PEOPLE vs. TABACO (Criminal Law)

People v. Tabaco

G.R. Nos. 100382-100385. March 19, 1997

FACTS:

Mayor Jorge Arreola of Buguey, Cagayan, arrived at the cockpit arena while the  accused Mario Tabaco was seated on the arm of the bench situated at the lower portion of the arena about more than three (3) meters away, from the place where the late Mayor and his group were seated when he suddenly without warning or provocation, shot the late mayor Jorge Arreola, with his M-14 rifle, followed by several successive burst of gunfire, resulting in the shooting to death of  Mayor Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Felicito Rigunan and Pat. Romeo Regunton, although the latter managed to run passing through the western gate near the gaffers cage but was chased by accused Tabaco. Regunton was later found dead inside the canteen of Mrs. Amparo Go inside the Octagon cockpit arena.

Pat. Mariano Retreta of INP Buguey, who was then at the Co’s canteen, saw the accused going out rushing from the cockpit arena, at a distance of one meter. He tried to pacify Tabaco. Meanwhile, Sgt. Benito Raquepo,one of those assigned to maintain peace and order at the Octagon cockpit arena, who was at the canteen taking snacks, heard five (5) successive gun reports coming from inside the cockpit arena, and saw the accused Tabaco coming from inside the cockpit arena.  They stood face to face holding their rifles and when Tabaco pointed his gun towards Sgt. Raquepo, Pat. Retreta grappled for the possession of the gun to disarm Tabaco, and in the process, the gun went off hitting Sgt. Raquepo and also the late Jorge Siriban who happened to be near Raquepo. Siriban died on the spot while Raquepo survived his wounds on his legs due to adequate medical treatment.

There were other persons injured that evening namely: (1) Antonio Chan injured on his right foot; (2) Salvador Berbano injured on his right forearm and on his right abdomen and (3) Rosario Peneyra on his face and right shoulder. But, the three, did not file their complaints.”

After trial, the court a quo, in a joint decision, found accused-appellant guilty as charged on all counts.

ISSUES:

Whether the criminal cases Nos. 259, 270, 284 and 317, involving the killings of Oscar Tabulog, Jorge Arreola, Felicito Rigunan and Romeo Regunton, respectively, should have been prosecuted under only one Information.

RULING:

No.

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. (as amended by Art. No. 400). (Art. 48, Revised Penal Code).

Read as it should be, this article provides for two classes of crimes where a single penalty is to be imposed; first, where the single act constitutes two or more g rave or less grave felonies (delito compuesto); and second, when the offense is a necessarily means for committing the other (delito complejo) and/or complex proper (People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748).

In the case at bar, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the death of each of the five persons who were killed by appellant and the physical injuries inflicted upon each of the two other persons injured were not caused by the performance by the accused of one simple act as provided for by said article. Although it is true that several successive shots were fired by the accused in a short space of time, yet the factor which must be taken into consideration is that, to each death caused or physical injuries inflicted upon the victims, corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by the accused, who thus made himself criminally liable for as many offenses as those resulting from every singe act that produced the same. Although apparently he perpetrated a series of offenses successively in a matter of seconds, yet each person killed and each person injured by him became the victim, respectively, of a separate crime of homicide or frustrated homicide. Except for the fact that five crimes of homicide and two cases of frustrated homicide were committed successively during the tragic incident, legally speaking there is nothing that would connect one of them with its companion offenses.”

Furthermore, the trial court’s reliance on the case of People vs. Lawas is misplaced. The doctrine enunciated in said case only applies when it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused by numerous killers. In the case at bench, all of the deaths are attributed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to the accused-appellant.

Consequently, the four murders which resulted from a burst of gunfire cannot be considered a complex crime. They are separate crimes. The accused-appellant must therefore be held liable for each and every death he has caused, and sentenced accordingly to four sentences of reclusion perpetua.