People vs. Dacillo

An aggravating circumstance, even if proven during trial, cannot be appreciated to increase the imposable penalty if it was not specifically alleged in the information, pursuant to Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Seventeen-year-old Rosemarie B. Tallada was last seen alive entering the house of appellant Francisco Dacillo on February 6, 2000. Neighbors heard a struggle and saw Dacillo and another man grappling with a gagged woman, with Dacillo choking her. The following day, Dacillo was seen bringing cement and lumber into his house. Five days later, a foul odor led neighbors to discover a concrete tomb inside the house containing the decomposing body of Tallada. An autopsy revealed she died of a stab wound to the abdomen and suffered multiple contusions, incised wounds, and fractured ribs.

• The Killing: On February 6, 2000, victim Rosemarie Tallada entered the house of appellant Francisco Dacillo. Neighbors in the adjoining house felt the floor shaking and heard a scuffle. Witness Roche Abregon peeped through a hole and saw Dacillo and another man grappling with a gagged woman; Dacillo was seen choking the victim. Sounds of a woman being beaten were heard, followed by silence.
• Concealment: The next morning, Dacillo was seen bringing lumber, screen, and ready-mixed cement into his house, which he repeatedly locked. He entrusted a bag of the victim's belongings to a barangay tanod, claiming it belonged to his woman companion. By February 11, neighbors smelled a rotting odor and saw blood and pus dripping from Dacillo's comfort room. A tomb-like concrete structure was found inside, concealing the victim's decomposing body.
• Autopsy Findings: Dr. Danilo Ledesma's necropsy report established the cause of death as a stab wound in the abdomen. The victim also suffered contusions on the anterior chest wall and right hand, an incised wound on the left middle finger, a stab wound on the left side of the face, and fractures on the 2nd to 7th ribs.
• Appellant's Defense: Dacillo admitted complicity but claimed his co-accused Joselito Pacot brought the victim to the house. He alleged that upon arriving later, he saw Pacot strangling her; he closed the door and held the victim's legs as ordered by Pacot. Dacillo further claimed it was his idea to encase the body in cement instead of dumping it into the sea, for which Pacot paid him ₱500. He fled to Cebu City the day the body was discovered.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, attempting to minimize his participation by claiming he merely held the victim's legs while his co-accused strangled her.
• Award of Actual Damages: Appellant contended that the trial court erred in awarding ₱50,000.00, which he claimed appeared to be payment for actual damages.

• Civil Indemnity: The Solicitor General countered that the ₱50,000.00 award was not for actual damages but was properly granted as civil indemnity ex delicto to compensate for the death of the victim, requiring no proof other than the fact of death and the accused's responsibility.

• Conspiracy and Liability: Whether appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as a principal by direct participation.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Whether the killing was properly qualified to murder by abuse of superior strength.
• Appreciation of Recidivism: Whether the aggravating circumstance of recidivism could be appreciated to increase the penalty despite its absence from the information.
• Damages: Whether the awards of civil indemnity, moral, temperate, and exemplary damages were proper.

• Conspiracy and Liability: Appellant's guilt as a principal by direct participation was established beyond reasonable doubt. By his own admission, he closed the door and held down the victim's legs while his co-accused strangled her, demonstrating a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime. Conspiracy was evident from their concerted actions before, during, and after the killing, including their joint decision to entomb the body in cement.
• Qualifying Circumstance: The killing was correctly qualified to murder by abuse of superior strength. A manifest disparity in physical strength existed between two grown men and a young, fragile woman whose ability to defend herself was effectively restrained, as evidenced by the severity of the victim's wounds.
• Appreciation of Recidivism: Recidivism was correctly proven but erroneously appreciated by the trial court. Pursuant to Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances must be specified in the information. Because recidivism was not alleged, it could not be used to increase the penalty; thus, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• Damages: The award of ₱50,000 as civil indemnity was proper, requiring no proof other than the victim's death and the accused's responsibility. The ₱50,000 moral damages was supported by the mother's testimony of immeasurable pain. A ₱25,000 temperate damages award was added due to the absence of evidence of burial and funeral expenses. Finally, ₱25,000 exemplary damages was warranted under Articles 2229 and 2230 of the Civil Code because the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, applying the rule that qualifying aggravating circumstances equally entitle the offended party to exemplary damages.

• Principals by Direct Participation — Two or more persons taking part in the commission of a crime are considered principals by direct participation if (1) they participated in the criminal resolution and (2) they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. Applied to hold Dacillo liable, as he admitted to participating in the criminal resolve by holding down the victim's legs and jointly disposing of the body.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It need not be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement; it can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime showing they acted in unison pursuant to a common purpose. Inferred from Dacillo's and Pacot's joint actions in killing and concealing the body.
• Allegation of Aggravating Circumstances in the Information — Under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specified in the complaint or information. An aggravating circumstance, such as recidivism, cannot be appreciated against the accused if not alleged in the information, even if proven during trial. Applied to strike down the trial court's appreciation of recidivism.
• Exemplary Damages in Criminal Offenses — Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term "aggravating circumstances" includes both ordinary and qualifying circumstances, as the distinction affects only criminal, not civil, liability. Applied to award exemplary damages based on the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

• "The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was not alleged in the information and therefore cannot be appreciated against appellant. Hence the imposable penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua."
• "Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying."

• People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001) — Followed. Established that the term "aggravating circumstances" in Article 2230 of the Civil Code includes both ordinary and qualifying aggravating circumstances for the purpose of awarding exemplary damages.
• People v. Martinada, 194 SCRA 36 (1991) — Followed. Held that to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in the information and attach certified true copies of prior sentences.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Murder. Applied to convict the appellant.
• Rule 110, Section 8, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires the complaint or information to specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Applied to preclude the appreciation of recidivism, which was not alleged in the information.
• Articles 2229 and 2230, Civil Code of the Philippines — Govern the imposition of exemplary damages. Applied to justify the award of exemplary damages due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ.