Practice question
An ambush involves several intentional shots and an established conspiracy. The evidence cannot identify which conspirator fired each fatal bullet. The defense cites Lawas and claims this uncertainty necessarily limits liability to one multiple-homicide offense. How should the argument be assessed under Nelmida?
- The proved conspiracy supplies collective responsibility, so inability to identify each shooter does not automatically reproduce Lawas’s exceptional basis for merger.
- Every uncertainty over the shooter eliminates all liability.
- Lawas requires merger even when conspiracy is proved.
- The victims’ separate deaths become irrelevant.
- Conspiracy abolishes the need to prove any criminal act.
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 Mision, G.R. No. 63480, February 26, 1991, main decision, separate acts and limits of single-impulse reasoning: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_63480_1991.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.