DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE

20. People vs Feliciano, G.R. 196735, May 5, 2014

FACTS: On December 8, 1994, while seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity
were eating lunch near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, they
were suddenly attacked with baseball bats and lead pipes by men believed to be
members of Scintilla Juris Fraternity. The assailants heads were covered with either
handkerchiefs or shirts. Dennis Venturina, one of the victims, died of traumatic head
injuries. An information for murder was filed against twelve members of the Scintilla Juris
fraternity with the RTC of Quezon City. Separate informations were also filed against
them for the attempted murder of 3 Sigma Rho fraternity members, and the frustrated
murder of 2 Sigma Rho fraternity members. Only 11 of the accused stood trial since one
of the accused remained at large. In 2002, the trial court rendered its decision with the
findings that only 5 of the twelve accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among other penalties, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The case against one accused was ordered archived by
the court until his apprehension. On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a
Special First Division of Five, affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, but
downgraded the attempted murder case to slight physical injuries. The decision of the
Court of Appeals was then brought to the SC for review. It is the argument of appellants
that the information filed against them violates their constitutional right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. They argue that the
prosecution should not have included the phrase wearing masks and/or other forms of
disguise in the information since they were presenting testimonial evidence that not all
the accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off.

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether accused-appellants constitutional rights were violated when the

information against them contained the aggravating circumstance of the use of
masks despite the prosecution presenting witnesses to prove that the masks fell
off
2. Whether or not the RTC and CA correctly ruled, on the basis of the evidence,
that accused-appellants were sufficiently identified.

RULING:

1. NO. Every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the

information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at
trial, will not be appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the
prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of wearing masks and/or
other forms of disguise in the information in order for all the evidence,
introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court. In criminal cases,
 disguise is an aggravating circumstance because it allows the accused to
remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes. The
introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove that
the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them from
including disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging
disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment of
identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information 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.
The appellate court, however, incorrectly ruled out the presence of treachery in
the commission of the offense. The victims were eating lunch on campus and
were not at a place where they would be reasonably expected to be on guard
for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men. The swiftness and the suddenness
of the attack using lead pipes and baseball bats gave no opportunity for the
victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was
present in this case. Further, the information charges conspiracy among the
accused. Conspiracy presupposes that the act of one is the act of all. This
would mean all the accused had been one in their plan to conceal their identity
even if there was evidence later on to prove that some of them might not have
done so.

2. YES. The Court held that the accused were sufficiently identified by the witnesses
for the prosecution. It was held that the trial court, in weighing all the evidence
on hand, found the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be
credible. Slight inconsistencies in their statements were immaterial considering
the swiftness of the incident. Evidence as part of the res gestae may be
admissible but have little persuasive value in this case. According to the
testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador, when he arrived at the scene, he
interviewed the bystanders who all told him that they could not recognize the
attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued, could be evidence that
could be given as part of the res gestae. There is no doubt that a sudden attack
on a group peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling
occurrence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made
immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as
evidence given in res gestae. The statements made by the bystanders, although
admissible, have little persuasive value since the bystanders could have seen the
events transpiring at different vantage points and at different points in time. Even
Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the attack, testified that the
attackers had their masks on at first, but later on, some remained masked and
some were unmasked. When the bystanders testimonies are weighed against
those of the victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to
end at close range, the former become merely corroborative of the fact that an
attack occurred. Their account of the incident, therefore, must be given
considerably less weight than that of the victims.