In Philippine jurisprudence, the presence of treachery in an attack significantly elevates the severity of crimes such as murder and frustrated murder. This principle was underscored in People vs. Dan Ave y Tabobo, where the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for these crimes. The Court emphasized that an unexpected and deliberate attack, which leaves the victim defenseless, constitutes treachery, thereby aggravating the offense. However, the case also highlighted the importance of proper pleading in criminal cases, particularly concerning aggravating circumstances like the use of an unlicensed firearm, which, if not specifically alleged in the information, cannot be used to impose a higher penalty.

Sudden Violence: How Treachery Defined Guilt in the Valenzuela Shootings

The case revolves around the events of August 24, 1996, in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, where Dan Ave shot Pedro Valenzuela, Jr., resulting in his death, and also shot and severely injured Atty. Napoleon Valenzuela. The legal question at hand was whether Ave was guilty of murder and frustrated murder, considering the circumstances of the attack and the use of an unlicensed firearm. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Ave guilty of both crimes, sentencing him to death for murder due to the use of an unlicensed firearm, and imposing a substantial prison term for frustrated murder. However, the Supreme Court reviewed the decision, focusing on the elements of treachery and the procedural requirements for considering aggravating circumstances.

The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimonies of several witnesses who were present during the shooting. Atty. Valenzuela, Leopoldo Valenzuela (brother of the deceased), and Rogelio Gacad all testified that Ave appeared unexpectedly and fired upon Pedro and Atty. Valenzuela. This suddenness and the lack of opportunity for the victims to defend themselves were critical in establishing treachery. The trial court found these testimonies to be credible, noting their consistency and the absence of any ill motive on the part of the witnesses. It is a well-established rule that appellate courts generally defer to the trial courts’ assessment of witness credibility, as they have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses firsthand.

The defense presented a different version of events, with Ave claiming that the shooting was accidental, occurring during a struggle for a firearm with Calixto Valenzuela. However, the trial court dismissed this account as a fabrication, pointing to inconsistencies and the failure of Ave to report the incident to authorities. Furthermore, the fact that Ave went into hiding for nearly two years after the shooting also undermined his credibility, as flight is often considered an indication of guilt. The Supreme Court concurred with the trial court’s assessment, finding Ave’s version of events unconvincing and unsupported by evidence.

One of the critical aspects of the case was the presence of treachery. Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, the suddenness of the attack, coupled with the fact that the victims were unarmed and unsuspecting, convinced the Court that treachery was indeed present. The Court noted that Ave surreptitiously approached the group and fired at Pedro and Atty. Valenzuela from behind, giving them no chance to defend themselves.

However, the Supreme Court also addressed the issue of the use of an unlicensed firearm. While it was proven that Ave was not licensed to possess or carry a firearm, this fact was not specifically alleged in the information filed against him. The Court referenced Republic Act No. 8294, which provides that if murder or homicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered an aggravating circumstance. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that, according to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances must be explicitly stated in the complaint or information to be considered.

Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states the necessity of specifying the aggravating circumstances of the offense in the complaint or information if they are to be appreciated.

In the case at bar, the special aggravating circumstance of “use of unlicensed firearm” was not alleged in the informations. The two (2) informations at bar, for murder and frustrated murder, merely alleged that the appellant used a “long firearm.” They did not allege that the firearm used was unlicensed. The failure of the prosecution to allege in the Information the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm in committing the crime of murder prevents us from imposing the death penalty on the appellant even if the same was proved at the trial.

Building on this principle, the Court held that because the information only mentioned the use of a “long firearm” without specifying that it was unlicensed, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty based on this aggravating circumstance. Therefore, the Supreme Court reduced Ave’s sentence for murder from death to reclusion perpetua, the lesser penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Despite the reduction in penalty, the Court upheld Ave’s conviction for both murder and frustrated murder, recognizing the presence of treachery and the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

The Supreme Court also reviewed the civil liabilities imposed by the trial court. It affirmed the award of civil indemnity for the death of Pedro Valenzuela, Jr., but reduced the amount of actual and moral damages. The Court emphasized that actual damages must be supported by receipts or other credible evidence. In this case, the only expense supported by a receipt was the memorial services, and therefore, only that amount was awarded as actual damages. The Court also reduced the moral damages awarded, aligning them with the prevailing jurisprudence. Likewise, for the frustrated murder of Atty. Valenzuela, the Court upheld the award of medical expenses but reduced the moral damages, and denied the claim for lost earnings due to lack of sufficient evidence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused was guilty of murder and frustrated murder, considering the presence of treachery and the use of an unlicensed firearm, and whether the aggravating circumstance of using an unlicensed firearm was properly considered.
What is “treachery” in legal terms?	Treachery is a circumstance in which the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime that ensure its commission without risk to themselves, arising from any defense the offended party might make. It involves a deliberate and unexpected attack that leaves the victim defenseless.
Why was the death penalty not imposed in this case?	The death penalty was not imposed because the information filed against the accused did not specifically allege that the firearm used in the commission of the crime was unlicensed. The Supreme Court emphasized that aggravating circumstances must be explicitly stated in the information to be considered.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 8294 in this case?	Republic Act No. 8294 states that if murder or homicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered an aggravating circumstance. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this aggravating circumstance must be properly alleged in the information.
What kind of evidence is required to prove actual damages in court?	To prove actual damages in court, it is necessary to present receipts or other credible evidence that demonstrate the specific expenses incurred as a result of the crime. Personal lists or estimates without supporting documentation are generally insufficient.
How did the Supreme Court modify the lower court’s decision?	The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder and frustrated murder but modified the sentence for murder from death to reclusion perpetua. It also adjusted the amounts awarded for actual and moral damages, based on the evidence presented and prevailing jurisprudence.
What is the importance of proper pleading in criminal cases?	Proper pleading in criminal cases is crucial because it ensures that the accused is fully informed of the charges against them and any aggravating circumstances that may increase the penalty. Failure to properly allege aggravating circumstances can prevent the imposition of a higher penalty.
What is the effect of flight on a defendant’s case?	Flight, or fleeing from the scene of a crime or evading arrest, can be considered an indication of guilt. It suggests that the defendant is aware of their wrongdoing and is attempting to avoid being held accountable.

In conclusion, the People vs. Dan Ave y Tabobo case serves as a reminder of the importance of both substantive criminal law and procedural rules. It underscores the significance of treachery as an aggravating circumstance in crimes against persons, while also highlighting the need for precise pleading in criminal informations to ensure that defendants are afforded due process. The case also provides guidance on the types of evidence required to prove damages and the factors considered in determining appropriate penalties.

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 vs. Dan Ave y Tabobo, G.R. Nos. 137274-75, October 18, 2002