PEOPLE VS.

DASMARINAS
GR NO. 203986
October 4, 2017

FACTS:
The accused Dasmarinas and Polo were charged with murder by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las
Pinas for the killing of PO2 Marlon Anoya. According to the information filed by the prosecutor, the
killing of the victim was qualified by the circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength and
evident premeditation. During the arraignment, Polo pleaded not guilty while Dasmarinas also did the
same. Both of them denied having killed the victim Anoya.

During the trial of the case, Accused Dasmarinas he was not in the scene of the crime and that he was
with his live-in partner in San Juan. The preliminary investigation of the case was already going. The
prosecutor sent subpoenas to the accused Dasmarnas requiring him to appear in the investigation.
However, he denied having received such. He was arrested by the police with another case of robbery
and another case filed for homicide. He also denied having known co accused Polo. What he knew only
was Polo was detained in Mandaluyong City. Meanwhile, no case was filed against Polo because the
subpoena sent to him returned and that no preliminary investigation was done to him. However, after
the trial ensued, the RTC entered a judgment finding accused Dasmarinas guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder and acquitting his co-accused Polo of the crime.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC finding the accused
Dasmarinas guilty as charged. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of the offense charged
2. Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in convicting the appellant when his “out-of-court”
identification was tainted with grave infirmities

HELD:

1. NO.The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal lacks merit, but the Court holds that the conviction
of Dasmariñas for murder cannot be upheld. He is properly liable only for homicide. According
to the SC, the acts constitutive of treachery were not thereby sufficiently averred in the information.
The mere usage of the term treachery in the information, without anything more, did not suffice for
such term was a conclusion of law, not a factual averment. The consequences are dire for the State if
the standards of sufficiency are not followed because the accused should be found and declared
guilty only of the crime properly and sufficiently charged in the information.

2. The Court agrees that the out-of-court identification of Dasmariñas by Perias as one of the two
assailants did not result from any impermissible suggestion by the police or other external source;
and that it could not have been influenced unfairly against Dasmariñas. The Court noted that Perias
repeated his identification in court during the trial. The reliability of the identification was based on
Perias' having witnessed the shooting from the short distance of only two meters away. Also,
although the shooting occurred at around 2:00 o'clock in the morning of June 16, 2007, there was
adequate illumination because the scene of the crime was in front a beerhouse. The proximity of his
point of observation and the adequacy of the illumination provided to him the means to make the
reliable identification of Dasmariñas.