G.R. No. L-33393 - Unal vs. People

On April 7, 1971, the petitioners—Nelson Unal, Hermogenes Lumanglas, and Leopoldo Trinidad—filed a petition for certiorari.
They sought to set aside the respondent court’s order denying their motion to quash the information charging them with the complex crime of multiple murder.
The petition was filed in response to an information dated March 2, 1971, brought by special counsel Antonio R. Robles as acting provincial fiscal.

The information charged that on or about September 23, 1970, in Sitio Lapulapu, Ibabang Cambuga, Municipality of Mulanay, Province of Quezon:

The accused, armed with two carbines (Caliber 30) and a pistol (Caliber 45), conspired and mutually aided each other with premeditation and treachery to kill.
The shooting of Jose Marasigan, Ramon Baylon, and Armando Mendoza was carried out, inflicting mortal gunshot wounds that directly caused their instantaneous death.

The petitioners contended that the single information charging them with a complex offense (multiple murder) should be bifurcated into three separate informations, one for each murder.
They argued that the nature of the crime did not constitute one single act giving rise to multiple felonies and that the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code was inapplicable in this context.
Additionally, they stressed that under a complex crime of murder involving two or more murders, the maximum penalty (death) should be imposed regardless of any mitigating circumstances.

The firearms used were automatic, meaning a single pressure on the trigger resulted in rapid and multiple discharges.
This fact supported the prosecution’s position that the single act could indeed constitute the commission of multiple murders.

On March 23, 1971, the respondent court denied the motion to quash the information and scheduled the case for arraignment and further hearings.
By April 13, 1971, the Court restrained the respondent court from proceeding with the scheduled trial pending further comments, and respondents were asked to submit their position regarding the petition.
On June 2, 1971, the Solicitor General and the provincial fiscal of Quezon, Fernando M. Bartolome, filed a joint comment:

They suggested that filing three separate informations for the crime of murder would better serve justice.
They requested permission from the Court to amend the original information accordingly.

The prosecution eventually expressed concurrence with the petitioners’ motion that separate informations should replace the single information for multiple murder.

Given that the prosecution agreed to file three separate amended informations for murder:

The case was rendered moot and academic with respect to the petitioners’ motion to quash the information.

The petition was dismissed, and the State’s request to amend the charges was granted.
The temporary restraining order previously issued was lifted, allowing the respondent court to proceed with the arraignment and trial based on the amended informations.

Whether the motion to quash the information should be granted on the ground that the information should be split into three separate charges rather than a single charge for multiple murder.

Is the characterization of the crime as a single multiple murder valid under the circumstances presented?
Should the fact that the accused used automatic firearms influence the mode of charging?

Whether, in a complex crime involving multiple murders, the penalty should necessarily be the maximum provided by law (death), irrespective of mitigating circumstances.

Does the legal framework allow for the imposition of the maximum penalty solely based on the form of the crime, despite potential mitigating factors?

The proper role of the prosecution’s appraisal and investigative findings in determining whether the original information should be restructured into three separate charges.