People of the Philippines vs. Arvi Villa y Garcia

The defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance requires that insanity be present at the time of the crime, be medically proven, and be the primary cause of the criminal act, producing inability to appreciate the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of the act; it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and is negated by conduct showing awareness of the act’s wrongfulness. Frustrated murder requires independent proof that the victim’s wounds were fatal; absent such proof, the crime is only attempted murder.

Arvi Villa y Garcia and Maridref Rico Tolentino were live-in partners for seven years and resided in the house of Arvi’s parents in Novaliches, Quezon City. Maria Lourdes Tolentino Aguilar and Sergio Tiamzon Aguilar, Jr. are Maridref’s mother and stepfather, respectively. The charges arose under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which defines and penalizes Murder, and the appeal implicated Article 12 on exempting circumstances, Article 6 on stages of felonies, and Article 51 on penalties for attempted felonies.

Maria Lourdes Tolentino Aguilar and Sergio Tiamzon Aguilar, Jr. were the mother and stepfather, respectively, of Maridref Rico Tolentino. Maridref and Arvi Villa y Garcia were live-in partners for seven years and stayed in the house of Arvi’s parents in Novaliches, Quezon City. Maridref testified that Arvi inflicted physical and verbal abuse against her since 2011. In June 2014, Maridref decided to end the relationship; one month later, she left Arvi and moved to her mother’s house in Sta. Ana, Manila. Arvi went to Sta. Ana and begged her to return, but she refused. Maria Lourdes then asked Arvi to bring Maridref’s personal things to her house, and he did so that night. The following day, Arvi returned to Sta. Ana; he and Maridref talked and agreed to separate for a week and meet again on Sunday.

On August 1, 2014, Arvi showed up in Sta. Ana, the day Maridref finally decided to break up with him. They were in the kitchen; Arvi cried and tried to convince Maridref to return to him, but she refused. Arvi then went to the comfort room, prompting Maridref to go to the living room where Maria Lourdes and Sergio were. As Arvi was about to leave, he again used the comfort room, then went to the kitchen and stayed there for thirty seconds to one minute. A mirror in the living room reflected the area where the sink was and showed where Arvi was standing. Through the mirror’s reflection, Maridref saw Arvi holding a gun. She stood up and told Sergio about the gun. Sergio stood and peeked at Arvi. At that instance, Arvi poked a gun at Sergio. Maridref ran; as she ran farther, she heard several shots. Without her knowing, she suffered multiple gunshot wounds and fell down. She managed to stand, run, and call for help; she went to a computer shop and hid until a barangay tanod came. She was brought to the Philippine General Hospital, where she stayed for three days for medical treatment.

The incident killed Maria Lourdes and Sergio. Maridref’s medical abstract and medical certificate showed multiple gunshot wounds on her chest, armpit, inner arm, thigh, and buttocks. Her injuries prevented her from working for three months, depriving her of a monthly earning of ₱25,000.00 to ₱27,000.00. Maria Lourdes owned a sari-sari store, while Sergio was a jeepney driver who also rented out a van for a living.

PO2 Ruel Villaranda, assigned at Police Station 6, Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila, was the backup police officer who responded to the incident. On August 1, 2014, at around 9:45 p.m., several concerned people arrived at the police station to report the incident. He proceeded to the described tenement in Punta, Sta. Ana, less than 80 meters away. Upon arrival, he saw Arvi kneeling and drenched in blood in front of the door of the tenement unit. After securing the place, PO2 Villaranda went inside the apartment and saw two persons, a male and a female, lying in their own blood on the floor. Lemuel Candilosas Vallenas testified that on August 1, 2014, at around 9:30 p.m., he was on the fourth floor of Building 902 when he heard gunshots, more or less six times. Upon locating where the gunshots originated, he saw a woman running away and being fired at by a man on the ground floor of Building 901, the building adjacent to where he was. He then saw the same man point the gun at his head and shoot himself. He went to the ground floor and saw the man who shot himself and the gun on the floor. In court, he identified the man as Arvi.

PCI Cristina Macagba, Chief of the Firearms Identification Section at the Manila Police District, testified on the findings of the cross-matching examination, which revealed that the firearm and the collected evidence from the crime scene matched. PCI Liza Octaviano-Ang, a Fingerprint Examiner at the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory, had her testimony dispensed with after the prosecution and defense stipulated that she turned over the bullets for ballistic examination, that the victims’ bodies were turned over to the medico-legal officer for autopsy, and that she prepared an Incident Report. PCI Jiselle Cui Baluyot of the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory testified on the authenticity and due execution of Medico-Legal Report No. M-2014-292 and Medico-Legal Report No. M-2014-293. Per Medico-Legal Report No. M-2014-293 pertaining to Maria Lourdes, PCI Baluyot testified that there was a lone gunshot wound in her head, with the bullet entering her right eyebrow and hitting her brain; it was considered non-defensive and fatal, and no tattooing was present, signifying that the gunman was beyond arm’s reach of the victim. Per Medico-Legal Report No. M-2014-292 pertaining to Sergio, PCI Baluyot testified that two gunshot wounds were present, one on the head and one on the back of the head; the first gunshot wound was at the nasal region.

Arvi testified that he could not exactly recall what happened on August 1, 2014. He remembered only that he went to Sta. Ana to fetch Maridref; he apparently lost consciousness and woke up in the hospital. He stated that he was not sure if he shot Maridref and the two other victims. As relayed to him by his parents, he was at the hospital because he attempted to commit suicide; beyond that, he could not remember anything. On cross-examination, he admitted that he went to Maridref’s house and was able to talk to her. He could not remember arguing with her on that date; what he could recall was his failure to convince Maridref to reconcile with him. Upon hearing Maridref’s testimony, however, Arvi remembered everything and professed that all of Maridref’s statements were true and correct.

The Regional Trial Court gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the fact of the killing and the identity of the killer. It also found evident premeditation and treachery on the part of Arvi. The Court of Appeals gave credence to the psychological evaluation of Gloria M. Granado, PhD, stating that there was no evidence of serious neurotic, psychotic, or organic disorder on Arvi’s part.

• Temporary Insanity: Accused-appellant argued that the Regional Trial Court erred in not considering the exempting circumstance of temporary insanity.

• New Theory on Appeal: The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People of the Philippines, answered that the defense of insanity must fail because issues and arguments not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Sufficiency of Informations: Whether the Informations sufficiently alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance despite lacking factual averments, and whether any defect was waived by the failure to timely file a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars.
• Murder Convictions: Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Murder for the killings of Sergio Aguilar, Jr. and Maria Lourdes Aguilar, attended by treachery and evident premeditation.
• Frustrated vs. Attempted Murder: Whether the shooting of Maridref Tolentino constitutes Frustrated Murder or only Attempted Murder where the prosecution failed to prove that her gunshot wounds were fatal.
• Insanity: Whether the exempting circumstance of insanity should be appreciated in accused-appellant’s favor, considering that it was raised for the first time on appeal and was not medically proven.
• Penalties and Damages: Whether the penalties and damages imposed should be modified, including the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity.

• Sufficiency of Informations: No reversible defect. Although treachery was alleged without factual averments, the defect was cured or waived by accused-appellant’s failure to timely file a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars.
• Murder Convictions: Yes. The elements of Murder were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the lower courts correctly appreciated treachery and evident premeditation in the killings of Sergio and Maria Lourdes.
• Frustrated vs. Attempted Murder: Attempted Murder only. Frustrated Murder requires proof that the wounds were fatal and sufficient to cause death without timely medical intervention; the prosecution failed to present such proof.
• Insanity: No. Insanity cannot be appreciated because it was not raised or proven during trial, the psychological evaluation showed no serious disorder, and accused-appellant’s suicide attempt indicated awareness of the wrongfulness of his acts.
• Penalties and Damages: Modified. The third conviction was changed to Attempted Murder with a lower indeterminate penalty; the Murder convictions remained reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; temperate damages of ₱200,000.00 each were awarded to the heirs of Sergio and Maria Lourdes in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity, and other damages were adjusted per People vs. Jugueta.

• Sufficiency of Informations: Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require the complaint or information to state the designation of the offense, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense charged. The Informations alleged treachery without stating the factual averments constituting it. Under People vs. Solar, merely stating the attendant circumstance without any detail is not enough because the term is a conclusion of law, not a factual averment. However, Solar also held that the defect is cured if the accused fails to timely file a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars. Accused-appellant did not file such motions, so he waived his right to question the defect and is deemed to have understood the accusations when he entered his plea. The Court nonetheless acknowledged the lower courts’ appreciation of treachery.

• Murder Convictions: Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines Murder and requires proof that (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance; and (4) the killing is neither infanticide nor parricide. The lower courts found that accused-appellant killed Sergio and Maria Lourdes. Treachery has two elements: (1) the employment of means, method, or manner of execution that tends to ensure its execution and the offender’s safety from any retaliatory act or defense by the offended person; and (2) the deliberate adoption of such means or method. Its essence is the swiftness of the attack that catches the offended party unprepared, preventing him or her from repelling or escaping. Accused-appellant stood in the kitchen behind the victims, who were in the living room, and without warning shot Maria Lourdes and Sergio in their heads, causing their deaths; the attack gave them no opportunity to defend themselves or escape. Evident premeditation requires (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifesting that he clung to that determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection on the consequences. Accused-appellant brought the gun from his house in Quezon City to Maridref’s house in Sta. Ana, Manila, on the night of August 1, 2014, and had the opportunity to reflect on his criminal intent and its consequences during transit. The lower courts thus properly appreciated treachery and evident premeditation in the killings of Sergio and Maria Lourdes.

• Frustrated vs. Attempted Murder: Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence but the felony is not produced by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator’s will; there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of a cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Under Oliveros vs. People, the crucial point in determining frustrated murder is the nature of the wound sustained by the victim; it must be fatal and supported by independent proof that the wound was sufficient to cause death without timely medical intervention. The prosecution presented only Maridref’s medical abstract and medical certificate, which showed multiple gunshot wounds on her chest, armpit, inner arm, thigh, and buttocks. These documents showed only the locations of the wounds and did not specify whether they were fatal. The prosecution did not present the attending physician to testify on the nature of the wounds. Without categorical proof that the gunshot wounds were fatal, accused-appellant can only be convicted of Attempted Murder.

• Insanity: Issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not accepted because they contravene fair play, justice, and due process; arbitrariness would result if the opposing party could not present new evidence to rebut the new theory. Even if the Court accepted the defense, insanity is a plea of confession and avoidance: the criminal act is admitted, but the accused seeks exoneration on the ground that he lacked voluntariness or intelligence. Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code exempts an imbecile or insane person unless the latter acted during a lucid interval. The defense of insanity must be appreciated within the presumption that every person is naturally endowed with understanding and free will; the consent of the will is primordial to culpability. Under People vs. Paña, which restated People vs. Formigones, insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime; it must be medically proven as the primary cause of the criminal act; and its effect must be the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act. Nothing in the records showed that accused-appellant submitted evidence to prove insanity during trial or pleaded this exempting circumstance during arraignment. The prosecution presented a psychological evaluation stating that there was no evidence of serious neurotic, psychotic, or organic disorder. Under People vs. Rafanan, Jr., complete loss of intelligence cannot be acknowledged if the accused is aware of the reprehensible moral quality of his actions. Taking one’s own life right after executing the criminal actions indicated awareness of the gravity of those actions, contrary to the claim that the suicide attempt showed demented reasoning. Insanity was therefore not appreciated.

• Penalties and Damages: In Criminal Case No. 14-308001, the crime was changed from Frustrated Murder to Attempted Murder. Murder carries reclusion perpetua to death. Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony shall be imposed on principals in an attempt. Thus, prision mayor is proper. Evident premeditation was treated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that when the penalty contains three periods and an aggravating circumstance is present, the maximum period shall be imposed. Prision mayor in its maximum period ranges from ten years and one day to twelve years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term is prision mayor, and the minimum term is within prision correccional. The penalty was modified to four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to ten years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. In Criminal Case Nos. 14-307999 and 14-308000, Article 248 prescribes reclusion perpetua to death. With evident premeditation as a generic aggravating circumstance and the penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the higher penalty is imposed. The Regional Trial Court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, the phrase “without eligibility for parole” is justified when the circumstances warrant the death penalty but it was not meted out because of its suspension under Republic Act No. 9346. As to damages, the Court modified compensation for loss of earning capacity to temperate damages because there was no evidence to prove the actual amount. Documentary evidence is generally required to establish indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Under People vs. Vergara, exceptions exist when the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage and no documentary evidence is available, or when the deceased is a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage. Testimonial evidence showed that Sergio and Maria Lourdes owned and operated a passenger jeepney earning ₱650.00 daily, a passenger van earning a rental fee of ₱10,000.00 for two days, and a sari-sari store earning ₱500.00 daily. These allegations were unsupported by documentary evidence and were based on the testimonies of the victims’ brothers. The amounts exceeded the prevailing monthly minimum wage and did not fall under the exceptions. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity is actual damages that must be established by a reasonable degree of certainty, not conjecture or speculation. The Court awarded ₱200,000.00 each to the heirs of Sergio and Maria Lourdes as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity, following cases such as People vs. Salahuddin. The awards of ₱172,663.00 each for burial and wake expenses were affirmed because they were proven by documentary evidence and admitted by the defense. The award of ₱160,222.00 in favor of Maridref for medical expenses and attorney’s fees was also affirmed. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were maintained: ₱100,000.00 each for each Murder conviction and ₱50,000.00 each for Attempted Murder, following People vs. Jugueta. All monetary awards earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality until fully paid.

• Insanity as an Exempting Circumstance — Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, an insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless acting during a lucid interval. Jurisprudence requires: (1) insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime; (2) insanity, as the primary cause of the criminal act, must be medically proven; and (3) the effect of insanity must be the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act. The defense cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and awareness of the moral quality of the act negates complete loss of intelligence. Applied here, the defense failed because it was not raised or proven at trial, the psychological evaluation showed no serious disorder, and the suicide attempt indicated awareness of wrongdoing.
• Frustrated vs. Attempted Felony — Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code distinguishes consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all acts of execution that would produce the felony but it is not produced by causes independent of the perpetrator’s will; it is attempted when the offender commences the felony by overt acts but does not perform all acts of execution due to a cause or accident other than spontaneous desistance. For frustrated murder, the wound must be fatal and supported by independent proof that it was sufficient to cause death without timely medical intervention. Applied here, the absence of proof that Maridref’s wounds were fatal reduced the crime to Attempted Murder.
• Treachery — The qualifying circumstance of treachery requires (1) employment of means, method, or manner of execution that tends to ensure the execution of the crime and the offender’s safety from any retaliatory act or defense by the offended person, and (2) deliberate adoption of such means or method. Its essence is the swiftness of the attack that catches the victim unprepared and prevents defense or escape. Applied here, accused-appellant shot Maria Lourdes and Sergio in their heads without warning while they were in the living room and he was behind them in the kitchen, giving them no opportunity to defend themselves or escape.
• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation requires (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifesting that the offender clung to that determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection on the consequences. Applied here, accused-appellant brought a gun from Quezon City to Sta. Ana, Manila, and had time to reflect on his criminal intent during transit.
• Waiver of Defects in the Information — Under People vs. Solar, a defect in an information for failure to state factual averments of a qualifying circumstance is cured if the accused fails to timely file a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars. The failure constitutes a waiver of the right to question the defect. Applied here, accused-appellant did not file the required motions and was deemed to have understood the accusations.
• Temperate Damages in Lieu of Actual Damages for Loss of Earning Capacity — Documentary evidence is generally required to prove indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Exceptions exist when the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage and no documentary evidence is available, or when the deceased is a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage. Where there is quantifiable loss but it cannot be established with certainty, temperate damages may be awarded. Applied here, the testimonial claims of income were unsupported by documents and exceeded the minimum wage, so the Court awarded ₱200,000.00 each as temperate damages.
• Reclusion Perpetua Without Eligibility for Parole — Under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, the phrase “without eligibility for parole” may be affixed to reclusion perpetua when the circumstances warrant the death penalty but it cannot be imposed because of its suspension under Republic Act No. 9346. Applied here, the Murder convictions carried the higher indivisible penalty due to the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, and the Regional Trial Court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• "Following Solar, to merely state the attendant circumstance, without any detail, is not enough as the usage of the term is not a factual averment but a conclusion of law." — This states the rule on the sufficiency of informations alleging qualifying circumstances; the Court used it to explain why the Informations’ allegation of treachery was defective but waived.
• "The Court further elucidated in Oliveros that the crucial point in determining whether the accused can be convicted of frustrated murder is the nature of the wound sustained by the victim. Accordingly, it must be fatal and supported by independent proof that the wound was sufficient to cause the victim’s death without timely medical intervention." — This is the ratio for reducing the third charge from Frustrated Murder to Attempted Murder based on the absence of proof that Maridref’s wounds were fatal.
• "first, insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime; second, insanity, which is the primary cause of the criminal act, must be medically proven; and third, the effect of the insanity is the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act." — This is the canonical three-part test for the insanity defense, which the Court applied to reject accused-appellant’s claim.
• "The award of temperate damages is proper when there is quantifiable loss of the earning capacity of the deceased family member, although under the circumstances, it cannot be established with certainty." — This states the basis for awarding temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity.

• People vs. Solar, 858 Phil. 884 (2019) — Controlling precedent on the sufficiency of informations; held that merely stating a qualifying circumstance without factual details is insufficient, but the defect is cured by failure to timely file a motion to quash or bill of particulars.
• People vs. Bendecio, 882 Phil. 649 (2020) — Cited for the elements of Murder and the elements of treachery.
• People vs. Dayrit, G.R. No. 241632, October 14, 2020 — Cited for the elements of evident premeditation.
• Oliveros vs. People, G.R. No. 242552, March 3, 2021 — Clarified the distinction between frustrated and attempted felony and held that frustrated murder requires proof that the wound was fatal.
• People vs. Paña, 890 Phil. 533 (2020) — Restated the requisites of insanity as an exempting circumstance.
• People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658 (1950) — Laid down the criterion for appreciating the defense of insanity.
• People vs. Rafanan, Jr., 281 Phil. 66 (1991) — Held that complete loss of intelligence cannot be acknowledged if the accused is aware of the reprehensible moral quality of his actions.
• People vs. Vergara, 713 Phil. 224 (2013) — Laid down exceptions to the documentary-evidence requirement for loss of earning capacity.
• Tan vs. OMC Carriers, Inc., 654 Phil. 443 (2011) — Awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual damages where actual income was not established.
• People vs. Salahuddin, 778 Phil. 529 (2016) — Disallowed actual damages for loss of earning capacity and awarded temperate damages.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 825 (2016) — Basis for the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
• People vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 254747, July 13, 2022 — Cited on the use of the phrase “without eligibility for parole.”
• Punongbayan-Visitacion vs. People, 823 Phil. 212 (2018) — Cited on the rule that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be accepted.
• Philippine Ports Authority vs. City of Iloilo, 453 Phil. 927 (2003) — Cited on arbitrariness if the opposing party cannot present new evidence to rebut a new theory on appeal.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Murder; the Court applied it to uphold the two Murder convictions and to identify the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
• Article 6, Revised Penal Code — Defines consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies; applied to hold that the shooting of Maridref was only Attempted Murder because the wounds were not proven fatal.
• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Provides that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon principals in an attempt; applied to impose prision mayor for Attempted Murder.
• Article 12, Revised Penal Code — Provides the exempting circumstance of insanity; applied and rejected because the requisites were not established.
• Article 64, Revised Penal Code — Provides rules for penalties containing three periods; applied to impose the maximum period of prision mayor because of the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
• Sections 8 and 9, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Require the information to state the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances in ordinary and concise language; applied to the defective allegation of treachery.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty; cited to explain why reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was imposed.
• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Provides guidelines on the use of the phrase “without eligibility for parole”; applied to the Murder convictions.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur.