EN BANC

[G.R. No. 225595. August 6, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO

SOLAR y DUMBRIQUE, accused-appellant.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by the accused-appellant

Rolando Solar y Dumbrique (Rolando) assailing the Decision 2 dated January
13, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05757, which
affirmed the Judgment 3 dated September 3, 2012 of Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 202 in Criminal Case No. 08-0616 finding
Rolando guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but downgrading the crime from
Murder to Homicide.
The Facts
An Information was filed against Rolando and Mark Kenneth Solar
(Mark Kenneth) for the murder of Joseph Capinig y Mato (Joseph), the
accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 9th day of March 2008, in the City of Las
Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together
and both of them mutually helping and aiding each other, without
justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of
superior strength, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
JOSEPH CAPINIG y MATO, by then and there hitting and beating his
head with a baseball bat, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal
injury which caused his death.
The killing of the aforesaid victim is qualified by the
circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
During the arraignment, Rolando pleaded not guilty while Mark
Kenneth remained at large and hence was not brought to the RTC's
jurisdiction. 5
The prosecution presented an eyewitness, namely private complainant
Ma. Theresa Capinig (Ma. Theresa), the wife of Joseph. The prosecution also
presented Dr. Voltaire Nulud (Dr. Nulud), the doctor who conducted the
medical examination on Joseph.
The version of the prosecution, as summarized by the CA, is as follows:
Ma. Theresa testified that on March 9, 2008, at around 2:00
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 a.m., she decided to follow her husband who left the house to get his
cellphone from Rolando. Along the way, she saw Rolando and Mark
Kenneth hit Joseph with a baseball bat on his nape. When Joseph fell
down, the two simultaneously ganged up on him. She then shouted
for help and the assailants ran away. Immediately, Joseph was rushed
to the hospital but was pronounced "dead on arrival." According to
Dr. Nulud, the death resulted from traumatic injuries on the brain
caused by a blunt force applied on the head of the victim. The
postmortem examination revealed two external injuries on the frontal
region or in the forehead, which was a contusion, and a healing
abrasion on the left infra scapular region. Also, there was a subdural
and subarachnoidal hemorrhage on the cerebral hemisphere of the
brain or "doon x x x sa dalawang lobes ng brain ng victim." 6
On the other hand, the version of the defense, as also summarized by
CA, is as follows:
Rolando denied the accusation and claimed that he was
attending a wake on the night of March 8, 2008, from 11:00 p.m. until
2:00 a.m. the following day. Joseph was also there drinking and
playing cara y cruz with his group. After a while, Joseph approached
him and offered to pawn a cellphone in exchange of cash. However,
he refused because he also needed money. On his way home, he met
Joseph who, upon seeing him, drew out a kitchen knife and tried to
stab him thrice. Fortunately, he was not hit and he immediately ran
away. 7
Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued.
Ruling of the RTC
After trial on the merits, in its Judgment 8 dated September 3, 2012,
the RTC convicted Rolando of the crime of Murder. The dispositive portion of
the said Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused
Rolando Solar [y] Dumbrique GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for
the crime of MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of the
deceased victim, Joseph Capinig, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity for his death, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 9

The RTC found the testimony of Ma. Theresa, the sole eyewitness of
the prosecution, to be clear, positive, categorical, and credible to establish
Rolando's guilt for the crime charged. The RTC also held that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was present in the killing of Joseph, and hence,
the crime committed by Rolando was Murder.
Aggrieved, Rolando appealed to the CA. In his Brief, 10 he stated that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by failing
to prove his identity as the perpetrator, and that there was lack of evidence
to support a finding of conspiracy among the accused. He argued that since
Ma. Theresa testified that it was Mark Kenneth who inflicted the fatal blow
on the victim, a finding of conspiracy was necessary to convict him and
there were no facts available to support such conclusion. Thus, Rolando
prayed for his acquittal.
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision 11 dated January 13, 2015, the CA modified the
RTC's conviction of Rolando.
Similar to the findings of the RTC, the CA found Ma. Theresa's
testimony credible and sufficient to establish the identity and culpability of
Rolando. The CA also held that conspiracy may be deduced from the
conspirators' conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime
indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and community of interests —
that the facts of the present case reveal such concerted action to achieve
the purpose of killing Joseph. 12
Nevertheless, the CA downgraded the offense from Murder to
Homicide, holding that the Information did not sufficiently set forth the facts
and circumstances describing how treachery attended the killing. 13
The CA also modified the award of damages to be paid to the heirs of
Joseph. The CA ordered Rolando to pay the heirs of Joseph the amounts of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P25,000.00 as temperate damages. 14
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
For resolution of the Court are the following issues submitted by
Rolando:
(1) Whether the CA erred in convicting Rolando despite the
prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) Whether the CA erred in convicting Rolando despite the
prosecution's failure to prove that conspiracy exists.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious. The Court affirms the conviction of
Rolando, not for the crime of Homicide as held by the CA, but for the crime
of Murder as found by the RTC.
Whether the prosecution proved
Rolando's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt

In questioning his conviction, Rolando reiterates the arguments he

raised in the CA, namely that: (1) the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Ma.
Theresa, was insufficient to convict him because of her failure to positively
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 identify him as the perpetrator of the crime; (2) the testimony of Ma. Theresa
was marred with material and substantial inconsistencies; and (3) Ma.
Theresa was a biased witness and her testimony was tainted with improper
motive. 15
The arguments deserve scant consideration.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight
and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will
not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 16 Thus, when the case
pivots on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses, the findings of the trial
courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the
unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses
during trial. 17 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds
no cogent reason to vacate the RTC's appreciation of the evidence, which
was affirmed in toto by the CA.
Further, and as pointed out by the CA, Ma. Theresa was able to
positively identify Rolando as one of the perpetrators of the crime. She was
only five meters away from the scene when it happened, and she knew
Rolando since he was a childhood friend of her siblings. 18 That part of her
testimony in which she said that she initially did not see who attacked her
husband because it was dark referred to Mark Kenneth, not Rolando. 19 Thus,
there is no merit in Rolando's contention that the prosecution failed to
establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crime.
There is also no merit in Rolando's contention that Ma. Theresa's
testimony should not be given credence for being marred with
inconsistencies. Rolando avers:
In her direct testimony, Theresa was adamant that she saw
accused Mark Kenneth hit her husband with a baseball bat. However,
during the continuation of her testimony, she admitted that it was
dark and she cannot see the face of the assailant. Moreover, she
claimed that her husband was mauled by both the accused when the
latter was already down on the ground. It should be noted, however,
that when she was asked again what happened, she readily recounted
that when she arrived at the scene, she saw her husband being hit by
accused Mark Kenneth and when Joseph fell, she shouted for help and
the assailants ran away, altogether omitting the part where both
accused ganged up on Joseph. 20
The supposed inconsistencies pointed out by Rolando were sufficiently
explained by the prosecution. For one, Ma. Theresa already clarified that she
did not recognize Mark Kenneth initially as she did not know him, and she
was only able to identify him through the help of the barangay official who
helped her. 21 Her initial testimony that "she saw Mark Kenneth hit her
husband" was her narrating to the court of what she saw: Rolando was in
front of her husband while the other person — later identified as Mark
Kenneth — attacked her husband from behind. 22 The other supposed
inconsistency, if at all to be considered one in the first place, changes little to
the conclusion reached in this case. The essence of Ma. Theresa's testimony
never changed, in that she repeatedly claimed that she saw her husband
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 being attacked by assailants who only stopped when she shouted for help.
The supposed "inconsistency" — on whether it was both Rolando and Mark
Kenneth, or only the latter, who was/were attacking her husband — does not
change the essence of her testimony and, in fact, even strengthens her
credibility. The Court stresses that slight contradictions, in fact, even serve
to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, as these may be considered as
badges of truth rather than indicia of bad faith; they tend to prove that their
testimonies have not been rehearsed; nor are such inconsistencies, and even
improbabilities, unusual, for no person has perfect faculties of senses or
recall. 23
In any event, Rolando does not deny that he had an encounter with
Joseph on the date and at the place in question. The only difference between
his version and that of the prosecution's is that he claims that it was Joseph
who attacked him first but that he was able to run away. 24 The Court follows
the established doctrine that as between a positive and credible testimony
by an eyewitness, on the one hand, and a hollow denial, on the other, the
former generally prevails over the latter. 25 Coupled with the fact that the
findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect, the
Court therefore upholds the credibility of Ma. Theresa's testimony and
declares it sufficient to establish the guilt of Rolando beyond reasonable
doubt.
Finally, the Court affirms the findings of both the RTC and the CA that
Rolando failed to prove any ill motive on the part of Ma. Theresa to implicate
him. There is no evidence on record, apart from the empty imputations of ill
motive by Rolando, that shows that Ma. Theresa was motivated by an
improper motive to implicate Rolando for the crime. Thus, as the Court held
in People v. De Leon: 26
The credibility of the prosecution witnesses is not affected by
their relationship with the deceased. The fact that witness Chito is the
son of the victim while Annaluz's mother-in-law is the second cousin
of the wife of the victim is of no consequence since mere relationship
with the victim does not necessarily tarnish the testimony of a
witness. When there is no showing of improper motive on the part of
the witness in testifying against the accused, her relationship with the
victim does not render her testimony less worthy of full faith and
credence. In fact, relationship itself could even strengthen
credibility in a particular case, for it is highly unnatural for an
aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the
actual culprit. The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead
kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience
and prudence to blame one who is innocent of the crime. 27
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
To repeat, the testimony of Ma. Theresa deserves full faith and credit.
It is thus sufficient to establish the guilt of Rolando beyond reasonable
doubt.
Whether the CA erred in finding
that conspiracy existed between
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Rolando and Mark Kenneth

Rolando also questions his conviction on the ground that the RTC and
the CA erred in finding him to have acted in conspiracy with Mark Kenneth.
He avers that the evidence on record reveals that it was Mark Kenneth who
delivered the fatal blow, and thus he should be acquitted of the crime
charged.
The contention is erroneous.
It is well-established that conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. 28 Conspiracy is the unity of purpose and intention in the
commission of a crime. There is conspiracy if at the time of the commission
of the offense, the acts of two or more accused show that they were
animated by the same criminal purpose and were united in their execution,
o r where the acts of the malefactors indicate a concurrence of
sentiments, a joint purpose and a concerted action. 29
While it is true that the elements of conspiracy must be proved by the
same kind of proof — proof beyond reasonable doubt — necessary to
establish the physical acts constituting the crime itself, 30 this is not to say
that direct proof of such conspiracy is always required. The existence of
conspiracy need not, at all times, be established by direct evidence. Nor is it
necessary to prove prior agreement between the accused to commit the
crime charged. 31 Indeed, conspiracy is very rarely proved by direct evidence
of an explicit agreement to commit the crime. Thus, the rule is well-
settled that conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime,
where such conduct reasonably shows community of criminal
purpose or design. 32
In the present case, both the RTC and CA correctly inferred from the
collective acts of the assailants that conspiracy exists despite the absence of
direct evidence to the effect. As the CA correctly held:
x x x In this case, implied conspiracy between the accused can
be deduced from the mode and manner in which they perpetrated
the killing. First, Rolando and Mark Kenneth were together at the
crime scene. Second, Rolando mauled the victim after Mark Kenneth
hit him with a baseball bat. Third, as soon as they achieved their
common purpose, both accused fled together. All these acts point to
the conclusion that the accused conspired to commit the crime. 33
Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators
are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their
respective active participation in the commission of the crime or crimes
perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of the
law the act of one is the act of all. 34 In this case, it is therefore
inconsequential whether Rolando delivered a fatal blow or not.
On the issue of sufficiency of the
Information
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In the assailed Decision, while the CA affirmed the RTC's finding that
Rolando indeed killed Joseph, it downgraded the offense from Murder to
Homicide for failure of the Information to sufficiently state the particular
facts establishing the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
The CA reasoned:
Here, the averments of the information to the effect that the
two accused "with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of
superior strength, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
JOSEPH CAPINIG y MATO, by then and there hitting and beating his
head with a baseball bat, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal
injury which directly caused his death" did not sufficiently set forth
the facts and circumstances describing how treachery attended the
killing. It should not be difficult to see that merely averring the killing
of a person by hitting his head with a baseball bat, 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 baseball bat 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 fact. In short, the particular acts and
circumstances constituting treachery as an attendant
circumstance in murder were missing from the information. 35
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics in the original)
While neither of the parties questioned the above finding of the CA in
this appeal, the Court nevertheless addresses the same considering that:
x x x in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide
open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though
unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial
court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties
raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full
jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to
examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the
penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 36
Accordingly, the Court deems it proper to review and discuss the
relevant disquisition by the CA despite the issue not being one of those
raised in the appeal.
In reaching its conclusion, the CA adhered to the ruling in the case of
People v. Valdez, 37 (Valdez) where the Court held:
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 complaint or information. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
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 x x
x 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
sufficiently 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:
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 x x x. That to
which his attention should be directed, and in
which he, above all things else, should be most
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 interested, are the facts alleged. The real question
is not did he commit a crime given in the law some
technical and specific name, but did he perform the
acts alleged in the body of the information in the
manner therein set forth. If he did, it is of no
consequence to him, either as a matter of
procedure or of substantive right, how the law
denominates the crime which those acts
constitute. The designation of the crime by name in
the caption of the information from the facts
alleged in the body of that pleading is a conclusion
of law made by the fiscal. In the designation of the
crime the accused never has a real interest until
the trial has ended. For his full and complete
defense he need not know the name of the crime at
all. It is of no consequence whatever for the
protection of his substantial rights. The real and
important question to him is, "Did you perform the
acts alleged in the manner alleged?" not "Did you
commit a crime named murder." If he performed
the acts alleged, in the manner stated, the law
determines what the name of the crime is and fixes
the penalty therefor. It is the province of the court
alone to say what the crime is or what it is named.
(Emphasis supplied [in the original])
A practical consequence of the non-allegation of a detail that
aggravates his liability is to prohibit the introduction or consideration
against the accused of evidence that tends to establish that detail.
The allegations in the information are controlling in the ultimate
analysis. Thus, when there is a variance between the offense charged
in the information and that proved, and the offense as charged is
included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
shall be convicted of the offense proved included in the offense
charged, or of the offense charged included in the offense proved. In
that regard, an offense charged necessarily includes the offense
proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the
former, as alleged in the information, constitute the latter; an offense
charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those
constituting the latter. 38
A review of jurisprudence reveals that the ruling enunciated in Valdez
was subsequently reiterated in the cases of People v. Dasmariñas 39
(Dasmariñas) and People v. Delector 40 (Delector).
On the other hand, there is a separate line of cases in which an
allegation in the Information that the killing was attended "with treachery" is
already sufficient to inform the accused that he was being charged with
Murder instead of simply Homicide. In People v. Batin, 41 (Batin) for instance,
the accusatory portion of the Information filed against the accused therein
stated that:
x x x the x x x accused, conspiring together, confederating with
and mutually helping each other, did, then and there, wilfully,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, with treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength, and with evident premeditation,
attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one
EUGENIO REFUGIO y ZOSA, by then and there shooting him with a
handgun, hitting him on the right side of his stomach, thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct
and immediate cause of his untimely death. 42 (Emphasis supplied)
The accused in Batin specifically claimed in his appeal that the
foregoing charge did not allege the specific treacherous acts of the accused
and that the phrase "with treachery" was a mere conclusion of law. 43 The
accused thus argued that the Information failed to satisfy the test of
sufficiency of Information as provided in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the
Rules of Court. 44 In ruling against the accused's contention, the Court in
Batin stated:
We hold that the allegation of treachery in the Information is
sufficient. Jurisprudence is replete with cases wherein we found the
allegation of treachery sufficient without any further explanation as to
the circumstances surrounding it. Here are some of the cases:
I n People v. Lab-eo , Wilson Lab-eo was indicted for murder
under the following Information:
That on or about October 21, 1996, at the Barangay
Hall, Poblacion, Tadian, Mountain Province, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused with intent to kill and with the use of a sharp
knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, strike and stab Segundina
Cay-no with a well-honed and pointed knife and thereby
inflicting a mortal stab wound upon the victim as
reflected in that medico-legal certificate, to wit:
Stab wound infrascapular area left,
penetrating with massive hemathorax, which
caused the death of the victim thereafter.
That the aggravating circumstances of
evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of
superior strength and craft attended the
commission of the offense.
The accused in this case argued that the Information above,
while captioned as "Murder," only charged him with homicide as
written. This Court found nothing wrong with the Information, and
ruled that the Information sufficiently charged the accused with
murder, not even considering the absence of an explanation of the
treachery stated therein, thus:
The fact that the qualifying circumstances were
recited in the second paragraph and not in the first
paragraph of the Information, as commonly done, is a
matter of form or style for which the prosecution should
not be faulted. That the Provincial Prosecutor decided to
write the Information differently did not impair its
sufficiency. Nothing in the law prohibits the prosecutor
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 from adopting such a form or style. As long as the
requirements of the law are observed, the Information will
pass judicial scrutiny.
xxx xxx xxx
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. 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. The purpose is to allow the accused to fully
prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the
trial. Significantly, the appellant never claimed that he
was deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature
of the charges against him because of the style or form
adopted in the Information.
This Court went on to affirm the conviction of the accused
therein with murder qualified by treachery.
The allegation in the Information of treachery as a qualifying
circumstance was similarly assailed in People v. Opuran , wherein the
charge was as follows:
Criminal Case No. 4693
That on or about November 19, 1998, at nighttime,
at Km. 1, South Road, Municipality of Catbalogan,
Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, said accused, with deliberate
intent to kill and treachery, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and
stab Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr., with the use of a bladed
weapon (5" long from tip to handle with scabbard),
thereby inflicting upon the victim fatal stab wounds on
the back of his body, which wounds resulted to his
instantaneous death.
All contrary to law, and with attendant qualifying
circumstance of treachery.
This Court again rejected the argument of the defense by
finding the allegation of treachery sufficient, and later on finding the
accused therein guilty of murder qualified by treachery:
We do not find merit in appellant's contention that
he cannot be convicted of murder for the death of
Demetrio, Jr. because treachery was not alleged with
"specificity" as a qualifying circumstance in the
information. Such contention is belied by the information
itself, which alleged: "All contrary to law, and with the
attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery." In any
event, even after the recent amendments to the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, qualifying circumstances need not be
preceded by descriptive words such as qualifying or
qualified by to properly qualify an offense.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Finally, the following constitutes the Information in People v.
Bajar:
That on or about the 16th day of August 1999, at
about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, at sitio Mohon,
Barangay Mambayaan, Municipality of Balingasag,
Province of Misamis Oriental, Republic of the Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above named accused, 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, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of Aquilio Tiwanak in
such amounts as may be allowed by law.
The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, taking
advantage of superior strength, disregard of the respect
due the victim on account of his age, habitual intoxication
and relationship attended the commission of the crime.
CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
in relation [to] Article 14, paragraphs 3 and 15, and
Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.
Like in the previous two cases, this Court found the Information
to have sufficiently alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance.
Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the information because
these are matters of defense. Informations need only state the
ultimate facts; the reasons therefor could be proved during the trial.
45 (Emphasis supplied)

In short, there are currently two different views on how the qualifying
circumstance of treachery should be alleged. On the one hand is the view
that it is sufficient that the Information alleges that the act be committed
"with treachery." The second view requires that the acts constituting
treachery — or the acts which directly and specially insured the execution of
the crime, without risk to the offending party arising from the defense which
the offended party might make — should be specifically alleged and
described in the Information.
The CA, in the assailed Decision in this case, took the second view and
held that the Information did not specifically allege the acts constituting
treachery. As a result, it downgraded the offense from Murder to Homicide.
The Court, however, reverses the ruling of the CA. The Court thus
convicts Rolando for Murder instead of Homicide.
Rolando has waived his right to
question the defects in the
Information filed against him

The Court notes that the right to question the defects in an Information
is not absolute. In fact, defects in an Information with regard to its form may
be waived by the accused. For instance, in People v. Palarca , 46 the accused
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 was charged with rape, but the Information filed against him failed to specify
that he had carnal knowledge of the victim through force or intimidation.
When it reached the Court, it held that the accused therein may still be
validly convicted of the crime despite the insufficiency of the Information,
ratiocinating thus:
In any event, accused-appellant failed to interpose any
objection to the presentation by the prosecution of evidence which
tended to prove that he committed the rape by force and
intimidation. While generally an accused cannot be convicted of an
offense that is not clearly charged in the complaint or information,
this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the sufficiency of
the information or the admission of evidence may be waived by the
accused-appellant. In People v. Lopez , we held that an information
which lacks certain essential allegations may still sustain a
conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency
during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent
evidence presented therein. Thus —
[F]ailure to object was thus a waiver of the
constitutional right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation. It is competent for a
person to waive a right guaranteed by the Constitution,
and to consent to action which would be invalid if taken
against his will. (1 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES 31-32 [1983 ed.]). This Court has, on
more than one occasion, recognized waivers of
constitutional rights, e.g., the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures (People v. Malasugui , 63 Phil. 221
[1936]; Viuda de Gracia v. Locsin , 65 Phil. 689 [1938]);
the right to counsel and to remain silent (People v. Royo ,
114 SCRA 304 [1982]); the right to be heard ( Abriol v.
Homeres, 84 Phil. 525 [1949]; People v. Dichoso , 96 SCRA
957 [1980]); and the right to bail (People v. Donato , 198
SCRA 130 [1991]). 47 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Similarly, in the case of People v. Razonable , 48 the Court held that if
an Information is defective, such that it fails to sufficiently inform the
accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, then it is the
accused's duty to enforce his right through the procedural rules created by
the Court for its proper enforcement. The Court explained:
The rationale of the rule, which is to inform the accused of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, should guide our
decision. To claim this substantive right protected by no less than the
Bill of Rights, the accused is duty bound to follow our procedural rules
which were laid down to assure an orderly administration of justice.
Firstly, it behooved the accused to raise the issue of a
defective information, on the ground that it does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form, in a motion to quash
said information or a motion for bill of particulars. An accused
who fails to take this seasonable step will be deemed to have
waived the defect in said information. The only defects in an
information that are not deemed waived are where no offense
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 is charged, lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged,
extinction of the offense or penalty and double jeopardy.
Corollarily, we have ruled that objections as to matters of form or
substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on
appeal. In the case at bar, appellant did not raise either in a motion to
quash or a motion for bill of particulars the defect in the Information
regarding the indefiniteness of the allegation on the date of the
commission of the offense. 49 (Emphasis supplied)
To recall, in the present case, Rolando did not question the supposed
insufficiency of the Information filed against him through either a motion to
quash or motion for bill of particulars. He voluntarily entered his plea during
the arraignment and proceeded with the trial. Thus, he is deemed to have
waived any of the waivable defects in the Information, including the
supposed lack of particularity in the description of the attendant
circumstances. In other words, Rolando is deemed to have understood the
acts imputed against him by the Information. The CA therefore erred in
modifying Rolando's conviction in the way that it did when he had effectively
waived the right to question his conviction on that ground.
It is for this reason that the Court modifies Rolando's conviction from
Homicide to Murder — he failed to question the sufficiency of the Information
by availing any of the remedies provided under the procedural rules,
namely: either by filing a motion to quash for failure of the Information to
conform substantially to the prescribed form, 50 or by filing a motion for bill
of particulars. 51 Again, he is deemed to have waived any of the waivable
defects in the Information filed against him.

Insufficiency of Informations
that merely mention or
enumerate the attending
circumstances

Despite the foregoing, the Court hereby establishes a policy, for the
guidance of the Bench and the Bar, on how the qualifying circumstance of
treachery — and other qualifying, aggravating, and attendant circumstances
similar to it — should be properly alleged in an Information.
The Court stresses that the starting point of every criminal prosecution
is that the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent. 52
Further to this, the courts, in arriving at their decisions, are instructed by no
less than the Constitution to bear in mind that no person should be deprived
of life or liberty without due process of law. 53 An essential component of the
right to due process in criminal proceedings is the right of the accused to be
sufficiently informed, in writing, of the cause of the accusation against him.
54 The rationale behind the requirement of sufficiently informing the accused

in writing of the cause of the accusation against him was explained as early
as 1904 in the case of United States v. Karelsen: 55
The object of this written accusation was —
First. To furnish the accused with such a description of
the charge against him as well enable him to make his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 defense; and second, to avail himself of his conviction or
acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the
same cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts
alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in
law to support a conviction, if one should be had. (United
States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S., 542.) In order that this requirement
may be satisfied, facts must be stated; not conclusions of law .
Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent; these must be set
forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place,
names (plaintiff and defendant), and circumstances. In short, the
complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and
circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged. For
example, if a malicious intent is a necessary ingredient of the
particular offense, then malice must be alleged. In other words, the
prosecution will not be permitted to prove, under proper objection, a
single material fact unless the same is duly set forth by proper
allegation in his complaint. Proof or evidence of material facts is
rendered admissible at the trial by reason of their having been duly
alleged in the complaint. ( Rex vs. Aspinwall , 2 Q.B.D., 56; Bradlaugh
vs. Queen , 3 Q.B.D., 607.)
xxx xxx xxx
There is a general opinion that a greater degree of certainty is
required in criminal pleading than in civil. This is not the rule. The
same rules of certainty apply both to complaints in criminal
prosecutions and petitions or demands in civil cases. Under both
systems[,] every necessary fact must be alleged with certainty to a
common intent. Allegations of "certainty to a common intent"
mean that the facts must be set out in ordinary and concise
language, in such a form that persons of common
understanding may know what is meant. 56 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
This right to be informed of the cause of the accusation, in turn, is
implemented through Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which provide:
SECTION 8. Designation of the Offense. — The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it.
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 thus fundamental that every element of which the offense is
composed must be alleged in the Information. No Information for a crime will
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the
crime charged. 57 The test in determining whether the information validly
charges an offense is whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or
information will establish the essential elements of the offense charged as
defined in the law. In this examination, matters aliunde are not considered.
58 To repeat, the purpose of the law in requiring this is to enable the accused

to suitably prepare his defense, as he is presumed to have no independent

knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. 59
In addition, the Court remains mindful of the fact that the State
possesses vast powers and has immense resources at its disposal. Indeed, as
the Court held in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 60 the individual citizen is
but a speck of particle or molecule vis-a-vis the vast and overwhelming
powers of government and his only guarantee against oppression and
tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield
him in times of need. 61
In the particular context of criminal prosecutions, therefore, it is the
State which bears the burden of sufficiently informing the accused of the
accusations against him so as to enable him to properly prepare his defense.
With the foregoing principles in mind, the Court thus agrees with the
ruling enunciated in Valdez, as subsequently reiterated in Dasmariñas and
Delector. Consequently, the Court holds that it is insufficient for
prosecutors to indicate in an Information that the act supposedly
committed by the accused was done "with treachery" or "with abuse
of superior strength" or "with evident premeditation" without
specifically describing the acts done by the accused that made any
or all of such circumstances present. Borrowing the words of the Court
i n Dasmariñas, "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." 62
An information alleging that treachery exists, to be sufficient, must
therefore have factual averments on how the person charged had
deliberately employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the act
that tended directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the
accused arising from the defense that the victim might make. 63 The
Information must so state such means, methods or forms in a manner that
would enable a person of common understanding to know what offense was
intended to be charged. 64
In this connection, the Court takes this opportunity to remind
prosecutors of the crucial role they play in the justice system. Prosecutors
are, in the words of Mr. Justice George Sutherland of the Supreme Court of
the United States:
x x x the representative[s] not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern
impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall
win a case, but that justice shall be done. 65
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Indeed, prosecutors perform the unique function, essential in the
maintenance of the rule of law and peace and order, of ensuring that those
who violate the law are brought to justice. The right of the State to
prosecute, however, is not absolute. The Bill of Rights precisely "defines the
limits beyond which lie unsanctioned state actions" 66 and reserves certain
areas for "the individual as constitutionally protected spheres where even
the awesome powers of Government may not enter at will." 67 The
prosecutors — through whom this right of the State to prosecute is exercised
— therefore do not have a blanket grant of authority to disregard the rights
of citizens under the Constitution. 68
Therefore, prosecutors should bear in mind that in performing their
functions, the constitutionally enshrined right of the accused to be informed
of the cause of the accusation against him remains primordial. To this end,
prosecutors are instructed to state with sufficient particularity not
just the acts complained of or the acts constituting the offense, but also the
aggravating circumstances, whether qualifying or generic, as well
as any other attendant circumstances, that would impact the
penalty to be imposed on the accused should a verdict of conviction
be reached.
Moreover, prosecutors are enjoined to strictly implement the
mandate of, and ensure compliance with Section 8 (a), Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 69 to attach to the
Informations they will be filing in courts their resolutions finding
probable cause against the accused.
Finally, trial courts are likewise enjoined to ensure that the
accused is furnished a copy of the said resolutions finding probable
cause against the accused. The trial court, on its own initiative, shall thus
order the production of the records of the preliminary investigation in
accordance with Section 8 (b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. 70
These requirements are imposed to ensure that the accused is
sufficiently apprised of the acts and circumstances with which he is being
charged, with the end in view of respecting or fulfilling his right to be
informed of the cause of the accusation against him.
In sum, the Court, continually cognizant of its power and mandate to
promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
71 hereby lays down the following guidelines for the guidance of the Bench

and the Bar:

1. Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating
circumstance — in which the law uses a broad term to embrace
various situations in which it may exist, such as but are not
limited to (1) treachery; (2) abuse of superior strength; (3)
evident premeditation; (4) cruelty — is present, must state the
ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the
Information may be subject to a motion to quash under Section 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (e) (i.e., that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed
form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a
motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by said
Rules.
Failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies
constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective
statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the
Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated
against him if proven during trial.
Alternatively, prosecutors may sufficiently aver the ultimate facts
relative to a qualifying or aggravating circumstance by
referencing the pertinent portions of the resolution finding
probable cause against the accused, which resolution should be
attached to the Information in accordance with the second
guideline below.
2. Prosecutors must ensure compliance with Section 8 (a), Rule 112
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure that mandates the
attachment to the Information the resolution finding probable
cause against the accused. Trial courts must ensure that the
accused is furnished a copy of this Decision prior to the
arraignment.
3. Cases which have attained finality prior to the promulgation of
this Decision will remain final by virtue of the principle of
conclusiveness of judgment.
4. For cases which are still pending before the trial court, the
prosecution, when still able, may file a motion to amend the
Information pursuant to the prevailing Rules 72 in order to
properly allege the aggravating or qualifying circumstance
pursuant to this Decision.
5. For cases in which a judgment or decision has already been
rendered by the trial court and is still pending appeal, the case
shall be judged by the appellate court depending on whether the
accused has already waived his right to question the defective
statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the
Information, (i.e., whether he previously filed either a motion to
quash under Section 3 (e), Rule 117, or a motion for a bill of
particulars) pursuant to this Decision.
In view of the foregoing, the Court thus reverses the assailed Decision
of the CA.
Considering the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta , 73 the civil
indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages awarded in the
questioned Decision is hereby modified to P75,000.00 each. Temperate
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is likewise awarded to the heirs of
Joseph.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby ADOPTS the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 findings of fact in the attached Decision dated January 13, 2015 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05757, and finds the accused-appellant
Rolando Solar y Dumbrique GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code. He is thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
and is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Joseph Capinig y Mato
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity,
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as moral damages,
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as exemplary
damages, and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as temperate
damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully
paid.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Secretary of the
Department of Justice, as well as to the Head/Chief of the National
Prosecution Service, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Public Attorney's
Office, the Philippine National Police, the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for their information and guidance. Likewise, the Office of the
Court Administrator is DIRECTED to DISSEMINATE copies of this Decision
to all trial courts, including the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Peralta, A.B. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier,
Inting and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
Bersamin, C.J., I dissent.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., please see concurring opinion.
Leonen, J., I join dissent of CJ Bersamin.
Jardeleza, J., took no part.
Gesmundo, J., please see separate concurring opinion.
J.C. Reyes, Jr., * J., is on leave.

Separate Opinions

BERSAMIN, C.J., dissenting:

The Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated its decision dated January 13,
2015 1 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05757 affirming the judgment of conviction of
the accused-appellant rendered on September 3, 2012 by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 202, in Las Piñas City 2 but downgraded the crime from
murder to homicide on the ground that the information did not allege
murder.
Today, the Court affirms the finding of guilty but reverses the CA's
downgrading of the offense, and finds the accused-appellant guilty of murder
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 as found by the RTC on the basis that he had waived his right to assail the
defects of the information filed against him and under which he had been
arraigned.
I respectfully DISSENT.
I maintain that the CA correctly downgraded the offense from murder
to homicide considering that the information did not charge murder, but only
homicide. I insist that the accused-appellant could not be held guilty of
murder if the information denied him due notice of what he was being
charged with.
The information alleged as follows:
That on or about the 9th day of March 2008, in the City of Las
Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together
and both of them mutually helping and aiding each other, without
justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of
superior strength, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
JOSEPH CAPINIG y MATO, by then and there hitting and beating his
head with a baseball bat, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal
injury which caused his death.
The killing of the aforesaid victim is qualified by the
circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
As can be seen, the information tersely averred that "[t]he killing of the
aforesaid victim is qualified by the circumstances of treachery and abuse of
superior strength." Such averment did not state any facts that described or
set forth the acts constitutive of treachery and abuse of superior strength,
the attendant circumstances that would have qualified the killing to murder.
Such acts would have told him how he had mounted the lethal attack that
led to the killing of the victim. It was to such terse information that the
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty at his arraignment.
In my view, the CA correctly opined thusly:
Here, the averments of the information to the effect that the
two accused "with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of
superior strength, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
JOSEPH CAPINIG y MATO, by then and there hitting and beating his
head with a baseball bat, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal
injury which directly caused his death" did not sufficiently set forth
the facts and circumstances describing how treachery attended the
killing. It should not be difficult to see that merely averring the killing
of a person by hitting his head with a baseball bat, 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 baseball bat 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,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 standing alone, was nothing but a conclusion of law, not an
averment of fact. In short, the particular acts and
circumstances constituting treachery as an attendant
circumstance[s] in murder were missing from the information.
4

In People v. Valdez, 5 a ruling that the CA cited to buttress its foregoing

opinion, the Court emphatically held:
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.
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 complaint or information.
xxx xxx xxx
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 . . .
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
sufficiently 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 :
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. The real question
is not did he commit a crime given in the law some
technical and specific name, but did he perform the
acts alleged in the body of the information in the
manner therein set forth. If he did, it is of no
consequence to him, either as a matter of
procedure or of substantive right, how the law
denominates the crime which those acts
constitute. The designation of the crime by name in
the caption of the information from the facts
alleged in the body of that pleading is a conclusion
of law made by the fiscal. In the designation of the
crime the accused never has a real interest until
the trial has ended. For his full and complete
defense he need not know the name of the crime at
all. It is of no consequence whatever for the
protection of his substantial rights. The real and
important question to him is, "Did you perform the
acts alleged in the manner alleged?" not "Did you
commit a crime named murder." If he performed
the acts alleged, in the manner stated, the law
determines what the name of the crime is and fixes
the penalty therefor. It is the province of the court
alone to say what the crime is or what it is named.
. . . (emphasis supplied [by the original])
A practical consequence of the non-allegation of a detail that
aggravates his liability is to prohibit the introduction or consideration
against the accused of evidence that tends to establish that detail.
The allegations in the information are controlling in the ultimate
analysis. Thus, when there is a variance between the offense charged
in the information and that proved, and the offense as charged is
included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
shall be convicted of the offense proved included in the offense
charged, or of the offense charged included in the offense proved. In
that regard, an offense charged necessarily includes the offense
proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 former, as alleged in the information, constitute the latter; an offense
charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those
constituting the latter.
The majority opinion, written for the Court by Justice Caguioa, explains
in justification of the reversal of the CA that:
x x x, Rolando did not question the supposed insufficiency of
the Information filed against him through either a motion to quash or
motion for bill of particulars. He voluntarily entered his plea during
the arraignment and proceeded with the trial. Thus, he is deemed to
have waived any of the waivable defects in the Information, including
the supposed lack of particularity in the description of the attendant
circumstances. In other words, Rolando is deemed to have
understood the acts imputed against him by the Information. The CA
therefore erred in modifying Rolando's conviction in the way that it
did when he had effectively waived the right to question his
conviction on that ground.
It is for this reason that the Court modifies Rolando's conviction
from Homicide to Murder — he failed to question the sufficiency of the
Information by availing any of the remedies provided under the
procedural rules, namely: either by filing a motion to quash for failure
of the Information to conform substantially to the prescribed form, or
by filing a motion for bill of particulars. Again, he is deemed to have
waived any of the waivable defects in the Information filed against
him.
I submit that the foregoing explanation is far from persuasive.
The right of every accused to know from the information the charge to
which he pleads and for which he stands to be tried, and upon which he is to
be held criminally liable is a precious and fundamental one that is
constitutionally guaranteed. The right, which should be respected by all
means, should not be casually taken away or be easily denied only because
he did not assail the information prior to arraignment and plea, as the
majority opinion has found.
Therein lay the fallacy of the majority opinion. In the first place, the
accused-appellant had no duty or obligation to remind the State by motion
to quash on what charge he should be made to answer to. Indeed, if he was
legally and genuinely presumed not to know of any act or omission that
would soon be alleged against him, he could not even be expected to speak
at all or be heard from. To insist otherwise was to annul the formidable
presumption of his innocence. In the second place, he must be fully informed
of every act or omission that could render him criminally liable because fully
informing him thereof was of the essence of due process of law. He could not
properly prepare his defense without being thereby fully informed. In the
third place, the omission from the information of the acts constituting
treachery and abuse of superiority did not emanate from him; hence, that
the information actually filed against him did not fully or adequately inform
him of his supposed crime should never be blamed on him.
If the State, not him, ought to know what crime he committed, and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 should tell him so, then the Court as the bastion of fairness and
constitutionalism should desist from treating so slightly his right to be
informed. This is why the Court has fashioned Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
as the means of respecting the right to be informed, providing therein as
follows:
Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense ,
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is
no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section
or subsection of the statute punishing it. (8a)
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
circumstance and for the court to pronounce judgment. (9a)
I urge, therefore, that the Court must enforce the rules. Let us always
hold the right of every accused to be informed of the charge brought against
him in the highest esteem. If we cannot enforce the rules we have designed
to enforce constitutionally guaranteed rights for the protection of the
accused, let us stop fashioning them.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote TO AFFIRM the decision of the Court of
Appeals downgrading the offense from murder to homicide.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J., concurring:

I concur. Despite the failure of the Information in this case to

sufficiently state the qualifying circumstance of Treachery in accordance
with the form prescribed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the same must
nevertheless be appreciated against accused-appellant Rolando Solar y
Dumbrique (Solar) for his failure to assail such defect. As such, his conviction
for Murder must be upheld.
To recount, Section 6, Rule 110 of the present Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that "[a] complaint or information is sufficient if it
states 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 date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed."
1 In this relation, Section 9 of the same Rule states that "he 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 pronounce judgment." 2 According to case law, the failure to comply with this
requirement subjects the Information to a motion to quash, and the test is
whether or not the Information properly states the ultimate facts constitutive
of the offense: 3
Under the Constitution, a person who stands charged of a
criminal offense has the right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him. The Rules of Court, in implementing
the right, specifically require that the acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense, including the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances, must be stated in ordinary and concise language, 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 and the attendant qualifying and
aggravating circumstances present, so that the accused can properly
defend himself and the court can pronounce judgment. To broaden
the scope of the right, the Rules authorize the quashal, upon
motion of the accused, of an Information that fails to allege
the acts constituting the offense. Jurisprudence has laid down the
fundamental test in appreciating a motion to quash an Information
grounded on the insufficiency of the facts alleged therein. We stated
in People v. Romualdez [581 Phil. 462, 479 (2008)] that:
The determinative test in appreciating a motion to quash
x x x is the sufficiency of the averments in the
information, that is, whether the facts alleged, if
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential
elements of the offense as defined by law without
considering matters aliunde. As Section 6, Rule 110 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure requires, the information
only needs to state the ultimate facts; the
evidentiary and other details can be provided
during the trial. 4
The failure to sufficiently state the ultimate facts constitutive of the
offense subjects the Information to a motion to quash grounded on Section 3
(a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure:
Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the
complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not
constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information
had no authority to do so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially
to the prescribed form;
(f) That more than one offense is charged
except when a single punishment for various offenses is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true,
would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
(i) That the accused has been previously
convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent. (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)
The Information is subject to quashal because it cannot be discerned
therefrom if there is an offense or what particular offense is being charged,
hence, violative of the accused's constitutional right to be informed. Because
of this constitutional violation, Section 9 of the same Rule further provides
that the failure to assert this ground — similar to the grounds in Section 3
(b), (g), and (i) — would not be deemed as a waiver to assert the same:
Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground
therefor. — The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information,
either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the
same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections
except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a),
(b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.
However, the ground to quash an Information under Section 3 (a), Rule
117 (i.e., that the facts charged do not constitute an offense) is different
from the ground provided for under Section 3 (e), Rule 117 ( i.e., that it does
not conform substantially to the prescribed form). This latter ground is
subject to a waiver as it is not one of those grounds specifically provided for
under Section 9 of the same Rule.
An Information which contains ultimate facts constitutive of the offense
but states the qualifying or aggravating circumstance not in accordance with
the prescribed form is only subject to quashal under Section 3 (e), Rule 117.
As illustrated in this case, an Information which only states the term
"Treachery," without the material averments relative thereto, is formally
defective because a person of common understanding is not presumed to
know the technical import of the same. As held in People v. Delector: 5
[T]he Court cannot uphold the judgments of the [Court of
Appeals (CA)] and the [Regional Trial Court (RTC)] and convict the
accused for murder. A reading of the information indicates that
murder had not been charged against him. The allegation of the
information that:
x x x the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to
kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and shoot one VICENTE DELECTOR alias TINGTING
with the use of a firearm (revolver), which the accused
had conveniently provided himself for the purpose,
thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 different parts of his body, which caused the untimely
death of said Vicente Delector.
did not sufficiently aver acts constituting either or both
treachery and evident premeditation. The usage of the terms
treachery and evident premeditation, without anything more, did not
suffice[,] considering that such terms were in the nature of
conclusions of law, not factual averments.
xxx xxx xxx
Treachery, which the CA and the RTC ruled to be attendant,
always included basic constitutive elements whose existence could
not be assumed. Yet, the information nowhere made any factual
averment about the accused having deliberately employed means,
methods or forms in the execution of the act — setting forth such
means, methods or forms in a manner that would enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense was intended to be
charged — that tended directly and specially to insure its execution
without risk to the accused arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. To reiterate what was earlier indicated, it
was not enough for the information to merely state treachery as
attendant because the term was not a factual averment but a
conclusion of law. 6
Hence, while an Information may convey an offense, the defective
statement of a qualifying (or aggravating) circumstance still subjects the
same to quashal under Section 3 (e), Rule 117. To reiterate, this latter
ground, if not timely raised by the accused, may be deemed waived. Also, to
remedy this defect, an accused may opt to move for a bill of particulars
under Section 9, Rule 116. 7
In this case, notwithstanding the Information's non-statement of the
material averments relative thereto, Solar's failure to avail of these remedies
means that he had fully understood the import of the term "Treachery."
Thus, it cannot be said that his right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him has been transgressed; and consequently, his
conviction for the crime of Murder must be upheld.
To note, this situation should be distinguished from a situation wherein
the Information completely lacks any allegation of Treachery. In this latter
instance, when there is a total absence of any allegation of the
qualifying/aggravating circumstance — and not a mere defect — then
such qualifying/aggravating circumstance shall not be appreciated against
the accused, regardless of whether or not the same is later proven during
trial; this must be so, otherwise, the accused would be caught completely off
guard in utter defiance of his constitutional right to be informed.
In view of the above, I therefore agree with the ponencia's affirmance
of Solar's conviction for the crime of Murder, including the guidelines therein
adopted to heretofore implement the ponencia's disposition.

GESMUNDO, J., concurring:

This Appeal 1 seeks the reversal and setting aside of the January 13,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 2015 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05757.
The CA affirmed with modification the September 3, 2012 Decision 3 of the
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 202 (RTC) in Criminal Case No.
08-0616 finding Ronaldo Solar y Dumbrique (appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. However, the CA downgraded the
conviction to Homicide due to the insufficient allegation in the Information of
the qualifying circumstances.
An Information was filed against appellant and a certain Mark Kenneth
Solar (Mark Kenneth) for the killing of Joseph Capinig y Mato (Capinig) before
the RTC. The accusatory portion reads:
That on or about the 9th day of March 2008, in the City of Las
Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together
and both of them mutually helping and aiding each other, without
justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse
of superior strength, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
JOSEPH CAPINIG y MATO, by then and there hitting and beating his
head with a baseball bat, thereby inflicting upon the later mortal
injury which caused his death.
The killing of the aforesaid victim is qualified by the
circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength .
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4 (emphases supplied)
During arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty," while Mark Kenneth
remained at large.
Thereafter trial ensued.
In its September 3, 2012 Decision, the RTC found appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. It held that the testimony
of the prosecution's witness was clear, positive, categorical and credible to
establish that appellant did, indeed, kill Capinig with treachery. It gave
credence to the prosecution's evidence that appellant and Mark Kenneth hit
Capinig's nape with a baseball bat and, when Capinig fell down,
simultaneously ganged upon him.
Appellant assails the RTC decision arguing that the prosecution failed
to prove there was conspiracy between him and Mark Kenneth, and its
evidence wanting to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In its January 13, 2015 Decision, the CA affirmed with modification the
RTC Decision. It held that the prosecution witness sufficiently established the
identity and culpability of appellant in the killing of Capinig. It also stated
that there was a concerted action between appellant and Mark Kenneth,
hence, conspiracy was present.
However, the CA, relying on People v. Valdez, et al. , 5 downgraded the
crime from Murder to Homicide because the Information did not sufficiently
set forth the facts and circumstances describing how treachery attended the
killing.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 T h e ponencia explained that there are conflicting jurisprudence
regarding the issue of whether the allegation of aggravating circumstances
in the Information must be described with specificity. 6 It concluded that
appellant had waived his right to question the defects in the Information filed
against him, including the supposed lack of particularity in description of the
attendant circumstances. Thus, appellant is deemed to have understood the
acts imputed against him in the Information and the CA erred in modifying
appellant's conviction. 7 Consequently, appellant should be convicted of the
crime of Murder, instead of Homicide.
Nevertheless, the ponencia provided a procedure, for the guidance of
the Bench and the Bar, that the attendant circumstances should be properly
alleged in the Information. 8 From the promulgation of the Decision, any
Information, which alleges a qualifying or aggravating circumstance, must
contain factual averments that would enable a person of common
understanding to know the acts he supposedly committed; otherwise, the
circumstances would not be appreciated even though these are
subsequently proved in trial by the prosecution.
I concur with the ponencia.
Conflicting jurisprudence
as to the specificity of the
allegation of the attendant
circumstances

The Information filed against appellant simply stated that the killing of
Capinig was "qualified by the circumstances of treachery and abuse of
superior strength." Evidently, it did not contain factual allegations
particularly describing the qualifying or aggravating circumstances.
Jurisprudence provides opposing decisions as to the sufficiency of
Information when the attendant circumstances are not described with
specificity.
The first set of cases — People v. Valdez , 9 People v. Dasmariñas , 10
a n d People v. Delector 11 — states that when the Information does not
sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstances describing how the
qualifying or aggravating circumstance of the crime was committed, the
accused cannot be convicted of the graver crime, such as Murder. These
cases essentially explain that the sole use of the term of an aggravating
circumstance, such as treachery, without any particular act or circumstance,
is nothing but a conclusion of law and not an averment of fact. 12
These cases further underscore that 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 of. 13
I concurred in People v. Dasmariñas and People v. Delector that the
accused therein could not be convicted of Murder, only of Homicide, not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 because of the lack of specific factual recitals in the Information on the
qualifying circumstance, but for the reason that the prosecution failed to
prove the two elements of treachery, namely: (1) that the means of
execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or herself, or retaliate; and (2) that the means of execution was
deliberately or consciously adopted, that is, the means, methods or forms of
execution must be shown to have been deliberated upon or consciously
adopted by the offender. 14 In those cases, the element — that the means of
execution was consciously adopted — was not proven and was not even
discussed by the CA Decisions therein. In People v. Delector , the OSG even
conceded that treachery was not proven by the prosecution, hence, the
accused therein only committed the crime of Homicide.
On the other hand, the second set of cases — People v. Batin , 15 People
v. Lab-eo , 16 People v. Opuran , 17 and People v. Bajar 18 — states that the
allegation of a qualifying or aggravating circumstance, such as treachery, in
the Information without any further explanation is sufficient. These cases
chiefly explain that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, even after its
amendment, do not require that qualifying circumstances be preceded by
descriptive words to properly qualify an offense.
These cases also underscored that merely stating the qualifying or
aggravating circumstance in the Information is sufficient because
evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the Information as these are matters
of defense. They emphasize that Informations need only state the ultimate
facts; the reasons therefor could be proved during trial. 19
The doctrine in the second set of cases was reiterated in People v.
Asilan, 20 to wit:
Asilan also claims that his constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of accusation against him was infringed when
he was convicted for Murder, since the manner by which he carried
out the killing with the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not
alleged in the Information against him. Thus, he asserts, he was
effectively only charged with Homicide.
This Court does not find merit in Asilan's contention that he
cannot be convicted of murder because his acts of treachery were not
alleged with specificity in the Information. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
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." 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." Asilan never claimed that he was deprived of his right
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him due to
the insufficiency of the Information.
This Court completely agrees with the Court of Appeals'
pronouncement that "since treachery was correctly alleged in the
Information and duly established by the prosecution, x x x [Asilan]'s
conviction for the crime of murder is proper." 21 (emphasis supplied)
Indeed, in the second set of cases, it was not required that the
qualifying or aggravating circumstance be alleged with specificity. Notably,
in the subsequent case of People v. Feliciano, Jr., et al., 22 the inclusion of the
phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the Information
does not violate the constitutional rights of the accused. Although
concealment of identity was referred to as the aggravating circumstance, it
was sufficiently stated by alleging disguise. "The inclusion of disguise in the
[I]nformation was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that
in the commission of the offense they were being charged with, they tried to
conceal their identity." 23
Similarly, in People v. Mercado , 24 although the aggravating
circumstance was "use of fire," it was not stated in the Information; rather,
the phrase "causing third degree burns" was indicated. The Court ruled that
it was a sufficient allegation of the aggravating circumstance, to wit:
A reading of the afore-quoted portion of the Information readily
reveals that while the "use of fire" was not explicitly mentioned as a
qualifying circumstance, the Information nevertheless narrate with
sufficiency that Mercado was being accused of "causing x x x third
degree burns [against the victims] which directly caused their
instantaneous death." It escapes the mind of the Court how one could
be accused of "causing x x x third degree burns" without necessarily
saying that he or she used fire in the process. 25

The Information may still

sufficiently inform the
accused even though the
details of the attendant
circumstance are not stated
therein

The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to be

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Thus,
Section 14 (2), Article III of the Constitution states:
Section 14. xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure
to appear is unjustifiable. (emphasis supplied)
This right is reiterated under the Section 1 (b), Rule 115 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure:
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
I believe that the doctrine laid down in the second set of cases, wherein
the Information need not particularly describe the facts and circumstances
constituting the attendant circumstance, does not contravene the
aforementioned right of the accused and is still good case law.
The former Rules of Criminal Procedure did not require qualifying and
aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the Complaint or Information.
According to jurisprudence, aggravating circumstances proven by the
evidence, although not alleged in the Information, may be taken into
account as such. Qualifying circumstances not alleged but proven are
considered aggravating. However, this is no longer true. 26
With the advent of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must now be alleged in the
Information. However, the question remains: whether it is sufficient to
merely allege the attendant circumstance or should the circumstance be
described with particularity?
Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides the requirement on the sufficiency of the Complaint or Information,
viz.:
Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A
complaint or information is sufficient if it states 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 date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed.
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of
them shall be included in the complaint or information. (emphasis
supplied)
Under Section 6, the Information is sufficient if it contains: (1) the full
name of the accused, (2) the designation of the offense given by the statute,
(3) the acts or omissions constituting the offense, (4) the name of the
offended party, (5) the approximate date, and (6) the place of the offense. 27
Thus, once all these allegations are contained in the Information, then it
adequately informs the accused of the charges against him.
On the other hand, Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 state that:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances . If there is
no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section
or subsection of the statute punishing it.
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. (emphases supplied)
I n People v. Aquino , 28 the Court explained how Sections 8 and 9 of
Rule 110 require the allegation of the attendant circumstances in the
Information, as follows:
We therefore reiterate that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110
merely require that the Information allege, specify or
enumerate the attendant circumstances mentioned in the law
to qualify the offense. These circumstances need not be preceded
by the words "aggravating/qualifying," "qualifying," or "qualified by"
to be considered as qualifying circumstances. It is sufficient that
these circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the
accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare fully for
his defense, thus precluding surprises during the trial. When the
prosecution specifically alleges in the Information the
circumstances mentioned in the law as qualifying the crime,
and succeeds in proving them beyond reasonable doubt, the
Court is constrained to impose the higher penalty mandated
by law. This includes the death penalty in proper cases. 29
(emphases and underscoring supplied)
Section 6 states that the allegations must be contained in the
Information so that it sufficiently informs the accused of the charges against
him. In determining whether an Information is sufficient, Section 6 must be
strictly complied with. In contrast, Sections 8 and 9 provide how the
designation of the offense and the cause of the accusation should be
indicated in the Information. With respect to the qualifying or aggravating
circumstance, it is sufficient to allege, specify or enumerate this
circumstance, as mentioned in the law, to qualify the offense. When these
are alleged in the Information, the court is constrained to impose the higher
penalty mandated by law. In effect, Sections 8 and 9 also guide the court in
its judgment of whether to impose the higher penalty due to the existence of
the qualifying or aggravating circumstance.
A plain reading of the present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
shows that it is not required that there be an expanded allegation, including
facts and details, of the attendant circumstances. Rather, as long as the
qualifying or aggravating circumstance, e.g., as enumerated in Articles 14
and 248 of the Revised Penal Code, is alleged, specified, or enumerated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 therein, then it is sufficient allegation in the Information and the accused is
properly informed of the charge against him or her.
An Information need only state the ultimate facts constituting the
offense and not the finer details of why and how the crime was committed.
30 Thus, an allegation of ultimate fact of treachery or abuse of superior
strength is sufficient. It is not required that evidentiary facts, such as the
facts and circumstances that would explain the qualifying or aggravating
circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, also be
contained in the Information. Indeed, these particular facts and
circumstances regarding the attendant circumstances are matters of
evidence that must be threshed out in the full-blown hearing. 31 To restate
the rule, an Information only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting
the offense, not the finer details of why and how the illegal acts alleged
amounted to undue injury or damage — matters that are appropriate for the
trial. 32
It is often difficult to say what is matter of evidence, as distinguished
from fact, necessary to be stated in order to render the Information
sufficiently certain in identifying the offense. As a general rule, matters of
evidence, as distinguished from facts essential to the description of the
offense, need not be averred. 33
Further, it is a well-settled rule that the test is whether the crime is
sufficiently described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to
apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged. The
raison d'etre of the rule is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
defense. Another purpose is to enable accused, if found guilty, to plead his
conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The use of
derivatives or synonyms or allegations of basic facts constituting
the offense charged is sufficient. 34

Records attached to the

Information sufficiently
inform the accused

Likewise, I believe that even though an Information shall only state the
qualifying or aggravating circumstance, without the explanatory facts and
circumstances, the accused is still sufficiently informed of the charges
against him. Section 7 (a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, 35 states:
SEC. 7. Records. —
(a) Records supporting the information or complaint. — An
information or complaint filed in court shall be supported by the
affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their
witnesses, together with the other supporting evidence and
the resolution on the case. (emphasis supplied)
Verily, when an Information is filed in court, it is required that the
affidavits, counter-affidavits, other supporting evidence, and the resolution
of the case be attached therewith. Thus, aside from the Information itself, an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 accused is further apprised of the details of the charges against him based
on affidavits, evidence, and the resolution attached to the Information. The
importance of the attachments to the Information filed in court was
discussed in Lim, Sr., et al. v. Judge Felix, et al., 36 to wit:
x x x By itself the Prosecutor's certification of probable cause is
ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of
stereographic notes (if any), and all other supporting
documents behind the Prosecutor's certification which are
material in assisting the Judge to make his determination [of
probable cause]. 37 (emphasis supplied)
Among the documents attached to the Information, the resolution of
the prosecutor explains the facts and circumstances of the charges against
the accused, including those referring to the qualifying or aggravating
circumstances. According to Section 4, Rule 112, the prosecutor prepares a
resolution when he or she finds probable cause to hold respondent for trial.
On the other hand, the 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors 38 (Manual)
states the contents of a resolution, viz.:
e. Contents of the Body of the Resolution
In general, the body of resolution should contain:
1. A brief summary of the facts of the case;
2. A concise statement of the issues involved;
3. Applicable laws and jurisprudence; and
4. The findings, including an enumeration of all the
documentary evidence submitted by the parties and
recommendations of the investigating prosecutor.
All material details that should be found in the
information prepared by the Investigating
Prosecutor shall be stated in the resolution. 39
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, if the Information states qualifying or aggravating circumstances,
then the prosecutor's resolution should contain all the material details
regarding those circumstances. Further, the Manual states that a copy of the
prosecutor's resolution should be furnished to the parties or to their counsel,
as the case may be, to wit:
g. Parties Who Need to be Furnished with a Copy of the
Resolution
The complete names and addresses of the complainant and the
respondent shall be set out at the end of the resolution after the
signature of the investigating prosecutor and the head of the
Prosecutor's Office concerned under the phrase: "Copy furnished;"
If the parties are represented by counsel and the latter's
appearance is entered formally in the record, the counsel, not the
party, shall be given a copy of the resolution.
Likewise, the Manual states that it is only upon the service of the copy
of the resolution to the parties or their counsel that the said resolution is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 promulgated, as follows:
N. PROMULGATION OF THE RESOLUTION; MODES OF SERVICE
The resolution shall be promulgated by furnishing the
parties or their counsel a copy thereof by:
1. Personal service by process servers, law
enforcement or barangay personnel; or
2. Registered mail with return card to the parties. 40
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, when an Information is filed in court, together with the affidavits,
counter-affidavits, other evidence and the prosecutor's resolution, the
accused or his counsel already has a copy of the prosecutor's resolution.
When the Information states a qualifying or aggravating circumstance, the
accused can simply refer to and review the prosecutor's resolution to
determine the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the qualifying or
aggravating circumstance. Thus, he is adequately informed of the charges
against him.
Manifestly, the counsel of the accused, who receives the copy of the
resolution, has the duty to explain to the client the import of the contents of
the prosecutor's resolution, including the details with respect to the
attendant circumstances. The accused or the counsel cannot raise as a
defense that the Information did not describe with particularity the qualifying
or aggravating circumstance because it is already explained in the
prosecutor's resolution, a copy of which is furnished them. Hence, the
accused cannot invoke that his right to be sufficiently informed of the
charges against him is violated by the State.

The right to be informed

during arraignment

It must also be emphasized that the right to be informed of the

accusations does not end upon filing of the Information. Rather, said right is
fully realized upon the arraignment of the accused.
Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the
constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him. The purpose of arraignment is, thus, to apprise
the accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on
the nature of the crime imputed to him, or at the very least to inform him of
why the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against him. As an
indispensable requirement of due process, an arraignment cannot be
regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily. Otherwise, absence of
arraignment results in the nullity of the proceedings before the trial court. 41
Constitutional due process demands that the accused in a criminal
case be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The
rationale behind this constitutional guarantee are: First, to furnish the
accused with the description of the charge against him as will enable him to
make his defense; second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal, for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and third, to
inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are
sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. In fulfillment of
the aforesaid constitutional guarantee, Rule 116, Section 1 (a) of the Rules of
Court mandates that an accused be arraigned in open court and asked to
enter a plea of guilty or not guilty of the crime charged. 42
Consequently, arraignment is the formal process by which an accused
is informed of the charges against him, including alleged qualifying or
aggravating circumstances. During arraignment held in open court, the
accused shall be furnished a copy of the Complaint or Information and it may
be read in a language or dialect known to him. 43 At that moment, the
accused is given an opportunity to clarify any unclear matter in the charges
against him. The defense counsel must ensure that his client understands
the allegations in the Complaint or Information, and any unclear matter must
be thoroughly explained to him. Thus, if the accused wants an explanation
as to the qualifying or aggravating circumstance, arraignment is the proper
venue to properly clarify such matter. Indeed, the defense counsel must
ensure that his client is sufficiently informed of the nature of the accusations
so that the latter can enter a proper plea.
To reiterate, the right to be informed of the charges against the
accused is not concluded upon the filing of the Information. It continues until
the accused is formally arraigned. At that point, the defense counsel, as well
as the prosecutor and the court, must ensure that the accused has
understood the charges, including any aggravating or qualifying
circumstance stated therein. If there are any unclear matters, these must be
clarified to the accused so that a proper plea may be entered. Failure to
raise any objection as to the sufficiency of the Information upon entering a
plea during arraignment constitutes as a waiver to assail said Information. 44
Procedure for prosecutors

Nevertheless, I concur with the procedure set forth in the ponencia.

While the current Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allow the allegation of
qualifying or aggravating circumstance without setting forth the facts and
circumstances surrounding it, the general terms of the provisions of Rule
110 create different interpretations that may confuse the Bench, the Bar and
the public.
As discussed earlier, the first set of cases requires a strict reading of
the Rules, wherein the qualifying or aggravating circumstance is particularly
explained, to sufficiently inform the accused of the allegations against him.
On the other hand, the second set of cases does not require the extended
details in alleging the qualifying or aggravating circumstance because these
are evidentiary facts, matters of defense, which must be threshed out in a
full-blown trial.
To finally settle the conflicting interpretations, I believe that the Court
must conclusively choose only one interpretation of the general terms
provided by the Rules of Court to be applicable in the future. Thus, I agree
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 with the ponencia that, as a matter of procedure, strict and literal adherence
to Rule 110 as to the specificity in the allegations of the qualifying or
aggravating circumstance should be followed.
The prosecutors must be guided that the accused should be fully
informed of the accusations against him, including any aggravating or
qualifying circumstance. Thus, the only definite method would be to describe
with particularity the said circumstance in the Information. Although the
material details of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance were
already discussed in the prosecutor's resolution, it is sound practice
when dealing with the constitutional rights, specifically, the right of
an accused to be informed of the charges against him, to allege in
the Information the details concerning the qualifying or aggravating
circumstance. It must be underscored that the Court has the constitutional
power to promulgate rules regarding the protection and enforcement of the
constitutional rights, 45 which includes the rights of the accused.
As pointed out earlier, 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. Thus, the facts stated in the body of the Information
should determine the crime of which he stands charged and for which he
must be tried. The [I]nformation must sufficiently give him knowledge of
what he had allegedly committed because he was presumed innocent and
unaware of the illegal acts imputed against him. 46
By requiring the prosecutors to specifically state the details of the
aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, the accused will
readily and be fully informed of the accusations against him. I believe this to
be more practical and a safer approach to respect the constitutional right of
an accused to be informed of the allegations against him and to expedite
court proceedings under the Rules of Court.

The procedure set

forth is prospective
in application

Likewise, I concur with the ponencia that the procedure set forth shall
apply only to pending and future criminal cases. In other words, the
procedure shall be prospective in application.
Past criminal cases, where the Information does not specifically
elaborate the qualifying or aggravating circumstance, cannot benefit from
this procedure. Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground
therefor. — The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information,
either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the
same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 objections except those based on the grounds provided for in
paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. (emphasis
supplied)
As early as U.S. v. Sarabia, 47 the Court has emphasized that an
accused may not escape punishment when he was given every opportunity
to be informed of the nature of the charge, viz.:
In fact, the law of criminal procedure is wisely planned so as to
give to a defendant who is not advised as to the charge against him
every opportunity to secure additional information in this regard. But
it was never intended that a defendant who had been given these
opportunities might neglect them and after a fair trial and a
conviction supported by abundant testimony, say, as a means of
escaping a deserved punishment, that he had never been informed of
the nature of the charge against him. 48
In People v. Almendral, 49 the Court emphasizes that failure to raise the
issue of defective Information, either through a motion to quash or a motion
for bill of particulars, constitutes as a waiver to the said defect, to wit:
Moreover, appellant failed to raise the issue of the defective
information before the trial court through a motion for bill of
particulars or motion to quash the information. Such failure to object
to the allegation in the information as to the time of commission of
the rapes before appellant pleaded not guilty thereto amounted to a
waiver of the defect in the information. Objections as to matters of
form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first
time on appeal. 50
Similarly, in People v. Palarca , 51 the Court explains that the right to
assail the sufficiency of the Information may be waived by the accused by
his failure to object, viz.:
x x x While generally an accused cannot be convicted of an
offense that is not clearly charged in the complaint or information,
this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the sufficiency of
the information or the admission of evidence may be waived by the
accused-appellant. In People v. Lopez , we held that an information
which lacks certain essential allegations may still sustain a conviction
when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and
the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein.
Thus —
[F]ailure to object was thus a waiver of the constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation. It is competent for a person to waive a right
guaranteed by the Constitution, and to consent to action
which would be invalid if taken against his will. x x x 52
Accordingly, when the accused fails to object to the defect in the
sufficiency of the Information, such as in the case at bench, he waives the
right to question such defect. Hence, the Information, which may have a
deficiency in certain allegations, shall still sustain a conviction because of
the lack of objections. Consequently, past criminal cases, which judgments
have already become final and executory, cannot benefit from the proposed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 procedure of the ponencia because any defect in the Information, specifically
in the allegation of qualifying or aggravating circumstance, is cured by the
lack of objections as to the sufficiency of the Information at the earliest
possible opportunity.
WHEREFORE, I vote to AFFIRM WITH MODIFICATION the January
13, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05757, that
Ronaldo Solar y Dumbrique is GUILTY of the crime of Murder.

Footnotes
* On leave.
1. See Notice of Appeal dated February 5, 2015, rollo, pp. 10-11.
2. Id. at 3-9. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices
Noel G. Tijam (Retired Member of the Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez
concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 20-25. Penned by Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray.

4. Rollo , p. 3, note 1 of the CA Decision.
5. Id. at 4.

6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Supra note 3.
9. CA rollo, p. 25.

10. Id. at 43-57.

11. Supra note 2.
12. Rollo , pp. 6-7.

13. Id. at 7.
14. Id. at 8-9.
15. CA rollo, pp. 50-54.

16. People v. Gerola , 813 Phil. 1055, 1063-1064 (2017).

17. People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
18. Rollo , p. 5.
19. Id. at 5-6.

20. CA rollo, p. 52.

21. Id. at 60.
22. Id.

23. Kummer v. People, 717 Phil. 670, 678 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 24. CA rollo, p. 88.
25. People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
26. 402 Phil. 851 (2001).

27. Id. at 868.

28. Siton v. Court of Appeals, 281 Phil. 536, 543 (1991).
29. People v. Aquino , 390 Phil. 1176, 1184-1185 (2000).

30. People v. Degoma, 284-A Phil. 736, 742 (1992).

31. Id.
32. Id.

33. Rollo , pp. 6-7.

34. People v. Peralta, 134 Phil. 703, 718 (1968).
35. Rollo , pp. 7-8.

36. Ramos v. People , 803 Phil. 775, 783 (2017).

37. 679 Phil. 279 (2012).
38. Id. at 292-296.
39. G.R. No. 203986, October 4, 2017, 842 SCRA 39.

40. G.R. No. 200026, October 4, 2017, 841 SCRA 647.

41. 564 Phil. 249 (2007).
42. Id. at 252-253.

43. Id. at 266-267.

44. Id. at 267.
45. Id. at 268-271.

46. 432 Phil. 500 (2002).

47. Id. at 509.
48. 386 Phil. 771 (2000).
49. Id. at 780.

50. RULES OF COURT (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure), Rule 117, Sec. 3 (e).
51. RULES OF COURT (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure), Rule 116, Sec. 9.
52. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2). "In all criminal prosecution, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved x x x."

53. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 1.

54. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 55. 3 Phil. 223 (1904).
56. Id. at 226-228.

57. Dela Chica v. Sandiganbayan, 462 Phil. 712, 719 (2003).

58. Id.
59. Id.

60. 379 Phil. 165 (2000).

61. Id. at 185.
62. Supra note 39 at 42.

63. Id. at 61.

64. Id.
65. Suarez v. Platon, 69 Phil. 556, 564-565 (1940), citing Mr. Justice George
Sutherland in Berger v. United States , 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); 69 United
States Law Review 309 (June, 1935, No. 6).
66. Allado v. Diokno , 302 Phil. 213, 237 (1994).

67. Salonga v. Paño, 219 Phil. 402, 429 (1985).

68. See Allado v. Diokno , supra note 66 at 238.
69. SECTION 8. Records. — (a) Records supporting the information or complaint. An
information or complaint filed in court shall be supported by the affidavits
and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, together with the
other supporting evidence and the resolution on the case.
70. SECTION 8. Records. — x x x

  (b) Record of preliminary investigation. — The record of the preliminary

investigation, whether conducted by a judge or a prosecutor, shall not form
part of the record of the case. However, the court, on its own initiative or on
motion of any party, may order the production of the record or any of its part
when necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein, or when
it is to be introduced as an evidence in the case by the requesting party.

71. CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5).

72. RULES OF COURT (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure), Rule 110, Sec. 14 and
Rule 117, Sec. 4.

73. People v. Jugueta , 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

BERSAMIN, C.J., dissenting:
1. Rollo , pp. 3-9; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, with Associate Justice
Noel G. Tijam (later a Member of the Court, but since retired) and Associate
Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 20-25; penned by Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray.
3. Rollo , p. 3.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Id. at 7.
5. G.R. No. 175602, January 18, 2012, 679 Phil. 279-296.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J., concurring:

1. Emphases supplied.
2. Emphases and underscoring supplied.
3. See Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 619 Phil. 306 (2009).
4. Id. at 316; emphases and underscoring supplied.
5. G.R. No. 200026, October 4, 2017, 841 SCRA 647.
6. Id. at 658-663.

7. Section 9. Bill of particulars. — The accused may, before arraignment, move for
a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The
motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and
the details desired.
GESMUNDO, J., concurring:
1. Rollo , pp. 10-11.
2. Id. at 3-9.

3. CA rollo, pp. 20-25.

4. Rollo , p. 3.
5. 679 Phil. 279 (2012).
6. Ponencia , pp. 7-14.
7. Id. at 15.
8. Id. at 16.
9. Supra note 5.

10. G.R. No. 203986, October 4, 2017, 842 SCRA 39.

11. G.R. No. 200026, October 4, 2017, 841 SCRA 647.
12. Ponencia , pp. 9-10.
13. Id. at 10.
14. People v. Kalipayan , G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018.
15. 564 Phil. 249 (2007).
16. 424 Phil. 482 (2002).

17. 469 Phil. 698 (2004).

18. 460 Phil. 683 (2003).
19. People v. Batin , supra note 15, at 271.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 20. 685 Phil. 633 (2012).
21. Id. at 649-650.
22. 734 Phil. 499 (2014).
23. Id. at 521.
24. G.R. No. 218702, October 17, 2018.

25. Id.
26. HERRERA, Remedial Law IV, 2007 Ed., p. 104.
27. See People v. Asilan , supra note 20, at 649-650.
28. 435 Phil. 417 (2002).
29. Id. at 426.
30. People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), et al., 769 Phil. 378, 391 (2015).
31. See Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 324 Phil. 151, 172 (1996).

32. Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 619 Phil. 306, 317 (2009).

33. HERRERA, Remedial Law IV, 2007 Ed., p. 96.
34. Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 600 Phil. 475, 491-492 (2009).
35. Amendments of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, (August 30, 2005).

36. 272 Phil. 122 (1991).

37. Id. at 133, citing People v. Judge Inting, et al., 265 Phil. 817, 821 (1990).
38. The Manual for Prosecutors was recently amended in 2017; however, since the
crime in the case at bench occurred in 2008, then the 2008 Manual for
Prosecutors shall apply.
39. Part IV.II.J.3.e, 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors, p. 97.
40. Part IV.II.N, 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors, p. 102.
41. Taglay v. Judge Daray, et al., 693 Phil. 45, 57-58 (2012).
42. People v. Monteron, 428 Phil. 401, 406 (2002).

43. See Section 1 (a) of Rule 116.

44. See Herrera v. Court of Appeals, et al., 427 Phil. 577, 587-588 (2002).
45. CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5.
46. People v. Petalino, G.R. No. 213222, September 24, 2018.
47. 4 Phil. 566 (1905).
48. Id. at 569.

49. 477 Phil. 521 (2004).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 50. Id. at 536.
51. 432 Phil. 500 (2002).

52. Id. at 509.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com