Guelos v.

People

June 19, 2017| Reyes, J. | Rule 121

FACTS:

1. Two separate Informations were filed with the RTC against the petitioners for Direct Assault
Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide.

2. The information states that on June 4, 1995, at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay
Boot, Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Batangas, Philippines, the accused, conspiring and
confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually helping one another, Nestor, while
armed with an Armalite Rifle, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and shot SPO2 Es-
telito Andaya and P/Chief Inspector Rolando M. Camacho, members of the PNP assigned at Ta-
nauan Police Station, while in performance of his official duties as peace officer, and while being
held from the back by Gil and other companions, whose identities and whereabouts are still un-
known, hit and inflicted gunshot wounds caused instantaneous death. The petitioners pleaded not
guilty.

3. Prosecution’s version: In the morning, Camacho, Andaya, Carandang and Garcia set off
for Sitio Mahabang Buhangin to conduct their routine as peace officers. While they were in
Brgy. Gonzales waiting for a boat, they heard gunshots from Brgy. Boot. So they went to
Brgy. Boot to apprehend those illegally discharging firearms. They were invited to lunch
and joined the religious procession. During the procession, they heard gunshots from the
backyard of Silveria Guelos. They reported to the Brgy. Capt. And when they went to the
house, they saw 15 people drinking liquor and empty shells of armalite rifle on the ground.
Camacho then introduced himself as the Chief of Tanauan Police Station and that they
were checking who fired the shots. While PO2 Carandang was collecting the empty shells,
somebody hit him on his nape which caused him to drop his armalite. When he tried to re-
trieve his firearm, someone hit his hand (basically, they hit
Carandang in the jaw and left eye, Nestor shot Camacho, Andaya, and fired at Carandang).

4. Nestor said he was at the house of his mother. Went out after
hearing the gunshots and saw an old man who told him to pick up the gun then SPO1 Gar-
cia shot him and was hit 3 times. Alfredo said they were drinking when the police came and
was hit and shot in the thigh, and when he woke up, he was on the way to the hospital. Ro-
drigo said he was watching the procession when the officers came and asked if he fired the
firearm and he said no. He was then pushed back with the gun and fell. He heard gunshots
and ran, saw a wounded person, and asked someone to report the incident, and was later
investigated.

5. RTC found Nestor, Gil, and Alfredo guilty beyond reasonable doubt. CA affirmed this.

6. A petition for review was filed saying that the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses was
uncorroborated by evidence to establish guilt. They said that Camacho was not in the exer-
cise of his duties, the injuries of Carandang were unsupported by evidence, and the testi-
mony of Carandang was not logical. There was also motion for new trial based on alleged
new and material evidence impugning the credibility of PO2 Carandang since his testimony
was different from the one in the case pending in MTC Tanauan.

ISSUES:
 1. Whether the motion for new trial based on new evidence should be granted – NO

2. Whether the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
them was violated – YES

RATIO:

1. The petitioners, assert that Carandang’s testimony should be considered as new and material evidence
which thereby makes the findings of the trial court in the instant case as manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible. Thus, the petitioners moved for a new trial on the ground of alleged newly discovered evi-
dence without withdrawing their petition. The petitioners' motion for new trial is denied. Section 1, Rule
121 says that before judgement of conviction is final, court can grant new trial. Section 14, Rule 124 says
that a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence can be filed after appeal from lower court
has been perfected and before judgment of conviction of CA is final.

The petitioners say that in the MTC, Carandang was not able to identify who hit him and killed Camacho.
But, this testimony was given 10 years after the RTC testimony compared to the trial in the RTC which
was given a year and 10 months after the incident. Thus, no reason to merit the contention of new evi-
dence.

In a criminal case an appeal throws the whole case open for review, the Court, finds that this case actually
presents a question of law; whether or not the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against them was properly observed .

4. The Court finds that the Informations in this case failed to allege all the elements which constitute
the crime charged. While the elements constituting the crime of Homicide were properly alleged and
were duly established in the trial, the said Informations, failed to allege all the elements constitutive of the
applicable form of direct assault. The Informations do not allege that the offenders knew that the ones
they were assaulting were agents of a person in authority, in the exercise of their duty . Direct as-
nd
sault can be committed in two ways, the elements of the 2 are:(a)offendermakesanattack,employs-
force,makesa serious intimidation, or makes a serious resistance; (b) person assaulted is a person in au-
thority or his agent; (c) at the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the ac-
tual performance of official duties, or is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties; (d)
the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his
duties; in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties; and (e) no public uprising.

5. The evidence presented established the fact that the petitioners came to know that the victims were
agents of a person in authority, as the latter introduced themselves to be members of the PNP. But, the
establishment of the fact that the petitioners came to know that the victims were agents of a person in au-
thority cannot cure the lack of allegation in the Informations that such fact was known to the accused
which renders the same defective. In addition, neither can this fact be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance under paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the RPC for acts committed with insult or in disregard of
the respect due the offended party on account of his rank to justify the imposition of an increased penalty
against the petitioners.

6. The Constitution mandates that the accused shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him. From this concept, arose the rule that the accused may be convicted only of
the crime he is charged. This right is given so that the accused can prepare adequate defense. This is im-
plemented through arraignment where the allegations are read and made known to the accused. Every ele-
ment must be alleged as well as the qualifying and aggravating circumstances based on Rule 110, Secs. 8
&9.

7. Rule 117 says that if accused fails to assert ground of a motion to quash before plea, it is waived except
in grounds in Sec. 3 which include when “the facts charged do not constitute an offense”.

8. Therefore, they can only be convicted of Homicide not Direct Assault upon Persons in Authority
with Homicide.