G.R. No. 175602 - People vs. Valdez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175602)

Factual Background

The accused, brothers P02 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez, went together to a jai alai betting station where an altercation ensued involving Jonathan Rubio, the teller, and the victims Moises Sayson, Jr., Ferdinand Sayson, and Joselito Sayson. The accused were armed with short firearms. Testimony and medico-legal evidence established that P02 Eduardo Valdez fired at Moises, who fell after multiple gunshot wounds, and that Edwin Valdez shot Ferdinand in the head and Joselito twice in the back. Medical testimony recorded close-range wounds and corroborated the witnesses’ accounts. The accused fled together on one motorcycle immediately after the shootings.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 86, Quezon City, convicted both accused of three counts of murder after trial and, on January 20, 2005, imposed on each the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and ordered civil damages of P93,000.00 to the heirs of each victim plus other awards as specified in the judgment.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on July 18, 2006, with modification of the damages. The CA maintained the convictions but recalculated and apportioned civil, moral, temperate, and exemplary damages and awarded costs of suit.

Subsequent Appeals and Procedural Posture

Only P02 Eduardo Valdez pursued relief to the Supreme Court. Edwin Valdez withdrew his appeal on May 9, 2007, and the withdrawal was given effect on October 10, 2007, rendering his conviction final and executory at that time. The Supreme Court thereafter resolved the appeal of P02 Eduardo Valdez, promulgating judgment on January 18, 2012 that modified the convictions as to Eduardo.

Supreme Court Judgment of January 18, 2012 as to P02 Eduardo Valdez

The Supreme Court found P02 Eduardo Valdez guilty of three counts of homicide rather than three counts of murder. The Court concluded that the informations did not sufficiently allege the attendance of treachery as a qualifying circumstance because they failed to recite the particular facts and circumstances by which treachery directly and specially insured execution of the killings without risk to the assailants. The Court described the testimonial and medico-legal evidence as of the highest order, established conspiracy between the accused, and held that the use of the firearm alone was not per se treachery. Because no qualifying circumstances were properly pleaded, the Court reduced the offense to homicide and imposed, for each count, the indeterminate sentence of ten years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and imposed civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages as reflected in the judgment.

Edwin Valdez’s Request and the Government’s Position

On March 12, 2012 Edwin Valdez sent a letter to the Court Administrator invoking Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court and requested that the January 18, 2012 judgment favorable to his co-accused be applied to him. The Solicitor General filed a comment on September 25, 2012, stating no opposition to Edwin’s plea on the ground that it was consistent with the Rules of Court and pertinent jurisprudence.

Legal Reasoning on Conspiracy and Treachery

The Court reiterated that conspiracy may be inferred from the accused’s concerted acts and need not be proved by a direct agreement; the joint presence, simultaneous attack, and joint flight supported the inference of a common purpose and community of interest. The Court also restated the settled rule that an information must allege facts sufficient to inform the accused of the elements and attendant circumstances that constitute the offense. Mere conclusory averment of the term treachery without factual recital did not satisfy that requirement. Because the informations failed to allege specific acts or circumstances showing that the execution of the killings was directly and specially ensured by treachery, the qualifying circumstance could not be applied and the appropriate conviction was for homicide.

Application of Section 11(a), Rule 122 and Precedent

The Court applied Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which provides that an appeal by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal except insofar as the appellate judgment is favorable and applicable to them. The Court cited its prior decisions, including Lim v. Court of Appeals and other authorities, to demonstrate that a favorable appellate judgment may be extended to co-accused whose convictions became final by withdrawal of appeal or other means when the judgment is both favorable and applicable. The Court observed that the evidence and the finding of concerted action rendered the favorable modification for P02 Edu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175602)

Parties and Procedural Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prosecuted criminal case Nos. Q-00-90718 to Q-00-90720 before the RTC, Branch 86, Quezon City.
P02 EDUARDO VALDEZ and EDWIN VALDEZ were charged with three counts of murder and were convicted by the RTC on January 20, 2005.
The RTC imposed on each accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and ordered payment of P93,000.00 as actual damages to the heirs of each victim and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on July 18, 2006, but modified the damages to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each victim, with costs.
EDWIN VALDEZ filed a motion to withdraw his appeal on May 9, 2007, which the Supreme Court granted on October 10, 2007, rendering his appeal closed and terminated.
PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ appealed to the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 175602, and the Supreme Court promulgated judgment on January 18, 2012 downgrading his convictions to three counts of homicide with indeterminate sentences.
EDWIN VALDEZ thereafter sent a letter dated March 12, 2012 requesting application to him of the Supreme Court judgment favorable to his co-accused under Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
The Solicitor General interposed no opposition to Edwin's plea in a comment dated September 25, 2012.
The Supreme Court granted Edwin's plea and applied the January 18, 2012 judgment to him by resolution.

Key Factual Allegations

The accused went together on one motorcycle to a jai alai betting station where they were armed with short firearms.
The accused called for Jonathan Rubio to come out of the betting booth while PO2 Valdez and Edwin confronted the teller and bettors.
Moises Sayson approached to pacify the accused after they called out to Rubio, and one of the accused threatened Moises by saying, "Gusto mo unahin na kita?" to which Moises replied, "Huwag!"
PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ allegedly fired several shots at Moises, causing him to fall, and then continued firing at the fallen Moises.
EDWIN VALDEZ allegedly shot Ferdinand Sayson in the head and shot Joselito Sayson twice in the back, with Ferdinand observed to have a head gunshot wound and Joselito to have two gunshot wounds entering the back and right side of the neck.
Medico-legal evidence showed Moises suffered one gunshot wound in the head and four in the chest, and NBI Dr. Wilfredo Tierra opined that marginal abrasions at points of entry indicated close-range firing.

Issues Presented

Whether the factual averments in the informations sufficiently alleged the attendant circumstance of treachery to sustain convictions for murder.
Whether the court below correctly inferred the existence of a conspiracy between the accused from their conduct.
Whether the favorable appellate judgment in favor of one co-accused may be applied to a co-accused who withdrew his appeal under Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.

Contentions of Parties

EDWIN VALDEZ contended that the Supreme Court's favorable modification of PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ's conviction should be extended to him under Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
The Solicitor General signified no opposition to Edwin's request and acknowledged that the request complied with the Rules of Court and pertinent jurisprudence.
The People identified that