G.R.No.175602.January18,2012.

*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. PO2
EDUARDOVALDEZandEDWINVALDEZ,accusedappellants.

Remedial Law Evidence Witnesses The only time when a reviewing

court was not bound by the trial courts assessment of credibility arises
uponashowingofafactorcircumstance of weight and influence that was
overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case.
Consideringthatthe CA thereby affirmed the trial courts findings of fact,
its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of their
probativeweight,aswellasitsconclusions,theCourtaccordshighrespect,
ifnotconclusiveeffect,totheCAsfindings.Thejustificationforthisisthat
trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses by
virtue of its firsthand observation of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of
the witnesses under grilling examination. The only time when a reviewing
courtwasnotboundbythetrialcourtsassessmentofcredibilityarisesupon
a showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that was
overlookedand,ifconsidered,couldaffecttheoutcomeofthecase.Nosuch
factorcircumstancehasbeenbroughttotheCourtsattention.Itisnottrite
toremindthatatruthtellingwitnessisnotalwaysexpectedtogiveanerror
free testimony because of the lapse of time and the treachery of human
memoryandthatinaccuraciesnotedintestimonymayevensuggestthatthe
witnessistellingthetruthandhasnotbeenrehearsed.Toproperlyappreciate
the worth of testimony, therefore, the courts do not resort to the individual
wordsorphrasesalonebutseekoutthewholeimpressionoreffectofwhat
hasbeensaidanddone.
CriminalLawEvidenceUnlawfulAggressionQuestionofFactItis
fundamentalthatthequestionastowhobetweentheaccusedandthevictim
wastheunlawfulaggressorisaquestionoffactaddressedtothetrialcourt
fordetermination based on the evidence on record.It is fundamental that
thequestionastowhobetweentheaccusedandthevictimwastheunlawful
aggressorisaquestion

_______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

273

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 273
 Peoplevs.Valdez

offactaddressedtothetrialcourtfordeterminationbasedontheevidenceon
record.TherecordsshowthattheversionofPO2Valdezwascontrarytothe
establishedfactsandcircumstancesshowingthatheandEdwin,thenarmed
with short firearms, had gone to the jai alai betting station of Moises to
confrontJonathanRubio,thetellerofthebettingbooththenbusilyattending
tobettorsinsidethebooththatbecausetheaccusedwerecallingtoRubioto
come out of the booth, Moises approached to pacify them, but one of them
threatenedMoises:Gustomounahinnakita?thatimmediatelyafterMoises
replied:Huwag!,PO2 Valdez fired several shots at Moises, causing him to
falltothegroundthatPO2ValdezcontinuedfiringatthefallenMoisesthat
Ferdinand(anothervictim)rushedtoaidMoises,hisbrother,butEdwinshot
Ferdinandinthehead,spillinghisbrainsthatsomebodyshoutedtoJoselito
(thethirdvictim)torunthatEdwinalsoshotJoselitotwiceinthebackand
that Joselito fell on a burger machine. The shots fired at the three victims
wereapparentlyfiredfromshortdistances.
SameConspiracyConspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscome
toanagreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommit
the felony.Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitthe
felony.Proofoftheactualagreementtocommitthecrimeneednotbedirect
becauseconspiracymaybeimpliedorinferredfromtheiracts.Herein,both
lowercourtsdeducedtheconspiracybetweentheaccusedfromthemodeand
manner in which they perpetrated the killings. We are satisfied that their
deduction was warranted. Based on the foregoing, PO2 Valdez cannot now
avoid criminal responsibility for the fatal shooting by Edwin of Ferdinand
andJoselito.Bothaccusedwereconvincinglyshowntohaveactedinconcert
toachieveacommonpurposeofassaultingtheirunarmedvictimswiththeir
guns.Theiractinginconcertwasmanifestnotonlyfromtheirgoingtogether
tothebettingstationonboardasinglemotorcycle,butalsofromtheirjoint
attackthatPO2ValdezcommencedbyfiringsuccessiveshotsatMoisesand
immediately followed by Edwins shooting of Ferdinand and Joselito one
after the other. It was also significant that they fled together on board the
samemotorcycleassoonastheyhadachievedtheircommonpurpose.Tobe
aconspirator,onedidnothavetoparticipateineverydetailoftheexecution
neitherdidhehavetoknowtheexactpartperformedbyhiscoconspiratorin
theexecution

274

274 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Valdez

of the criminal acts. Accordingly, the existence of the conspiracy between

PO2 Valdez and Edwin was properly inferred and proved through their acts
thatwereindicativeoftheircommonpurposeandcommunityofinterest.
Same Aggravating Circumstances Treachery Treachery is the
employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the
crimes against persons which tend to directly and specially insure its
execution,withoutrisktotheoffendingpartyarisingfromthedefensewhich
the offended party might make.Treachery is the employment of means,
methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons
whichtendtodirectlyandspeciallyinsureitsexecution,withoutrisktothe
offending party arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.Itencompassesawidevarietyofactionsandattendantcircumstances,
theappreciationofwhichisparticulartoacrimecommitted.Corollarily,the
defense against the appreciation of a circumstance as aggravating or
qualifying is also varied and dependent on each particular instance. Such
varietygeneratestheactualneedfortheStatetospecificallyaverthefactual
circumstances or particular acts that constitute the criminal conduct or that
qualifyoraggravatetheliabilityforthecrimeintheinterestofaffordingthe
accusedsufficientnoticetodefendhimself.
Remedial Law Criminal Procedure Information Pleadings and
PracticeTherealnatureofthecriminalchargeisdeterminednotfromthe
caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions
oflaw,butbytheactualrecitalofthefactsinthecomplaintorinformation.
Therealnatureofthecriminalchargeisdeterminednotfromthecaption
orpreambleoftheinformation,orfromthespecificationoftheprovisionof
lawallegedtohavebeenviolated,whicharemereconclusionsoflaw,butby
the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information. In People v.
Dimaano, 469 SCRA 647 (2005), the Court elaborated: For complaint or
information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused the
designation of the offense given by the statute the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense the name of the offended party
the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
whereintheoffensewascommitted.Whatiscontrollingisnotthetitleofthe
complaint,northedesignationoftheoffensechargedortheparticularlawor
partthereofallegedlyvio

275

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 275

Peoplevs.Valdez

lated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the
descriptionofthecrimechargedandtheparticularfactsthereinrecited.The
acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is
sufficienttoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatoffense
is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not
accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every
element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts
and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be
determinedbyreferencetothedefinitionsandessentialsofthespecified
crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the
information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation
against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The
presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the
factsthatconstitutetheoffense.
Same Evidence A practical consequence of the nonallegation of a
detail that aggravates his liability is to prohibit the introduction or
consideration against the accused of evidence that tends to establish that
detail.A practical consequence of the nonallegation of a detail that
aggravateshisliabilityistoprohibittheintroductionorconsiderationagainst
theaccusedofevidencethattendstoestablishthatdetail.Theallegationsin
theinformationarecontrollingintheultimateanalysis.Thus,whenthereisa
variancebetweentheoffensechargedintheinformationandthatproved,and
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved,theaccusedshallbeconvictedoftheoffenseprovedincludedinthe
offensecharged,oroftheoffensechargedincludedintheoffenseproved.In
thatregard,anoffensechargednecessarilyincludestheoffenseprovedwhen
someoftheessentialelementsoringredientsoftheformer,asallegedinthe
information, constitute the latter an offense charged is necessarily included
intheoffenseprovedwhentheessentialingredientsoftheformerconstitute
orformpartofthoseconstitutingthelatter.
CriminalLawPenaltiesPursuanttoArticle249oftheRevisedPenal
Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.Pursuant to Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal.Therebeingnocircumstancesmodi

276

276 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Valdez

fyingcriminalliability,thepenaltyisappliedinitsmediumperiod(i.e.,14
years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months). Under the
IndeterminateSentenceLaw, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is
taken from prision mayor, and the maximum from the medium period of
reclusiontemporal.Hence,theCourtimposestheindeterminatesentenceof
10yearsofprisionmayorasminimumto17yearsofreclusiontemporalas
maximumforeachcountofhomicide.

APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
 PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellants.

BERSAMIN,J.:
Thesufficiencyoftheallegationsofthefactsandcircumstances
constituting the elements of the crime charged is crucial in every
criminal prosecution because of the everpresent obligation of the
State to duly inform the accused of the nature and cause of the
accusation.
The accused were tried for and convicted of three counts of
murder on January 20, 2005 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 86, in Quezon City. They were penalized with reclusion
perpetua for each count, and ordered to pay to the heirs of each
victimP93,000.00asactualdamages,P50,000.00ascivilindemnity,
andP50,000.00asmoraldamages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC on July
18, 2006, subject to the modification that each accused pay to the
heirs of each victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moraldamages,P25,000.00astemperatedamages,andP25,000.00
asexemplarydamages,pluscostsofsuit.1

_______________
1Rollo,pp.218pennedbyAssociateJusticeRenatoC.Dacudao(retired),with
Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and Associate Justice Monina Arevalo
Zenarosa(retired)concurring.

277

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 277
Peoplevs.Valdez

The accused came to the Court to seek acquittal. On May 9,

2007, however, accused Edwin Valdez filed a motion to withdraw
appeal, which the Court granted on October 10, 2007, thereby
deeming Edwins appeal closed and terminated.2 Hence, the Court
herebyresolvesonlytheappealofPO2EduardoValdez.
Antecedents
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged the
twoaccusedintheRTCwiththreecountsofmurderforthekilling
of Ferdinand Sayson, Moises Sayson, Jr., and Joselito Sayson,
alleging:

CriminalCaseNo.0090718
That on or about the 1st day of March, 2000, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the abovenamed accused conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery,evidentpremeditationandabuseofsuperiorstrengthdid,thenand
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and employ
personal violence upon the person of one FERDINAND SAYSON y
DABOCOL by then and there shooting him with a gun, hitting him on his
head, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wound which was the
directandimmediatecauseofhisdeath,tothedamageandprejudiceofthe
heirsofthesaidFERDINANDSAYSONyDABOCOL.
CONTRARYTOLAW.3
CriminalCaseNo.0090719
That on or about the 1st day of March, 2000, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the abovenamed accused conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery,evidentpremeditationandabuseofsuperiorstrengthdid,thenand
there,willfully,unlawfullyandfeloni

_______________
2Id.,p.57.
3Id.,p.3.

278

278 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez

ously, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of one
MOISES SAYSON, JR. y DABOCOL by then and there shooting him
severaltimeswithagun,hittinghimonhisfaceandchest,therebyinflicting
upon him serious and mortal wound which was the direct and immediate
cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said
MOISESSAYSON,JR.yDABOCOL.
CONTRARYTOLAW.4
CriminalCaseNo.0090720
That on or about the 1st day of March, 2000, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the abovenamed accused conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery,evidentpremeditationandabuseofsuperiorstrengthdid,thenand
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and employ
personal violence upon the person of one JOSELITO SAYSON y
DABOCOL by then and there shooting him with a gun, hitting him on his
back, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wound which was the
directandimmediatecauseofhisdeath,tothedamageandprejudiceofthe
heirsofthesaidJOSELITOSAYSONyDABOCOL.
CONTRARYTOLAW.5

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the

Statesevidenceofguiltasfollows:

On March 1, 2000, at around 8:00 oclock in the evening, Estrella

Sayson,(Estrella)wasatthecanteen(whichalsoincludesajaialai betting
station)locatedat77CorregidorStreet,BagoBantay,QuezonCity.Estrella
was preparing for the celebration of the birthday of her second husband,
Wilfredo Lladones, which was held later in the evening. Estrellas son, the
deceased Moises Sayson, a former policeman, and his wife, Susan Sayson
(Susan) owned the said canteen and managed the betting station. At about
9:00oclockintheevening,EstrellasothersonsJoselitoSayson(Joselito)
and Ferdinand Sayson (Ferdinand) arrived at the canteen to greet their
stepfather.Estrellasfamilyandothervisitorsateandenjoyed

_______________
4Id.,p.3.
5Id.

279

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 279
Peoplevs.Valdez

themselves at the party (pp. 35, TSN, November 29, 2000 pp. 36, TSN,
February6,2001pp.34,TSN,July31,2001).
At about 10:00 oclock in the evening, the celebration was interrupted
with the arrival of Eduardo and Edwin, who alighted from a motorcycle in
front of the jai alai fronton. Eduardo and Edwin asked the jai alai teller,
Jonathan Rubio (Jonathan), to come out. Jonathan was then attending to
customerswhowerebuyingjaialaitickets.MoisesapproachedEduardoand
Edwinandtriedtoreasonwiththem.EstrellasawEduardoandEdwinarmed
withguns.ShetriedtopreventMoisesfromgoingnearEdwinandEduardo.
Moisesdidnotheedhismotherswarning.HewentoutandadvisedEduardo
andEdwinnottoforceJonathantogooutofthefronton.Estrellathenheard
one of the accusedappellants threaten Moises with the words Gusto mo
unahin na kita? Moises replied huwag. Successive shots were thereafter
heard. Moises fell and was continuously fired upon even after he was
sprawledontheground.Ferdinandimmediatelyapproachedthescenetohelp
his brother Moises. Ferdinand, however was shot on the left temporal
portionofhisheadandfell.SomebodytoldJoselitotorunaway,buthewas
hit at the back while running. Joselito fell on a burger machine (pp. 711,
TSN,November29,2000pp.610,TSN,February6,2001pp.510,TSN,
July31,2001pp.26,September5,2001).
AftershootingtheSaysonbrothers,EduardoandEdwinescapedfromthe
sceneofthecrime(p.10,TSN,February6,2001).6

Inturn,theappellantsbrieffiledbythePublicAttorneysOffice
(PAO)renderedtheversionoftheaccused,towit:

xxx[A]tabout10:00oclockintheevening,HeididelaCruz(abarbecue
vendor) and Noel Valadon (a tricycle driver) saw accused Edwin Valdez
alight from a bus. The latter bought P100.00 worth of barbecue from Heidi
thenproceededtowardshome.HewaswalkingalongCorregidorStreetwhen
Heidi saw Jun Sayson (Moises), then holding a gun, block his (Edwins)
way. Jun Sayson poked a gun at accused Edwin, shouting, Putangina mo,
papatayin kita. The latter raised both his hands and said Wag kuya Jun,
maawaka.
 _______________
6Id.,p.5.

280

280 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez

Accused Eduardo Valdez (a policeman), then carrying his 6year old

child,waswalkingwhenhiswaywaslikewiseblockedbutthistime,bythe
siblings Joselito and Ferdinand as well as their stepfather. Joselito twisted
one of his (Eduardos) hands at his back while his (Joselitos) stepfather
heldtheother.FerdinandfiredagunbutaccusedEduardowasabletoevade.
Joselito,whowaspositionedbehindEduardo,washit.Heslumpedandbled.
He asked Heidi to inform his family that he was hit. Heidi ran away. She
saw Jun (Moises) and accused Edwin grappling. Thereafter, she heard
gunshots.
Accused Eduardo ducked during the firing. He pretended to be dead.
Ferdinand stopped firing. Accused Eduardos son approached him crying.
Accused thereafter, brought his son home, took his service firearm and on
his way back to the scene of the incident when he met General Jesus
Almadin,hiscommandingofficer(CO).Hereportedtheincidentandsought
foradvice.Hewastoldtotakearestandgobackon(sic)thefollowingday.
He accompanied his CO to Camp Crame. He surrendered his firearm to
Sr./Insp. Rodolfo Araza of the CIU. Accused Edwin Valdez likewise
surrendered (TSN dated 05 February 2003 pp. 39 12 March 2003, pp. 2
16 11 August 2003, pp. 218, 1 September 2003, pp. 310 15 October
2003, pp. 28 03 December 2003, pp. 24 18 February 2004, pp. 29 24
March2004,pp.3910April2004,pp.2707June2004,pp.225).7

The RTC convicted the two accused of three counts of murder

and sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count of
murder.8
Onappeal,theCAaffirmedtheconvictions.9
Issues
In this appeal, PO2 Valdez assails the credibility of the States
witnesses by pointing to inconsistencies and weaknesses in their
testimonieschallengesthefindingofconspir

_______________
7Id.,pp.67.
8Id.,pp.78.
9Id.,p.17.

281

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 281
Peoplevs.Valdez
acy between the accused and contends that the State did not
establishthequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery.10

Ruling

The Court affirms the convictions, but holds PO2 Valdez guilty
only of three counts of homicide due to the failure of the
informations to allege the facts and circumstances constituting
treachery.
Firstofall,PO2ValdezinsiststhattheStateswitnesses(Susan
Sayson,MaritesSaysonandEstrellaSayson)didnotreallyseethe
events as they transpired and that they wrongly identified the two
accusedasthepersonswhohadshotandkilledthevictimsandthat
thevictimswerethemselvestheaggressors.
TheCArejectedPO2Valdezsinsistence,holdingthus:

In their Brief, the accusedappellants desperately attempted to discredit

thetestimoniesofwitnessesSusan,MaritesandEstrella.Theyclaimedthat
aperusalofEstrellastestimonywouldcastdoubtonherstatementthatshe
actuallywitnessedtheshootingincident.Theaccusedappellantsclaimedthat
EstrellaSaysondidnotactuallyseewhoallegedlythreatenedhersonMoises
with the words Gusto mo unahin na kita? The accusedappellants also
claimed that Estrella also failed to see who shot Moises. They likewise
assailedthetestimoniesofSusanandMaritesasbeingincredible.Theysaid
thatSusantestifiedthatshewasinastateofshockaftertheincidentandthat
shecouldnotspeakyetshewasstillabletogiveherstatementonthesame
day the incident allegedly happened. The accusedappellants also said that
Marites testified that she was only about five (5) meters away from them
(accusedappellants) when they alighted from their motorcycle but that,
interestingly,sheonlylearnedfromherhusbandJoselitothattheaccused
appellantswerelookingforacertainJonathan.
We are not persuaded. In her testimony, Estrella satisfactorily explained
herpurportedfailuretoseewhobetweentheaccused

_______________
10Id.,p.11.

282

282 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez

appellants threatened Moises with the words Gusto mo unahin kita? and
who shot her son Moises, by pointing out that she was then facing Moises
because she was preventing him from approaching the accusedappellants,
who were armed with short firearms. Estrella categorically stated that she
saw the accusedappellants alight from their motorcycle on March 1, 2000.
She could not have been mistaken about the identity of the accused
appellants for the simple reason that they are her neighbors and that their
(the accusedappellants) father is her cumpadre. When the incident
happened, the accusedappellants were about eight (8) to ten (10) meters
awayfromwheresheandhersonMoiseswerestanding.Shealsosawwith
herowneyes how her son Moises fell after she heard successive bursts of
gunshots (approximately [9] shots) coming from where the accused
appellantswerestanding.11

Considering that the CA thereby affirmed the trial courts

findingsoffact,itscalibrationofthetestimoniesofwitnessesandits
assessmentoftheirprobativeweight,aswellasitsconclusions,the
Court accords high respect, if not conclusive effect, to the CAs
findings.12Thejustificationforthisisthattrialcourtwasinthebest
position to assess the credibility of witnesses by virtue of its
firsthand observation of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the
witnesses under grilling examination. The only time when a
reviewing court was not bound by the trial courts assessment of
credibilityarisesuponashowingofafactorcircumstanceofweight
and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect
the outcome of the case.13 No such fact or circumstance has been
broughttotheCourtsattention.

_______________
11Rollo,pp.1314(boldemphasesareintheoriginaltext).
12Peoplev.Darilay,G.R.Nos.139751752,January26,2004,421SCRA45,54.
13Peoplev.Santiago,G.R.Nos.13754243,January20,2004,420SCRA248,256
People v. Abolidor, G.R. No. 147231, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 260 People v.
Pacheco,G.R.No.142887,March2,2004,424SCRA164,174Peoplev.Genita,Jr.,
G.R.No.126171,March11,2004,425SCRA343,349Peoplev.Tonog,Jr.,G.R.No.
144497,June29,2004,433SCRA139,153154Perezv.People,G.R.

283

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 283
Peoplevs.Valdez

It is not trite to remind that a truthtelling witness is not always

expectedtogiveanerrorfreetestimonybecauseofthelapseoftime
andthetreacheryofhumanmemoryandthatinaccuraciesnotedin
testimonymayevensuggestthatthewitnessistellingthetruthand
has not been rehearsed.14 To properly appreciate the worth of
testimony,therefore,thecourtsdonotresorttotheindividualwords
orphrasesalonebutseekoutthewholeimpressionoreffectofwhat
hasbeensaidanddone.15
Secondly, PO2 Valdez argues that the three victims were
themselves the aggressors who had attacked to kill him and his
brother. He narrated during the trial that he dodged the bullet fired
fromthegunofFerdinand(oneofthevictims),causingthebulletto
fatally hit Joselito (another victim) that he played dead to avoid
being shot at again, and walked away with his terrified son only
afterthewaywasclearforthemtoleaveandthatheheardgunshots
whileEdwinandJun(thethirdvictim)grappledforcontrolofagun,
and assumed that the gunshots had hit and killed Jun and
Ferdinand.16
TheargumentofPO2Valdezisbereftoffactualmerit.
Itisfundamentalthatthequestionastowhobetweentheaccused
and the victim was the unlawful aggressor is a question of fact
addressedtothetrialcourtfordetermination

_______________
No.150433,January20,2006,479SCRA209,219220Bricenio v. People, G.R.
No. 154804, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 489, 495 People v. Taan, G.R. No. 169432,
October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 219, 230 People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569,
November28,2007,539SCRA306.
14Peoplev.Ebrada,G.R.No.122774,September26,1998,296SCRA353,365.
15Peoplev.Gailo,G.R.No.116233,October.13,1999,316SCRA733,748.
16Rollo,pp.67.

284

284 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez

based on the evidence on record.17 The records show that the

version of PO2 Valdez was contrary to the established facts and
circumstances showing that he and Edwin, then armed with short
firearms, had gone to the jai alai betting station of Moises to
confrontJonathanRubio,thetellerofthebettingbooththenbusily
attendingtobettorsinsidethebooththatbecausetheaccusedwere
calling to Rubio to come out of the booth, Moises approached to
pacify them, but one of them threatened Moises: Gustomounahin
na kita? that immediately after Moises replied: Huwag!, PO2
Valdez fired several shots at Moises, causing him to fall to the
groundthatPO2ValdezcontinuedfiringatthefallenMoisesthat
Ferdinand (another victim) rushed to aid Moises, his brother, but
EdwinshotFerdinandinthehead,spillinghisbrainsthatsomebody
shouted to Joselito (the third victim) to run that Edwin also shot
JoselitotwiceinthebackandthatJoselitofellonaburgermachine.
Theshotsfiredatthethreevictimswereapparentlyfiredfromshort
distances.
The testimonial accounts of the States witnesses entirely jibed
with the physical evidence. Specifically, the medicolegal evidence
showedthatFerdinandhadagunshotwoundinthehead18thattwo
gunshot wounds entered Joselitos back and the right side of his

neck19 and that Moises suffered a gunshot wound in the head and
neck19 and that Moises suffered a gunshot wound in the head and
fourgunshotwoundsinthechest.20Also,Dr.WilfredoTierraofthe
NBI MedicoLegal Office opined that the presence of marginal
abrasions at the points of entry indicated that the gunshot wounds
wereinflictedatcloserange.21Giventhatphysicalevidencewasof
thehighestorderandspokethetruthmoreeloquentlythan

_______________
17Garciav.People,G.R.No.144699,March10,2004,425SCRA221,228.
18ExhibitsKandL.
19ExhibitD.
20ExhibitsQandR.
21TSN,May23,2000,pp.313September12,2000,pp.27.

285

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 285
Peoplevs.Valdez

allwitnessesputtogether,22thecongruencebetweenthetestimonial
recollections and the physical evidence rendered the findings
adversetoPO2ValdezandEdwinconclusive.
Thirdly,conspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometoan
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit the felony.23 Proof of the actual agreement to commit the
crime need not be direct because conspiracy may be implied or
inferred from their acts.24 Herein, both lower courts deduced the
conspiracybetweentheaccusedfromthemodeandmannerinwhich
they perpetrated the killings. We are satisfied that their deduction
waswarranted.
Basedontheforegoing,PO2Valdezcannotnowavoidcriminal
responsibility for the fatal shooting by Edwin of Ferdinand and
Joselito. Both accused were convincingly shown to have acted in
concert to achieve a common purpose of assaulting their unarmed
victims with their guns. Their acting in concert was manifest not
only from their going together to the betting station on board a
single motorcycle, but also from their joint attack that PO2 Valdez
commenced by firing successive shots at Moises and immediately
followed by Edwins shooting of Ferdinand and Joselito one after
theother.Itwasalsosignificantthattheyfledtogetheronboardthe
same motorcycle as soon as they had achieved their common
purpose.
Tobeaconspirator,onedidnothavetoparticipateineverydetail
of the execution neither did he have to know the exact part
performedbyhiscoconspiratorintheexecutionofthe

_______________
 22Peoplev.Bardaje,No.L29271,August29,1980,99SCRA388,399Peoplev.
Nepomuceno,Jr.,G.R.No.127818,November11,1998,298SCRA450,463.
23Art.8,2ndPar.,RevisedPenalCodeAradillosv.CourtofAppeals, G.R. No.
135619,January15,2004,419SCRA514,527Peoplev.Ogapay,No.L28566,August
21,1975,66SCRA209,214.
24Peoplev.Cabrera,G.R.No.105992,February1,1995,241SCRA28,34.

286

286 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez

criminal acts.25 Accordingly, the existence of the conspiracy

between PO2 Valdez and Edwin was properly inferred and proved
throughtheiractsthatwereindicativeoftheircommonpurposeand
communityofinterest.26
And,fourthly,itisunavoidablefortheCourttopronouncePO2
Valdez guilty of three homicides, instead of three murders, on
account of the informations not sufficiently alleging the attendance
oftreachery.
Treacheryistheemploymentofmeans,methods,orformsinthe
executionofanyofthecrimesagainstpersonswhichtendtodirectly
andspeciallyinsureitsexecution,withoutrisktotheoffendingparty
arisingfromthedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymightmake.27 It
encompassesawidevarietyofactionsandattendantcircumstances,
the appreciation of which is particular to a crime committed.
Corollarily,thedefenseagainsttheappreciationofacircumstanceas
aggravating or qualifying is also varied and dependent on each
particular instance. Such variety generates the actual need for the
Statetospecificallyaverthefactualcircumstancesorparticularacts
thatconstitutethecriminalconductorthatqualifyoraggravatethe
liability for the crime in the interest of affording the accused
sufficientnoticetodefendhimself.
Itcannotbeotherwise,for,indeed,therealnatureofthecriminal
charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the
information,orfromthespecificationoftheprovisionoflawalleged
tohavebeenviolated,whicharemereconclusionsoflaw,butbythe
actualrecitalofthefactsinthe

_______________
25Peoplev.DeJesus,G.R.No.134815,May27,2004,429SCRA384,404People
v.Masagnay,G.R.No.137364,June10,2004,431SCRA572,580.
26People v. Natipravat, No. L69876, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 483, 492
People v. Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 355, 364 People v.
Merabueno,G.R.No.87179,December14,1994,239SCRA197,203204.
27Article14(16),RevisedPenalCode.

287
 VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 287
Peoplevs.Valdez

complaint or information.28 In People v. Dimaano,29 the Court

elaborated:

Forcomplaintorinformationtobesufficient,itmuststatethenameof
the accused the designation of the offense given by the statute the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense the name of the
offendedpartytheapproximatetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense,and
theplacewhereintheoffensewascommitted.Whatiscontrollingisnotthe
title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the
particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere
conclusionsoflawmadebytheprosecutor,butthedescriptionofthecrime
charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions
complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a
person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be
charged,andenablethecourttopronounceproperjudgment.Noinformation
for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the
elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be
stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary
to be included therein must be determined by reference to the
definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of
alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the
accusedofthenatureoftheaccusationagainsthimsoastoenablehim
to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused
hasnoindependentknowledgeofthefactsthatconstitutetheoffense.
[emphasissupplied]

The averments of the informations to the effect that the two

accused with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, evident
premeditationandabuseofsuperiorstrengthdidxxxassault,attack
andemploypersonalviolenceuponthevictimsbythenandthere
shooting[them]withagun,hitting[them]onvariouspartsoftheir
bodies which [were] the direct and immediate cause of [their]
death[s]didnotsuffi

_______________
28Lacsonv.ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.128096,January20,1999,301SCRA
298,327.
29G.R.No.168168,September14,2005,469SCRA647,666667.

288

288 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
ciently set forth the facts and circumstances describing how
treachery attended each of the killings. It should not be difficult to
seethatmerelyaverringthekillingofapersonbyshootinghimwith
agun,withoutmore,didnotshowhowtheexecutionofthecrime
wasdirectlyandspeciallyensuredwithoutrisktotheaccusedfrom
thedefensethatthevictimmightmake.Indeed,theuseofthegunas
an instrument to kill was not per se treachery, for there are other
instrumentsthatcouldservethesamelethalpurpose.Nordidtheuse
ofthetermtreacheryconstituteasufficientaverment,forthatterm,
standingalone,wasnothingbutaconclusionoflaw,notanaverment
ofafact.Inshort,theparticularactsandcircumstancesconstituting
treacheryasanattendantcircumstanceinmurderweremissingfrom
theinformations.
Todischargeitsburdenofinforminghimofthecharge,theState
must specify in the information the details of the crime and any
circumstance that aggravates his liability for the crime. The
requirement of sufficient factual averments is meant to inform the
accusedofthenatureandcauseofthechargeagainsthiminorderto
enablehimtopreparehisdefense.Itemanatesfromthepresumption
ofinnocenceinhisfavor,pursuanttowhichheisalwayspresumed
tohavenoindependentknowledgeofthedetailsofthecrimeheis
being charged with. To have the facts stated in the body of the
informationdeterminethecrimeofwhichhestandschargedandfor
whichhemustbetriedthoroughlyaccordswithcommonsenseand
withtherequirementsofplainjustice,for,astheCourtfittinglysaid
inUnitedStatesv.LimSan:30

Fromalegalpointofview,andinaveryrealsense,itisofnoconcern
to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands
charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. xxx. That to
whichhisattentionshouldbedirected,andinwhichhe,aboveallthings
else,shouldbemostinterested,arethefactsalleged.Therealquestion
isnotdidhe

_______________
30UnitedStatesv.LimSan,17Phil.273(1910).

289

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 289
Peoplevs.Valdez

commitacrimegiveninthelawsometechnicalandspecificname,but
did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the
manner therein set forth. If he did, it is of no consequence to him,
either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law
denominates the crime which those acts constitute. The designation of
the crime by name in the caption of the information from the facts
allegedinthebodyofthatpleadingisaconclusionoflawmadebythe
fiscal. In the designation of the crime the accused never has a real
interest until the trial has ended. For his full and complete defense he
need not know the name of the crime at all. It is of no consequence
whatever for the protection of his substantial rights. The real and
important question to him is, Did you perform the acts alleged in the
manner alleged? not Did you commit a crime named murder. If he
performed the acts alleged, in the manner stated, the law determines
what the name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefor. It is the
provinceofthecourtalonetosaywhatthecrimeisorwhatitisnamed.
xxx.(emphasissupplied)

A practical consequence of the nonallegation of a detail that

aggravates his liability is to prohibit the introduction or
considerationagainsttheaccusedofevidencethattendstoestablish
thatdetail.Theallegationsintheinformationarecontrollinginthe
ultimate analysis. Thus, when there is a variance between the
offensechargedintheinformationandthatproved,andtheoffense
aschargedisincludedinornecessarilyincludestheoffenseproved,
theaccusedshallbeconvictedoftheoffenseprovedincludedinthe
offense charged, or of the offense charged included in the offense
proved.31Inthatregard,anoffensechargednecessarilyincludesthe
offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients
oftheformer,asallegedintheinformation,constitutethelatteran
offensechargedisnecessarilyincludedintheoffenseprovedwhen
theessentialingredientsof

_______________
31Section4,Rule120,RulesofCourt.

290

290 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez

theformerconstituteorformpartofthoseconstitutingthelatter.32
Wenowfixthepenaltyforeachcountofhomicide.
Pursuant to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
forhomicideisreclusiontemporal.33Therebeingnocircumstances
modifying criminal liability, the penalty is applied in its medium
period(i.e.,14years,8monthsand1dayto17yearsand4months).
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence is taken from prision mayor, and the
maximum from the medium period of reclusion temporal. Hence,
theCourtimposestheindeterminatesentenceof10yearsofprision
mayorasminimumto17yearsofreclusiontemporal as maximum
foreachcountofhomicide.
 WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals
promulgated on July 18, 2006 is MODIFIED by finding PO2
Eduardo Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of
HOMICIDE, and sentencing him to suffer for each count the
indeterminatesentenceof10yearsofprisionmayorasminimumto
17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay to the
respective heirs of the late Ferdinand Sayson, Moises Sayson, Jr.,
and Joselito Sayson the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate
damages.
Theaccusedshallpaythecostsofsuit.
SOORDERED.

Corona(C.J.,Chairperson),LeonardoDeCastro,DelCastillo
andVillarama,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

_______________
32Section4,Rule120,RulesofCourt.
33Article249.Homicide.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsof
Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances
enumeratedinthenextprecedingarticle,shallbedeemedguiltyofhomicideandbe
punishedbyreclusiontemporal.

291

VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 291
Peoplevs.Valdez

Judgmentmodified.

Notes.Thepresenceofunlawfulaggressionisaconditionsine
quanonforselfdefensetobewarranted.(Ronquillovs.People,614
SCRA704[2010])
Theessenceoftreacheryistheunexpectedandsuddenattackon
thevictimwhichrendersthelatterunableandunpreparedtodefend
himselfbyreasonofthesuddennessandseverityoftheattackThis
criterion applies whether the attack is frontal or from behind.
(Peoplevs.Roxas,628SCRA378[2010])

o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.