Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ
and EDWIN VALDEZ, accused-appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The only time when a reviewing court was not bound
by the trial court’s assessment of credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or circumstance of
weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the
case.—Considering that the CA thereby affirmed the trial court’s findings of fact, its
calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight, as
well as its conclusions, the Court accords high respect, if not conclusive effect, to the CA’s
findings. The justification for this is that trial court was in the best position to assess the
credibility of witnesses by virtue of its firsthand observation of the demeanor, conduct and
attitude of the witnesses under grilling examination. The only time when a reviewing court
was not bound by the trial court’s assessment of credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or
circumstance of weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the
outcome of the case. No such fact or circumstance has been brought to the Court’s attention.
It is not trite to remind that a truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-
free testimony because of the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory; and that
inaccuracies noted in testimony may even suggest that the witness is telling the truth and
has not been rehearsed. To properly appreciate the worth of testimony, therefore, the courts
do not resort to the individual words or phrases alone but seek out the whole impression or
effect of what has been said and done.
Criminal Law; Evidence; Unlawful Aggression; Question of Fact; It is fundamental that
the question as to who between the accused and the victim was the unlawful aggressor is a
question of fact addressed to the trial court for determination based on the evidence on
record.—It is fundamental that the question as to who between the accused and the victim
was the unlawful aggressor is a question
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
273
274 SUPREME
COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Valdez
of the criminal acts. Accordingly, the existence of the conspiracy between PO2 Valdez
and Edwin was properly inferred and proved through their acts that were indicative of their
common purpose and community of interest.
Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; Treachery is the employment of means,
methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons which tend to directly
and specially insure its execution, without risk to the offending party arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.—Treachery is the employment of means, methods, or
forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons which tend to directly and
specially insure its execution, without risk to the offending party arising from the defense
which the offended party might make. It encompasses a wide variety of actions and attendant
circumstances, the appreciation of which is particular to a crime committed. Corollarily, the
defense against the appreciation of a circumstance as aggravating or qualifying is also varied
and dependent on each particular instance. Such variety generates the actual need for the
State to specifically aver the factual circumstances or particular acts that constitute the
criminal conduct or that qualify or aggravate the liability for the crime in the interest of
affording the accused sufficient notice to defend himself.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Information; Pleadings and Practice; The real
nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the
information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated,
which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or
information.—The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or
preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have
been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the
complaint or information. In People v. Dimaano, 469 SCRA 647 (2005), the Court elaborated:
For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. What is
controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the
particular law or part thereof allegedly vio-
275
276 SUPREME
COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Valdez
fying criminal liability, the penalty is applied in its medium period (i.e., 14 years, 8
months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months). Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum of the indeterminate sentence is taken from prision mayor, and the maximum from
the medium period of reclusion temporal. Hence, the Court imposes the indeterminate
sentence of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as
maximum for each count of homicide.
277
VOL. 663, JANUARY 277
18, 2012
People vs. Valdez
The accused came to the Court to seek acquittal. On May 9, 2007, however, accused
Edwin Valdez filed a motion to withdraw appeal, which the Court granted on October
10, 2007, thereby deeming Edwin’s appeal closed and terminated. 2 Hence, the Court
hereby resolves only the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez.
Antecedents
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged the two accused in the
RTC with three counts of murder for the killing of Ferdinand Sayson, Moises Sayson,
Jr., and Joselito Sayson, alleging:
Criminal Case No. 00-90718
“That on or about the 1st day of March, 2000, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-
named accused conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other,
with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and employ
personal violence upon the person of one FERDINAND SAYSON y DABOCOL by then and
there shooting him with a gun, hitting him on his head, thereby inflicting upon him serious
and mortal wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of the said FERDINAND SAYSON y DABOCOL.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”3
Criminal Case No. 00-90719
“That on or about the 1st day of March, 2000, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-
named accused conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other,
with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloni-
_______________
2 Id., p. 57.
3 Id., p. 3.
278
279
VOL. 663, JANUARY 279
18, 2012
People vs. Valdez
themselves at the party (pp. 3-5, TSN, November 29, 2000; pp. 3-6, TSN, February 6, 2001;
pp. 3-4, TSN, July 31, 2001).
At about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, the celebration was interrupted with the arrival of
Eduardo and Edwin, who alighted from a motorcycle in front of the jai alai fronton. Eduardo
and Edwin asked the jai alai teller, Jonathan Rubio (Jonathan), to come out. Jonathan was
then attending to customers who were buying jai alai tickets. Moises approached Eduardo
and Edwin and tried to reason with them. Estrella saw Eduardo and Edwin armed with guns.
She tried to prevent Moises from going near Edwin and Eduardo. Moises did not heed his
mother’s warning. He went out and advised Eduardo and Edwin not to force Jonathan to go
out of the fronton. Estrella then heard one of the accused-appellants threaten Moises with
the words “Gusto mo unahin na kita?” Moises replied “huwag.” Successive shots were
thereafter heard. Moises fell and was continuously fired upon even after he was sprawled on
the ground. Ferdinand immediately approached the scene to help his brother Moises.
Ferdinand, however was shot on the left temporal portion of his head and fell. Somebody told
Joselito to run away, but he was hit at the back while running. Joselito fell on a burger
machine (pp. 7-11, TSN, November 29, 2000; pp. 6-10, TSN, February 6, 2001; pp. 5-10, TSN,
July 31, 2001; pp. 2-6, September 5, 2001).
After shooting the Sayson brothers, Eduardo and Edwin escaped from the scene of the
crime (p. 10, TSN, February 6, 2001).”6
In turn, the appellant’s brief filed by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) rendered
the version of the accused, to wit:
“xxx [A]t about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, Heidi dela Cruz (a barbecue vendor) and Noel
Valad-on (a tricycle driver) saw accused Edwin Valdez alight from a bus. The latter bought
P100.00 worth of barbecue from Heidi then proceeded towards home. He was walking along
Corregidor Street when Heidi saw Jun Sayson (Moises), then holding a gun, block his
(Edwin’s) way. Jun Sayson poked a gun at accused Edwin, shouting, ‘Putang-ina mo,
papatayin kita’. The latter raised both his hands and said ‘Wag kuya Jun, maawa ka.’
_______________
6 Id., p. 5.
280
The RTC convicted the two accused of three counts of murder and sentenced them
to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count of murder.8
On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions.9
Issues
In this appeal, PO2 Valdez assails the credibility of the State’s witnesses by
pointing to inconsistencies and weaknesses in their testimonies; challenges the
finding of conspir-
_______________
7 Id., pp. 6-7.
8 Id., pp. 7-8.
9 Id., p. 17.
281
VOL. 663, JANUARY 281
18, 2012
People vs. Valdez
acy between the accused; and contends that the State did not establish the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.10
Ruling
The Court affirms the convictions, but holds PO2 Valdez guilty only of three counts
of homicide due to the failure of the informations to allege the facts and circumstances
constituting treachery.
First of all, PO2 Valdez insists that the State’s witnesses (Susan Sayson, Marites
Sayson and Estrella Sayson) did not really see the events as they transpired; and that
they wrongly identified the two accused as the persons who had shot and killed the
victims; and that the victims were themselves the aggressors.
The CA rejected PO2 Valdez’s insistence, holding thus:
“In their Brief, the accused-appellants desperately attempted to discredit the testimonies
of witnesses Susan, Marites and Estrella. They claimed that a perusal of Estrella’s testimony
would cast doubt on her statement that she actually witnessed the shooting incident. The
accused-appellants claimed that Estrella Sayson did not actually see who allegedly
threatened her son Moises with the words “Gusto mo unahin na kita?” The accused-
appellants also claimed that Estrella also failed to see who shot Moises. They likewise
assailed the testimonies of Susan and Marites as being incredible. They said that Susan
testified that she was in a state of shock after the incident and that she could not speak; yet
she was still able to give her statement on the same day the incident allegedly happened. The
accused-appellants also said that Marites testified that she was only about five (5) meters
away from them (accused-appellants) when they alighted from their motorcycle; but that,
“interestingly,” she only learned from her husband Joselito that the accused-appellants were
looking for a certain Jonathan.
We are not persuaded. In her testimony, Estrella satisfactorily explained her purported
failure to see who between the accused-
_______________
10 Id., p. 11.
282
Considering that the CA thereby affirmed the trial court’s findings of fact, its
calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of their probative
weight, as well as its conclusions, the Court accords high respect, if not conclusive
effect, to the CA’s findings.12 The justification for this is that trial court was in the
best position to assess the credibility of witnesses by virtue of its firsthand
observation of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses under grilling
examination. The only time when a reviewing court was not bound by the trial court’s
assessment of credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or circumstance of weight
and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the
case.13 No such fact or circumstance has been brought to the Court’s attention.
_______________
11 Rollo, pp. 13-14 (bold emphases are in the original text).
12 People v. Darilay, G.R. Nos. 139751-752, January 26, 2004, 421 SCRA 45, 54.
13 People v. Santiago, G.R. Nos. 137542-43, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 248, 256; People v. Abolidor,
G.R. No. 147231, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 260; People v. Pacheco, G.R. No. 142887, March 2, 2004, 424
SCRA 164, 174; People v. Genita, Jr., G.R. No. 126171, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 343, 349; People v. Tonog,
Jr., G.R. No. 144497, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 139, 153-154; Perez v. People, G.R.
283
VOL. 663, JANUARY 283
18, 2012
People vs. Valdez
It is not trite to remind that a truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an
error-free testimony because of the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory;
and that inaccuracies noted in testimony may even suggest that the witness is telling
the truth and has not been rehearsed.14 To properly appreciate the worth of testimony,
therefore, the courts do not resort to the individual words or phrases alone but seek
out the whole impression or effect of what has been said and done.15
Secondly, PO2 Valdez argues that the three victims were themselves the
aggressors who had attacked to kill him and his brother. He narrated during the trial
that he dodged the bullet fired from the gun of Ferdinand (one of the victims), causing
the bullet to fatally hit Joselito (another victim); that he played dead to avoid being
shot at again, and walked away with his terrified son only after the way was clear for
them to leave; and that he heard gunshots while Edwin and Jun (the third victim)
grappled for control of a gun, and assumed that the gunshots had hit and killed Jun
and Ferdinand.16
The argument of PO2 Valdez is bereft of factual merit.
It is fundamental that the question as to who between the accused and the victim
was the unlawful aggressor is a question of fact addressed to the trial court for
determination
_______________
No. 150433, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 209, 219-220; Bricenio v. People, G.R. No. 154804, June 20,
2006, 491 SCRA 489, 495; People v. Taan, G.R. No. 169432, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 219, 230; People v.
Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547; People v. De Guzman, G.R. No.
177569, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 306.
14 People v. Ebrada, G.R. No. 122774, September 26, 1998, 296 SCRA 353, 365.
15 People v. Gailo, G.R. No. 116233, October. 13, 1999, 316 SCRA 733, 748.
16 Rollo, pp. 6-7.
284
284 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Valdez
based on the evidence on record.17 The records show that the version of PO2 Valdez
was contrary to the established facts and circumstances showing that he and Edwin,
then armed with short firearms, had gone to the jai alai betting station of Moises to
confront Jonathan Rubio, the teller of the betting booth then busily attending to
bettors inside the booth; that because the accused were calling to Rubio to come out
of the booth, Moises approached to pacify them, but one of them threatened
Moises: Gusto mo unahin na kita?; that immediately after Moises replied: Huwag!,
PO2 Valdez fired several shots at Moises, causing him to fall to the ground; that PO2
Valdez continued firing at the fallen Moises; that Ferdinand (another victim) rushed
to aid Moises, his brother, but Edwin shot Ferdinand in the head, spilling his brains;
that somebody shouted to Joselito (the third victim) to run; that Edwin also shot
Joselito twice in the back; and that Joselito fell on a burger machine. The shots fired
at the three victims were apparently fired from short distances.
The testimonial accounts of the State’s witnesses entirely jibed with the physical
evidence. Specifically, the medico-legal evidence showed that Ferdinand had a
gunshot wound in the head;18 that two gunshot wounds entered Joselito’s back and
the right side of his neck;19 and that Moises suffered a gunshot wound in the head and
four gunshot wounds in the chest.20 Also, Dr. Wilfredo Tierra of the NBI Medico-Legal
Office opined that the presence of marginal abrasions at the points of entry indicated
that the gunshot wounds were inflicted at close range.21 Given that physical evidence
was of the highest order and spoke the truth more eloquently than
_______________
17 Garcia v. People, G.R. No. 144699, March 10, 2004, 425 SCRA 221, 228.
18 Exhibits “K” and “L.”
19 Exhibit “D.”
20 Exhibits “Q” and “R.”
21 TSN, May 23, 2000, pp. 3-13; September 12, 2000, pp. 2-7.
285
VOL. 663, JANUARY 285
18, 2012
People vs. Valdez
all witnesses put together,22 the congruence between the testimonial recollections and
the physical evidence rendered the findings adverse to PO2 Valdez and Edwin
conclusive.
Thirdly, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit the felony.23 Proof of the
actual agreement to commit the crime need not be direct because conspiracy may be
implied or inferred from their acts.24 Herein, both lower courts deduced the conspiracy
between the accused from the mode and manner in which they perpetrated the
killings. We are satisfied that their deduction was warranted.
Based on the foregoing, PO2 Valdez cannot now avoid criminal responsibility for
the fatal shooting by Edwin of Ferdinand and Joselito. Both accused were
convincingly shown to have acted in concert to achieve a common purpose of
assaulting their unarmed victims with their guns. Their acting in concert was
manifest not only from their going together to the betting station on board a single
motorcycle, but also from their joint attack that PO2 Valdez commenced by firing
successive shots at Moises and immediately followed by Edwin’s shooting of
Ferdinand and Joselito one after the other. It was also significant that they fled
together on board the same motorcycle as soon as they had achieved their common
purpose.
To be a conspirator, one did not have to participate in every detail of the execution;
neither did he have to know the exact part performed by his co-conspirator in the
execution of the
_______________
22 People v. Bardaje, No. L-29271, August 29, 1980, 99 SCRA 388, 399; People v. Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R.
No. 127818, November 11, 1998, 298 SCRA 450, 463.
23 Art. 8, 2nd Par., Revised Penal Code; Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135619, January 15,
2004, 419 SCRA 514, 527; People v. Ogapay, No. L-28566, August 21, 1975, 66 SCRA 209, 214.
24 People v. Cabrera, G.R. No. 105992, February 1, 1995, 241 SCRA 28, 34.
286
286 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Valdez
criminal acts.25 Accordingly, the existence of the conspiracy between PO2 Valdez and
Edwin was properly inferred and proved through their acts that were indicative of
their common purpose and community of interest.26
And, fourthly, it is unavoidable for the Court to pronounce PO2 Valdez guilty of
three homicides, instead of three murders, on account of the informations not
sufficiently alleging the attendance of treachery.
Treachery is the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of any
of the crimes against persons which tend to directly and specially insure its execution,
without risk to the offending party arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.27 It encompasses a wide variety of actions and attendant circumstances,
the appreciation of which is particular to a crime committed. Corollarily, the defense
against the appreciation of a circumstance as aggravating or qualifying is also varied
and dependent on each particular instance. Such variety generates the actual need
for the State to specifically aver the factual circumstances or particular acts that
constitute the criminal conduct or that qualify or aggravate the liability for the crime
in the interest of affording the accused sufficient notice to defend himself.
It cannot be otherwise, for, indeed, the real nature of the criminal charge is
determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere
conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the
_______________
25 People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 384, 404; People v. Masagnay, G.R. No.
137364, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 572, 580.
26 People v. Natipravat, No. L-69876, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 483, 492; People v. Bausing, G.R.
No. 64965, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 355, 364; People v. Merabueno, G.R. No. 87179, December 14, 1994,
239 SCRA 197, 203-204.
27 Article 14 (16), Revised Penal Code.
287
VOL. 663, JANUARY 287
18, 2012
People vs. Valdez
complaint or information.28 In People v. Dimaano,29 the Court elaborated:
“For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. What is
controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the
particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made
by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein
recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged,
and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be
sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every
element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and
circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by
reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement
of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of
the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare
his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge
of the facts that constitute the offense.” [emphasis supplied]
The averments of the informations to the effect that the two accused “with intent
to kill, qualified with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength
did xxx assault, attack and employ personal violence upon” the victims “by then and
there shooting [them] with a gun, hitting [them]” on various parts of their bodies
“which [were] the direct and immediate cause of [their] death[s]” did not suffi-
_______________
28 Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 301 SCRA 298, 327.
29 G.R. No. 168168, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 647, 666-667.
288
288 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Valdez
ciently set forth the facts and circumstances describing how treachery attended each
of the killings. It should not be difficult to see that merely averring the killing of a
person by shooting him with a gun, without more, did not show how the execution of
the crime was directly and specially ensured without risk to the accused from the
defense that the victim might make. Indeed, the use of the gun as an instrument to
kill was not per se treachery, for there are other instruments that could serve the
same lethal purpose. Nor did the use of the term treachery constitute a sufficient
averment, for that term, standing alone, was nothing but a conclusion of law, not an
averment of a fact. In short, the particular acts and circumstances constituting
treachery as an attendant circumstance in murder were missing from the
informations.
To discharge its burden of informing him of the charge, the State must specify in
the information the details of the crime and any circumstance that aggravates his
liability for the crime. The requirement of sufficient factual averments is meant to
inform the accused of the nature and cause of the charge against him in order to
enable him to prepare his defense. It emanates from the presumption of innocence in
his favor, pursuant to which he is always presumed to have no independent
knowledge of the details of the crime he is being charged with. To have the facts stated
in the body of the information determine the crime of which he stands charged and
for which he must be tried thoroughly accords with common sense and with the
requirements of plain justice, for, as the Court fittingly said in United States v. Lim
San:30
“From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what
is the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a
defense on the merits. xxx. That to which his attention should be directed, and in
which he, above all things else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged.
The real question is not did he
_______________
30 United States v. Lim San, 17 Phil. 273 (1910).
289
290
290 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Valdez
the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.32
We now fix the penalty for each count of homicide.
Pursuant to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide
is reclusion temporal.33 There being no circumstances modifying criminal liability, the
penalty is applied in its medium period (i.e., 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years
and 4 months). Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence is taken from prision mayor, and the maximum from the
medium period of reclusion temporal. Hence, the Court imposes the indeterminate
sentence of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum for each count of homicide.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on July 18, 2006
is MODIFIED by finding PO2 Eduardo Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
three counts of HOMICIDE, and sentencing him to suffer for each count the
indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years
of reclusion temporal as maximum; and to pay to the respective heirs of the late
Ferdinand Sayson, Moises Sayson, Jr., and Joselito Sayson the amounts of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as
temperate damages.
The accused shall pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo and Villarama, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
_______________
32 Section 4, Rule 120, Rules of Court.
33 Article 249. Homicide.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall
be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
291
VOL. 663, JANUARY 291
18, 2012
People vs. Valdez
Judgment modified.
Notes.—The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-
defense to be warranted. (Ronquillo vs. People, 614 SCRA 704 [2010])
The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which
renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the
suddenness and severity of the attack; This criterion applies whether the attack is
frontal or from behind. (People vs. Roxas, 628 SCRA 378 [2010])