Practice question
An assailant stabs one victim, walks several steps, then delivers a separate thrust at another. The defense identifies one burst of anger and nothing else supporting merger. Which conclusion follows Mision on the compound-crime theory?
- One emotional outburst necessarily proves one physical act.
- Every use of one knife creates a compound crime.
- The distance between victims is always legally irrelevant.
- The distinct thrusts are not made a single physical act merely by the asserted impulse.
- Both acts automatically become one negligent offense.
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.