PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ and EDWIN VALDEZ

G.R. No. 175602
January 18, 2012
FACTS:
The accused were tried for and convicted of three counts of murder on 2005 by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City. Co-accused Edwin withdrew from the appeal,
leaving Eduardo as the sole accused in the resolution of the appealed case. Accused herein
seek acquittal. According to the States evidence of guilt, they averred that sometime in
March 2000, in one evening, Estrella Sayson, (Estrella) was at the canteen (which also
includes a jai alaibetting station) in Quezon City. Estrella was preparing for the celebration of
the birthday of her second husband. Estrellas son, the deceased Moises, a former
policeman, and his wife, Susan owned the said canteen and managed the betting station. At
about 9:00 oclock in the evening, Estrellas other sons Joselito and Ferdinand arrived at the
canteen to greet their stepfather. 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. 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 the State did not establish the qualifying circumstance of
treachery as alleged in the information.
ISSUE: Whether or not the information sufficiently alleged the attendance of treachery to
convict the accused of three counts of murder.
HELD: 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 CAs decision on the credibility of the witnesses and the presence of
conspiracy between the two accused as proved in the facts alleged. Nevertheless, 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. Also, the Court ruled that The
averments of the informations to the effect that the two accused with intent to kill, qualified
with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength did xxx assault, attack
and employ personal violence upon the victims by then and there shooting [them] with a
gun, hitting [them] on various parts of their bodies which [were] the direct and immediate
cause of [their] death[s] did not sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstances describing
how treachery attended each of the killings. It should not be difficult to see that merely
averring the killing of a person by shooting him with a gun, without more, did not show how
the execution of the crime was directly and specially ensured without risk to the accused
from the defense that the victim might make. Indeed, the use of the gun as an instrument to
kill was not per se treachery, for there are other instruments that could serve the same
lethal purpose. Nor did the use of the term treachery constitute a sufficient averment, for

that term, standing alone, was nothing but a conclusion of law, not an averment of a fact. In
short, the particular acts and circumstances constituting treachery as an attendant
circumstance in murder were missing from the informations.. 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.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. KHADDAFY JANJALANI, et.al
G.R. No. 188314
January 10, 2011
FACTS: This was the case of the Valentines Day bombing in 2005 by members of the Abu
Sayyaf, which according to them was a gift to the then Pres. Arroyo. A bomb exploded in the
RRCG bus while the bus was plying the EDSA route fronting the MRT terminal which is in
front of the Makati Commercial Center. Prior to the explosion, at around 6:30 to 7:30 in the
evening, while they were about to move out of the Guadalupe-EDSA southbound bus stop,
the bus conductor noticed two men running after the bus. The two insisted on getting on the
bus, so the conductor obliged and let them in.According to the bus conductor, he became
wary of the two because of its suspicious attitude, sitting apart with each other in the bus
and looked dumb strucked when asked to pay for the fare, the conductor noticed that both
of the accused paid for two fares each. Their eyes were also reddish and the other man who
sat at the back of the bus appeared to be slouching, with his legs stretched out in front of
him and his arms hanging out and hidden from view as if he was tinkering with something.
Despite the suspicion theconductor never reported to the police. Moreover, the two men
frequently asked the conductor if the bus would stop over Ayala Avenue. Upon reaching the
said destination, the both of the accused insisted to alight from the bus even if it is not yet
the proper unloading zone. Suddenly, the bus exploded causing the death of the four
passengers and more or less 40 persons injured. The accused indicted in the pre-trial were
Trinidad and Baharan and admitted guilt in some television interviews, later Asali, another
accused who turned out to be a state witness, gave a tv interview , confessing that he had
supplied the explosive devices. On their arraignment for the multiple murder charge
(Crim. Case No. 05-476), Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a plea of guilty. On the
other hand, upon arraignment for the multiple frustrated murder charge (Crim. Case No.
05-477), accused Asali pled guilty. Accused Trinidad and Baharan pled not guilty. , the
trial court asked whether accused Baharan and Trinidad were amenable to changing their
not guilty pleas to the charge of multiple frustrated murder, considering that they pled
guilty to the heavier charge ofmultiple murder, creating an apparent inconsistency in their
pleas. The two accused acknowledged the inconsistencies and manifested their readiness for
re-arraignment. After the Information was read to them, Baharan and Trinidad pled guilty to
the charge of multiple frustrated murder.Later, accused filed an appeal, arguing, among
others, that the trial court did not conduct a searching inquiry after they had changed their
plea from not guilty to guilty.
ISSUE: Whether or not a searching inquiry by the trial court in the re-arraignment is
necessary before allowing the changing of pleas of the accused?
HELD: Yes. The Court ruled that a searching inquiry must have been conducted by the judge
in the re-arraignment. As early as in People v. Apduhan, the Supreme Court has ruled that all
trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accused's plea of guilty, for while
justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in
seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea
and the import of an inevitable conviction.Thus, trial court judges are required to observe
the following procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. Such requirement
applies in re-arraignment. The Court have reiterated in a long line of cases that the conduct

of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the rules to
satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress; mistaken
impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and consequences of their
guilty plea.This requirement is stringent and mandatory.
Nevertheless, the court are not unmindful of the context under which the rearraignment was conducted or of the factual milieu surrounding the finding of guilt against
the accused. The Court observes that accused Baharan and Trinidad previously pled guilty to
another charge multiple murder based on the same act relied upon in the multiple frustrated
murder charge. The Court further notes that prior to the change of plea to one of guilt,
accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other confessions of guilt one through an
extrajudicial confession (exclusive television interviews), and the other via judicial admission
(pretrial stipulation). Considering the foregoing circumstances, the Court deem it
unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the searching inquiry in this instance. However, the
Court still upholds the findings of guilt made by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, in lieu of the sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused which was
proved in the trial court.