Case #8 - People vs. Feliciano

CASE #8: PEOPLE VS.
FELICIANO
G.R. NO.: 196735
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 5, 2014
PARTIES INVOLVED: PETITIONER/S:PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

RESPONDENT/S:DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA,
CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL
BELTRAN ALVIR
GENERAL TOPIC Sec 8, Rule 110:states in pertinent part: “Designation of the offense — The
DISCUSSED/KEYWORD: 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.
OVERVIEW:
An information for murder, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q95-6113 3, was
filed against several members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity, namely, Danilo
Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor L. Medalla, Warren L. Zingapan, Robert Michael
Beltran Alvir, Christopher L. Soliva, Reynaldo G. Ablanida, Carlo Jolette
Fajardo, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle Magpantay,
Benedict Guerrero, and Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr. filed with the RTC.
FACTS OF THE CASE: ● On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1 pm, 7 members of the
Sigma Rho Fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House
Canteen in UP Diliman, when they were attacked by several
masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of
them sustained injuries that required hospitalization. One of them,
Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries.
● One of the victims, Lachica, also a member of the Sigma Rho
Fraternity, recalled that he heard Venturina shouting “Brods! Brods!”
and when he looked around, he saw about 10 men charging toward
them armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, their heads were
covered with either handkerchief or shirts. The group attacked
them immediately and during the attack, he was able to
recognize one of the attackers as Alvir because his mask fell
off.
● Other witnesses, including bystanders, also gave their testimonies
on the matter.
● The accused members of another frat, particularly, Scintilla Juris
Fraternity denied the allegations against them contending that they
were not involved in the attack as they were attending to different
matters at the time of the said attack.
● An information for murder was filed against several members of
Scintilla Juris Fraternity with the RTC of Quezon City. Meanwhile,
separate informations were also filed against them for attempted
murder and frustrated murder of other members of Sigma Rho
Fraternity who survived the attack.
RTC Ruling: The trial court found the accused-appellants Feliciano, et

al., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder and
sentenced, among others of the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Other
accused members of the said Fraternity, however, were acquitted because
they were not sufficiently identified. CA affirmed the decision.
● The accused-appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Their main contention was: their constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against them was violated.
They argued that the prosecution should have not included the
phrase “wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the
information since they were presenting testimonial evidence that not
all accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off. They
argued that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that they attacked the private complainants and
caused the death of Venturina.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the accused-appellants’ constitutional rights were violated

when the information against them contained the aggravating circumstance
of the use of mask despite the prosecution presenting witnesses that the
masks fell off.
RULING/S: NO. The SC held that an information is sufficient when the accused is fully
apprised of the charge against him to enable him to prepare his defense.
Sec.6 ,Rule 110: A complaint or information is sufficient, if it states the

name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense;
and the place where the offense was committed.
Sec 8, Rule 110:states in pertinent part: “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.
The argument of appellants that the information filed against them

violates their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against them holds no water. The Court
found no merit on the appellants’ arguments that the prosecution
should not have included the phrase “wearing masks and/or other
forms of disguise” in the information since they were presenting
testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or
that their masks fell off.
It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance

being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state
an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not
be appreciated as such
It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the

aggravating circumstance of “wearing masks and/or other forms of
disguise” in the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to
that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like

nighttime, it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as
he carries out his crimes.
The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to
prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent
them from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance.
What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is

that there was a concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of
disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the
accused that in the commission of the offense they were being charged
with, they tried to conceal their identity.
The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the accused were
not wearing masks is also not violative of their right to be informed of their
offenses.
The information charges conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy

presupposes that “the act of one is the act of all.” This would mean all the
accused had been one in their plan to conceal their identity even if there
was evidence later on to prove that some of them might not have done so.
The court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR N). 01158 dated November 26, 2010 is
AFFIRMED insofar as the accused-appellants Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius
Victor Medalla, Christopher Soliva, Warren L. Zingapan, and Robert Michael
Beltran Alvir are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in.
Criminal Case No. Q95-61133 with the MODIFICATION that they be fouhd
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder in Criminal
Case Nos. Q95-61136, Q95-61135, Q95-61134, Q95-61138, and Q95-
61137.
OTHER NOTES:

Case #8 - People vs. Feliciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #8 - People vs. Feliciano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #8 - People vs. Feliciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE #8: PEOPLE VS.

G.R. NO.: 196735

DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 5, 2014

PARTIES INVOLVED: PETITIONER/S:PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

RTC Ruling: The trial court found the accused-appellants Feliciano, et

● The accused-appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the accused-appellants’ constitutional rights were violated

Sec.6 ,Rule 110: A complaint or information is sufficient, if it states the

Sec 8, Rule 110:states in pertinent part: “Designation of the offense — The

The argument of appellants that the information filed against them

It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance

It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the

In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like

What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is

The information charges conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy

You might also like