Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder at Facts: On April 29, 1991,

, 1991, Ceferino Dagulo heard shouts of a woman and a

the time of the commission of the crime in April 1991 was reclusion child coming from the north. He saw accused Gerardo Latupan walking in his
temporal maximum to death. The trial court convicted accused-appellant direction, carrying a thin, bloodied knife. Accused Latupan entered the house
of murder and sentenced him to "life imprisonment." The proper of Ceferino and started chasing Ceferino's wife, who was able to run.
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment. Obviously,
the trial court intended to impose reclusion perpetua. The house of Emilio Asuncion known as “Emy” was 100 meters from Ceferino's
house. He reached his house and found his wife, Lilia, dead on the ground
However, the penalty of life imprisonment is not the same as reclusion with several stab wounds on her body and his 3 children (Leo, Jaime, and
perpetua. They are distinct in nature, in duration and in accessory Jose) wounded. Doctors treated the injuries of Leo and Jaime, However, Jose
penalties.18 First, "life imprisonment" is imposed for serious offenses was transferred to another hospital due to seriousness of his wounds. Jose
penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under was declared dead on arrival.
the Revised Penal Code. Second, "life imprisonment" does not carry with
it any accessory penalty. Reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties. On May 25, 1993, at arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of
Third, "life imprisonment" does not appear to have any definite extent or frustrated murder. During the pre-trial conference of the four cases (Criminal
duration, while reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty Case No. 379-T, Criminal Case No. 380-T, Criminal Case No. 381-T, Criminal
(30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, although Case No. 382-T), accused offered to change his plea of not guilty to guilty of
the maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years.19 the complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder.

We likewise note that the trial court sentenced accused to "ten days of On August 25, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision finding the accused
imprisonment" for each count of slight physical injuries. We reiterate the Latupan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex offense of Double
rule that it is necessary for the courts to employ the proper legal Murder and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to indemnify the
terminology in the imposition of penalties because of the substantial heirs.
difference in their corresponding legal effects and accessory
penalties.20 The appropriate name of the penalty must be specified Issue: Whether or not trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of the
inasmuch as under the scheme of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, complex crime of double murder?
the principal penalty for a felony has its own specific duration and
corresponding accessory penalties.21 Thus, the courts must employ the Held: The trial court, erred in convicting accused-appellant of the "complex
proper nomenclature specified in the Revised Penal Code, such as crime of double murder" and separate offenses of serious physical injuries.
"reclusion perpetua," not "life imprisonment" or "ten days of arresto
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "When a single act constitutes
menor," not "ten days of imprisonment."
two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall
Hence, the proper penalty for each murder committed in April 1991, be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period."
considering the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
is reclusion perpetua, with its accessory penalties. Further, accused- The instant case does not fall under any of the two mentioned instances when
appellant is liable for two counts of slight physical injuries and must be a complex crime is committed. The killing of Lilia Asuncion and Jose Asuncion
sentenced to twenty (20) days of arresto menor, each, likewise with its
and the wounding of Jaime and Leo Asuncion resulted not from a single act
accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code.22
but from several and distinct acts of stabbing. "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 v. Latupan (G.R. Nos. 112453-56)

1
Thus, accused-appellant is liable, not for a complex crime of double murder, felony has its own specific duration and corresponding accessory
but for two separate counts of murder, and separate counts of physical injuries. penalties. Thus, the courts must employ the proper nomenclature specified in
the Revised Penal Code, such as “reclusion perpetua,” not “life imprisonment”
or “ten days of arresto menor,” not “ten days of imprisonment.
Further, the trial court incorrectly assumed that the aggravating circumstance
of evident premeditation was included in the plea of guilty. Qualifying and
aggravating circumstances, which are taken into consideration for the purpose
of increasing the degree of penalty to be imposed, must be proven with equal
certainty as the commission of the act charged as criminal offense.

Thus, evident premeditation cannot be presumed against accused-

appellant. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, it must appear not
only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its
execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation,
reflection, or persistent attempt. In this case, there was no proof, direct or
circumstantial, offered by the prosecution to show when accused-appellant
meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim and the intervening
time that elapsed before this plan was carried out. When it is not shown as to
how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it
was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder at the
time of the commission of the crime in April 1991 was reclusion
temporalmaximum to death. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of
murder and sentenced him to “life imprisonment.” The proper imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment. Obviously, the trial court
intended to impose reclusion perpetua.

However, the penalty of life imprisonment is not the same as reclusion

perpetua. They are distinct in nature, in duration and in accessory
penalties. First, “life imprisonment” is imposed for serious offenses penalized
by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under the Revised
Penal Code. Second, “life imprisonment” does not carry with it any accessory
penalty. Reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties. Third, “life
imprisonment” does not appear to have any definite extent or duration,
while reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after
which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, although the maximum period
thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years.

The appropriate name of the penalty must be specified inasmuch as under the
scheme of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, the principal penalty for a
2