PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

SANTOS DUCAY and EDGARDO

DUCAY, accused. SANTOS DUCAY,
accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 86939 August 2, 1993

FACTS

The accused-apellants, father and son Santos and Edgardo Ducay, were charged with the
complex crime of double murder and multiple frustrated murder. Upon arraignment, both accused
entered a plea of not guilty. In due course, the trial on the merits proceeded.
Lina and Edwin Labos, both seriously injured in the incident, were among the witnesses presented by
the prosecution. Lina testified that at about 5:00 o’clock in the morning of 12 October 1986, Santos
Ducay and his son, Edgardo entered her home armed with a shot gun and a .45 caliber pistol
respectively. They then began shooting at Manuel, Lina’s husband, and Pacita, her mother-in-law. Both
were killed. The accused also shot at her, Edwin, and Ma. Cristina, her six month old daughter. They
three would have been killed as well if not for medical assistance. Lina was able to identify the two
accused. Edwin corroborated Lina’s testimony.
Erwin Labos, brother of Edwin, also made a statement, duly subscribed and sworn to, positively
identifying appellant [Santos] as the shooter. However, two days after the shooting, he executed a
supplemental statement alleging that the second assailant was a tall man with curly hair and mestizo
features.
The trial court found Santos Ducay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged but
acquitted Edgardo Ducay on the ground of reasonable doubt. The trial court expressed that two murders
and three frustrated murders were committed but did not impose the corresponding penalties because
the information to which the accused pleaded is only one crime of double murder and multiple
frustrated murder. Santos Ducay then filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration/Or New Trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence in the form of the lab result of a paraffin test. The motion was
denied for lack of merit. He then filed a Notice of Appeal, thus, the present case.

ISSUE

Whether the death of several victims from separate shots constitutes separate offenses.
RULING

Yes. The Court held that the crimes committed were not caused by a single act nor were any of
the crimes committed as a necessary means of committing the others. In this case, there are as many
crimes as there are victims. Though the information filed was denominated as one for a complex crime,
clearly it charges the accused with five different criminal acts. The appellant and his co-accused did not
move to quash the information on the ground of multiplicity of charges nor did they bring any
objections to light thereafter. They therefore waived such defect and should be convicted of all offenses
charged in the information.

As provided in the Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court:

The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash

before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did
not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion,
shall be deemed a waiver of any objections based on the grounds
provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.
(8)

DOCTRINE

t is settled that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate
and distinct crimes. And that when an accused was charged for a crime and did not bring any objection
thereto, it tantamounts to waiver of all such accusations upon him.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO "Ando" COSTALES and
FERNANDO RAMIREZ , accused.
G.R. Nos. 141154-56, January 15, 2000
FACTS

Accused Fernando Costales and Fernando Ramirez are the high priests of Baro a Cristiano were
Miguel Marcelo, his wife, Crispina and their daughters were members thereof. Miguel and Crispina
decided to quit the congregation but they were warned by Ramirez not to sever their ties with the sect if
they did not want any harm to befall them. Jessie, the daughter of Miguel and Crispina recalled that, her
family was preparing for the night when two persons, whom she readily recognized to be Ramirez and
Costales, suddenly barged into their house. Costales poked a gun at the head of Miguel and shot him
dead. Ramirez, on the other hand, sprayed tear gas and with his firearm pumped a bullet on her
mother’s chest. Costales and Ramirez, stood charged with the murder of Miguel and the frustrated
murder of Crispina. They were also charged with violation of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294 for
having been found to be in unlawful possession firearms.

ISSUE

Whether or not the court erred in in convicting the accused of violation of Sec. 1, PD 1866, as
amended, since the same was absorbed in the crime of murder

RULING

The court agreed with the contention of the accused.

Although the prosecution duly established that the crime of illegal possession of firearm under
PD 1866 was committed, RA 8294, which took effect, July 7, 1997, amended the decree and now
considers the use of unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance in murder and homicide,
and not as a separate offense.
As it should be, possession and use of firearm without license should aggravate the crimes of
murder and frustrated murder as herein charged but, fortunately for accused-appellant, Secs. 8 and 9 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect 1 December 2000, now require the
qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances to be expressly and specifically alleged in the
complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proved during
the trial. Withal, in the absence of any allegation in the Information in Crim. Case No. T-2057 that
accused-appellant committed murder with the use of unlicensed firearm, the same cannot be
appreciated in imposing the proper penalty.
DOCTRINE

The qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged
in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proved
during the trial