PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARIANO OANDASAN, JR.

https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/criminal-law

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARIANO OANDASAN, JR.

G.R. No. 194605          June 14, 2016

BERSAMIN, J.

FACTS:

Three informations were filed against the accused, two of which were for murder involving the fatal shooting of Edgardo Tamanu and Danilo Montegrico, and the third was for frustrated homicide involving the near-fatal shooting of Mario Paleg. The qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were alleged in the said informations against accused.  

The third information alleged that the accused had performed all the acts of execution which would have produce the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his own will. The RTC rendered its judgment finding the accused as principal on all the charges filed against him. On appeal, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether the RTC and CA were correct in finding the accused guilty of Homicide and not of Frustrated Murder despite the presence of evident premeditation and treachery.

RULING:

Although the CA and the RTC correctly concluded that the accused had been directly responsible for the shooting of Tamanu and Paleg, we are perplexed why both lower courts only characterized the killing of Tamanu and the near-killing of Paleg as homicide and frustrated homicide while characterizing the killing of Montegrico as murder because of the attendance of treachery. The fact that the shooting of the three victims had occurred in quick succession fully called for a finding of the attendance of treachery in the attacks against all the victims. Montegrico, Tamanu and Paleg were drinking together outside their bunkhouse prior to the shooting when the accused suddenly appeared from the rear of the dump truck, walked towards their table and shot Montegrico without any warning. In that situation, none of the three victims was aware of the imminent deadly assault by the accused, for they were just enjoying their drinks outside their bunkhouse. They were unarmed, and did not expect to be shot, when the accused came and shot them. What was decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate.

The averment in the second paragraph of the information filed Criminal Case No. 11-9261 (in relation to the shooting of Paleg) that homicide was the consequence of the acts of execution by the appellant does not prevent finding the accused guilty of frustrated murder. The rule is that the allegations of the information on the nature of the offense charged, not the nomenclature given it by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, are controlling in the determination of the offense charged. Accordingly, considering that the information stated in its first paragraph that the accused, "armed with a gun, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, conspiring together and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shot (sic) one Engr. Mario Paleg y Ballad, inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound," the accused can be properly found guilty of frustrated murder, a crime sufficiently averred in the information.