People of the Philippines vs. Ralph Velez Diaz

The real nature of the criminal charge is determined by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information, not by the technical name or designation given by the fiscal; an accused cannot be convicted of, or have his penalty enhanced by, an offense or circumstance not alleged in the information. Likewise, the killing of a child who, by reason of tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense is attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not precisely shown.

Ralph Velez Diaz, a thirty-year-old man whom the eleven-year-old victim, Francis Bart Fulache, knew as a friend from the hantakan, a gaming place near the Fulache family's store in Cebu City, was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City with "murder in relation to RA 7610" for the boy's death. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review pursuant to Art. 47, par. 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by RA 7659.

On 3 December 1996, at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening, eleven-year-old Francis Bart Fulache and his ten-year-old brother Felbart went to Pier 3 to defecate, accompanied by thirty-year-old Ralph Velez Diaz, a friend Francis Bart knew from the hantakan, a gaming place near the Fulache family's store. Francis Bart then invited Felbart to go with them to Pier 4, but Felbart was not inclined, so he went home. Francis Bart did not return home that evening; Felbart was not alarmed because his brother was used to going around and doing as he pleased without informing or asking permission from their parents. When Francis Bart still failed to show up in the afternoon of the next day, their parents grew worried and began searching for him.

At noontime of 4 December 1996, SPO2 Ramon Villar received a report that the body of a boy between ten and twelve years of age had been found dead at the Bulacao Bridge. The body was in a sickening state of nudity and physical abuse, its face covered with a big stone in an apparent attempt to hide it. After routine photographs were taken, the body was brought to the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes for a post-mortem examination. The autopsy conducted by PNP Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Jesus P. Cerna revealed the cause of death to be "intracranial hemorrhage, extensive, with skull fracture, traumatic." The examination also disclosed contusions, abrasions, and lacerations all over the boy's body, the most prominent of which was the comminuted and depressed fracture on his head, and, quite notably, multiple lacerations in his rectum. As to the rectal injuries, Dr. Cerna opined that a blunt instrument like a male organ in full erection could have caused them, and that in an attempt to avoid any violation of his rectum the boy could have suffered more pain considering his soft and tender skin, the violation necessarily resulting in hemorrhage which could cause instantaneous death. The identification of the body was itself delayed: on 4 December 1996, while the Fulache family continued their search, a couple by the name of Degamo claimed the body in the belief that it was their missing son Joseph Johnson Degamo; after two days, however, their missing son came home, so the Degamos returned the body to the funeral parlor. The body now back in the funeral home turned out to be their Francis Bart, whom Bartolome Fulache, the boys' father, identified after hearing over the radio that the cadaver of a boy remained unclaimed at the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes.

On 9 December 1996, at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, a person acting suspiciously but unknown to the Fulache spouses went to the wake, where he created a spectacle of himself by reciting poems for Francis Bart, singing the theme song from the movie "The Lion King," and giving emphasis to the word "surrender." Bartolome Fulache reported the unusual behavior of their uninvited guest to the authorities. The police immediately went to the Fulache residence to observe the person, invited him to their headquarters for further observation and questioning, and he went with them voluntarily. He was later identified as herein accused-appellant Ralph Velez Diaz. Before conducting their investigation, the police authorities as well as a certain Atty. Abellanosa apprised accused-appellant of his constitutional rights in Cebuano, a language known to him, in the presence of men from the media who themselves affixed their signatures to his sworn statement to attest that he had been duly informed of his rights under the Constitution. The investigation proceeded, and accused-appellant revealed his sexual perversity by narrating in detail how he perpetrated the ghastly crime against Francis Bart. This extra-judicial confession, however, was declared inadmissible by the trial court on the ground that Atty. Abellanosa, who assisted accused-appellant during the custodial investigation, was not an independent counsel of the accused as required under the Constitution.

The following day, between 11:00 o'clock in the morning and 12:00 noon, a reenactment was made at the scene of the crime. Those present were accused-appellant Ralph Velez Diaz, Felbart Fulache, police officers Monilar, Montebon and Tumakay, and people from the ABS-CBN, Sun Star Daily, Freeman and Superbalita. There accused-appellant demonstrated, with Felbart as victim, how he sexually abused Francis Bart and later killed him. The reenactment was published in the 11 December 1996 issue of the Sun Star Daily, but because only an unauthenticated photocopy of the newspaper was presented in court, it was likewise declared inadmissible in evidence; the trial court nevertheless took judicial notice thereof.

On his part, accused-appellant sought to establish the defense of insanity by presenting Dr. Wilson Tibayan, a government physician connected with the National Center for Mental Health. The doctor's testimony, however, did not help accused-appellant's case because, although he admitted having initially categorized accused-appellant as insane, he eventually diagnosed him to be afflicted with pedophilia, a mental disorder not synonymous with insanity. He explained that pedophilia is a sexual disorder wherein the subject has strong, recurrent, and uncontrollable sexual and physical fantasies about children which he tries to fulfill, especially when there are no people around, and claimed that despite his affliction the subject could distinguish right from wrong. He maintained that pedophilia could be committed without necessarily killing the victim, although injuries might be inflicted in an effort to repel any resistance. Dr. Tibayan also testified that accused-appellant had disclosed to him that his pedophilic acts were done in revenge, as he himself as a child was also a victim of sexual abuse, and finally declared that accused-appellant's affliction had a very low prognosis, thus making him very dangerous to society.

The trial court was convinced that, notwithstanding the exclusion of the extrajudicial confession and the absence of any eyewitness to the crime, there were enough pieces of circumstantial evidence to support conviction: (a) the testimony of ten-year-old Felbart that he saw his brother last alive in the company of accused-appellant; (b) the physical evidence of sexual abuse through sodomy committed against the victim; (c) the exculpatory plea of insanity, which only tended to negate liability but was an admission of guilt; (d) the reenactment of the crime by accused-appellant, the details of which could not have been known to anybody but himself; and (e) the fact that accused-appellant voluntarily confessed to the crime without any evidence of coercion, duress, or intimidation exerted upon him.

• Qualification of the Crime: Accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder; if he were guilty at all, his guilt would only be for homicide and not murder, because the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation were absent.
• Imposition of the Death Penalty: Accused-appellant submitted that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death.
• Psychiatric Examination: Invoking the doctrine of parens patriae, the defense appealed for the psychiatric examination and evaluation of accused-appellant, emphasizing that he had been institutionalized twice within a considerable period at the National Center for Mental Health, so that there was no certainty he was sane when he committed the crime imputed to him.

• Sexual Abuse as Aggravating Circumstance: The Solicitor General contended that the trial court did not apply the provisions of RA 7610 in imposing the death penalty but merely made reference to them as sexual abuse, which was established to have been committed by accused-appellant; the sodomy could be considered an aggravating circumstance for adding ignominy to the crime, as the sexual abuse certainly augmented the wrong done to the victim and unduly increased his pain.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether the killing of Francis Bart Fulache was attended by treachery, abuse of superior strength, or evident premeditation so as to qualify the crime as murder.
• Imposition of the Death Penalty: Whether the death penalty could be imposed upon accused-appellant notwithstanding the failure of the information to allege the sexual abuse or sodomy of the victim.
• Defense of Insanity: Whether accused-appellant's plea of insanity was established so as to exempt him from criminal liability.
• Psychiatric Examination: Whether the request for the psychiatric examination and evaluation of accused-appellant should be granted.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Yes. Treachery qualified the killing to murder, the victim being an eleven-year-old child who by reason of tender years could not be expected to put up a defense; abuse of superior strength was likewise present but was necessarily absorbed in treachery.
• Imposition of the Death Penalty: No. The information alleged only murder qualified by treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation, and the real nature of the criminal charge is determined by the actual recital of facts in the information, not by its designation.
• Defense of Insanity: No. Pedophilia is not synonymous with insanity, and accused-appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving insanity at the very moment the crime was committed.
• Psychiatric Examination: No. Accused-appellant was diagnosed not as insane but as suffering from pedophilia during his confinement at the National Center for Mental Health.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Under Art. 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code, there is treachery or alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Well-settled is the doctrine that the killing of children who by reason of their tender years cannot be expected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not precisely shown. The killing of Francis Bart was thus deemed ipso facto qualified by treachery by reason of his inherent defenselessness. Abuse of superior strength was also clearly present given the blatant inequality of strength between the victim and accused-appellant, but it could not be appreciated even as a generic aggravating circumstance because it was necessarily absorbed in treachery. Evident premeditation was unnecessary, since either treachery or abuse of superior strength qualified the crime to murder.

• Imposition of the Death Penalty: A careful scrutiny of the records showed that the Information charged accused-appellant only with murder qualified by treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation; it failed to mention the commission of sexual abuse or sodomy on the victim. Although the Information designated the crime as "murder in relation to RA 7610," as a rule what controls is not the designation of the offense but its description in the complaint or information. The real nature of the criminal charge cannot be determined from the caption or preamble of the information or from the mere reference to a particular provision of law alleged to have been violated, because these are conclusions of law; it is determined by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. The technical name given by the fiscal appearing in the title of the information does not determine the character of the crime but the facts alleged in the body of the information. Thus, even if there was positive proof of sexual abuse, accused-appellant could not be convicted therefor as it was not so alleged in the information. The Solicitor General's submission that the sodomy could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance of ignominy was rejected: the trial court was clear in declaring that it imposed death "[c]onsidering the aggravating circumstance of alevosia and the seriousness of the sexual assault on the victim (in itself a heinous crime)," and ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. For ignominy to be appreciated, it must be shown that the sexual assault on Francis Bart was done by accused-appellant to put the former to shame before killing him; that was clearly not the case, since accused-appellant's intention was shown to be the commission of sexual abuse on the victim as an act of revenge for his similar experience as a child, and the killing was done to eliminate the only witness to his crime. The Court noted that its hands were tied by the failure of the public prosecutor to file the appropriate information for accused-appellant's sexual assault on the victim.

• Defense of Insanity: A defendant in a criminal case who interposes the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing that fact — that he was insane at the very moment when the crime was committed — and must prove it by clear and positive evidence. When accused-appellant was committed to the National Center for Mental Health, he was not diagnosed as insane but was suffering from pedophilia, a condition dissimilar to insanity. The defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance was not established and did not overcome the legal presumption that a person's acts are of his own free will and intelligence. The settled rule is that the onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as a defense, and the defense failed to discharge this burden; the conviction of accused-appellant was thus in order.

• Psychiatric Examination: The request could not be granted because accused-appellant was not diagnosed as insane during his confinement but was found to be suffering from pedophilia, which is dissimilar to insanity. There was thus no doubt that he was sane during his two-year confinement in the center.

• Treachery (Alevosia) in the Killing of Children — Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The killing of children who, by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not precisely shown. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the killing of eleven-year-old Francis Bart was ipso facto qualified by treachery by reason of his inherent defenselessness.

• Abuse of Superior Strength Absorbed in Treachery — Where abuse of superior strength is present but treachery likewise attends the killing, the former is necessarily absorbed in the latter and cannot be appreciated even as a generic aggravating circumstance. The Court found a clear case of abuse of superior strength given the blatant inequality of strength between the victim and accused-appellant, but held that it was absorbed in treachery.

• Real Nature of the Criminal Charge Determined by the Recital of Facts — The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, nor from the mere reference to a particular provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but from the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. The technical name given by the fiscal in the title of the information does not determine the character of the crime. The Court applied this rule to hold that accused-appellant could neither be convicted of sexual abuse under RA 7610 nor have his penalty enhanced on that ground, because the information alleged only murder qualified by treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation.

• Ignominy as an Aggravating Circumstance — Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. For ignominy to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it must be shown that the acts constituting it were done to put the victim to shame. The Court held that ignominy could not be appreciated because accused-appellant's intention was to commit sexual abuse as an act of revenge, and the killing was done to eliminate the only witness to his crime.

• Insanity as an Exempting Circumstance — A defendant in a criminal case who interposes the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing that he was insane at the very moment when the crime was committed, and must prove it by clear and positive evidence. The onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as a defense, and the defense must overcome the legal presumption that a person's acts are of his own free will and intelligence. The Court held that the defense failed to discharge this burden, pedophilia being dissimilar to insanity.

• Parens Patriae — The defense invoked the doctrine of parens patriae in appealing for the psychiatric examination and evaluation of accused-appellant. The Court denied the request, there being no doubt that accused-appellant was sane during his confinement, since he was diagnosed not as insane but as suffering from pedophilia.

• "Well-settled is the doctrine that the killing of children who by reason of their tender years cannot be expected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not precisely shown." — This states the ratio decidendi on the qualifying circumstance of treachery and is the canonical formulation applied to affirm the murder conviction notwithstanding the absence of an eyewitness.
• "The real nature of the criminal charge cannot be determined from the caption or preamble of the information or from the mere reference to a particular provision of law alleged to have been violated because they are conclusions of law. On the contrary, it is determined by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information." — This is the controlling rule that barred the death penalty, since the sexual abuse relied upon by the trial court was never alleged in the information.
• "The settled rule is that the onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as a defense, and the defense failed to discharge this burden." — This disposes of the defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance and confirms the conviction.
• "Moreover, 'ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.'" — This defines ignominy, which the Court held could not be appreciated because the sexual assault was not shown to have been done to put the victim to shame before killing him.

• People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 130507, 28 July 1999 — Cited (citing People vs. Valerio, Jr.) for the doctrine that the killing of children who cannot be expected to put up a defense is attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not precisely shown.
• People vs. Bacalto, G.R. Nos. 116307-10, 14 August 1997, 277 SCRA 252 — Cited for the rule that the killing of a child is ipso facto qualified by treachery by reason of his inherent defenselessness.
• People vs. Gatcho, No. L-27251, 26 February 1981, 103 SCRA 207 — Cited for the finding of abuse of superior strength given the blatant inequality of strength between the victim and the accused.
• People vs. Sancholes, G.R. Nos. 110999 and 111000, 18 April 1997, 271 SCRA 527 — Cited for the rule that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and cannot be appreciated even as a generic aggravating circumstance.
• Socrates vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 116259-60 and 118896-97, 20 February 1996, 253 SCRA 773 — Cited (citing People vs. Maravilla) for the rule that what controls is not the designation of the offense but its description in the complaint or information.
• Reyes vs. Camilon, No. L-46198, 20 December 1990, 192 SCRA 445 — Cited for the rule that the technical name given by the fiscal in the title of the information does not determine the character of the crime, but the facts alleged in the body of the information.
• U.S. vs. Abaigar, 2 Phil. 417 (1903) and People vs. Acaya, No. L-72998, 29 July 1988, 163 SCRA 768 — Cited for the definition of ignominy as a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.
• People vs., Bascos, 44 Phil. 204 (1922) — Cited for the rule that a defendant interposing the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing insanity at the very moment the crime was committed, by clear and positive evidence.
• People vs. Espanola, G.R. No. 119308, 18 April 1997, 271 SCRA 689 — Cited in upholding the civil indemnity for the death of the victim.
• People vs. Bandula, G.R. No. 89223, 27 May 1994, 232 SCRA 566 — Cited by the trial court in declaring the extra-judicial confession inadmissible for lack of an independent counsel.

• Art. 14(16), Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery or alevosia as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The Court applied it to hold that the killing of the eleven-year-old victim was qualified by treachery.
• Art. 47, par. 2, Revised Rules of Court, as amended by RA 7659 — Governs automatic review by the Supreme Court of cases in which the death penalty is imposed. It was the procedural basis for the elevation of the case to the Court.
• RA 7610 — The statute referred to in the designation of the crime in the information as "murder in relation to RA 7610." The Court held that the designation did not control, and that accused-appellant could not be convicted of sexual abuse under it because the information did not allege the sexual abuse.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Panganiban, J., in the result.