In People v. Lumilan, the Supreme Court clarified the nuances between prosecuting an accused under a defective information and the constitutional right against double jeopardy. The Court ruled that while the information initially charged the accused with qualified illegal possession of firearms, it also described acts constituting murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder. Because the accused failed to object to the duplicitous information and actively defended themselves against the charges of murder, they effectively waived their right to challenge the defect. This decision underscores the importance of timely raising objections to procedural irregularities and ensures that defendants are tried based on the substance of the accusations against them, rather than mere technicalities.

From Firearms Charge to Murder Conviction: Can the Court Switch Gears?

The case began with an incident on October 12, 1987, in Ilagan, Isabela, when a group of people drinking at a residence were attacked by gunfire. Meliton Asuncion, Modesto Roque, and Eliong dela Cruz died, while several others sustained serious injuries. Fred Orbiso, Leon Lumilan, and Antonio Garcia were charged with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder under Presidential Decree No. 1866. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused of the firearms charge due to lack of evidence but convicted Lumilan and Garcia of three counts of murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and three counts of attempted murder based on eyewitness testimonies. This raised a critical legal question: Can an accused be convicted of crimes not explicitly charged in the information, and what happens when the information itself is flawed?

The initial charge of **Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder** stemmed from Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866. At the time of the trial, the prevailing jurisprudence, as established in People v. Tac-an, treated unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm and the resulting homicide or murder as distinct offenses. This meant that prosecution for one did not automatically bar prosecution for the other, precluding double jeopardy. The Revised Rules of Court define double jeopardy as occurring when an accused, having pleaded to an offense in a valid information, is either convicted, acquitted, or the case is dismissed without their express consent, and is subsequently prosecuted for the same offense or one necessarily included therein.

However, this legal landscape shifted with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294, which amended Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866. The amended law stipulated that if homicide or murder is committed with an unlicensed firearm, the use of such firearm would be considered an aggravating circumstance, effectively merging the offenses for prosecution purposes.

“If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.”

This change meant that an accused could no longer be charged separately for illegal possession of firearms and for murder or homicide committed with it.

The Supreme Court noted that the Information against Lumilan and Garcia, while nominally charging them with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms, essentially described multiple offenses. The information contained elements of: 1) Illegal Possession of Firearms; 2) Murder; and 3) Frustrated/Attempted Murder. This made the Information duplicitous, violating Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates that a complaint or information should charge only one offense, unless the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. The court emphasized that such duplicity is a ground for a motion to quash under Sec. 2 (e), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court. Failure to object constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the defect.

Despite the defective Information, the Court reasoned that the accused had waived their right to object by not filing a motion to quash. More importantly, the defense presented by Lumilan and Garcia focused primarily on disproving their involvement in the acts of murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder. The Court stated:

“Since appellants defended themselves not only against the offense of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder as specified in the Information, but also, and more seriously against the crimes of Murder, Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder as described in the body of the Information, it cannot be said that their conviction for the latter crimes is infirm and invalid.”

However, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned the conviction based on the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies. The Court found that the prosecution’s eyewitness, Simeon Pacano, provided doubtful testimony. Pacano claimed to have recognized the assailants despite the darkness and his admitted fear during the shooting. The Court also noted inconsistencies in Pacano’s statements, particularly the timing of his formal identification of the accused, which occurred months after the incident while he was under the protection of a political figure. Benito Alonzo, the other eyewitness, claimed to have recognized the appellants by the light of the flames coming from their firearms, which the Court deemed unbelievable given the circumstances. Alonzo had also initially stated he did not see the assailants in his earlier sworn statement.

Given these doubts, the Supreme Court concluded that the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellants had not been overcome by the prosecution’s evidence. The court held that reasonable doubt existed, warranting the acquittal of Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the accused could be convicted of murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder under an information that charged them with qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder. The Court also examined the validity of eyewitness testimonies.
What is a duplicitous information?	A duplicitous information is one that charges more than one offense in a single count. This is generally prohibited under the Rules of Court to ensure the accused is clearly informed of the charges against them.
What is double jeopardy?	Double jeopardy protects an accused from being tried twice for the same offense. It arises when there is a subsequent prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal, conviction, or dismissal of the case without the accused’s express consent.
What is the effect of R.A. 8294 on illegal possession of firearms?	R.A. 8294 amended P.D. 1866, stipulating that if homicide or murder is committed with an unlicensed firearm, the use of the firearm is considered an aggravating circumstance. This effectively merges the offenses for prosecution, preventing separate charges for illegal possession and the resulting crime.
Why were the accused initially convicted of murder despite being charged with illegal possession of firearms?	The trial court convicted them of murder because the information, while charging illegal possession, also described acts constituting murder. The accused failed to object to the duplicity and defended themselves against the murder charges, thus waiving their right to challenge the defect.
Why did the Supreme Court reverse the conviction?	The Supreme Court reversed the conviction due to doubts about the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies. The Court found inconsistencies and implausibilities in their accounts, creating reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
What does it mean to waive the right to quash an information?	Waiving the right to quash an information means that the accused does not object to defects or irregularities in the charging document. By failing to raise a timely objection, the accused loses the opportunity to have the information corrected or dismissed.
What is the significance of the presumption of innocence in this case?	The presumption of innocence means that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to overcome this presumption due to doubts about the evidence presented.

In conclusion, People v. Lumilan illustrates the complexities of criminal procedure, emphasizing the importance of proper charging documents and credible evidence. While the accused were initially convicted due to a defective information, the Supreme Court ultimately acquitted them based on reasonable doubt, upholding the constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Leon Lumilan, Antonio Garcia and Fred Orbiso, G.R. No. 102706, January 25, 2000