Art. 248. Penalty for complex crimes. - 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. (Revised Penal Code)


In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed, however, in the eyes of the law and in the conscience of the offender they constitute only one crime, thus, only one penalty is imposed. There are two kinds of complex crime. The first is known as a compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies while the other is known as a complex crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other (People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016)


Compound Crime - when a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies

Requisites:
  1. one single act is performed by the offender
  2. the single act produces 
    • 2 or more grave felonies
    • 2 or more less grave felonies
    • 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave felonies

Examples:

1. The single act of pitching or rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the gymnasium which resulted in the death of one person and injuries to others. Accused was convicted of murder with multiple attempted murder and was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole (People v. Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013).

2.  The single act of running over the victims with a van from behind while the victims were walking, resulting in the death of two persons and injuries to others constitute a compound crime of double murder with multiple attempted murder (People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012).

3. The single act of accused-appellant — burning the house of Manuel Salvador, with the main objective of killing the latter and his daughter, Analyn Salvador, resulting in their deaths — resulted in the complex crime of double murder (People v. Gaffud,  G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008)

4. When the four accused shoot the district supervisor of public school while in the performance of duty, resulting in the latter's death, there arises the complex crime of murder with direct assault (People v. Estonillo, G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014).


No single act in the following cases:

1. Where several persons were killed and others injured by successive shots (People v. Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001).

2. Several shots from a Thompson sub-machine gun causing several deaths, although caused by a single act of pressing the trigger, are considered several acts. Although each burst of shots was caused by one single act of pressing the trigger of the sub-machinegun, in view of its special mechanism the person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger of the sub-machine gun, with his finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them (People vs. Desierto, CA., 45 OG 4542 cited in People v. Vargas, G.R. No. 86728, April 6, 1990).


Singularity of criminal act not singularity of criminal impulse

To apply Article 48 on compound crime, there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law (People v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, July 21, 1967)


Exceptions:

1. Single Criminal Impulse

In People v. Lawas, the members of the Home Guard, upon order of their leader, Lawas, simultaneously and successively fired at several victims. As a result, 50 persons died. It was there held that the killing was the result of a single impulse as there was no intent on the part of the accused to fire at each and every victim separately and distinctly from each other.

If the act or acts complained of resulted from a single criminal impulse, it constitutes a single offense. However, "single criminal impulse" was not the only consideration in applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code in the said case because there was therein no evidence at all showing the identity or number of persons killed by each accused. There was also no conspiracy to perpetuate the killing, thus, collective criminal responsibility could not be imputed upon the accused. Since it was impossible to ascertain the number of persons killed by each of them, this Court was "forced" to find all the accused guilty of only one offense of multiple homicide instead of holding each of them responsible for 50 deaths.

Significantly, there was no conspiracy in People v. Lawas. However, as this Court held in People v. Remollino, the Lawas doctrine is more of an exception than the general rule (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012).

In Lawas, since there was no conspiracy to perpetuate the killing, collective criminal responsibility could not be imputed upon the defendants. (People v. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 186539 : June 29, 2010).


2. Single Criminal Purpose

● In People v. Abella, involving the massacre of certain prisoners in the Davao Penal Colony, all the accused were also convicted for the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. Conspiracy likewise attended the commission of the crime. This Court applied the ruling in De los Santos and elucidated that the ruling in the said case is predicated on the theory that "when for the attainment of a single purpose which constitutes an offense, various acts are executed, such acts must be considered only as one offense," a complex one. (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012).

●Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a complex offense (People v. Pincalin, G.R. No. L-38755 January 22, 1981)
. 

Variance Rule

Fact: The Information charged the accused of compound crime of murder and attempted murder for shooting a father and inflicting wounds upon the daughter. It was, however, proven during trial that the accused shot the father and daughter several times and thus was actuated by more than one criminal impulse. 

Held:  In the absence of such a clear statement in the Information, the accused may be convicted only of the complex crime of murder with attempted murder. Afterall, the concept of complex crimes is intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the number of crimes committed. To rule that the accused should be convicted of two separate offenses of murder and attempted murder pursuant to the evidence presented but contrary to the allegations in the Information is to violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is well-settled that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or information (People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 198789, June 3, 2013).