G.R. No. 205298               September 10, 2014 petitioner.

Pedro was wielding a samurai, Lando, Narciso and

EOPOLDO QUINTOS y DELAMOR, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE petitioner were carrying bolos, and Rolly was holding a big
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. stone. Robert, Freddie, Felomina, all surnamed dela Cruz, and
The Case Eduardo Oyando ran back towards their house, but the five
Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the attackers caught up with them.
Decision2 dated 31 July 2012 and Resolution3 dated 11 Pedro struck Robert dela Cruz withthe samurai, but the latter
January 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. parried the attack with his left hand. Robert dela Cruz
33776, affirming the Joint Decision4 dated 20 October 2010 of attempted to gain control of the samurai, but Rolly hit him in
the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan (trial court) in the face, near the jaw, with the stone Rolly was carrying.
Criminal Case Nos. L-8340, L-8341 and L-8342. Robert dela Cruz lost his hold of the samurai and fell to the
The Facts ground.
Petitioner Leopoldo Quintos y Del Amor (p~titioner) was Lando struck Freddie dela Cruz at the back of his head, which
charged, in conspiracy with his brothers Pedro, Rolly and caused the latter to fall face up. Petitioner joined Lando in
Lando, all surnamed Quintos, and Narciso Bµni for frustrated hacking Freddie dela Cruz, who, while defending himself with
homicide and homicide. his hands, sustained injuries on his right hand and lost a few
The Information5 in Criminal Case No. L-8341 reads, in part: fingers on his left. Rolly then crushed Freddie dela Cruz’s
That on or about January 15, 2008 in the afternoon at Brgy. chest with the same stone he usedto hit Robert dela Cruz in
Laois, Labrador, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this the face.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused in conspiracywith Pedro advanced towards Felomina dela Cruz as the latter
each other, with intent to kill, did then and there, wil[l]fully, moved towards Robert dela Cruz. Pedro pulledFelomina dela
unlawfully and feloniously accost, maul and hack with bolo and Cruz’s hair, slashed her nape with the samurai, and then
samurai Robert M. dela Cruz who suffered hacking wounds, kicked her to the ground.
several lacerations and contusions on the different parts of his Eduardo Oyando was forced to stand aside and was prevented
body, thus, the accused performedall the acts of execution from helping the dela Cruzes because Narciso Buni was
which would produce homicide as a consequence but which, aiming a bolo at him. The attackers left when they were done,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of the timely medical and only then was Eduardo Oyando able to approach the
intervention applied on him that prevented his death, to the victims and call for help.
prejudice and damage of the said Robert dela Cruz. Robert, Freddie and Felomina, all surnamed dela Cruz, were
CONTRARY to Article 249 in relation to Art. 6 of the Revised brought to the hospital. They were treated for the injuries
Penal Code. sustained from the attack.
The Information6 in Criminal Case No. L-8342 reads, in part: After a few days, Freddie dela Cruz diedfrom his injuries.
That on or about January 15, 2008 in the afternoon at Brgy. Before he died, Freddie dela Cruz identified Pedro and Lando
Laois, Labrador, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Quintos as his attackers.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused in conspiracy with Version of the Defense
each other, with intent to kill, did then and there, wil[l]fully, The defense presented a different version of the events. In the
unlawfully and feloniously accost, maul and hack with bolo and afternoon of 15 January 2008, Robert, Freddie, Felomina, all
samurai Felomina dela Cruz who suffered hacking wounds and surnamed dela Cruz, and Eduardo Oyando came to the
several lacerations on the different parts of her body, thus, the Quintos’ house looking for trouble. Pedro, who was in the front
accused performed all the acts of execution which would portion ofthe house, went out to try and pacify them. Robert
produce homicide as a consequence but which,nevertheless, dela Cruz punched Pedro first, hitting him in the face. Robert
did not produce it by reason of the timely medical intervention dela Cruz then went to Felomina dela Cruz and took a bolo
applied on him that prevented his (sic) death, to the prejudice wrapped in a towel that the latter was holding. Pedro and
and damage of the said Felomina dela Cruz. Robert dela Cruz grappled for the bolo. Felomina dela Cruz
CONTRARY to Article 249 in relation to Art. 6 of the Revised approached the two and tried to help Robert dela Cruz, and in
Penal Code. the process got slashed with the bolo. The scuffle resulted in
In Criminal Case No. L-8340, an Amended Information7 was Robert dela Cruz falling to the ground and Pedro gaining
filed when the victim Freddie dela Cruz died: control of the bolo.
That on or about January 15, 2008 in the afternoon at Brgy. Pedro then noticed that Freddie dela Cruz, who was holding a
Laois, Labrador, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this bolo, was fighting with Lando. Pedro hurried over and hacked
Honorable Court, the above-named accused in conspiracy with Freddie dela Cruz to defend his brother Lando. According to
each other, with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, Pedro, his senses dimmed and he did not remember how
unlawfully and feloniously accost, maul and hack with bolo and many times hehacked Freddie dela Cruz. His brothers pacified
samurai Freddie dela Cruz who suffered hacking wounds on him, and Pedro went with them back to the house; while
the different parts of his body, which caused his death, to the Robert, Freddie and Felomina, all surnamed dela Cruz, were
damage and prejudice of the heirs of Freddie dela Cruz. brought to the hospital.
CONTRARY to Article 249 in relation to Art. 6 of the Revised The Ruling of the Trial Court
Penal Code. The trial court gave full faith and credit to the version of the
Of the five accused, Pedro Quintos, Narciso Buni and prosecution. Petitioner was found guilty for the crime of
petitioner were arrested. Rolly and Lando evaded arrest and homicide for the death of Freddie dela Cruz. However, the trial
remainat large. Petitioner, Pedro and Narciso all pled not guilty court held that the uncertainty on the nature of the wounds of
to the charges brought against them. Robert dela Cruz and Felomina dela Cruz warrants the
The prosecution presented five witnesses, namely: Eduardo appreciation of a lesser gravity of the crime from frustrated
Oyando, Felomina dela Cruz, Robert dela Cruz, Police Officer homicide to attempted homicide.9
Bernardo Cerezo, and Dr. Saniata V. Fernandez. The dispositive portion ofthe Joint Decision dated 20 October
The defense presented two witnesses, namely, petitioner and 2010 reads:
Pedro Quintos. Narciso Buni jumped bail before he could WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court finds:
testify. Petitioner’s sister was also scheduled to testify, but IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-8340
since her testimony would only be corroborative, the Accused PEDRO QUINTOS, POLDO QUINTOS and
prosecution admitted her testimony.8 NARCISO BUNI GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
Version of the Prosecution crime of HOMICIDE as defined in Article 249 of the Revised
The prosecution established that at about 3:30 p.m. of 15 Penal Code. The prescribed penalty for Homicide is reclusion
January 2008, Freddie dela Cruz, Robert dela Cruz, Felomina temporalwhich is from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
dela Cruz, and Eduardo Oyando were walking along the twenty years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
barangay road of Laois, Labrador, Pangasinan. They were on minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty one (1)
their way to the town proper when they were accosted by degree lower than the imposable penalty which is Prision
Pedro Quintos, Rolly Quintos, Lando Quintos,Narciso Buni and Mayorin its full extent, the range of which is from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Appreciating no have been justified. This is clearly an invitation for the Court to
mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused, the accused review the probative value of the evidence presented in the
is accordingly sentenced from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) proceedings below.
DAY of PRISION MAYOR, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) A question of law arises when there isdoubt as to what the law
YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact
RECLUSION TEMPORAL, as maximum. when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged
Accused are further ORDERED to pay the heirs of Freddie facts.15 For a question to be one of law, the same must not
Dela Cruz, the amounts of (a) Php 75,000.00 as civil involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence
indemnity; (b) Php 75,000.00 as moral damages; (c) Php presented by the litigants.16 Once it is clear that the issue
57,286.00 as actual damages; (d) and Php 15,000.00 as invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed
attorney’s fees. is one of fact.17
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-8341 Petitioner attempts to justify the review of facts by alleging that
Accused PEDRO QUINTOS, POLDO QUINTOS and the courts a quo indulged in conjectures and surmises.
NARCISO BUNI GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the However, a careful reading of the decisions of the trial and
crime of ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE and are meted with an appellate courts shows that such is not the case here. The
indeterminate sentence of Two (2) months and One (1) day of discussion of the trial court deals extensively with evidence
arresto mayoras minimum to Two (2) years, Four (4) months from both sides, weighing each accordingly. Similarly, the
and One (1) day of prision correccionalas maximum. appellate court evaluated the evidenceof the prosecution and
Accused are furthered (sic) ordered to pay Robert dela Cruz the defense alike.
actual damages in the amount of Php 1,650.00and moral Uniform findings of factof the trial and appellate courts deserve
damages in the amount of Php 15,000.00. grave respect, and in the absence of any compelling reason to
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-8342 deviate therefrom, are final and conclusive upon this Court. We
Accused PEDRO QUINTOS, POLDO QUINTOS and thus proceed with our review without disturbing the factual
NARCISO BUNI GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the findings of the Court of Appeals.
crime of ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE and are meted with an Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
indeterminate sentence of Two (2) months and One (1) day or Petitioner avers that his conviction was not supported by proof
arresto mayoras minimum to Two (2) years, Four (4) months of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His argumentrevolves mainly
and One (1) day of prision correccionalas maximum. on self-defense, defense of relatives and absence of
Accused are furthered (sic) ordered to pay Felomina dela Cruz conspiracy.
actual damages in the amount of Php 3,750.00 and moral We are not persuaded. The records of this case show that the
damages in the amount of Php 15,000.00. prosecution witnesses Eduardo Oyando, Robert dela Cruz and
In all cases, considering that Pedro Quintos and Poldo Quintos Felomina dela Cruz positively and consistently identified the
have undergone preventive imprisonment,they shall be accused and relayed the sequence of events. Their
credited in the service of their sentences with the time they testimonies are corroborated by the evidence presented by the
have undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the doctors who attended the hacking victims, as well as by the
conditionsprovided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. police officer who took the statement ofFreddie dela Cruz
xxxx before the latter died.
SO ORDERED.10 We must emphasize that the trial court found the prosecution
Petitioner and Pedro Quintos appealed the decision to the witnesses credible. The assessment ofthe trial court on this
Court of Appeals, alleging that the trial court gravely erred in point is generally binding on this Court, and noneof the
convicting them despite the prosecution’s failure to prove their exceptions to this rule are obtaining here. Further, the trial
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. court found that the prosecution witnesses did not have any
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals motive to testify falsely against the accused.
The Court of Appeals found the appeal bereft of merit, thus: Pedro Quintos admitted to hacking Robert dela Cruz and
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the Freddie dela Cruz, and hitting Felomina dela Cruz, invoking
assailed Joint Decision dated October 20, 2010of the Regional self-defense. Because of Pedro’s admissions, he and his co-
Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39, inCriminal conspirators assumed the burden to establish such defense by
Case Nos. L-8340, L-8341 and L-8342 is AFFIRMED IN credible, clear and convincing evidence;
TOTO. otherwise, the same admissions would lead to their
SO ORDERED.11 conviction.18
Hence, this petition. We held in People v. Nugas:
The Issues x x x Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when it is
Petitioner faults the Court of Appeals for: (1) affirming the uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or
conviction, despite the prosecution’s failure to prove when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, the accused
petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) finding that must discharge the burden of proof by relying on the strength
conspiracy exists, in particular, that a finding of conspiracy of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the State’s
should not be leftto conjecture, in light of the alleged failure of evidence, because the existence of self-defense is a separate
the prosecution to present evidence that petitioner took part in issue from the existence ofthe crime, and establishing
inflicting injuries on the victims in furtherance ofa common selfdefense does not require orinvolve the negation of any of
design to kill.12 the elements of the offense itself.
The Court’s Ruling To escape liability, the accused must show by sufficient,
The petition is unmeritorious. satisfactory and convincing evidence that: (a) the victim
Review of Questionsof Fact Improper committed unlawful aggression amounting to an actual or
The review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is imminent threat to the life and limb of the accused claiming
limited to questions of law. This Court does not weigh all over self-defense; (b) there was reasonable necessity in the means
again the evidence already consideredin the proceedings employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c)
below.13 The narrow ambit of review prescribed under this rule there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
allows us to swiftly dispose of such appeals. This rule, of accused claiming self-defense or at least any provocation
course, admits of exceptions applicable to those rare petitions executed by the accused claiming self-defense was not the
whose peculiar factual milieu justifies relaxation of the Rules proximate and immediate cause of the victim’s aggression.19
such as based on speculation or conjectures, or overlooked Both petitioner and Pedro also testified that Pedro hacked
undisputed facts which, if duly considered, lead to a different Freddie in defense of their brother Lando.20 The defense of
conclusion.14 relatives argument likewise fails in light of the lack of unlawful
In the present case, petitioner finds fault in the decisions of the aggression on the part of the victims. For the accused to be
trial and appellate courts, alleging that had the said courts entitled to exoneration based on defense of relatives, complete
given weight to the defense evidence, conviction would not or incomplete, it is essential that there be unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim, for if there is no unlawful aggression, Lastly, the nature of the wounds inflicted on the deceased and
there would be nothing to prevent or repel.21 the other victims negate[s] the accused-appellants’ claim of
The discussion of the Court of Appeals on this point is well- self-defense. According to the medical certificate of Freddie
taken: dela Cruz, he suffered cardio-respiratory arrest, septicemia
We are hardly persuaded by accused-appellants’ allegations and multiple hacking wounds. Then, in the death certificate, it
that they were acting in self-defense because the victims were was further stated that Freddie dela Cruz suffered "amputation
committing unlawful aggression. We foundthe following of left and right hand." Meanwhile, with respect to Robert dela
loopholes: Cruz, the attending physician, Dr. Saniata V. Fernandez,
First, as Pedro claims in his testimony, the dela Cruzes were testified that the victim suffered lacerated wounds on the
shouting for the brothers of Pedro tocome out of the house. No forehead, lower lip and left hand. As for Felomina dela Cruz,
actual sudden or imminent attack, however, was performed. It she also suffered almost similar lacerated wounds.
has been ruled that mere intimidating or threatening words, It has been ruled that the presence of a large number of
even if said aloud, do not constitute unlawful aggression. Thus, wounds on the part of the victim, their nature and location
in People vs. Cajurao, the Supreme Court held that: disprove self-defense and instead indicate a determined effort
There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete unless to kill the victim[s]. In the case at bar, as already explained, the
there is clear and convincing proof of unlawful aggression on wounds on Freddie, Robert and Felomina, all surnamed dela
the partof the victim. The unlawful aggression, a constitutive Cruz, negate accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense.
element of self-defense, must be real or at least imminent and We have contrasted the claim of self-defense to the evidence
not merely imaginary. A belief that a person is about to be presented by the prosecution and this Court believes that the
attacked is not sufficient. Even an intimidating or threatening version of the latter is more credible and consistent with the
attitude is by no means enough. Unlawful truth. As a matter of fact, by simply admitting that they attacked
aggressionpresupposes an actual or imminent danger on the Freddie dela Cruz and the two other victims, the case against
life or limb of a person. Mere shouting, an[d] intimidating or the accused-appellants had become irrefutable. x x x.22
threatening attitude of the victim does not constitute unlawful Existence of Conspiracy
aggression. Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has Petitioner alleges that the prosecution did not present evidence
actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly of his participation in the attacks on Robert dela Cruz and
imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or merely a Felomina dela Cruz. He also argues that his mere presence
threatening stance or posture. during the said attacks does not by itself show concurrence of
Furthermore, as Pedro testified, the dela Cruzes were shouting wills and unity of purpose.
for his brothers to go out, but then, Pedro was the one who Petitioner’s presence during the commission of the crime was
went out. If, indeed, the dela Cruzes had some anger or wellestablished as he himself testified to that
aggression at that time, it was definitely not directed at Pedro. fact.1âwphi1 Assuming that he was merely present during the
Then, as Pedro went down to pacify the dela Cruzes, Pedro attack, inaction does not exculpate him. To exempt himself
and Robert dela Cruz engaged in a fist fight. Robert turned and from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed an
ran towards his mother, Felomina to allegedly get a bolo which overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to
was in Felomina’s possession and concealed under a towel. commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.23
Ifthis is true, Robert had already retreated and was trying to Indeed, mere presence does not signify conspiracy. However,
arm himself to level the supposed fight with Pedro. Thus, from neither does it indicate the lack thereof Conspiracy can be
Pedro’s narration, itcannot be definitely said that the dela inferred from and established by the acts of the accused
Cruzes went to the house of the accused-appellants with the themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design,
determined intention to inflict serious harm on Pedro. concerted action and community of interest.24 In fact, the
Second, Pedro claims that he was trying to defend his brother prosecution established that petitioner was actively involved in
Lando Quintos who was lying on the ground and being the attack on Freddie dela Cruz.
attacked by the deceased Freddie dela Cruz. According to him, In People v. De Leon,25 we held:.
he hacked Freddie before the latter could stab Lando. Pedro x x x To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every
would like to impress upon the court that Lando was also detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act
involved in the fight against the dela Cruzes. However, in the or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the
same testimony, Pedro said that it was he alone who was others in the execution of the conspiracy. Each conspirator
fighting Robert, Freddie and Felomina, and that his brothers, may be assigned separate and different tasks which may
including Lando, were "just there, sir, pacifying." appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole
Third, despite the alleged savagery that transpired, collective effort to achieve their. common criminal objective.
surprisingly, accused-appellants did not report the incident to Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the
the police. During crossexamination, Pedro admitted that: conspirators. The precise extent or mo[r]ality of participation of
Q: After you were threatened and you did not report of the each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators
alleged incident that happened on January 15 as what you are are principals.
telling now? The acts of petitioner before, during and after the attacks on
A: No sir. Robert dela Cruz and Felomina dela Cruz disclose his
Q: In fact even after you were allegedly brought to the hospital agreement with the joint purpose and design in the commission
and you were treated you did not even rel[a]y to the police or of the felony. The facts, found by the trial and appellate
even to your barangay the alleged incident which you are now courts,.establish that petitioner, together with his brothers and
narrating, am I correct? Narciso Buni, all of them armed, accosted the dela Cruzes,
A: I was not able to report anymore because after I was treated and gave chase even as the latter were retreating towards their
to the hospital I was brought directly to the jail, sir. house. During the attacks, each conspirator had a different
It is doctrinal that, for evidence to be believed, it must not only task. After the attacks, all the accused left the felled dela
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be Cruzes for dead, clearly showing their united purpose in the
credible in itself such as the common experience and felonies committed. The act of one is the act of all. With the
observation of mankind can approve as probable under the conspiracy proved, the conviction of petitioner was in order.
circumstances. We find it difficult to believe that accused- WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition, and AFFIRM the
appellants, who vehemently claim to be the aggrieved parties, Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 31 July 2012 and the
did not report the incident tothe police. Pedro’s alleged Resolution dated 11 January 2013 in CA-G.R. CR No. 33776.
treatment or confinement in the hospital did notprevent them SO ORDERED.
from doing so. Pedro had at least three brothers: Poldo, Rolly
and Lando; not to mention his mother and sister, who could G.R. No. L-32624 February 12, 1980
have easily gone to the police to report the alleged attack upon THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
them by the delaCruzes. This omission, therefore, casts doubt vs. PACIANO NIERRA alias Pacing, GAUDENCIA NIERRA,
on the veracity of the account of the accused-appellants. FELICISIMO DOBLEN alias Simoy and VICENTE
ROJAS, accused-appellants; GASPAR MISA, accused buccal cavity down to the spinal column where the slug was
whose death sentence is under automatic review. extracted.
Felicisimo Doblen, Vicente Rojas and the spouses Pagano Aniceto Nierra, on hearing the gunshot and the ensuing
Nierra and Gaudencia Nierra appealed from the decision dated commotion, went down from the house and saw his prostrate
March 4, 1970 of Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas of the Court wife with blood oozing from her mouth and nose. Her panty
of First Instance of South Cotabato, General Santos City was pulled down, her dress was raised up to her waist, and her
Branch II, convicting them of murder, sentencing each of them genital organ was exposed. At the hospital, the doctor
to death and ordering them to pay solidarity an indemnity of pronounced her dead.
twelve thousand pesos to the heirs of the victim Juliana Nierra After firing the gun, Misa walked slowly on the beach in front of
(Criminal Case No. 2081). Paciano and Gaudencia, passed by the alley between the
Gaspar Misa, who pleaded guilty to the murder charge, was houses of Tony Desinorio and Francisco Desinorio, emerged
also sentenced to death and ordered to pay a similar indemnity at the back of the Esso Gas Station crossed the creek or canal
(Decision of August 25, 1969, pp. 36-8, Record). His death on the west, reached the Lagao road, threw the gun into the
sentence is under automatic review. dense talahib grass and rode on a bus. He proceeded to the
According to the evidence of the prosecution, Juliana Saint Elizabeth Hospital. Then, he changed his mind and
Gadugdug-Nierra, 52, and Pagano Nierra, 39, her brother- returned to the beach near the victim's house.
inlaw, were competitors in the businesses of launch The Nierra spouses left the scene of the crime by passing
transportation and the sale of soft drinks in Barrio Tinago, through the alley between the house of the victim and the
General Santos City. Juliana sold coca-cola while Pagano sold Desinorio houses, which alley separated the building of the
pepsi-cola. Juliana was the owner of two motor Northern Lines and the Matutum Hotel from the Esso Gas
launches, Elsa I and II, while Paciano was the owner of two Station, and emerged on A. Morrow Boulevard which intersects
launches, Sylvania I and II. Juliana was the wife of Aniceto Saguing Street where Paciano and Gaudencia resided. Their
Nierra, Paciano's elder brother. To mollify Pagano, by residence was about two hundred meters away from the scene
diminishing the competition between their launches, Aniceto of the crime.
sold Elsa II. Nonetheless, Aniceto and Paciano were not on A witness, residing at Morrow Boulevard, who happened to be
speaking terms. at the Villa Bus Terminal at around eight-thirty in the evening of
In order to monopolize those businesses in the locality, July 8, 1969, when the killing was perpetrated, testified that
Paciano Nierra conceived the Idea of liquidating his competitor, she saw Pagano Nierra wearing an underwear and striped T-
Juliana. For that purpose, Felicisimo Doblen, a cousin-in-law of short running from Saguing Street to Barrio Tinago. About five
Paciano, accompanied to Paciano's house in the afternoon of minutes later, she saw Pagano the boulevard and running
July 4, 1969 Gaspar Misa, 29, a convicted murderer who in towards Saguing Street. He was wearing long pants. The
1965 had escaped from the Davao Penal Colony (Exh. E-4 and witness made a statement to the police about what she had
E-5, pp. 10-11, Folder of Exhibits). Misa came to Barrio Tinago seen.
in June, 1969. He resided with his cousin, Silvestre Misa. (See Early in the morning of the next day, Misa took a bus bound for
Pareja vs. Gomez and People, 115 Phil. 820.) Tupi and alighted near the municipal building. Paciano Nierra
Upstairs in the bedroom of Paciano's house, Misa, in the arrived in that place and gave him four hundred pesos. Misa
presence of Gaudencia Garrido-Nierra, the wife of Paciano, returned to General Santos City, gave fifty pesos to Rojas, and
agreed to kill Juliana in consideration of three thousand pesos. proceeded to the victim's house where he mingled with the
Paciano promised that in the morning after the killing he would persons playing cards and domino. He kept vigil there, staying
pay Misa four hundred pesos near the municipal hall of Tupi, there for four nights.
South Cotabato which is about forty kilometers away from He resumed his old job of looking for passengers for the ,
General Santos City. The balance would be paid in the same buses and the pumpboat of Rojas. He received a commission
place on August 12, 1969. of one peso per passenger. Policemen arrested him and Rojas
That arrangement was confirmed by Gaudencia. When Misa as for questioning but they were later released. He left the city
scheduled the assassination on July 8, 1969, Pagano said that and brought his family to Barrio Luan, Maitum South Cotabato.
it was up to Misa since he was the one who would kill Juliana. There, he was arrested again, this time by Constabulary
In the evening of July 6, 1969, Doblen, in behalf of Pagano soldiers.
Nierra, delivered to Misa at the beach a package containing a On August 7, 1969, Misa was interrogated by Patrolman A.B.
caliber .38 pistol with five bullets. Misa contacted his friend, Vencer Jr. of the city police department. He signed a
Vicente Rojas, and apprised him that he (Misa) had been hired confession admitting the killing of Juliana Nierra and
to kill Juliana. Misa asked Rojas to act as lookout on the night implicating the other accused therein. The statement was
of July 8, 1969 when the killing would be perpetrated. sworn to before the fiscal. Two days later, he reenacted the
On that night, Rojas posted himself at the Bernadette store killing. Photographs were taken of the reenactment. A sketch
near the creek or canal about twenty-seven steps from the of the scene of the crime was prepared.
scene of the crime. Gaudencia was stationed near the house On August 11, 1969, Misa testified at the preliminary in-
of Maning Desinorio about eighteen steps from the scene of vestigation. In his testimony, he admitted again the killing and
the crime. Pagano was near the house of Juanito Desinorio confirmed his confession implicating Paciano Nierra, his wife
about twenty-seven steps from the scene of the crime. The Gaudencia, Doblen and Rojas. He executed another
houses of the two Desinorios were separated from the house confession on August 12, 1969 which was sworn to before the
of Juliana Nierra by an alley. city judge.
Misa secluded himself near a warehouse about five steps from Thirty-seven days after the killing or on August 14, 1969, Misa,
the scene of the crime in close proximity to the back of Doblen, Rojas and the Nierra spouses, as co-conspirators,
Juliana's house where. as he had previously observed some were charged with murder aggravated by reward, treachery,
nights before, she used to answer the call of nature. The house evident premeditation, nocturnity, ignominy and abuse of
was at the back of the Esso Gas Station near the beach of superiority and, as to Misa, recidivism, since he had been
Sarangani Bay at Barrio Tinago, General Santos City. sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the murder of Antonio
Between seven and eight o'clock that night, the unwary Juliana Abad Tormis in Cebu City.
went to the beach where she was accustomed to void and As already stated, Misa pleaded guilty. At the trial of his co
when she squatted, Misa unexpectedly appeared behind her, accused, his confessions and testimony were offered by the
held her hair, thus tilting her face, and while in that posture, he prosecution and were the main bases of the judgment of
inserted into her mouth the muzzle of the pistol and fired it. conviction and the imposition of the death penalty.
Paciano and Gaudencia, who were near the beach, witnessed As separate briefs were filed for the defendants, their individual
the actual killing. cases will be separately reviewed.
The postmortem examination disclosed that Juliana sustained Misa's case. — His counsel de oficio contends that Misa made
a gunshot wound in the tongue. The bullet passed through the an improvident plea because the trial court allegedly failed to
explain thoroughly to him the gravity of the offense and the Juliana. The discrepancies in his testimony refer to minor
consequences of his plea of guilty. details.
That contention is not well-taken. Misa, as an escaped And the fact that the Nierra spouses did not comply with their
prisoner, had acquired some experience in criminal procedure. contractual commitment to pay Misa the balance of two
Not only that. He executed two extrajudicial confessions. He thousand six hundred pesos must have impelled him to
reenacted the crime as the triggerman He testified at the unmask them and to reveal the truth even if such a revelation
preliminary investigation, and, after he was sentenced to speeled his own destruction.
death, he was the prosecution star witness during the trial of The contention that there was no proof of conspiracy among
his co-accused. His testimony against his co-accused, the accused is belied by the facts shown in the record. Misa
delineating their roles in the commission of the killing, which he had no personal motive for killing Juliana Nierra. He was
had perpetrated, fortified his plea of guilty and removed any induced to do so because of the monetary consideration
scintilla of doubt as to his culpability and as to his promised by the Nierra spouses. Doblen (Simoy), married to
understanding of the consequences of his mea culpa (See Paciano's cousin, introduced Misa to the Nierra spouses.
People vs. Duaban, L-31912, August 24, 1979). Before Juliana's assassination, Gaudencia had contracted
Under the circumstances, we cannot grant counsel de Misa to kill Nene Amador, her former housemaid, who was
oficio's prayer that the judgment of conviction be set aside and allegedly Paciano's mistress. That projected killing did not
that the case be remanded to the lower court for new trial To materialize.
hold a new trial. wherein Misa himself would again be the star Appellants Nierra contend that Misa's testimony as to the
prosecution witness, would be a repetitious and preposterous alleged conspiracy is inadmissible in view of the rule that "the
ceremony. act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy
The case of the Nierra spouses. — They denied any complicity and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the
in the killing of Juliana Nierra. Their version is that in the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other
evening of July 8, 1969, at about eight o'clock in the evening, than such act or declaration" (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of
Paciano Nierra was inside a room of his house. Gaudencia Court).
Nierras was in her room, writing something. Eduardo Nierra, It is argued that before Misa's testimony could be admitted as
the couple's son, was alone in the sala while Encarnacion evidence against appellants Nierra, the alleged conspiracy
Sabihon a housemaid, was somewhere in the house premises. must first be proven by evidence other than such testimony
Paciano heard somebody coming up the house. When he and that there is no such independent evidence. This argument
came out of the room, he met Nolasco Docallos who said that is wrong. It is not supported by action 27 of Rule 130
Juliana Nierra was shot. Paciano Nierra asked who shot her. Section 27 "applies only to extrajudicial acts or declarations but
Docallos answered that he did not know. not to testimony given on the stand at the trial where the
Docallos asked Paciano for permission to use the latter's defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant"
motorcycle in going to the hospital. Paciano instructed his son (People vs. Serrano, 105 Phil. 531, 541).
Eduardo to render assistance. Paciano could not go out Appellants Nierra contend that the trial court erred in finding
because two years before he had undergone a surgical that the motive for the killing was to stifle business competition.
operation in Cebu City. Gaudencia could not leave the children This argument is refuted by the testimonies of Aniceto Nierra
alone in the house. Eduardo phoned from the funeral parlor and his son Rodelio which show that Paciano Nierra was
that Juliana was already dead. antagonistic to his sister-in-law, Juliana, the manager or
At about five-thirty in the morning of the following day, "brains" of Aniceto's transportation and coca-cola distribution
Gaudencia went to the funeral parlor. She talked with Rodelio, businesses.
the son of Juliana. Aniceto Nierra, her brother-in-law and In 1967, Paciano attempted to destroy Aniceto's launch, Elsa
husband of the victim, did not answer when she tried to talk II, while it was under construction. Aniceto had to sell that
with him. launch because of Paciano's threat that somebody would be
Paciano woke up at six o'clock that morning. He and his wife hurt if its operation was continued. Pagano told Rodelio that
and their Muslim friend Pandita E. Saguil and Fernando Erro, the latter's mother, Juliana, who was pockmarked was bad and
the uncle of Paciano, boarded a bus and went to Tupi dominated her husband Aniceto. On two occasions, Paciano
ostensibly to buy bamboos for the outrigger of a vinta, a trip even challenged his brother to a fight.
which the Nierra spouses had previously agreed upon with Another contention of the appellants is that the trial court
Saguil. They arrived in Tupi at past ten o'clock. They were not convicted them on the basis of the hearsay testimonies of
able to buy bamboos. They ate lunch at the Fernandez Guillermo Sanchez and Jose Samoya. This argument is
Restaurant. misleading. The judgment of conviction was anchored
The group returned to General Santos City, arriving there at principally on the confessions and testimony of Misa, the tool
two o'clock in the afternoon. They went to the funeral parlor. used by the Nierra spouses in encompassing Juliana's death.
They were not able to talk with Aniceto Nierra. In the evening Misa's evidence cannot be regarded as hearsay.
of that day, Gaudencia led the prayers for the repose of the The testimonies of Sanchez and Samoya merely proved that
soul of Juliana and she performed that task on the second, Misa, Rojas and Doblen were implicated in the killing of Juliana
third and fourth nights. She did not lead the prayers on the Nierra. It was the affidavit of Sanchez, linking Misa to the
succeeding nights because she was advised that it was bad for killing, that gave the police a breakthrough in the solution of the
her to do so. Their child attended the novena Paciano could case. After the connection of Misa with the crime was
not attend the novena because he had kidney trouble. They established, the police arrested him and obtained his
gave one hundred pesos to Juliana's family as contribution to confessions which implicated appellants Nierra as the
the funeral expenses. investigators.
The Nierra spouses attended the funeral. During the burial, The Nierras in their fifth assignment of error contend that the
Aniceto lost consciousness and collapsed Paciano revived him trial court erred in admitting as evidence the affidavit of
by pressing his abdomen. After the coffin was placed in the appellant Vicente Rojas (Exh. J) which was obtained through
tomb, Paciano closed the niche. The Nierra spouses gave to an alleged promise of immunity. The record is not clear as to
Aniceto an additional two hundred pesos (Pars. 5-6 and 9-15, that promise of immunity. Rojas' statement was taken on
pp. 6-11, Appellants' Brief). August 1, 1969. On August 12, he testified at the pre
Appellants Nierra contend that Misa was not a credible witness investigation. The record of his testimony before the fiscal was
because he was a recidivist and his testimony is riddled with signed by him. He was assisted by counsel at that pre
inconsistencies. That contention is devoid of merit. investigation. (Exh. K et seq.) No promise of immunity was
Misa testified against his own penal interest. The basic point in shown to have been made by the fiscal to Rojas.
his confessions and testimony was that he was hired by the In any event, his affidavit is a minor piece of evidence and is
Nierra spouses, through Doblen to kill Juliana for the price of cumulative in character. As already stated, the crucial and
three thousand pesos. That is sufficient for the conviction of decisive evidence consists of Misa's testimony and
the Nierra spouses as the inducers of the assassination of confessions.
Appellants Nierra complain that lawyer Cornelio Falgui acted Doblen delivered the package to Misa, he (Doblen) did not
acted the preliminary investigation as counsel of appellant know that it contained the murder weapon. As to Rojas, it is
Doblen, having been allegedly hired by the offended party, contended that he was not present at the said conference
Aniceto Nierra, and then at the trial, he acted as counsel de between Misa and the Nierra spouses.
oficio of Misa who pleaded guilty. He also appeared for Doblen These contentions are not well-taken. The activities of Doblen
(6 and 19 tsn). and Rojas indubitably show that they had community of design
The alleged double role of Falgui cannot be regarded as with the Nierra spouses and Misa in the assassination of
having unduly prejudiced appellants Nierra who, as already Juliana Nierra.
noted, were convicted on the basis of Misa's confessions and Like appellants Nierra, Rojas' counsel de oficio contends that
testimony. The appellants have not successfully overthrown or the trial court erred in admitting the affidavit of Rojas (Exh. J)
rebutted Misa's evidence. because it was obtained under an alleged promise of immunity.
It was Doblen who acted as a double agent. He was a tool of It should be noted that Rojas' affidavit does not contain
Paciano Nierra and at the same time he posed as a friend on anything connecting him to the murder. In that affidavit, he
Aniceto Nierra by pretending that he had no hand in the denied that he had any participation in the commission of the
assassination of Aniceto's wife. crime and that he conspired with Misa. So, the admission in
We are convinced that the guilt of appellants Nierra was evidence of that affidavit did not prejudice him at all.
proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the night of the shooting, The killing was correctly characterized by the trial court as
Paciano Nierra and Gaudencia Nierra did not go to the funeral murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by premeditation
parlor to view the remains of Juliana. and price or reward. As to the Nierras, relationship is an
After Paciano and Gaudencia were charged with murder, there additional aggravating circumstance.
was a confrontation between the said spouses and Aniceto Treachery absorbed nocturnity and abuse of superiority. The
Nierra in the house of their brother, Alonso, in the presence of manner in which Misa liquidated Juliana Nierra added shame,
their other brother, Gerundio. The following dialogue took place disgrace or obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.
between Paciano and Aniceto: Hence, ignominy is aggravating (U.S. vs. Abaigar 2 Phil. 417).
Paciano: Noy, why did you In Misa's case, recidivism as an aggravating circumstance
suspect us to be the killers of offset his plea of guilty. That did not preclude the imposition of
your wife? the death penalty upon him.
Aniceto: Will you still deny Considering the aggravating circumstances, the death penalty
when Gaspar Misa pointed to imposed on the Nierra spouses is in accordance- with law.
you that you were standing by However, for lack of the requisite ten votes, the death penalty
the post and Paciano imposed on Gaudencia Nierra should be commuted
(Gaudencia) was also to reclusion perpetua.
standing in a another post Doblen's role was that of having introduced Misa to the Nierra
when he (Misa) killed my wife. spouses and delivering the murder weapon to Misa. He was
From now on I have no not present at the scene of the crime. On the other hand, Rojas
brother by the name of acted as lookout and received fifty pesos for his work.
Pacing. After a conscientious reflection on the complicity of Doblen and
Paciano did not comment on his brother's accusation. Rojas, we have reached the conclusion that they should be
Moreover, Misa wrote the following note to Paciano when they held guilty as accomplices. It is true, strictly speaking, that as
were confined in the city jail (translation): co-conspirators they should be punished as co-principals.
My companion Pacing (Paciano): However, since their participation was not absolutely
I am directly telling you and you could be sure indispensable to the consummation of the murder, the rule that
that I will do my best that you will be free. the court should favor the milder form of liability may be
Before the trial of (in) court, I would like that applied to them (People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 and other
you give me the sum of P600 even if you give cases).
the cash advance of P 500 before Sunday. OK In some exceptional situations, having community of design
and you give the same thru the hole. with the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being
Your companion, (Sgd.) Gaspar Misa regarded as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the
homicide or murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor
Believe me that I will free you and burn this immediately. (Exit character (See People vs. Ubiña, 97 Phil. 515; U.S. vs.
1) Doming 1st, 37 Phil. 446; People vs. Daligdig, 89 Phil. 598;
The above note clearly proves that Misa and Paciano were co- People vs. Largo, 99 Phil. 1061).
conspirators. The Nierras were co-principals by inducement. WHEREFORE, (1) the lower court's judgment is affirmed with
By acting as lookouts during the perpetration of the killing, they respect to Gaspar Misa and Paciano Nierra.
became co-principals by cooperation as well. (2) The death sentence imposed on Gaudencia Nierra is
Appeal of Doblen and Rojas. — Doblen's alibi was that on the communited to reclusion perpetua. The civil liability imposed
night of the killing, he was stranded at Margos, Glan, South upon her by the trial court is affirmed.
Cotabato. He returned to General Santos City at ten o'clock in (3) Appellants Felicisimo Doblen and Vicente Rojas are
the morning of the following day. He denied that he convicted as accomplices. They are each sentenced to an
accompanied Misa to the house of Paciano Nierra on July 4, indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor medium as
1969 and that he delivered to Misa the package containing the minimum to seventeen years of reclusion temporal medium as
murder weapon. maximum and to pay solidarily with the principals an indemnity
Rojas' alibi was that on the night of the killing he slept in his of six thousand pesos (as their quota) to the heirs of Juliana
pumpboat at Lion's Beach, General Santos City. However, that Nierra. They are each subsidiarily liable to the extent of six
could not have precluded him from having acted as lookout on thousand pesos for the principals' civil liability. Costs against
that same beach. the accused.
These appellants, like the Nierra spouses, contend that Misa's
confessions and testimony have no probative value because G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015
there was no other evidence proving the alleged conspiracy. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LTSG.
As already stated, that rule does not apply to testimony given DOMINADOR BAYABOS, LTJG. MANNY G. FERRER,
on the witness stand where the defendants have the LTJG. RONALD G. MAGSINO, LTJG. GERRY P. DOCTOR,
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant (People vs. ENS. DOMINADOR B. OPERIO, JR., AND THE HON.
Dacanay, 92 Phil. 872). SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
It is contended that Doblen was not a co-conspirator because
he was not present when Misa and the Nierra spouses [G.R. No. 174786]
discussed the liquidation of Juliana Nierra and that when
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RADM case charging respondents as accomplices to the crime of
VIRGINIO R. ARIS, LTJG. KRUZALDO G. MABBORANG, hazing.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ENS. DENNIS S. VELASCO, AND THE HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents. Meanwhile, the RTC–Zambales issued an Order dismissing
DECISION the Information against the principal accused, Alvarez et
SERENO, C.J.: al.12 The Order was later entered in the Book of Entries of
While this Court has recently faced questions on the criminal Judgment.
liability of fraternity members for hazing, this case presents
novel questions on the extent of liability of schools and school Bayabos, Ferrer, Magsino, Doctor, and Operio (collectively,
authorities under Republic Act No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Bayabos et al.) filed a Motion to Quash the Information. 13 They
Law. argued that the Information did not contain all the essential
elements of the offense. They also pointed out that there was
The responsibility given to an academic institution for the no allegation that the purported act had been made a
welfare of its students has been characterized by law and prerequisite for admission to the PMMA, especially considering
judicial doctrine as a form of special parental authority and that the victim had already been accepted in the academy.
responsibility.1 This responsibility has been amplified by the Moreover, they stressed that there was no averment in the
enactment of the Anti-Hazing Law, in that the failure by school Information that the PMMA was a fraternity, a sorority, or an
authorities to take any action to prevent the offenses as organization. Also underscored was the absence in the
provided by the law exposes them to criminal liability as Information of any assertion that the alleged hazing was not
accomplices in the criminal acts. Thus, the institution and its part of the “physical, mental, and psychological testing and
officers cannot stand idly by in the face of patently criminal acts training procedure and practices to determine and enhance the
committed within their sphere of responsibility. They bear the physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective
commensurate duty to ensure that the crimes covered by the regular members.” Furthermore, they emphasized that there
Anti-Hazing Law are not committed. was no allegation that they were given prior written notice of
the hazing and that they had permitted the activity.
It was within this legal framework that the school authorities of
the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA) were As a final point, Bayabos et al. argued that the case against
criminally charged before the Sandiganbayan as accomplices the principal accused had already been dismissed with finality
to hazing under the Anti-Hazing Law. Before they were by the RTC. There being no more principals with whom they
arraigned, the Sandiganbayan quashed2 the Information could have cooperated in the execution of the offense, they
against them on the basis of the dismissal of the criminal case asserted that the case against them must be dismissed.
against the principal accused and, the failure to include in the
Information the material averments required by the Anti-Hazing The Special Prosecutor opposed14 the motion of Bayabos et
Law. al. He insisted that the Information alleged the material facts
that would sufficiently establish the presence of the essential
Consequently, this Petition was filed before this Court ingredients of the crime of accomplice to hazing. He also
questioning the Sandiganbayan’s quashal of the Information. stressed that there was nothing in the law requiring that the
The Case Background principals must be prosecuted first before a case could be filed
against the accomplices. The Comment/Opposition of the
Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. (Balidoy) was admitted as a Special Prosecutor was, however, silent on the issue of
probationary midshipman at the PMMA.3 In order to reach whether the Information contained an allegation that the
active status, all new entrants were required to successfully supposed hazing had been made a prerequisite for admission
complete the mandatory “Indoctrination and Orientation to the PMMA, and whether the academy was considered an
Period,”4 which was set from 2 May to 1 June 2001. 5 Balidoy “organization” within the meaning of the Anti-Hazing Law.
died on 3 May 2001.6chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Six days before Bayabos et al. were set to be arraigned,15 the
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) probed the death of Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution (SB Resolution
Balidoy. After months of investigation, it forwarded its I) quashing the Information and dismissing the criminal case
findings7 to the provincial prosecutor of Zambales for the against them. According to the court, the fact that the charge
preliminary investigation and possible criminal prosecution of against the principal accused Alvarez et al. was dismissed with
those involved in the orientation and indoctrination of the finality favorably carried with it the indictment against those
PMMA Class of 2005.8 Subsequently, the Assistant Provincial charged as accomplices, whose criminal responsibility was
Prosecutor of Zambales issued a Resolution9 finding probable subordinate to that of the former. It stressed that before there
cause to charge the following as principals to the crime of can be an accomplice, there must be a principal by direct
hazing: Aldwin Alvarez (Alvarez), Leotharius C. Montez participation, the latter being the originator of the criminal
(Montez), Rudence G. Reyes (Reyes), and Jed Nicholas S. design. In this case, as there were no principal perpetrators to
Simpas (Simpas) – collectively, Alvarez et al. A criminal case speak of, necessarily, there was no one else with whom they
against Alvarez et al. was then filed with the Regional Trial could have cooperated in the execution of the crime of hazing.
Court of Iba, Zambales (RTC–Zambales). In view of the dismissal of the case against the principals, the
court ruled that the Information charging Bayabos et al. as
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor also endorsed to the accomplices could no longer stand on its own.
Deputy Ombudsman for the Military the finding of probable
cause to charge the following school authorities as In any event, the Sandiganbayan found that the Information
accomplices to hazing: Rear Admiral (RADM) Virginio R. Aris charged no offense, and that the allegations therein were mere
(Aris), Lieutenant Senior Grade (LTSG.) Dominador D. conclusions of law. It also stressed that there was no averment
Bayabos (Bayabos), Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG.) Gerry P. that the alleged hazing was not part of the “physical, mental
Doctor (Doctor), LTJG. Manny Ferrer (Ferrer), LTJG. Kruzaldo and psychological testing and training procedure and practices
Mabborang (Mabborang), LTJG. Ronald G. Magsino to determine and enhance the physical, mental and
(Magsino), Ensign (ENS.) Dennis Velasco (Velasco), and ENS. psychological fitness of prospective regular members” of the
Dominador Operio (Operio) – collectively, respondents. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine
Ombudsman Investigator agreed with the findings of the National Police (PNP), pursuant to Section 1 of the law.16 It
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. The matter was thus ordered must be noted, though, that the Sandiganbayan did not make
re-docketed for the purpose of conducting the proper any categorical determination that the PMMA was considered
administrative proceedings against respondents for grave an “organization” within the meaning of the Anti-Hazing Law.
misconduct and abuse of authority.10 The Office of the Special
Prosecutor eventually filed with the Sandiganbayan a criminal Six months after the Sandiganbayan issued its Resolution
dismissing the criminal case against Bayabos et al., the One of the key components of a “sufficient information” is the
accused Velasco surrendered and then filed his own Motion to statement of the acts or omissions constituting the offense
Quash,17 adopting the grounds raised by that court. His charged, subject of the complaint.26 The information must also
arraignment was set on 14 August 2006. 18 However, on 3 be crafted in a language ordinary and concise enough to
August 2006, the Sandiganbayan issued another Resolution enable persons of common understanding to know the offense
(SB Resolution II) dismissing the case against him. According being charged against them.27 This approach is intended to
to the court, since Velasco was similarly situated as allow them to suitably prepare for their defense, as they are
Bayabos et al., the Information against him must likewise be presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts
quashed in light of the reasoning laid out in SB Resolution I. In constituting the offense they have purportedly committed.28 The
the same Resolution, the Sandiganbayan ex proprio information need not be in the same kind of language used in
motu dismissed the case against Aris and Mabborang the law relied upon.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(collectively, Velasco et al.), explaining that they, too, had been
charged under the same Information for the same offense.19 It At any time before entering a plea, an accused may assail the
is unclear from the records20 whether the accused Aris and information filed with the court based on the grounds
Mabborang surrendered or were arrested, or whether the enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, one
Order of Arrest21 was recalled prior to the dismissal of the case. of which is the claim that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense. In assessing whether an information must be quashed
Aggrieved, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special on that ground, the basic test30 is to determine if the facts
Prosecutor, filed with this Court on 13 March 2006 a Petition averred would establish the presence of the essential elements
assailing SB Resolution I and, on 16 October 2006, another of the crime as defined in the law. The information is examined
Petition challenging SB Resolution II. without consideration of the truth or veracity of the claims
The Issues therein, as these are more properly proven or controverted
during the trial. In the appraisal of the information,
The Special Prosecutor asks this Court to address a number of matters aliunde are not taken into account.
legal issues. After a thorough evaluation of the Petitions,
however, we cull the threshold issues needing to be addressed We quote the pertinent provision of the Anti-Hazing Law as
by this Court as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I. Whether the prosecution of respondents for the crime Section 1. Hazing, as used in this Act, is an initiation rite or
of accomplice to hazing can proceed in spite of the practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in
dismissal with finality of the case against the principal a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit,
accused neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or
II. Whether the Information filed against respondents humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly,
contains all the material averments for the prosecution foolish and other similar tasks or activities
of the crime of accomplice to hazing under the Anti- or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological
Hazing Law suffering or injury.
Our Ruling
The term “organization” shall include any club or the
With regard to the first issue, we agree with petitioner that the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police,
Sandiganbayan erred when it dismissed outright the case Philippine Military Academy, or officer and cadet corp of
against respondents, on the sole ground that the case against the Citizen's Military Training and Citizen's Army Training.
the purported principals had already been dismissed. It is a The physical, mental and psychological testing and training
settled rule that the case against those charged as procedure and practices to determine and enhance the
accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence of trial physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective
of the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against regular members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the latter; or even the latter’s acquittal, especially when the the Philippine National Police as approved by the Secretary of
occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. 22  National Defense and the National Police Commission duly
In People v. Rafael,23 the Supreme Court En Banc reasoned recommended by the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the
thus: “The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, Philippines and the Director General of the Philippine National
accomplice, and accessory are distinct from each other. As Police shall not be considered as hazing for the purposes of
long as the commission of the offense can be duly established this Act.
in evidence, the determination of the liability of the accomplice
or accessory can proceed independently of that of the Sec. 4. x x x x.
principal.” Accordingly, so long as the commission of the crime The school authorities including faculty members who
can be duly proven, the trial of those charged as accomplices consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge
to determine their criminal liability can proceed independently thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same
of that of the alleged principal.24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the
acts of hazing committed by the perpetrators. (Emphasis
We note in the present case that Bayabos et al. merely supplied)
presented the Order of Entry of Judgment25 dismissing the The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following
case against Alvarez et al. Nowhere is it mentioned in the essential elements are established: (1) a person is placed in
order that the case was dismissed against the alleged some embarrassing or humiliating situation or subjected to
principals, because no crime had been committed. In fact, it physical or psychological suffering or injury; and (2) these acts
does not cite the trial court’s reason for dismissing the case. were employed as a prerequisite for the person’s admission or
Hence, the Sandiganbayan committed an error when it simply entry into an organization. In the crime of hazing, the crucial
relied on the Order of Entry of Judgment without so much as ingredient distinguishing it from the crimes against persons
scrutinizing the reason for the dismissal of the case against the defined under Title Eight of the Revised Penal Code is the
purported principals. infliction by a person of physical or psychological suffering on
another in furtherance of the latter’s admission or entry into an
Nonetheless, as will be discussed below, we affirm the quashal organization.
of the Information against respondents.
In the case of school authorities and faculty members who
Section 14, Article III of the Constitution, recognizes the right of have had no direct participation in the act, they may
the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the nonetheless be charged as accomplices if it is shown that (1)
accusation against them. As a manifestation of this hazing, as established by the above elements, occurred; (2)
constitutional right, the Rules of Court requires that the the accused are school authorities or faculty members; and (3)
information charging persons with an offense be “sufficient.” they consented to or failed to take preventive action against
hazing in spite actual knowledge thereof. responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as
accomplice, for the crime of hazing. Plain reference to a
First, we reject the contention of respondents that PMMA technical term37 – in this case, hazing – is insufficient and
should not be considered an organization. Under the Anti- incomplete, as it is but a characterization of the acts allegedly
Hazing Law, the breadth of the term organization includes – committed and thus a mere conclusion of law. Section 6, Rule
but is not limited to – groups, teams, fraternities, sororities, 110 of the Rules of Court, expressly states that the information
citizen army training corps, educational institutions, clubs, must include, inter alia, both “the designation of the offense
societies, cooperatives, companies, partnerships, corporations, given by the statute” and “the acts or omissions complained of
the PNP, and the AFP.31 Attached to the Department of as constituting the offense.” The Special Prosecutor’s belated
Transportation and Communications,32 the PMMA is a argument38 in his Petition before this Court that the successful
government-owned educational institution33 established for the completion of the indoctrination and orientation program was
primary purpose of producing efficient and well-trained used as a prerequisite for continued admission to the academy
merchant marine officers.34 Clearly, it is included in the – i.e., attainment of active midshipman status – does not cure
term organization within the meaning of the law. this defect in the Information. Thus, the Information must be
quashed, as the ultimate facts it presents do not constitute the
We also disagree with the Sandiganbayan ruling that the crime of accomplice to hazing.
quashal of the Information was warranted for failure to allege
that the purported acts were not covered by the exemption Finally, we reject the Special Prosecutor’s claim that the
relating to the duly recommended and approved “testing and Sandiganbayan should just have ordered the filing of another
training procedure and practices” for prospective regular information or the correction of the defect by amendment,
members of the AFP and the PNP. This exemption is an instead of dismissing the case outright.39 Indeed, Section 4,
affirmative defense in, not an essential element of, the crime Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, provides that if a motion to
of accomplice to hazing. It is an assertion that must be properly quash is based on the ground that the facts charged do not
claimed by the accused, not by the prosecution. The reason for constitute an offense, the court shall give the prosecution a
this rule is that the accused carry the burden of proof in chance to correct the defect by amendment. However, the
establishing by clear and convincing evidence that they have provision also states that if the prosecution fails to make the
satisfied the requirements thereof.35 Thus, the prosecution’s amendment, the motion shall be granted. Here, we point out
failure to point out in the Information that the exception is that the Special Prosecutor insisted in his Comment on the
inapplicable would not justify the quashal of that Information. Motion to Quash40 that there was no defect in the Information.
Neither has he filed a new information after the motion was
Nevertheless, we find – albeit for a different reason – that the sustained, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 117. Thus, the
Motion to Quash must be granted, as the Information does not Sandiganbayan was correct in ordering the quashal of the
include all the material facts constituting the crime Information and the eventual dismissal of the case.
of accomplice to hazing. The Information charging respondents
reads as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary This does not mean, however, that the Special Prosecutor is
The undersigned Assistant Special Prosecutor, Office of the now precluded from filing another information. Section 6, Rule
Special Prosecutor, hereby accuses [RADM] Virginio R. Aris, 117, specifically states that an order sustaining a motion to
[LTSG.] Dominador D. BAYABOS, [LTJG.] Manny G. Ferrer, quash would not bar another prosecution. That is, of course,
[LTJG.] Ronald G. Magsino, [LTJG.] Kruzaldo G. Mabborang, unless respondents are able to prove that the criminal action or
[LTJG.] Gerry P. Doctor, [ENS.] Dominador B. Operio, Jr., and liability has been extinguished, or that double jeopardy has
[ENS.] Dennis S. Velasco, as accomplices for Violation of R.A. already attached.
8049 (Anti-Hazing Law), committed as
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Given the foregoing, the Court no longer sees the necessity to
pass upon the other issues raised by petitioner.
That during the period from the 2nd of May 2001 up to the 3rd of
May 2001, inside the campus of the Philippine Merchant WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No.
Marine Academy (PMMA), in the Municipality of San Narciso, 171222 is hereby DENIED and the petition for certiorari in G.R.
Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of No. 174786, DISMISSED. The dismissal of the case in
this Honorable Court accused RADM Virginio R. Aris, Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated 27 January 2006 and 3
President of PMMA with [Salary Grade (SG) 29]; LTSG. August 2006 in Criminal Case No. 28339 are thus AFFIRMED.
Dominador D. BAYABOS, Commandant of the Cadets; (LTJG.)
Manny G. Ferrer, 1st Batallion Officer; LTJG. Ronald G. SO ORDERED.
Magsino, Security Officer; LTJG. Kruzaldo G. Mabborang,
2nd Battalion Officer; LTJG. Gerry P. Doctor, Batl. Mast.; ENS.
Dominador B. Operio, Jr., 1st Battalion Company Officer; and
ENS. Dennis S. Velasco, Mess Officer, all public officers,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another,
committing the offense in relation to office and while in the
performance of their duties as such public officers being the
school authorities and/or faculty members did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally, consent or have actual
knowledge of the hazing perpetrated by the principal accused,
all First Class Midshipmen, against probationary midshipman
FERNANDO BALIDOy, JR. during the school’s Indoctrination
and Orientation; and, fail to take any action to prevent the
occurrence of the hazing and the infliction of psychological and
physical injuries against said  FERNANDO BALIDOy, JR.
thereby causing the instantaneous death of the latter, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of said FERNANDO
BALIDOy, JR.36
As can be gleaned from the above, the indictment merely
states that psychological pain and physical injuries were
inflicted on the victim. There is no allegation that the purported
acts were employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry
into the organization. Failure to aver this crucial ingredient
would prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal