In the case of People vs. Abubu, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between a complex crime and multiple separate offenses. The Court ruled that when multiple victims are harmed through distinct acts, even during a single event, the accused should be charged with separate crimes for each victim rather than a single complex crime. This distinction significantly affects the penalties imposed and the application of justice in cases involving multiple victims.

One Massacre, or Multiple Attacks? The Crossroads of Criminal Liability

The case revolves around Antonio Abubu, who, along with others, was charged with murder for the death of Julius Golocan and multiple counts of frustrated murder for injuries to Julius’s wife and children. The central question was whether these acts constituted a single complex crime or multiple separate offenses. The Regional Trial Court initially convicted Abubu of the complex crime of murder with multiple frustrated murder, leading to a death sentence. However, the Supreme Court reassessed the conviction, providing a vital clarification on the nature of criminal liability in cases involving multiple victims and multiple acts.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by dissecting the concept of a complex crime, as defined in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code:

“When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.”

The Court emphasized that neither condition for a complex crime was met in this case. The killing of Julius Golocan and the injuries inflicted upon his family did not arise from a single act but from several distinct acts of shooting. Crucially, the Court noted evidence suggesting multiple gunmen were involved. The act of each gunman was separate from the others; spent shells were recovered; given the victims’ positions, each could not have been struck by the same bullet. The High Court effectively disaggregated the singular label of “complex crime” into discrete crimes based on how individual shots and gunmen specifically affected different victims. This approach contrasts with situations where a single act directly leads to multiple consequences, like setting off a bomb that injures many, which could constitute a complex crime.

This point is not mere legal formalism. It has profound consequences on sentencing and justice. Had the Court upheld the complex crime designation, Abubu would have faced a single, albeit severe, penalty for the entirety of the incident. Instead, by recognizing separate offenses, the Court opened the door to proportionate punishment for each distinct harm inflicted. Moreover, the court determined that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing of Julius Golocan. The suddenness and unexpected nature of the attack rendered him incapable of defending himself. Therefore, the Supreme Court categorized this specific crime as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which mandates a penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to death.

Consequently, the Supreme Court delved into the frustrated murders of Flordeliza, John Paul, and Noemi. Given that the prosecution proved that the accused had begun directly executing the intended crime via overt acts that led to a point where only his desistance would have averted the full consummation of murder, yet those acts fell short of such completion, the Court identified them as frustrated murders. According to Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a frustrated offense is one degree lower than that prescribed for the completed felony.

Following this framework, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, specifying that Abubu’s maximum sentence would derive from the medium range of reclusion temporal and the minimum sentence would be taken from the range of prision mayor, recognizing a considerable range for each of these sentences based on circumstances specific to the case. To be precise, the Supreme Court emphasized a shift away from the singular penalty prescribed for complex crimes, ensuring a sentence calibrated precisely to reflect the degree of culpability and the harm suffered by each survivor, emphasizing that the core purpose of criminal justice rests in appropriately assigning responsibility.

Below, we’ve compared complex crimes with multiple separate crimes:

Complex Crime	Multiple Separate Crimes
Single act leading to multiple felonies	Multiple distinct acts, each constituting a separate felony
Penalty: Most serious crime, maximum period	Separate penalties for each crime committed
Example: Bombing injuring multiple people (single act)	Shooting multiple people (distinct acts for each victim)

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the accused should be convicted of a complex crime (murder with multiple frustrated murder) or separate crimes (murder and three counts of frustrated murder).
What is a complex crime under Philippine law?	A complex crime exists when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when one offense is a necessary means for committing another.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the complex crime conviction?	The Court reasoned that the killing and injuries resulted from distinct acts of shooting, not a single act, and there was no indication it constituted the single, unfolding of a design for any harm other than that realized directly for the affected victims.
What is treachery, and why was it important in this case?	Treachery is a qualifying circumstance where the attack is sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend themselves, thereby elevating homicide to murder.
What is the penalty for murder in the Philippines?	Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.
What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and how was it applied?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts to impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment, taking into account the attending circumstances of the crime, to guide prisoner rehabilitation and parole considerations.
What are the practical implications of this decision?	This ruling ensures that perpetrators are held accountable for each distinct act of violence against individual victims, rather than being subjected to a single, potentially inadequate, penalty.
Who were the victims in this case, and what injuries did they sustain?	Julius Golocan was killed, while his wife, Flordeliza, and their two children, John Paul and Noemi, sustained serious gunshot wounds.
What specific damages were awarded by the court?	The accused was ordered to pay the heirs of Julius Golocan P50,000.00 as indemnity for death, P200,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as actual damages, in addition to P27,000.00 for actual damages to Flordeliza, John Paul, and Noemi Golocan

In conclusion, People v. Abubu stands as a landmark decision reinforcing the principle that justice must reflect the reality of harm inflicted on each individual victim. By distinguishing between complex and separate crimes, the Supreme Court underscored its commitment to proportionality and fairness in the application of criminal law, setting a critical precedent for future cases involving multiple victims.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Abubu, G.R. No. 129072, January 19, 2000