In Philippine law, the Supreme Court has clarified that simply using the word “treachery” in a criminal information is not enough to qualify a killing as murder. The information must provide specific factual details about how the treachery was carried out, ensuring the accused understands the charges and can prepare a defense. This requirement protects the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, ensuring a fair trial.

From Murder to Homicide: When a Word Isn’t Enough

In People of the Philippines v. Jerson Dasmariñas y Gonzales, the accused was initially convicted of murder. The conviction stemmed from an incident where PO2 Marlon Anoya was shot and killed. However, the Supreme Court re-evaluated the case, focusing on the specifics of the information filed against Dasmariñas. The central question was whether the information adequately described the circumstances of treachery, a key element that elevates homicide to murder under Philippine law. The court’s decision hinged on the sufficiency of the factual averments in the information, emphasizing the need for clear and detailed descriptions rather than mere legal conclusions.

The Supreme Court emphasized that an information’s sufficiency is determined by the rules in effect at the time of filing. Citing Section 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Court reiterated that the acts or omissions constituting the offense, including qualifying and aggravating circumstances, must be stated in ordinary and concise language. This language must enable a person of common understanding to know the offense being charged, as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances, allowing the court to pronounce a proper judgment. It isn’t enough to simply name the provision of law violated; the facts themselves must paint a clear picture of the crime.

Section 9. Cause of the accusations. – The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. (9a)

Building on this principle, the Court referenced the doctrine established in United States v. Lim San, which underscores that the technical name of the crime is less important than the facts alleged in the information. The accused’s attention should be directed to the alleged acts, not the legal label attached to them. The Court stated,

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. …That to which his attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged.

In People v. Dimaano, the Supreme Court further clarified the requirements for a sufficient complaint or information. It must include the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, and the time and place of the offense. The description of the crime and the specific facts recited are controlling, not the prosecutor’s legal conclusions. Every element of the offense must be stated accurately to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation and enable them to prepare a defense.

The repercussions of failing to meet these standards are significant. As highlighted in People v. Manalili, an accused person cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. This constitutional right ensures that individuals are fully aware of the accusations against them, preventing convictions based on vague or incomplete charges.

The specific element in question was treachery. Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against a person that directly and specially ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. This definition contains two critical elements: the means of execution must give the attacked person no opportunity to defend themselves, and the means of execution must be deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. It is not enough to merely state that treachery exists; the information must factually describe how these elements were present.

In this case, the information stated that the accused acted “with treachery,” but it did not detail how Dasmariñas deliberately employed specific means to ensure the execution of the act without risk. This lack of factual averment regarding the means employed was a critical deficiency. The court stated,

As earlier indicated, to merely state in the information that treachery was attendant is not enough because the usage of such term is not a factual averment but a conclusion of law.

Because the information did not sufficiently allege treachery, the Supreme Court reduced Dasmariñas’s conviction from murder to homicide, which is defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court then applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentencing Dasmariñas to a prison term ranging from nine years of prision mayor to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.

Regarding civil liabilities, the Court modified the awards to align with current jurisprudence, citing People v. Jugueta. The heirs of PO2 Marlon M. Anoya were awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, and indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Moreover, the Court granted exemplary damages despite the reduction to homicide, citing People v. Catubig, explaining that such damages relate to civil liability and are permissible even if the aggravating circumstance is not fully pleaded for purposes of criminal culpability.

Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

This decision underscores the critical importance of properly drafting criminal informations to include detailed factual averments, ensuring that accused individuals are fully informed of the charges against them. It highlights the distinction between legal conclusions and factual allegations, particularly regarding qualifying circumstances like treachery. By reducing the conviction from murder to homicide, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the necessity of upholding the accused’s constitutional rights and adhering to procedural requirements.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the information filed against the accused sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery to justify a conviction for murder, rather than homicide. The Supreme Court focused on whether the information provided enough factual details about how the treachery was carried out.
What is “treachery” in legal terms?	Treachery, under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, involves employing means in the execution of a crime that ensures its commission without risk to the offender from the defense the offended party might make. It requires that the victim has no opportunity to defend themselves.
Why was the accused’s conviction reduced from murder to homicide?	The conviction was reduced because the information only stated that treachery was present but did not provide factual details about how it occurred. The Supreme Court held that this was insufficient to properly charge the accused with murder.
What is an “information” in a legal context?	An information is a formal written accusation presented to a court, alleging that someone has committed a crime. It must contain sufficient details to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation.
What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law allows a court to set a minimum and maximum prison sentence within statutory limits, providing flexibility in sentencing. This law was applied to the accused after his conviction was reduced to homicide.
What types of damages were awarded to the victim’s family?	The victim’s family was awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, indemnity for loss of earning capacity, and exemplary damages. These awards aim to compensate for the financial and emotional losses suffered due to the crime.
Why were exemplary damages awarded even though the conviction was reduced to homicide?	Exemplary damages were awarded because the court upheld the finding that treachery characterized the shooting, even though it was not sufficiently pleaded for the murder charge. Exemplary damages are a civil remedy and do not require the same level of specificity in pleading as criminal charges.
What is the key takeaway from this case for prosecutors?	The key takeaway for prosecutors is the importance of including detailed factual averments in criminal informations, especially when alleging qualifying circumstances like treachery. Simply using legal terms is not enough; the information must describe how the crime was committed in a way that ensures fairness and due process for the accused.

The Dasmariñas case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of precise and detailed charging documents in criminal proceedings. By ensuring that the accused is fully informed of the charges, the Philippine legal system upholds the principles of due process and fairness. This case highlights the necessity of legal expertise in drafting criminal informations to ensure compliance with procedural rules and constitutional rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Dasmariñas, G.R. No. 203986, October 04, 2017