CASE DIGEST
People v. Sualog
G.R. No. 250852, [October 10, 2022]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V
Murder; Qualifying Circumstance of treachery not proved - charged modified to homicide on appeal
Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is present, must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. In order for aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, they must be specifically alleged in the information and proven during trial. Likewise, it is insufficient for the prosecution to merely indicate the presence of qualifying circumstances without describing the acts that constitute those circumstance. Failure to do so may result in the disregard of such circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty.
John Francis Sualog was charged with three counts of murder for the deaths of Amado Chavez Maglantay, Eppie U. Maglantay, and Jessa Amie U. Maglantay. The incidents occurred on October 12, 2003, in the Municipality of Libertad, Province of Antique, Philippines. The charges were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Culasi, Antique, with each count alleging that John Francis, armed with a bolo, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, hacked, and stabbed the victims, causing their instantaneous deaths. The prosecution asserted the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstances, including evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of nighttime, and superior strength, with the commission of the offenses characterized by cruelty and adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime. John Francis pleaded guilty to the charges, and the RTC convicted him of three counts of murder, imposing the death penalty for each case.
Whether or not the killings qualify as murder and whether the aggravating circumstances alleged by the prosecution were properly proven.
NO.
While the killings were initially charged as murder with qualifying aggravating
circumstances, the Court found that the aggravating circumstances of treachery
and evident premeditation were not sufficiently alleged in the Information. The
Court ruled out treachery due to a lack of clear evidence on how the attack
commenced and developed. The prosecution also did not establish with moral
certainty that the three victims were utterly oblivious to the impending attack
or that they had no opportunity to mount a meaningful defense. Inarguably,
there was reasonable doubt on how the aggression started, developed, and ended.
Likewise, evident premeditation was not proven, as
there was no evidence of when John Francis decided to commit the crime and had
sufficient time to reflect on its consequences. The Court discounted evident
premeditation because there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was
decided, and how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.The
aggravating circumstances of nighttime, abuse of superior strength, cruelty,
and ignominy were also disregarded due to insufficient evidence. Therefore,
John Francis was found guilty of three counts of homicide instead of murder.
Considering his plea of guilt, the Court applied
the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and imposed an indeterminate
sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day
of reclusion temporal for each count. Civil liability was also modified, with
John Francis directed to pay P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral
damages, and P50,000.00 temperate damages for each count, all with legal
interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The grant of exemplary damages was
deleted due to the absence of aggravating circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment