Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Ukay y Monton
Case
G.R. No. 246419
Decision Date
Sep 16, 2020
A violent altercation after a drinking session led to Anthony's death and Jessie's injury. Accused claimed self-defense; SC ruled Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, not Murder.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246419)

Key Dates

• June 9–12, 2007 – Incident in Davao City
• March 11, 2013 – RTC Decision (Davao City, Branch 11)
• November 23, 2018 – CA Decision (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01203-MIN)
• September 16, 2020 – Supreme Court Decision

Applicable Law

• Revised Penal Code (RPC)
– Art. 248 (Murder), Art. 249 (Homicide), Art. 250 (Frustrated Parricide/Murder/Homicide), Art. 50 (Frustrated Crime)
• Rules of Court (Rule 56 §3; Rule 125 §2)
• 1987 Philippine Constitution

Facts

• Jessie and Anthony were drinking at their aunt’s residence and later went to a nearby convenience store.
• They encountered Eduardo, Teodulo, Guillermo and Oca in a heated argument.
• Warren Gerolaga intervened and led Jessie away; as they turned their backs, Oca stabbed Warren and Eduardo then stabbed Jessie.
• Jessie sustained life-threatening wounds; Anthony was left behind, later brought to the hospital, and pronounced dead on arrival.

RTC Ruling

• Crim. Case No. 61,566-07 (Frustrated Murder) – Eduardo convicted; indeterminate sentence of 10 years 1 day (prision mayor) to 12 years 1 day (reclusion temporal).
• Crim. Case No. 61,568-07 (Murder) – Eduardo, Teodulo, Guillermo convicted; reclusion perpetua; P50,000 civil and P50,000 civil indemnity each.

CA Ruling

• Affirmed RTC’s findings on treachery, conspiracy, and taking advantage of superior strength.
• Modified damages:
– Frustrated Murder: P50,000 civil, P50,000 moral, P50,000 exemplary, temperate P25,000.
– Murder: P75,000 civil, P75,000 moral, P75,000 exemplary, actual P48,466.31.
• Appeal denied for lack of compelling reason to disturb factual findings.

Issues on Appeal

• Whether the Information’s allegation “with treachery” without factual averments is sufficient.
• Whether failure to file a motion to quash or bill of particulars waived the right to challenge the Information.
• Whether treachery was proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Supreme Court Analysis

• Defects in the form of an Information (lack of factual averments for treachery) may be waived if the accused fails to file a motion to quash or bill of particulars.
• Accused-appellants pleaded and proceeded to trial without invoking these remedies; thus, waiver occurred.
• Treachery requires evidence of means or methods consciously adopted to ensure success without risk to the attacker. Mere unexpectedness or impulsive reaction to provocation does not suffice.

Supreme Court Ruling

• Convictions for Murde






...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.