SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 252859. March 15, 2023 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONNIE RALLA Y BULAQUIÑA,1 ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DISSENT
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The majority decision resolves to hold appellant guilty only of the complex crime of robbery with homicide on the ground that appellant's criminal acts against 17-year-old Ma. Katrina R. Herrera (Katrina), Jesusa Reyes Herrera (Jesusa), and Josefina Dela Cruz Reyes (Josefina), having been committed on the occasion of the robbery, are all absorbed in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In so holding, the majority decision heavily relies on People v. De Jesus1 where the Court held that all the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
To recall, appellant here was separately charged with frustrated murder (Crim. Case No. 1073-V-17) committed against 17-year-old Katrina; frustrated murder (Crim. Case No. 1074-17) committed against Jesusa; robbery with homicide (Crim. Case No. 1075-V-17) committed against Simeon Fausto Herrera (Simeon); and attempted murder (Crim. Case No. 1076-V-17) committed against Josefina.
After due proceedings, the trial court found appellant guilty for attempted homicide in Crim. Case No. 1073-V-17; frustrated homicide in Crim. Case No. 1074-V-17; robbery with homicide in Crim. Case No. 1075-V-17; and attempted murder in Crim. Case No. 1076-V-17. The appellate court modified but only insofar as the penalties imposed were concerned.
I respectfully disagree.1aшphi1
As stated, the majority decision resolves to convict appellant of a single complex crime from an amalgamation of separate Informations. The hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction, however, is that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or Information. Constitutionally, the accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. To convict an accused of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or Information would be violative of this constitutional right. Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the Information filed against him or her.2
Section 14, par. 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution reads:
(2) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, alter arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Here, though the crimes of attempted homicide, frustrated homicide, and attempted murder were committed against Katrina, Jesusa, and Josefina, respectively, on the occasion of the robbery, before us are separate Informations charging appellant with separate crimes apart from the complex crime of robbery with homicide committed against Simeon.
As a rule, only one Information should be filed when a complex crime is committed.3 If the components of a complex crime or special complex crime are alleged in two different Informations, the accused shall be convicted of separate crimes so as not to violate his or her right to be informed of the nature of the crime charged against him or her, although the penalty for the complex crime would have been more favorable to the accused.4
In People v. Manalili,5 therein appellants were separately charged with: 1) attempted robbery, 2) multiple frustrated murders, and 3) qualified illegal possession of firearms used in multiple murders. The trial court adjudged therein appellants guilty of attempted robbery with homicide on the ground that on the occasion of the attempted robbery, four persons were killed and one was injured. The Court disagreed holding that an accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it was alleged or necessarily included in the Information filed against him or her. It added that to hold appellants liable for the complex crime of attempted robbery with homicide, notwithstanding the absence of the proper Information, was violative of appellants' right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Therein appellants were held guilty as principals of attempted robbe1y and for double murder.
The Court adopted the same view in People v. Legaspi.6 There, appellants were indicted with double murder and violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (The Anti-Carnapping Law) through separate Informations. After due proceedings, the trial court found therein appellants guilty of robbery with double homicide. On appeal, the Court found that appellants were erroneously convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Instead, the Court found them guilty of double murder and for violation of Republic Act No. 6539. The Court explained:
... While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of the various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause or the accusation against them.7
Even the very jurisprudence relied upon by the majority decision (People v. De Jesus)8 to support appellant's conviction for the complex crime of robbery with homicide itself involved only a single Information. De Jesus is different from the present case. In De Jesus, therein appellant was properly charged in a single Information with the complex crime of robbery with homicide. In this case, however, appellant was charged with four separate crimes under four separate Informations.
At any rate, appellant could have easily availed of the remedies under Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Sec. 9. Failure to Move to Quash or to Allege Any Ground Therefor. — The failure of the accused to assert any ground or 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.1aшphi1
As it was though, appellant failed to question, let alone, raise the apparent defects in the Informations through a motion to quash. He is therefore deemed to have waived the defects in the Informations and to have understood the acts charged against him.9
FOR THESE REASONS, I vote to affirm appellant's separate conviction for attempted homicide in Crim. Case No. 1073-V-17; frustrated homicide in Crim. Case No. 1074-V-17; robbery with homicide in Crim. Case No. 1075-V-17; and attempted murder in Crim. Case No. 1076-V-17.
Footnotes
1 See People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405 (2004) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
2 See People v. Manalili, 355 Phil. 652, 684 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
3 People v. Pineda, 127 Phil. 150; 65 OG 2595 (1967) [Per J. Sanchez].
4 People v. Legaspi, 316 Phil. 261 (1995) [Per J. Quiason, First Division]; People v. Paramil, 385 Phil. 1103 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc]; People v. Peridas and Dela Cruz, 433 Phil. 828 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; People v. Umawid, 735 Phil. 737 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division]; People v. Cilot, 797 Phil. 725 (2016) [Per J. Perez, Third Division].
5 Supra note 2.
6 Supra note 4.
7 Supra note 4.
8 Supra note 1.
9 See People v. Solar, 858 Phil. 884 (2019) [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
