People v.

Feliciano
G.R. No. 196735, August 3, 2016
Leonen, J.

Facts:

On December 8, 1994, while seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch
near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, they were suddenly attacked with
baseball bats and lead pipes by men believed to be members of Scintilla Juris Fraternity. The assailants’
heads were covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts and the commotion lasted about thirty to forty-
five seconds. The victims were brought to the UP Infirmary while the attackers fled. Dennis Venturina,
one of the victims, was transferred to St. Luke’s Hospital that very night. He died on December 10. On
the 11th, an autopsy was conducted on his cadaver and the NBI medico-legal concluded that Venturina
died of traumatic head injuries.

An information for murder was filed against twelve members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity with
the RTC of Quezon City. Separate informations were also filed against them for the attempted murder
of 3 Sigma Rho fraternity members, and the frustrated murder of 2 Sigma Rho fraternity members. Only
11 of the accused stood trial since one of the accused remained at large.

In 2002, the trial court rendered its decision with the findings that only 5 of the twelve accused
were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among
other penalties, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The case against one accused was ordered archived
by the court until his apprehension. Because one of the penalties meted out was reclusion perpetua, the
case was brought to the SC on automatic appeal. However, due to the amendment of the Rules on
Appeal, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals.

On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a Special First Division of Five, affirmed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court, but downgraded the attempted murder case to slight physical
injuries. The decision of the Court of Appeals was then brought to the SC for review. It is the argument
of appellants that the information filed against them violates their constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against them. They argue that the prosecution should not have
included the phrase “wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the information since they were
presenting testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants’ constitutional rights were violated when the information
against them contained the aggravating circumstance of the use of masks despite the prosecution
presenting witnesses to prove that the masks fell off?

Held:

No. Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the inclusion of the phrase “wearing masks
and/or other forms of disguise” in the information does not violate their constitutional rights. Every
aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an
aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. It was, therefore,
incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of “wearing masks and/or other
forms of disguise” in the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be
admissible by the trial court.
 In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the
accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes. The introduction of the
prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the masks
fell off does not prevent them from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is
important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity
by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently
apprise the accused that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with, they tried to
conceal their identity.

Death or injuries caused by fraternity rumbles are not treated as separate or distinct crimes, unlike
deaths or injuries as a result of hazing. They are punishable as ordinary crimes of murder, homicide, or
physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code. People vs. Feliciano, Jr., 799 SCRA 375, G.R. No. 196735
August 3, 2016