Title
Unal vs. People
Case
G.R. No. L-33393
Decision Date
May 18, 1972
Accused challenged single information for multiple murder, arguing separate charges for each victim. Court allowed amendment to file three murder counts, promoting justice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33393)

Applicable Law

The charge against the petitioners was based on Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and punishes murder. The legal issue for determination was whether the information constituted a single complex crime or should be split into separate murder charges as per Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

Case Timeline

  1. March 2, 1971: Information charged the petitioners with the crime of multiple murder.
  2. March 23, 1971: The respondent court denied the petitioners’ motion to quash the information.
  3. April 13, 1971: The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on the scheduled arraignment and trial.
  4. June 2, 1971: Respondents filed a comment suggesting that filing three separate information charges would serve justice better.

Rationale Behind the Motion to Quash

The petitioners argued that the information should be divided into three separate charges of murder, contending that a complex crime should comprise a single act resulting in multiple felonies. They noted that under Article 48, the penalty for multiple murders would invariably be the maximum penalty of death, regardless of mitigating circumstances.

Prosecution's Position

The prosecution opposed the quashal motion, asserting that because the firearms were automatic weapons, the shooting of the three victims occurred simultaneously with a single pull of the trigger, supporting the argument for a single charge of multiple murder. However, later on, the prosecution conceded that filing three separate informations might enhance justice in the administration of the law.

Court's Decision and Resolution

The Supreme Court concluded that since the prosecution indicated a consensus with the petitioners on the need to pursue three separate charges based on the nature of the criminal act, the issue had become moot and academic. The Court granted permission for the prosecution to amend the original information into three separate

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.