People of the Philippines vs. Castor Batin

The allegation of treachery in an Information is sufficient when it states the qualifying circumstance without further explanation of the circumstances surrounding it, as evidentiary facts need not be alleged; Informations need only state the ultimate facts, and the reasons therefor may be proved during trial. Conspiracy may be established through the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.

Castor Batin and his son Neil Batin were neighbors of the victim Eugenio Refugio and his wife Josephine in San Paolo Subdivision, Nagkakaisang Nayon, Novaliches, Quezon City, with only a high wall separating their houses. The Batins were charged under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for the murder of Eugenio Refugio, who was shot on the afternoon of October 21, 1994. The case involved the application of conspiracy principles and the sufficiency of the Information's allegation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

Castor Batin and his son Neil Batin were charged with the murder of Eugenio Refugio, who was shot on the afternoon of October 21, 1994, while leaning against a mango tree near his house on St. Peter Street, San Paolo Subdivision, Nagkakaisang Nayon, Novaliches, Quezon City. The Information alleged that the accused, conspiring together, with intent to kill, treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, and evident premeditation, shot Eugenio with a handgun, hitting him on the right side of his stomach.

The prosecution presented the testimonies of Josephine Refugio, the victim's wife; Eusebio Farrales and Vilma Juadinez Rodriguez, neighbors; Florante Baltazar, the medico-legal officer; and Police Inspector Solomon Segundo, who conducted the ballistics examination. Josephine testified that before the shooting, she saw Castor washing his feet at a nearby faucet, angrily muttering, "Mga matatandang kunsintidor, dapat manahimik na." She went down to the street where her husband was leaning against the mango tree. She saw Neil Batin standing at the gate to the Batins' compound, then go to a parked car, open its door, and take a gun from inside. Castor went towards Neil, shouted "Huwag!" and grabbed the gun from Neil. After the gun was taken from him, Neil proceeded towards the right rear of the car, and Castor followed Neil and handed the gun back to him. Josephine then heard Castor ordering his son: "Sige, banatan mo na." Neil responded by drawing the gun from his waistline, raising and aiming it at her and her husband, and firing twice. Both Josephine and Eugenio fell to the ground, and Eugenio uttered to her: "Nanay, may tama ako." Eugenio was rushed to the Quezon City General Hospital, where he underwent surgery but later expired.

Eusebio Farrales, a resident of No. 7 St. Paul Street, testified that he was at the barangay outpost near the corner of St. Peter Street and St. Paul Street between 3:00 and 3:30 pm when he heard someone cursing and challenging to a fight. He saw that it was Castor, who was moving aimlessly while cussing: "Putang ina ninyo, sino ang matapang lumabas." Farrales saw Neil come out through the gate, open the door of the white car, take out a gun from inside, and hand the gun to Castor, but the latter returned the gun to Neil. Upon getting back the gun, Neil reentered the yard through the gate. A few moments later, Neil again came out through the gate and proceeded to the right side of the car, still holding the handgun, and fired twice at the Refugios. Farrales saw both Castor and Neil quickly enter the compound.

Vilma Juadinez Rodriguez, resident of No. 7-A St. Peter Street, declared that she saw Castor hand over a handgun to Neil, and the latter thereafter entered through their gate. She next saw Neil load bullets into the gun and tuck it in his right waistline. After loading, Neil went out to the street, went between the parked white car and yellow taxicab, aimed the gun at Eugenio and Josephine who were at the mango tree, and then asked Castor: "Tay, banatan ko na?" Castor replied: "Sige, anak, banatan mo na." At that instant, Neil fired two shots.

The defense presented Neil Batin, Castor's common-law wife Maricon Pantoja, and Restituto Paller. Neil claimed that he found a short gun underneath the family-owned taxicab while cleaning it on the morning of October 21, 1994, and concealed it in the compartment. He later took the gun and tucked it in his waistline. While standing at the right rear side of the Datsun car, he suddenly felt the impulse of drawing the gun from his waistline, and as he turned around, he accidentally pulled the trigger, causing the gun to fire twice. Neil denied that his father ordered him to shoot Eugenio and insisted that he and the Refugios had no misunderstandings. The trial court found Maricon Pantoja's testimony to contain glaring self-contradictions, noting that her affidavit stated they went outside upon hearing a gun explosion and saw Eugenio alone holding his stomach, whereas she testified during trial that she, Neil, and Castor were outside when Neil drew the gun and accidentally fired.

The trial court found the defense's theory of accidental firing incredible, noting that the gun was a double-action type revolver requiring significant pressure on the trigger to fire, making it physically impossible for the gun to fire accidentally. The trial court also personally tested the trigger pull of the gun and found heavy resistance at each trigger pull.

• Principal by Inducement: Castor argued that the conviction of a person as a principal by inducement requires that the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime, and that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor. He claimed there was no conclusive proof that he participated in the shooting, and that his alleged utterance of "Sige, banatan mo na" cannot be considered the moving cause of the shooting.

• Inconsistency of Prosecution's Theory: Castor argued that if he had wanted his son to shoot Eugenio Refugio, he would not have shouted "Huwag" and struggled for possession of the gun.

• Insufficient Allegation of Treachery: Castor claimed that the Information did not allege the specific treacherous acts of the accused, and that the allegation that the accused acted "with treachery" was a mere conclusion of law by the drafter of the Information, failing the test of sufficiency under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.

• Alternative Prayer for Homicide: In the alternative, Castor prayed that he be held liable for homicide only, arguing that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently stated in the Information.

• Conspiracy Established: The People argued that Castor was not a principal by inducement but a co-conspirator, and that the prosecution's theory was conspiracy, not inducement. The prosecution presented the testimonies of Josephine Refugio, Eusebio Farrales, and Vilma Juadinez Rodriguez, who testified that Castor handed the gun to Neil and urged the latter to fire at the Refugio spouses.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The People maintained that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses deserves great respect, as the trial court had the opportunity to observe first-hand the expression and demeanor of the witnesses at trial. The witnesses, being neighbors of both the Batins and the Refugios, had no reason or motive to testify against the Batins unless it was upon the truth.

• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established in the killing of Eugenio Refugio, making Castor Batin liable as a co-conspirator.

• Sufficiency of Treachery Allegation: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently alleged in the Information.

• Civil Liabilities: Whether the civil liabilities awarded by the lower courts were correctly computed.

• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established through the credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testified that Castor handed the gun to Neil and urged him to shoot the Refugio spouses. The act of one conspirator is the act of all, making Castor equally liable for the death of Eugenio.

• Sufficiency of Treachery Allegation: Yes. The allegation of treachery in the Information was sufficient, as jurisprudence is replete with cases finding the allegation of treachery sufficient without any further explanation of the circumstances surrounding it. Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the Information because these are matters of defense; Informations need only state the ultimate facts.

• Civil Liabilities: The awards were affirmed with modification. The death indemnity of ₱50,000.00 was retained, actual damages of ₱61,500.00 were retained, the indemnity for loss of earning capacity was increased to ₱723,840.00, and moral damages were further reduced from ₱100,000.00 to ₱50,000.00.

• Conspiracy: The Court rejected Castor's argument that he should be held liable only as a principal by inducement, noting that the prosecution's theory was conspiracy, not inducement. The Court found that the testimonies of Josephine Refugio, Eusebio Farrales, and Vilma Juadinez Rodriguez were credible and sufficed to prove Castor's indispensable cooperation in the killing. The Court addressed Castor's claim that his shout of "Huwag" showed he tried to dissuade Neil from firing, but found that Josephine Refugio plainly stated on cross-examination that Castor shouted "Huwag" while inside the car grappling for possession of the gun, and not when Neil was aiming the gun at the spouses. The Court concluded that the circumstances surrounding Castor's utterance of "Huwag!" showed beyond doubt that Castor shouted the same, not to stop Neil from firing the gun, but to force him to leave the use of the gun to Castor. These circumstances only confirmed the conspiracy between the Batins. The Court also noted that conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the appellants before, during, and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. Even under the theory of inducement, the Court found that Castor's words were the determining cause of the commission of the crime, citing People vs. Tamayo for the proposition that words of command of a father may induce his son to commit a crime, as the moral influence of the words of the father may determine the course of conduct of a son.

• Sufficiency of Treachery Allegation: The Court held that the allegation of treachery in the Information was sufficient, citing People vs. Lab-eo, People vs. Opuran, and People vs. Bajar, wherein the Court found allegations of treachery sufficient without further explanation of the circumstances. The Court quoted the test of sufficiency of Information: whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. The Court noted that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information to avoid violating the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, but that evidentiary facts need not be alleged because these are matters of defense.

• Civil Liabilities: The Court affirmed the death indemnity of ₱50,000.00 pursuant to current judicial policy, and the actual damages of ₱61,500.00 consisting of hospitalization expenses, funeral expenses, and burial expenses. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' computation of the indemnity for loss of earning capacity using the Pleyto formula: Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 – Age at time of death) x (Gross Annual Income – Reasonable & Necessary Living Expenses). Applying this formula to Eugenio Refugio, who was 31 years old with a daily income of ₱145.00, the Court arrived at ₱723,840.00. The Court further reduced the moral damages from ₱100,000.00 to ₱50,000.00 in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. In this case, conspiracy was established through the credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses who saw Castor hand the gun to Neil and urge him to shoot, and through the circumstances surrounding Castor's utterance of "Huwag!" which showed he was not trying to stop Neil but rather to force him to leave the use of the gun to Castor.

• Sufficiency of Information — The test of sufficiency of an Information is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information to avoid violating the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. However, evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the Information because these are matters of defense; Informations need only state the ultimate facts, and the reasons therefor could be proved during the trial. The allegation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance is sufficient without any further explanation of the circumstances surrounding it.

• Treachery — There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, treachery was attendant because Castor ordered Neil to fire at Eugenio after they clearly saw that he was still leaning against the mango tree and being restrained by Josephine who had her arms on his shoulders, insuring their safety from any defensive or retaliatory act of Eugenio who, in that position of helplessness and unpreparedness, obviously had no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate.

• Principal by Inducement — Inducement may be by acts of command, advice, or through influence or agreement for consideration. The words of advice or the influence must have actually moved the hands of the principal by direct participation. Words of command of a father may induce his son to commit a crime, as the moral influence of the words of the father may determine the course of conduct of a son in cases in which the same words coming from a stranger would make no impression. In this case, even under the theory of inducement, Castor's words "Sige, banatan mo na" were the determining cause of the commission of the crime, as Neil had asked his father "Tay, banatan ko na?" before shooting.

• Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus — The maxim "false in one thing, false in everything" is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence. However, a witness's credibility may be severely tarnished by incredible portions of testimony, and the rest of the testimony may be viewed with caution. In this case, Neil's claim of accidental firing was found physically impossible given the nature of the gun's firing mechanism, severely tarnishing his credibility.

• "The circumstances surrounding Castor's utterance of 'Huwag!' shows beyond doubt that Castor shouted the same, not to stop Neil from firing the gun, but to force him to leave the use of the gun to Castor. These circumstances only confirm the conspiracy between the Batins in committing the crime: after the Batins grappled for the gun and Castor shouted 'Huwag,' Castor finally decided to give the gun to Neil – a crystal-clear expression of the agreement of the Batins concerning the commission of a felony." — This passage articulates the Court's reasoning for finding conspiracy despite Castor's shout of "Huwag," demonstrating how the circumstances surrounding the utterance revealed the true intent of the parties.

• "There is no doubt in our minds that Castor's words were the determining cause of the commission of the crime. As stated above, Vilma Juadines Rodriguez testified that the eighteen-year-old Neil Batin asked his father before shooting: 'Tay, banatan ko na?' Neil Batin was clearly seeking the consent of his father before proceeding with the act, and it was Castor's words 'Sige, banatan mo na' that sealed Eugenio Refugio's fate." — This passage states the Court's finding that even under the theory of inducement, Castor's words were the determining cause of the crime, applying the doctrine from People vs. Tamayo.

• "The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the trial." — This passage states the canonical test for sufficiency of an Information, which the Court applied in finding the allegation of treachery sufficient.

• People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 (1922) — Cited for the proposition that words of command of a father may induce his son to commit a crime, as the moral influence of the words of the father may determine the course of conduct of a son in cases in which the same words coming from a stranger would make no impression. This was applied to find that Castor's words were the determining cause of the crime.

• People vs. Lab-eo, 424 Phil. 482 (2002) — Cited as a case wherein the Court found the allegation of treachery sufficient without any further explanation of the circumstances surrounding it, and ruled that the Information sufficiently charged the accused with murder. The Court quoted the test of sufficiency of Information from this case.

• People vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 654 — Cited as a case wherein the Court rejected the argument that treachery was not alleged with "specificity" as a qualifying circumstance, holding that qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as "qualifying" or "qualified by" to properly qualify an offense.

• People vs. Bajar, 460 Phil. 683 (2003) — Cited as a case wherein the Court found the Information to have sufficiently alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance, holding that evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the Information because these are matters of defense.

• Pleyto vs. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737, June 16, 2004, 432 SCRA 329 — Cited for the formula for computing indemnity for loss of earning capacity: Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 – Age at time of death) x (Gross Annual Income – Reasonable & Necessary Living Expenses). The Court applied this formula to compute the award of ₱723,840.00.

• Balitaan vs. Court of First Instance of Batangas, G.R. No. L-38544, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 729 — Cited for the proposition that the main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set forth in an Information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense, and that matters of evidence, as distinguished from facts essential to the description of the offense, need not be averred.

• People vs. Paredes, 332 Phil. 633 (1996) — Cited for the proposition that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence.

• People vs. Arcilla, 326 Phil. 774 (1996); People vs. Viñas, Sr., 315 Phil. 491 (1995) — Cited for the proposition that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves great respect, since it had the important opportunity to observe first-hand the expression and demeanor of the witnesses at the trial.

• People vs. Constantino, 327 Phil. 278 (1996); People vs. De Leon, 315 Phil. 584 (1995); People vs. Bayrante, G.R. No. 92508, August 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 19 — Cited for the proposition that conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the appellants before, during, and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.

• People vs. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil. 609 (1935) — Cited for the definition of principal by inducement, requiring that the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor.

• Socrates vs. Sandiganbayan, 324 Phil. 151 (1996); Gallego vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57841, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 793 — Cited for the proposition that evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the Information because these are matters of defense.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended — The provision defining and penalizing murder. The accused were convicted of murder under this provision, qualified by treachery, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — The provision defining treachery: when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The Court applied this provision in finding treachery attendant in the killing.

• Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court — The provisions requiring that the complaint or information state the designation of the offense, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances, in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged. The Court applied these provisions in finding the allegation of treachery sufficient.

• Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Acting Chief Justice, Chairperson
• Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Associate Justice
• Renato C. Corona, Associate Justice
• Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Associate Justice