e. Special Complex Crime or Composite Crime

Notes:

• The combinations of robbery with another offense expressly punished under Article 294 are special complex crimes; robbery under Article 294(5) is not one merely by virtue of that paragraph.
• “On the occasion” and “by reason” of the robbery mean “in the course” or “because of” robbery, respectively.
• Robbery and homicide are separate offenses when the homicide was not committed “on the occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery.

Elements:

• Taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against persons
• Personal property thus taken belongs to another.
• The taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi.
• On the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide was committed.

Homicide is understood in its generic sense (i.e., including parricide and murder)

• Homicide may precede or may occur after robbery. Homicide need not also be committed in the same place where the robbery is committed.
• The offender's original intent must be the commission of robbery. The killing is merely incidental and subsidiary. (People v. Palema, G.R. No. 228000)
• “Any person” may be killed; the killing of a corobber is still covered.
• In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, homicide is committed in order:
• to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit;
• to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot;
• to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or
• to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime. (People v. Chavez y Bitancor, G.R. No. 207950)

When abuse of superior strength does not apply

The presence of abuse of superior strength should not result in qualifying the offense to murder when it obtains in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. In such case, it should be regarded as a generic circumstance. (Judge Pimentel Notes, page 220)

Attempted or Frustrated Robbery with Homicide

• This is a special complex crime.
• The term “homicide” is used in its generic sense. It includes any unlawful killing.
• There must be overt acts pointing to robbery.

Notes:

• Homicide committed “by reason of” (i.e., “in the course of” or “because of”) Rape is a special complex crime.
• Rape must come before intent to kill or act of killing.
• Does not apply when the intent to kill or killing act preceded the rape act (i.e., when victim was on the point of death when she was ravished).
• Includes death of victim through sexually-transmitted disease (STD) given by the accused who raped her (REYES, BOOK TWO, p.592)
• Homicide committed "on the occasion of the rape" - killing that occurs immediately before or after, or during the commission of the rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for as long as the killing is linked to the rape.
• The elements of the special complex crime of rape with homicide are the following:
• the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman;
• the carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a person was killed; the person killed need not be the rape victim. (People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 228828)
• Character of the woman is immaterial.
• Testimony of victim alone is enough for conviction.
• The victim was able to recount her experience in a straightforward, spontaneous, and believable manner, regardless of her mental condition, as this doesn’t determine whether her testimony is credible or not. (People v. Quintos, G.R. No. 199402).
• Fingers – count as "objects" under rape through sexual assault
• Indemnity and Damages
• Civil indemnity is awarded upon proof of rape, but its amount depends on the offense and applicable penalty; rape with homicide warrants a higher award than Php50,000; and
• Moral damages may be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof.
• Multiple Rape
• Each offender is responsible not only for the rape he personally committed, but also for those committed by the others.
• Each and every rape alleged must be proven.
• In the case of People v Aaron, the accused inserted his penis into the victim's vagina; he then withdrew it and ordered the latter to lie down on the floor, and for the second time, he inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina; thereafter, the accused commanded the victim to lie near the headboard and for the third time, he inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina. The accused was convicted for only one count of rape despite the three successful penetrations because there is no indication that the accused decided to commit separate and distinct acts of sexual assault. There was only a lustful desire to change positions.
• In the case of People v Manolito Lucena y Velasquez, the accused succeeded in inserting his penis into the victim's vagina. The three penetrations occurred one after the other at an interval of five minutes wherein the accused would rest. From this set of facts, the accused was convicted of three counts of rape as it can be inferred that the accused decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault.
• wherein the accused would rest. From this set of facts, the accused was convicted of three counts of rape as it can be inferred that the accused decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault.
• Sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be supported by convincing proof. Evidence such as a love letter, a memento, or even a single photograph to substantiate the claim that they had a romantic relationship should be presented.
• Each of the penetrations constitute separate and distinct acts of rape. However, in Aaron (2002), the Court convicted the accused for only one count of rape despite the three successful penetrations because there was no indication that the accused decided to commit separate and distinct acts of sexual assault other than his lustful desire to change positions inside the room where the crime was committed.
• The act of cunnilingus or insertion of the tongue to the vagina of a woman is rape through sexual assault. (People v Bonaagua, GR No 188897)
• A medical examination of the victim is not an element of rape. (People v Rico Jamlan Salem, GR No 118946)
• In rape cases, impotence as a defense must be proven with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potence (People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229209).
• The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant’s body doesn’t necessarily negate the commission of the rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. (People v. Buclao, G.R. No. 208173) The foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medicolegal officer. (People v. Austria, G.R. No. 210568)
• The Court previously held, in People v. Soria, that a victim need not identify what was inserted into his or her genital or anal orifice for the court to find that rape through sexual assault was committed. (Ricalde v. People, G.R. No. 211002)

Guiding Principles in the crime of Rape (People v Ayade, GR No 188561):

• An accusation of rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove.
• Considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution.
• The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES or COMPOSITE CRIMES

Those which are treated by law as single indivisible offenses although comprising more than one specific crime and with specific penalty.

Examples

• Rape with homicide;

Homicide must always be consummated, otherwise, they are separate offenses. The rape may either be consummated or attempted.

The elements of the special complex crime of rape with homicide are: (a) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (b) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (c) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. (People vs. Alfredo Reyes Alias “Boy Reyes”, G.R. No. 207946)

• Kidnapping with homicide

Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. (People vs. Elizalde Y Sumagdon and Placente y Busio, G.R. No. 210434)

• Kidnapping with rape;

No matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. However, for the crime of kidnapping with rape, as in this case, the offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs, otherwise, it would be complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417)

• Robbery with homicide

Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal. (People vs. Pagal, No. L-32040)

In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. (People vs. Layug, G.R. No. 223679)

In cases when the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing the victim, no accused can be convicted of robbery with homicide. (People vs. Chavez y Bitancor alias "NOY", G.R. No. 207950)

While we have previously ruled that the circumstance of evident premeditation is inherent in Robbery, it may be considered in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide if there is premeditation to kill besides stealing. (People vs. Olazo, G.R. No. 220761, J. CAGUIOA)

Note: Additional homicide is not aggravating.

• Robbery with rape

For a conviction of the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown that the rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery and not the other way around. This special complex crime under Art. 294 of the RPC contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging to another and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. Thus, to be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. (People v. Bringcula y Fernandez, G.R. No. 226400)

First. The intent to rob must precede the rape. In robbery with rape, the intention of the felony is to rob and the felony is accompanied by rape. Intent to gain, as an element of the crime of robbery, is an internal act; hence, presumed from the unlawful taking of things. Second. In robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown that the rape was committed by reason of or on the occasion of robbery and not the other way around. (People vs. Spinilla, G.R. No. 224922)

Note: Additional rape is not aggravating.

• Arson with homicide

In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated — whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:

• If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed
• If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only;
• If the objective is to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed — homicide/murder and arson. (People v. Dolendo y Fediles, G.R. No. 223098)

Complex Crime of Estafa and Theft

It is committed when theft is employed as a necessary means to commit estafa. (People vs. Yusay, 60 Phil. 598)

Illustration: A owns pawnshop tickets which he entrusted to B for safekeeping. A forgot about the entrustment and a week later, C took the ticket from B and refused to return it, despite insistent demands made by B for the return. Then, using a fictitious name, C redeemed jewels using the ticket without the knowledge and consent of A and B. C committed theft, as a necessary means to commit estafa: C took the ticket with intent to gain and without the consent of either A or B. C then used a fictitious name to redeem the jewels, thereby committing estafa.

Guidelines when death occurs on the occasion of Arson (a special complex crime):

• If the intent was to burn the building, but death results on the occasion or by reason of burning the building, ARSON is committed, and the homicide is absorbed.
• If there is intent to kill a particular person, and he resorted to arson or fire as a means of accomplishing the desired death of the victim – only MURDER is committed. Art. 248 includes as a qualifying circumstance the use of fire.
• If the objective is to kill a particular person, and in fact, the offender had killed the victim, and fire is resorted to as a means to cover the killing, there are two separate crimes committed – HOMICIDE or MURDER, as the circumstances of the killing warrant, and ARSON
• Under The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (R.A. 11479), which expressly repealed the Human Security Act, the crime of arson is no longer expressly considered as “predicate crimes”- specific crimes or acts which could constitute terrorism as enumerated in Section 3 of R.A. 9372. However, the act of arson may still amount to terrorism under the broader formulation of terrorism under Section 4 (b) and (c) of R.A. 11479 where terrorism is committed by any person, who, within or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution, engages in acts intended to cause “extensive damage or destruction” to a government or public facility, public place or private property or cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, to intimidate the general public or segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread the message of fear, to provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety.
• There is NO complex crime of Arson with (Multiple) Homicide.

Treachery in complex crimes

Treachery is appreciated even if the crime against the person is complexed with another felony involving a different classification in the Code. Thus, in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, treachery can be appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned. (People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756)