Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

Single Criminal Impulse

The document discusses the single criminal impulse doctrine under Philippine criminal law. It explains that multiple crimes committed by the same offender under a single criminal impulse are treated as one crime and punished with a single penalty. It provides examples from Supreme Court cases where a series of acts committed by an offender were considered a complex crime because they were impelled by a single criminal impulse. The document concludes that when an act constitutes a crime committed through a singular criminal impulse, it shall be punished in one information, because of the existence of a single criminal intent.

Uploaded by

Ally Nisce
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

Single Criminal Impulse

The document discusses the single criminal impulse doctrine under Philippine criminal law. It explains that multiple crimes committed by the same offender under a single criminal impulse are treated as one crime and punished with a single penalty. It provides examples from Supreme Court cases where a series of acts committed by an offender were considered a complex crime because they were impelled by a single criminal impulse. The document concludes that when an act constitutes a crime committed through a singular criminal impulse, it shall be punished in one information, because of the existence of a single criminal intent.

Uploaded by

Ally Nisce
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

NISCE, Alyssa Angela R.

12081000 - G05
CRIMINAL LAW 1

Explaining the Single Criminal Impulse Doctrine: A Critical Analysis of the Law
and Jurisprudence

In the scope of criminal law, when acts are wholly different, not only in themselves,
but also because they are directed against two different persons, as when one fires
his revolver twice in succession, killing one person and wounding another, or when
two persons are killed one after the other, by different acts, although these two
killings were the result of a single criminal impulse, the different acts must be
considered as distinct crimes.​1 In relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), a complex crime arises ​when a single act constitutes two or more crimes, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.

There are two kinds of complex crimes under Article 48​2​; compound crimes (​delito
compuesto​), which is when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies and complex crime proper (​delito complejo​), which is when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other. Even if two crimes are committed, the
law only punishes the offender for one crime, although in its maximum. In the eyes of
the law, the two crimes stem from one criminal intent; this is less perverse in the
crimes of the law compared to punishing a person for two crimes. Thus, in crimes
where there is only one criminal intent, only one information must be filed. The
reason for the single penalty is that the basis of the felony is the singularity of the
act.

However, complex crimes are not just a matter of penalty, but also of substance
under the Revised Penal Code. A composite crime is one in which substance is
made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of the law only a single
indivisible offense is. This is also known as special complex crime. Continued
crimes, on the other hand, are when an offender performs a series of acts violating
the same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for
the same criminal purpose; regardless of a series of acts done; it is regarded in the
law as one. And lastly, a continuing or transitory crime is one where any of the
elements of the offense was committed in different localities such that the
accused may be indicted in any of those localities. These are all instances where the
single criminal impulse doctrine applies.

Under the single criminal impulse doctrine, multiple crimes committed by the same
offender under a single criminal impulse are treated as one crime and punished with

1
​Reyes, L. B., & Reyes, R. R. (2017). ​The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law​. Manila: Rex Book Store.
2
​REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 48.
a single penalty. In some cases, the Supreme Court decided that if an offender has
performed a series of acts impelled by one impulse, the ruling is that a complex
crime has been committed. The Supreme Court held that the crime committed is
complex even though the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. It
is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been
considered.

The ruling in ​People v. Lawas3​ wherein 50 persons were killed by several accused
who fired their guns pursuant to an order given to them clearly shows the existence
of a single criminal impulse. Thus, the several accused were held guilty of the
complex crime of multiple murders. In the case of ​People v. De Leon4​ ​, ​where the
accused stole 5 roosters from one chicken coop, although owned by different people,
there is only one crime of theft since the accused acted out of a single criminal
impulse. In both cases, the series of acts were impelled by a single criminal impulse
and thus were considered as complex crimes.

Nonetheless, the “single-criminal-impulse,” “same motive,” or the “single-purpose”


theory is acceptable when it is not certain who among the accused killed or injured
each of the several victims.​5 As seen in the ​Lawas case, the Court decided
accordingly since it was impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused by
each and everyone. This case shows an exception to the rule where an offender is
liable for each bullet fired. Hence, Article 48 speaks not only of a single act, but also
of multiple acts when one offense is necessary for committing another because of
the singularity of a criminal impulse.

Crimes under the RPC substantially regard the criminal intent of the offender. Thus,
it is the criminal intent and not the amount of crimes committed that determines the
penalty to be imposed for multiple crimes. This idea is also based on the “absorption
system,” under which lesser penalties are absorbed by the greater penalties. The
doctrine of absorption requires the imposition of single penalty for multiple crimes
wherein one crime absorbs another if the latter is inherent in, an element of, or a
necessary consequence of the commission of the former. A crime is considered
inherent where its commission is an indispensable means to commit another.

In conclusion, the elements constituting a given crime are integral and inseparable
parts of a whole; they cannot be used for double or multiple purposes. They can only
be used for the sole purpose of showing the commission of the crime of which they
form part.​6 Thus, when an act constitutes a crime committed through a singular
criminal impulse, it shall be punished in one information. This is because of the
existence of a single criminal intent.

3
​People v. Lawas, G.R. L-7618, (1995).
4
​People v. De Leon, G.R. L-25375 (1926).
5
​Supra ​note 1.
6
People vs. Pablo Labra, 81 Phil. 377

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy