Jose Adriano Topic: Single motivation, Single purpose under

continuing crime
G.R. No. L-38755 January 22, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE PINCALIN, RODOLFO
BELTRAN, EDUARDO EMPLEO and ALEJANDRO JANDOMON, Accused-Appellant
+ dissent of Makasiar

Issue: WON the crime committed constitutes a single motivation and a single
purpose/ it is a continuing crime
Facts: This is a convict-against-convict murder case involving prisoners in the
national penitentiary. As shown in People vs. Garcia, members of the Oxo gang,
were killed by their fellow-prisoners from Luzon, members of the Sigue- Sigue
Sputnik (SSS) gang.
To avenge those killings the accused Pincalin, Beltran, Empleo and Jandomon, and
members of the Oxo and Happy-Go-Lucky gangs, conspired at about ten o'clock in
the morning of that same Good Friday to kill some of their fellow- prisoners in
dormitory 6-A of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa Rizal, who were members of the
Sputnik gang.
They agreed that Pincalin would kill Leonardo Francisco that Beltran and Empleo
would kill Victorino Abril, and that Jandomon would kill Florentino Tilosa. Tilosa
survived due to timely medical intervention. The other victims died.
The trial court convicted the four accused of murder, which it regarded as a
complex crime qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and
quasi-recidivism. Applying article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, it sentenced each
of them to one death penalty and ordered them to pay solidarily to the heirs of the
two deceased victims, Abril and Tilosa, an indemnity of twenty thousand pesos.
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for
another offense; Penalty. Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any
person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment,
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new
felony
The trial court also convicted the four accused of frustrated murder and sentenced
each of them to an indeterminate penalty of seventeen years, four months and one
day of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as
maximum and to pay solidarily an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos.
The accused did not appeal and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for
review of the death penalty.
Held: Ruling of the Court Yes. The Supreme Court held that the case arose from
virulent and continuing feud between members of the two gangs.
The Court finds the accused guilty of the complex crime of double murder and
frustrated murder aggravated by quasi-recidivism. This case is governed by the rule
that when for the attainment of a single purpose, which constitutes an offense
various acts are executed, such acts must be considered as only one offense, a
complex one (People vs. Penas 66 Phil. 682).
In other words, where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose,
their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single
act, the act of execution, giving rise to a complex offense. Various acts committed
under one criminal impulse may constitute a single complex offense. (People vs.
Abella, L-32205, August 31, 1979.)
Therefore, the four accused should each be sentenced to death, as was done by the
trial court. However, following the precedent established in the De los Santos and
Abella cases as well as in the Garcia case, which involved four murders and double
attempted murder committed on the same day when the double murder and
frustrated murder in this case were committed, the death penalty should be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Held: Under the Main Topic. Yes. It is a Continuing Crime.

This^ is the ruling of the court but under our the main topic : Continuing Crime, the
acts committed by the accused are distinct from each other thus not having a
single act but a series of acts instead. According to the Reyes book see Penalty
for Complex Crimes, A continued crime is not a complex crime because of the
reasons stated above; of it having a series of acts and arose from one criminal
resolution.
The series of acts being the murder of the 2 victims and the frustrated murder of
the other. The criminal resolution (as stated in the facts if you may) is the
vindication of the deaths of their gang members perpetrated by the rival gang.
BUT!!!! Eto yung pinapabasa specifically ni sir. Pero basahin niyo na rin
yung nasa taas.
Makasiar, J., dissenting
Makasiar reasoned that the accused should have be guilty of two separate murders
and not the complex crime of double murder. Why?
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code states that "when a single act (not a single
purpose) constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period" The basis for the legal conclusion in the majority opinion is the single
motivation or single purpose, which is not justified by the phraseology of the law as
afore.
There are 2 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.
1st is a compound crime and 2nd is a complex crime proper.
The Supreme Court classified this to the 1st. There are 2 requisites 1. Single act 2. 2
or more grave or less grave. The 1st requisite is missing. Why? O.o The murders of
the 2 victims and the frustrated murder of the other were done using different acts.
Makasiar mainly contends that a single act does not equate to a single purpose.
He explains that if the Court reasoned out this way, (that a single act equates single
purpose) it would be absurd.
Ex.
Terrorists have one single purpose - to terrorize. If the terrorists kill several persons
separately with different firearms or sharp instruments, under the majority opinion,
the terrorists can only be guilty of the complex crime of multiple murder. Or if the
members of an arson syndicate, by pre-arranged signals, set fire to several
buildings at the same time and killing all the inmates therein, under the single
purpose or single motivation theory of the majority opinion, the culprits can only be
guilty of one crime of arson complexed with murder.
As stressed in People vs. Pineda (L-26222, 20 SCRA 754, July 21, 1967), cited in
Gamboa vs. CA, supra, "to apply the first half of Article 48 ... there must be
singularity of criminal acts; singularity of criminal impulse is not written in
to the law."

**Questions that might be asked by Sanipaps (he might ask, ganito ko sasagutin
pero ewan ko lang):
So what was the motive of the accused hmm? gang related. Territory, the
continuing feud of the two gangs.
So what was then the purpose hmm? to get back at the other gang, vindication of
the offenses of the other gang upon the others members
In a complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he must have a single
purpose.
In the case at bar, the purpose of the group was to avenge the killings made by the
Sputnik gang, by their various acts (killing the members) and is thus counted as 1
complex crime.

**di ako maka cite sa book kasi iba tayo ng edition di ko malagay page number.
Basta under complex crimes yan sa Reyes.