People v. Bernal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 18, 1965, in Tayum, Abra, Ricardo Bernal and Eduardo Bernal allegedly conspired to kill Guillermo Barro, Anastacio Barro, and Dominga Carnate Barro. The amended information charged them with murder with double frustrated murders, alleging treachery, evident premeditation, and disregard of the age of the victim (Guillermo Barro). It was alleged that the accused, taking advantage of nighttime and slumber, shot Guillermo Barro, causing his instantaneous death, and also shot Anastacio Barro and Dominga Carnate Barro, inflicting wounds that did not result in death due to timely medical assistance. Procedural History: On September 21, 1965, Ricardo Bernal, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to the amended information. The trial court withheld sentence as his co-accused, Eduardo Bernal, pleaded not guilty. The case against Eduardo Bernal was provisionally dismissed on January 13, 1966, due to insufficient evidence. On the same day, the trial court promulgated its judgment against Ricardo Bernal, considering the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age offset by the plea of guilty. However, it ruled that the crime was a complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder and imposed the death penalty, citing Article 248 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review, assigning two errors: (1) the lower court erred in ruling that the crime was a complex crime, and (2) the lower court erred in imposing the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed is a complex crime of murder with double frustrated murders under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the death penalty was correctly imposed upon the accused Ricardo Bernal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the lower court. It declared Ricardo Bernal guilty of murder for the death of Guillermo Barro and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It also declared him guilty of two counts of frustrated murder for the shootings of Anastacio Barro and Dominga Carnate Barro, sentencing him to an indeterminate period of imprisonment for each count. The death penalty was not imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the crime committed is a complex crime: The Court held that Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code applies only when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when one offense is a necessary means to commit another. In this case, the shots fired by the accused, which resulted in the death of one victim and the frustrated murder of two others, were distinct and separate acts. Therefore, the crime committed was not a complex crime but three separate offenses: one murder and two frustrated murders. The Court cited People vs. Pineda to support the distinction between delito compuesto and delito complejo. On the issue of the imposition of the death penalty: The Court found that the amended information alleged treachery and evident premeditation as circumstances attendant to the murder of Guillermo Barro. One of these would qualify the crime as murder, and the other would be an aggravating circumstance. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the age of the victim was alleged but considered offset by the plea of guilty. However, for lack of necessary votes, the death penalty could not be imposed for the crime of murder. For each of the two frustrated murders, treachery and evident premeditation were also alleged. One would qualify the crime, and the other would be an aggravating circumstance. The plea of guilty was in mitigation. Consequently, neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances could be considered for the frustrated murders, making the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable. The penalty for murder was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and for each frustrated murder, an indeterminate sentence was imposed.
Main Doctrine
When distinct and separate acts constitute different crimes, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code on complex crimes is not applicable; instead, penalties for each crime shall be imposed separately. A plea of guilty may offset the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the age of the victim.