People of the Philippines vs. John Francis Sualog

An accused who fails to question a defective Information — one that alleges a qualifying or aggravating circumstance by merely reciting the broad statutory term without stating the ultimate facts — through a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117 or a motion for a bill of particulars waives the defect, and the circumstance may be appreciated against him if proven during trial. Correlatively, treachery cannot be appreciated where the prosecution failed to prove how the attack commenced and developed, the lone witness not having seen the commencement of the assault.

John Francis Sualog was a neighbor of the Maglantay family in Libertad, Antique, and frequently ran errands for them; April Magsipoc was the family's foster daughter and lived with them. The charges were filed under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which penalizes murder and prescribes the qualifying circumstances that raise a killing from homicide to murder. The case also implicated the procedural rules governing the sufficiency of Informations alleging qualifying and aggravating circumstances, particularly the remedies of a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117 and a motion for a bill of particulars under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as the attachment requirement of Section 8(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

John Francis Sualog was a neighbor of the Maglantay family in Libertad, Antique, and frequently ran errands for them. April Magsipoc was the family's foster daughter and lived with them. On October 12, 2003, at around 2:00 a.m., April was inside her bedroom when she heard her foster father, Amado Chavez Maglantay, yell "Aahhh," followed by her foster mother Eppie U. Maglantay's cry of "Aah!" Alarmed, April rose from bed and turned on the light. When she opened her bedroom door, she saw Sualog hacking her sister, Jessa Amie U. Maglantay, with a bolo. April immediately turned off the light, locked her door, and stayed quiet, fearing that Sualog would kill her next. After a few minutes, she peeped through the window and saw Sualog leaving the house. She then went to the living room, where she found the lifeless bodies of Amado, Eppie, and Jessa. April knew Sualog because he was their neighbor who frequently ran errands for them.

SPO2 Judy Lucas and other police officers investigated the incident, took photographs of the crime scene, and recovered the murder weapon. Dr. Teresita Escondo examined the bodies of the victims and concluded that they died because of severe blood loss due to multiple stab wounds. Sualog, for his part, waived his right to present evidence.

Three Informations for murder were filed against Sualog before the Regional Trial Court of Culasi, Antique, Branch 13, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. L-505, L-506, and L-507, one for each victim. Each Information alleged that Sualog, armed with a bolo and with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, hacked, and stabbed his victim, inflicting fatal wounds on vital parts of the body which caused instantaneous death, and each invoked the qualifying aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of nighttime and superior strength, and the commission of the offense characterized by cruelty and adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime.

Upon arraignment, Sualog pleaded guilty. The RTC did not require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the precise degree of his culpability, although the charges involved a capital offense, and merely asked clarificatory questions regarding the voluntariness and consequences of his plea of guilt. On June 10, 2004, the RTC convicted Sualog of three counts of murder and imposed the penalty of death for each case.

On the merits after remand, the RTC found that April positively identified Sualog as the perpetrator, that she was familiar with him as a neighbor who frequently ran errands for the family, and that she was at the crime scene when the killings happened. The RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and unlawful entry. The Court of Appeals, for its part, found that the attack was carried out in a sudden and unexpected manner, that the mode of attack deprived the victims of any real opportunity to defend themselves, and that the victims were inside their room when Sualog entered the house in the middle of the night and attacked them with a bolo; it discounted evident premeditation for absence of evidence as to when Sualog came up with the determination to commit the crime.

• Insufficiency of the Informations: Sualog argued that the prosecution failed to allege the specific facts constituting the qualifying aggravating circumstances, thereby depriving him of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Failure to Prove the Elements of Murder: Sualog argued that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of murder, reiterating on appeal that the elements of murder and its qualifying circumstances were not established.

• Treachery: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that treachery qualified the killing to murder, and that the weapon used, coupled with the location and number of the wounds, showed Sualog's clear intent to kill the unsuspecting victims.

• Sufficiency of the Informations: Whether the Informations sufficiently alleged the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
• Waiver of the Defect: Whether the accused waived his right to question the defective Informations by failing to file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killings to murder.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation attended the killings.
• Other Aggravating Circumstances: Whether nighttime, abuse of superior strength, cruelty, and ignominy attended the commission of the crimes.
• Plea of Guilt: Whether the plea of guilt may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused.
• Penalty and Civil Liability: Whether the penalty and the award of damages were correctly imposed.

• Sufficiency of the Informations: No. The Informations were defective because they recited only the broad terms "treachery" and "evident premeditation" without stating the ultimate facts constituting them, contrary to People vs. Solar.
• Waiver of the Defect: Yes. Failure to question the defective Informations through a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117 or a motion for a bill of particulars constitutes a waiver, and the circumstances may be appreciated against the accused if proven during trial.
• Treachery: No. Treachery was not proven, the prosecution having failed to demonstrate how the attack commenced and developed, the lone witness having seen only a momentary episode of the assault.
• Evident Premeditation: No. No evidence established the time when the accused determined to commit the crime or a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection.
• Other Aggravating Circumstances: No. Nighttime, abuse of superior strength, cruelty, and ignominy were not established by the evidence.
• Plea of Guilt: Yes. The plea of guilt was validly appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, all three requisites being present.
• Penalty and Civil Liability: Modified. The accused is liable only for three counts of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, with an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum for each count, and civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages of P50,000.00 each per count; exemplary damages were deleted.

• Sufficiency of the Informations: The Informations alleged that the killings were attended by "evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of nighttime and superior strength" and were "characterized by cruelty and adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime," but recited only these broad statutory terms without describing the acts constituting them. Under People vs. Solar, it is insufficient for prosecutors to indicate in the Information that the act supposedly committed by the accused was done "with treachery" or "with evident premeditation" without specifically describing the acts done by the accused that made any or all of such circumstances present. The Informations were therefore defective, and the accused was, in principle, deprived of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• Waiver of the Defect: The defect, however, was waived. Under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an Information that does not conform substantially to the prescribed form may be challenged by a motion to quash, and a motion for a bill of particulars is likewise available. The Solar guidelines provide that failure of the accused to avail of either remedy constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial. Sualog did not question the insufficiency of the Informations either through a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars; he raised the issue only on appeal and not at the trial. Accordingly, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation could be appreciated against him if proven during trial.

• Treachery: Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Two requirements must be established: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself or herself when attacked; and (2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of the attack against the victim. Contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals and the RTC, treachery had to be ruled out for failure of the prosecution to demonstrate how the accused commenced and executed the attack upon the victims. In a catena of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that treachery cannot be appreciated where the prosecution only proved the events after the attack happened, but not the manner of how the attack commenced or how the act which resulted in the victim's death unfolded; there must be clear and convincing evidence on how the aggression was made, how it began, and how it developed, and treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did not see the commencement of the assault. Here, April neither saw the commencement of the assault nor the unfolding of the events that ultimately resulted in the death of the Maglantay family; she chanced upon a slim portion or momentary episode of the attack and thereafter hid from Sualog. 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. There was reasonable doubt on how the aggression started, developed, and ended.

• Evident Premeditation: Evident premeditation has the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The prosecution must establish that a sufficient amount of time had lapsed between the malefactor's determination and execution; absent such showing, evident premeditation will not be appreciated. No evidence was presented as to the period of time when Sualog resolved to commit the crime and had cool thought and reflection to arrive at a calm judgment. April did not testify on this matter and even attested that she was unaware of any quarrel between Sualog and her foster family. The premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious and must be sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill; in the absence of clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and probable, are insufficient. The Court of Appeals thus correctly discounted evident premeditation because there was no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was decided, and how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.

• Other Aggravating Circumstances: The Informations also alleged nighttime, abuse of superior strength, cruelty, and ignominy, but none could be considered. Nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance absent evidence suggesting that Sualog especially sought or took advantage of nocturnity to facilitate the commission of the crime or conceal his identity as he stabbed the victims inside their home. Abuse of superior strength requires the purposeful use of excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked; the prosecution failed to present evidence showing the relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force between Sualog and his victims, and the presence of Sualog armed with a bolo was insufficient to indicate superior strength against the three unarmed victims. Neither ignominy nor cruelty attended the commission of the crimes. Ignominy refers to the means employed by the accused that adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime, while in cruelty it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The infliction of multiple stab wounds upon the Maglantay family did not denote a deliberate intention on the part of Sualog to humiliate them or increase their suffering.

• Plea of Guilt: The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt has the following elements: (1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. All these requisites were present. Upon arraignment, Sualog timely pleaded guilty to all the charges before the trial ensued, or before the prosecution presented its evidence. Hence, the circumstance was appreciated in his favor to determine his appropriate penalty.

• Penalty and Civil Liability: With the qualifying circumstances unproven, Sualog is liable only for three counts of homicide. Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescribed penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and considering the presence of one mitigating circumstance, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be taken from the minimum period of the prescribed penalty, or between twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, while the minimum term must be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree from that prescribed for the crime, or prision mayor, in any of its periods, which has a range of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. The Court thus imposed an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum for each count. As to civil liability, P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, and P50,000.00 temperate damages were awarded for each count, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, while exemplary damages were deleted in the absence of any aggravating circumstance; all damages earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Waiver of Defects in the Information Alleging Qualifying or Aggravating Circumstances — An Information that alleges a qualifying or aggravating circumstance in which the law uses a broad term to embrace various situations in which it may exist — such as treachery, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, or cruelty — must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the Information may be subject to a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion for a bill of particulars. Failure of the accused to avail of either remedy constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance, and consequently the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial. Prosecutors may alternatively aver the ultimate facts by referencing the pertinent portions of the resolution finding probable cause, which must be attached to the Information under Section 8(a), Rule 112. In this case, the Informations against Sualog were defective, but he waived the defect by raising it only on appeal, never having filed a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars.

• Treachery — Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Two requisites must concur: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself or herself when attacked; and (2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of the attack against the victim. There must be clear and convincing evidence on how the aggression was made, how it began, and how it developed; treachery cannot be appreciated where the prosecution only proved the events after the attack happened, and cannot be considered where the lone witness did not see the commencement of the assault. The Court ruled out treachery because April saw only a momentary episode of the attack and the prosecution failed to establish that the victims were utterly oblivious to the impending attack.

• Evident Premeditation — The elements are: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious and must be sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill; in the absence of clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and probable, are insufficient. The circumstance was not appreciated because there was no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was decided and how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.

• Abuse of Superior Strength — The circumstance requires the purposeful use of excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. It was not appreciated because the prosecution failed to show any relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force between the accused and his victims; the mere fact that the accused was armed with a bolo was insufficient to indicate superior strength against three unarmed victims.

• Nighttime as an Aggravating Circumstance — Nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance absent evidence suggesting that the accused especially sought or took advantage of nocturnity to facilitate the commission of the crime or to conceal his identity.

• Cruelty — In cruelty, it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The infliction of multiple stab wounds does not by itself denote a deliberate intention to increase the victims' suffering.

• Ignominy — Ignominy refers to the means employed by the accused that adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The infliction of multiple stab wounds did not denote a deliberate intention on the part of the accused to humiliate the victims.

• Plea of Guilt as a Mitigating Circumstance — The requisites are: (1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. All requisites were present because Sualog pleaded guilty upon arraignment, before trial and before the prosecution presented its evidence.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Where one mitigating circumstance attends the commission of the crime and no aggravating circumstance is present, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence is taken from the minimum period of the prescribed penalty, while the minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree. Applied to homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, whose prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal, the Court fixed the maximum at twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal and the minimum at six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor for each count.

• "Failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial." — This passage, drawn from the guidelines laid down in People vs. Solar, states the waiver rule that supplied the doctrinal anchor of the Decision and allowed the Court to reach the merits of the qualifying circumstances notwithstanding the defective Informations.
• "In treachery, there must be clear and convincing evidence on how the aggression was made, how it began, and how it developed. Where no particulars are known as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, it cannot be established from the suppositions drawn only from the circumstances prior to the very moment of the aggression, that an accused perpetrated the killing with treachery. Accordingly, treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did not see the commencement of the assault." — This is the ratio decidendi for the reduction of the crime from murder to homicide, and it is the formulation commonly invoked in later cases where the eyewitness did not witness the inception of the attack.
• "The premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious; it must be sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill. In the absence of clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and probable, are insufficient." — This passage states the evidentiary standard for evident premeditation and explains why the Court of Appeals correctly discounted the circumstance.
• "it is insufficient for prosecutors to indicate in the Information that the act supposedly committed by the accused was done 'with treachery' xx x or 'with evident premeditation' without specifically describing the acts done by the accused that made any or all of such circumstances present." — Quoted from People vs. Solar, this passage defines the pleading requirement that the Informations in this case failed to satisfy, and it is the canonical formulation of the rule on ultimate facts in Informations alleging qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

• People vs. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019, 912 SCRA 271 — Controlling precedent. The Court adopted its guidelines on defective Informations alleging qualifying or aggravating circumstances, including the requirement of ultimate facts, the remedies of a motion to quash and a motion for a bill of particulars, and the rule that failure to avail of either remedy waives the defect.
• People vs. Abina, 830 Phil. 352 (2018) — Cited for the two requisites of treachery: that the victim was in no position to defend himself or herself, and that the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of the attack.
• People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 238171, June 19, 2019, 905 SCRA 518 — Cited for the rule that treachery cannot be appreciated where the prosecution only proved the events after the attack happened, but not the manner of how the attack commenced or how the act resulting in death unfolded.
• People vs. Guillermo, 361 Phil. 933 (1999) — Cited for the three elements of evident premeditation, including the requirement of a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution of the crime.
• People vs. Villanueva, 807 Phil. 245 (2017) — Cited for the rule that abuse of superior strength requires the purposeful use of excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited as the basis for the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages awarded for each count, and for the deletion of exemplary damages in the absence of any aggravating circumstance.
• People vs. Crisostomo, 243 Phil. 211 (1988) — Cited for the requisites of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt, all of which the Court found present in this case.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes murder and enumerates the qualifying circumstances that raise a killing from homicide to murder. The Informations were filed under this provision, and its alleged qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were the core of the appeal.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. This was the provision applied after the qualifying circumstances were found unproven, reducing the conviction to three counts of homicide.
• Article 14, paragraphs 6, 15, and 17, Revised Penal Code — Define the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, abuse of superior strength, and ignominy. The Court declined to appreciate any of them for lack of evidentiary support.
• Section 3(e), Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides for a motion to quash on the ground that the Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. Failure to file one constituted Sualog's waiver of the defective allegations.
• Section 8(a), Rule 112, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Requires the attachment to the Information of the resolution finding probable cause against the accused. The Court noted this requirement in its guidelines as an alternative means by which prosecutors may sufficiently aver the ultimate facts relative to a qualifying or aggravating circumstance.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in fixing the minimum and maximum terms of the sentence after the presence of one mitigating circumstance and the absence of any aggravating circumstance were established.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred in the Decision.