EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-1536. July 31, 1947. ]
RICARDO PARULAN, Petitioner, v. SOTERO RODAS, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and LUIS B. REYES, Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, Respondents.
Reyes & Cruz for Petitioner.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION; COMPLEX CRIME HOW DETERMINED. — In order to determine whether two offenses constitute a complex crime, the court should not find out whether, in accordance with their definition by law, one of them is an essential element of the other, such as physical injuries which cause the death of the victim, or stealing of personal property without the consent of the owner through force or violence, for in such cases there would be only one single offense of homicide in the first and robbery in the second case. But it should take into consideration the facts alleged in a complaint or information and determine whether one of the two separate and different offenses charged therein v as committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense; if it were the two offenses constitute one complex crime; otherwise the complaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independent from one another. Examples are given in the resolution.
2. COURTS; JURISDICTION; COMPLEX CRIME. — The crime charged being a complex crime of kidnapping and murder, the court of first instance of any province in which any one of the essential elements of said complex offense has been committed, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense; and, therefore, the Court of First Instance of Manila from where the victim was kidnapped has jurisdiction over the offense, for the crime of kidnapping is a continuous offense committed in Manila and continued all the way to the place where the victim was taken and murdered.
2. COURTS; JURISDICTION; COMPLEX CRIME. — The crime charged being a complex crime of kidnapping and murder, the court of first instance of any province in which any one of the essential elements of said complex offense has been committed, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense; and, therefore, the Court of First Instance of Manila from where the victim was kidnapped has jurisdiction over the offense, for the crime of kidnapping is a continuous offense committed in Manila and continued all the way to the place where the victim was taken and murdered.
R E S O L U T I O N
FERIA, J.:
This is a motion for reconsideration of our resolution dated July 11, 1947, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Passing upon the petition for certiorari in G. R. No. L-1536, Ricardo Parulan v. Sotero Rodas, etc. Et. Al., praying for relief from the order of the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dated July 8, 1947, denying petitioner’s motion to quash the information filed in criminal case No. 3649 of said respondent Court as well as petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and praying, further, for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the respondent Judge from arraigning the petitioner on July 12, 1947: the Court resolved to dismiss said petition of the ground that the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the complex offence of kidnapping with murder, the one charged in the information. . .
Section 48 of the Penal Code, providing for penalties for complex crime, says that "when an offense is a necessary means to commit the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period." Therefore, the question for determination in the present case is whether the offense charged in the information is a complex crime of kidnapping and murder, the former as a necessary means for committing the latter.
In order to determine whether two offenses constitute a complex crime, we should not find out whether, in accordance with their definition by law, one of them is as essential element of the other, such as physical injuries which cause the death of the victim, or stealing of personal property without the consent of the owner through force or violence, for in such cases there would be only one single offense of homicide in the first and robbery in the second case. But we should take into consideration the facts alleged in a complaint or information and determine whether one of the two separate and different offenses charged therein was committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense; if it were the two offenses constitute one complex crime; otherwise the complaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independent from one another.
For example, the crime of falsification of a private document is not in general, an essential element of the crime of estafa, because this offense may be committed through many and varied means; but if a defendant is charged in a complaint or information with having committed falsification of a private document as a means for committing estafa, the offense charged would be a complex offense of estafa through falsification. Also, abduction is, in general, not an essential element of rape because rape may be committed anywhere without necessity of forcibly abducting or taking the victim to another place for that purpose; but if the offense charged is that the defendant abducted or carried by force the victim from one place to another wherein the latter was raped by the former, the crime charged would be a complex crime of rape through abduction, the abduction being in such a case a necessary means to commit the rape. And although homicide or murder may be committed wherever the victim may be found, yet if the charge in a complaint or information is that the victim was kidnapped and taken to another distant place in order to demand ransom for his release and kill him if ransom is not paid, the offense charged would evidently be a complex crime of murder through kidnapping, the latter being a necessary means to commit the former.
The pertinent part of the information reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about the 10th day of June, 1947, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being then private individuals, conspiring and confederating together and all helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and for the purpose of extorting ransom from one Arthur Lee or of killing him if the desired amount of money could not be given, kidnap, carry away in as automobile, detain, and later, after having taken him to an uninhabited place be means of a motor boat, with treachery, to wit: while the said Arthur Lee was deprived of his liberty and was very weak as a result of the physical injuries which had been previously inflicted upon him by the said accused, fire upon him with a .45 caliber pistol several shots thru the chest and head, fracturing the right 5th and 6th ribs and the skull and lacerating the brain, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which directly caused the death of the said Arthur Lee almost instantaneously."cralaw virtua1aw library
From a cursory examination of the foregoing it clearly appears that the crime charged is kidnapping and murder and the former was committed by the defendants as a necessary means "for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or killing him if the desired amount of money could not be given," that is, that the defendants had to kidnap or carry the victim to a faraway and secluded place in order to better secure the consent of the victim through fear to pay the ransom, and kill him with certain sense of impunity and certainty that no other person may witness the commission o
"Passing upon the petition for certiorari in G. R. No. L-1536, Ricardo Parulan v. Sotero Rodas, etc. Et. Al., praying for relief from the order of the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dated July 8, 1947, denying petitioner’s motion to quash the information filed in criminal case No. 3649 of said respondent Court as well as petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and praying, further, for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the respondent Judge from arraigning the petitioner on July 12, 1947: the Court resolved to dismiss said petition of the ground that the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the complex offence of kidnapping with murder, the one charged in the information. . .
Section 48 of the Penal Code, providing for penalties for complex crime, says that "when an offense is a necessary means to commit the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period." Therefore, the question for determination in the present case is whether the offense charged in the information is a complex crime of kidnapping and murder, the former as a necessary means for committing the latter.
In order to determine whether two offenses constitute a complex crime, we should not find out whether, in accordance with their definition by law, one of them is as essential element of the other, such as physical injuries which cause the death of the victim, or stealing of personal property without the consent of the owner through force or violence, for in such cases there would be only one single offense of homicide in the first and robbery in the second case. But we should take into consideration the facts alleged in a complaint or information and determine whether one of the two separate and different offenses charged therein was committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense; if it were the two offenses constitute one complex crime; otherwise the complaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independent from one another.
For example, the crime of falsification of a private document is not in general, an essential element of the crime of estafa, because this offense may be committed through many and varied means; but if a defendant is charged in a complaint or information with having committed falsification of a private document as a means for committing estafa, the offense charged would be a complex offense of estafa through falsification. Also, abduction is, in general, not an essential element of rape because rape may be committed anywhere without necessity of forcibly abducting or taking the victim to another place for that purpose; but if the offense charged is that the defendant abducted or carried by force the victim from one place to another wherein the latter was raped by the former, the crime charged would be a complex crime of rape through abduction, the abduction being in such a case a necessary means to commit the rape. And although homicide or murder may be committed wherever the victim may be found, yet if the charge in a complaint or information is that the victim was kidnapped and taken to another distant place in order to demand ransom for his release and kill him if ransom is not paid, the offense charged would evidently be a complex crime of murder through kidnapping, the latter being a necessary means to commit the former.
The pertinent part of the information reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about the 10th day of June, 1947, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being then private individuals, conspiring and confederating together and all helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and for the purpose of extorting ransom from one Arthur Lee or of killing him if the desired amount of money could not be given, kidnap, carry away in as automobile, detain, and later, after having taken him to an uninhabited place be means of a motor boat, with treachery, to wit: while the said Arthur Lee was deprived of his liberty and was very weak as a result of the physical injuries which had been previously inflicted upon him by the said accused, fire upon him with a .45 caliber pistol several shots thru the chest and head, fracturing the right 5th and 6th ribs and the skull and lacerating the brain, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which directly caused the death of the said Arthur Lee almost instantaneously."cralaw virtua1aw library
From a cursory examination of the foregoing it clearly appears that the crime charged is kidnapping and murder and the former was committed by the defendants as a necessary means "for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or killing him if the desired amount of money could not be given," that is, that the defendants had to kidnap or carry the victim to a faraway and secluded place in order to better secure the consent of the victim through fear to pay the ransom, and kill him with certain sense of impunity and certainty that no other person may witness the commission o
