GR L 25623; (May, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25623 May 8, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. RICARDO BERNAL, defendant.
FACTS
An amended information accused Ricardo Bernal and Eduardo Bernal of the complex crime of Murder with Double Frustrated Murder for events on February 18, 1965, in Tayum, Abra. It alleged that with treachery, evident premeditation, conspiracy, and by taking advantage of nighttime and the victims’ slumber in their dwelling, and with disregard for the age of one victim (his father-in-law), Ricardo Bernal, with a carbine handed by Eduardo Bernal, shot Guillermo Barro causing his instantaneous death, and also shot and wounded Anastacio Barro and Dominga Carnate Barro, which acts would have resulted in their deaths were it not for timely medical assistance. Ricardo Bernal, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to this information. His co-accused Eduardo Bernal pleaded not guilty, and the case against him was later provisionally dismissed upon the fiscal’s motion due to insufficient evidence. The trial court, based solely on the plea of guilty and the information’s allegations, sentenced Ricardo Bernal to death for the complex crime, indemnified the heirs of Guillermo Barro P6,000, and ordered him to pay costs.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in: 1) ruling that the crime committed was a complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder; and 2) imposing the death penalty.
RULING
1. Yes, the trial court erred in ruling it was a complex crime. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime exists either when a single act constitutes two or more felonies or when one offense is a necessary means to commit the other. The acts charged—the separate shots that killed Guillermo Barro and wounded Anastacio Barro and Dominga Carnate Barro—were distinct and separate acts, not a single act. Furthermore, the murder was not a necessary means to commit the frustrated murders, nor vice-versa. Therefore, the defendant committed three separate crimes: one murder and two frustrated murders.
2. Yes, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. Since the crimes are separate, penalties must be imposed for each. For the murder of Guillermo Barro, the information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation (one qualifies the crime, the other is aggravating) and the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age. The plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance that offsets one aggravating circumstance. Thus, with one qualifying and one aggravating circumstance remaining, and for lack of necessary votes for death, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. The indemnity is increased to P12,000. For each of the two crimes of frustrated murder against Anastacio Barro and Dominga Carnate Barro, the circumstances are treachery and evident premeditation (one qualifies, the other aggravates), with the plea of guilty in mitigation. With one aggravating and one mitigating circumstance, they offset each other. The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies, and the penalty for each is an indeterminate sentence ranging from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor.