Doctrine of absorption

June 18, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Under the classical theory, on which the Revised Penal Code is principally based, a man is essentially a moral
creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil. If despite of such free will, he still commits
an evil act prohibited by law, the State will penalize him as a measure of retribution. A criminal should therefore be
adjudged on the basis of his criminal resolution and not on the number of acts he commit in furtherance of a single
criminal mind. Despite the plurality of his acts, if his criminal intent is singular, retributive justice of "an eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth” is served by imposing upon him a single penal sanction.
 
Crimes under the Revised Penal Code are mala in se, the concept of which gives importance to criminal intent
or mens rea of the offender. Thus, the number of criminal intent and not the number of crimes committed generally
determine the number of penalty to be imposed for multiple crimes. Multiple crimes committed by the same
offender under a single criminal impulse are treated as one crime and punished with a single penalty. Thus, a single
penalty is being imposed for multiple crimes with single criminal intent, which are merged to form a delicto
compuesto, delicto complejo, continued crime or absorbing crime.
 
The “one penalty for one criminal mind” rule is also based on the “absorption system”, which is one of the three
systems of penalty, under which lesser penalties are absorbed by the greater penalties.
One of the rules that require imposition of single penalty for multiple crimes is the doctrine of absorption, under
which one crime absorbs another if the latter is inherent in, an element of, or a necessary consequence of the
commission of the former. A crime is considered inherent where its commission is an indispensable means to
commit another.
 
For example, a person who by means of violence coerces a lady to have sexual intercourse with him should not be
held liable for physical injuries and coercion in addition to rape. Physical injuries are necessary consequence of the
employment of violence, which is an element of rape, while coercion is inherent therein. Hence, physical injuries
and coercion are absorbed in rape.  
 
One who enters an inhabited house by using picklock and takes properties therein without consent of its owner
should not be held liable for illegal possession of picklock and trespass to dwelling in addition to robbery in
inhabited house. Use of picklock to enter into a dwelling is a constructive force upon thing that will qualify the
taking into robbery in inhabited house. Since use of picklock and entry in dwelling are elements of robbery by force
upon thing, illegal possession of picklock and trespass to dwelling are absorbed in robbery. 
 
The essential elements of a given crime cannot be disintegrated in different parts, each one to stand as a separate
ground to convict the accused of a different criminal offense. The elements constituting a given crime are integral
and inseparable parts of a whole. In contemplation of law, they cannot be used for double or multiple purposes.
They can only be used for the sole purpose of showing the commission of the crime of which they form part (People
vs. Pablo Labra, 81 Phil. 377). The nature of a crime, which contains criminal components, does not endow it with
the functional ability of worm multiplication or amoeba reproduction.