Philippine Bar review · Question

Practice question: Single Impulse Rule

Multiple Choice Medium

Practice question

Conspirators deliberately fire separate shots in a coordinated attack causing several deaths. They invoke their one agreed objective as a sufficient reason, by itself, to impose only one Article 48 compound-crime penalty. Which is correct?
  1. Conspiracy always converts all shots into one physical act.
  2. The existence of several victims automatically requires only one conviction.
  3. A common objective eliminates every victim-specific offense.
  4. The same occasion always supplies a statutory composite crime.
  5. The common objective alone does not satisfy the compound-crime requirement; the actual acts and governing rules must be examined.

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.