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
evidencethat 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

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

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

VOL. 93, OCTOBER 30, 1979

711

The Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

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

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

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

VOL. 93, OCTOBER 30, 1979

713

The Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

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

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

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.
Appellants 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,
Appellants 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 appellants 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

VOL. 93, OCTOBER 30, 1979

715

The Complex Crime of Kidnapping With Murder

peilants 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 Bouviers
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

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.