Practice question
An assailant intentionally carries out two separate attacks moments apart, each causing a distinct homicide. The court finds two distinct physical acts, no necessary-means relationship, and no special composite offense. The defense proposes a compound conviction because the attacks occurred in one confrontation. Which is correct?
- The confrontation’s unity does not establish the single-act requirement; the stated facts do not support that compound-crime theory.
- A common confrontation always makes all acts one.
- Every pair of homicides is necessarily compound.
- Temporal proximity automatically supplies a composite statute.
- The second death is excluded because the first occurred earlier.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Article 48 as amended, text and current two-branch rule reproduced in People v Reyes, G.R. No. 260030, May 19, 2025: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_260030_2025.html
- People v Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012, en banc main decision, Article 48 and limited Lawas exception: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_184500_2012.html
- Ivler v Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010, main decision, Article 365 indivisible quasi-offense distinguished from Article 48: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.