People v. Ukay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Eduardo Ukay y Monton, Teodulo Ukay y Monton, and Guillermo Dianon were charged with Frustrated Murder and Murder. In Crim. Case No. 61,566-07, Eduardo and Oca Ukay were charged with Frustrated Murder for allegedly attacking Jessie C. Gerolaga with knives, with treachery, with intent to kill. In Crim. Case No. 61,568-07, Eduardo, Teodulo, Guillermo, and Oca were charged with Murder for allegedly attacking Anthony Aloba with knives, with treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, with intent to kill, causing his death. Jessie Gerolaga testified that he and his cousin Anthony Aloba were having a drinking spree when they encountered the accused-appellants and Oca. An argument ensued when Anthony told Guillermo to be quiet during an argument with his wife. The accused-appellants allegedly ganged up on Anthony. While Jessie and Warren (Jessie's brother) were turning their backs to go home, Oca stabbed Warren, and Eduardo stabbed Jessie. Jessie then saw Oca and Eduardo stabbing Anthony, while Teodulo and Guillermo hit Anthony with a stone. Anthony died on arrival at the hospital. Jessie survived his injuries. The defense claimed that Anthony initiated the altercation by holding Guillermo by the collar, and Jessie threw a stone at Guillermo. They also claimed that Boyet Arroyo boxed Eduardo. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 11, found Eduardo guilty of Frustrated Murder and Eduardo, Teodulo, and Guillermo guilty of Murder. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to damages. The Petition: Accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal, assailing the CA decision. They argued in their Supplemental Brief that treachery could not be considered against them as it was not sufficiently averred in the Informations.
Issue(s)
Whether the Informations sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and whether the accused-appellants waived their right to question any defects therein. Whether treachery was sufficiently proven by the prosecution to qualify the crimes as Murder and Frustrated Murder. Whether, absent treachery, the accused-appellants are guilty of Murder and Frustrated Murder, or Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, and the appropriate penalties. What is the extent of the accused-appellants' civil liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. It found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, modifying the conviction from Murder and Frustrated Murder.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the Informations and waiver of defects: The Court acknowledged that the Informations were defective for merely alleging treachery without providing factual averments on how the accused employed means to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. However, citing People v. Solar, the Court held that such defects are waivable if the accused fails to file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars. In this case, the accused-appellants voluntarily entered their pleas and proceeded with the trial without questioning the Informations. Therefore, they were deemed to have waived these waivable defects. The Court reiterated that the right to question defects in an Information is not absolute and can be waived if the accused fails to avail of the proper procedural remedies, except for defects where no offense is charged, lack of jurisdiction, extinction of the offense or penalty, or double jeopardy. The failure to raise the issue of insufficiency of the Information through a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars constitutes a waiver. On the proof of treachery: Despite the waiver of defects in the Informations, the Court disagreed with the CA and RTC that treachery was sufficiently proven. The Court emphasized that a finding of treachery must be based on clear and convincing evidence and cannot be presumed. While the attack was sudden, the Court found that it was not a result of a conscious adoption of means to insure success, but rather an impulsive reaction to the ongoing commotion and provocation. The Court cited Cirera v. People, stating that unexpectedness alone does not equate to treachery, especially when there is evidence of provocation. The testimonies of Jessie and Warren indicated a prior commotion and an altercation, suggesting that the stabbing was an impulsive reaction rather than a premeditated act to ensure impunity. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish treachery with the required degree of proof. On the conviction for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide: Given the lack of sufficient proof for treachery, the Court ruled that the crimes committed were Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, not Murder and Frustrated Murder. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code defines Homicide as a killing without any qualifying circumstances. The penalty for Homicide is reclusion temporal. For Frustrated Homicide, the penalty is one degree lower than that for Homicide, which is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed penalties accordingly. The accused-appellants were sentenced to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum for Homicide. Eduardo was sentenced to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum for Frustrated Homicide. On Civil Liability: The Court modified the awards of damages in compliance with current jurisprudence. For the heirs of Anthony Aloba, the accused-appellants were ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages. For Jessie Gerolaga, Eduardo was ordered to pay P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards were ordered to earn interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the decision.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that while the Informations alleging treachery were defective for lack of factual averments, the accused-appellants waived such defects by failing to file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars. However, treachery was not sufficiently proven by the prosecution, thus the conviction for Murder and Frustrated Murder was modified to Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.