that the agent informed his employer that the costs of the installation was P10, while he told the person desiring the installation that it would costs P30, subsequently altering the former's bill in order to recover a larger sum from the latter in pursuance of his deceitful purpose, involves the characteristic of the crime of estafa, besides that of falsification which served as the means for its commission, because by adopting deceitful means he obtained a price which he would not otherwise have secured by telling the truth." However, the offense was not considered to constitute the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document, nor was the rule contained in article 89 applied, so as to impose the penalty for the more serious offense in its maximum degree.

d. People Vs. Abay; G.R. No. 177752; February 24, 2009

Guilty of SIMPLE RAPE under  Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

Victim was more than 12. AAA was 13 y/o at the time of the incident. 

Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted either for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution’s evidence only established that appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation22 by threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established.

However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act.

 Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. 

RATIONALE!

Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.

e. People Vs. Legaspi; G.R. Nos. 92167-68; July 14, 1995

CONVICTION:

(1) double murder and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; and

(2) violation of R.A. No. 6539 (Anti-carnapping Act)]

 wrongly convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with double homicide.

Appellants were charged with two separate informations, one for double murder (Criminal Case No. C-28760 [87]) and the other for violation of R.A. No. 6539 (Criminal Case No. C-28761 [87]). Their conviction can only be limited to the crime alleged or necessarily included in the allegations in the separate informations. What controls is the description of the offense, as alleged in the information (Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487 [1990]). While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of the various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14[2]).

f. People Vs.. Cilot; G.R. No. 208410; October 19, 2016

Crime Charged: 4 separate information of special complex crime of kidnapping with rape.

December 28, 2006

Accused conspired to kidnap AAA, 17y/o.

January 8, 2007

Orlando Brigole: sexual intercourse with AAA

May Joy Cilot: inserted her finger in AAA's vagina

January 9, 2007

Orlando Bigole: illegal possession of 1 grenade

RULING:

NOT GUILTY OF SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE.

GUILTY OF KIDNAPPING. (due to trial court's error of acquitting the accused, rape was taken out of the picture)

The mistake committed by the trial court is far from being clerical or inadvertent. It acquitted appellants based on its flawed reliance to an information which it thought was sufficient to charge and convict appellants of the crime of kidnapping with rape. The judgment of acquittal in favor of an accused necessarily ends the case in which he is prosecuted and the same cannot be appealed nor reopened because of the doctrine that nobody may be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense. Appellants have been erroneously but formally acquitted by the trial court. That judgment of acquittal is a final verdict. Errors or irregularities, which do not render the proceedings a nullity, will not defeat a plea of autrefois acquit (a defendant's plea stating that he or she has already been tried for and acquitted of the same offense). Said error unfortunately downgrades the crime to kidnapping and completely takes rape out of the picture albeit proven during trial.