G.R. No. 203986, October 4, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Jerson Dasmariñas y Gonzales, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jerson Dasmariñas was charged with Murder for the shooting death of PO2 Marlon Anoya. The Information alleged that the killing was qualified by “treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premiditation (sic).” The prosecution’s eyewitness, Aries Perias, testified that in the early morning of June 16, 2007, he saw Dasmariñas and a companion approach the drunk victim from behind and shoot him twice in the head near a beerhouse in Las Piñas City. The victim’s widow, Lourdes Anoya, testified on the fact of death and incurred funeral expenses. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dasmariñas of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction for Murder, considering the sufficiency of the allegation of treachery in the Information.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The legal logic centers on the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. For a qualifying circumstance like treachery to be properly considered, the Information must allege the ultimate facts constituting such circumstance, not mere conclusions of law. The Information in this case only stated that the killing was “with treachery” and that the killing was “qualified by the circumstances of treachery.” It failed to narrate the specific acts executed by the accused—such as attacking the victim from behind without warning while the victim was in a defenseless state—that would factually establish the mode of attack, the deliberate adoption of means to ensure execution without risk to the assailant, and the victim’s inability to defend himself. Citing precedents like People v. Valdez, the Court ruled that the term “treachery” alone is a legal conclusion. Its absence of factual basis in the accusatory pleading bars its appreciation as a qualifying circumstance, as it deprives the accused of the opportunity to properly prepare a defense against it. Consequently, the killing is deemed a simple Homicide. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts on the appellant’s guilt for the killing, which was established by the positive identification of the eyewitness. The penalties and damages were adjusted accordingly, with the indeterminate sentence for Homicide imposed and exemplary damages deleted due to the absence of qualifying or aggravating circumstances.