People vs. Tabaco

The Court held that the firing of an automatic weapon resulting in the death of multiple victims from multiple bullets constitutes separate and distinct crimes of murder, not a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. To justify the application of Article 48, there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is insufficient. When a person fires an automatic weapon continuously, the act of pressing the trigger is not the single act that produces the felonies; rather, each bullet that strikes a victim constitutes a separate act giving rise to a separate offense.

On March 22, 1987, at the Octagon Cockpit Arena in Aparri, Cagayan, accused Mario Tabaco, a member of the 117th PC, was assigned to maintain peace and order. Armed with an M-14 rifle, Tabaco was seated at the lower front row of the bleachers, while Ex-Mayor Jorge Arreola and his companions occupied the fourth row of the upper bleachers. Without warning, Tabaco stood up, aimed his M-14 rifle at Arreola's group, and fired successive automatic bursts, killing Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Pat. Romeo Regunton, and Felicito Rigunan. Tabaco then rushed out of the arena. Near the exit, he was confronted by Sgt. Benito Raquepo and Pat. Mariano Retreta, who attempted to disarm him. During the struggle, the rifle discharged, killing Jorge Siriban and wounding Sgt. Raquepo.

• The Cockpit Arena Incident: On the evening of March 22, 1987, the 117th PC sponsored a cock derby at the Octagon Cockpit Arena in Aparri, Cagayan. Accused Mario Tabaco, a PC soldier, was assigned to verify the presence of NPAs and protect VIPs, carrying his issued M-14 rifle. Ex-Mayor Jorge Arreola and his companions—Antonio Villasin, Rosario Peneyra, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Pat. Romeo Regunton, and Felicito Rigunan—occupied the fourth row of the upper bleachers. Tabaco sat at the lower front row, approximately three to five meters away.
• The Shooting of Arreola's Group: At around 10:00 PM, Tabaco suddenly stood up, stepped on a seat, assumed a port-arms position, and fired his M-14 rifle at Arreola's group. Eyewitnesses Antonio Villasin, Rosario Peneyra, and Rogelio Guimmayen positively identified Tabaco as the assailant. The burst of gunfire killed Arreola, Tabulog, Rigunan, and Regunton. The latter managed to run but was chased by Tabaco and was later found dead inside the arena canteen. Spent shells were recovered at the scene, and Tabaco's M-14 magazine was empty when recovered.
• The Struggle and Subsequent Shooting: Tabaco rushed out of the cockpit arena and was met by Pat. Mariano Retreta and Sgt. Benito Raquepo, who told him to keep calm. When Tabaco pointed his gun at Raquepo, Retreta grappled with Tabaco for possession of the weapon. During the struggle, the gun discharged, hitting Sgt. Raquepo on both thighs and killing Jorge Siriban, who was standing nearby.
• Defense Version: Tabaco claimed he merely fired a warning shot toward the roof after hearing a gunshot, which was answered by bursts of gunfire from different directions. He insisted he was fleeing when Retreta grabbed his gun, causing it to accidentally discharge. He surrendered the following morning, claiming it was only for the Siriban shooting and Raquepo's injury, as he was unaware of the deaths of Arreola's group.

• The People maintained that Tabaco was positively identified by multiple credible eyewitnesses who saw him fire at the victims.
• The People argued that the trial court erred in treating the four murders as a complex crime under Article 48, asserting that because multiple bullets from an automatic weapon struck multiple victims, separate and distinct crimes were committed, requiring separate penalties.

• Tabaco argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses and convicting him of murder, claiming he merely fired a warning shot and that the trajectory of the bullets on Arreola's body contradicted the prosecution's version.
• Tabaco contended that he lacked criminal intent to kill Siriban and wound Raquepo, asserting the gun went off accidentally during Retreta's attempt to disarm him.
• Tabaco supported the trial court's characterization of the four murders as a complex crime warranting a single penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's eyewitnesses over the accused's denial.
  • Whether the killing of four victims by successive automatic gunfire from an M-14 rifle constitutes a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Whether the accused is liable for the death of Jorge Siriban and the wounding of Sgt. Benito Raquepo despite his claim of lack of criminal intent.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • On credibility: The Court ruled that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is binding on appeal, there being no overlooked fact or circumstance. The positive identification by three eyewitnesses—Villasin, Peneyra, and Guimmayen—prevails over the bare denial of the accused. The Court found no ill motive for the witnesses to testify falsely. The trajectory of the bullets was explained by the victims' positions and the ricocheting of bullets off cemented backrests.
  • On complex crime: The Court ruled that the four murders did not constitute a complex crime under Article 48. The first clause of Article 48 requires singularity of criminal act, not merely singularity of criminal impulse. Firing an automatic weapon continuously expends multiple bullets; each bullet constitutes a separate act. Because multiple bullets hit multiple victims, each death resulted from a separate act, giving rise to four distinct crimes of murder.
  • On Siriban and Raquepo: The Court ruled Tabaco liable, even assuming lack of intent. The felonious act of firing the weapon in total disregard of its consequences is equivalent to criminal intent. Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

• Singularity of Criminal Act in Complex Crimes — For a complex crime to exist under the first clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (delito compuesto), there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law. When an accused fires an automatic weapon continuously, the act of pressing the trigger is not the single act producing the felonies; rather, each bullet that strikes a victim constitutes a separate act, producing separate and distinct crimes.
• Positive Identification vs. Bare Denial — Positive identification by prosecution witnesses of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime is entitled to greater weight than the bare denial and explanation of the accused, especially where there is no evidence of ill motive on the part of the witnesses.
• Criminal Liability for Felonious Acts (Art. 4, RPC) — Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. An undisputed act of firing a gun, which is felonious and done in total disregard of consequences, is equivalent to criminal intent.

• "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."
• "Although it is true that several successive shots were fired by the accused in a short space of time, yet the factor which must be taken into consideration is that, to each death caused or physical injuries inflicted upon the victims, corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by the accused, who thus made himself criminally liable for as many offenses as those resulting from every single act that produced the same."
• "His undisputed act of firing the gun, which is by itself felonious in total disregard of the consequences it might produce, is equivalent to criminal intent."

• People vs. Desierto, C.A. 45 O.G. 4542 [1948] — Followed. The Court applied the ruling that when an automatic weapon is fired continuously, each bullet causing death or injury constitutes a separate act, resulting in separate crimes rather than a complex crime.
• People vs. Pama, C.A. 44 O.G. 3339 [1947] — Distinguished. The trial court relied on Pama, but the Court distinguished it because Pama involved a single bullet killing two persons (a single act), whereas Tabaco involved multiple bullets from an automatic weapon killing multiple persons.
• People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748 [1967] — Followed/Clarified. The Court cited Pineda to emphasize that Article 48 requires singularity of criminal act, not impulse, and that various victims expiring from separate shots constitute separate and distinct crimes.
• People vs. Pardo, 79 PHIL 568 [1947] — Followed. The Court reiterated the doctrine that where the death of two persons does not result from a single act but from two different shots, two separate murders, and not a complex crime, are committed.
• People vs. Lawas, 97 PHIL 975 [1955] — Distinguished. The Court clarified that Lawas applies only when it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused by numerous killers, which was not the case here where all deaths were attributed to Tabaco.

• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Governs penalty for complex crimes. The Court interpreted the first clause ("When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies") to require a single physical act (e.g., one bullet hitting multiple people), not a single impulse or continuous trigger press expelling multiple bullets.
• Article 4, Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Applied to hold Tabaco liable for the death of Siriban and injury to Raquepo, as his felonious act of firing the weapon in disregard of consequences equates to criminal intent.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Murder. Applied to the killing of the four victims, qualified by treachery due to the sudden and unexpected attack.

Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ.