EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
131804
February 26, 2003
-versus-
ROBERTO OSTIA
ALIAS
"ROBERT,"
Accused-Appellant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CALLEJO,
SR., J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Spouses Ponciano
Onato and Edita Onato resided with their four-year old daughter,[1]
Beverly Onato, in Sitio Mactang, Barangay Ilo, Sto. Niño, Samar.
Ponciano was a fisherman and a farmer but was employed by Tito Soria in
his buy-and-sell of fish business. Roberto Ostia, a co-worker of
Ponciano,
resided in the poblacion of Sto. Niño. Rufo Legaspi, a carpenter
and a Barangay Tanod, was a neighbor of Ponciano.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 13, 1995, a Saturday,
at about 7:00 p.m., Rufo was seated near his house and resting before
retiring
for the evening. Momentarily, Rufo saw Roberto, with Beverly perched on
his right shoulder, walking towards the direction of the poblacion.
Roberto’s
left hand was holding the right hand of Mary Donoso, a nine-year old
playmate
of Beverly. The trio were in animated conversation on their way towards
the poblacion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the lapse of an
hour or so, Edita noticed that Beverly had not yet returned to their
house.
She went out of the house to look for her daughter. Rufo told Edita
that
earlier he saw Beverly perched on the shoulder of Roberto on their way
towards the direction of the poblacion. Thereafter, Roberto sauntered
by.
However, Beverly was no longer with him. Puzzled, Edita inquired from
Roberto
where Beverly was. Instead of responding, Roberto fled. Edita was
flustered.
Rufo, who witnessed the incident, advised Edita to report the incident
to the police authorities. Edita rushed back home and woke up Ponciano.
She told her husband that Beverly had been taken by Roberto and that
Beverly
had not yet returned home. The couple rushed from their house and
reported
the incident to the police authorities. With the help of their
neighbors
and police officers Manuel Toribio and Dodong Espino, the couple looked
for Beverly but failed to locate her. They resumed their search the
next
day, May 14, 1995, and, at 3:00 p.m., they found Beverly sprawled in a
grassy portion below a copra kiln about 120 meters away from the house
of the Onato couple and about 15 meters from the nearest house. Beverly
was already dead. Pictures of Beverly were taken where her body was
found.[2]
Ponciano and the policemen then looked for Dr. Renato Ortiz, the
Municipal
Health Officer, to conduct an autopsy on the cadaver of Beverly but the
doctor was in Calbayog City. Lorenzo Bernabe, the Municipal Sanitary
Inspector
who had been trained by the District Hospital to perform autopsies in
the
absence of the Municipal District Officer, performed the autopsy on the
cadaver of Beverly. Bernabe drew a sketch depicting the human body
indicating
the number and locations of the injuries sustained by Beverly.[3]
Bernabe then prepared the autopsy report.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Renato Ortiz validated
the report of Bernabe and signed a Medico-Legal Necropsy Report on May
24, 1995 showing the injuries sustained by Beverly and the cause of her
death:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
F I N D I N G S
1. Wound,
lacerated, 3.5 cm. long, running downward from posterior vaginal wall
to
the anus.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Wound,
lacerated, 2 cm. long, running upward from the vagina to mons pubis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
Contusion,
purplish in color, 5.0 cm. in diameter lateral side of lumbar area,
left,
below the costal margin.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4.
Presence
of blood clots, left ear.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CAUSE OF DEATH:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cardio-Respiratory
Arrestchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Secondry
to severe hemorrhage[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to Dr. Ortiz,
the lacerated wounds sustained by Beverly from the posterior wall of
her
vagina to her anus and from her vagina to the mons pubis were caused by
a blunt instrument shoved violently into her vagina.[5]
Such an instrument could be a penis. The doctor also signed the
Certificate
of Death of Beverly.[6]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Earlier on May 18,
1995, a criminal complaint for rape with homicide was filed by Ponciano
against Roberto with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court[7]
and after the requisite preliminary investigation, an Information
charging
Roberto with Rape with Homicide was filed on December 7, 1995 with
Branch
32 of the Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about the
13th day of May, 1995, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, at Sitio
Mactang,
Barangay Ilo, Municipality of Sto. Niño, Province of Samar,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and
there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge against a
minor
four (4) years old girl, BEVERLY ONATO, without the latter’s consent
and
against her will, and thereafter, with deliberate intent to kill, did
then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously inflict upon the said
Beverly
Onato fatal wounds on the different parts of her body, which caused her
untimely death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the date set for
his arraignment, Roberto appeared without counsel. The court issued an
order appointing Atty. Artemio Apostol as counsel de oficio of Roberto.[9]
Said counsel prayed for the resetting of the arraignment to January 30,
1996 to enable him to secure a copy of the necropsy report and study
the
case intelligently. The court granted the motion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the arraignment
of Roberto on January 30, 1996, he, through his counsel de oficio,
manifested
to the court that he was willing to plead guilty to the lesser offense
of murder. However, the public prosecutor prayed for a continuance so
that
he could consult the provincial prosecutor and the father of the
victim,
Ponciano, on the offer of Roberto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The arraignment of Roberto
was reset to February 29, 1996, on which date, he, through his counsel
de oficio, moved that a reinvestigation be conducted by the public
prosecutor.
The motion was granted by the trial court.[10]
However, despite notice from the office of the public prosecutor,
Roberto
failed to adduce controverting evidence. On motion of the prosecution,
the arraignment of Roberto was set on August 9, 1996. When arraigned on
said date, Roberto, with the assistance of his counsel de oficio,
entered
a plea of Not Guilty to the charge of rape with homicide.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Trial ensued. The prosecution
presented Dr. Renato Ortiz as its first witness. Before the trial
resumed
on February 24, 1997, the counsel de oficio of Roberto manifested that
the latter was intending to plead guilty to murder and prayed for the
deferment
of the trial. The public prosecutor manifested to the court that he had
no objection to Roberto’s pleading guilty to murder as he did not have
sufficient evidence to prove that the latter raped Beverly but that he
had sufficient evidence to prove that he killed her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the trial set
on May 6, 1997, Roberto, through counsel, moved that he be allowed to
withdraw
his plea of not guilty to rape with homicide and to enter a plea of
guilty
to murder. Ponciano, the father of Beverly, and the public prosecutor
agreed
to Roberto’s pleading guilty to murder. On May 19, 1997, Roberto, per
Certificate
of Re-arraignment signed by the Branch Clerk of Court,[12]
was re-arraigned for the lesser offense of murder and pleaded guilty
thereto.[13]
The court then informed Roberto that the penalty for murder was
reclusion
perpetua to death, two indivisible penalties, and that the court may
impose
the death penalty on him depending on the circumstances found by the
trial
court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When trial resumed on
May 22, 1997, for the prosecution to continue presenting its evidence,
Roberto took the witness stand to answer more questions from the court.
He testified that he killed Beverly by smashing a piece of rock bigger
than the size of his fist, about seven inches in diameter, on her head
and chest and on the other parts of her body because, in the meantime,
he lost control of himself. He further stated that he was not forced or
coerced in so testifying before the court. He admitted that he caused
the
death of the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the trial on
May 26, 1997, the prosecution formally offered its documentary
evidence.
The court admitted all the prosecution’s documentary evidence without
any
objection from Roberto. The latter did not anymore adduce any
testimonial
and documentary evidence in his behalf and on said date, the court
issued
an order declaring that the case was submitted for its decision.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 25, 1997,
the trial court rendered judgment[15]
finding Roberto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder with the
qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation and with the generic aggravating
circumstances of (a) abuse of confidence considering that Roberto and
Ponciano
were co-workers, (b) nighttime considering that Beverly was killed in
the
evening and (c) despoblado considering that the nearest house to the
situs
criminis was fourteen meters. The decretal portion of the decision
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Court,
accepting the plea of guilt of the accused ROBERTO OSTIA alias ROBERT
to
the crime of Murder, and likewise considering that the evidence has
sufficiently
proved that the crime has been committed, finds and declares the said
accused
guilty of Murder beyond reasonable doubts, as principal, and
considering
three aggravating circumstances which are not offset by any mitigating
circumstances, hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of
DEATH,
to be carried out in accordance with law, and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, the Court
hereby condemns the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim
Beverly
Onato in the amount of P50,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let the entire records
of the case, together with the stenographic transcripts and exhibits be
forwarded to the honorable Supreme Court for automatic review of this
decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case was brought
to the Court on automatic appeal the death penalty having been imposed
on Roberto by the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant Roberto
assails the decision of the trial court with the following assignments
of error:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE
HIS
IMPROVIDENT PLEA OF GUILTY.
II
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN RULING THAT EVIDENT PREMEDITATION QUALIFIED THE KILLING TO MURDER.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III
ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT
ACCUSED-APPELLANT COMMITTED THE CRIME MURDER (SIC) THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH UPON HIM.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the first assignment
of error, accused-appellant avers that the trial court failed to comply
with its mandatory duties when he pleaded guilty to murder, a capital
offense,
the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua to death. More
specifically,
the trial court allegedly failed to comply with Section 3, Rule 116 of
the Rules of Court when it failed to conduct a searching inquiry into
the
voluntariness and full comprehension of accused-appellant of the
consequences
of his plea of guilty to murder and to inquire from him if he wished to
adduce evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he wished.
Accused-appellant
contends that his plea of guilty to murder was improvidently made and
prays
that his arraignment for murder and all proceedings as well as the
decision
of the trial court convicting him of said crime and imposing on him the
supreme penalty of death be nullified. He further prays for the remand
of the case to the trial court for appropriate proceedings. For its
part,
the Office of the Solicitor General asserts that as gleaned from the
decision
of the trial court, it complied with fealty with the mandatory
requirements
of Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as
amended.
The OSG quotes the following portion of the trial court’s decision:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x On May 19, 1997,
the accused was re-arraigned upon the information. He was assisted by
his
counsel and the information was read and translated to him in the waray
dialect which he claims he understands and speaks. After thus reading
and
translating the information to him in the waray dialect, the accused
entered
a plea of guilt to murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Public Prosecutor,
Hon. Feliciano Aguilar, gave his consent to this plea of guilt of the
accused
to murder, manifesting again to the Court that he has no direct
evidence
to establish rape. The complainant, Ponciano Onato who is the father of
the victim Beverly Onato, after conferring with the Public Prosecutor,
also gave his consent to this plea of the accused to the lesser offense
of murder. The Court conducted searching and clarificatory questions to
the accused to determine whether the latter understood his plea of
guilt
as well as realized the consequences thereof. He was informed by the
Court
that as a result of his plea of guilt, he admitted all the facts
alleged
in the information which were already read and translated to him in the
waray dialect during the re-arraignment; that the Court will no longer
conduct any trial but would just impose upon him the penalty that is
proper
under the law; that the penalty provided for murder, a heinous crime
under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No.
7659
is Reclusion Perpetua to death, and that either of these two
indivisible
penalties may be imposed upon him depending upon the circumstances
which
may ultimately be appreciated by the Court (see TSN dated May 19,
1997,
pages 1-3; 4-5).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He was asked whether
he was earnest and sincere in his plea of guilt to murder, and he
answered
the Court in the affirmative. Furthermore, the Court asked him whether
he was threatened, forced, coerced by anybody or somebody suggested to
him to plea guilty to murder but he answered that he was not, and that
his plea was all his own free will and volition. (see TSN dated May
22, 1997, pages 1-4). chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accused was asked
by the Court how he killed the victim and he stated that he used a
piece
of rock about the size of his fist which was measured to have an
approximate
diameter of four inches and elongated in shape about seven inches long
which he smashed on the victim, whereby he hit the victim on the chest,
on the head, as well as other parts of her body.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although after
conducting
searching and clarificatory questions as anteriorly already mentioned,
the Court was without doubts that the accused was not improvident in
his
plea of guilt to murder and that he realized the consequences thereof,
consistent with the rules and considering the fact that the crime of
murder
to which the accused pleaded guilty is a capital offense, the Court
required
the prosecution to present its evidence. Aside from the testimony of
Dr.
Renato M. Ortiz, M.D., the prosecution presented Ponciano Onato, the
father
of the victim, and Rufo Legape who is a Barangay Kagawd (sic) of Brgy.
Ilo, Sto. Nino, Samar.(pp. 2-5, Decision)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant’s claimed
absence of an inquiry by the trial court as to his interest to present
evidence is of no moment.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court agrees with
accused-appellant. Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court cited by
accused-appellant
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty
to capital offense, reception of evidence. - When the accused pleads
guilty
to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into
the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his
plea
and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree
of
culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rule applies only
where the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense charged in the
Information
or complaint or amended Information or complaint. Section 4 of Rule 114
of the said rules defines a capital offense as that which under the law
existing at the time of its commission may be punished with death.
Irrefragably,
murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death is a capital offense
because,
with the presence of aggravating circumstances absent any mitigating
circumstance,
the death penalty may be imposed conformably with Article 63 of the
Revised
Penal Code. Under the Information, accused-appellant was charged with
murder
qualified by treachery. Although the Information does not specifically
allege treachery as a qualifying circumstance in the commission of the
crime, however, the Information alleges that the victim Beverly was
four
years old at the time of the killing. Such allegation is sufficient
compliance
with Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as
amended. Case law has it that killing a child by an adult constitutes
treachery
even if the mode of attack by the assailant is not proved by the
prosecution
because a child of tender years could not be expected to put up a
defense
and hence, at the mercy of his or her assailant.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When an accused enters
a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the trial court is mandated to
do
the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x (1) conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused’s
full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) require the
prosecution
to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise
degree
of his culpability; and (3) ask the accused if he desires to present
evidence
in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. x x x[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The procedure in said
rule is mandatory and a judge who fails to observe with fealty the said
rule commits grave abuse of discretion.[21]
This Court had cautioned trial judges to proceed with meticulous care
whenever
the imposable penalty for the crime charged is death:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x The execution
of a death sentence is irrevocable and experience has shown that
innocent
persons have, at times, pleaded guilty. In capital offenses, the
essence
of judicial review is anchored on the principle that while society
allows
violent retribution for heinous crimes committed against it, it always
must make certain that the blood of the innocent is not spilled, or
that
the guilty are not made to suffer more than their just measure of
punishment
and retribution. The prudent course to follow is to take testimony not
only to satisfy the trial judge but also to aid the Supreme Court in
determining
whether the accused understood the significance and consequences of his
plea. This is to preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind of
the trial court, or this Court on review, as to the possibility that
there
might have been some misunderstanding by the accused of the nature of
the
charge to which he pleaded guilty, and to ascertain the circumstances
attendant
to the commission of the crime which justify or require the exercise of
a greater or lesser degree of severity in the imposition of the
prescribed
penalties.[22]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court likewise
outlined the duties of the trial court in conducting searching
questions,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x What is essential
is that the judge should, first of all, consider the age, personality,
educational background, socio-economic status and other personal
circumstances
of the accused confessing his guilt. The trial judge should determine
whether
the accused had been coerced or placed under a state of duress either
by
actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging
quarters,
or by mistaken impressions given, wittingly or unwittingly, by
authorities
or parties; whether the accused had the assistance of competent counsel
during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and whether he
understood
the charges against him. The court should inquire if the accused knows
the crime with which he is charged and explain to him the elements of
the
crime and the corresponding penalty therefor. The court may require the
accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges against
him, or make him reenact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime,
or cause him to furnish and explain missing details of significance
about
his personal circumstances, about the commission of the crime and
events
during the custodial and preliminary investigation. In doing so, all
questions
posed by the judge to the accused should be in a language known and
understood
by the latter. Still, the inquiry need not stop with the accused. The
court
may also propound questions to accused’s counsel to determine whether
or
not said counsel had conferred with, and completely explained to
accused
the meaning of a plea and its consequences. x x x[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court is also
required to probe thoroughly into the reasons as well as the facts and
circumstances for the change of plea of the accused and his
comprehension
of his plea; explain to him the elements of the crime for which he is
charged
as well as the nature and effect of qualifying circumstances, generic
aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances in the commission thereof;
and
inform him of the imposable penalty and his civil liabilities for the
crime
for which he would plead guilty to.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the Information
was merely read and translated to accused-appellant in the "waray"
dialect
which he understood. The trial court informed accused-appellant that by
pleading guilty, he admitted all the facts alleged in the Information
and
that the court would no longer conduct any trial but that it would
impose
on him the proper penalty for the crime of murder under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, a heinous crime under Republic Act 7659
punishable
by two indivisible penalties, namely, reclusion perpetua to death and
that
either of said penalties may be imposed on him depending upon the
circumstances
which may ultimately be appreciated by the court. When asked by the
trial
court if he pleaded guilty on his own volition, and if nobody forced,
threatened
or coerced him into admitting having killed Beverly, accused-appellant
answered that he admitted having killed Beverly on his own free will.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court is convinced
that the trial court failed to comply with its duties under Section 3,
Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. It bears stressing that
accused-appellant
did not even know how to read and write. In fact, he merely affixed his
thumbmark on the Waiver of Right to a Preliminary Investigation.[24]
The trial court failed to explain to accused-appellant (a) the nature
of
murder and the elements thereof; (b) that killing Beverly, a four-year
old girl, constituted treachery, a qualifying circumstance;
accused-appellant
being unlettered could not be presumed to understand the requisites of
treachery, a highly technical legal term;[25]
(c) the nature and effect of a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
the
killing of Beverly and its effect on the penalty that may be imposed on
him; (d) what heinous crimes are and the meaning and import of
indivisible
penalties; (e) the specific circumstances which may be considered by
the
court in the imposition of reclusion perpetua or death penalty; (f)
whether
his plea of guilty after the prosecution had commenced presenting its
evidence
may still be considered by the trial court as a mitigating circumstance;[26]
(g) the nature of civil liabilities that he may be ordered to pay and
the
amounts thereof. The trial court even failed to probe into the reasons
for accused-appellant’s change of plea from "not guilty" of rape with
homicide
to "guilty" of murder and for his failure to adduce evidence during the
reinvestigation of the case despite having been granted the right to do
so by the trial court. The trial court did not even bother inquiring
from
accused-appellant whether he sought the advice of his counsel before
pleading
guilty to murder and whether he wanted to adduce evidence in his behalf
to prove any mitigating circumstances in the commission of the crime to
warrant the imposition of the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Notwithstanding the
improvident plea of guilty of accused-appellant, this Court finds it
unnecessary
to remand the case to the trial court. This is so because independent
of
accused-appellant’s plea of guilty and his testimony admitting
liability
for Beverly’s death, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, albeit
circumstantial,
established the guilt of accused-appellant for murder beyond reasonable
doubt. As this Court held in People v. Jabien:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To be sure, accused-appellant
did not only give an informed plea of guilt. His guilt was proved by
the
evidence presented by the prosecution. In People vs. Derilo we held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
‘While it may be argued
that appellant entered an improvident plea of guilty when re-arraigned,
we find no need, however, to remand the case to the lower court for
further
reception of evidence. As a rule, this Court has set aside convictions
based on pleas of guilty in capital offenses because of improvidence
thereof
and when such plea is the sole basis of the condemnatory judgment.
However,
where the trial court receives evidence to determine precisely whether
or not the accused has erred in admitting his guilt, the manner on
which
the plea of guilty is made (improvidently or not) loses legal
significance,
for the simple reason that the conviction is based on evidence proving
the commission by the accused of the offense charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
‘Thus, even without
considering the plea of guilty of appellant, he may still be convicted
if there is adequate evidence on record on which to predicate his
conviction.
As already observed, the prosecution had already rested when appellant
decided to change his plea. The prosecution then had all the
opportunity
to verify the material allegations in the informationchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In People vs. Tahop
we also ruled that ‘even if the accused‘s x x x plea was improvidently
made, if the evidence presented thereafter by the prosecution is
sufficient
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court’s verdict of
guilt
based solely on the hard evidence presented can be sustained. At this
point
then, the improvidence of the plea of guilt is irrelevant.’[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the second assignment
of error, the trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder on its
finding that the killing of Beverly was qualified by evident
premeditation.
While we agree with the ruling of the trial court that
accused-appellant
is guilty of murder, however, the appropriate qualifying circumstance
in
the commission of the crime is treachery, not evident premeditation.
Treachery
was alleged in the Information and duly proved. On the other hand,
evident
premeditation was not alleged in the Information. An accused cannot be
convicted of murder where a qualified circumstance is not alleged in
the
Information, otherwise the accused would be deprived of his right to be
informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. In
People
v. Gallarde,[29]
we held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x In rape with homicide,
in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to
support
the charge of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently
alleged
and proved. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused
to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged.
It
is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the
complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the various
elements
of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to
suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent
knowledge
of the facts that constitute the offense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the absence then
in the information of an allegation of any qualifying circumstance,
GALLARDE
cannot be convicted of murder. An accused cannot be convicted of an
offense
higher than that with which he is charged in the complaint or
information
under which he is tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing
the
evidence of guilt may be, but an accused cannot be convicted of any
offense,
unless it is charged in the complaint or information for which he is
tried,
or is necessarily included in that which is charged. He has a right to
be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged
before
he is put on trial. To convict an accused of a higher offense than that
charged in the complaint or information under which he is tried would
be
an unauthorized denial of that right.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, evident premeditation
was not proved by the prosecution. There is no evidence to prove when
accused-appellant
decided to kill Beverly and that he clung to his determination to kill
her and a sufficient lapse of time between his determination and the
actual
killing of Beverly.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the third assignment
of error, the trial court likewise erred in appreciating nighttime,
despoblado
and abuse of confidence as generic aggravating circumstances in the
commission
of the crime. The prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant
purposely
sought or took advantage of nighttime in killing Beverly.[31]
There is no evidence that accused-appellant sought or took advantage of
the solitude of the situs criminis in committing the crime.[32]
Abuse of confidence could not be appreciated as generic aggravating
circumstance
because the prosecution failed to prove that (a) accused-appellant
enjoyed
the trust and confidence of Beverly or her parents; (b) and that even
if
accused-appellant enjoyed said confidence, he took advantage of said
trust
or confidence to kill Beverly.[33]
The barefaced fact that the accused-appellant and Ponciano were
co-workers
does not constitute evidence that the latter reposed trust and
confidence
in accused-appellant. In the absence of any generic aggravating or
mitigating
circumstances in the commission of the crime, the accused-appellant is
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of
the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court ordered
accused-appellant to pay to the heirs of the victim the amount of
P50,000.00
by way of civil indemnity. However, the trial court failed to order
accused-appellant
to pay the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages.[34]
The decision of the trial court shall be modified accordingly.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City,
Branch
32 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is found
guilty
of murder defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended
by
Republic Act 7659 and there being no modifying circumstances in the
commission
of the crime is hereby meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is
also
ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Beverly Onato the amount of
P50,000.00
by way of civil indemnity and the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral
damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
Vitug, J.,
believe
the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of Treachery, should
warrant
the grant of exemplary damages.Ynares-Santiago, J.,
on leave.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Exhibit [G.]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Exhibits [F] and [F-1.]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Exhibits [B], [B-1], [C] and [C-1.]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Exhibit [A.]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
The crime took place before the effectivity of Republic Act 8353.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Exhibit [D.]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit [E.]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Original Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 59.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 101.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 110.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Clemente C. Rosales.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Original Records, pp. 128-129.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Rollo, pp. 55-56.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 106-109.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People v. Gonzales, 311 SCRA 547 (1999); People v. Lumandong, 327 SCRA
650 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Chua, G.R. No. 137841, October 1, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 13-14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Original Records, p. 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
People v. Derilo, 271 SCRA 633 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. Bello, 316 SCRA 804 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Albert, 251 SCRA 136 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
332 SCRA 702 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
325 SCRA 835 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
People v. Suelto, 325 SCRA 41 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
People v. Beltran, 260 SCRA 141 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People v. Cabiles, 248 SCRA 207 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
People v. Crumb, 46 O.G. 6162 (1949); People v. Gelera, 277 SCRA 450
(1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People v. Latupsan, 360 SCRA 60 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|