CRIMINAL RULE 110: SECTION 8&9

PROCEDURE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GR No. 139297

TORRECAMPO
Date: FEBRUARY 23, 2004

Ponente: PUNO, J.

People of the Philippines, Appellee Renato Torrecampo, Rene Torrecampo,

Appellants

FACTS

Appellants Renato and Rene Torrecampo (brothers) were charged before the Regional
Trial Court with murder for the killing of one Jovito Gaspillo.

The information alleged: That on or about the 11th day of November 1994, in the
Municipality of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one,
NORA TORRECAMPO Y LEYTE whose present whereabouts still unknown and all of
them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, taking advantage of
superior strength and/or with evident premeditation did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab in the different part(s) of his body and
even cut off his head with a bladed weapon, one JOVITO GASPILLO, thereby inflicting
upon him serious and mortal wounds, which directly caused the death of said JOVITO
GASPILLO.

On the basis of circumstantial evidence, the trial court found Renato and Rene
Torrecampo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced them to death.

Appellants contend that the decision of the trial court is not supported and contrary to
the evidence adduced during trial.

ISSUE/S

I. Whether or not the trial court erred in holding the appellants guilty of murder
- YES

RATIO
The Information alleged the circumstances of “taking advantage of superior strength
and/or evident premeditation,” and charged the crime of murder. The circumstances
that qualify the killing to murder must be proved indubitably as the killing itself. The
prosecution failed to prove these circumstances.

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of forces between

the victim and the aggressor. This assumes a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken advantage of by him
in the commission of the crime. The evidence does not show that appellants took
advantage of their number in order to overpower the victim. The evidence against
appellants is merely circumstantial.

Nor was evident premeditation proved. There is no proof in the instant case of (a) the
time when appellants determined to commit the crime; (b) an overt act manifestly
indicating that they clung to their determination to commit the crime; and, (c) the
lapse of sufficient period of time between the determination and the execution of the
crime, to allow appellants to reflect upon the consequences of their act. Hence, this
circumstance cannot likewise be appreciated.

The Solicitor General submits that treachery should be appreciated against the
appellants as Jovito was asleep when killed. He contends that while treachery was not
alleged in the Information, it could be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance. We do not agree. Erlinda testified that Jovito was asleep prior to the
arrival of appellants but she did not say that he was still sleeping when the attack
commenced. Even assuming that treachery was proved, it could not be considered a
generic aggravating circumstance. Sections 8 and 9 [of Rule 110] of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure provide:

Sec. 8. Designation of the Offense. — The complaint or information shall state the
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it.

Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as

constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used
in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding
to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

Clearly, under the aforesaid provisions, aggravating circumstances, whether qualifying

or generic, must be alleged in the information before they can be considered by the
court. These new provisions apply even if the crime was committed prior to their
effectivity since they are favorable to the accused, as in this case.

Prescinding from these premises, appellants can only be convicted of the crime of
homicide. The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is
reclusion temporal. Corollarily, Article 64 (1) provides that when there are neither
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty prescribed by law shall be
imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum penalty to be imposed on appellants should be taken from the medium
period of reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while the
minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor,
the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its
periods.

RULING
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the trial court finding appellants RENATO and
RENE TORRECAMPO guilty of murder and imposing upon them the penalty of death is
MODIFIED; they are instead found guilty of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code and each sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of twelve (12)
years of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay the heirs of
Jovito Caspillo P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages,
P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and to pay the costs.

Notes