Practice question
Explain why the expression single criminal impulse must not be used as a universal substitute for Article 48’s requirements.
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.