People vs. Pilen

The killing of a child of tender years is deemed ipso facto qualified by treachery due to the victim's inherent defenselessness, but treachery cannot be appreciated in attacks on adult victims where the prosecution fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted means of execution to insure the crime without risk to himself. Defects in the Information regarding the specification of qualifying circumstances are deemed waived when the accused fails to avail of a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars, but the circumstance must still be proven during trial to be appreciated.

Jonie Sabandal Pilen was a resident of Barangay Cantutang, Municipality of Padre Burgos, Province of Southern Leyte, where the victims were his neighbors. Thirteen separate Informations were filed against him charging three counts of Murder and ten counts of Frustrated Murder, all arising from a single incident on July 14, 2013. Prior to arraignment, Pilen sought and was granted a psychiatric evaluation, after which the RTC deemed him competent to stand trial. The case proceeded through the RTC and the Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court on automatic review.

On July 14, 2013, at around 7:00 p.m., Georgia Jabonero, her daughter Princess Aclao Jabonero, and Love Joy Acabo were sitting outside the Jabonero residence in Barangay Cantutang, Padre Burgos, Southern Leyte, when they saw Pilen pass by. Georgia asked him for ₱2.00, but he refused, told her to behave, and left. A few moments later, Pilen returned and asked what they had said about him. Without warning, he unzipped his jumpsuit, drew a bolo hidden inside, and suddenly stabbed Georgia, Princess, and Love Joy. The bolo became stuck in Love Joy's hand; she pulled it out, threw it at Pilen, and ran home bleeding. Wenefredo Jabonero, Georgia's husband, was inside the house when he heard Pilen shouting, "I want to kill now." He rushed outside, saw Georgia crouching and holding her chest, and attempted to rescue Princess as well. Before he could reach her, Pilen charged at him with a bolo, striking his right arm and grazing the side of his head. Wenefredo managed to retreat inside. Princess was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital due to severe hemorrhage from a stab wound that penetrated her chest and back.

Pilen's attacks continued across the neighborhood. He stabbed Genara Chu at her house while she was washing dishes, catching her completely by surprise. He hacked April Rose Salem on the face as she walked outside her home; she tried to flee but stumbled on a rock, allowing Pilen to hack her again on the head. When April Rose's father, Roger Salem, confronted Pilen about his daughter, Pilen stabbed him on the left side of his body. Pilen then entered the house of Aiza Salem Kaindoy's mother and viciously hacked both Aiza and her one-year-and-six-month-old daughter, Leslie Ann, inflicting multiple deep wounds on different parts of their bodies; Leslie Ann died at the hospital. Pilen also attacked Maximo Palero and his wife as they walked home, stabbing Maximo in the left arm and right chest after the blade's inversion spared his wife. Maximo witnessed Pilen proceed to Zenaida Aguelo's house and hack her on the back as she tried to enter. Finally, Pilen blocked the path of Jolito Mariño, Maria Felicilda, and a co-worker on the road, stabbing both Jolito and Maria; Maria fell after a few steps and died, while Jolito survived multiple hacking wounds. Pilen was arrested and his bolo confiscated.

For his defense, Pilen testified that earlier that day, at around 2:00 p.m., he was napping at his grandfather's house. He later encountered John Dave Marba, who invited him to join a drinking spree. According to Pilen, John handed a shiny rolled object to a friend named Peter, who then held Pilen's head while two others restrained his body and forced him to sniff the object. They gave him a drink of unknown contents, after which he lost consciousness and woke up the next morning inside a detention cell. The prosecution presented the testimonies of ten private complainants, four attending physicians who identified medical certificates and testified to the nature and severity of the victims' injuries, and the investigating police officer. The RTC found the evidence overwhelming and convicted Pilen of three counts of Murder, eight counts of Frustrated Murder, and two counts of Attempted Murder. The CA modified the conviction, downgrading most charges to Homicide and its stages on the ground that the Informations failed to specifically aver treachery, except for the killing of Leslie Ann.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Pilen argued that the trial court erred in convicting him despite lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was the author of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 14-02-4032.
• Insanity Defense: Pilen maintained that the trial court erred in not appreciating insanity in his favor, claiming he was forced to ingest unknown substances and had no recollection of the incident.
• Defective Allegation of Treachery: Pilen argued that the trial court erred in appreciating treachery despite the Informations not sufficiently setting forth the facts and circumstances describing how treachery attended the commission of the crimes charged.
• Expert Witness Qualifications: Pilen contended that the trial court erred in giving weight to the opinions of Dr. Sibud and Dr. Borres despite the fact that they were not shown to be expert witnesses.
• Character of Maximo Palero's Wound: Pilen argued that the trial court erred in ruling that the crime committed against Maximo Palero was in the frustrated stage despite the prosecution's failure to offer evidence proving the character of his wound.

• Insanity Defense: The OSG countered that the record was bereft of any evidence demonstrating the connection between the identified substance and Pilen's alleged mental condition, or that the identified substance caused his violent behavior.
• Adoption of Appellee's Brief: The OSG manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief, there being no new transactions, occurrences, or events since it filed its Appellee's Brief, effectively adopting the arguments already presented before the CA.

• Waiver of Defective Informations: Whether Pilen waived his right to question the defective statement of qualifying circumstances in the Informations by failing to file a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars.
• Treachery as to Leslie Ann: Whether the killing of one-year-old Leslie Ann Salem Kaindoy was qualified by treachery.
• Treachery and Evident Premeditation as to Adult Victims: Whether treachery and evident premeditation were proven beyond reasonable doubt to qualify the attacks on the adult victims as Murder.
• Stages of the Felony: Whether the crimes committed against the surviving victims were Frustrated or Attempted Homicide.
• Admissibility of Expert Testimony: Whether the testimonies of Dr. Sibud and Dr. Borres were properly admitted despite the defense's claim that they were not shown to be expert witnesses.
• Insanity Defense: Whether the exempting circumstance of insanity was sufficiently established to exempt Pilen from criminal liability.

• Waiver of Defective Informations: Yes. Pilen was deemed to have waived the defects in the Informations by failing to file a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117, or a motion for bill of particulars, and by voluntarily entering his plea and proceeding to trial.

• Treachery as to Leslie Ann: Yes. The killing of a child of tender years is deemed ipso facto qualified by treachery due to the victim's inherent defenselessness; the mere allegation of the victim's minority suffices to qualify the crime to Murder.

• Treachery and Evident Premeditation as to Adult Victims: No. Neither treachery nor evident premeditation was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to show that Pilen consciously and deliberately adopted means to insure the execution of the crime without risk, or that he had planned the attacks with cool thought and reflection.

• Stages of the Felony: Frustrated Homicide for Roger, Wenefredo, Genara, Love Joy, Jolito, April Rose, and Aiza, whose wounds were fatal and would have caused death absent timely medical intervention; Attempted Homicide for Georgia, Zenaida, and Maximo, whose wounds were either non-fatal or whose fatal character was not sufficiently proven.

• Admissibility of Expert Testimony: Yes. The defense waived any objection to the qualifications of Dr. Sibud and Dr. Borres by failing to timely raise objections during trial, during cross-examination, or in opposition to the prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits.

• Insanity Defense: No. The defense failed to satisfy the three-way test for insanity, as Pilen presented no medical expert testimony, no witness other than himself, and no evidence connecting the substance he allegedly ingested to any mental disease or inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts.

• Waiver of Defective Informations: While the Informations against Pilen were concededly defective in failing to specify the particular acts constituting treachery or evident premeditation, the guidelines laid down in People vs. Solar provide that failure of the accused to avail of a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117, or a motion for bill of particulars constitutes a waiver of the right to question the defective statement of the qualifying circumstance. Pilen did not question the Informations' sufficiency, voluntarily entered his plea, and proceeded to trial. He was thus deemed to have understood the acts imputed to him, and treachery or evident premeditation could be appreciated if proven during trial.

• Treachery as to Leslie Ann: Leslie Ann was approximately one year old when hacked to death. Jurisprudence teaches that the killing of a child of tender years is characterized by treachery regardless of whether the manner of assault is shown in the Information, because the weakness of the victim due to tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused. The mere allegation of the victim's minority suffices to qualify the crime to Murder. Both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated treachery in the killing of Leslie Ann, as she was a helpless baby with no means of defending herself.

• Treachery and Evident Premeditation as to Adult Victims: Treachery requires two concurring conditions: (1) employment of means, method, or manner of execution that would insure the offender's safety from the victim's retaliatory act, and (2) conscious and deliberate adoption of such means. While the attacks were unexpected, there was insufficient evidence that Pilen consciously or deliberately adopted the mode of attack. Mere suddenness is not enough. Pilen attacked his victims in a public place where many people could see him; had he intended to insure no risk, he could have chosen another time and place. Evident premeditation requires proof of when the intent to commit the crime was engendered, the motive giving rise to it, and the means beforehand selected — elements absent from the record. The records were bereft of any proof showing when and how Pilen planned and prepared the attacks. Without treachery or evident premeditation, the killings of Princess and Maria were Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC.

• Stages of the Felony: Under Article 6 of the RPC, a felony is frustrated when the offender performs all acts of execution that would produce the felony but it does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator's will, and attempted when the offender commences commission by overt acts but does not perform all acts of execution. When the accused used a deadly weapon and the victim sustained fatal wounds but survived due to timely medical assistance, the crime is Frustrated Homicide. If the wounds were not fatal, it is Attempted Homicide. For Roger, Wenefredo, Genara, Love Joy, Jolito, April Rose, and Aiza, the medical certificates and physician testimonies established that their wounds were fatal and would have caused death without timely medical intervention, constituting Frustrated Homicide. For Georgia and Zenaida, their attending physicians testified that their wounds were not fatal and they would have survived even without medical intervention, constituting Attempted Homicide. For Maximo, the prosecution presented only his medical certificate without the testimony of the physician who diagnosed or treated him; absent such testimony, the character of his wound was doubtful, and the doubt was resolved in his favor, yielding Attempted Homicide.

• Admissibility of Expert Testimony: Objection to evidence must be made at the earliest possible time — after the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable issue becomes apparent only then. The defense failed to object to the admissibility of Dr. Sibud's and Dr. Borres's testimonies, did not cross-examine them, and did not oppose the prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits. The procedural defect was thus waived. Moreover, admissibility should not be confused with probative value; the trial court correctly evaluated the testimonies within its discretion, and its ruling was not reviewable absent abuse of discretion. The testimonies adequately proved that the wounds of Aiza, April Rose, and Jolito were fatal and that only timely medical assistance prevented death.

• Insanity Defense: Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance, requiring the accused to prove that, as a result of a mental disease, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts at the time of the commission. The three-way test from People vs. Paña requires: (1) insanity present at the time of commission; (2) insanity medically proven as the primary cause; and (3) inability to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of the act. Pilen failed all three. His claim was self-serving and unsubstantiated; he presented no witness or expert testimony to prove he was completely deprived of intelligence. An accused whose mental condition is under scrutiny cannot competently testify on his own insanity. While expert testimony is not absolutely indispensable, it is more accurate and authoritative. The defense relied on a positive drug test for THC-metabolites but presented no evidence connecting the substance to any mental condition or to Pilen's violent behavior. Notably, under Section 25 of Republic Act No. 9165, a positive finding for dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance, though it was neither alleged in the Information nor raised by the prosecution and thus was not considered against Pilen.

• Treachery in the Killing of Children of Tender Years — The killing of a child of tender years is deemed ipso facto qualified by treachery due to the victim's inherent defenselessness. The weakness of the victim due to tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused, and the mere allegation of the victim's minority in the Information suffices to qualify the crime to Murder, regardless of whether the manner of assault is specifically described.

• Waiver of Defects in the Information — Under the guidelines in People vs. Solar, when an Information alleges a qualifying or aggravating circumstance using a broad term (e.g., treachery, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation) without stating the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance, the accused must avail of a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117, or a motion for bill of particulars. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver, and the circumstance may be appreciated if proven during trial.

• Three-Way Test for Insanity — Formulated in People vs. Paña, the test 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 the insanity is the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act. The defense is in the nature of confession and avoidance, and the burden rests on the accused to prove it by clear and convincing evidence.

• Elements of Treachery — Treachery requires two concurring conditions: (1) the malefactor employed means, method, or manner of execution that would insure his safety from the victim's retaliatory act, and (2) such means, method, or form of execution were consciously and deliberately adopted. Mere suddenness of the attack is insufficient; it must also be shown that the mode of attack was knowingly intended to accomplish the criminal intent.

• Elements of Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation requires: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection. The requirement of deliberate planning must be based on clear evidence, not mere inferences and presumptions.

• Distinguishing Frustrated from Attempted Felony — When the accused intended to kill, used a deadly weapon, and the victim sustained fatal wounds but survived due to timely medical assistance, the crime is Frustrated Murder or Frustrated Homicide. If the wounds were not fatal, the crime is Attempted Murder or Attempted Homicide. Where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal without medical attendance, the character of the wound is doubtful and the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

• "Jurisprudence teaches that the mere allegation of the victim's minority is sufficient to qualify the crime to Murder. The killing of a child is characterized by treachery regardless of whether the manner of the assault is shown in the Information, as the weakness of the victim due to his or her tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused." — This passage articulates the doctrine that treachery is inherent in the killing of a child of tender years, a principle frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on qualified killings involving minors.

• "Mere suddenness of the attack is not enough to show treachery. It should also be shown that the mode of attack has knowingly been intended to accomplish the wicked intent." — This formulation restates the dual requirement for treachery and distinguishes a merely unexpected attack from one that is treacherous, a distinction central to the Court's downgrading of the adult-victim killings from Murder to Homicide.

• "An accused whose mental condition is under scrutiny cannot competently testify on their state of insanity. An insane person would naturally have no understanding or recollection of their actions and behavioral patterns. They would have to rely on hearsay evidence to prove their claims as to what actually happened." — This passage explains why self-serving testimony of amnesia or lack of recollection is insufficient to establish the exempting circumstance of insanity, a point of practical importance for defense counsel.

• "where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful," then such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused." — This principle governs the classification of the felony's stage when the prosecution fails to present the attending physician's testimony, and it was applied to downgrade the crime against Maximo Palero from Frustrated to Attempted Homicide.

• People vs. Solar, G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019 — Controlling precedent on the requirement that Informations alleging qualifying or aggravating circumstances must state ultimate facts, and that failure to file a motion to quash or bill of particulars constitutes waiver. The guidelines laid down in Solar were directly applied to hold that Pilen waived the defects in the Informations.

• People vs. Paña, G.R. No. 214444, November 17, 2020 — Source of the three-way test for the insanity defense. The test was applied to reject Pilen's claim of insanity for failure to satisfy any of the three requisites.

• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed for the proper award of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages in cases of Murder, Homicide, Frustrated and Attempted Homicide.

• Etino vs. People, 826 Phil. 32 (2018) — Cited for the distinction between frustrated and attempted felonies, particularly the rule that fatal wounds survived due to timely medical intervention constitute frustrated homicide, while non-fatal wounds constitute attempted homicide.

• People vs. Gayon, G.R. No. 230221, April 10, 2019 — Cited for the rule that qualifying circumstances must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself — beyond reasonable doubt — and for the principle that attacks in public places with multiple eyewitnesses negate treachery.

• People vs. Enojo, G.R. No. 240231, November 27, 2019 — Cited for the doctrine that the killing of a child of tender years is characterized by treachery due to inherent defenselessness.

• People vs. Ukay, G.R. No. 246419, September 16, 2020 — Followed for the principle that failure to question a defective Information through proper procedural remedies constitutes waiver of the right to object to the qualifying circumstance.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code (Murder) — Defines Murder and enumerates qualifying circumstances including treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, and evident premeditation. Applied to convict Pilen of Murder for the killing of Leslie Ann, where treachery was appreciated due to the victim's tender age.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code (Homicide) — Defines Homicide as the killing of another without any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article 248. Applied to convict Pilen of Homicide for the killings of Princess and Maria, where treachery and evident premeditation were not proven.

• Article 6, Revised Penal Code (Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies) — Defines the three stages of a felony. Applied to classify the crimes against surviving victims as either Frustrated or Attempted Homicide based on whether the wounds were fatal and whether intent to kill was established.

• Article 50, Revised Penal Code (Frustrated Felonies) — Provides that the penalty for a frustrated felony is the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the consummated felony. Applied in imposing the indeterminate penalties for Frustrated Homicide.

• Article 51, Revised Penal Code (Attempted Felonies) — Provides that the penalty for an attempted felony is the penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony. Applied in imposing the indeterminate penalties for Attempted Homicide.

• Section 3(e), Rule 117, Rules of Court — Grounds for a motion to quash, including that the Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. Cited in connection with the waiver doctrine from People vs. Solar regarding defective allegations of qualifying circumstances.

• Sections 35 and 36, Rule 132, 1997 Rules of Court — Govern when to make an offer of evidence and when to object to evidence offered. Applied to hold that the defense waived objections to the qualifications of Dr. Sibud and Dr. Borres by failing to object during trial.

• Section 25, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Provides that a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime. Noted by the Court but not applied against Pilen because it was neither alleged in the Information nor raised by the prosecution below.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, and Marquez, JJ., concurred.