Lawyerly

GR No. 196735

2014-05-05

LEONEN, J.

The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. x x x The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the trial.[114]

GR No. 203335

2014-02-18

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

ABAD, J.

Aiding or abetting has of course well-defined meaning and application in existing laws. When a person aids or abets another in destroying a forest,[52] smuggling merchandise into the country,[53] or interfering in the peaceful picketing of laborers,[54] his action is essentially physical and so is susceptible to easy assessment as criminal in character. These forms of aiding or abetting lend themselves to the tests of common sense and human experience.

GR No. 188322

2012-04-11

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court held that "[u]nder Section 6, the Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense."[48] The Information herein complied with these conditions. Contrary to Asilan's contention, the qualifying circumstance of "treachery" was specifically alleged in the Information. "The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."[49] Asilan never claimed that he was deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him due to the insufficiency of the Information.

GR No. 177751

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. EDDIE AGACER

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"Well-settled is the rule that when x x x treachery x x x is present and alleged in the Information, it qualifies the killing and raises it to the category of murder." [37]

GR No. 177825

2008-10-24

PEOPLE v. RENE ROSAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Not only was treachery sufficiently alleged, it was likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. It is a well-entrenched rule that treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes 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 the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[26]

GR No. 173654-765

2008-08-28

PEOPLE v. TERESITA PUIG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Section 9. Cause of the accusation. 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. It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.[5]

GR NO. 170471

2007-05-11

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BUBAN

QUISUMBING, J.

An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of an assignment of error or not.[46] So, while we agree that there is no evident premeditation present, we cannot agree that the offense was not qualified by treachery. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[47] At the time he was killed, Arsenio was in his home, unarmed, with his family, while preparing to sleep. There was no way he could have been aware of the nefarious acts much less resist the attack by Buban who surreptitiously inserted a deadly rifle through a hole in his wall.

GR No. 143817

2003-10-27

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO BAJAR

PER CURIAM

Contrary to appellant's contention, treachery as a qualifying circumstance was sufficiently alleged in the information. The information against Alejandro states in part that he, "then armed with a sharp bolo, with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation, and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one 85-year-old Aquilio Tiwanak, accused's father-in-law, hitting him on the different parts of his body, which caused his instantaneous death." The information sufficiently warned him of the circumstance of treachery which, once proved, qualifies the crime of murder. The first paragraph of its accusatory portion, quoted above, satisfies the requirement of the Rules that qualifying circumstances be specifically alleged in the information in order to comply with the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[35] The purpose is to allow the accused to prepare fully for his defense to prevent surprises during trial. What properly informs the accused of the nature of the crime charged is the specific allegation of the circumstances mentioned in the law that raise the crime to a higher category.

GR No. 140402

2003-01-28

PEOPLE v. ERASTO ACOSTA

CARPIO, J.

However, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, the attendant aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily included in treachery.[70] Hence, the trial court erred in still appreciating abuse of superior strength apart from treachery, which warranted the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the death penalty imposed by the trial court should be reduced to reclusion perpetua under Section 63 (2)[71] of the Revised Penal Code.

GR Nos. 144907-09

2002-09-17

PEOPLE v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ

BELLOSILLO, J.

of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.[8] We delete however the award of actual damages to Lilian Trabel as no competent proof was presented in support thereof.[9] WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is MODIFIED. According, accused Manuel Gutierrez is found guilty instead of two (2) counts of homicide for the death of Lorelie dela Cruz and Rializa Trabel and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8)

GR Nos. 144340-42

2002-08-06

PEOPLE v. RODELIO AQUINO Y RODA

PER CURIAM

The Court has repeatedly qualified cases of rape[6] where the twin circumstances of minority and relationship have been specifically alleged in the Information even without the use of the descriptive words "qualifying" or "qualified by." In the recent case of People v. Lab-eo,[7] the appellant there questioned the decision of the lower court raising the killing to murder. The appellant there argued that he could only be convicted of homicide since the Information merely stated

GR No. L-146308

2002-07-18

PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ

PANGANIBAN, J.

of the death penalty.[71] However, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure require that both qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specifically alleged in the Information.[72] Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 now provide as follows: "SEC 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by statute, aver the acts or omission constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of

	GR No. 196735 2014-05-05	PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO LEONEN, J.
The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. x x x The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the trial.[114]
	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
Aiding or abetting has of course well-defined meaning and application in existing laws. When a person aids or abets another in destroying a forest,[52] smuggling merchandise into the country,[53] or interfering in the peaceful picketing of laborers,[54] his action is essentially physical and so is susceptible to easy assessment as criminal in character. These forms of aiding or abetting lend themselves to the tests of common sense and human experience.
	GR No. 188322 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court held that "[u]nder Section 6, the Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense."[48] The Information herein complied with these conditions. Contrary to Asilan's contention, the qualifying circumstance of "treachery" was specifically alleged in the Information. "The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."[49] Asilan never claimed that he was deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him due to the insufficiency of the Information.
	GR No. 177751 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. EDDIE AGACER DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Well-settled is the rule that when x x x treachery x x x is present and alleged in the Information, it qualifies the killing and raises it to the category of murder." [37]
	GR No. 177825 2008-10-24	PEOPLE v. RENE ROSAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Not only was treachery sufficiently alleged, it was likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. It is a well-entrenched rule that treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes 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 the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[26]
	GR No. 173654-765 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. TERESITA PUIG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 9. Cause of the accusation. 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. It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.[5]
	GR NO. 170471 2007-05-11	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BUBAN QUISUMBING, J.
An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of an assignment of error or not.[46] So, while we agree that there is no evident premeditation present, we cannot agree that the offense was not qualified by treachery. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[47] At the time he was killed, Arsenio was in his home, unarmed, with his family, while preparing to sleep. There was no way he could have been aware of the nefarious acts much less resist the attack by Buban who surreptitiously inserted a deadly rifle through a hole in his wall.
	GR No. 143817 2003-10-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO BAJAR PER CURIAM
Contrary to appellant's contention, treachery as a qualifying circumstance was sufficiently alleged in the information. The information against Alejandro states in part that he, "then armed with a sharp bolo, with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation, and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one 85-year-old Aquilio Tiwanak, accused's father-in-law, hitting him on the different parts of his body, which caused his instantaneous death." The information sufficiently warned him of the circumstance of treachery which, once proved, qualifies the crime of murder. The first paragraph of its accusatory portion, quoted above, satisfies the requirement of the Rules that qualifying circumstances be specifically alleged in the information in order to comply with the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[35] The purpose is to allow the accused to prepare fully for his defense to prevent surprises during trial. What properly informs the accused of the nature of the crime charged is the specific allegation of the circumstances mentioned in the law that raise the crime to a higher category.
	GR No. 140402 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. ERASTO ACOSTA CARPIO, J.
However, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, the attendant aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily included in treachery.[70] Hence, the trial court erred in still appreciating abuse of superior strength apart from treachery, which warranted the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the death penalty imposed by the trial court should be reduced to reclusion perpetua under Section 63 (2)[71] of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR Nos. 144907-09 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ BELLOSILLO, J.
of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.[8] We delete however the award of actual damages to Lilian Trabel as no competent proof was presented in support thereof.[9] WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is MODIFIED. According, accused Manuel Gutierrez is found guilty instead of two (2) counts of homicide for the death of Lorelie dela Cruz and Rializa Trabel and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8)
	GR Nos. 144340-42 2002-08-06	PEOPLE v. RODELIO AQUINO Y RODA PER CURIAM
The Court has repeatedly qualified cases of rape[6] where the twin circumstances of minority and relationship have been specifically alleged in the Information even without the use of the descriptive words "qualifying" or "qualified by." In the recent case of People v. Lab-eo,[7] the appellant there questioned the decision of the lower court raising the killing to murder. The appellant there argued that he could only be convicted of homicide since the Information merely stated
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
of the death penalty.[71] However, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure require that both qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specifically alleged in the Information.[72] Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 now provide as follows: "SEC 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by statute, aver the acts or omission constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of

PEOPLE v. WILSON LAB-EO