ARTICLE 48 – COMPLEX CRIMES
and Tilosa. Does not know how to read. Signed
A. COMPOUND
PEOPLE V PINCALIN
 Convict against convict murder case involving prisoners in
the nat’l penitentiary
 Background case:
o As shown in PP v Garcia (96 SCRA 497), 8:45AM
of Good Friday, April 9, 1971 – Visayan prisoners
and members of Oxo gang were killed by their
fellow prisoners from Luzon, members of the
Sigue-Sigue Sputnik (SSS) gang.
 Herein accused, conspired at abt 10AM of that same day 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.
o Jose Pincalin
o Rodolfo Beltran
o Eduardo Empleo
o Alejandro Jandomon
 Plan:
o Pincalin would kill Leonardo Francisco
o Beltran and Empleo would kill Victorino Abril
o Jandomon would kill Florentino Tilosa
o Armed with bladed weapons known as “matalas”
 Execution:
o 1st victim:
 While Abril was seated on his bed,
watching someone who was making a
basket, Beltran (stab 5x) and Empleo
(stab 6x) approached him frontally and
stabbed him. Abril fell on the flr. DIED.
o 2nd victim:
 Tilosa, standing near the door of the
dorm, when Jandomon stabbed him on
the right side of his body. Tilosa resisted,
Jandomon stabbed him repeatedly until
he collapsed on the flr. DIED.
o 3rd victim:
 Francisco, standing near a wall facing the
prison hospital and, as he heard Abril
asking why he was assaulted when he
has not done anything wrong, Francisco
was stabbed by Pincalin in the abdomen
near the waist. Avoided further assaults
from Pincalin by climbing a window.
 Didn’t die, a surgical operation was later
performed on him.
 The 4 accused  surrendered their weapons  executed
separate extrajudicial confessions.
 Sept. 5, 1972 – special prosec filed an Info against 4
accused charging them with:
o Murder and Frustrated Murder, qualified by
treachery and evi premed
o Alleging that they perpetrated the offenses while
serving sentences in the nat’l penitentiary
o Pleaded NOT GUILTY.
 Main evidence: Ex-extra-judicial confessions.
o Francisco A. Cometa, Jr. – prison guard
investigator
 took the confessions and made a written
report of the incident dtd May 6, 1971 
testified on the voluntariness of the
confessions and confirmed his report
 TRIAL: 4 accused REPUDIATED their confessions
o Jandomon: denied the accused assault. Allegedly
signed the confession bec he was in a room w/o
breakfast and lunch up to 10:30PM of Apr. 9,
1971. Hungry. Could not read. Not formally
investigated. Doesn’t remember whether he
appeared before Asst. Dir. of Prisons
o Beltran: testified he did not know how Abril and
Tilosa were killed. Denied entering into a
conspiracy w the other 3 accused. Signed the
confessions bec Cometa said he could go home
after signing.
o Empleo: declared he did not know who killed Abril
the confession bec hungry and dizzy.
o Pincalin: testified that he had no participation in
the assaults. Denied having executed any
confession.
 Cometa (prison guard) in his rebuttal: accused were given
their lunch at 4:25PM of Apr. 9, 1971
 TRIAL COURT:
o Murder, complex crime. Qualified by treachery and
aggravated by evi premed and quasi-recidivism.
(Applied Art. 160 RPC: death penalty)
o Frustrated murder: indeterminate penalty of 17y
4m, 1d.
 Accused did not appeal but was elevated to SC for
automatic review of the death penalty.
 Beltran died in prison of tuberculosis on May 7, 1977. Crim.
liability was extinguished.
 COUNSEL DE OFICIO’s contentions:
o Accused was not guilty BRD
o Lower court erred in imposing the death penalty,
considering the inhuman congestion in the nat’l
penitentiary
 SC ARGUMENTS:
o Accused admittedly signed their confessions w/o
any maltreatment, and so there is no reason why
the investigator would falsely impute to them the
charges by fabricating their confessions. The
confession should be conclusive proof of their
guilt.
o 4 accused guilty of COMPLEX CRIME OF
DOUBLE MURDER AND FRUSTRATED
MURDER AGGRAVATED BY QUASI-
RECIDIVISM. Governed by the rule: 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.
o 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.
o Therefore, 4 accused should each be sentenced
to death, as was done by the TC.
 However, FOLLOWING the precedent established in the
DE LOS SANTOS, ABELLA, and GARCIA cases, 4
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: The TC’s judgment is set aside. Accused are each
sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA.
PEOPLE V TOLING
 CFI Laguna: multiple murder and attempted murder
 Antonio Toling and Jose Toling – the accused
o Twins, both married from Barrio Nenita, 18 kms
away from Mondragon, Northern Samar.
o Illiterate farmers tilling their own lands
o 48 years old in 1966
o Antonio – 1hr older than Jose. Has a
distinguishing cut in his ear.
 Antonio’s daughter, Leonora – working in Manila as a
laundrywoman since Sept. 1964. Jose’s 3 children, 1 girl &
2 boys, stayed in Manila also since 1964.
 Antonio decided to go to Manila after receiving a letter from
Leonora telling him that she would give him money. Jose
decided to go w Antonio to see his children. PhP85 for his
expenses.
 Jan. 6, 1965 – twins left Barrio Nenita and took a bus to
Allen  took a launch to Matnog, Sorsogon  went to
Daraga, Albay  rode on train arriving at the Paco railroad
station in Manila at 7AM of Jan. 8. First trip to the big city.
 Paco station  jeep to Tondo.
o By a letter w/c Aniano Espenola, a labor-recruiter
had given them, they were able to locate Eng
Heng Glassware, where Leonora was working.
o Leonora gave her father, Antonio, PhP50. Sencio
Rubis, Antonio’s grandson, gave Antonio PhP30.
Right pocket of his pants. Noontime.
 Jose was not able to find any of his children in the city.
Twins returned to the agency and ate lunch at Juan’s (one
of the employees there) expense.  Tutuban railroad
station, on that same day, for their homeward trip. Boarded
the night Bicol express train at 5PM, left at 6PM.
 SEATPLAN:
o Twins – situated in Coach No. 9
o Opposite seats. An aisle separated 2 rows. 4 th 3-
seater passenger seat from the rear, facing the
back door.
o Window  Antonio  Jose  3 year-old boy 
woman breastfeeding her baby (Corazon Bernal)
 aisle.
o 120 passengers in the coach. Some were
standing.
o 3rd seat facing the brothers: 2 men and an old
woman sleeping.
o 2-passenger seat across the aisle in line with the
brothers: Window  fat woman  Cipriano
Reganet. Opposite them (in front of Reganet):
woman, daughter, Amanda Mapaw an 8 month-old
baby.
o Stopover @ Cabuyao, Laguna: buying of chicos.
Not long after it resume its regular speed, the
stabbing ensued.
 STABBING:
o Antonio stood up and stabbed the man sitting
directly in front of him with scissors. Jose stabbed
sleeping old woman in front of him.
o Twins ran amuck, and started stabbing people in
the coach. Constabulary soldiers inside the train.
o 1.) Constabulary Sergeant Vicente Z. Rayel – not
on duty that time, just taking his wife and children
to Calauag, Quezon. When he heard about the
incident, he approached Coach No. 9 and saw a
man on the platform separating 8 and 9, holding a
knife b/w thumb and index finger of his right hand,
blade pointed outward. Shouted at said man, to
lay down the knife or else he would be shot. But
instead of obeying, man clutched knife in his palm
with the blade pointing inwards, and in a suicidal
impulse, stabbed himself on his left breast. Man
fell on the floor.
o Near the platform, CS Rayel saw another man
holding a pair of scissors. Retreated to the steps
near the platform when he saw CS Rayel armed w
a pistol.
o 2.) Constabulary Sergeant Vicente Aldea, also in
the train. Went to the coach where the killings
happened and saw Mrs. Mapa wounded. Also saw
Antonio stabbing w his 2 scissors 2 women and a
small girl, and a woman who was later identified
as Teresita B. Escanan.
o CS Aldea shouted at Antonio to surrender but the
latter made a thrust at him w scissors. When
Antonio was about to stab another person, CS
Aldea stood on a seat and repeatedly struck
Antonio on the head w his pistol, knocking Antonio
down. Wrestled the scissors away from him.
 At Calamba Station: 4 Const. Soldiers turned 2 accused at
Calamba police. Weapons turned over to Const. Criminal
Investigation Svc.
 12 persons perished. 8 were found in the train, dead from
stab wounds:
o Isabel Felices
o Antonio B. Mabisa
o Isabelo S. Dando
o Susana C. Hernandez
o Teodoro F. Bautista
o Modesta R. Brondial
o Elena B. Erminio
o Teresita B. Escanan
 4 dead persons found near railroad tracks, apparently
jumped from the moving train to avoid being killed:
o Timoteo U. Dimaano
o Miguel C. Oriarte
o Salvador A. Maqueda
o Shirley A. Valenciano
 Antonio’s statement:
o While in the train, he was stabbed by a person
“from the station” who wanted to get his money.
Retaliated. In the train, 4 persons were asking
money from him. Hold-up.
 Jose’s statement:
o Wounded because he was stabbed by the person
“from Camarines” who was taking his money.
Stabbed 2 persons who were demanding money
from him, armed w knives and iron bars.
 Jan. 20, 1965: Const. Sgt. Filed against the twins in the
MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna – multiple murder and multiple
frustrated murder
 Mar. 10, 1965 – CFI Laguna, multiple murder (9 victims),
and multiple frustrated murder (6 victims), and triple
homicide (3 persons who jumped out of the train).
 Elevated to CA:
o Counsel de officio assails the credibility of the
witnesses. Appellants acted in self-defense.
o Appellants should only be liable for 2 homicides
for the victims they admitted to killing.
o 8 killings should be treated as a complex crime
under Art. 48.
 Supreme Court:
o SELF-DEFENSE:
 Not enough evidence to corroborate that
they were being held-up.
 Caught in flagrante delicto.
o CONTENTION OF 2 HOMICIDES:
 The heirs of 8 persons who died because
of stab wounds must be indemnified.
 4 persons who died from jumping off the
train: absence of eyewitness-testimony
as to the jumping precludes the
imputation of crim liability to the twins
 Rule: “If a man creates in another
man’s mind an immediate sense of
danger which cause such person to
try to escape, and in so doing he
injures himself, the person who
creates such state of mind is
responsible for the injuries which
result.”
o COMPLEX CRIME:
 8 killings and the attempted killing should
be treated as separate crimes of murder
and attempted murder qualified by
treachery.
 Perpetrated by means of different acts.
Cannot be regarded under Art. 48
 HELD:
o Toling bros guilty as co-principals of 8 separate
murders and 1 attempted murder.
ARTICLE 19 – ACCESSORIES.  DEFENSE’S CONTENTIONS:
o It is contended that there is no evidence proving
that she actually joined in the conspiracy to kill her
ASSISTING THE PRINCIPAL TO ESCAPE husband because there is no showing of “actual
cooperation” on her part with her co-appellants in
their culpable acts that led to his death.
PEOPLE V TALINGDAN o It is further claimed that “mere cognizance,
 CFI of Abra charged the accused with murder and the acquiescence or approval” thereof on her part,
sentence of life imprisonment which it is argued is less than what is required for
 Bernardo Bagabag (accused) and Teresa Domogma (one her conviction as a conspirator (People v Mahlon).
of the accused)  HELD:
o Their relationship had been stained with troubles o YES. Teresa Domogma is an accessory to
for sometime Bernardo Bagabag’s murder.
o Teresa had deserted their family home a couple of  There is in the record morally convincing proof that she is at
times the very least an accessory to the offense committed.
o On 2 different occasions, Nemesis Talingdan, o She did not only order her daughter not to reveal
(another one of the accused) had visited Teresa in what she knew to anyone, she also claimed to
their house while Bernardo was out at work, and
have no suspects in mind when the peace officers
during those visits, Teresa would make their 12
came into their house later to investigate
y/o daughter, Corazon, go down the house and
leave them. o Whereas before the actual shooting she was more
o Somehow, Bernardo had gotten wind that illicit or less passive in her attitude regarding the
relationship was going on between Nemesis and conspiracy, after Bernardo was killed, she became
Teresa. active in her cooperation with her co-appellants
 About a month before Bernardo was killed, Teresa had o These acts constitute “concealing or assisting in
again left and did not come back for more than 3 weeks, the escape of the principal in the crime”. (Art 19
and Bernardo knew later that she and Nemesis were seen Par. 3 RPC).
together in Tayum Abra during that time.  Male appellants:
 2 days before Bernardo was killed, Bernardo and Teresa o Convicted with murder, qualified by treachery, and
had a big fight, with Bernardo slapping several times attended by the generic aggravating
causing her to seek the help of the police. circumstances of evident premeditation and that
o Nemesis, a policeman, came armed to the vicinity the offense was committed in the dwelling of the
of Bernardo’s house and called him to come down offended party.
but Bernardo ignored him, so Nemesis instead left o Death penalty.
and warned Bernardo that someday he would kill  Teresa Domogma:
him. o hereby found guilty only as an accessory to the
 FOLLOWING FRIDAY MORNING: same murder.
o Corazon was in a creek to wash her clothes when o the indeterminate penalty of five (5) years of
she saw her mother, Teresa, meeting w Nemesis prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years
and other co-appellants - Magellan Tobias, of prision mayor as maximum, with the accessory
Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides penalties of the law.
o She heard one of them say “Could he elude a
bullet”. When accused Teresa noticed the
presence of Corazon, she shoved her away saying
“You tell your father that we will kill him.”
 JUNE 24, 1967, SATURDAY:
o Corazon, while preparing supper for the family,
saw Teresa go down the house and to their yard
to meet her co-accused.
o Unable to hear their conversation, but was able to
see them through the “batalan”, and she knows
them well for they are all residents of Sobosob and
she used to see them almost everytime.
o Noted that the appellants had long guns with them
during that time.
o They did not eat at the same time, because
Bernardo did not heed her daughter’s call for
supper, and Teresa excused herself saying she
would first put the baby to sleep.
o After Corazon ate supper, she informed her father
about the presence of persons downstairs, but
Bernardo paid no heed to what she said. He
proceeded to the kitchen and sat himself on the
floor near the door. Corazon stayed nearby
watching him.
o At that moment, he was suddenly fired upon from
below the stairs of the “batalan”. The four accused
then climbed the stairs of the “batalan” carrying
their long guns and seeing that Bernardo was still
alive, Nemesis and Magellan fired at him again.
o Pedro and Augusto did not fire their guns at that
precise time, but when Corazon tried to call for
help Bides warned her, saying “You call for help
and I will kill you,” so she kept silent.
o The assailants then fled from the scene.
 ISSUE: WON Teresa Domogma is an accessory to
Bernardo Bagabag’s murder
VINO V PEOPLE
 March 21, 1985
o 7PM: Roberto Tejada (victim) left their house to go
to Isidro Salazar’s to watch TV
o 11PM: Ernesto, father of Roberto, heard 2
gunshots. Thereafter, he heard Roberto’s outcry
that he had been shot.
o Ernesto and his wife, his children Ermalyn and
Julius went down to meet Roberto, and saw Lito
Vino and Jessie Salazar riding a bicycle from the
south. Lito was the on driving while Jessie was
carrying an armalite.
o Upon reaching Ernesto’s house, they stopped to
watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at
Ernesto and his companions. Thereafter, the two
left.
 Roberto was brought to the Sacred Heart Hospital of
Urdaneta.
 PC/Col. Bernardo Cacananta took his ante-mortem
statement. In the said statement which the victim signed
with his own blood, (SOBRANG COOL PO) Jessie Salazar
was identified as his assailant.
 March 22, 1985 –the municipal court indorsed the case of
Jessie Salazar to the Judge Advocate General’s Office
(JAGO) inasmuch as he was a member of the military.
 RTC charged Lito with murder. In his arraignment, he
entered the plea of not guilty.
 Trial: Instead of presenting prosec’s evidence, the accused
filed a motion to dismiss FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE
 Jan 21, 1986: Trial court found Lito Vino guilty as an
accessory to the crime of murder.
 During the pendency of the appeal in the Court of Appeals,
the case against Salazar in the JAGO was remanded to the
civil court as he was discharged from the military service.
 RTC Pangasinan: charged Salazar with murder.
 November 14, 1988 - petitioner informed this Court that
Jessie Salazar was acquitted by the trial court in a decision
that was rendered on August 29, 1988.
o the trial court was not persuaded that he was
positively identified to be the man with the gun
riding on the bicycle driven by Vino.
 ISSUE: WON the charge to Lito Vino of ACCESSORY TO
THE CRIME can be sustained even when the Information
charged him AS PRINCIPAL
 HELD: Yes.
o In this case, the correct offense of murder was
charged in the information. The commission of the
said crime was established by the evidence. There
is no variance as to the offense committed. The
variance is in the participation or complicity of the
petitioner. While the petitioner was being held
responsible as a principal in the information, the
evidence adduced, however, showed that his
participation is merely that of an accessory. The
greater responsibility necessarily includes the
lesser. An accused can be validly convicted as an
accomplice or accessory under an information
charging him as a principal.
o At the onset, the prosecution should have charged
the petitioner as an accessory right then and
there. The degree of responsibility of petitioner
was apparent from the evidence. At any rate, this
lapse did not violate the substantial rights of
petitioner.
o In the trial of the case against Vino, wherein he did
not even adduce evidence in his defense, his
liability as such an accessory was established
beyond reasonable doubt in that he assisted in
the escape of the assailant from the scene of
the crime. The identity of the assailant is of no
material significance for the purpose of the
prosecution of the accessory. Even if the
assailant cannot be identified the
responsibility of Vino as an accessory is
indubitable.
 SC affirmed the trial court’s decision, the motion for
reconsideration is denied and this denial is FINAL.