Rule 110, Section 6, paragraph 1 & Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure

Decision was dated May 5 but was released June 6, 2014

Supreme Court 3rd Division, voting 3-2

G.R. No. 196735

May 5, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee vs DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR
MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SO LIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN
ALVIR, accused-respondents
Facts:
On December 8, 1994, while seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch
near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, they were suddenly attacked with baseball
bats and lead pipes by men believed to be members of Scintilla Juris Fraternity. The assailants heads were
covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts and the commotion lasted about thirty (30) to forty-five (45) seconds.
The victims were brought to the UP Infirmary while the attackers fled. Dennis Venturina, one of the victims, was
transferred to St. Lukes Hospital that very night. He died on December 10. On the 11 th, an autopsy was
conducted on his cadaver and the NBI medico-legal concluded that Venturina died of traumatic head injuries.
An information for murder was filed against twelve members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity with the RTC of
Quezon City. Separate informations were also filed against them for the attempted murder of 3 Sigma Rho
fraternity members, and the frustrated murder of 2 Sigma Rho fraternity members. Only 11 of the accused stood
trial since one of the accused remained at large.
In 2002, the trial court rendered its decision with the findings that only 5 of the twelve accused were guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among other penalties, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The case against one accused was ordered archived by the court until his apprehension.
Because one of the penalties meted out was reclusion perpetua, the case was brought to the SC on automatic
appeal. However, due to the amendment of the Rules on Appeal, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals.
On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a Special First Division of Five, affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, but downgraded the attempted murder case to slight physical injuries. The decision of the
Court of Appeals was then brought to the SC for review.
It is the argument of appellants that the information filed against them violates their constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. They argue that the prosecution should not have
included the phrase wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise in the information since they were presenting
testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off.
Issue:
Whether accused-appellants constitutional rights were violated when the information against
them contained the aggravating circumstance of the use of masks despite the prosecution presenting witnesses to
prove that the masks fell off
Held:
No. Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the inclusion of the phrase wearing masks
and/or other forms of disguise in the information does not violate their constitutional rights. Every aggravating
circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if
duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the
aggravating circumstance of wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise in the information in order for all the
evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.
(See Rule 110 <Prosecution of Offenses>, Section 6, Par. 1 and Sec. 8 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure)

In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to remain
anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes. The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial
evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them from
including disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating
circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the
information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in the commission of the offense they
were being charged with, they tried to conceal their identity.
The appellate court, however, incorrectly ruled out the presence of treachery in the commission of the offense. The
victims were eating lunch on campus and were not at a place where they would be reasonably expected to be on
guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men. The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack using lead
pipes and baseball bats gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery,
therefore, was present in this case.
Further, the information charges conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy presupposes that the act of one is the
act of all. This would mean all the accused had been one in their plan to conceal their identity even if there was
evidence later on to prove that some of them might not have done so.
Five of the accused-appellants are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and with the
MODIFICATION that they be found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder .#

Case Digest of G.R. No. 196735 May 5, 2014