People vs. Ukay, et al.

An Information alleging treachery as a qualifying circumstance must contain specific factual averments describing the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms of attack that ensured execution without risk to the accused arising from the defense the victim might make; however, defects in the Information may be waived by the accused's failure to file a motion to quash or bill of particulars, though such waiver does not relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove the elements of treachery beyond reasonable doubt.

On the evening of June 9, 2007, a violent altercation occurred near a convenience store in Emily Homes, Cabantian, Davao City. Jessie Gerolaga and his cousin Anthony Aloba encountered a group including the accused-appellants Eduardo Ukay, Teodulo Ukay, Guillermo Dianon, and Oca Ukay. Following a heated argument and physical confrontation, Warren Gerolaga attempted to pacify the situation and leave with his brother Jessie. As they turned to leave, Warren was stabbed by Oca, prompting Jessie to turn around where he was slashed in the abdomen by Oca and stabbed in the armpit by Eduardo. Anthony was subsequently attacked by the group, stabbed by Eduardo and Oca, and hit with stones by Teodulo and Guillermo, resulting in his death.

• The Confrontation: On June 9, 2007, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Jessie Gerolaga and Anthony Aloba were at a convenience store in Emily Homes, Cabantian, Davao City, after drinking at their aunt's house. They encountered the group of accused-appellants Eduardo Ukay, Teodulo Ukay, Guillermo Dianon, and Oca Ukay.
• The Altercation: Anthony intervened in an argument between Guillermo and his wife, leading Guillermo to punch Anthony. Eduardo, Teodulo, and Oca joined the fray. Warren Gerolaga arrived to pacify the situation and convinced Jessie to leave.
• Attack on Warren and Jessie: As Warren and Jessie turned their backs to leave, Oca stabbed Warren in the shoulder. When Jessie turned to face Oca, the latter slashed Jessie's abdomen causing his intestines to protrude. Jessie attempted to flee but Eduardo caught him and stabbed him in the armpit.
• Attack on Anthony: Jessie, from a distance, witnessed Oca and Eduardo stabbing Anthony while Teodulo and Guillermo hit him with stones. Anthony fell to the ground and was later declared dead on arrival at the Davao Medical Center.
• Defense Version: The accused claimed they were the victims of aggression, alleging that Anthony held Guillermo by the collar while Jessie threw stones at him, causing him to fall into a canal. They asserted that they acted in self-defense or were merely reacting to the aggression initiated by the victims.
• Trial Court Findings: The RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible, established conspiracy among the accused, and held that treachery attended the commission of the crimes.
• Appellate Court Findings: The CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC, holding that the attack was deliberate and unexpected, affording the victims no chance to defend themselves, thus constituting treachery.

• Sufficiency of Information: Accused-appellants maintained that the Informations were defective for failing to contain factual averments constituting treachery, merely stating the conclusion of law "with treachery" without describing the specific acts, means, or methods employed that ensured execution without risk to them.
• Violation of Constitutional Right: The insufficiency of the Information allegedly violated their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, citing People v. Dasmariñas for the proposition that to merely state "treachery" is not enough.
• Lack of Treachery: They argued that the prosecution failed to prove treachery beyond reasonable doubt, as the attack was not deliberately planned but was an impulsive reaction to a prior altercation and commotion.

• Waiver of Defect: Respondent People of the Philippines contended that any defect in the Information was waived by the accused-appellants' failure to file a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117 or a motion for bill of particulars before arraignment, and by their voluntary entry of pleas and participation in the trial.
• Presence of Treachery: The prosecution argued that treachery was sufficiently proven as the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victims no opportunity to defend themselves, consistent with the findings of the RTC and CA.

• Sufficiency of Information Alleging Treachery: Whether the Informations sufficiently alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance when they merely stated "with treachery" without factual averments describing the specific acts constituting such circumstance.
• Waiver of Defects in Information: Whether the accused-appellants waived the right to question the sufficiency of the Information by failing to file a motion to quash or motion for bill of particulars.
• Proof of Treachery as Qualifying Circumstance: Whether treachery was proven beyond reasonable doubt as a qualifying circumstance to sustain convictions for Murder and Frustrated Murder.

• Sufficiency of Information Alleging Treachery: An Information alleging treachery must contain specific factual averments describing the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms of attack that ensured execution without risk to the accused arising from the defense the victim might make; mere allegation of "with treachery" is insufficient as it constitutes a conclusion of law rather than a factual averment, following People v. Solar.
• Waiver of Defects in Information: Defects in the Information regarding the form or substance of qualifying circumstances are deemed waived when the accused fails to file a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117 or a motion for bill of particulars before arraignment, as the right to question such defects is not absolute and is subject to procedural remedies.
• Proof of Treachery as Qualifying Circumstance: Treachery was not established beyond reasonable doubt because the attack was an impulsive reaction to a prior heated altercation and commotion, not the result of deliberate planning to ensure success without risk; unexpectedness of attack alone does not constitute treachery where the victim's position was merely accidental and the accused acted on provocation, following Cirera v. People.

• Sufficiency of Information for Qualifying Circumstances (Solar Guidelines): An Information alleging a qualifying or aggravating circumstance (such as treachery, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, or cruelty) must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance, not merely the legal conclusion. The Information must describe the specific means, methods, or forms employed by the accused that tended directly and specially to insure execution without risk to the accused from the victim's defense. Failure to object via motion to quash or bill of particulars constitutes waiver of the defect.
• Treachery as Qualifying Circumstance: Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime 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 elements are: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of such means of execution. The attack must be planned and deliberate, not merely sudden; unexpectedness alone is insufficient where the attack is impulsive or reactive to provocation.

• "It is thus fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the Information. No Information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. The test in determining whether the Information validly charges an offense is whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or Information will establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the law."
• "A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on 'clear and convincing evidence.' Such evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. Its existence 'cannot be presumed.' As with the finding of guilt of the accused, '[a]ny doubt as to [its] existence ... [should] be resolved in favor of the accused.'"
• "The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the sole basis of a finding of treachery even if the attack was intended to kill another as long as the victim's position was merely accidental. The means adopted must have been a result of a determination to ensure success in committing the crime."

• People v. Solar, G.R. No. 225595 (2019) — Controlling precedent establishing the requirement that Informations must allege ultimate facts, not just legal conclusions, for qualifying circumstances; laid down specific guidelines for the Bench and Bar regarding the amendment of Informations and waiver of defects.
• People v. Dasmariñas, 819 Phil. 357 (2017) — Cited by accused-appellants for the proposition that mere allegation of "treachery" is insufficient; distinguished and clarified by Solar.
• Cirera v. People, 739 Phil. 25 (2014) — Applied to hold that unexpectedness of attack does not equate to treachery where the attack is impulsive rather than deliberately planned.
• People v. Razonable, 386 Phil. 771 (2000) — Cited for the rule that defects in the Information are waived by failure to file appropriate motions before arraignment.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code (Murder) — Defines murder and enumerates qualifying circumstances including treachery and taking advantage of superior strength.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code (Homicide) — Defines homicide and provides the penalty of reclusion temporal.
• Article 250, Revised Penal Code (Penalty for Frustrated Parricide, Murder or Homicide) — Provides that the penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide shall be one degree lower than that prescribed for the consummated crime.
• Section 3(e), Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Ground for motion to quash when the Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
• Section 8(a), Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Mandates attachment of the resolution finding probable cause to the Information.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, and Inting, JJ.