Facts

• On March 22, 1987 CIC Mario Tabaco of the 117th PC Company reported to the Octagon Cockpit Arena in Talungan, Aparri, Cagayan on his commanding officer's verbal order to help keep the peace and check for NPA elements, carrying his issued M-14 automatic rifle and 20 rounds.
• At about 9:00 p.m. Ex-Mayor Jorge Arreola of Buguey took a seat on the fourth row of the northwestern bleachers with Antonio Villasin, Rosario Peneyra and Loreto Pita, Jr., beside Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Pat. Romeo Regunton and Felicito Rigunan. Tabaco sat four to five metres away, facing them.
• At about 10:00 p.m., without warning or provocation, he stood, stepped onto the first row of seats, levelled the M-14 at the group and fired a continuous burst.
• Arreola, Tabulog and Rigunan died on the spot. Regunton, wounded, ran toward the western gate; Tabaco chased and shot him dead inside a nearby canteen. Four dead — four separate bullets.
• Moments later he rushed out of the arena. Sgt. Benito Raquepo and Pat. Mariano Retreta, his relative and neighbour, met him and told him to keep calm.
• He levelled the rifle at Sgt. Raquepo. Pat. Retreta grappled for it and forced the muzzle down; in the struggle the rifle discharged, the bullet passing through both of Raquepo's thighs and instantly killing Jorge Siriban, Jr. standing nearby. PC Sgt. Rogelio Ferrer disarmed him — the 20-round magazine held only two bullets.
• On March 23, 1987 he was arrested at the municipal boundary of Lallo, Cagayan, the arrest being entered in the INP Lallo police blotter. That entry is what kills the surrender claim.
• The Provincial Prosecutor filed four separate Informations for Murder (Crim. Cases Nos. 10-259, 10-270, 10-284 and 10-317) and one for Homicide with Frustrated Homicide (No. 10-316). He pleaded not guilty and the cases were tried jointly.
• On January 14, 1991 the RTC of Aparri, Branch 10 convicted him but complexed the four murders under Article 48§, imposing a single reclusion perpetua.
• On March 19, 1997 the Supreme Court set aside the complexing and imposed four separate terms of reclusion perpetua.

Issue

Ruling

"WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the trial court in finding accused-appellant guilty of four (4) counts of Murder and one (1) count of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is, hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that four sentences of reclusion perpetua be hereby imposed."

Ratio

• The filing decision binds the court. Under Section 13, Rule 110§ an Information charges one offence unless a single punishment is prescribed for several; where the prosecution files separate Informations, the court's task is to resolve each indictment, and it may not merge them — by consolidation or otherwise — into a complex crime. As the Court put it: "In the cases at bar, the Provincial Prosecutor filed four (4) separate Informations of murder… legally speaking there is nothing that would connect one of them with its companion offenses."
• The "continuous automatic fire" theory failed on substantive grounds too. A compound crime requires singularity of the physical criminal act, not singularity of criminal impulse.
• The mechanism of the weapon supplies the analysis. Though the trigger is pressed once, an automatic rifle keeps firing while pressure is held — so each bullet that fells a victim is a distinct physical act, and Article 48§ is legally unavailable.
• **The Court adopted People vs. Desierto: "Although apparently he perpetrated a series of offenses successively in a matter of seconds, yet each person killed and each person injured by him became the victim, respectively, of a separate crime of homicide or frustrated homicide."

Doctrine

• "To apply the first half of Article 48§, … there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law."
• Separate shots, separate crimes: "Deeply rooted… is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes."
• Automatic fire is many acts: Although the burst of shots was caused by one single act of pressing the trigger of the automatic weapon, the person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger with his finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it is not the single act of pressing the trigger which produced the several felonies, but the number of bullets which were discharged.
• And procedurally, separate Informations foreclose complexing — the court is bound by how the State chose to charge.

• The single-bullet cases are genuinely different — People vs. Pama applies where one bullet passes through and kills or wounds two or more, which is one physical act producing several felonies and does justify complexing.
• So is the unidentifiable-shooter case — People vs. Lawas permits a single complex penalty only where a crowd is fired on by multiple killers and it is physically impossible to ascertain who caused which death; it cannot apply where every death is traced to one identified accused.
• Read this against People v. Delos Santos and People v. Madali — there a duplicitous single Information permitted multiple convictions because the accused waived the defect; here the prosecution charged correctly, so the court was commanded to sentence separately. The recurring point is that the shape of the indictment, not the shape of the events, controls what the court may impose.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• March 22, 1987 (12:00 PM): Accused-appellant Mario Tabaco, a Constable First Class (CIC) of the 117th PC Company, arrived at the Octagon Cockpit Arena in Talungan, Aparri, Cagayan, in compliance with a verbal order from his commanding officer to assist in the maintenance of peace and order and verify the presence of New People's Army (NPA) elements, bringing with him his officially issued, fully loaded M-14 automatic rifle and a basic load of 20 rounds of ammunition.
• March 22, 1987 (evening): A cock derby sponsored by the 117th PC Company under the name of Jose Ting was underway at the well-lighted Octagon Cockpit Arena, with several armed peace officers assigned as security guards.
• March 22, 1987 (9:00 PM): Ex-Mayor Jorge Arreola of Buguey, Cagayan, arrived at the arena accompanied by Antonio Villasin, Rosario Peneyra, and Loreto Pita, Jr., and took their seats on the fourth row (upper portion) of the northwestern bleachers, seated next to Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Pat. Romeo Regunton, and Felicito Rigunan. Accused-appellant Tabaco seated himself on the arm of a bench at the lower front row of the arena, approximately four to five meters away from and facing Ex-Mayor Arreola’s group.
• March 22, 1987 (10:00 PM): Tabaco suddenly, without warning or provocation, stood up from his seat, stepped on the first row of seats, pointed his M-14 rifle at Ex-Mayor Arreola's group, and fired a continuous burst of automatic gunfire.
• March 22, 1987 (immediate aftermath of the burst): Ex-Mayor Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, and Felicito Rigunan were killed on the spot. Pat. Romeo Regunton, who was also wounded, managed to run toward the western gate but was chased by Tabaco and shot to death inside a nearby canteen.
• March 22, 1987 (approx. 10:05 PM): Tabaco rushed out of the cockpit arena with his M-14 rifle. Sgt. Benito Raquepo (on security duty, who had heard the shots from a nearby canteen) and Pat. Mariano Retreta (Tabaco's relative and neighbor) met him and shouted at him to "keep calm" and "relax".
• March 22, 1987 (approx. 10:06 PM): Tabaco horizontalized and pointed his rifle at Sgt. Raquepo. Pat. Retreta immediately intervened, grappled for the possession of the rifle, and pressed the muzzle downward to prevent Tabaco from shooting Sgt. Raquepo.
• March 22, 1987 (approx. 10:07 PM): During the struggle, the M-14 rifle went off, discharging a bullet that hit Sgt. Raquepo through both thighs and instantly killed Jorge Siriban, Jr., who was standing nearby. PC Sgt. Rogelio Ferrer joined the grapple, disarmed Tabaco, and recovered the rifle, noting that the 20-round magazine was completely empty except for two remaining bullets.
• March 23, 1987: Tabaco was arrested at the municipal boundary of Lallo, Cagayan, by police officers, who recorded the arrest in the INP Lallo Police Blotter.
• November 5, 1987 (approximate): The Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan filed four (4) separate Informations for Murder against Tabaco (Criminal Cases Nos. 10-259, 10-270, 10-284, and 10-317) and one separate Information for Homicide with Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 10-316).
• July 23, 1996: Tabaco was arraigned under the consolidated cases, pleaded not guilty to all charges, and the cases proceeded to a consolidated joint trial on the merits.
• January 14, 1991: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 10, rendered a Joint Decision convicting Tabaco of all charges but complexed the four separate Murder cases into a single complex crime under Article 48§ of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to a single penalty of reclusion perpetua. Tabaco filed his notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.
• March 19, 1997: The Supreme Court of the Philippines promulgated its Decision, setting aside the trial court's complexing§ of the murders and modifying the sentence to four separate terms of reclusion perpetua.

Arguments of the Parties

• On Positive Identification: The prosecution argued that the accused-appellant was positively and categorically identified by credible eyewitnesses (Villasin, Peneyra, and Guimmayen) who had no improper motive to falsely accuse him, and who saw him stand, aim, and shoot his M-14 rifle directly at Arreola's group.
• On the Plurality of Offenses: The State contended that the four murders were separate and distinct crimes because each victim was killed by separate bullets fired from the automatic M-14 rifle, and thus, the filing of four separate Informations was procedurally and substantively correct.
• On the Accidental Canteen Shooting: The prosecution argued that Tabaco's act of pointing his loaded M-14 rifle at Sgt. Raquepo in a horizontal position was a felonious act, making him criminally liable under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code for the resulting death of Siriban and the serious injuries of Sgt. Raquepo, notwithstanding any claim of accidental discharge during the grapple.

• On Denial and Alibi: Accused-appellant argued that he was not the assailant and had only complied with his superior's order to assist in peacekeeping. He asserted that he only fired a single "warning shot" towards the ceiling after hearing an initial gun report, and that the fatal shots came from other directions in a crossfire among unidentified armed individuals.
• On Wound Trajectory: The defense argued that the trajectory of the bullet wounds on Ex-Mayor Arreola (Wound No. 2 entering the neck and exiting the shoulder) proved the shooter was at the same or a higher level, which was physically incompatible with Tabaco's position at the lower front row.
• On the Canteen Shooting: Tabaco argued that he lacked criminal intent to kill Siriban or wound Sgt. Raquepo, claiming the firearm discharged accidentally solely because Pat. Retreta unlawfully grappled with him and pressed the muzzle down.
• On Mitigating Circumstances: The defense claimed that he voluntarily surrendered to the Lallo police the next morning, which should be appreciated to mitigate his penalty.

• NOT IN RECORD (No express stipulations of common ground were entered into the record, except that the defense conceded the qualifications and competence of the forensic chemist, Dr. Cosidon, and the autopsy findings, thereby dispensing with her oral testimony).

Issue

• Whether a trial court can legally convict an accused of a single complex crime under Article 48§ of the Revised Penal Code and impose a single penalty of reclusion perpetua when the constituent offenses are charged under separate and distinct Informations, and where the multiple deaths resulted from separate bullets fired from an automatic M-14 rifle?

1. Whether the positive identification of the accused-appellant by the prosecution's eyewitnesses prevails over his bare denial and the defense of firing a warning shot?
2. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant when his arrest is recorded in the police blotter?

Ruling

1. YES. Positive identification by credible prosecution eyewitnesses, who had no improper motive to testify falsely, prevails over the accused's bare denial and inconsistent explanations.
2. NO. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated because the police blotter of the Lallo Police Station explicitly recorded that the accused-appellant was "really arrested" and did not voluntarily surrender.

"WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the trial court in finding accused-appellant guilty of four (4) counts of Murder and one (1) count of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is, hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that four sentences of reclusion perpetua be hereby imposed.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

"In the cases at bar, the Provincial Prosecutor filed four (4) separate Informations of murder... legally speaking there is nothing that would connect one of them with its companion offenses."

"Although apparently he perpetrated a series of offenses successively in a matter of seconds, yet each person killed and each person injured by him became the victim, respectively, of a separate crime of homicide or frustrated homicide."

Doctrine

• The Test of Singularity of Act under Article 48§:

  "To apply the first half of Article 48§, ... there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law."

• The Plurality of Deaths by Separate Shots:

  "Deeply rooted... is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes."

• Automatic Weapon Mechanism as Multiple Acts:

  "Although the burst of shots was caused by one single act of pressing the trigger of the automatic weapon, the person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger with his finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it is not the single act of pressing the trigger which produced the several felonies, but the number of bullets which were discharged."

• The Single Bullet Exception (Compound Crimes): The Court explicitly distinguished Tabaco from People vs. Pama, noting that the Pama doctrine applies only when a single bullet passes through and kills/wounds two or more persons. In such a case, there is indeed a single physical act producing multiple felonies, which justifies a complex conviction.
• The Non-Ascertainment of Killer Exception: The Court distinguished Tabaco from People vs. Lawas, holding that the Lawas doctrine (which allows a single complex penalty for multiple deaths) is a strict exception that applies only when a crowd is fired upon by multiple killers and it is physically impossible to ascertain which individual killer caused which specific death. It cannot apply when all deaths are attributed beyond doubt to a single, identified accused.

Separate Opinions

• NOT IN RECORD (The decision was rendered unanimously by the First Division, with no separate concurring or dissenting opinions filed by the participating Justices: Padilla, Bellosillo, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr.).