G.R. No. L-26222 July 21, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE HERNANDO PINEDA of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte; and TOMAS NARBASA, TAMBAC ALINDO and RUFINO BORRES, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo, and Rufino Borres were charged in five separate informations before the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte: four for murder (Criminal Cases 1246, 1247, 1249, 1250) and one for frustrated murder (Criminal Case 1248). The charges stemmed from an incident on the night of July 29, 1965, where the accused allegedly fired guns from outside a house, killing Teofilo Mendoza, then destroyed the door, entered, and fired several more shots, killing Neceforo, Epifania, and Marcelo Mendoza (all minor children) and wounding Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza. Two accused moved to consolidate the five cases into one, arguing they arose from the same incident and were motivated by one impulse. Respondent Judge Hernando Pineda granted the motion, ordering the City Fiscal to file a single information in Case 1246 and drop the other four cases. The City Fiscal opposed, contending more than one gun was used, more than one shot was fired, and more than one victim was killed. The judge denied reconsideration, ruling the acts were a series of continuing acts moved by one impulse, constituting one crime, and consolidation would avoid trying five cases. The People filed this certiorari petition to annul the judge’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the five separate acts resulting in the deaths of four individuals and the wounding of another constitute a single complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, warranting consolidation into one information, or separate crimes requiring distinct prosecutions.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the five indictments should remain separate. The case does not fall under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines complex crimes. The first part of Article 48 applies when a single act constitutes two or more felonies (e.g., one shot killing two persons). Here, the accused performed several acts—firing guns in rapid succession from outside, then entering and firing several more shots—resulting in separate victims. Jurisprudence holds that where separate and distinct acts result in multiple killings, they constitute separate crimes. The Court cited precedents where multiple shots leading to multiple deaths were treated as distinct murders. The judge’s rationale of judicial economy is addressed by the court’s discretionary power under the Rules of Court to order a joint trial of related offenses. The suggestion that the acts might constitute robbery with homicide (a complex crime under the second part of Article 48) was rejected, as the Court deferred to the Fiscal’s discretion not to file such a charge, noting the presumption of regular performance of official duty and the prosecutor’s prerogative in determining the information to be filed. The judge’s orders substituting his judgment for the prosecutor’s were issued with grave abuse of discretion. The writ of certiorari was granted, and the orders of May 13, 1966, and May 31, 1966, were annulled.