G.R. No. 225595 , August 6, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLANDO SOLAR Y DUMBRIQUE, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed against Rolando Solar y Dumbrique (appellant) and Mark Kenneth Solar for the killing of Joseph Capinig y Mato before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. The accusatory portion stated the killing was “qualified by the circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength,” but did not contain specific factual averments describing how these circumstances were executed. Appellant pleaded not guilty. After trial, the RTC found appellant guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed appellant’s culpability but downgraded the conviction to Homicide, relying on People v. Valdez, because the Information insufficiently alleged the facts constituting the qualifying circumstances. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Information, which alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength without specific factual descriptions, is sufficient to convict the accused of Murder, or if such lack of specificity warrants conviction only for Homicide.

RULING

The ponencia (main decision) held that the appellant had waived his right to question any defects in the Information, including the lack of particularity in describing the attendant circumstances, by failing to raise this issue before arraignment. Consequently, the appellant is deemed to have understood the charges, and the CA erred in modifying the conviction; appellant should be convicted of Murder. The ponencia also established a prospective procedural rule: henceforth, any Information alleging a qualifying or aggravating circumstance must contain factual averments enabling a person of common understanding to know the acts committed; otherwise, the circumstance will not be appreciated even if proved at trial.
Justice Gesmundo, in his Separate Concurring Opinion, concurred with the ponencia‘s disposition and its new procedural rule. He analyzed the conflicting jurisprudence on the issue:
1. One line of cases (Valdez, Dasmariñas, Delector) requires specific factual averments in the Information describing the qualifying circumstance, holding that a bare allegation (e.g., “with treachery”) is a mere conclusion of law. This protects the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
2. Another line of cases (Batin, Lab-eo, Opuran, Bajar, Asilan) holds that merely stating the qualifying circumstance in the Information is sufficient, as the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require descriptive words, and evidentiary facts are matters for trial.
Justice Gesmundo noted his previous concurrence in Dasmariñas and Delector was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove the elements of treachery at trial, not solely on the Information’s insufficiency. He endorsed the ponencia‘s new rule as a clear and prospective guideline to harmonize these conflicting precedents and ensure the accused’s right to be informed is adequately protected, requiring factual particulars for qualifying circumstances in Informations filed after the promulgation of this decision.