Practice question
A prosecution proves a killing but fails to prove the alleged robbery or the required robbery-related criminal design. The prosecutor asks the court to retain the composite conviction because a composite crime is one offense and its robbery component therefore needs no independent proof. Which is correct?
- One statutory unit eliminates every component requirement.
- Proof of any killing automatically establishes robbery.
- The complainant’s chosen label supplies the missing taking.
- The composite conviction requires proof of its statutory elements, including the robbery basis; unity does not cure the missing proof.
- The law forbids examining any evidence in a composite prosecution.
Legal references
- People v Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, en banc main decision, Article 48 and composite crimes: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_202124_2016.html
- People v Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015, main decision, robbery with homicide as composite crime: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/gr_195244_2015.html
- 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
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.