Lawyerly

GR No. 140033

2005-01-25

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

However, the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity or nighttime. For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought for by the offender. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. In the instant case, no sufficient evidence was offered to prove that ROGELIO deliberately sought the cover of darkness to accomplish his criminal design. In fact, the victim testified that there were streetlights and lights from the ABC Commercial Complex.[34] That the crime scene was dark is negated by the victim's testimony that he was able to see the face of the accused and even the "marking NFC and the nos. 555" in his dark shirt.[35] Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was not alleged in the information.[36] Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on 1 December 2000, requires that the complaint or information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime charged. This provision being favorable to the accused may be given retroactive effect.[37]

GR No. 148586

2004-05-25

PEOPLE v. LI KA KIM

VITUG, J.

Quite recently, the Court has held that the provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 8, Rule 110, thereof, must be given retroactive effect in the light of the well-settled rule that statutes or rules regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as being applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.[16]

GR No. 137598

2003-11-28

PEOPLE v. JAYSON BERDIN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The trial court correctly held that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[53] Two essential elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[54]

GR No. 149453

2003-10-07

PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In criminal litigations concerning constitutional issue claims, the Court, in the interest of justice, may make the rule prospective where the exigencies of the situation make the rule prospective. The retroactivity or non-retroactivity of a rule is not automatically determined by the provision of the Constitution on which the dictate is based. Each constitutional rule of criminal procedure has its own distinct functions, its own background or precedent, and its own impact on the administration of justice, and the way in which these factors combine must inevitably vary with the dictate involved.[13]

GR No. 149453

2003-04-01

PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The time-bar under the new rule does not reduce the periods under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, a substantive law.[36] It is but a limitation of the right of the State to revive a criminal case against the accused after the Information had been filed but subsequently provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused. Upon the lapse of the timeline under the new rule, the State is presumed, albeit disputably, to have abandoned or waived its right to revive the case and prosecute the accused. The dismissal becomes ipso facto permanent. He can no longer be charged anew for the same crime or another crime necessarily included therein.[37] He is spared from the anguish and anxiety as well as the expenses in any new indictments.[38] The State may revive a criminal case beyond the one-year or two-year periods provided that there is a justifiable necessity for the delay.[39] By the same token, if a criminal case is dismissed on motion of the accused because the trial is not concluded within the period therefor, the prescriptive periods under the Revised Penal Code are not thereby diminished.[40] But whether or not the prosecution of the accused is barred by the statute of limitations or by the lapse of the time-line under the new rule, the effect is basically the same. As the State Supreme Court of Illinois held:… This, in effect, enacts that when the specified period shall have arrived, the right of the state to prosecute shall be gone, and the liability of the offender to be punished to be deprived of his liberty shall cease. Its terms not only strike down the right of action which the state had acquired by the offense, but also remove the flaw which the crime had created in the offender's title to liberty. In this respect, its language goes deeper than statutes barring civil remedies usually do. They expressly take away only the remedy by suit, and that inferentially is held to abate the right which such remedy would enforce, and perfect the title which such remedy would invade; but this statute is aimed directly at the very right which the state has against the offender the right to punish, as the only liability which the offender has incurred, and declares that this right and this liability are at an end. …[41]

GR No. 140550

2002-02-13

PEOPLE v. EDGAR AYUPAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

We are convinced. Well-settled is the rule that treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself.[44] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[45] There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof, tending directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[46] To appreciate treachery, two conditions must be present: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or for retaliation and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution.[47]

GR No. 140033

2002-01-25

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO MORENO Y REG

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

However, the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity or nighttime. For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought for by the offender. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. In the instant case, no sufficient evidence was offered to prove that ROGELIO deliberately sought the cover of darkness to accomplish his criminal design. In fact, the victim testified that there were streetlights and lights from the ABC Commercial Complex.[34] That the crime scene was dark is negated by the victim's testimony that he was able to see the face of the accused and even the "marking NFC and the nos. 555" in his dark shirt.[35] Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was not alleged in the information.[36] Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on 1 December 2000, requires that the complaint or information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime charged. This provision being favorable to the accused may be given retroactive effect.[37]

GR No. 122736

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. FROILAN PADILLA Y VALENZUELA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, the trial court erred in appreciating the three generic aggravating circumstances of armed with a deadly weapon, insult and dwelling. Although all the three aggravating circumstances were proven, none of them was specified, much less alleged, in the information either as a modifying or an aggravating circumstance. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is now required that the aggravating or modifying circumstances must be specified in the information. This new provision, being beneficial to accused-appellant, shall be given retroactive effect as it applies to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.[17] In view of the constitutional proscription on the imposition of the death penalty at the time and since the retroactive application of the restored death penalty is unfavorable to accused-appellant, only reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on him.

GR No. 132169

2001-10-26

PEOPLE v. SANICO NUEVO

QUISUMBING, J.

Further, while the decision of the trial court held that dwelling and the use of a deadly weapon aggravated the crime committed, we find that these were not averred in the information. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective December 1, 2000, provides that every complaint or information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances with specificity.[29] This requirement of procedure has retroactive effect and is applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage insofar as it is favorable to the appellant. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.[30] Here, it was error to appreciate dwelling and the use of a deadly weapon as aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense. In sum, we find that no aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances have been properly pleaded and proved by the prosecution in this case. The result is that the crime committed by appellant is only simple rape, which under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, the law prevailing at the time of commission thereof, is punished only with reclusion perpetua.

GR Nos. 127759-60

2001-09-24

PEOPLE v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO

QUISUMBING, J.

However, the information specifically alleged only two aggravating circumstances, namely treachery and evident premeditation. The circumstance of disregard of respect due to the offended party, not having been alleged in the information, cannot be appreciated to modify appellant's liability,[52] pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 110.

GR Nos. 137969-71

2001-08-15

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL SALALIMA Y GARCIA

QUISUMBING, J.

Further, we shall now take into account recent developments in criminal procedure. Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, requires that the complaint or information shall specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances of the offense. If not specified, these circumstances cannot be appreciated. This provision may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well settled rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.[18]

GR No. 139622

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. PEDRO PERRERAS

BELLOSILLO, J.

However, the death penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant in light of our recent rulings in People v. Arrojado[23] and People v. Gano[24] where Secs. 8 and 9 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure[25] were given retroactive application where favorable to the accused. The Rules now require that every complaint or information state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances, otherwise the same cannot be properly appreciated. Since dwelling was not alleged in the Information, it cannot be considered to raise the penalty to death. Consequently, there being no more modifying circumstances to be appreciated, the penalty for this murder is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Art. 63 in relation to Art. 248 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659.

	GR No. 140033 2005-01-25	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO MORENO Y REG DAVIDE JR., C.J.
However, the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity or nighttime. For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought for by the offender. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. In the instant case, no sufficient evidence was offered to prove that ROGELIO deliberately sought the cover of darkness to accomplish his criminal design. In fact, the victim testified that there were streetlights and lights from the ABC Commercial Complex.[34] That the crime scene was dark is negated by the victim's testimony that he was able to see the face of the accused and even the "marking NFC and the nos. 555" in his dark shirt.[35] Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was not alleged in the information.[36] Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on 1 December 2000, requires that the complaint or information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime charged. This provision being favorable to the accused may be given retroactive effect.[37]
	GR No. 148586 2004-05-25	PEOPLE v. LI KA KIM VITUG, J.
Quite recently, the Court has held that the provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 8, Rule 110, thereof, must be given retroactive effect in the light of the well-settled rule that statutes or rules regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as being applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.[16]
	GR No. 137598 2003-11-28	PEOPLE v. JAYSON BERDIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The trial court correctly held that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[53] Two essential elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[54]
	GR No. 149453 2003-10-07	PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
In criminal litigations concerning constitutional issue claims, the Court, in the interest of justice, may make the rule prospective where the exigencies of the situation make the rule prospective. The retroactivity or non-retroactivity of a rule is not automatically determined by the provision of the Constitution on which the dictate is based. Each constitutional rule of criminal procedure has its own distinct functions, its own background or precedent, and its own impact on the administration of justice, and the way in which these factors combine must inevitably vary with the dictate involved.[13]
	GR No. 149453 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
The time-bar under the new rule does not reduce the periods under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, a substantive law.[36] It is but a limitation of the right of the State to revive a criminal case against the accused after the Information had been filed but subsequently provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused. Upon the lapse of the timeline under the new rule, the State is presumed, albeit disputably, to have abandoned or waived its right to revive the case and prosecute the accused. The dismissal becomes ipso facto permanent. He can no longer be charged anew for the same crime or another crime necessarily included therein.[37] He is spared from the anguish and anxiety as well as the expenses in any new indictments.[38] The State may revive a criminal case beyond the one-year or two-year periods provided that there is a justifiable necessity for the delay.[39] By the same token, if a criminal case is dismissed on motion of the accused because the trial is not concluded within the period therefor, the prescriptive periods under the Revised Penal Code are not thereby diminished.[40] But whether or not the prosecution of the accused is barred by the statute of limitations or by the lapse of the time-line under the new rule, the effect is basically the same. As the State Supreme Court of Illinois held:… This, in effect, enacts that when the specified period shall have arrived, the right of the state to prosecute shall be gone, and the liability of the offender to be punished to be deprived of his liberty shall cease. Its terms not only strike down the right of action which the state had acquired by the offense, but also remove the flaw which the crime had created in the offender's title to liberty. In this respect, its language goes deeper than statutes barring civil remedies usually do. They expressly take away only the remedy by suit, and that inferentially is held to abate the right which such remedy would enforce, and perfect the title which such remedy would invade; but this statute is aimed directly at the very right which the state has against the offender the right to punish, as the only liability which the offender has incurred, and declares that this right and this liability are at an end. …[41]
	GR No. 140550 2002-02-13	PEOPLE v. EDGAR AYUPAN PANGANIBAN, J.
We are convinced. Well-settled is the rule that treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself.[44] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[45] There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof, tending directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[46] To appreciate treachery, two conditions must be present: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or for retaliation and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution.[47]
	GR No. 140033 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO MORENO Y REG DAVIDE JR., C.J.
However, the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity or nighttime. For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought for by the offender. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. In the instant case, no sufficient evidence was offered to prove that ROGELIO deliberately sought the cover of darkness to accomplish his criminal design. In fact, the victim testified that there were streetlights and lights from the ABC Commercial Complex.[34] That the crime scene was dark is negated by the victim's testimony that he was able to see the face of the accused and even the "marking NFC and the nos. 555" in his dark shirt.[35] Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was not alleged in the information.[36] Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on 1 December 2000, requires that the complaint or information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime charged. This provision being favorable to the accused may be given retroactive effect.[37]
	GR No. 122736 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. FROILAN PADILLA Y VALENZUELA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, the trial court erred in appreciating the three generic aggravating circumstances of armed with a deadly weapon, insult and dwelling. Although all the three aggravating circumstances were proven, none of them was specified, much less alleged, in the information either as a modifying or an aggravating circumstance. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is now required that the aggravating or modifying circumstances must be specified in the information. This new provision, being beneficial to accused-appellant, shall be given retroactive effect as it applies to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.[17] In view of the constitutional proscription on the imposition of the death penalty at the time and since the retroactive application of the restored death penalty is unfavorable to accused-appellant, only reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on him.
	GR No. 132169 2001-10-26	PEOPLE v. SANICO NUEVO QUISUMBING, J.
Further, while the decision of the trial court held that dwelling and the use of a deadly weapon aggravated the crime committed, we find that these were not averred in the information. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective December 1, 2000, provides that every complaint or information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances with specificity.[29] This requirement of procedure has retroactive effect and is applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage insofar as it is favorable to the appellant. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.[30] Here, it was error to appreciate dwelling and the use of a deadly weapon as aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense. In sum, we find that no aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances have been properly pleaded and proved by the prosecution in this case. The result is that the crime committed by appellant is only simple rape, which under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, the law prevailing at the time of commission thereof, is punished only with reclusion perpetua.
	GR Nos. 127759-60 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO QUISUMBING, J.
However, the information specifically alleged only two aggravating circumstances, namely treachery and evident premeditation. The circumstance of disregard of respect due to the offended party, not having been alleged in the information, cannot be appreciated to modify appellant's liability,[52] pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 110.
	GR Nos. 137969-71 2001-08-15	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL SALALIMA Y GARCIA QUISUMBING, J.
Further, we shall now take into account recent developments in criminal procedure. Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, requires that the complaint or information shall specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances of the offense. If not specified, these circumstances cannot be appreciated. This provision may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well settled rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.[18]
	GR No. 139622 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. PEDRO PERRERAS BELLOSILLO, J.
However, the death penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant in light of our recent rulings in People v. Arrojado[23] and People v. Gano[24] where Secs. 8 and 9 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure[25] were given retroactive application where favorable to the accused. The Rules now require that every complaint or information state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances, otherwise the same cannot be properly appreciated. Since dwelling was not alleged in the Information, it cannot be considered to raise the penalty to death. Consequently, there being no more modifying circumstances to be appreciated, the penalty for this murder is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Art. 63 in relation to Art. 248 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659.

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ARROJADO