PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

P02 EDUARDO VALDEZ and EDWIN VALDEZ

G.R. No. 175602, February 13, 2013 (Special First Division) - Bersamin, J

Facts:

• Sometime in March 2000, in one evening, Estrella Sayson, (Estrella) was at the canteen (which
also includes a jai alai betting station) in Quezon City. Estrella was preparing for the celebration
of the birthday of her second husband. Estrella’s son, the deceased Moises, a former policeman,
and his wife, Susan owned the said canteen and managed the betting station. At about 9:00
o’clock in the evening, Estrella’s other sons Joselito and Ferdinand arrived at the canteen to greet
their stepfather. At about 10:00 o’clock 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.
Accused asked the teller (Jonathan), while attending to other customers, to come out. Moises,
however, approached the accused and tried to pacify them. Estrella prevented Moises not to go
near the accused since she saw the latter armed with guns. Despite this, Moises proceeded and
advised the accused not to force Jonathan to go out of the fronton. Estrella then heard one of the
accused-appellants threaten Moises with the words “Gusto mo unahin na kita?” Moises replied
“huwag.” Successive shots were thereafter heard, leaving Moises dead. Ferdinand approached to
help his brother but was then shot, even Joselito was shot, hitting his back while running.
• The accused version of the story had been different but was not given merit by the lower court.
• The Information filed by the State includes conspiracy and treachery which qualifies the crime to
murder. On appeal, accused assails among others that the State did not establish the qualifying
circumstance of treachery as alleged in the Information.
• The two accused were tried for three counts of murder by the RTC Branch 86, in Quezon City. On
January 20, 2005, the RTC convicted them as charged, prescribed on each of them the penalty of
reclusion perpetua for each count. The CA upheld the RTC on July 18, 2006 with only modifications
in damages and indemnities.
• The two accused then came to the Court on final appeal, but on May 9, 2007, Edwin Valdez filed
a motion to withdraw appeal, which the Court granted on October 10, 2007, thereby deeming
Edwin’s appeal closed and terminated.
• On January 18, 2012, the Court promulgated its judgment on the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez,
finding him guilty of three counts of homicide, instead of three counts of murder, and meting on
him for each count of homicide the indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor as
minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
• Subsequently, Edwin sent to the Court Administrator a self-explanatory letter dated March 12,
2012, where he pleaded for the application to him of the judgment promulgated on January 18,
2012 on the ground that the judgment would be beneficial to him as an accused.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Information sufficiently alleged the attendance of treachery to convict the
accused of three counts of murder.
2. Whether or not Edwin may be able to avail of a lesser sentence similar to his co-conspirator
Eduardo despite withdrawing his appeal.
Rulings:

1. No. The Court pronounced PO2 Valdez guilty of three homicides, instead of three murders, on
account of the Informations not sufficiently alleging the attendance of treachery. However, it
affirmed the CA’s decision on the credibility of the witnesses and the presence of conspiracy
between the two accused as proved in the facts alleged.
• The Court noted that treachery encompasses a wide variety of actions and attendant
circumstances, the appreciation of which is particular to a crime committed. Such variety
generates the actual need for the State to specifically aver the factual circumstances or
particular acts that constitute the criminal conduct or that qualify or aggravate the liability
for the crime in the interest of affording the accused sufficient notice to defend himself.
Further the Court laid down its decision in People vs. Dimaano that “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. “
• The allegations in the Information are controlling in the ultimate analysis. Thus, when there
is a variance between the offense charged in the Information and that proved, and the
offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
shall be convicted of the offense proved included in the offense charged, or of the offense
charged included in the offense proved. In that regard, an offense charged necessarily
includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the
former, as alleged in the information, constitute the latter; an offense charged is necessarily
included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or
form part of those constituting the latter.
• It cannot be otherwise, for, indeed, the real nature of the criminal charge is determined
not from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by
the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.

2. Yes, not Edwin may be able to avail of a lesser sentence similar to his co-conspirator Eduardo
despite withdrawing his appeal.
• In this connection, the Court has pronounced in Lim v. Court of Appeals that the benefits
of this provision extended to all the accused, regardless of whether they appealed or
not
• Based on Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as
amended, which states:
i. SEC. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.- (a) An appeal taken by one
or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the
latter.