G.R. No.

L-26222 July 21, 1967

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE JUDGE HERNANDO PINEDA of !" #ou$ of F%$& I'&(')" of L('(o
*"l No$"+
('* TO,AS NARBASA, TA,BA# ALINDO ('* RUFINO BORRES, respondents.
Dominador L. Padilla for petitioner.
Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Borres for respondents.
SAN#HE-, J.:
Respondents Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino Borres stand indicted before
the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, as principals, in five (! separate cases,
four for murder, viz"
Criminal Case #$%& ' murder of Neceforo (endo)a*
Criminal Case #$%+ ' murder of ,pifania (endo)a*
Criminal Case #$%- ' frustrated murder of .aleriana Bontilao de (endo)a*
Criminal Case #$%/ ' murder of Teofilo (endo)a*
Criminal Case #$0 ' murder of (arcelo (endo)a.
The five informations 1ere planted upon facts 2athered b3 the prosecutin2 attorne3
from his investi2ation. 4f course, the truth of these facts is 3et to be tested in the
crucible of a full5dress trial on the merits.
The indictments are bottomed upon the follo1in2 alle2ed pivotal facts"
4n the ni2ht of 6ul3 $/, #/&, the occupants of the home of the spouses Teofilo
(endo)a and .aleriana Bontilao de (endo)a in 7u2aan Cit3 of Ili2an, 1ere asleep. It
1as then that 2uns (rifle, caliber $$! and paliuntod(homemade 2un! 1ere fired in rapid
succession from outside the house. Teofilo (endo)a fell dead. Thereafter, defendants
belo1 destro3ed the door of the house, entered therein, and let loose several shots
8illin2 Neceforo (endo)a, ' all minor children of the couple ' and 1oundin2 .aleriana
Bontilao de (endo)a.
T1o of the three defendants in the five criminal cases heretofore listed ' Tomas
Narbasa and Tamba8 Alindo ' moved for a consolidation thereof 9into one (#! criminal
case.9 Their plea is that 9said cases arose out of the same incident and motivated b3
one impulse.9
:ivin2 the nod to defendants; claim, respondent 6ud2e, in an order dated (a3 #<, #/&&,
directed the Cit3 Fiscal to unif3 all the five criminal cases, and to file one sin2le
information in Case #$%&. =e also ordered that the other four cases, Nos. #$%+, #$%-,
#$%/ and #$0 9be dropped from the doc8et.9
The Cit3 Fiscal bal8ed at the fore2oin2 order, sou2ht reconsideration thereof, upon the
2round that 9more than one 2un 1as used, more than one shot 1as fired and more than
one victim 1as 8illed.9 The defense opposed.
4n (a3 <#, #/&&, respondent 6ud2e denied the motion to reconsider. =e too8 the
position that the acts complained of 9stemmed out of a series of continuin2 acts on the
part of the accused, not b3 different and separate sets of shots, moved b3 one impulse
and should therefore be treated as one crime thou2h the series of shots 8illed more
than one victim*9 and that onl3 one information for multiple murder should be filed, to
obviate the necessit3 of tr3in2 five cases instead of one.9
7rimaril3 to annul respondent 6ud2e;s orders of (a3 #<, #/&& and (a3 <#, #/&&, as
havin2 been issued 1ithout or in e>cess of ?urisdiction and@or 1ith 2rave abuse of
discretion, the 7eople came to this Court on certiorari 1ith a pra3er for a 1rit of
preliminar3 in?unction, and for other reliefs.
This Court, on 6ul3 #, #/&&, issued the cease5and5desist order pra3ed for.
The Auestion here presented, simpl3 is this" Bhould there be one information, either for
the comple> crime of murder and frustrated murder or for the comple> crime of robber3
1ith multiple homicide and frustrated homicideC 4r, should the five indictments remain
as the3 areC
#. The case before us calls into Auestion the applicabilit3 of Article %- of the Revised
7enal Code, as amended, 1hich reads"
Art. %-. Penalty for complex crimes. ' Dhen a sin2le act constitutes t1o or more
2rave or less 2rave felonies, or 1hen an offense is a necessar3 means for
committin2 the other, the penalt3 for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its ma>imum period.
Read as it should be, Article %- provides for t1o classes of crimes 1here a sin2le
penalt3 is to be imposed" first, 1here a sin2le act constitutes t1o or more 2rave or less
2rave felonies (delito compuesto!* and, second, 1hen an offense is a necessar3 means
for committin2 the other (delito complejo!.
#
Best e>emplified b3 the first of the t1o cases is 1here one shot from a 2un results in the
death of t1o or more persons. 6urisprudence teaches that, in this factual settin2, the
comple> crime defined in the first part of Article %- finds application.
$
A similar rule
obtains 1here one stabbed another and the 1eapon pierced the latter;s bod3 throu2h
and 1ounded another. The first died instantaneousl3* the second, seven da3s later. This
Court convicted the assailant of double murder.
<
Bo 1here a person plants a bomb in an
airplane and the bomb e>plodes, 1ith the result that a number of persons are 8illed, that
sin2le act a2ain produces a comple> crime.
%
A different rule 2overns 1here separate and distinct acts result in a number 8illed.
Eeepl3 rooted is the doctrine that 1hen various victims e>pire from separate shots, such
acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.

Thus, 1here the si> defendants, 1ith

others (armed 1ith pistols, carbines and also a submachine 2un and :arand rifles!,
fired volle3s into a house 8illin2 eleven and 1oundin2 several others, each of the said
accused is 92uilt3 of as man3 crimes of murder as there 1ere deaths (eleven!.
&
A2ain,
eleven persons 1ere indicted for Auadruple murder ' 1ith the use of bolos, a pistol, a
barbed arro1 and a piece of bamboo ' of a man, his common5la1 1ife, and their t1o
children in cold blood. The accused 1ere found 2uilt3 b3 the trial court of such offense.
This Court, in reversin2 this rulin2 belo1, held that 9FtGhe four victims 1ere not 8illed b3 a
sin2le act but b3 various acts committed on different occasions and b3 different parties9*
that such acts 9ma3 not be re2arded as constitutin2 one sin2le crime9* and that 9FtGhe3
should be held as separate and distinct crimes.9
+
And a third. At the commencement
e>ercises of an elementar3 school, 9a shot suddenl3 ran2 out9 follo1ed b3 a 9series of
shots9 ' from a pistol. T1o persons la3 dead and a third seriousl3 1ounded but 1ho
later on also died. This Court there ruled that there 1ere 9three distinct and separate
murders9 committed b3 appellant 6uan (ones.
-
And finall3, in People vs. atbunton, L5
$%<, (a3 #0, #/0, the spouses (ariano Bebastian and (a>ima Capule ' 1ho 1ere
asleep ' 1ere 8illed b3 one burst of machine2un fire* and then, b3 a second burst of
machine2un fire, t1o of the couple;s children ' also asleep ' 1ere 8illed. The
accused, Tomas :atbunton, 1as found 2uilt3 b3 the trial court of Auadruple murder. 4n
appeal, this Court declared that 9appellant must be declared 2uilt3 of four murders.9
/
The present ease is to be differentiated from People vs. La!as, L5+&#-5$0, 6une <0,
#/. There, on a sin2le occasion, about fift3 (aranaos 1ere 8illed b3 a 2roup of home
2uards. It 1as held that there 1as onl3 one comple> crime. In that case, ho1ever, there
1as no conspirac3 to perpetuate the 8illin2. In the case at bar, defendants performed
several acts. And the informations char2e conspirac3 amon2st them. Needless to state,
the act of one is the act of all.
#0
Not material here, therefore is the findin2 in La!as that
9it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused b3 each and ever3one9 of the
accused. It is to be borne in mind, at this point, that appl3 the first half of Article %-,
heretofore Auoted, there must be sin2ularit3 of criminal act* sin2ularit3 of
criminalimpulse is not 1ritten into the la1.
##
The respondent 6ud2e reasons out in his order of (a3 <#, #/&& that consolidation of
the five cases into one 1ould have the salutar3 effect of obviatin2 the necessit3 of tr3in2
five cases instead of one. To save time, indeed, is laudable. Nonetheless, the statute
confers upon the trial ?ud2e the po1er to tr3 these cases ?ointl3, such that the fear
entertained b3 respondent 6ud2e could easil3 be remedied.
#$
Hpon the facts and the la1, 1e hold that the Cit3 Fiscal of Ili2an Cit3 correctl3 presented
the five separate informations ' four for murder and one for frustrated murder.
$. De have not overloo8ed the su22estion in the record that, because of an affidavit of
one of the 1itnesses, possibilit3 e>ists that the real intent of the culprits 1as to commit
robber3, and that the acts constitutin2 murders and frustrated murder complained of
1ere committed in pursuance thereof. If true, this 1ould brin2 the case 1ithin the
covera2e of the second portion of Article %-, 1hich treats as a comple> crime a case
1here an offense is a necessar3 means for committin2 the other.
A rule of presumption lon2 familiar, ho1ever, is that official dut3 has been re2ularl3
performed.
#<
If the Fiscal has not seen fit to 2ive 1ei2ht to said affidavit 1herein it is
alle2ed that certain personal properties (transistor radio and mone3! 1ere ta8en a1a3
b3 the culprits after the shootin2, 1e are not to ?ettison the prosecutor;s opinion thereon.
The Fiscal could have had reasons for his act. For one thin2, there is the 2rave problem
of provin2 the elements of that offense ' robber3. For another, the act could have been
but a blind to cover up the real intent to 8ill. Appropriatel3 to be noted here is that all the
informations char2ed evident premeditation. Dith ponderables and imponderables, 1e
are reluctant to ha)ard a 2uess as to the reasons for the Fiscal;s action. De are not no1
to sa3 that, on this point, the Fiscal has abused his discretion. A prosecutin2 attorne3, b3
the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information
1here he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or
that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. This is not to discount the
possibilit3 of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But 1e must have
to reco2ni)e that a prosecutin2 attorne3 should not be undul3 compelled to 1or8 a2ainst
his conviction. In case of doubt, 1e should 2ive him the benefit thereof. A contrar3 rule
ma3 result in our courts bein2 unnecessaril3 s1amped 1ith unmeritorious cases. Dorse
still, a criminal suspect;s ri2ht to due process ' the sportin2 idea of fair pla3 ' ma3 be
trans2ressed. Bo it is, that in People vs. "ope + 7hil. -#0, -#, this Court made the
pronouncement that 9FiGt is ver3 lo2ical that the prosecutin2 attorne3, bein2 the one
char2ed 1ith the prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed
and cannot be controlled b3 the off ended part3.9
#%
<. The impact of respondent 6ud2e;s orders is that his ?ud2ment is to be substituted for
that of the prosecutor;s on the matter of 1hat crime is to be filed in court. The Auestion
of institutin2 a criminal char2e is one addressed to the sound discretion of the
investi2atin2 Fiscal. The information he lod2es in court must have to be supported b3
facts brou2ht about b3 an inAuir3 made b3 him. It stands to reason then to sa3 that in a
clash of vie1s bet1een the ?ud2e 1ho did not investi2ate and the fiscal 1ho did, or
bet1een the fiscal and the offended part3 or the defendant, those of the Fiscal;s should
normall3 prevail. In this re2ard, he cannot ordinaril3 be sub?ect to dictation. De are not
to be understood as sa3in2 that criminal prosecution ma3 not be bloc8ed in e>ceptional
cases. A relief in eAuit3 9ma3 be availed of to stop it purported enforcement of a criminal
la1 1here it is necessar3 (a! for the orderl3 administration of ?ustice* (b! to prevent the
use of the stron2 arm of the la1 in an oppressive and vindictive manner* (c! to avoid
multiplicit3 of actions* (d! to afford adeAuate protection to constitutional ri2hts* and (e! in
proper cases, because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or 1as ;held invalid.;
9
#
Nothin2 in the record 1ould as much as intimate that the present case fits into an3 of
the situations ?ust recited.#$!p%&#.'(t
And at this distance and in the absence of an3 compellin2 fact or circumstance, 1e are
loathe to ta2 the Cit3 Fiscal of Ili2an Cit3 1ith abuse of discretion in filin2 separate
cases for murder and frustrated murder, instead of a sin2le case for the comple> crime
of robber3 1ith homicide and frustrated homicide under the provisions of Article $/% (#!
of the Revised 7enal Code or, for that matter, for multiple murder and frustrated murder.
De state that, here, the Fiscal;s discretion should not be controlled.
Hpon the record as it stands, the 1rit of certiorari pra3ed for is hereb3 2ranted* the
orders of respondent 6ud2e of (a3 #<, #/& and (a3 <#, #/&& are hereb3 set and
declared null and void, and, in conseAuence, the 1rit of preliminar3 in?unction heretofore
issued is made permanent insofar as it stops enforcement of the said orders* and the
respondent 6ud2e, or 1hoever ta8es his place, is hereb3 directed to reinstate Criminal
Cases #$%&, #$%+, #$%-, #$%/ and #$0 as the3 1ere commenced, and to ta8e steps
to1ards the final determination thereof.
Costs a2ainst respondents Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rutino Borres. Bo
ordered.
)eyes, *.B.L., +a,alintal, Ben-zon *.P., .aldivar, /astro, An-eles and 0ernando, **.,
concur.
/oncepcion, /.*. and Dizon, *., too, no part.