[ G.R. No.

238120, February 12, 2020 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICO DELA PEÑA,*
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Facts: Rico Dela Pena was charged for the murder of his brother in law, Olipio Gomez
Amahit before the Regional Trial Court of Bais City. The information read:

xxxThat on or about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of December 14, 2006 , at Barangay Samak,
Mabinay, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without any just motive,
with treachery, and with intent to kill his brother in law, OLIPIO GOMEZ AMAHIT, assault,
attack, and stab said Olipio Gomez Amahit with a "pinuti", thereby inflicting upon him
multiple stab wounds on his body, which directly caused the death of said Olipio Gomez
Amahit, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.xxx

The RTC found Dela Pena guilty of the crime of murder. This was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. Both the RTC and the CA ruled that treachery qualified the killing to murder.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue: 
Was the information filed sufficient to convict petitioner of murder

Ruling: 
Yes. The Court found that the CA committed no error in concluding that appellant is
indeed guilty of the crime of murder. 

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Information is sufficient if it contains

the full name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute,
the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the
approximate date, as well as the place of the offense. To the Court's mind, the
Information herein complied with these conditions since the qualifying circumstance
of "treachery" was specifically alleged in the Information. 

It also bears emphasis that accused-appellant never claimed that he was deprived
of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him due to the
insufficiency of the Information. This is indicated in Section 9 Rule 117 Motion to
Quash.

Section 9 of the same rule states that the failure of the accused to assert any
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to
allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections
except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g),
and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.

Recently in People v. Solar, the accused voluntarily entered his plea during the
arraignment and proceeded with the trial. He was deemed to have understood the
acts imputed against him by the Information.
In this case, the defense not only failed to question the sufficiency of the
Information at any time during the pendency of the case before the RTC, it even
allowed the prosecution to present competent evidence, proving the elements of
treachery in the commission of the offense. At this point, herein accused-appellant
is deemed to have waived any objections against the sufficiency of the Information.