G.R. No. 203986 - People vs. Dasmarinas y Gonzales

On or about June 16, 2007, in Las PiAas City, PO2 Marlon N. Anoya was fatally shot.
The Office of the City Prosecutor charged accused Jerson DasmariAas and Nino Polo with murder, alleging that they, acting in concert, attacked the victim with treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation.
The accusatory portion stated that the assailants approached the victim from behind and shot him twice in the head, with the killing qualified by the attendant circumstances of treachery, among others.

Prosecution witnesses, notably Aries Perias, testified that he saw the accused firing a 9mm pistol from a proximity of about two meters, clearly identifying DasmariAas as one of the assailants.
Other witnesses – including the victim’s widow, a police officer, and a medical examiner – corroborated aspects of the incident, such as the time, place, and manner of death, as well as the victim’s condition upon arrival at the hospital.
The defense presented DasmariAas’s alibi, asserting that he was at his live-in partner Erica Camille Pascua’s residence and later at his mother’s house, looking after his siblings, thereby contesting his presence at the scene of the crime.

Both accused entered pleas of not guilty, and the case proceeded with examinations and cross-examinations of both prosecution and defense witnesses.
The trial court, Branch 255, RTC Las PiAas City, found DasmariAas guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua with several accessory penalties, including various monetary awards to the victim’s heirs.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications, specifically declaring that DasmariAas was not eligible for parole and revising the amounts for civil liabilities.

The information charged the killing with the qualifying circumstance of treachery; however, it merely stated that treachery was attendant without detailing the means or method by which it was employed.
The legal issue arose over whether the fact that the term “treachery” appeared in the information was sufficient to elevate the crime to murder, or whether additional factual averments were necessary.

DasmariAas challenged the reliability of his out-of-court identification by witness Perias, arguing that it was tainted by impermissible suggestions and constitutional due process violations.
The CA, however, upheld the reliability of the identification, noting that Perias was close to the scene, the lighting was adequate, and there were no indications of external influence in the identification process.

Whether the information adequately averred the factual basis for the attendant circumstance of treachery required to support a charge of murder.
If merely stating the presence of treachery, without a detailed factual recitation of its elements, satisfies the requirements under Section 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Whether the out-of-court identification of DasmariAas by eyewitness Perias was conducted without impermissible suggestions and in compliance with due process requirements.
Whether the procedures employed in the identification process could have influenced the witness in a manner prejudicial to the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Whether DasmariAas should be convicted of murder as charged, given the insufficiencies in the factual averment of treachery in the information, or whether he should be held liable only for homicide.
How the modification in the charge from murder to homicide affects both the criminal penalty and the collateral civil liability awards.