People vs.

Suela (Respondents: Nerio Suela y Hembra, Edgar Suela y Hembra and Edgardo Batocan)
January 15, 2002
G.R. Nos. 133570-71
J. Panganiban
EN BANC

Relief being asked from the court: None. This is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.

Doctrine/Pertinent Law: Generic aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated if not alleged in the information although
proven at the trial.

Fast Facts: On or about the 26th day of July 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused, conspiring, confederating with one
another, and mutually helping one another, by means of force upon things, did then and there willfully and feloniously rob one
Nilo Rosas by barging and taking P657,000.00 worth of things. On the said robbery, the accused attacked Geronimo Gabilo by
stabbing him which killed him. After 5 months, Edgar Suela contacted Rosas executive secretary, telling her that her that he has
information Gabilos death in exchange of money. Caller was arrested through entrapment. The letter of Nerio Suela addressed
to Director Rosas asking him for forgiveness as well as the discovery of the stolen TV set and knife in the formers house, further
convinced his guilt. Finding the presence of one aggravating circumstance (disguise) with no mitigating circumstance, the trial
court sentenced them to death.

Summary:
1. On or about the 26th day of July 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused, conspiring, confederating with one
another, and mutually helping one another, by means of force upon things, did then and there willfully and
feloniously rob one Nilo Rosas by barging into the door of said house and once inside, took the following: a colored
TV, 3 cameras, assorted jewelries, and cash money, all amounting to P657,000.00.
2. On the said robbery, the accused with intent to kill, attacked, assaulted, and employed personal violence upon
Geronimo Gabilo by stabbing him, which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely demise.
3. Sometime thereafter, Edgar Suela contacted Rosas executive secretary, telling her that if Rosas will agree, he will
relay information as to the identity and whereabouts of those responsible for Gabilos death. He was willing to
exchange this written information for P200,000.00.
4. An entrapment ensued and this effected his arrest. While under detention, the Suelas expressed their desire to give
an extrajudicial confession. Hence, they were brought to the IBP for the taking down of their confessions. The trial
court held that the appellants had been assisted by competent and independent counsel during the execution of their
extrajudicial confessions.
5. The letter of Nerio Suela addressed to Director Rosas asking him for forgiveness as well as the discovery of the stolen
TV set and knife in the formers house, further convinced his guilt. Finding the presence of one aggravating
circumstance (disguise) with no mitigating circumstance, the trial court sentenced them to death.

Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information can be used in determining criminal liability

Held/Ratio:
NO. Generic aggravating circumstances; in this case, disguise; cannot be appreciated if not alleged in the information although
proven at the trial. The current Rules on Criminal Procedure require that even generic aggravating circumstances must be
alleged in the Information. Thus, Section 9 of new Rule 110 states: . . .. In People v. Mauricio, the Court elucidated: "The use of
the word 'must' indicate that the requirement is mandatory, therefore failure to comply with Sec. 9, Rule 110, means that
generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused if such
circumstances are not stated in the information. It is a cardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive
application insofar as they benefit the accused." In the present case, the aggravating circumstance of disguise which was
appreciated by the court a quo was not alleged in the Information against appellants. Following the above-cited new rule and
current jurisprudence, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of disguise against appellants.

While under the new rules, an aggravating circumstance that is NOT alleged in the information CANNOT be appreciated in
determining the criminal liability of the accused, the rules do not prevent its appreciation for the purpose of determining civil
liability.