REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 22, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 234-56

For : Parricide

AINA MORISON AND BIN ROMERO

Accused,

x-------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Before us is a Motion to Quash charges of Parricide filed by the Prosecutor through

private complainant (herein private respondent) Gean Cabrera against Aina Morrison

and Bin Romero. The information reads:

a.) That on or about the 3rd day of October, 2019, in the City of

Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable

Court, the said accused conspiring with BIN ROMERO, with intent to

kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit

violation of Art. 246 of Revised Penal Code on the person of JEAN

MORRISON, by the use of Arsenic which caused the victim’s death.

 That the crime was attended by an aggravating circumstance of

treachery and advantage by means to weaken the defense of accused.

b.) That on or about the 3rd day of October, 2019, in the City of

Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable

Court, the said accused conspiring with AINA MORRISON, with intent

to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit

violation of Art. 246 of Revised Penal Code on the person of JEAN

MORRISON, by the use of Arsenic which caused the victim’s death.

That the crime was attended by an aggravating circumstance of

treachery and advantage by means to weaken the defense of accused.

THE FACTS

On the morning of October 3, 2019, Jean Morrison, a 64 year old Chairperson of

the Divina Group, was found dead in his library. His body was slumped on his table, his

tea was half-drunk, and papers were scattered from the table to the floor on his right. The

estimated time of death was 7:35am.

The first person who discovered the victim’s death was Andrew Sebastian, a 38

year old Vice-Chairperson of the Divina Group. According to Andrew, he came to the

victim’s library around 8:00am on October 3, 2019. He known the victim to be a light

sleeper so he thought that he would respond to his call. The victim did not wake up which

prompted him to nudge the victim. He then discovered that Jean’s lips were dark as
midnight, blue and black dancing on his lips and that there was a dark smear on his

forehead.

A number of personalities then came into present at the crime scene: Divine Bacal,

Jean’s ex-wife was first. Next was Gean Cabrera-Morrison, the second wife. Bin Romero,

the butler who collapsed on the sight of the victim. Finally, the daughter of Jean and the

heiress to his estate, Aina Morrison.

The lead investigator of the case, Mr. Baeron Alcala, said that the post mortem

showed that the victim was paralyzed with silver cleaner. His entire body was incapable

of motion for an entire hour. Then he was made to ingest arsenic, hence the color of his

lips, and drawing black due to the poison circulating in his bloodstream. There was also a

dark red smear on his forehead, an indication that the victim was hit on the face. Poison

may have been mixed into the tea which was served by the butler. The silver cleaner,

according to Mr. Alcala, require more time before it takes effect that it may have been

served at breakfast.

Prosecution asserts that the case was a murder plot brought by revenge, while the

defense asserts that this was a case of greed in wealth and power.

Gean Cabrera-Morrison (private complainant) filed the case on the belief that the victim

was killed by his scorned ex-wife Divine, who cannot accept that Jean has re-married.

After the preliminary investigations, Gean Cabrera-Morrison asserts that Aina Morisson

and Bin Romero are guilty of parricide of Jean Morrison . She then submitted exhibit A –

Baeron Alcala’s forensic report, and exhibit B – transcription of the trial that commenced

last October 4, 2019.

 In their answer, Aina Morrison and Bin Romero prayed that they be cleared of

any possible criminal complaints and charges to be filed against them for lack of probable

cause. It is the defendants’ prayer that the prosecution conducts further investigation on

the circumstantial evidence involved in the case at bar.

It is Aina and Bin's prayer that that the two information be quashed and the case

be dismissed since the facts charged do not constitute an offense.

THE ISSUE

The only issue raised in this court is whether Aina Morisson and Bin Romero’s

Motion to Quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense be

granted.

OUR RULING

Upon careful examination of the foregoing facts, herein petitioners correctly raised

the issue that the information filed by the prosecution has failed to establish nor positively

identify through direct evidences that Aina Morrison and Bin Romero were the ones

responsible for the death of the victim Jean Morrison.

The content of the information along with the judicial affidavit of Gean Cabrera-

Morrison, the present wife of the victim, Divine Bacal, the former wife of the victim, and

Andrew Sebastian, the Vice President of Divina Group which the victim owns only

narrated facts and circumstances denying their guilt but did not particularly narrated

circumstances which may point to the guilt of herein petitioners.

 Furthermore, the charge of Parricide against Bin Romero cannot be accepted by

this court because even if the prosecution would be able to present evidences against the

innocence of Romero, the third essential element of the crime Parricide is not met.

That the elements of Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code are as follow:

a. A person is killed;

b. The deceased is killed by the accused;

c. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or

illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the

legitimate spouse of accused.

Thus, the petitioners’ Motion to Quash was only proper.

Sec3, Rule 117, Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or

information on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

However, it is provided in Sec 4 of Rule 117 of Rules of Criminal Procedure that

when the ground for motion to quash is Sec 3 (a), the prosecution shall be ordered to

amend the information filed. Sec 4 provides a cure for such mistake of the prosecution.

Sec. 4, Rule 117, Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Section 4. Amendment of the complaint or information. — If the motion to

quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which

 can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be

made. (4a)

If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an

offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct

the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution

fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers

from the same defect despite the amendment. (n)

In the present case, this Court is of the conviction that the essential elements of the

offense as alleged and as defined by law was not sufficiently shown through the affidavit

of the victim’s former wife, Divine Bacal and present wife, Gean Cabrera, as adopted by

the Prosecution. Further, Bin Morrison cannot be charged of Parricide because even if

there be evidences to assert his guilt for killing the victim, the charges so not satisfy the

third essential element of parricide.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Motion to

Quash Information is DENIED and the prosecution is ORDERED to amend the

information charging Aina Morisson and Bin Romero of the crime punishable under Art.

246 of the Revised Penal Code for the death of Jean Morrison and the trial of the

determination of herein petitioners’ guilt or innocence shall proceed.

November 18, 2019

SO ORDERED.