G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rolando Solar y Dumbrique, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City convicted accused-appellant Rolando Solar of murder for the killing of Joseph Capinig. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but downgraded the offense from murder to homicide. The CA held that the Information filed against the accused-appellant did not sufficiently allege the factual circumstances constituting the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength; it merely stated the legal conclusions that the killing was “qualified by the circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.” The Supreme Court, in its majority Decision, reversed the CA and reinstated the murder conviction, ruling that the accused-appellant had waived his right to assail the defects in the Information. Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin filed a dissenting opinion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly downgraded the conviction from murder to homicide due to the insufficient factual allegations in the Information regarding the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.

RULING

(DISSENTING OPINION):
Chief Justice Bersamin dissented, voting to affirm the CA decision that downgraded the offense to homicide. The dissent maintained that the Information was constitutionally and procedurally defective. It merely alleged that the killing was “with treachery and abuse of superior strength” and was “qualified by the circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength” without stating any facts describing the acts constitutive of these circumstances. Citing People v. Valdez, the dissent emphasized that such an averment is a mere conclusion of law, not an averment of fact. The use of a baseball bat as the instrument, without more, does not per se constitute treachery. The right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is fundamental. The Information’s failure to state facts constituting the qualifying circumstances denied the accused-appellant due notice of the charge of murder, precluding a valid conviction for that higher offense. The dissent stressed that the rules (Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court) require the acts constituting the offense and its qualifying circumstances to be stated in ordinary language to enable a proper defense. Therefore, the accused could only be validly convicted of homicide, as charged by the defective Information.