Guelos v.

People

June 19, 2017| Reyes, J. | Rule 121

FACTS:

1. Two separate Informations were filed with the RTC against the petitioners for
Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide.

2. The information states that on June 4, 1995, at about 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon, at Barangay Boot, Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Batangas,
Philippines, the accused, conspiring and confederating together, acting in
common accord and mutually helping one another, Nestor, while armed with an
Armalite Rifle, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and shot SPO2
Estelito Andaya and P/Chief Inspector Rolando M. Camacho, members of the
PNP assigned at Tanauan Police Station, while in performance of his official
duties as peace officer, and while being held from the back by Gil and other
companions, whose identities and whereabouts are still unknown, hit and
inflicted gunshot wounds caused instantaneous death. The petitioners pleaded
not guilty.

3. Prosecution’s version: In the morning, Camacho, Andaya, Carandang and

Garcia set off for Sitio Mahabang Buhangin to conduct their routine as
peace officers. While they were in Brgy. Gonzales waiting for a boat, they
heard gunshots from Brgy. Boot. So they went to Brgy. Boot to apprehend
those illegally discharging firearms. They were invited to lunch and joined
the religious procession. During the procession, they heard gunshots from
the backyard of Silveria Guelos. They reported to the Brgy. Capt. And
when they went to the house, they saw 15 people drinking liquor and
empty shells of armalite rifle on the ground. Camacho then introduced
himself as the Chief of Tanauan Police Station and that they were checking
who fired the shots. While PO2 Carandang was collecting the empty shells,
somebody hit him on his nape which caused him to drop his armalite.
When he tried to retrieve his firearm, someone hit his hand (basically, they
hit
Carandang in the jaw and left eye, Nestor shot Camacho, Andaya, and
fired at Carandang).

4. Nestor said he was at the house of his mother. Went out after
hearing the gunshots and saw an old man who told him to pick up the gun
then SPO1 Garcia shot him and was hit 3 times. Alfredo said they were
drinking when the police came and was hit and shot in the thigh, and when
 he woke up, he was on the way to the hospital. Rodrigo said he was
watching the procession when the officers came and asked if he fired the
firearm and he said no. He was then pushed back with the gun and fell. He
heard gunshots and ran, saw a wounded person, and asked someone to
report the incident, and was later investigated.

5. RTC found Nestor, Gil, and Alfredo guilty beyond reasonable doubt. CA
affirmed this.

6. A petition for review was filed saying that the testimony of the
prosecution’s witnesses was uncorroborated by evidence to establish guilt.
They said that Camacho was not in the exercise of his duties, the injuries
of Carandang were unsupported by evidence, and the testimony of
Carandang was not logical. There was also motion for new trial based on
alleged new and material evidence impugning the credibility of PO2
Carandang since his testimony was different from the one in the case
pending in MTC Tanauan.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the motion for new trial based on new evidence should be granted
– NO

2. Whether the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of

accusation against them was violated – YES

RATIO:

1. The petitioners, assert that Carandang’s testimony should be considered as new and
material evidence which thereby makes the findings of the trial court in the instant
case as manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible. Thus, the petitioners moved for a
new trial on the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence without withdrawing
their petition. The petitioners' motion for new trial is denied. Section 1, Rule 121 says
that before judgement of conviction is final, court can grant new trial. Section 14,
Rule 124 says that a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence can be
filed after appeal from lower court has been perfected and before judgment of
conviction of CA is final.

The petitioners say that in the MTC, Carandang was not able to identify who hit him
and killed Camacho. But, this testimony was given 10 years after the RTC testimony
compared to the trial in the RTC which was given a year and 10 months after the
incident. Thus, no reason to merit the contention of new evidence.

In a criminal case an appeal throws the whole case open for review, the Court, finds
that this case actually presents a question of law; whether or not the constitutional
right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them was properly observed .

4. The Court finds that the Informations in this case failed to allege all the
elements which constitute the crime charged. While the elements constituting the
crime of Homicide were properly alleged and were duly established in the trial, the
said Informations, failed to allege all the elements constitutive of the applicable form
of direct assault. The Informations do not allege that the offenders knew that the
ones they were assaulting were agents of a person in authority, in the exercise of
their duty . Direct assault can be committed in two ways, the elements of the 2n
d
are:(a)offendermakesanattack,employsforce,makesa serious intimidation, or makes a
serious resistance; (b) person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent; (c) at the
time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties, or is assaulted by reason of the past performance of
official duties; (d) the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in
authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties; in authority or his agent in the
exercise of his duties; and (e) no public uprising.

5. The evidence presented established the fact that the petitioners came to know that
the victims were agents of a person in authority, as the latter introduced themselves to
be members of the PNP. But, the establishment of the fact that the petitioners came to
know that the victims were agents of a person in authority cannot cure the lack of
allegation in the Informations that such fact was known to the accused which renders
the same defective. In addition, neither can this fact be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance under paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the RPC for acts
committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account
of his rank to justify the imposition of an increased penalty against the petitioners.

6. The Constitution mandates that the accused shall enjoy the right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him. From this concept, arose the rule
that the accused may be convicted only of the crime he is charged. This right is given
so that the accused can prepare adequate defense. This is implemented through
arraignment where the allegations are read and made known to the accused. Every
element must be alleged as well as the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
based on Rule 110, Secs. 8 &9.
7. Rule 117 says that if accused fails to assert ground of a motion to quash before
plea, it is waived except in grounds in Sec. 3 which include when “the facts charged
do not constitute an offense”.

8. Therefore, they can only be convicted of Homicide not Direct Assault upon
Persons in Authority with Homicide.